This is a thought spawned from the active and passive checks thread, but I didn't want to derail it further. I'm uncomfortable with group checks, at least in some situations. Let's review briefly the system and its effects. I won't do the maths since I'm unfamiliar with combining optional success with different chances of success (if someone wants to teach me, I'm open to it and will redo the explanation with the correct stats!). This will be for a perception check.
Let's look at a party with a high level Druid (so obviously a Wisdom focus), Ranger (semi focus), plus a Wizard, a Fighter and a Barbarian (dump stat). They have a +10, +5, 0s for the rest respectively. I'll be assuming that the party gets to decide who does the check, and they choose the highest mod available.
1 person allowed - they have the Druid go. If he passes, they pass, if he fails, they fail
2 people check - Druid and Ranger. This is effectively a minor advantage. Two rolls, if one passes, they pass the check. There is no downside, while the Ranger isn't as good as the Druid, it's still overall beneficial. They should have the second person join in.
3 people check - Druid, Ranger and Wizard. You're adding one more to the threshold for success, while adding only one roll to the pot. This means that the Wizard can at best be neutral. If the Wizard succeeds, then either the Ranger or The Druid must succeed to pass the check. That condition was true without the Wizard. However, if the Wizard fails, both the Druid and the Ranger must succeed to pass - the Wizard has made things worse. It's best if the third person stays out of it. They can't contribute positively to this scenario.
4 people check - Druid, Ranger, Wizard and Fighter. Similar to the 1->2 people scenario, you're not increasing the threshold but still adding dice to the pot, so it's a no brainer uf the choice is between 3 or 4 people. However, since the mods have dropped (as you'd expect by this point in the pecking order), the odds are worse than if you just did two people. I suspect the Druid would do better by himself, although I'm unsure.of how to do the maths to prove it.
5 people check - Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Fighter and Barbarian. The worst choice. You have upped the threshold for success to 3, but only added one die to the pot. Worse, the ones you've added have no mods.
My problem is that with things like perception, more eyes and ears are better and are an extra help. However, we see that at times they are objectively a hindrance, and the odds of success generally drop as more people are added. In situations like avoiding detection, that makes sense. The more people you have, the harder to keep quiet it is. With this, it makes no sense that having an extra set of eyes makes things worse.
So, how do you handle things like perception checks when there are a group of people in the party? Do you just give advantage and ignore the additional characters? Or do you do something else?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So let's start off with a few things from my vantage point to understand where I'm coming from:
Not all checks are equal, not all participants will have the same DCs or the same type of roll within that same check, and finally in a group check, even though everyone is participating(or trying to participate) there are instances where not everyone is rolling, and in the end a group check doesn't have to have half+ succeed to have a success.
As always, the end result is the DM needing to decide who should roll based on circumstances.
Party goes into an alchemy lab and is trying to find rare ingredients. DM needs to know a few things. Is the party splitting up the work and searching different parts? If so, now we're in single check territory. Less time, but potentially missed things. If they want the best person for the job to search everything, takes more time but ultimately yields a likely better result. If they're sending two people in to work as a team, then whoever initiated the request OR whoever I felt character wise was trying to make it a point to do this gets to roll with advantage, not always the highest bonus. For my table for the sake of time, we talk about a check being a one and done thing and unless you have some ability that lets you alter/reroll etc, then thats it.
If we're in the wild and there is an ambush for instance. Passive perceptions to determine hiding, those characters automatically succeed. The rest of the party I might ask for a perception check, and if the remainder get it? Party as a whole is not surprised. If they don't, then only those with passives higher than the stealth of the enemy. Depending on skills, alert level of the party I might have different DCs. The Fighter who has been leading the way with Survival is obviously focused on making sure the party is safe, but the Bard who potentially has a higher bonus is walking while playing an instrument? They don't get to roll, they're distracted.
I agree with the spirit of your post, that mechnically and just intrinstically with how math works, at a certain point more people just equals failure. The reality to your point is that isn't how it works. If I put the best character to track a person, they'll probably get it. If I put 15 subpar characters to track something, ONE of them should get it, but mathmatically with how a group check is defined in the PHB as being cut and dry "Its half+ or nothing", and I don't like that.
A Group Check, as its name implies, is a check made by the entire group, not by only a portion of it. If 50% succeed, the group succeed, otherwise it fails. It's a mechanic to determine the outcome of a task for the party rather than some character.
I rarely use it, and almost never does for Stealth checks when the party hides as Surprise is handled by characters.
Group Checks: 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.
Group checks rarely come up in games, the proper use is usually a task that needs to succeed and giving as many players an opportunity as possible.
This is one of those things that's best discussed with your table rather than the public though, everybody has a different opinion about checks, and negotiating with your table is what matters. Coming to a consensus with the internet and telling your table that's what they should do is nonsense.
If it was up to me there'd be no critical skill effects and bard could break ones too succeed, but if your table wants critical skills, do your table.
It's missing the point of group check. Group check are never used for individual success but group one. If only 1 party member can succeed the check it's not a group check since a group check succeed when half the party succeed, not when a single one does. (unless your party has only 2 creatures)
You'd use a group check if you need to know whether the whole group notices something. But that basically never comes up -- if one person notices, it's usually enough. So group checks aren't usually appropriate for Perception.
Edit: In a dungeon crawling context, you would just check the passive Perception of the person in front, to see if they notice traps or hidden monsters as they enter a room. Then, after that, anyone wishing to investigate the room could make Investigation checks with the understanding that certain things require interaction -- like opening a drawer or pushing aside a curtain. I would usually have their Investigation checks cover noticing any traps involved with those interactions, if said traps could conceivably be noticed without triggering them.
