Skills and the problem of multiple rolls

[MadBear]

One of the issues I see come up again and again, is that there is an interesting problems that circle each other.

1. DM's let every character make a roll for any given search. With 4-5 dice being rolled, it's inevitable that someone will get the roll. Which leads DM's to wonder why they should bother rolling at all, if it's essentially guaranteed someone will get it.

2a. To fix this some DM's raise the DC to make it actually possible for failure to occur. At this point unless you're trained you don't feel like your relevant anymore.

or

2b. The DM only lets the players make 1 roll with the players choosing whose making the roll. The issue here leads to a boring story as it's the same player over and over again making the rolls due to having the best skill.

This is a reason I rarely see DM's set a DC at the 10-15 range.

I've seen various ideas for how to "fix" this.
1. You must be "trained" in a skill to have the ability to roll it
2. The player who asks to do it first gets to roll

I'm curious what the forumns thoughts and solutions to this issue are?

[JackPhoenix]

Group checks. Everyone rolls, if half pass, success, if not, failure.

That's assuming everyone is searching, otherwise, only those who do get to roll. And no "The guy with the highest modifier failed? Well, I'll try it too, then!". You say up front you're trying to search or you're out of luck.

[Rynjin]

The "solution" is to just get over it. PCs are meant to succeed at things. If they're all working together to pass a single check, let them. That's why adventurers travel in groups of 4+ after all. So they can cover each others' backs and blind spots.

[Democratus]

I think it's a fair trade off.

4 PCs search a room. If one rolls well enough they all find the thing.

4 PCs sneak past a guard. If one rolls poorly enough they all get caught.

[MaxWilson]

One of the issues I see come up again and again, is that there is an interesting problems that circle each other.

1. DM's let every character make a roll for any given search. With 4-5 dice being rolled, it's inevitable that someone will get the roll. Which leads DM's to wonder why they should bother rolling at all, if it's essentially guaranteed someone will get it.

2a. To fix this some DM's raise the DC to make it actually possible for failure to occur. At this point unless you're trained you don't feel like your relevant anymore.

or

2b. The DM only lets the players make 1 roll with the players choosing whose making the roll. The issue here leads to a boring story as it's the same player over and over again making the rolls due to having the best skill.

This is a reason I rarely see DM's set a DC at the 10-15 range.

I've seen various ideas for how to "fix" this.
1. You must be "trained" in a skill to have the ability to roll it
2. The player who asks to do it first gets to roll

I'm curious what the forumns thoughts and solutions to this issue are?

Consequence for failure. You offend somebody by trying too obviously to manipulate them, or you misremember a fact. "I think Liches are vulnerable to silvered weapons!"

In other cases it's appropriate to change the probability model to make the task easy for trained individuals and otherwise hard. E.g. climbing a 100' rock wall can be modeled as five DC 15 checks, with = no further success and failure by 5 or more = falling. A highly skilled individual with good equipment might succeed reliably while a Dex 10 untrained person probably falls right off the wall immediately and gives up.

Note that this is exactly how combat works: it's not a DC 20 Combat check to kill a dragon, it's a whole series of attack rolls and damage rolls with cumulative effects.

[olskool]

One of the issues I see come up again and again, is that there is an interesting problems that circle each other.

1. DM's let every character make a roll for any given search. With 4-5 dice being rolled, it's inevitable that someone will get the roll. Which leads DM's to wonder why they should bother rolling at all, if it's essentially guaranteed someone will get it.

2a. To fix this some DM's raise the DC to make it actually possible for failure to occur. At this point unless you're trained you don't feel like your relevant anymore.

or

2b. The DM only lets the players make 1 roll with the players choosing whose making the roll. The issue here leads to a boring story as it's the same player over and over again making the rolls due to having the best skill.

This is a reason I rarely see DM's set a DC at the 10-15 range.

I've seen various ideas for how to "fix" this.
1. You must be "trained" in a skill to have the ability to roll it
2. The player who asks to do it first gets to roll

I'm curious what the forumns thoughts and solutions to this issue are?

As the Dm, you know exactly where the hidden object is and the players DON'T. So you have everyone tell you exactly where they are searching. I use a time of 1 round to search a 5ft section of a room or up to 1 minute to rummage through a chest of drawers or a bookshelf. EVERYONE then rolls their check together... BUT you ONLY COUNT the PC who's in a position to find something.
As an alternate method, you could roll in a "double-blind test" method. In this method, BOTH the player and the DM roll a die. The Dm's roll is hidden so the player cannot see it.

The effect of the test is based on the die roll results...
1) IF both rolls succeed, then the player is told the total truth or finds the hidden item.
2) IF both rolls fail, the test fails and the player is told something other than the truth and the hidden thing remains hidden.
3) IF the player's roll fails but the DM's roll succeeds, the DM will tell the player he didn't find anything or gives the player a partial truth. The player, knowing that they failed, will suffer DISADVANTAGE (on the DM's rolled die so as not to give it away) on any futher checks.
4) IF the player's roll succeeds and the Dm's roll fails, the player may suspect that something is there and could roll again IF the player says "I want to check this again."

Because the PLAYER never knows the true outcome of a double-blind test, they will always be unsure of the outcome they are presented with.

[ThatoneGuy84]

I only allow players with the appropriate skill to roll.
If someone that isnt trained in animal handling for example why would I allow then to train animals.
Perception or investigation for searches ect.
If they fail then they fail, if more then 1 player is searching, then I allow them to use the "help" action to assist in searching, after all they are a group. Many hand make light work.
But if the person helping doesnt have the appropriate skill, they arent actually helping, unless they have a skill and can explain how using it is helpful.

That's how I play it.

[Tanarii]

Searching generally uses passive perception. Even if the character is actively looking. As long as the results need to be kept secret.

If the situation is such that everyone can make a roll, ie time doesn't matter and they all have access and there are no consequences for failure, you're probably also looking at the DMG automatic success rule anyway. Take ten times as long, automatically succeed.

If time does matter so they all get one shot, but everyone still has an opportunity to try at once and any one success will succeed for everyone in the group, then yeah, they're pretty likely to succeed. But that's a somewhat contrived situation.

[Zhorn]

A few different concepts to use with multiple players making checks:

Success is a given assuming enough time, the roll just determines how long it takes (high roll = faster, low roll = slower). Multiple people making the check is only increasing the odds of succeeding faster. suited for investigation, foraging for food, etc. Generally suited for things where the players are spaced out and working independently. If players declare they are joining in after one player has already rolled, add some base amount of time having passed (say a couple of minutes for the helping play to notice the initial player isn't solving the problem quickly)

Too many cooks; increase the DC based on the number of people doing a task. Sometimes more people trying a task will just get in each others way or distract each other from some details. Picking a lock becomes harder the more hands are getting in the way.

Group checks; lower DC but multiplied by the number of people attempting the task, tally results. Group stealth; DC is the passive perception of the creature, let's say 14, but for a group of 4 adventurers their total needs to beat 56, where high rolls are treated as the better players helping the poor performers.

Assisting checks; rather than helping someone by giving advantage to their roll, the result of the subsequent rolls are converted into a modifier and added to the leading players result. Take a social situation making some kind of Charisma roll, lead player gets a 13, AFTER the result the bard helps, makes a check of 17, converted to a modifier of +3 so the result is now 13+3=16. Barbarian tries to help too, but rolls bad with a natural 1, converting a -5 and taking the total to 13+3-5=11. Allows results to be added to a dynamically changing situation.

[Contrast]

2b. The DM only lets the players make 1 roll with the players choosing whose making the roll. The issue here leads to a boring story as it's the same player over and over again making the rolls due to having the best skill.

Personally I don't see this one as a problem. Players should have their niches and as players its your responsibility as well, not just the DMs, to ensure that everyone is enjoying the game and is being given space to feel like they're contributing.

You have a better modifier but it thematically makes more sense for another player to do this test? Say that and let them roll the roll.

Even in games where the DM is happy for everyone to roll I often excuse myself precisely because my character isn't a specialist in that area and would be following the lead of the person who was.


