PDA

View Full Version : Group Rolling: Stealth, Knowledge, Spot, and other Checks



Mr. Mask
2014-06-24, 07:44 AM
Isn't it annoying when your group rolls for stealth? The warrior characters with heavy armour usually get your party spotted. Even in a party of ninjas, one of you is bound to roll low if you have a party of six. If you're sneaking past forty enemies, a roll for each one is bound to get you caught all the same.

It's similar when you're making knowledge or spot checks, where success appears guaranteed between six players. If nothing else, the half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 6 will roll a natural 20, and repeat the twelve generation family tree of Sir Zorxberry. Although admittedly, that's still preferable to players being left out of the limelight due to their skills not being relevant.


What do you feel is a good solution to get around the problems of group rolling?

hymer
2014-06-24, 08:04 AM
Taking 10 to avoid low rolls, and not counting on the people in heavy armour to be able to sneak without some sort of help. A Silence spell can do the trick, for instance, if they must be brought along.

Thinker
2014-06-24, 09:04 AM
Isn't it annoying when your group rolls for stealth? The warrior characters with heavy armour usually get your party spotted. Even in a party of ninjas, one of you is bound to roll low if you have a party of six. If you're sneaking past forty enemies, a roll for each one is bound to get you caught all the same.

It's similar when you're making knowledge or spot checks, where success appears guaranteed between six players. If nothing else, the half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 6 will roll a natural 20, and repeat the twelve generation family tree of Sir Zorxberry. Although admittedly, that's still preferable to players being left out of the limelight due to their skills not being relevant.


What do you feel is a good solution to get around the problems of group rolling?

If your group has a member with heavy armor, you have a few options. One, leave the person behind at a rendezvous point where he can be met up with later or can rush in to help out if the group gets detected. Alternatively, make the person take off the armor and come along. Or, you can just use magic to solve your problems.

I dislike the notion that a single low skill roll will ruin everything. My preferred method to deal with multiple rolls for the party is to make a failed roll simply complicate the matter. Clumsy McNinja rolls a 2, totaling a 13 while the group is stealthing through the kitchen. Some guards roll better than that to detect and go to investigate. The party now has options for how to deal with it - they're not detected yet, but the guards are alerted. Clumsy knocked over some dishes on the table as he walked by and now there's a mess on the floor. Maybe the group hides in the shadows, behind objects, and stuff. The guards don't see them and start arguing over who has to clean up the mess. The party might need to deal with the guards before trying to sneak past now, but they aren't immediately caught. This creates tension without being, "Oh. You rolled badly, you failed and ruined everything."

For the other end of the spectrum - tons of rolls means tons of chances for the guards to succeed, simply reduce the number of rolls. Split the NPC guards into groups and use the highest detection skill roll for the group. Add some aid another bonuses for large groups and use circumstance modifiers liberally. It's night time? Well, that's a -2 penalty to detecting people. There's a fight in the pub down the street? -2 penalty to detecting people (for the guards outside anyway). This room is brightly lit? +2 bonus for detecting people. Just be sure to use what is causing the modifiers so that the players feel rewarded for their cleverness, "That fight you caused down the street seems to be distracting the guards at the gate and with the darkness, you manage to slip in without any complications." It also encourages them to not make silly moves. "With the chandelier's bright glow, the guards catch sight of something in the shadows."

Your other issues are a bit different. With knowledge, at least in 3.5e of DnD, if the character doesn't have any skill ranks in a knowledge, she cannot know anything more difficult than a DC 10, which is common knowledge. Other systems have similar limitations so that even a good roll doesn't guarantee anything. And if the character has spent skill points, there's no problem with the Int 6 half-orc barbarian knowing about Sir Zorxberry. A better way to get around this is to simply have one person roll the knowledge check and have everyone roll to aid another. It's more like brainstorming than wracking their brains.

Other skills are different. Detection skills should be similar to knowledge - one player acts as the team scout by rolling for detection and others aid another. And also, don't consider a success to be an auto-win. Successfully detecting something moving in the bushes doesn't mean that they have caught the NPC spy. It means that they have noticed a bush moving. It could be an animal, a lost child, or even just a stiff breeze. And when your players go to investigate, the NPC should be trying to get out of the situation as well.

