This is why my group takes the median result on a group check. That 20 should be able to make up for the 1, and the final result is a 17 (rounding down).
See, I don’t think that 20 does make up for that 1, any more than your 20 on an attack roll lets me roll damage on my 1.
The party isn’t some cohesive, singular unit that catches or avoids attention based on some average of the total behaviour. It’s instead a cloud of actors that are only as strong as its weakest member.
Like, if they were 4 kids sneaking cookies from the cookie jar, and the youngest knocked the jar off the counter, it really doesn’t matter how quiet the other 3 were, the shattering of the jar is going to get them all caught.
But that attack roll isn’t a group attack. This is a group check. You are testing the skill of the group, and part of being stealthy as a group means making sure nobody else makes any noise as well. The group supports each other.
Those kids are going to be shushing, watching, keeping everything stable so it doesn’t wobble… Yeah, the 20 is doing well enough to catch the jar.
If a single success is not a success, a single failure should not be a failure.
This is also sorta how RAW works (in DnD 5e), to quote the PHB:
Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t.
To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails.
Taking the median roughly has the same effect, it only has a chance to differ if the number of successes and the number of failures are tied.
D&D 5e was already trash. 2024 is stupid. If you choose to use their system, for whatever reason, ignore anything they say that makes for a bad experience. I can’t see a good argument why this shouldn’t work this way.
So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue “covers for” a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus? Keep in mind that that “half must succeed” rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone, assuming that success and failure are possible outcomes for both participants. Even if it’s impossible for the other to succeed the rogue is at worst unimpeded.
Keep in mind that that “half must succeed” rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone…
That would depend on the DC. The rogue very well could have a 100% chance to succeed alone.
So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue “covers for” a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus?
The rogue would be guiding them, keeping watch for enemies, watching out for hazards, etc. Maybe they’d help the Paladin pad their armor to make it more quite, or give them something to cover it up with so it isn’t shiny. Sneaking encompasses the whole range of stealthy actions, including preparation and movement, most of which can be assisted.
Yes, rogue could have a 100% chance of success. Obviously their chance isn’t going to get any better than that, seems like an odd thing to bring up as a counter point though.
As for your suggested explanations for the assistance, none of that lines up with it being at worst non-impactful to do a paired group check. The rogue is completely unimpeded by helping the paladin, and in situations where their chance isn’t already 100% they might even have a better chance, since any possibility for success from the paladin could potentially cover a failure from the rogue. If the rogue only fails on a 3 or less and the paladin needs a 19, that raises the success rate from 85% alone to 86.5% with the paladin tagging along.
Even it was a group comprised entirely of equally skilled rogues I don’t think it makes sense to make them more stealthy in groups, which is what this rule does, for the simple fact that larger groups of people are enormously easier to spot.
If the simple fact that literally any pairing of two people is more stealthy then either of them alone isn’t enough reason to not use this rule for stealth then I don’t know what is.
That or just count the passes vs the fails. I think of it like the 1 was just about to step on something noisy, or round a corner without taking a peek just as a guard walks by, but the 20 grabs them by the collar and pulls the back in the nick of time
Think about the following situation: You approach the guard tower stealthily. They are on watch so the DC is 15. Your party of 5 rolls a 13, two 14s, a 19 and a 24. Does the group make the check? What about a 2, a 3, two 15s and a 16? Which party is stealthier?
Oh, sure, if there’s something extra that makes sense to give them for a really good set of rolls then the former party is much more deserving of it. If it’s just a pass/fail “they saw you or they didn’t” deal then it doesn’t matter
This is why my group takes the median result on a group check. That 20 should be able to make up for the 1, and the final result is a 17 (rounding down).
Sometimes just gotta let random shit happen though.
If you roll 4 dices one is bound to be low. If you only take the floor the DC must be very low.
See, I don’t think that 20 does make up for that 1, any more than your 20 on an attack roll lets me roll damage on my 1.
The party isn’t some cohesive, singular unit that catches or avoids attention based on some average of the total behaviour. It’s instead a cloud of actors that are only as strong as its weakest member.
Like, if they were 4 kids sneaking cookies from the cookie jar, and the youngest knocked the jar off the counter, it really doesn’t matter how quiet the other 3 were, the shattering of the jar is going to get them all caught.
But that attack roll isn’t a group attack. This is a group check. You are testing the skill of the group, and part of being stealthy as a group means making sure nobody else makes any noise as well. The group supports each other.
Those kids are going to be shushing, watching, keeping everything stable so it doesn’t wobble… Yeah, the 20 is doing well enough to catch the jar.
If a single success is not a success, a single failure should not be a failure.
This is also sorta how RAW works (in DnD 5e), to quote the PHB:
Taking the median roughly has the same effect, it only has a chance to differ if the number of successes and the number of failures are tied.
The 2024 rules specifically clarify that stealth is not typically a suitable skill to be rolled in such a way.
D&D 5e was already trash. 2024 is stupid. If you choose to use their system, for whatever reason, ignore anything they say that makes for a bad experience. I can’t see a good argument why this shouldn’t work this way.
So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue “covers for” a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus? Keep in mind that that “half must succeed” rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone, assuming that success and failure are possible outcomes for both participants. Even if it’s impossible for the other to succeed the rogue is at worst unimpeded.
That would depend on the DC. The rogue very well could have a 100% chance to succeed alone.
The rogue would be guiding them, keeping watch for enemies, watching out for hazards, etc. Maybe they’d help the Paladin pad their armor to make it more quite, or give them something to cover it up with so it isn’t shiny. Sneaking encompasses the whole range of stealthy actions, including preparation and movement, most of which can be assisted.
Yes, rogue could have a 100% chance of success. Obviously their chance isn’t going to get any better than that, seems like an odd thing to bring up as a counter point though.
As for your suggested explanations for the assistance, none of that lines up with it being at worst non-impactful to do a paired group check. The rogue is completely unimpeded by helping the paladin, and in situations where their chance isn’t already 100% they might even have a better chance, since any possibility for success from the paladin could potentially cover a failure from the rogue. If the rogue only fails on a 3 or less and the paladin needs a 19, that raises the success rate from 85% alone to 86.5% with the paladin tagging along.
Even it was a group comprised entirely of equally skilled rogues I don’t think it makes sense to make them more stealthy in groups, which is what this rule does, for the simple fact that larger groups of people are enormously easier to spot.
If the simple fact that literally any pairing of two people is more stealthy then either of them alone isn’t enough reason to not use this rule for stealth then I don’t know what is.
That or just count the passes vs the fails. I think of it like the 1 was just about to step on something noisy, or round a corner without taking a peek just as a guard walks by, but the 20 grabs them by the collar and pulls the back in the nick of time
Think about the following situation: You approach the guard tower stealthily. They are on watch so the DC is 15. Your party of 5 rolls a 13, two 14s, a 19 and a 24. Does the group make the check? What about a 2, a 3, two 15s and a 16? Which party is stealthier?
Oh, sure, if there’s something extra that makes sense to give them for a really good set of rolls then the former party is much more deserving of it. If it’s just a pass/fail “they saw you or they didn’t” deal then it doesn’t matter
Sorry but (1+17+18±20)/4=14
That’s a mean, not a median
deleted by creator