I do agree that far too many DMs don't seem to understand probability though and set DCs way too high though. Most PCs will struggle to pass a DC15 test in a random skill right up to level 20. I feel like many DMs forget that most characters do not get better at most skills throughout the course of the entire game.

[HappyDaze]

I've found skill use much more interesting once I stopped most of the individual checks with"and I'll help--have Advantage" and switched to more frequent use of group checks. Now 50%+ of the group has to pass the checks. This means that often a few characters buoy the group up while others tend to sink them. I use these when nobody really has an option to not participate (including social encounters where even the character "saying nothing" is still in the scene).

[Pex]

When I DM I have the player who made the inquiry or comment that required a roll to make the roll. I’m trying to get them out of the habit of only having the PC with the highest modifier roll. It isn’t working that well, but they aren’t objecting when I only allow the player in question to roll so it’s ok play wise.

A few times I tell a player to roll without prompting, usually a knowledge check, to represent something the character would know but the payer didn’t know was relevant to ask. It’s never adventure plot crucial, just a possible extra clue or information that might be helpful. That at least has worked in getting players to ask on their own about other things where I tell them to roll.

Players will ask of they can assist to give advantage. It depends on the situation. Sometimes they can. Sometimes I will prompt more than one player to roll, with .the same or different skill.

[MoiMagnus]

Count the number of successes.
Depending on the situations, you need either one success, one success for every two PCs (rounded up), or one success per PC.
Optionally, successes by 10 or more count double, to allow a specialist to compensate for someone else's incompetence.

Once you decided to count success, you can even allow peoples of making different skill checks instead of all the same.

[DevilMcam]

For this kind of check (excluding Stealth wich is on a situatio by situation basis) our table usually use the following houserule:

Only Two players may participate on a given task. Any participating Character may either roll an appropriate check using a relevant skill/ability OR take the Helpaction to hlp another player using a relevant skill. You may only Help if you are proficient in the skill you are trying to use but you can do a regular roll regardless of proficiency (beeing proficient does gives you better odds of succeding of course).

If the situation is on a scale large enough for everyone for participate, then we use something akin to a skill challenge. Every character makes one (or several) skill checks relevant to the situation. If a character roll for a skill that has already been used for this challenge then this roll is at disadvantage.
Any relevant spell or ability may reduce dificulty, allow for a skill to become relevant or grand an automatic succes according to the situation (flying grant automatic success in passing over that river, but doesn't help you bring the horse through for example). Then the outcome is determined based on the number of succes. Usually the player can choose a number of positive modifier to the outcome based on the number of success (the duchess pays you as agreed, the duchess doesn't hate you, you are not injured in the process, ...)

[Hilary]

The "solution" is to just get over it. PCs are meant to succeed at things. If they're all working together to pass a single check, let them. That's why adventurers travel in groups of 4+ after all. So they can cover each others' backs and blind spots.

You are missing the point. This makes the idea of specialists meaningless. Just have a larger party and don't worry about having knowledge specialists.

[Hilary]

I agree that dice roll piling on is a problem.

Matt Coville addresses this on youtube: "Skill Dogpiling, Running the Game #87"

Use passive ability checks more.

Make checks only possible for those with proficiency (Trained) for DCs over 15 (or some other threshold).

Apply Advantage to those who are proficient and/or Disadvatage to those who are not proficient.

Use passive perception only and disallow PC requested active perception checks. Only the DM can request active checks from PCs.

Or maybe active perception checks require time before the player can roll. Until then, their character is looking around, finding higher ground, etc. This would allow multiple checks by everyone, but you have to manage the time more closely, allowing each PC one check until all the PCs have performed a check. Or if the first check fails, subsequent checks are at disadvantage or impossible until a period of time passes.

Categories: Observation checks (Investigation, Perception), Action checks (fixing a wagon, climbing a tree, cooking, brewing, etc), social interaction checks (Charisma based skills) and knowledge checks (Intelligence based skills).

Disallow active knowledge checks without access to books.

Disallow active perception checks without doing something to change one's vantage point (climb a tree or hill).

[Aett_Thorn]

We have solved this by setting the rules as:

"Whoever describes the action makes the roll. Only one roll per specific action. Only people who are proficient with a skill and nearby when the skill check is called for can assist." We play this as if the other characters need to be looking at the same thing, or at least describing themselves as going with the person making the check.


This has led to a couple different things:

1) It usually means that the people who are the best at stuff are actually describing what their characters are doing in order to prompt a check. So the historian of the group is the one looking at the mural and trying to recall details about it, while the sneaky guy is going around the room checking for secret doors. This lets everyone have their niche in a more immersive format.

2) Failures do increase, as sometimes people who shouldn't be the main person for a roll sometimes stumbles onto something and says it out loud while no other characters are around them. Oh, the player with the dumb brute of a character wonders if it's a mural of the ancient city of Omu? Make a history check at -2

3) It means that characters on their own are on their own. If three members of a party are looking for secret doors in one room, and one guy is looking at the mural in the other room, the guy looking at the mural can't get assisted by the party. And if you only have one historian in the group, and he performs an action that calls for a check, nobody can assist him. Hey, he's the guy with the book smarts, if he can't do it, nobody can.


Quite honestly, we've all decided that this works for us, and makes a lot of sense. And yes, sometimes we fail and have to move on, but that is part of the game, we feel.

[MrStabby]

I would say, where possible, use graduated success.

So a roll of a 10 will give you something, a 15 will give something more, a 20 yet more and so on... although possibly more granular.

Say a percpetion check to avoid an ambush:

a bare pass avoids the surprised condition
a pass by 5+ lets you shoult a warning to give allies advantage on their checks
a pass by 10+ spots the ambush enough ahead of time to cast buff spells or open hostilities
a pass by 15+ shows the locations of most, if not all, of the beligernants.

This means that even if there is a low DC there is still achance for specialists to shine. If there is a high DC then someone in the party should still get to do something.


Some checks are easier than others to do this type of thing for - knowledge based checks are easy to give more knowledge on: "facing a lich, you know that creation of this style of phylactory requires advanced anjuration magic, it is likely that this foe is particularly proficient in abjuration spells". You can usually find something more to give and you can even add some very specific weakness for very high rolls.


Taking skill checks away from such a binary success/failure lets more people have their characters take part in these aspects of the game. Worst case is having the party barbarian sat idle and totally bored at the table whilst everyone else is investigating the runes and ancient rituals in a dungeon, especially if they didn't dump Int as they wanted to be able to take part in this kind of thing.

If a DM wants to make a particular check more dependant on the bonus and less dependant on the dice roll they should change the DC but give either advantage or disadvantage on it. This squeezes the variance of a player's distribution of outcomes meaning other modifiers are more likely to make a difference.

[EggKookoo]

When I DM I have the player who made the inquiry or comment that required a roll to make the roll. I’m trying to get them out of the habit of only having the PC with the highest modifier roll. It isn’t working that well, but they aren’t objecting when I only allow the player in question to roll so it’s ok play wise.

I think once the players catch on, they'll self-train so that the player with the PC with the highest modifier asks to make the roll.

One thing I do is try to turn "oh, I check too!" into the Help action whenever possible. This lets the PC with the highest mod still make the roll (in fact, I encourage it) even if that wasn't the player that initiated the action. If I get inundated with "me too" then I'll probably turn it into a group check if possible. Of course it depends on what the players are trying to do.

If the entire 5-man party wants to search a room, a group check works. If at least half succeed, they all succeed and find the thing. Otherwise they're just getting in each other's way. Same thing works for persuasion, intimidation, performance, stealth, etc.

Other checks can't easily be shared. No Help or group checks for anything that's really a solo action (picking locks, history, arcana, or even athletics or acrobatics). Each PC makes their own check on their own turn. And even then, for certain tasks, I sometimes rule that proficiency is required to make the check, or at least a positive mod in the relevant ability. I've told -1 Int PCs that they simply can't recall an obscure fact, while letting the proficient-in-history PC roll for it. My players are cool with this.

