Why do checks get harder when everyone is involved?

[Ravingdork]

Page 504 of the Core Reulebook says to make the DCs for checks much higher when the entire party rolls, but only one success among them is needed.

Does this not sit well with anyone else? Why should one's existing knowledge of lore get more difficult just because the party wanted to make rolls too? Why would a perception DC to spot the smoke in the distance get higher just because everyone rolled perception.

That's called moving the goal posts, and in my experience, tends to upset players. It also breaks suspension of disbelief. I think such check DCs should remain static, regardless of how many people are rolling, unless the very act of including more people is what would logically make the check more difficult (such as having more and more party members squeezing into a clown car).

I am having a hard time finding practical scenarios in which this rule wouldn't come across as unintuitive, illogical, or unfair. What am I missing?

What do you think?

[Evilgm]

What I think is that the rules explicitly say most of the time you don't adjust the DC.

"The number of dice being rolled means that there’s a very high chance at least one of them will succeed. Most of the time, that’s perfectly fine"

It then gives advice to GMs if they want to make the check result uncertain. Advice that gives insight to newer GMs, without actually being the rules declaration you state it is in your post.

[Eltacolibre]

You mean the section that literally says a GM wants to increase the difficulty just because?

I mean, I understand what you want to say but not really much that can be done or even matters, since the GM sets all the DCs anyway. The difference between a very hard task and a higher DC set by the GM barely means anything different.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

The idea generally is that everyone trying to contribute to one task generally makes that one task a little imprecise.

A whole table of people saying what they think something is is likely to misremeber details when conveying that information or trigger false memories in others (whole studies done on this).

Two people working together to pick a lock will generally have a greater chance of success but having two people in that confined space will impact their peak performance quite a bit.

It absolutely is reasonable from a realism standpoint, their will likely be edge cases where it won't be but 9/10 it fits.

[HidaOWin]

Explaining to a new GM that they are free to change the DC and a small note about the realities of multiple PCs making a check seems like good advice for a corebook. I think you might be taking a less charitable reading of the text but I wouldnt agree with that take.

[Bartram]

It sounds like you want the game to be simulationist, when it is actually gamist. This general type of complaint seems to be rather common, as 3.5 and its direct descendants (except 4th) had very simulationist tendencies.

For most of these types of questions the answer is "because it makes for a better game flow, and gets the probabilities where the game designers want them."

That is to say, the rules are not based on simulating reality, but creating a fun game.

[HammerJack]

I read that section as saying that if you want to determine a DC that will be difficult, it should be higher if it is something that everyone will be able to attempt. Not that a task should suddenly become more difficult when someone tries to help.

So a trap that should be moderately difficult for a party to detect needs a DC that would be hard for a single character. But that's something you would think about setting up the initial DC based on how easy or hard you want it to be to find. It's not saying that you should start with a 20 stealth DC, and adjust it to 25 when a second character comes in and starts looking around.

[Liegence]

It’s clearly optional, first thing. I see it as a suggested approach to checks that while everyone can make an attempt per the rules, like Recall Knowledge, the chance of failure is impacted not by an accumulation of knowledge the PCs should have but solely by random variance based on the mass number of rolls. It’s not like anyone is more skilled, there’s just so many attempts.

I see what they’re doing but even I’m not fully on board. I get it. I’ve been GM to player groups of 8+ people and at that critical mass someone will succeed - not by any invested skill or background but just because so many dice are rolled.

And in my experience, mentally shifting the goal post of a DC they’ll never know plays out less confrontational than telling people it doesn’t make sense that they can use Recall Knowledge when the rules explicitly state it can be used untrained. I’ve had this issue with multiple 5E groups, although it’s even worse there because the chance highly invested wizard knows esoteric arcane lore is only like 30% higher than commoner joe.

[swoosh]

Ravingdork wrote:

Does this not sit well with anyone else?

What doesn't sit well with me is the misleading opener you have in the thread.

What the section actually says is that the GM should consider adjusting DCs if they intend for a task to be harder and are worried about the group trivializing it.

That's a pretty far cry from what you're claiming the book says in your OP.

[NielsenE]

The section is talking about picking what the DC should be for a task before the players have decided what they are doing.

Is this a perception task or a recall knowledge outside of combat type task that everyone is going to try? Then the advice is make it slightly harder, but only need one success.

Is it a task that only 1-2 characters are likely to try, or are trying in combat when its using up their actions, use an earier DC, but potentially require multiple successes.