Airk
2014-06-24, 09:36 AM
Depending on the situation (This works better for "move through the wilderness undetected" than it does for "sneak past the guards at the gate undetected") I will have a single character make a "Get the party past this obstacle undetected" roll. This allows the stealthy character to feel competent and keeps the non-stealthy characters from feeling like deadweight. Of course, there are circumstances in which this doesn't work, but I find that the they tend to self-select out somewhat. (The fighter in plate mail rarely things he can sneak past the guards at the gate undetected.)

The problem with using the "everyone rolls, and low rolls just generate a complication" is that, depending on the system, you end up with a LOT of complications, even if your party is nominally good at something (D&D and it's stupid big random spread is particularly bad for this).

Also, as written, I don't think you're allowed to take 10 on most stealth checks. :P

hymer
2014-06-24, 09:56 AM
Also, as written, I don't think you're allowed to take 10 on most stealth checks. :P

This could possibly depend on the system. I assumed 3.5. You can take 10 on hide and move silently checks in 3.5 while you're not threatened or distracted. This usually means while there's not a battle going on. Unless you can prove me wrong?

valadil
2014-06-24, 10:17 AM
I dislike the notion that a single low skill roll will ruin everything. My preferred method to deal with multiple rolls for the party is to make a failed roll simply complicate the matter.

Correct answer. Skills shouldn't just be an obstacle course that blocks you from winning. Success or failure, something interesting should happen.

When stealth is imposed on the party, the party can...
1. Take their chances and fight at a disadvantage if they lose
2. Split the party, which is almost always an interesting decision
3. Be clever to avoid the stealth.

None of these are bad things to have in a game.

Airk
2014-06-24, 12:14 PM
This could possibly depend on the system. I assumed 3.5. You can take 10 on hide and move silently checks in 3.5 while you're not threatened or distracted. This usually means while there's not a battle going on. Unless you can prove me wrong?

My argument is that if you are sneaking past a bunch of people who, if they see you, are going to kill you, then you are certainly threatened. Otherwise, I'm not actually sure what kind of circumstances you WOULDN'T be able to take 10 on for Stealth. A battle going on would actually make it easier as long as you're not part of it, and if you are part of it, most games won't allow you to make a stealth check at all until you find some way to stop being part of it by breaking line of sight or whatever.

hymer
2014-06-24, 12:20 PM
@ Airk: The example used in the section on taking 10 is with climb, where failure could indicate falling. Clearly this is similar in danger to sneaking past people who would attack you if they hear you.

Edit: Note that 'threatened' is a game term, and it means you're in reach of someone's melee attack, and if you provoke they get an attack of opportunity. So taking 10 on sneaking past an enemy there is only 'distracted' to account for.

Segev
2014-06-24, 02:18 PM
My argument is that if you are sneaking past a bunch of people who, if they see you, are going to kill you, then you are certainly threatened. Otherwise, I'm not actually sure what kind of circumstances you WOULDN'T be able to take 10 on for Stealth. A battle going on would actually make it easier as long as you're not part of it, and if you are part of it, most games won't allow you to make a stealth check at all until you find some way to stop being part of it by breaking line of sight or whatever.

You're confusing "threatened" with "stressed." "If you fail, you are in a bad way" is not the criterion; it's "are you being actively bothered by something that distracts you." Having to dodge and weave through a combat qualifies. Knowing that, if you ARE found, combat ensues, does not.

Thrudd
2014-06-24, 02:51 PM
So, by the interpretation that a player can take 10 except when the player is in the midst of a battle, stealth attempts become less swingy.

The DM should note each character's Dex mod, hide and move silent ranks, and add ten for the default hide and move silent scores. Now only one roll is required instead of 4-6. When the party is attempting to move silently through an area, just check the enemies' perception roll vs the lowest move silent score for the party to determine if they are detected.