[heavyfuel]

Group checks. Everyone rolls, if half pass, success, if not, failure.

That's assuming everyone is searching, otherwise, only those who do get to roll. And no "The guy with the highest modifier failed? Well, I'll try it too, then!". You say up front you're trying to search or you're out of luck.


I've found skill use much more interesting once I stopped most of the individual checks with"and I'll help--have Advantage" and switched to more frequent use of group checks. Now 50%+ of the group has to pass the checks. This means that often a few characters buoy the group up while others tend to sink them. I use these when nobody really has an option to not participate (including social encounters where even the character "saying nothing" is still in the scene).

I really wonder why so many people on the 5e forums seem to hate Rogues... :smallsigh:

If I'm playing a Rogue who has actually invested in Int, picked up Investigation as my Expertise, rolled a Nat 20, and still "failed" my check because the Barbarian rolled a 2 I'd be pretty pissed. I'd feel cheated out of my class abilities.

Group checks are terrible. They invalidate characters who have invested in the skill and basically every check becomes completely uncertain, even if there's no reason for it to be so.

[EggKookoo]

If I'm playing a Rogue who has actually invested in Int, picked up Investigation as my Expertise, rolled a Nat 20, and still "failed" my check because the Barbarian rolled a 2 I'd be pretty pissed. I'd feel cheated out of my class abilities.

Group checks are terrible. They invalidate characters who have invested in the skill and basically every check becomes completely uncertain, even if there's no reason for it to be so.

Group checks make sense when everyone needs to succeed as a group. If the entire party, as a group, is trying to sneak past someone, and the barbarian makes a loud noise, it doesn't matter if the rogue rolled well. The barb screwed up the rogue's stealth by drawing attention to the party.

This is why stealthy characters like to work alone. If the rogue sneaks by first (or last), separately from the rest of the party, then the DM should have the rogue make an individual check. Which, of course, means the rest of the party making a group check is deprived of the rogue's likely success toward their group total. But that's a choice the players make.

[Pex]

I think once the players catch on, they'll self-train so that the player with the PC with the highest modifier asks to make the roll.


That hasn't happened. All players participate. It's also why I ask a player to roll without a player prompting because I know their character has relevance even though the player doesn't. For example recently there was an NPC the party encountered they never met before. He happened to be the equivalent of the Pope of a faith of Justice. I prompted the clerics to roll Knowledge Religion to see if they could identify him, but I also had the Rogue with a criminal background roll Knowledge History since he and his old gang may have heard his name. Also, there are DC 10s so even those with +1 or less can succeed often enough. That is key. When anyone has a decent chance it encourages participation. Don't use proficiency as a permission slip. Use the character's background, either literally by the character build or general. The Rogue got his History check on the Chief Justice despite not having proficiency. The wizard did not get any.

When the situation allows for anyone to roll I let them choose the player with the highest modifier.

[JackPhoenix]

I really wonder why so many people on the 5e forums seem to hate Rogues... :smallsigh:

If I'm playing a Rogue who has actually invested in Int, picked up Investigation as my Expertise, rolled a Nat 20, and still "failed" my check because the Barbarian rolled a 2 I'd be pretty pissed. I'd feel cheated out of my class abilities.

Group checks are terrible. They invalidate characters who have invested in the skill and basically every check becomes completely uncertain, even if there's no reason for it to be so.

Well, then the rogue should've told the barbarian to sit down and let him do his job without distraction. Multiple people scrambling all over the place causing more harm than good is realistic.

[Chronos]

You can also consider only letting some players roll, but based on something other than the numbers on their character sheets. For instance, my current adventure takes place in Waterdeep. Suppose the party wants to know something about one of the local nobles. That's an Int (History) check, but not everyone with proficiency in History gets to roll it, and some without that proficiency can: Two of the characters in the party are from Waterdeep, and one of them, though not from Waterdeep, has the noble background: Those three characters might know somethig about the goings-on of Waterdelvian nobles, so they get to roll. Now, if it happened that the entire party were locals, they'd have more chances to know, and very probably at least one of them would succeed, but that's fine. And if one of them were a local and had the Noble background, I probably wouldn't even make them roll, and just tell them.

[heavyfuel]

Group checks make sense when everyone needs to succeed as a group. If the entire party, as a group, is trying to sneak past someone, and the barbarian makes a loud noise, it doesn't matter if the rogue rolled well. The barb screwed up the rogue's stealth by drawing attention to the party.

This is why stealthy characters like to work alone. If the rogue sneaks by first (or last), separately from the rest of the party, then the DM should have the rogue make an individual check. Which, of course, means the rest of the party making a group check is deprived of the rogue's likely success toward their group total. But that's a choice the players make.


Well, then the rogue should've told the barbarian to sit down and let him do his job without distraction. Multiple people scrambling all over the place causing more harm than good is realistic.

This doesn't make any sense. If I'm a Rogue, there's no way I'd be attempting to stealth WITH the Barbarian. He can sit tight while I do my stuff without him destroying my chances of success.

If the Paladin has high persuasion and I don't, I'm not going to participate in conversations if this means he gets penalized because my character is socially inapt. And I don't mean "I stay quiet for the conversation", I mean "I go do literally anything else while he talks to the noble"

So the group check rule has accomplished literally nothing because players with high modifiers are still the ones rolling and obtaining success individually. Actually, scratch that, it acomplished the fact that now players need to excuse themselves from activities to not actively harm the group. Great fun.

[EggKookoo]

This doesn't make any sense. If I'm a Rogue, there's no way I'd be attempting to stealth WITH the Barbarian. He can sit tight while I do my stuff without him destroying my chances of success.

Right, then it's not a group check. I even said that in the part you quoted.

DM: Ok, there's a guard standing by the gate, but beyond him is an unguarded side door.
Party: We try to sneak past the guard at the gate and get in through the side door.
DM: Are you doing this as a group? Like, helping each other and stuff?
Party: Yes.

Group Check:

DM: Rogue Player, are you good with this? Your success might be hampered.
Rogue: Sure, I'll help out.

If at least half succeed, they all sneak past the guard. The rogue used their experience and expertise to help out the clumsier or less-stealthy members of the party.

Or:

DM: Rogue Player, are you good with this? Your success might be hampered.
Rogue: Nah, the barbarian will slow me down too much and probably spoil it. I'll go in first by myself.

In this case, the DM has the rogue make their own stealth check. Assuming success (otherwise the guard notices and a confrontation happens), the rest of the party then makes a group check without the rogue's contribution. If they fail, the guard notices the rest of the group but (probably) doesn't see the rogue hiding near the side door.

So it's up to the players how they proceed. The rogue gets to increase their chance of success by going it alone, at the cost of increasing the chance the rest of the party gets caught by depriving them of his (likely) high stealth check result.

[MrStabby]

I really wonder why so many people on the 5e forums seem to hate Rogues... :smallsigh:

If I'm playing a Rogue who has actually invested in Int, picked up Investigation as my Expertise, rolled a Nat 20, and still "failed" my check because the Barbarian rolled a 2 I'd be pretty pissed. I'd feel cheated out of my class abilities.

Group checks are terrible. They invalidate characters who have invested in the skill and basically every check becomes completely uncertain, even if there's no reason for it to be so.

Yeah, I tend to agree here. Iam of the school that thinks that skills are an area where rogues should get to shine. Group checks don't help you shine.


Group checks make sense when everyone needs to succeed as a group. If the entire party, as a group, is trying to sneak past someone, and the barbarian makes a loud noise, it doesn't matter if the rogue rolled well. The barb screwed up the rogue's stealth by drawing attention to the party.

This is why stealthy characters like to work alone. If the rogue sneaks by first (or last), separately from the rest of the party, then the DM should have the rogue make an individual check. Which, of course, means the rest of the party making a group check is deprived of the rogue's likely success toward their group total. But that's a choice the players make.

This would be a pretty serious exception to my previous comment. Everyone must pass. You are as loud as the loudest member in your party. If not louder. No matter how quiet you are you cannot make so little noise you make everyone else quieter.

