Hi All,

I was listening to one of the Potelbat Podcast Episodes, and the GM mentioned Group Checks. Now I know of a skilled combined check and a non-skilled combined check, but I can't find any rules regarding Group Checks. The question came up in my session last night, specifically regarding stealth.

Any takers or suggestions?

My initial thoughts were to treat it as a combined check using the characters with highest Agility the highest Stealth for the skill as the base. Then those with ranks in the skill provide [ 1 x boost ] and those without [ 1 x setback ]. I also considered getting the people who were not those with the ability/skills used in the check to make Simple Stealth rolls with success adding a boost, and failure adding a setback. I ruled that too complicated.

Thoughts?

Well for things like perception the book suggests for NPCs you roll the best perception check and call it good. For PCs I would probably add a boost die or 2.

Hi All,

I was listening to one of the Potelbat Podcast Episodes, and the GM mentioned Group Checks. Now I know of a skilled combined check and a non-skilled combined check, but I can't find any rules regarding Group Checks. The question came up in my session last night, specifically regarding stealth.

Any takers or suggestions?

My initial thoughts were to treat it as a combined check using the player with highest Agility as the base and the character with the highest Stealth for the skill dice, and those will skill in it can provide a boost and those without, a setback. I also considered getting the people who were not those with the ability/skills used in the check to make Simple Stealth rolls with success adding a boost, and failure adding a boost. I ruled that too complicated.

Thoughts?

I've done something very similar in the past. Depending on the complexity of the task I've allowed higher skill ranks to add more boost dice while lower skill ranks or none add setback.

Hi All,

I was listening to one of the Potelbat Podcast Episodes, and the GM mentioned Group Checks. Now I know of a skilled combined check and a non-skilled combined check, but I can't find any rules regarding Group Checks. The question came up in my session last night, specifically regarding stealth.

Any takers or suggestions?

My initial thoughts were to treat it as a combined check using the player with highest Agility as the base and the character with the highest Stealth for the skill dice, and those will skill in it can provide a boost and those without, a setback. I also considered getting the people who were not those with the ability/skills used in the check to make Simple Stealth rolls with success adding a boost, and failure adding a boost. I ruled that too complicated.

Thoughts?

I would also treat it like a combined check. However for Stealth specifically, I would use the lowest Agility and Stealth skills for the dice pool, since the group is only as stealthy as the least stealthy PC. I might charitably add a boost die or two for someone more skilled helping out. Advantage would probably mean upgrades for the next stealth-related check, or a setback die to opposing Perception checks. I'd probably use Threat to slow them down, assuming the check was successful. Failure with threat is pretty obvious.

I would also treat it like a combined check. However for Stealth specifically, I would use the lowest Agility and Stealth skills for the dice pool, since the group is only as stealthy as the least stealthy PC. I might charitably add a boost die or two for someone more skilled helping out. Advantage would probably mean upgrades for the next stealth-related check, or a setback die to opposing Perception checks. I'd probably use Threat to slow them down, assuming the check was successful. Failure with threat is pretty obvious.

I've done similar things. For two opposing groups, it's the best Perception for the searchers and the worst Stealth for the hiders.

Understanding that it is a narrative game (not using a tactical map like versions of d&d), I would still think that there is a "point man." I would allow the lead character in the stack to make the opposed check and apply boost or setback depending on the abilities of the rest of the group.

Going with the lowest scores makes sense but diminishes stealth for those that pride themselves on getting good at it. So instead of a bumbling group of scooby-doo detectives, imagine the guy who sneaks up to a corner, gets eyes on the guards, and motions his team past in a coordinated effort to sneak past the enemy.

Going with the lowest scores makes sense but diminishes stealth for those that pride themselves on getting good at it. So instead of a bumbling group of scooby-doo detectives, imagine the guy who sneaks up to a corner, gets eyes on the guards, and motions his team past in a coordinated effort to sneak past the enemy.

That's fine for me also. But that would have required my player saying, "You guys stay back, I'm going to sneak ahead and take a look - wait for my signal", versus just a group leader saying, "Let's sneak past them" and everyone nodding. The first requires just the Stealth roll of the scout, the second the lowest of the group. That first roll would never be a "group" roll that we're discussing above (imho).

I'm with Domingo - I use these as an opportunity for the stealth experts to shine and let their roll work for the group. In-game I treat it as the stealth expert is leading the way and giving the others direction on being stealthy. If there's a particular reason it doesn't make sense (e.g. the group didn't have time to discuss first, someone in the group is *particularly* poor at Stealth) then I'll toss in setback dice on the roll (since there's a number of talents that counteract setback dice, I'm always looking for opportunities to throw them into die pools).

I'd do it as the person with the lowest base agility with the ranks in stealth from the most skilled person. To represent the idea of the best player assisting the worst player.

I tend to look at what is being done and the assign the best or worst of the players pools. If the players are climbing a cliff then perhaps the best goes up and throws a rope down for the others and helps them. If the party is sneaking past a guard, as it is most likely the worst sneak will get caught he can roll.

Beyond that there are rules for both skilled and unskilled assistance, so sometimes I'll left the player narrating the action of their character roll, even where he isn't the best choice and allow him to get some extra dice based on the help he gets.