If the whole party comes across the latter type of challenge when there's not initiative time pressure, or the whole party happens to be trained/specialized in the check, then they luck out. They got an easier check.

[Liegence]

swoosh wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Does this not sit well with anyone else?

What doesn't sit well with me is the misleading opener you have in the thread.

What the section actually says is that the GM should consider adjusting DCs if they intend for a task to be harder and are worried about the group trivializing it.

That's a pretty far cry from what you're claiming the book says in your OP.

As an aside but generally related, I’m finding that the criticisms people are bringing to the forums are so much ado about nothing that I’m getting really confident that this is a solid game. At play test, there were some real concerns. Post release, the fiery threads flooding the forums are about stuff like this - a literal non-rule optional suggestion in a recessed corner of a 600 page text.

Like if that’s the issues we’re main page debating on the forums I’m feeling real good about 2E.

[Edit] So kudos to the devs. We’re not saying that enough I think.

[theelcorspectre]

To be fair the book literally says, most of the time players can do the same check and you don't need to change the DC. However, sometimes you want a check to be challenging. To me that says that a DM needs to think about how challenging certain DCs should be, especially since many situations will involve multiple players doing the same thing, such as searching a room. I could actually see situations where you could have a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen."

Let's go back to the "searching a room" example. Say somebody got murdered in a room, and the PCs want to check the room for any clues or evidence that could help identify the killer. It might be DC 15 by default. The ranger who naturally has the best perception says he is going to check the room. He has a +7 to perception, so his chances for
Crit-Success/Success/Failure/Crit-Failure are 15%/50%/45%/0%. By himself he is much more likely to succeed rather than fail.

However the kind Barbarian wants to help his friend the Ranger. The DM decides that while two pairs of eyes are better than one, there is a decent chance that they could get in each others way. So he increases the DC to 17. The Barbarian has +3 to Wisdom so with the higher DC his chances are 0%/35%/45%/20%, while the Ranger's decreases to 5%/50%/45%/0%. That might look worse at first, but in reality the two of them working together have a chance of at least succeeding of 70.75%, which is higher than the 65% that the Ranger had on his own.

Of course most of the time the DM wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) do this and the book says as much. This is completely ignoring the fact that most of the time, the players will have no idea what certain DCs are, especially when the DM changes them. Unless of course the players secretly read the DMs notes or the module they are playing. In that case, a slightly higher DC is the least those players deserve.

[Kerobelis]

I'm currently performing an incident investigation and I agree the DC gets higher with more people in the meeting....

[Liegence]

Kerobelis wrote:

I'm currently performing an incident investigation and I agree the DC gets higher with more people in the meeting....

As a public accountant I concur: too many cooks in the kitchen is a real thing

[The Raven Black]

The DC is set. It does not suddenly increase or decrease based on how many people make the attempt.

If the GM set it too low, they will learn from it.

If it is too high, good occasion to apply the fail forward toolbox.

[Kasoh]

Ravingdork wrote:

What do you think?

I believe that's intended to be used during the construction of the adventure part of GMing. You don't arbitrarily raise the DC, but you have set the DC higher, because you expect multiple people to attempt, and thus increasing the chances of high roll.

You can justify the DC however you want, because you're the GM and you don't have to justify the DC to anyone. The PCs just have to meet it or fail.

[DM Livgin]

I think you are mistaking advice on how to write an adventure with rules on how the game runs.

When creating your own adventure and there is a check that everyone must succeed at (balance across a rickety bridge or they fall and take damage) it is advisable to make that challenge relatively easier. However if only one character needs to succeed in order for the group to progress (climbing over a wall to open a gate from the backside) it is advisable to increase the difficulty of the challenge so that the success feels more meaningful and you can reward your players skill investments.

Does this help?

[PossibleCabbage]

I read that section as telling me "if this is something everyone can attempt, but only one person need to succeed, you should set the DC higher". It has nothing to do with how many people are attempting the check, just how many people could attempt the check simultaneously.

Like four people can't all pick the same lock all at once, but 4 people can do the "identify the holy symbol of the obscure deity on the wall" all at once.

I think the psychology is "if the whole party rolls and everyone succeeds, that is less dramatic than a mixture of successes and failures."

[Ravingdork]

Thanks everyone. Yes, it seems I read through it a bit too quickly. Apologies for the snap posting and incendentally spreading misleading information. I'll take a breath before posting after reading something seemingly disagreeable next time.

Bartram wrote:

It sounds like you want the game to be simulationist, when it is actually gamist. This general type of complaint seems to be rather common, as 3.5 and its direct descendants (except 4th) had very simulationist tendencies.