[Tanarii]

Well, then the rogue should've told the barbarian to sit down and let him do his job without distraction. Multiple people scrambling all over the place causing more harm than good is realistic.

Pretty much.

Same thing when you're the player of a Face PC, and the other players won't stop chiming in to the DM. The peanut gallery with PCs that have Cha 10 and no proficiency just converted it to a group check with 4 of them and one Face.

[JackPhoenix]

This would be a pretty serious exception to my previous comment. Everyone must pass. You are as loud as the loudest member in your party. If not louder. No matter how quiet you are you cannot make so little noise you make everyone else quieter.

You can, however, warn them if they start making noise so they'll stop, and give them advice how to avoid that problem in the future, or show them a dry branch lying in the way before they step on it.

A point man signaling everyone to stop and be quiet because there's a patrol coming is a pretty common scene.

[MrStabby]

Pretty much.

Same thing when you're the player of a Face PC, and the other players won't stop chiming in to the DM. The peanut gallery with PCs that have Cha 10 and no proficiency just converted it to a group check with 4 of them and one Face.

On the other hand the DM needs to structure the games and their rulings such that a lot of characters are not just shut out of one whole pillar of the game. If all of the social side of the game is Cha based then you still run into problems where in some sessions some players are going to get very bored.

[heavyfuel]

The rogue used their experience and expertise to help out the clumsier or less-stealthy members of the party.

[...]

So it's up to the players how they proceed. The rogue gets to increase their chance of success by going it alone, at the cost of increasing the chance the rest of the party gets caught by depriving them of his (likely) high stealth check result.

I'm cool with giving players the option. What I'm not cool with is forcing group checks, including in social situations where one person is trying to be diplomatic and others are just minding their own businesses. Forcing group checks is a sure fire way to get players to make meta-game decisions.

Regardless, it doesn't solve the issue OP proposed. You still have everyone rolling individually when it's better, or group rolling when it is.

It becomes even more complicated when you talk about skills like Arcana. How does a group check for Arcana even work?

[kyoryu]

In other systems, helpers can often add a bonus to rolls rather than just getting their own roll. I'd probably do something closer to that.

That allows helpers to make it more likely, without turning it into a practical certainty.

[EggKookoo]

I'm cool with giving players the option. What I'm not cool with is forcing group checks, including in social situations where one person is trying to be diplomatic and others are just minding their own businesses. Forcing group checks is a sure fire way to get players to make meta-game decisions.

Right, if the DM is involving everyone in a check when they're not actually performing or participating in the action that prompted the check, that's a DM issue that needs to be resolved. Which isn't to say there can't be situations where a PC is "pulled in" even if they're trying to stay out of it. For example, you could have a warlord or king ask a question to the entire group, to judge their response. While the high-Cha Face might step up to respond, the king is still looking for a reaction from everyone, to kind of gauge the character of the party. In such a case, a group check might make sense.

A group check is used when the participants succeed or fail as a group, and if those that succeed within the group are capable of assisting the others.


Regardless, it doesn't solve the issue OP proposed. You still have everyone rolling individually when it's better, or group rolling when it is.

Yeah, the rules are quiet about this kind of thing. In general, though, I don't see it as a problem. As long as it makes sense logically within the fiction, I have no objection to letting the players decide how they tackle a problem (individually, as a team, or some combination).


It becomes even more complicated when you talk about skills like Arcana. How does a group check for Arcana even work?

It would be uncommon, for sure. What about in Fellowship of the Ring, with Gandalf trying to open the Doors of Durin and Merry helping him out? That could at least be considered the Help action, if you consolidate all of Gandalf's prior attempts into one check. But something in the same vein, with multiple people prompting each other to make the same kind of realization or insight that Gandalf ultimately did with the "speak/say" translation, could be viewed as a group arcana check.

[prabe]

It becomes even more complicated when you talk about skills like Arcana. How does a group check for Arcana even work?

If I'm using Arcana to impart information to the party, I'm either specifically doing so through the PCs proficient in it, or I'm calling for a roll to see who gets the information (and sometimes how much). If the party is using Arcana to figure something out--a puzzle or some other mystery--then a check with someone else helping seems more appropriate. If there's more than one helping, I'll probably have multiple successes after the first reduce the DC of the main check.

[Chaos Jackal]

The "solution" is to just get over it. PCs are meant to succeed at things. If they're all working together to pass a single check, let them. That's why adventurers travel in groups of 4+ after all. So they can cover each others' backs and blind spots.

For starters, this. Hits the nail on the head.

Getting four people past a guard is a group check, or individual skill checks for every player who tries it, depending on how the table works and how the players go about it. But four people searching a room for a hidden switch? If the switch is something like a button under the desk, then these four people are likely going to find it, even if only by chance. Asking for a group check there is just being adversarial. If you don't want them to find the switch, don't let them find the switch. If you don't mind, then just save some time and tell them they find it instead of wondering whether two of them will get unlucky.

The skill system has issues alright, and there are times when group checks are appropriate, or times where you really wish that trained and untrained checks were still a thing (or houserule them back). But the first step to avoid running into some of the system's issues is to stop asking for rolls on everything. Skill checks represent effort, something a character has to try harder than usual to do. You don't need to ask the group to roll perception in order to hear a crowd rioting outside their inn, or investigation to search a corpse with no hidden pockets in its clothes, or atheltics to make a 3-foot jump, or medicine to realize whether someone is dead. There's already enough dice rolled in D&D, there's no need for more.

After doing that, I agree it's a good idea to only allow certain tests to be rolled by characters with proficiency. The barbarian with 8 Int isn't going to know the purpose of the ancient magic ritual of the Arbitrarily Named Secret Brotherhood, and rolling 20 on arcana isn't going to fix that.

I find consistently asking for group checks to be rather annoying. The Help action exists for a few reasons. If the whole party doesn't actively ask to participate in a task, then just give the rogue advantage. More than one player asking to help with a task isn't some sort of cheating or metagaming device meant to be punished by having the barbarian and the cleric roll 8s on investigation, it's a reasonable course of action.

In the end, it's really a case-by-case scenario. Reduce the overall number of rolls, have your players understand that they won't always be able to help each other, and then rule accordingly from there.

[heavyfuel]

Might I suggest just using Passive checks for like 90% of out-combat skill checks? It's how I do it. I determine the DC in my mind, and just check the player's modifiers.

For Athletics I might say "As you approach the enemy castle, you find yourselves near a steep wall. Both Fiona the Fighter and Rob the Rogue know at glance that they can climb it with relative ease. Will the Wizard and Clare the Cleric, however, will have to find some other way"

For Arcana; "Soon after entering the laboratory, you notice some strange marks on the ground. Will has read about these symbols before and he knows they are used to bring creatures from different planes to the material plane"

The result of the check is pre-determined by the character's modifiers. No roll needed.

Like I said, I don't do this all the time (I usually have them roll Stealth), but the vast majority of checks are never rolled. If a player decides to Help, then it's just an extra +5 to the result for Advantage.

This works especially well for a game with Bounded Accuracy, where a single d20 can have a huge spread. In earlies editions (namely 3.5), setting DCs in increments of 5 was perfectly ok because skill bonuses were easy to get. Now that they are hard, I usually go by increments of 2, but use passive checks instead

[Democratus]

Might I suggest just using Passive checks for like 90% of out-combat skill checks? It's how I do it. I determine the DC in my mind, and just check the player's modifiers.

Huge fan of this method. To the point that my DM screen has a chart with the passive values for every character's skills.

Rolls for skills are generally reserved for a check that is either opposed (roll-off!) or dramatic (everyone gathered around, breathlessly awaiting the result).

[EggKookoo]

For Athletics I might say "As you approach the enemy castle, you find yourselves near a steep wall. Both Fiona the Fighter and Rob the Rogue know at glance that they can climb it with relative ease. Will the Wizard and Clare the Cleric, however, will have to find some other way"

What I often do (but I've gotten flack here for mentioning it) is use passives and auto-succeed with anyone who beats the DC, but call for a check for anyone who's passive doesn't. So Fiona and Rob just climb the thing. Will and Clare might be able to do it but we'll see. All out of combat stuff, of course. During combat (or any turn-based and/or stressful situation), everyone rolls.

