Group Skill Checks

[strangebloke]

So, sometimes, the whole group is trying to be stealthy. If any of them are spotted, they might as well all be spotted. Conversely, sometimes the group just needs one guy to make a successful Arcana check to decipher some runes. It doesn't really matter whether 3 characters or 1 character figures it out, so long as someone does. There's several ways of arbitrating either of the above situations, and I'm curious what has worked for everyone.

Here's the ones I've heard of:

1. Everyone rolls: If someone fails on Stealth, that person is seen. If someone succeeds on Arcana, that person knows the answer.

Pros: Intuitive, and less gamey than other options. Very 'realistic' for stealth, since large groups would have more trouble being sneaky than small groups.
Cons: Lots of rolling. Very punishing/rewarding to large groups. Makes the guy with Arcana expertise cry, because the chances of him being the guy who gets to know the answer is actually pretty low.

2. Group Rolls: Everyone rolls. Majority of rolls are success? The party succeeds. Majority are failure? Party fails.

Pros: Everyone gets to contribute, without the specialists feeling overshadowed. Accurately represents the abilities of the group.
Cons: Lots of rolling, with each individual d20 roll being relatively low-impact. Doesn't really distinguish between 'single-point-of-failure' rolls and 'single-point-of-success' rolls.

3. Worst/Best Rolls: The person most likely to cause failure/success for the group rolls, and everyone who has proficiency provides a +1 to him. Borrowed/Butchered from AngryGM.

Pros: Quick and dirty. One high-impact roll. Specialists feel rewarded. Less punishing/rewarding than the 'everyone rolls' method.
Cons: Who has the lowest stealth? The guy with +3 and disadvantage, or the guy with -3 and advantage? Very gamey and gameable.

[Fayd]

Something I’m going to try is a hybrid of some of these and something of my own; when it makes sense for a check (stealth for example, situations where independent success/failure matters) it’ll be individual. For other things, where it isn’t important WHO succeeds, like perception, knowledge checks, investigation, the party appoints a lead, and the rest of the participants are using the Help action on it. This lets the expert shine while still letting others contribute.

[sophontteks]

Group checks are about the entire team doing an activity where the more skilled players are assisting those who aren't skilled. So long as the majority do it, they accomplish the task. Stealth is not a group skill IMO. If a player makes a sound, another can't cover that up. There are spells to assist with this like Pass without Trace and Invisibility, but otherwise the party shouldn't be able to stealth around just because most of them are stealthy.

Getting a surprise round off is a big deal and it shouldn't be given to the entire party so lightly.

[strangebloke]

Something I’m going to try is a hybrid of some of these and something of my own; when it makes sense for a check (stealth for example, situations where independent success/failure matters) it’ll be individual. For other things, where it isn’t important WHO succeeds, like perception, knowledge checks, investigation, the party appoints a lead, and the rest of the participants are using the Help action on it. This lets the expert shine while still letting others contribute.

My only problem with this is that it leads to the usual advantage-stacking problems. If I already have advantage on perception checks to hear things, what value is all this help I'm getting?


Group checks are about the entire team doing an activity where the more skilled players are assisting those who aren't skilled. So long as the majority do it, they accomplish the task. Stealth is not a group skill IMO. If a player makes a sound, another can't cover that up. There are spells to assist with this like Pass without Trace and Invisibility, but otherwise the party shouldn't be able to stealth around just because most of them are stealthy.

Getting a surprise round off is a big deal and it shouldn't be given to the entire party so lightly.

This is a fair point. Stealth checks can be group checks, but they aren't always group checks. Like if the party is sneaking past a guard, that's not a group checks, but if they're trying to make it to the docks without attracting attention, that might be a group check.

[DMThac0]

I generally go with my gut on rolls, nothing really set in stone but some examples are:

3 Casters and 1 scroll, first thing I did was have them figure out who got the scroll, then I let that person read the scroll. If not successful then that person can hand it off. Each of them rolling individually. Something like this I did purely for flavor. Each caster approaches their spell books and method of recording spells differently, so maybe one of them can make sense of it because it better resembles their approach.

Everyone is trying to sneak around a camp of enemies. I do a group roll and I take 3 numbers: 1) Low roll 2) High roll 3) Group average. I take the group average because they will be assisting in trying to make each other less visible and avoid things which might give off their position. The High roll and Low roll for those two individuals and how they affect the group as a whole. I compare the lowest roll to the group average, if there's a large enough gap I have that person give away their position. The high roll is only in play for the sake of when they're spotted, that high roll might allow that person to avoid being spotted.

Trying to convince the king to give them a better reward. I'll allow help here, but it's more along the lines that the advantage must be combined with the comments made. If you say "I help" and then just wait for the resolution, you're not helping. If you say "I tell the king about the second wave of bad guys" in an attempt to help, then I'll grant the advantage roll.