For group checks, I've done a couple things. For searching a room where all the PCs are doing it and there is a lot of time, I'll grant a roll to the best person in the party with an assist for each other PC that is also searching.

For stuff like stealth, I've been starting to implement the D&D5e group check, which is to have everyone in the group roll the check and if at least half the group passes then the whole group passes. The thought is that the people who do well will help out the people who fail, so those failures don't impact the net result. I haven't quite figured out what to do with all of the extra advantages/threat that can be rolled this way. I've just been looking at those and winging it with descriptions.

I also treat it the way Domingo does, and I don't worry about applying extra Setbacks or anything just because they're a group.

I might add a Setback if they're sneaking through someplace that's hard to sneak through, just as I would if the single stealthy player was sneaking through an area that's hard to sneak through, but generally I just have one player make a Stealth check and describe it as the player leading the others.

Depending on the situation, I go back and forth between Jamwes suggestion of borrowing the group check rule from 5E and just adding all of the players' rolls together and narrating the net result.

Depending on the situation, I go back and forth between Jamwes suggestion of borrowing the group check rule from 5E and just adding all of the players' rolls together and narrating the net result.

This got me thinking. The idea of adding ALL of the green/yellows from EACH group member to ALL of the purples (difficulty x number of members) does give you a net average result for your group. This would also factor in the experts helping out the novices. But imagine the massive die pool for even a group of 3, let alone a group of 6 sneaking past the guard post. That's a chore to sort each time you do that. How to do it more simply?

Has anyone tried averaging the stats of the group members? For the Stealth check example it would typically be Stealth and Agility from each group member. A GM could quickly glance at character sheets and come up with a group average for things like Stealth. Always round up or down? Example (rounding up): Four members with Stealth 0,0,1,1 get a Stealth of 1. Agility of 2, 3, 4, 2 gets a 3. The good dice for the group thus comes to 2 Greens and 1 Yellow.

Note that this quick averaging would only be used for tasks where having more help is not a benefit. Sneaking past guards would use this. A group beating down a door would use the cooperative RAW since more is better.

The downside to that is that it will produce too many triumphs and despairs. The group check needs one dice pool for the group. It's the whole KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle.

The way I'll probably run it will be that the dice pool uses the worst agility, the best stealth and if any of the additional characters have ranks in stealth, they can add a boost dice per person.

The downside to that is that it will produce too many triumphs and despairs. The group check needs one dice pool for the group. It's the whole KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle.

How so? In my example only 2 Greens and a Yellow were rolled. I was using the average of the group's stats and not rolling a massive die pool (the reason for the average). Or were you referring to Shadeleader's post?

I also like the use highest skill plus lowest characteristic option (it's simple). I was throwing this group average option out there for those that liked the idea of throwing all of the dice together.

The downside to that is that it will produce too many triumphs and despairs. The group check needs one dice pool for the group. It's the whole KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle.

The way I'll probably run it will be that the dice pool uses the worst agility, the best stealth and if any of the additional characters have ranks in stealth, they can add a boost dice per person.

I've not had a problem with Triumphs and Despairs yet, but my table's playing with ~300XP characters right now. I suppose that if it does crop up, I can house rule that in this instance only, they cancel each other out.

As for the number of dice, I like giving everyone at the table the agency of participating in the roll. And who doesn't love rolling a big handful of dice?

On 3/3/2015 at 0:19 AM, Sturn said:

I also like the use highest skill plus lowest characteristic option (it's simple). I was throwing this group average option out there for those that liked the idea of throwing all of the dice together.

Anyone else using this option? For the Stealth checks based on Agility I cant decide between the worst PC rolling and the quoted option. The idea behind the group check is that all should contribute somehow and letting the worst PC rolling is just the opposite like letting the best PC to do the job. In case of sneaking I dont find it plausible.

Do you allow all the PCs to use their talents for the applicable group skill check?

For group checks like stealth, I have every player roll stealth against the stated difficulty, but then the whole table totals the rolls, and the party needs a number of successes equal to the number of players. Thus the Stealth specialist gets 4 successes on 3 advantages, and cancels out the tank who nets 2 fails and a threat (net roll 2 success, 2 advantage). I figure the big stealth guy scouts ahead, waits to signal everyone ahead when its clear, etc. It works out well.

6 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

For group checks like stealth, I have every player roll stealth against the stated difficulty, but then the whole table totals the rolls, and the party needs a number of successes equal to the number of players. Thus the Stealth specialist gets 4 successes on 3 advantages, and cancels out the tank who nets 2 fails and a threat (net roll 2 success, 2 advantage). I figure the big stealth guy scouts ahead, waits to signal everyone ahead when its clear, etc. It works out well.

Interesting idea, however, I want to decrease the number of triumphs and despairs. With each PC rolling against skilled guards, the despair probability is highter than with a group check.

I like the idea of using highest skill lowest ability or highest ability lowest skill, whatever is better. I also like the idea of the best and worst both rolling... Perhaps take only the advantages from one roll and disadvantages from the other. If you were to roll everyone's you could always use orokos, and in that case yeah advantages and such should cancel out disadvantages...