Recently I was wondering how the stealth rules work when a group tries to be stealthy. For me, in the vanilla rules the are two possible choices, perform an invidual check for each member of the group against the passive perception of whoever can detect them vs performing a group check and see if more than half of the group has more stealth than their foes passive perception.
I really struggle with this two options. The individual checks option allow you to represent how one person can screw all the group stealth while the group check option allow you to represent that proficient members of the group can cover the mistakes of incapable ones. In the other hand, group checks can allow a character in an noisy armor that barely let's him move be undetected thanks to it's companions while indiviaul checks make stealth almost impossible with large groups (a group of 15 monsters for example) as it's just to easy that one of the screws with some many stealth checks (one by monster).
The correct way for the DM to run the check is the way that the group will enjoy. If you're running a table where the players are competitive against one another, each of them tries to be fully self-sufficient and well-rounded, and they enjoy the sort of stories that emerge when one player sabotages the rest of the group... by all means, individual checks. But if you don't want to punish the group for having a cleric in their group, don't want to make the rogue feel useless for having specialized in stealth but consented to travel with the group instead of splitting the party constantly, and don't want to bog the table down with asking for more rolls that provide increased chances of group failure in a way that rarely will balanced by asking for more rolls that provide increased chances of group success... go with group stealth checks.
Individual check, but only if the PCs that are doing the check are 60ft ahead of the rest of the party. If the entire party enters together, everyone rolls. If any ONE PC misses their check, no surprise and no stealth.
This allows heavy armor wearers to stick back and let the rogues do their things, with the caveat that if something goes wrong, they start 60ft back.
Both individual and group checks are supported by RAW, so it really is just whichever you think is more appropriate for the given situation.
Personally, I think group checks are usually the more appropriate option in general (more than half of group individually succeeds = group succeeds) as nobody enjoys being the reason an otherwise stealth-heavy party can't do the things they've invested in for their characters. It encourages more depth in RP as well. If the party Rogue is spending time to work with the party Paladin on adjusting their armor to be less squeeky, that's both a believable rationale for mitigating disadvantage, and a great opportunity to promote RP between those characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's an interesenting take for the players, forcing them to avoid using heavy armor in stealth but... Still for me the problem is large groups. If you setup an ambush with 15 monsters (wich isn't very crazy in my opinion) they are almost guantereed to have a 1 in stealth, wich, in 99% of the cases, will mean the ambush is detected. That doesn't also feel right for me, as it's clear that even an army could perform an ambush from very close distance in the ideal conditions.
Your explanation here on how to help each individual perform a Stealth Check, would be just as effective of an explanation of why Group Stealth Checks make sense.
IMO, group check for overland stealth, when the party is traveling and generally trying to avoid entanglements. Individual check when the party is trying to sneak past guards or the like. This lines up nicely with the times when pass without trace is reasonably usable.
The problem I have with individual checks is that I feel it can break role-playing and character concepts as much, if not worse than group checks. I play both a physically weak and non dexterous Cleric as well as a Plate wearing Fighter in the same game. Yeah, they could have Mithral Armor and Boots of Elvenkind but, must they? Is that realistic? If you enforce individual rolls, people who are bad at a skill will just do nothing and wait like 30mins(or way more) while the Stealth characters run all over the map, dallying here and there. Pretty boring, I can tell you from personal experience. With a small amount of suspension of disbelief, Group rolls can keep all members of the party active during a game sequence.
Lastly, seems like every time we send in a Stealthy to scout or drop an enemy, despite the fact they are supposed to be good at Stealth, they raise the alarm for the whole party anyway. Might as well get busted as a group because, when you go way off ahead alone, you have to survive several turns before your group can reinforce you. ; P
The issue with individual checks is that someone is gonna roll badly, which means any remotely challenging target will result in failure. You can of course just set the DC really low, but then the specialist auto-succeeds. This is not to say that's unrealistic, large groups really aren't very stealthy, but it doesn't do anything about the preferred option being the sneaky scout going ahead.
Both individual and group checks are supported by RAW, so it really is just whichever you think is more appropriate for the given situation.
Personally, I think group checks are usually the more appropriate option in general (more than half of group individually succeeds = group succeeds) as nobody enjoys being the reason an otherwise stealth-heavy party can't do the things they've invested in for their characters. It encourages more depth in RP as well. If the party Rogue is spending time to work with the party Paladin on adjusting their armor to be less squeeky, that's both a believable rationale for mitigating disadvantage, and a great opportunity to promote RP between those characters.
Although indeed both are supported by RAW, I have the complete other perspective from you, I never use group checks, as for me:
[snip]
Just gonna point out that you don't think helping another character is plausible, or that it promotes RP. You then proceed to talk about doing the exact same thing for an NPC group. :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Just to defend Lyxen a little, the example he gave with helping stealth was for hiding, not for moving. A large group could send a scout ahead, verify that no one is in the desired ambush hiding spots, move there not so quietly, then hide as a group.
I think this is a DM's call every time that needs to be determined based on how well you want an entire party sneaking past things in your game. D&D is not designed for determining success or failure for large groups in general, so using the example of a troop moving under the stealth of night is not a good example since it not what the game engine is trying to emulate.