There's a vast number of approaches to how you do this, but the goal is to allow each person their spotlight, even if it's a group activity.

[strangebloke]

Everyone is trying to sneak around a camp of enemies. I do a group roll and I take 3 numbers: 1) Low roll 2) High roll 3) Group average. I take the group average because they will be assisting in trying to make each other less visible and avoid things which might give off their position. The High roll and Low roll for those two individuals and how they affect the group as a whole. I compare the lowest roll to the group average, if there's a large enough gap I have that person give away their position. The high roll is only in play for the sake of when they're spotted, that high roll might allow that person to avoid being spotted.


So, everyone rolls, if the lowest roll is too low it can cause a failure, and if the highest roll is high enough he can prevent the lowest person from flubbing things up for everyone?

Seems very complicated, and requiring a lot of DM work, but I can see it working.

[DMThac0]

Nope, if the highest person is far enough up there s/he is able to remain hidden even though the rest of the party got spotted.

Player 1 rolls a 13
Player 2 rolls a 8
Player 3 rolls a 16
Player 4 rolls a 23

Enemies roll a 14

Low: 8
High: 23
Avg: 15

The average is a 15 which would allow them to pass undetected, barely. Player 2 is low enough that he alerts the enemies to their position. Player 4 rolled high enough that when the enemies come to investigate she is able to remain undetected.

[nickl_2000]

I feel like the best and worst method would actually take longer than everyone rolling. Considering for best and worst you would actually need to discuss what everyone's numbers to see who's is the lowest. Whereas with everyone rolling, you just announce the results.

Personally I'm all for all roll (unless someone is helping, then they don't roll). Each person looks around for perception, each person tries to remember their history, they each check on their own. As for stealth, I believe that each person needs to roll since they each have a chance to make noise of walk into the light and be seen. By making each person roll, you are also making the party think more strategically. Who can get in safely, who can't. What can you do to make the Paladin more likely to get by (can you put them into the bag of holding?)?

[Jamesps]

I use the third technique. I don't find it gamey at all personally. As far as the players are concerned, sometimes I let them chose who's going to roll (if it's a 'just one person needs to succeed scenarior'), and sometimes I demand one particular player roll (if it's a weakest link scenario).

[strangebloke]

I feel like the best and worst method would actually take longer than everyone rolling. Considering for best and worst you would actually need to discuss what everyone's numbers to see who's is the lowest. Whereas with everyone rolling, you just announce the results.

Personally I'm all for all roll (unless someone is helping, then they don't roll). Each person looks around for perception, each person tries to remember their history, they each check on their own. As for stealth, I believe that each person needs to roll since they each have a chance to make noise of walk into the light and be seen. By making each person roll, you are also making the party think more strategically. Who can get in safely, who can't. What can you do to make the Paladin more likely to get by (can you put them into the bag of holding?)?
It doesn't take long. The party figures out who the stealth/arcana guy is once and then they're pretty much gold.

All roll does make a lot of sense for stealth, yeah.

I use the third technique. I don't find it gamey at all personally. As far as the players are concerned, sometimes I let them chose who's going to roll (if it's a 'just one person needs to succeed scenarior'), and sometimes I demand one particular player roll (if it's a weakest link scenario).
Yup, this is more or less how it has to be done, if you're going to use #3. How do you decide which player to use in a weakest-link scenario, especially where things like advantage/disadvantage are concerned?

[Theodoxus]

I've begun granting Help (ie advantage) when someone asks to make a check, and another jumps in wanting to roll too. It's been pretty funny, since I grant advantage to the first one to ask - which inevitably is someone who isn't particularly skilled - and the helper chimes in because they are skiled.

If three or more shout out, I'll turn it into a group check. Though I modify it a little - if at least one person beats the DC, they'll get some information, but not as much as if the group check actually succeeded.

ETA: I think it's funny that there is disagreement regarding group checks and stealth, since that is the actual example given in the PHB.

It's less 'you can't help another not make sound in their clanky platemail' and more 'you tell them where to put their foot to lessen the likelihood of stepping on snek.' Or literally showing them where they need to duck a little further to be out of the light or freezing in place when a guard looks in their direction.

[mephnick]

Stealth checks are rolled individually and checked vs all individual passive perceptions. They are not meant to be group checks. *queue 50 page argument*

The whole point of stealthy characters is to scout ahead of the party and report back or take out a solitary guard. For some inane reason people now think it's to somehow lead the platemail fighter through a mansion at night because their scores cancel each other out. That's not how it works. It's not how it's ever worked. That's what Pass Without a Trace is for.

[mephnick]

ETA: I think it's funny that there is disagreement regarding group checks and stealth, since that is the actual example given in the PHB..