[MadBear]

What I often do (but I've gotten flack here for mentioning it) is use passives and auto-succeed with anyone who beats the DC, but call for a check for anyone who's passive doesn't. So Fiona and Rob just climb the thing. Will and Clare might be able to do it but we'll see. All out of combat stuff, of course. During combat (or any turn-based and/or stressful situation), everyone rolls.

I actually really like that idea. For some things it makes sense.

[Tanarii]

A group check on Lore is like a thread on RAI. It's the group discussing the answer, some not knowing, some thinking hey know but being wrong, some thinking they know but being right, and the group possibly coming to a consensus on an answer. Right or wrong.

[MaxWilson]

Might I suggest just using Passive checks for like 90% of out-combat skill checks? It's how I do it. I determine the DC in my mind, and just check the player's modifiers.

I dislike passive ability checks because I think they lead people to often misunderstand what the random factor actually is. For some tasks, e.g. Deception and Persuasion to persuade a guard to abandon his post and follow you to put out an imaginary fire, the die roll to doesn't represent how good you are at persuasion today compared to five minutes ago--it measures external factors like the guard's receptiveness to your argument, and how likely it is that you're violating procedures you don't even know about. (Maybe there are standing orders about who's supposed to put out fires and this guard knows he's not one of them.) Being more skilled can sometimes help you in edge cases, but sometimes it's just not going to work.

Likewise, even someone who's very intelligent and with a good memory might simply never have read a book on Glabrezu reproductive methods, whereas it's possible that someone else who is maybe slightly less intelligent has--just because one guy has Arcana +8 and the other guy has Arcana +6 doesn't mean the first guy should always automatically know everything the first guy does and then some!

Passive checks are a reasonable way to handle some things, but they have real downsides too and are sometimes inappropriate.

[HappyDaze]

I really wonder why so many people on the 5e forums seem to hate Rogues... :smallsigh:

If I'm playing a Rogue who has actually invested in Int, picked up Investigation as my Expertise, rolled a Nat 20, and still "failed" my check because the Barbarian rolled a 2 I'd be pretty pissed. I'd feel cheated out of my class abilities.

Group checks are terrible. They invalidate characters who have invested in the skill and basically every check becomes completely uncertain, even if there's no reason for it to be so.

Your Rogue with Investigation sounds like a crime scene investigator that gets annoyed when beat cops contaminate the crime scene. These things happen. Do note though, that if there are only 2 of you, the other guy can't hurt your chance of success since only one of you needs to succeed.

Group checks are not terrible, and they don't invalidate specialists. They do encourage the specialist to go off and solo from time to time, and that can be its own issue. As for every skill check being uncertain, that's the way dice work.

[HappyDaze]

So the group check rule has accomplished literally nothing because players with high modifiers are still the ones rolling and obtaining success individually. Actually, scratch that, it acomplished the fact that now players need to excuse themselves from activities to not actively harm the group. Great fun.

Yes, it can be great fun. Consider how many works of fiction have many scenes where the protagonists split up. Now compare it to D&D where it doesn't tend to happen even when it makes good sense (like in your examples). This rule mechanically reinforces that sometimes it's a good idea to split up.

[Tanarii]

I dislike passive ability checks because I think they lead people to often misunderstand what the random factor actually is. For some tasks, e.g. Deception and Persuasion to persuade a guard to abandon his post and follow you to put out an imaginary fire, the die roll to doesn't represent how good you are at persuasion today compared to five minutes ago--it measures external factors like the guard's receptiveness to your argument, and how likely it is that you're violating procedures you don't even know about. (Maybe there are standing orders about who's supposed to put out fires and this guard knows he's not one of them.) Being more skilled can sometimes help you in edge cases, but sometimes it's just not going to work.

Likewise, even someone who's very intelligent and with a good memory might simply never have read a book on Glabrezu reproductive methods, whereas it's possible that someone else who is maybe slightly less intelligent has--just because one guy has Arcana +8 and the other guy has Arcana +6 doesn't mean the first guy should always automatically know everything the first guy does and then some!5e ability scores and skills are fairly carefully worded so they don't represent that. For example Lore checks don't determine "did you ever learn this thing". They determine if you recall something. Put together with the automatic success rule, a character can take ten times as long to recall anything they can recall. The check is for when they need to recall it right now.

If you never read the book on Glabrezu, it's just an automatic failure. No check needed.

What you're using checks for is state-of-the-world or state-of-the-character checks. It's a way to run checks. But IMO really not what's intended.

[heavyfuel]

I dislike passive ability checks because I think they lead people to often misunderstand what the random factor actually is. For some tasks, e.g. Deception and Persuasion to persuade a guard to abandon his post and follow you to put out an imaginary fire, the die roll to doesn't represent how good you are at persuasion today compared to five minutes ago--it measures external factors like the guard's receptiveness to your argument, and how likely it is that you're violating procedures you don't even know about. (Maybe there are standing orders about who's supposed to put out fires and this guard knows he's not one of them.) Being more skilled can sometimes help you in edge cases, but sometimes it's just not going to work.

Likewise, even someone who's very intelligent and with a good memory might simply never have read a book on Glabrezu reproductive methods, whereas it's possible that someone else who is maybe slightly less intelligent has--just because one guy has Arcana +8 and the other guy has Arcana +6 doesn't mean the first guy should always automatically know everything the first guy does and then some!

Passive checks are a reasonable way to handle some things, but they have real downsides too and are sometimes inappropriate.

Indeed some nuances are missed when you use passive checks, but D&D just doesn't support this sort of granularity without disturbing the sense of realism. Accepting that the guy with +6 might know something the guy with +8 doesn't is ok, but if you're rolling every time, then a lot of times the guy with -1 knows more than the guy with +8, which I find much harder to accept. (I'm bad at math, but I believe it would happen about 25% of the time?)

While I don't consider myself a pro level athlete by any measure, I do practice sports, and I can't see a situation where - due to sheer luck - a pro athlete would lose to a non-pro. You can play Roger Federer 1000 times, and you're going to lose every single time unless you're already near his level of competence.

If D&D had much larger values for bonuses, large enough that the d20 result doesn't mean that much, I'd agree with you. But as it stands, I think investment in a skill should be rewarded, despite the lack of granularity.

It's one the first things I said. I "only" use it 90% of the time. If I thing the situation calls for a more random approach, they have to roll. If you don't care about the possibility that the frail wizard somehow climbs more aptly than the fighter or that the dumb fighter knows more about the arcane than the wizard, then whatever works for you.

[heavyfuel]

If you never read the book on Glabrezu, it's just an automatic failure. No check needed.

But how would know if your character has read the book or not? :smallconfused:

Do both characters have a list of subjects they have both studied and upon looking at his list the guy with +8 facepalms and says "damn! I knew I forgot to write something about Glabrezus"?

Of course not! A check can represent that you have never read the book, or it can represent you just don't recall right now.

[MaxWilson]

Indeed some nuances are missed when you use passive checks, but D&D just doesn't support this sort of granularity without disturbing the sense of realism. Accepting that the with +6 might know something the guy with +8 doesn't is ok, but if you're rolling every time, then a lot of times the guy with -1 knows more than the guy with +8, which I find much harder to accept. (I'm bad at math, but I believe it would happen about 25% of the time?)

No, 13.75% of the time, and 2.75% of the time they're tied.

I tend to agree that the d20 gives too much variation, but I think abandoning probability entirely is the wrong move. In this specific case it wouldn't bug me if the Int 8, untrained guy knew some facts about demon lore or something that the Int 18, proficient guy didn't. Actually it would just amuse me as DM when everybody in the party winds up believing the Int 18 guy even though the Int 8 guy is actually right ("See, I told you guys, vampires can cross running water, just like Uncle Pete said!").