For most of these types of questions the answer is "because it makes for a better game flow, and gets the probabilities where the game designers want them."

That is to say, the rules are not based on simulating reality, but creating a fun game.

It's true that I'm more accustomed to simulationist gamestyles, and generally prefer them. I suspect my friends are too. I imagine it's going to be a rough road convincing any of them to play what is essentially a near-DC'less system.

Liegence wrote:

As an aside but generally related, I’m finding that the criticisms people are bringing to the forums are so much ado about nothing...

Liefence, just because you disagree that something is worthy of concern doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem (though I do appear to have been mistaken in this particular instance). If nothing else, it's kind of rude to say that the things other people care about essentially don't matter.

[thorin001]

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

[breithauptclan]

People don't generally have an intuitive understanding of how probability behaves with repeated attempts. This bit of rules text is trying to give people guidance on things without getting into the math behind it.

When multiple rolls are needed and all have to succeed in order to complete the task successfully, the probability of overall success drops dramatically.

Example: a 75% chance of success that has to be done 5 times in a row with no failures results in a 24% chance of success overall.

A 40% chance of success for each roll would result in a 1% chance for the 5-part task.

On the other hand, multiple rolls when only one is needed has the opposite effect. It dramatically increases the chance that overall success is had.

The best example of this that I can think of off-hand is Starfinder full attack action. Even after applying a -4 penalty to the attack rolls, a full attack (two attack rolls) still has a higher DPR than a single attack at normal attack bonus.

With a 4 character team making perception checks:

If probability of individual success is 40% (failure chance of 60%), the chances that all will fail is 13%, or 87% chance that one of them will succeed.

If the probability of individual success is 60%, there is only a 2.5% chance that they all fail.

So, if your kobold is hiding and the numbers come out that the party needs to roll about an 8 to spot the guy (60% chance of success), then increasing the hide DC by 4 (reduces the individual probability to 40%) and allowing all of the party to make the perception check means that the overall success rate has risen to 87%. Increasing the DC by 5 drops that overall success rate down to 82%, but that is still markedly better than the 60% that the party started with when making one roll.

So the takeaway that I want you to have is: as a GM, do everything you can to avoid allowing multiple party members to attempt the same skill check. The DC tables will fail you. Only allow multiple attempts if you really want the party to succeed at it.

Instead do something like have one character do the roll and the others do aid, or follow the expert. Something like that.

Also, avoid scenarios where multiple rolls are all required for overall success. Again the DC tables will fail you. The new follow the expert will help here too.

[breithauptclan]

thorin001 wrote:

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

I also think that this is exactly the mentality that Ravingdork was trying to highlight as being undesirable.

It feels like metagaming by the GM. And it is also ineffective because math is not intuitive.

[The Raven Black]

thorin001 wrote:

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

No. The DC is set and does not change based on how many people are observing.

[PossibleCabbage]

The DC for a creature sneaking up on the party is just based on the Stealth modifier of the creature sneaking (plus circumstances) right?

[Sliska Zafir]

Let's call it the "too many cooks in the kitchen" rule.

No really, though, I've GMed many tables where everyone starts rolling as soon as one player comes up with a use for a skill, and everyone wants to do it.

I'd like GMs to be more discretionary in whether or not they allow multiple people to make the same skill check at the *same time*, and for that matter, how many can aid.

Often, the DCs can't keep up with multiple-aid checks.

[Liegence]

Ravingdork wrote:

Thanks everyone. Yes, it seems I read through it a bit too quickly. Apologies for the snap posting and incendentally spreading misleading information. I'll take a breath before posting after reading something seemingly disagreeable next time.

Liegence wrote:

As an aside but generally related, I’m finding that the criticisms people are bringing to the forums are so much ado about nothing...

Liefence, just because you disagree that something is worthy of concern doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a problem (though I do appear to have been mistaken in this particular instance). If nothing else, it's kind of rude to say that the things other people care about essentially don't matter.

No offense meant, we’re talking opinions of a game here and we all have them and they vary. A difference of opinion does not indicate I think someone is somehow less for not sharing mine, and a forum is a place where we can share them. Nor do I think some of these issues brought up aren’t problematic, I just don’t see them as game breaking or issues you’ll commonly encounter in practice once we as a gaming society get more experienced and comfortable with the rule set. I really meant no offense with that comment - I’m just expressing excitement and optimism because I’m personally not finding a lot here to criticize that truly concerns me or indicates that this is a poor product. Quite the opposite - I’m loving a lot here and there are a bunch of cool things the devs are doing with these systems. I’d also like to give some props to those devs because I think they deserve it.