The example given for group checks in the PHB is traversing a swamp using Survival...

[strangebloke]

I've begun granting Help (ie advantage) when someone asks to make a check, and another jumps in wanting to roll too. It's been pretty funny, since I grant advantage to the first one to ask - which inevitably is someone who isn't particularly skilled - and the helper chimes in because they are skiled.

If three or more shout out, I'll turn it into a group check. Though I modify it a little - if at least one person beats the DC, they'll get some information, but not as much as if the group check actually succeeded.
I don't love this because it enforces something arbitrary on the game. The smart guy can't use arcana because his player didn't speak up in time? That's weird.

I running with time-pool rules, so there is an actual cost to a player doing something, so taking the help action every time just isn't practical.

Stealth checks are rolled individually and checked vs all individual passive perceptions. They are not meant to be group checks. *queue 50 page argument*

The whole point of stealthy characters is to scout ahead of the party and report back or take out a solitary guard. For some inane reason people now think it's to somehow lead the platemail fighter through a mansion at night because their scores cancel each other out. That's not how it works. It's not how it's ever worked. That's what Pass Without a Trace is for.

But I would say that it actually does make sense, so long as it isn't a stealth check to avoid notice completely. Like, if you're trying to sneak through a mansion, no. But if you're trying to make it to the docks without the police noticing you, that might be a group check, since the characters can plausibly cover for each other.

Mostly, though, I agree with you.

[sophontteks]

But if you're trying to make it to the docks without the police noticing you, that might be a group check, since the characters can plausibly cover for each other.

Mostly, though, I agree with you.

But how can they plausibly cover each other?

[DMThac0]

As we enter the theater of the mind we can imagine that they're trying to get around. The player with the highest stealth has taken the lead. They stop at the nearest intersection, looking around they see that there's someone walking by and tells the group to hold for a moment. The group starts moving, DM says roll for stealth. They pass when the coast is clear, they move on down to a back alley. There's some broken glass on the ground and a pile of refuse, the stealthy one points out the stuff so the group can go around it. Further down the stealthy one notices there's a sleeping hobo in a doorway and picks a way around to avoid waking him. While they pass, the guy in the back notices that the cleric is about to step on the hobo's makeshift bed, reaching out places a hand on the cleric and points down. As the group continues they cross a rather run down area with broken cobblestone which could be kicked up, as well as more refuse littered about. The stealthy one is picking out a path when a window above opens and someone starts to dump a wash basin out into the street, the warrior is quick enough to pull the stealthy one back and into a doorway. After that it's clear sailing except when they reach the docks and have to make for the ship.

While all this is happening you have the police rolling investigation/perception checks to see if they can track/find the party. If/when they catch wind of the party, no need for stealth anymore as we now have a chase scene. As the DM you know what the players are up to, so you can figure out when a new stealth might be needed from the party.

If you wanted to be a stickler you could have them roll individually for each of those moments, which bogs down the game with stealth rolls every intersection or interaction with puddles, and twigs, and cans, and glass, and, and ,and. Where as if we consolidate those actions into one stealth check it keeps the need for rolls down. It assumes that people aren't going to throw their party to the wolves because "your stealth check was a 12, mine was a 17 and the dc was 13". It allows for the creation of tension rather than imposed tension because of a bad roll. I'd roll for the initial check when they enter the alley and a second for the wash basin, if the party rolled low over all, I'd probably roll for the hobo scene too. The rest is too arbitrary to need a stealth roll, unless someone rolled very low (5 or more below passive) at which point in time I'd simply have them spotted.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. Checks aren't always "resolve an action". They are "resolve a question that can be resolved two (or more) ways". Just as an entire conversation may take place, capped by a single group Cha check to determine resolution of the question at hand (does the party get what they want?), so might an entire sneaky scene be resolved by a single group Stealth roll at the end (does the party sneak through the city without drawing undue attention?).

Or my personal favorite, group checks for Intelligence (Lore) in out of combat situations, where the players are almost always discussing the thing among themselves. Does the party discussing the Lore for something settle on the right thing?

I almost never bother with state-of-the-character's-knowledge checks individually, unless it's a time sensitive situation and the characters can't communicate and need to make individual decisions. But I do state-of-the-party's-knowledge group checks fairly regularly. Since the less knowledgable characters are dragging down arriving at the answers by constantly chiming in and debating the stuff they're sure is correct (but isn't).

Kinda like a ten page forum thread. :smallamused:

[strangebloke]

But how can they plausibly cover each other?

Easily.

"Keep your hood up, scaleface, you'll make people stare."
"Come on, keep moving. Nothing is more suspicious than a group of people walking on their tiptoes."
"Lets cut through here, the guards are in full force in the market."