I have been toying with the idea of having the party make just one roll for some ability checks, rather than each character getting an individual roll. The party roll would give the base number for the D20 and then each individual character would add on their proficiencies etc. If some of them had advantages/disadvantages, then they would individually get to roll the second D20.
The reason for this is primarily the big randomness of the a d20 roll and the relatively small bonuses characters get, can lead to odd situations where, for example, in a history check roll, the sage type character rolls badly and knows nothing, while the dumbest character in the party gets a success. This just seems to undermine the character build choices that the players have made.
When you have one roll for the party, then those who are better will always get better results than those who are worse. Sometimes all with fail, sometimes all will succeed, but when some succeed and some fail, it is those who have built their characters to get bonuses for those types of actions that are succeeding. This seems a better result.
However, by cutting down the roll to one d20 party roll, it will make it harder to achieve positive results. E.g. if a party of six are searching for a secret door and each gets to roll a D20, then the chances of at least one of them getting a succees is much higher than if there is only one D20 party roll.
Exactly what checks would be done this way i am still unsure, and the decision may be one based on what seems best in any particular situation.
The driving force is really being generated by which party memebers succeed or fail in checks, which is driven more by the large randomness of a D20 rather than their proficiencies. I noticed this quite strongly when watching some of Aquisition Incorporated PAX vids and podcasts, where you really notice that many times it is the thick Binwin making the int checks etc, rather than the actual smart characters etc. Thoughts?
What would be good is some feedback on the idea.
Personally, I'd say let them roll once and add all their bonuses for stuff that they can reasonably work together on one target for. For example, pushing over a statue, holding a rope to prevent the bridge from collapsing while the cleric is still trying to get across, etc. Perhaps allow each additional person to only add a +1 to the best character's modifier, if their full bonuses seems a little unreasonable.
One subjects where only a single person could work reasonably, I'd say they have to roll seperately. Four people searching a hallway for traps aren't each going to be searching the entire hallway - Their checks should only apply to the portion of the hall that they're searching. If each is going to search the ENTIRE hallway, I'd make it take longer and longer for each person searching, as they get in each other's way, and have to wait for other party members to move on to continue the search.
Or, you could simply rule that the barbarian doesn't have any reason to know who the fourth grand priest of Pelor was, and either say 'Sorry, you can't roll' or have him roll with Disadvantage. The Sage with both History and Religion skills, however, should certainly be rolling with advantage. The Cleric of Pelor? He should probably just know that, without a roll necessary.
Iorwerth wrote:
I really like the way the rules are written in this area - I think they are elegant, give everyone a chance and solve some of the arguments and contortions that people have gotten into with group check situations over the years.
If you are worried about someone with a low modifier rolling better than somone trained in a skill then you have at least two choices:
1. Go with it. Things like this happen sometimes even in real life. In D&D games they are often memorable and fun. On average the trained PC will still shine in her chosen area more than the low-skilled one.
2. In the starter set adventure, some checks like history are passed automatically by a PC who is trained in the requisite skill. you could do this or rule that only a Pc trained in that skill can attempt it eg to recall the knowledge if it is very specialised.
What about when using stealth? Seems this is not a Working Together type check, but could this be a group check? if it could, what about active searching for them etc?
Yes, Dexterity (Stealth) could be a Group Check depending on the circumstances, but not for determining surprise (page 60) or hiding (page 60). The rules for that call for individual checks so far as I can tell. As a result, when a Group Check might be called for using Stealth will probably be few and far between since surprise and hiding are the most common actions that will trigger a DM's call for such a check.
Group Stealth Checks...
Here's one way to envison the process. Instead of actually having the Rogue or Ranger (usually the stealth experts) separate from the party to avoid the clanking dex 8 paladin giving everything away..
Imagine that the 'sneaker' is going ahead to check out the path (without actually moving away from the group). That PC is waiting for the opportune moment for the party to move up without being spotted. Maybe he threw a rock to distract the enemy... whatever.
I've always struggled with this myself.
With the situation with the Sage and Fighter... maybe the fighter had a mentor that used to tell stories about just that particular historical or arcane tidbit... so he knows a little piece of trivia that the Sage never came across.
In terms of searching or perception... I try to make a player actually think of something rather than just roll for success. I DM'd an encounter last week... a group of goblins was attacking a wagon. It was odd because the gobins in that area were not hostile. The fighter said he was looking at the arrows that the goblins were using... that was a clue situation I had envisioned... the arrows had markings that were not used by the local tribe... so the fighter knew that these goblins had come from somewhere else. After the fight, the players were going to search the wagon to find out what the goblins were after. There was a pouch hidden under the front seat. The players said they were searching the driver - who was wounded and unconscious and the cargo... but they never said they were searching up front by the driver's seat. So in spite of a decent roll, they never found the pouch.
If I can make a situation run more on actual player interaction and less on mechanical rolls... I try to do so.
The Lost Mines of Phandelver has the monsters making group stealth checks to determine if they surprise the party. Group stealth makes it much more likely for surprise to happen. Individual stealth almost guarantees someone will be spotted. Note also that passive perception is essentially a group check.
I see little reason not to allow the PCs the same choice. Let the party make a single stealth check if they want to. It's more likely that the whole party succeeds that way, but it's also more likely that the whole party fails. If you make individual checks it is more likely that at least one member succeeds, but very unlikely that the entire party will succeed. You can still allow characters to split off from the party and make their own checks if that would be advantageous in the situation.
The same principle can apply to group checks in other situations. How do you want the results to end up? Sounds like you already have a grasp on the consequences of group vs. individual checks, and I don't think there is really a wrong way to do it here.
In group checks, don't all of the character's make the check, but if half or over succeed, then all are considered to succeed? Don't have my PHB to check at the moment. i.e. everyone rolls, rather than the party rolling once. This later single party roll would be a Working together type roll I think, which just gives advantage on the sinlge roll.
Iorwerth wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
iserith wrote:
It could be argued that the "Round Down" rule (page 4) applies here. Since at least half the party needs to succeed on a group check, that'd be 2 in a party of 5. Of course, now that means odd numbered groups benefit more. So I dunno... 