I mean really I have a lot of negative opinions about other systems and people tell me all the time they’re not really problematic issues - I don’t think that’s rude it’s just different man.

So apologies if I came across rude. Hyped, and really stoked about what I’m seeing and hearing. I was there at the play test and man the issues brought up after the drop were real serious game breaking concerns (I think we can all agree). This atmosphere feels good, even if it is challenging coming from a few critical voices, but we’re nowhere near the play test furor.

[Velisruna]

thorin001 wrote:

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

Or better put, "When multiple characters all have a chance at a check, it is more likely one will roll high and succeed; thus if you want a group skill challenge to be as difficult as one attempted by a single PC you need to increase the difficulty." So in your example the kobold didn't get better at stealth because multiple people could see it. The GM gave them a scout better at sneaking so the challenge of finding it would be about equal to a single PC trying to find a normal kobold.

[Anguish]

This is Fifty/Fiftyfinder. That's not a criticism. It's a mantra I'm finding helpful processing the new rules.

Odds of (initial) success on almost any activity is going to be fairly close to 50%, by design. Attack bonuses and AC progress at the same rate so that the die roll is being made against 10. Specific classes, items, and abilities can increase or decrease the odds slightly from there (excluding Untrained activities of course). A +1 bonus is a Big Deal in this edition.

Rolling two D20s and taking the best averages 13.825. It's nearly a +4 bonus. Adding two or more players to the mix skews the odds further. There isn't - generally - room in the math for that. So there has to be rules/design-guidance reigning that sort of thing in. The game is not calibrated or designed for high odds of success. It is what it is, and every time you encounter a clause that says "you can't do this", it's because math.

[Angel Hunter D]

If I wanted things to be 50/50 I'd use a coin, using a d20 is a waste then, might as well play 5e and just ask the GM to tell me a story.

[Evilgm]

breithauptclan wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

The way it reads is this:

There is a kobold attempting to ambush the party. The DC to spot the kobold is X. But since only one person needs to spot the kobold and everyone gets a check the DC is X+5.

So somehow the kobold got sneakier because lots of people were looking for it.

I also think that this is exactly the mentality that Ravingdork was trying to highlight as being undesirable.

It feels like metagaming by the GM. And it is also ineffective because math is not intuitive.

Except that this isn't how the rules are written at all. Ravingdork misrepresented what is actually written in the book, and people are commenting without actually reading it.

They explicitly say most of the time you won't change anything, and then gives guidance on how and why you might change it, presumably to help new GMs understand some of the flexibility of the system.

[Anguish]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If I wanted things to be 50/50 I'd use a coin, using a d20 is a waste then, might as well play 5e and just ask the GM to tell me a story.

Oh, no, it's not that bad. It's just an initial assumption.

What I mean is that over the levels, things adjust. A fighter's first attack bonus will be much higher than a wizard's AC. So it's not going to be anything like 50/50 at that point. But the DC for a wizard to add a spell into his spellbook... is going to be in that general 50/50 realm no matter what they do. Where PF1 allowed for fairly easy specialization where 100% success was absolutely viable, this game doesn't. That's not wrong and I don't think the math will make it un-fun to play. It's just that when looking at abilities and thinking "this sucks", it helps to remember than it might not be, because of the scale of numbers.

Honestly, while I'm not yet sold on the edition, the math isn't (currently) my concern.

[Mark Seifter]

Anguish wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

If I wanted things to be 50/50 I'd use a coin, using a d20 is a waste then, might as well play 5e and just ask the GM to tell me a story.

Oh, no, it's not that bad. It's just an initial assumption.

What I mean is that over the levels, things adjust. A fighter's first attack bonus will be much higher than a wizard's AC. So it's not going to be anything like 50/50 at that point. But the DC for a wizard to add a spell into his spellbook... is going to be in that general 50/50 realm no matter what they do. Where PF1 allowed for fairly easy specialization where 100% success was absolutely viable, this game doesn't. That's not wrong and I don't think the math will make it un-fun to play. It's just that when looking at abilities and thinking "this sucks", it helps to remember than it might not be, because of the scale of numbers.

Honestly, while I'm not yet sold on the edition, the math isn't (currently) my concern.