It is the same for perception rolls. The only time they need to roll is when they are in the midst of combat or otherwise occupied in some activity, like climbing or swimming or picking a lock, or they do not have a full minute of time to react what they could potentially hear or spot. Even then, you should be making these rolls for them (and not tell them what you are rolling for), since they should not be aware of whether or not their character has potentially failed to see or hear something. Write down each character's wisdom mod plus their skill ranks, and add ten. Compare this score to the enemy stealth roll or DC of whatever is hidden, and inform players if their character sees or hears anything.

Knowledge, I think, is less of a problem of group rolling and more about good adjudicating. Players should not be able to roll for something their character could not know about. This is why knowledge skills are specific. A 6 INT barbarian who doesn't have the skill "knowledge: nobility or history" does not get to roll to see if he knows the lineage of some knight. You need to use common sense and judge accordingly if the player asks to roll Intelligence to find out information. Let him roll if he wants to identify some type of medicinal plant that grows in his homeland, even if he doesn't have ranks in "knowledge: plants". Don't let him roll if he wants to know about ancient magical formulae, the history of a country he's never even heard of before, or specific information about a lich that has just appeared.

NichG
2014-06-24, 11:19 PM
I'm partial to gimmicks where high-stealth characters can partially make up for the rolls of low-stealth characters.

A really simple (design-wise) approach would be that if you have N characters, they each roll their Stealth checks, add them together, and divide the result by N. That number is the group's combined stealth result.

You could also do more convoluted things such as having a Stealth skill trick that lets you take -10 to your roll to add a +5 competence bonus to everyone else's, or things like that.

jedipotter
2014-06-25, 12:54 AM
What do you feel is a good solution to get around the problems of group rolling?


Dump the knowledge skills completely. The character's know what the players know.

Don't try to do sneaky things as a group.

Menace
2014-06-26, 07:55 AM
When it comes to perception/knowledge checks i always use it this way: The characters with the best chances rolls, others act as suport adding to his roll.

As for stealth it's a bit harder. One option is allow the stealthier players "guide" the others, giving the non-stealthy characters a bonus if the "guide" rolls high.
OR the "guide" gets a penalty for the roll, but rolls for everyone.

Kane0
2014-06-26, 06:25 PM
Fixing knowledge is easy: dont let everybody roll for it. Our group has a long standing rule that one person rolls for things like that, so we usually designate the most relevant person for those rolls (depending on if they are present and have a good bonus)

Fixing spot is also fairly easy, take note of everyones take 10 score and use this as a reference point unless they specifically tell you they are in the lookout for something, in which case they roll. 4e uses this comcept for passive perception and insight.

Stealth may take a little bit more work. The dm needs to make stealth situations less sucess/fail with more of a scale of outcomes ranging from perfect stealth to complete lack of stealth. Have the encounter move in steps toward each of these extremes, not a simple you are spotted/you are not spotted.
In turn, players need to put in a bit of effort to help out those they are bringing along that dont move like shadows. You might allow the best to roll for the group and take penalties based on circumstances, or allow the good stealth rolls to aid the poor ones. Take suggestions for you players and stick to the one method once you find one that works for you.

Hytheter
2014-06-26, 10:58 PM
I'm partial to gimmicks where high-stealth characters can partially make up for the rolls of low-stealth characters.

A really simple (design-wise) approach would be that if you have N characters, they each roll their Stealth checks, add them together, and divide the result by N. That number is the group's combined stealth result.

You could also do more convoluted things such as having a Stealth skill trick that lets you take -10 to your roll to add a +5 competence bonus to everyone else's, or things like that.

Wouldn't it be easier to just make one roll for the whole party, then apply relevant modifiers to determine individual results?
This works for both the sneakers and the listeners. It still means that the clumsy, armor clad warrior can bring ruin it for the whole party (which should be possible if they don't leave him behind) but it means that the party only needs two favorable rolls to succeed, instead of 4 stealth rolls and however many listen checks in which a single unfavorable roll ruins the stealth and makes all the others irrelevant.

Another way of looking at it is that it's the worst stealth user vs the best observer - which is a lot simpler now that I think about it, though mechanically identical.