While I don't consider myself a pro level athlete by any measure, I do practice sports, and I can't see a situation where - due to sheer luck - a pro athlete would lose to a non-pro. You can play Roger Federer 1000 times, and you're going to lose every single time unless you're already near his level of competence.

Yep, sports is a situation that should be modeled with repeated rolls, similar to combat. The more rolls involved, the more skill will tend to dominate. You should never model a sports game as a simple d20 ability check if you want realistic outcomes (as opposed to swingy, wild and crazy dramatic outcomes, like what would happen if Gilligan fought Spiderman in a TV show--circumstances would contrive to give Gilligan a non-zero chance of victory that he doesn't really deserve).


If D&D had much larger values for bonuses, large enough that the d20 result doesn't mean that much, I'd agree with you. But as it stands, I think investment in a skill should be rewarded, despite the lack of granularity.

It's one the first things I said. I "only" use it 90% of the time. If I thing the situation calls for a more random approach, they have to roll. If you don't care about the possibility that the frail wizard somehow climbs more aptly than the fighter or that the dumb fighter knows more about the arcane than the wizard, then whatever works for you.

To me this is a false dichotomy between zero randomness and maximum randomness.

[heavyfuel]

No, 13.75% of the time, and 2.75% of the time they're tied.

I tend to agree that the d20 gives too much variation, but I think abandoning probability entirely is the wrong move. In this specific case it wouldn't bug me if the Int 8, untrained guy knew some facts about demon lore or something that the Int 18, proficient guy didn't. Actually it would just amuse me as DM when everybody in the party winds up believing the Int 18 guy even though the Int 8 guy is actually right ("See, I told you guys, vampires can cross running water, just like Uncle Pete said!").



Yep, sports is a situation that should be modeled with repeated rolls, similar to combat. The more rolls involved, the more skill will tend to dominate. You should never model a sports game as a simple d20 ability check if you want realistic outcomes (as opposed to swingy, wild and crazy dramatic outcomes, like what would happen if Gilligan fought Spiderman in a TV show--circumstances would contrive to give Gilligan a non-zero chance of victory that he doesn't really deserve).



To me this is a false dichotomy between zero randomness and maximum randomness.

Honest question: How do you calculate that? I'd love to know.

Back to the point, even at 16.5% of times where the guy with -1 wins/ties, I think it's too much. You don't know as much as or more than an expert roughly 1 in 6 times due to sheer luck. 1 in 6 waaaay too high a chance. A random person with lower than average intelligence just isn't able to give a more accurate answer about a scietific subject than the professor with a PhD on said subject.

It's not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. I'm the one saying you can have some randomness, and that I do have my players roll about 10% of their out of combat rolls. I just don't have them roll every time.

[Rynjin]

You are missing the point. This makes the idea of specialists meaningless. Just have a larger party and don't worry about having knowledge specialists.

No, it doesn't at all. DC 10 is supposed to be trivial and 15 is easy for anyone trained. That's why the numbers are so low.

Do you think the devs are not aware that numbers 20 and below can be rolled raw on a die? That 11 is the average die roll on a d20?

No, and neither should anyone running a game be.

[Yakk]

Natural consequences, and non trivial problems.

Secret Door: DC 15 investigate.
1 success: ambiguous hint there is a door in the room.
2 success: location of door.
3 success: opening mechanism

Cost: 1 minute/10 min/1 hour/1 day/1 week to make a check or assist (per person)

Everyone can do it at the same time.

Now the expert is quite useful; if they have +10 investigate. Two others with +2 and -2 can work together, and the wizard with +4 can work alone.

Everyone rolls, you add up successes. You deploy result.

Harder problems can be modelled similarly. The important bit is there has to be a cost; if there is no cost, then the PCs should just succeed.

[MaxWilson]

Honest question: How do you calculate that? I'd love to know.

Back to the point, even at 16.5% of times where the guy with -1 wins/ties, I think it's too much. You don't know as much as or more than an expert roughly 1 in 6 times due to sheer luck. 1 in 6 waaaay too high a chance. A random person with lower than average intelligence just isn't able to give a more accurate answer about a scietific subject than the professor with a PhD on said subject.

It's not a dichotomy, false or otherwise. I'm the one saying you can have some randomness, and that I do have my players roll about 10% of their out of combat rolls. I just don't have them roll every time.

I calculated it with brute force: by enumerating all 400 possibilities with a short computer program. There's probably a more elegant, closed-form mathematical shortcut that I'd realize if I thought harder about it, but... I'm not as smart as Carl Friedrich Gauss (https://betterexplained.com/articles/techniques-for-adding-the-numbers-1-to-100/), I have to do things the hard way.

On a highly-technical scientific subject I'd agree with you, and would use a much sharper curve a la "roll a number of DC 20 Arcana checks equal to your proficiency bonus in Arcana, and the number of successes gives the degree of your success, from 1 = 'I've heard the term' up to 6 = 'I published a well-regarded paper on that.'"

But for a practical adventuring subject it doesn't seem ridiculous to me that uncle Pete's stories might actually know something academic researchers don't about vampire weaknesses (maybe vampires even spread misinformation about themselves!), so I'm okay with a linear probability based on a single Arcana ability check. Especially since the players probably won't believe Uncle Pete's story more than the academic specialist anyway until it's too late.

[heavyfuel]

But for a practical adventuring subject it doesn't seem ridiculous to me that uncle Pete's stories might actually know something academic researchers don't about vampire weaknesses (maybe vampires even spread misinformation about themselves!), so I'm okay with a linear probability based on a single Arcana ability check. Especially since the players probably won't believe Uncle Pete's story more than the academic specialist anyway until it's too late.

That's a fair approach. Not one I particularly like, but if it works for you, it works. I'm currently in 2 5e games. I DM one and I play in the other. My DM does it like you and we still have fun.

[Pex]

I like the idea of passive checks, but it only works if the DM doesn't make everything DC 20, regardless of character level. Even DC 15 should not be so common. That does not mean everything should be DC 10, because then there's no point. Since there are no guidelines on what is appropriately a DC 20, 15, or 10 or a number in between the DM has to make it up, so using passive checks is not a perfect solution. PCs can still fail or succeed too often. From a player perspective since the DC is either not revealed or is revealed but it's DM fiat anyway, it can seem the player may only succeed when the DM feels like it.

As for group checks at least there is some guideline. If at least half the party makes it they succeed as a whole. Therefore it is irrelevant the paladin with 8 DX in full plate rolls a 1 on stealth if the rest of the party beats the guards' (passive) perception. They all sneak past the guards without being noticed. If the DM refuses to let that happen that's on him.

[Osuniev]

I've stopped asking for everyone to roll for Stealth when I realized with 4 to 6 players, there's a very high likelihood that ONE of them is going to roll very poorly and make everyone lose.

It MIGHT be realistic... But it meant infiltration was ALWAYS a losing strategy for my PCs.

I also stopped allowing everyone to roll for knowledge or investigation (unless I WANT them to succeed, in which case why call for a roll at all ?) : again, with enough PCs, someone is bound to get a natural 20.

Now, if there is a check where ONE PC succeeding means the group succeeds (often History, Nature, Investigation, Perception... But also things like breaking a door or picking a lock, if there's no strong time pressure) only the one with the BEST modifier gets to roll (or the ones that are proficient if it makes more sense).

If there is a check where ONE PC failing means he group fails (Stealth checks mostly) , only the one with the WORST modifier gets to roll. Meaning the Fighter has now bought a leather Armor he put on for infiltration mission, and people will cast guidance or enhance ability on him.

[MaxWilson]

I've stopped asking for everyone to roll for Stealth when I realized with 4 to 6 players, there's a very high likelihood that ONE of them is going to roll very poorly and make everyone lose.

It MIGHT be realistic... But it meant infiltration was ALWAYS a losing strategy for my PCs.

Unless they split the party.

Stealth/recon is one of those cases where splitting the party makes more sense than staying together. Just make sure you have an exfiltration strategy.