This is a thought spawned from the active and passive checks thread, but I didn't want to derail it further. I'm uncomfortable with group checks, at least in some situations. Let's review briefly the system and its effects. I won't do the maths since I'm unfamiliar with combining optional success with different chances of success (if someone wants to teach me, I'm open to it and will redo the explanation with the correct stats!). This will be for a perception check.
Let's look at a party with a high level Druid (so obviously a Wisdom focus), Ranger (semi focus), plus a Wizard, a Fighter and a Barbarian (dump stat). They have a +10, +5, 0s for the rest respectively. I'll be assuming that the party gets to decide who does the check, and they choose the highest mod available.
1 person allowed - they have the Druid go. If he passes, they pass, if he fails, they fail
2 people check - Druid and Ranger. This is effectively a minor advantage. Two rolls, if one passes, they pass the check. There is no downside, while the Ranger isn't as good as the Druid, it's still overall beneficial. They should have the second person join in.
3 people check - Druid, Ranger and Wizard. You're adding one more to the threshold for success, while adding only one roll to the pot. This means that the Wizard can at best be neutral. If the Wizard succeeds, then either the Ranger or The Druid must succeed to pass the check. That condition was true without the Wizard. However, if the Wizard fails, both the Druid and the Ranger must succeed to pass - the Wizard has made things worse. It's best if the third person stays out of it. They can't contribute positively to this scenario.
4 people check - Druid, Ranger, Wizard and Fighter. Similar to the 1->2 people scenario, you're not increasing the threshold but still adding dice to the pot, so it's a no brainer uf the choice is between 3 or 4 people. However, since the mods have dropped (as you'd expect by this point in the pecking order), the odds are worse than if you just did two people. I suspect the Druid would do better by himself, although I'm unsure.of how to do the maths to prove it.
5 people check - Druid, Ranger, Wizard, Fighter and Barbarian. The worst choice. You have upped the threshold for success to 3, but only added one die to the pot. Worse, the ones you've added have no mods.
My problem is that with things like perception, more eyes and ears are better and are an extra help. However, we see that at times they are objectively a hindrance, and the odds of success generally drop as more people are added. In situations like avoiding detection, that makes sense. The more people you have, the harder to keep quiet it is. With this, it makes no sense that having an extra set of eyes makes things worse.
So, how do you handle things like perception checks when there are a group of people in the party? Do you just give advantage and ignore the additional characters? Or do you do something else?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So let's start off with a few things from my vantage point to understand where I'm coming from:
Not all checks are equal, not all participants will have the same DCs or the same type of roll within that same check, and finally in a group check, even though everyone is participating(or trying to participate) there are instances where not everyone is rolling, and in the end a group check doesn't have to have half+ succeed to have a success.
As always, the end result is the DM needing to decide who should roll based on circumstances.
Party goes into an alchemy lab and is trying to find rare ingredients. DM needs to know a few things. Is the party splitting up the work and searching different parts? If so, now we're in single check territory. Less time, but potentially missed things. If they want the best person for the job to search everything, takes more time but ultimately yields a likely better result. If they're sending two people in to work as a team, then whoever initiated the request OR whoever I felt character wise was trying to make it a point to do this gets to roll with advantage, not always the highest bonus. For my table for the sake of time, we talk about a check being a one and done thing and unless you have some ability that lets you alter/reroll etc, then thats it.
If we're in the wild and there is an ambush for instance. Passive perceptions to determine hiding, those characters automatically succeed. The rest of the party I might ask for a perception check, and if the remainder get it? Party as a whole is not surprised. If they don't, then only those with passives higher than the stealth of the enemy. Depending on skills, alert level of the party I might have different DCs. The Fighter who has been leading the way with Survival is obviously focused on making sure the party is safe, but the Bard who potentially has a higher bonus is walking while playing an instrument? They don't get to roll, they're distracted.
I agree with the spirit of your post, that mechnically and just intrinstically with how math works, at a certain point more people just equals failure. The reality to your point is that isn't how it works. If I put the best character to track a person, they'll probably get it. If I put 15 subpar characters to track something, ONE of them should get it, but mathmatically with how a group check is defined in the PHB as being cut and dry "Its half+ or nothing", and I don't like that.
A Group Check, as its name implies, is a check made by the entire group, not by only a portion of it. If 50% succeed, the group succeed, otherwise it fails. It's a mechanic to determine the outcome of a task for the party rather than some character.
I rarely use it, and almost never does for Stealth checks when the party hides as Surprise is handled by characters.
Group checks rarely come up in games, the proper use is usually a task that needs to succeed and giving as many players an opportunity as possible.
This is one of those things that's best discussed with your table rather than the public though, everybody has a different opinion about checks, and negotiating with your table is what matters. Coming to a consensus with the internet and telling your table that's what they should do is nonsense.
If it was up to me there'd be no critical skill effects and bard could break ones too succeed, but if your table wants critical skills, do your table.
It's missing the point of group check. Group check are never used for individual success but group one. If only 1 party member can succeed the check it's not a group check since a group check succeed when half the party succeed, not when a single one does. (unless your party has only 2 creatures)
In this instant, this shouldn't be considered a "group check", because if at least one person spots it then the whole group succeeds.
Unless it's surprise. In which case it's "every man for himself" if the succeeding PC doesn't have the time/ability to alert the group.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
You'd use a group check if you need to know whether the whole group notices something. But that basically never comes up -- if one person notices, it's usually enough. So group checks aren't usually appropriate for Perception.
Edit: In a dungeon crawling context, you would just check the passive Perception of the person in front, to see if they notice traps or hidden monsters as they enter a room. Then, after that, anyone wishing to investigate the room could make Investigation checks with the understanding that certain things require interaction -- like opening a drawer or pushing aside a curtain. I would usually have their Investigation checks cover noticing any traps involved with those interactions, if said traps could conceivably be noticed without triggering them.