NichG
2014-06-27, 12:27 AM
Wouldn't it be easier to just make one roll for the whole party, then apply relevant modifiers to determine individual results?
This works for both the sneakers and the listeners. It still means that the clumsy, armor clad warrior can bring ruin it for the whole party (which should be possible if they don't leave him behind) but it means that the party only needs two favorable rolls to succeed, instead of 4 stealth rolls and however many listen checks in which a single unfavorable roll ruins the stealth and makes all the others irrelevant.

Another way of looking at it is that it's the worst stealth user vs the best observer - which is a lot simpler now that I think about it, though mechanically identical.

Yes, you could make a single roll and add the 'average modifier'. That'd be nearly equivalent (a few corner cases like some characters having luck rerolls aside). So the DM rolls 1d20, and if the party has stealth modifiers of +5,+8, +13, and +18 then you add 44/4 = +11 to the d20 roll to determine the party's Stealth check.

Worst stealth user vs best observer though has a really big problem, and is very much not mechanically identical. Specifically, it makes it pointless to invest in stealth at all unless everyone else in the party invests in stealth to an equal degree. Furthermore, it severely disadvantages stealth (because stealth is determined by 'worst ability') compared to spot (because observation is determined by 'best ability'). So in such a system, its basically never worth it to use skills for stealth - you're always better off with spells or other things that can be distributed to everyone.

That may be more realistic, but it has bad gameplay consequences (well, arguably - if your goal is to encourage the rogue to split the party and go off alone, then it'll achieve that end).

Zombimode
2014-06-27, 03:18 AM
Isn't it annoying when your group rolls for stealth? The warrior characters with heavy armour usually get your party spotted. Even in a party of ninjas, one of you is bound to roll low if you have a party of six. If you're sneaking past forty enemies, a roll for each one is bound to get you caught all the same.

Characters not suited for stealth will likely ruin stealth attempts. I don't see the issue.
You can take 10 on hide and move silently checks, averting the variance of the d20.
With the exception of actual guards, that is creatures that actively look out for intruders, have those other creatures take 10 on spot an listen. Only guards will make two listen and two spot checks, taking 10 in each of one of them. Stationary guards anyway. For moving guards, decide if they would rely more on their eyes or their hearing.


It's similar when you're making knowledge or spot checks, where success appears guaranteed between six players. If nothing else, the half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 6 will roll a natural 20, and repeat the twelve generation family tree of Sir Zorxberry.

Untrained Knowledge checks can't achieve higher DCs then 10.

Hytheter
2014-06-27, 04:52 AM
Yes, you could make a single roll and add the 'average modifier'. That'd be nearly equivalent (a few corner cases like some characters having luck rerolls aside). So the DM rolls 1d20, and if the party has stealth modifiers of +5,+8, +13, and +18 then you add 44/4 = +11 to the d20 roll to determine the party's Stealth check.


I never said to use the average modifer; having to calculate averages is the exact kind of complexity I'm trying to avoid. What I said is that everyone uses the same roll but applies their own modifiers. Which is ultimately the same as best spotter vs worst stealther.

Specifically, it makes it pointless to invest in stealth at all unless everyone else in the party invests in stealth to an equal degree. Furthermore, it severely disadvantages stealth (because stealth is determined by 'worst ability') compared to spot (because observation is determined by 'best ability'). So in such a system, its basically never worth it to use skills for stealth - you're always better off with spells or other things that can be distributed to everyone.

That may be more realistic, but it has bad gameplay consequences (well, arguably - if your goal is to encourage the rogue to split the party and go off alone, then it'll achieve that end).
All these things are already true with the actual rules though. Except much worse, because there are many times more rolls involved but it still only takes single unfavorable dice to cause a "fail".
Splitting the party is still superior option to avoid notice altogether, but if you're forced/choose to stick together you still have a shot. At least, better than if you make every roll individually.
Using averages may help the issue slightly, but the rogue is still being dragged waaaay down if none of his teammates invested in stealth, and frankly I don't think the mild buff to the group's stealth check is worth the extra calculation.