That's not right about wizards adding spells to their spellbook either, though. The wizard in my War for the Crown game was able to add top-level spells successfully on anything but a 1 using all the resources he had available (somewhere in the level 10 range, I think; he's level 14 now), and I knew the chance would be high but wanted to check his math, so I asked him to go through it all, and all the numbers added up.

That said and the example aside, it's certainly the case that auto-winning (or >95% winning) as in PF1 where creatures, even bosses, couldn't make my sorcerer's save-or-lose DCs except on a natural 20 and I made them roll twice and take the lowest, is not a feature of the new game. There is a huge difference between "not 100%" and "50%" though.

[Kashlavor]

Ravingdork wrote:

Does this not sit well with anyone else?

It does not, I don't think me or my group will ever be using this. The rule strikes me as arbitrary and certainly seems to be "metagaming by the DM."

In response to the contention that it is about too many cooks in the kitchen, I think that is unfounded. The book suggests using it when the DM would want a task to be difficult for external narrative reasons, and is not providing guidelines for when aiding an ally could be negative.

It is certainly true that multiple rolls drastically increases the chance of success, but this seems to be a heavy-handed way to avoid what I don't see as a problem in the first place. If my players all have characters who are sufficiently trained at a task to attempt it, a task with no significant time constraints and with no consequences for failure, then of course their chances of success should be drastically higher. I believe deciding otherwise would be to lessen the impact of their character choices if I were to simply decide that I don't want them to succeed. In essence it is a cheap hack to allow me to make a situation difficult for narrative reasons, despite portraying it as something simple which everyone can attempt.

Also while the rule is optional I think its inclusion is reflective of the game design. I think a better suggestion would be that if a DM decides they want to make a task difficult, then they should invent an interesting and challenging task to reflect that. The book already has some other good tools for this, some tasks can only be attempted by characters with a certain level of proficiency. That could be a way to limit the number of rolls (if that is the main goal) or to put the story focus on a particular player. The task could have consequences for failure, meaning each roll adds a new element of danger. Or the DM could embrace the idea, where the party succeeds at a task so monumental that only the combined efforts of a well-trained group can triumph.

[Rysky]

Kashlavor wrote:

In essence it is a cheap hack to allow me to make a situation difficult for narrative reasons, despite portraying it as something simple which everyone can attempt.

Or because you're running for 6-8 people and want there to still be a check rather than just handwaving the situation.

Even if they don't all invest heavily in the Skill they still have a higher chance of beating the unmodified DC simply due to more people rolling.

[Angel Hunter D]

Rysky wrote:

Kashlavor wrote:

In essence it is a cheap hack to allow me to make a situation difficult for narrative reasons, despite portraying it as something simple which everyone can attempt.

Or because you're running for 6-8 people and want there to still be a check rather than just handwaving the situation.

Even if they don't all invest heavily in the Skill they still have a higher chance of beating the unmodified DC simply due to more people rolling.

You said the same thing

[Rysky]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Kashlavor wrote:

In essence it is a cheap hack to allow me to make a situation difficult for narrative reasons, despite portraying it as something simple which everyone can attempt.

Or because you're running for 6-8 people and want there to still be a check rather than just handwaving the situation.

Even if they don't all invest heavily in the Skill they still have a higher chance of beating the unmodified DC simply due to more people rolling.

You said the same thing

I gave a justification rather than a complaint.

[thejeff]

Rysky wrote:

Kashlavor wrote:

In essence it is a cheap hack to allow me to make a situation difficult for narrative reasons, despite portraying it as something simple which everyone can attempt.

Or because you're running for 6-8 people and want there to still be a check rather than just handwaving the situation.

Even if they don't all invest heavily in the Skill they still have a higher chance of beating the unmodified DC simply due to more people rolling.

I think the big difference is thinking of it in terms of adventure design rather than on the fly modification.

"Just remember if it's something everyone can roll on, it'll be easier so if you want it to be a challenge, you can make it harder than if it's a one person job."

The corollary, by the way, is that if it's something that everyone has to make, then it needs to be easier. Just like 5 people making Perception checks are going to get at least one good roll, 5 people making Stealth checks are going to botch at least one of them.

[Legowarrior]

You could make the argument that multiple people get in each other's way. 6 people trying to spot the Kobold? That's six people breathing, walking, talking, casting shadows, distracting each other. Heck, maybe the people in front are blocking the line of site of the people behind.

But the bottomline is that multiple skill checks fall in the same basic problems that the social sciences fall into. If you test something enough times eventually (about 5% of the time) you will get a false positive.

Perhaps, to make it more interesting, failures should have consequences. Nothing major, just small things that can go wrong.