Yeah, not making an attack on anyone; just pointing out the irony. I think everyone can use that on Mondays. :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi guys.
Recently I was wondering how the stealth rules work when a group tries to be stealthy. For me, in the vanilla rules the are two possible choices, perform an invidual check for each member of the group against the passive perception of whoever can detect them vs performing a group check and see if more than half of the group has more stealth than their foes passive perception.
I really struggle with this two options. The individual checks option allow you to represent how one person can screw all the group stealth while the group check option allow you to represent that proficient members of the group can cover the mistakes of incapable ones. In the other hand, group checks can allow a character in an noisy armor that barely let's him move be undetected thanks to it's companions while indiviaul checks make stealth almost impossible with large groups (a group of 15 monsters for example) as it's just to easy that one of the screws with some many stealth checks (one by monster).
The correct way for the DM to run the check is the way that the group will enjoy. If you're running a table where the players are competitive against one another, each of them tries to be fully self-sufficient and well-rounded, and they enjoy the sort of stories that emerge when one player sabotages the rest of the group... by all means, individual checks. But if you don't want to punish the group for having a cleric in their group, don't want to make the rogue feel useless for having specialized in stealth but consented to travel with the group instead of splitting the party constantly, and don't want to bog the table down with asking for more rolls that provide increased chances of group failure in a way that rarely will balanced by asking for more rolls that provide increased chances of group success... go with group stealth checks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I do individual checks, with a catch:
Individual check, but only if the PCs that are doing the check are 60ft ahead of the rest of the party. If the entire party enters together, everyone rolls. If any ONE PC misses their check, no surprise and no stealth.
This allows heavy armor wearers to stick back and let the rogues do their things, with the caveat that if something goes wrong, they start 60ft back.
Both individual and group checks are supported by RAW, so it really is just whichever you think is more appropriate for the given situation.
Personally, I think group checks are usually the more appropriate option in general (more than half of group individually succeeds = group succeeds) as nobody enjoys being the reason an otherwise stealth-heavy party can't do the things they've invested in for their characters. It encourages more depth in RP as well. If the party Rogue is spending time to work with the party Paladin on adjusting their armor to be less squeeky, that's both a believable rationale for mitigating disadvantage, and a great opportunity to promote RP between those characters.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
When in doubt. Think of why “pass without a trace” exists. And what it means to you.
Watch me on twitch
I don't think this clarifies anything. You could cast this spell and STILL decide to roll Stealth as a Group Check.
It's an interesenting take for the players, forcing them to avoid using heavy armor in stealth but...
Still for me the problem is large groups. If you setup an ambush with 15 monsters (wich isn't very crazy in my opinion) they are almost guantereed to have a 1 in stealth, wich, in 99% of the cases, will mean the ambush is detected. That doesn't also feel right for me, as it's clear that even an army could perform an ambush from very close distance in the ideal conditions.
Your explanation here on how to help each individual perform a Stealth Check, would be just as effective of an explanation of why Group Stealth Checks make sense.
IMO, group check for overland stealth, when the party is traveling and generally trying to avoid entanglements. Individual check when the party is trying to sneak past guards or the like. This lines up nicely with the times when pass without trace is reasonably usable.
The problem I have with individual checks is that I feel it can break role-playing and character concepts as much, if not worse than group checks. I play both a physically weak and non dexterous Cleric as well as a Plate wearing Fighter in the same game. Yeah, they could have Mithral Armor and Boots of Elvenkind but, must they? Is that realistic? If you enforce individual rolls, people who are bad at a skill will just do nothing and wait like 30mins(or way more) while the Stealth characters run all over the map, dallying here and there. Pretty boring, I can tell you from personal experience. With a small amount of suspension of disbelief, Group rolls can keep all members of the party active during a game sequence.
Lastly, seems like every time we send in a Stealthy to scout or drop an enemy, despite the fact they are supposed to be good at Stealth, they raise the alarm for the whole party anyway. Might as well get busted as a group because, when you go way off ahead alone, you have to survive several turns before your group can reinforce you. ; P
The issue with individual checks is that someone is gonna roll badly, which means any remotely challenging target will result in failure. You can of course just set the DC really low, but then the specialist auto-succeeds. This is not to say that's unrealistic, large groups really aren't very stealthy, but it doesn't do anything about the preferred option being the sneaky scout going ahead.
Just gonna point out that you don't think helping another character is plausible, or that it promotes RP. You then proceed to talk about doing the exact same thing for an NPC group. :P
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Just to defend Lyxen a little, the example he gave with helping stealth was for hiding, not for moving. A large group could send a scout ahead, verify that no one is in the desired ambush hiding spots, move there not so quietly, then hide as a group.
I think this is a DM's call every time that needs to be determined based on how well you want an entire party sneaking past things in your game. D&D is not designed for determining success or failure for large groups in general, so using the example of a troop moving under the stealth of night is not a good example since it not what the game engine is trying to emulate.
Yeah, not making an attack on anyone; just pointing out the irony. I think everyone can use that on Mondays. :P
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.