[Aimeryan]

As for group checks at least there is some guideline. If at least half the party makes it they succeed as a whole. Therefore it is irrelevant the paladin with 8 DX in full plate rolls a 1 on stealth if the rest of the party beats the guards' (passive) perception. They all sneak past the guards without being noticed. If the DM refuses to let that happen that's on him.

Personally, really dislike group rolls for stealth.
The way we do stealth is individual checks, advantage can be given to all other players by someone proficient, however, that person suffers disadvantage. It allows the person who invested in Stealth to have an impact on the success of the group without allowing the drunk Clanky McClumsy to somehow make it past the guards just because there were more people in the group.

[greenstone]

…why they should bother rolling at all, if it's essentially guaranteed someone will get it.
Only roll if there is a cost of failure.

An example of this might be time. If one players say "I search" and the others just have their characters muck around, then ask the first player to roll. If they fail, say "OK, 10 minutes have passed, wandering moster roll came up 'nope', character Aleph searched and found nothing." When another player says "I search", make it another 10 minutes (and another wandering monster roll, or another 10 minutes closer to the BBEG's goal, or whatever). If the second player says, "But I was searching when the first character was" you have to be strict, "No, you weren't."

An example could be noise. If the barbarian has failed to open the door by force, then let the fighter just open it without a roll. Everything on the other side of the door is now alert.


The DM only lets the players make 1 roll with the players choosing whose making the roll.

The issue here leads to a boring story as it's the same player over and over again making the rolls due to having the best skill.

That's OK. If only one person has proficiency in Thief's Tools then it makes sense for them to deal with all the doors.

[Lunali]

If there isn't a consequence for failure, don't roll. The price could be that character not knowing the information for something like a knowledge roll or an amount of time for a search roll.

If one character is searching, the other characters can be doing a variety of things. If they are also searching, they should also roll, as they are choosing to do that instead of something else with that time. The key issue is that time has to matter, if it doesn't matter, let them find everything without rolling.

[Pex]

I've stopped asking for everyone to roll for Stealth when I realized with 4 to 6 players, there's a very high likelihood that ONE of them is going to roll very poorly and make everyone lose.

It MIGHT be realistic... But it meant infiltration was ALWAYS a losing strategy for my PCs.

I also stopped allowing everyone to roll for knowledge or investigation (unless I WANT them to succeed, in which case why call for a roll at all ?) : again, with enough PCs, someone is bound to get a natural 20.

Now, if there is a check where ONE PC succeeding means the group succeeds (often History, Nature, Investigation, Perception... But also things like breaking a door or picking a lock, if there's no strong time pressure) only the one with the BEST modifier gets to roll (or the ones that are proficient if it makes more sense).

If there is a check where ONE PC failing means he group fails (Stealth checks mostly) , only the one with the WORST modifier gets to roll. Meaning the Fighter has now bought a leather Armor he put on for infiltration mission, and people will cast guidance or enhance ability on him.

You're forgetting the group check rule. It doesn't matter that one PC fails. He does not ruin it for everyone. If at least half the party succeeds the whole party succeeds.


Personally, really dislike group rolls for stealth.
The way we do stealth is individual checks, advantage can be given to all other players by someone proficient, however, that person suffers disadvantage. It allows the person who invested in Stealth to have an impact on the success of the group without allowing the drunk Clanky McClumsy to somehow make it past the guards just because there were more people in the group.

Those in heavy armor and some medium armor have disadvantage, so they're getting a normal roll not advantage. They're likely aren't proficient so it's all about the d20 roll. Meanwhile stealthy guy is at disadvantage. It looks on paper you made it harder, but I'm not sure. It may depend on how many party members would have rolled with disadvantage if not for the rule. I'd still say you made it harder because you're requiring 100% success where as the normal rule only needs 50% success. It may even out since the non-armor wearing party members are rolling with advantage, again depending on the number of PCs in the party.

If anything you made Pass Without Trace more valuable, but it already was.

[False God]

One of the issues I see come up again and again, is that there is an interesting problems that circle each other.

......

I've seen various ideas for how to "fix" this.
1. You must be "trained" in a skill to have the ability to roll it
2. The player who asks to do it first gets to roll

I'm curious what the forumns thoughts and solutions to this issue are?

Give the other characters something to do. Have them solving other puzzles. Fighting off incoming monsters. Put a timer on the skill check so that the party has to make a choice now even if it's not the best one.

If there's no time limit and no danger, then just ask them how much time they want to spend, and if that's enough time to make the check, let them have it. Don't need to roll for everything.

I would NEVER take the approach of "the player who asks first gets to roll". First hand to the buzzer is for high-school nerd sports not D&D.

And yes, I often restrict rolls to "do you have proficiency?" because I liked 4E where it called it "trained" and it literally represented that you had specifically trained to be good at that skill. And I think making a character-creation choice to be good at one thing and not good at others should be rewarded.

[MoiMagnus]

Unless they split the party.

Stealth/recon is one of those cases where splitting the party makes more sense than staying together. Just make sure you have an exfiltration strategy.

The main reason some tables use group stealth is that they reject "split the party" as a possibility.
[That's often the cases for tables who like big and long combat encounters. Because in this situation, a fight with not all the PCs present is a big NO because that's likely some players just looking at other play for more than an hour. So no split the party.]
If your table reject the possibility of the stealthy ones going alone to do stealthy stuffs, you need way for stealthy PCs to still have a chance to succeed at stealth despite the presence of a loud paladin in heavy armour on his mount.

[Chronos]

In my first 5e party, the half-orc barbarian with an 8 Cha and no relevant proficiencies was the de facto party face, and not the 16 Cha paladin, the 18 Cha warlock, or the 20 Cha bard. It just happened that she always seemed to roll really high when it mattered, but whenever anyone else tried to do anything social, they just happened to roll low. Obviously there was some luck involved in that, because by the numbers, those other party members would have been expected to roll better than the barbarian, but the way the system is designed, it wasn't too hard to get that amount of luck. And it probably wasn't much fun for the players who had those other characters, to be built specifically to be good at certain things, and the to be consistently beat out by someone who wasn't even trying.

[Tanarii]

The main reason some tables use group stealth is that they reject "split the party" as a possibility.
[That's often the cases for tables who like big and long combat encounters. Because in this situation, a fight with not all the PCs present is a big NO because that's likely some players just looking at other play for more than an hour. So no split the party.]
If your table reject the possibility of the stealthy ones going alone to do stealthy stuffs, you need way for stealthy PCs to still have a chance to succeed at stealth despite the presence of a loud paladin in heavy armour on his mount.
Split the party doesn't mean when one side gets ina fight the other doesn't.

All it requires is the DM rule they are far enough apart that the second party doesn't give away the first. In a dungeon that could be as little at 30ft.

[MrStabby]

Split the party doesn't mean when one side gets ina fight the other doesn't.

All it requires is the DM rule they are far enough apart that the second party doesn't give away the first. In a dungeon that could be as little at 30ft.

Giving Away is a bit of a funny thing.

Party splits into Group A and Group B.

Group A is silent. Group B rolls a little lower on their stealth checks...

So antagonists hearing group B ring alarms, grab weapons, rouse monsters, cast buff spells and go and investigate... the impact on group A isn't really that different from them also having failed their stealth check.

[JackPhoenix]

The main reason some tables use group stealth is that they reject "split the party" as a possibility.
[That's often the cases for tables who like big and long combat encounters. Because in this situation, a fight with not all the PCs present is a big NO because that's likely some players just looking at other play for more than an hour. So no split the party.]
If your table reject the possibility of the stealthy ones going alone to do stealthy stuffs, you need way for stealthy PCs to still have a chance to succeed at stealth despite the presence of a loud paladin in heavy armour on his mount.

You can always let the player of absent character control few of the enemies.

[kyoryu]

I've stopped asking for everyone to roll for Stealth when I realized with 4 to 6 players, there's a very high likelihood that ONE of them is going to roll very poorly and make everyone lose.

It MIGHT be realistic... But it meant infiltration was ALWAYS a losing strategy for my PCs.

Burning Wheel avoided this for exactly this reason.