Socksy
2014-06-27, 05:44 AM
How would it work at more extreme levels? I have an ECL 23 character in Pathfinder with +47 to Stealth who likes to give herself another +18 with Moment of Prescience before sneaking. She has a level 20 Fighter friend covered in heavy, spiky armour with no subtlety or stealth at all.


EDIT: I was also of the belief you meant average modifiers.

NichG
2014-06-27, 06:31 AM
I never said to use the average modifer; having to calculate averages is the exact kind of complexity I'm trying to avoid. What I said is that everyone uses the same roll but applies their own modifiers. Which is ultimately the same as best spotter vs worst stealther.

Ah, yes, thats true then.



All these things are already true with the actual rules though. Except much worse, because there are many times more rolls involved but it still only takes single unfavorable dice to cause a "fail".

Splitting the party is still superior option to avoid notice altogether, but if you're forced/choose to stick together you still have a shot. At least, better than if you make every roll individually.
Using averages may help the issue slightly, but the rogue is still being dragged waaaay down if none of his teammates invested in stealth, and frankly I don't think the mild buff to the group's stealth check is worth the extra calculation.

I figured the point of this thread is fixing the problems with the actual rules though. So I'm going to say 'one guy in heavy armor forces the rogue to choose between metagame values and in-game values' is one of those problems. In general, as a DM, I'm in favor of things that encourage the party to stick together even if they're less realistic, so I like the idea of people being able to cover for the bad stealth of other PCs.

Basically, I want to make it 'the stealthy character sneaks his allies in' rather than 'the stealthy character goes off alone and adventures for half an hour while everyone else is bored'. Avoiding calculation is a worthy goal though, so lets try different tacks.

The primary goals for me would be:

- Encourage/enable keeping the party together
- Make everyone's investment matter - if there's a guy with a +20 and a guy with a +22, the guy with the +20 should still be getting his proverbial money's worth.
- Quick to compute (no division, minimize number of rolls)
- Keep Stealth a viable mechanic (e.g. nothing that makes it much harder to succeed at being stealthy than it is to succeed at spotting stealthy people)

How about this then as a proposed mechanic (for both Perception and Stealth in order to preserve statistical symmetry and maintain viability of the mechanic):


A party with N characters is Stealthing against a party with M characters.

- Roll 1d20 for the party and each character computes their result. Reroll powers mean that that character in particular can reroll, but that applies only to their result - they're rare enough that this shouldn't be a big time waster. Taking 10 encouraged.

- The opposing party always takes 10.

- If N>M, pick the highest M results out of the Stealth party. Compare rolls down the line in order of biggest to smallest. The party with the majority of successes gets their outcome, with ties going to detection. If N<M, pick the highest N results out of the Perception party and do the same.


So for example, a party with 5 characters whose Stealth modifiers are -3,0,+3,+5,+20 is hiding against a party of 7 characters whose Perception modifiers are +0,+1,+1,+4,+7,+11,+15. Both sides take 10 for simplicity. So we're comparing:

+30 vs +25 (Stealth wins)
+15 vs +21 (Perception wins)
+13 vs +17 (Perception wins)
+10 vs +14 (Perception wins)
+7 vs +11 (Perception wins)

So the Stealthing party is detected.

However, if the Stealthing party had -3,0,+8,+12,+20 then they would successfully go undetected.

In the extreme case, when the enemy is a solitary spotter or the 'party' is a solitary stealthy guy, its simply 'best Stealth versus best Spot'.

Anyhow, its still a bit baroque, but I think it roughly covers the game mechanical relationships I'd want. An alternate and much simpler suggestion would be to just make a rule 'you can share the result of a Stealth check with a number of other PCs equal to your Stealth rank/5 rounded down', and then do best Perception against all (resultant) Stealth checks, though its a bit rough around the edges in terms of encouraging the party to stealth together.

lytokk
2014-06-27, 07:20 AM
I think there's a reason that knowledge skills are trained only. If you have no points in the skill, you can't roll.

In my group, very rarely do they try to get the big guy in full plate try to sneak. More than likely, he's held back someplace to provide backup, or off someplace running a distraction, perhaps even to the guards your trying to sneak past. That way, he's still involved, even though his actual involvement may stop there.