What it ended up doing is having a rule called "The Slowest and the Loudest". So what you did is have the *worst* person roll in a situation where "one person can blow it", and allow others to assist them as appropriate.

If just one person needs to succeed I'd invert that and have the best person roll, with assists from everyone else.

[Tanarii]

Giving Away is a bit of a funny thing.

Party splits into Group A and Group B.

Group A is silent. Group B rolls a little lower on their stealth checks...

So antagonists hearing group B ring alarms, grab weapons, rouse monsters, cast buff spells and go and investigate... the impact on group A isn't really that different from them also having failed their stealth check.
How is grpup B making checks? Theyre outside of detectable range?

My point being that outside of detectable range, if its hearing, can be as little as 60ft. So if your scouts are 30 to 60ft out in front they might be rules a separate party, if circumstances are right. Thats a distance thats easily dealt with if combat starts

[MrStabby]

How is grpup B making checks? Theyre outside of detectable range?

My point being that outside of detectable range, if its hearing, can be as little as 60ft. So if your scouts are 30 to 60ft out in front they might be rules a separate party, if circumstances are right. Thats a distance thats easily dealt with if combat starts

Well outside detectable range depends how much noise they are making. How might we determine how quiet they are? Maybe some kind of stealth check? If they are moving about then there is always a chance they hit a squeeky floorboard or brush against some bare stone with the hilt of a weapon. This doesn't mean they are heard - just that they might be.

To be honest if they were more than about 90ft away I wouldn't bother either, but if anyone calls out to try and pass information between groups it is going to be pretty obvious - and if a signal can be seen from one group to another then any hostile character in the area.

Either way, my point remains the same. One failed check for one group will often affect the entire party as if the whole party failed it. Be that one group never made a check or that it passed it is irrelevant. When an alarm is raised and guards start looking round, your quiet group who silently sat on their hands and never made a check can politely try and explain to the guards searching for the source of thenoices that they were not the intruders the guards were looking for, because this group is the really quiet set of intruders whereas they must have heard the loud ones. It might not work that well though.

[Zertryx]

Depending on the situation you can combat this in several ways. The biggest issue with "Skill dog piling" i see is when it comes to Knowledge checks. to combat this you could do 1 of 2 things that are very simple.

1: Roll for the player in secret, this helps prevent meta gaming (when players see what the ally just rolled) and it also helps create better immersion.

Example: Player 1 "What do i know about this clan"
Me as DM: Rolls in secret their appropriate knowledge (say they roll a 2+ thier skill and its like a 10 but Dc mighta been higher to know more)
Me as DM: "You know from old rumors that the clan use to worship a great god of thunder and since then has trained many mages in thunder magic" (I ommit the stuff they would have also known if they rolled higher)

What this does is creates this immersion that the players character only knows this and they might think that is all there is to know, they have 0 idea if they failed or succeeded but it feels like a success and prevents other players from jumping on "what do i know what do i know" (you still might get it but not as much)

2: you could also require that a player be proficient in the skill to even make the check if its something out of the ordinary that isn't common knowledge in your world (or have background story related to it)

You can even combine the 2 and make it so its rolled in secret / they have to have proficiency or background relation depending on the skill.

Now i wouldn't do this for EVERY Skill, id still make them roll their own Athletics / acrobatics for things.

You could even during scenes that require the players to make decisions, set a TURN ORDER and require them to one at a time describe what they do for their turn. (this helps control a situation as a DM but also can put on the pressure during time sensitive situations)

[Tanarii]

Well outside detectable range depends how much noise they are making. How might we determine how quiet they are? Maybe some kind of stealth check? If they are moving about then there is always a chance they hit a squeeky floorboard or brush against some bare stone with the hilt of a weapon. This doesn't mean they are heard - just that they might be.If the DM needs to determine a non-stealthy groups chance of detection, they can set it as an automatic failure, automatic success, or set a perception DC. Standard rules.


Either way, my point remains the same. One failed check for one group will often affect the entire party as if the whole party failed it. Be that one group never made a check or that it passed it is irrelevant. When an alarm is raised and guards start looking round, your quiet group who silently sat on their hands and never made a check can politely try and explain to the guards searching for the source of thenoices that they were not the intruders the guards were looking for, because this group is the really quiet set of intruders whereas they must have heard the loud ones. It might not work that well though.
Yes, but if your two scouts are the ones with good stealth bonuses, and the 5 guys behind are ready to rush up 60ft around the corner and slaughter the orc guards the moment the scouts start the ambush with surprise, or the scouts fall 60ft back after launching their attacks with Surprise, that's often a fine tactic.

Separate parties doesn't necessarily mean stealthy guys get to play while other sit on their tush twiddling thumbs,

[Pex]

Depending on the situation you can combat this in several ways. The biggest issue with "Skill dog piling" i see is when it comes to Knowledge checks. to combat this you could do 1 of 2 things that are very simple.

1: Roll for the player in secret, this helps prevent meta gaming (when players see what the ally just rolled) and it also helps create better immersion.

Example: Player 1 "What do i know about this clan"
Me as DM: Rolls in secret their appropriate knowledge (say they roll a 2+ thier skill and its like a 10 but Dc mighta been higher to know more)
Me as DM: "You know from old rumors that the clan use to worship a great god of thunder and since then has trained many mages in thunder magic" (I ommit the stuff they would have also known if they rolled higher)

What this does is creates this immersion that the players character only knows this and they might think that is all there is to know, they have 0 idea if they failed or succeeded but it feels like a success and prevents other players from jumping on "what do i know what do i know" (you still might get it but not as much)

2: you could also require that a player be proficient in the skill to even make the check if its something out of the ordinary that isn't common knowledge in your world (or have background story related to it)

You can even combine the 2 and make it so its rolled in secret / they have to have proficiency or background relation depending on the skill.

Now i wouldn't do this for EVERY Skill, id still make them roll their own Athletics / acrobatics for things.

You could even during scenes that require the players to make decisions, set a TURN ORDER and require them to one at a time describe what they do for their turn. (this helps control a situation as a DM but also can put on the pressure during time sensitive situations)

I grew up with this method where sometimes the DM rolls in secret. Sometimes even for saving throws when PCs don't know some spell or effect is used. I've done it myself in my early years of DMing. I'm not a fan of it anymore, and I've had players object to it. It comes down to player agency. Players want the feel of control of their own character. If they fail they fail, but rolling their own die puts the fate in their hand. I certainly understand a DM not caring for Player A rolls low so he asks another player to roll or another player volunteers he wants to roll. I'm willing to make that trade now, so the DM steps in to say the other player doesn't get to roll. Depending on the situation a DM could allow another player to roll. This is playstyle territory.

[Man_Over_Game]

I always liked the idea of having group checks be:

Highest bonus person rolls with Disadvantage (as they're helping those that are worse)
Lowest bonus person rolls with Advantage (as they're being helped)

If the result is determined with a single failure (a guard is trying to spot your Paladin, and so would spot the group), use the lower of the two rolls.
If the result is determined with a single success (everyone is trying to remember the demon's true name that he ripped from their minds, but only one person needs to remember), use the higher of the two rolls.

Now you only need two results for a group check.

[MadBear]

Only roll if there is a cost of failure.\

That is something I not only do, but also take to heart, but that's also a bit of the problem. If I have a DC10 check, and all 5 players roll, even without bonuses it's almost guaranteed that one of them will roll a 10 (somewhere in the 97% chance of making it), and at those odds, even with significant consequences it just doesn't even seem worthwhile to roll.

Now, even in your example, a problem becomes, no one would sit around 10 minutes while someone searched and then go "Ok, now that you got your 10 minutes of search time, it's my turn to search all alone for 10 minutes, and if I don't find anything in another 10 minutes Fred will search for 10".

Now in general, I'm also hearing about group checks which make sense to a degree, and I use them in some scenarios (group stealth for instance), but they don't always make sense.

I guess it's more a core problem I have with skill system in general. I do think that's one thing I'd change if I was in charge of whatever next generation of D&D replaces this one in the distant future.