How many people need to succeed in a group check with three people?How does doing something together work?How to determine surprise when only part of a side is stealthy?Should I have to roll to copy a spell into my Book of Ancient Secrets?Can I use Teleportation Circle with a random sigil sequence, hoping it leads somewhere?Can a kenku wizard use Expert Forgery when copying a spell scroll into their spellbook?Can an Arcane Trickster copy a Wizard spell from a scroll into their “spellbook”?How does Bardic Inspiration work with Passive Perception?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?Will Open Legend’s “Every Roll Matters” rule unbalance my D&D 5e campaign?
Why don't airports use arresting gears to recover energy from landing passenger planes?
What is the difference between an engine skirt and an engine nozzle?
How do we know that black holes are spinning?
The role of Lorentz tranformations
What did the first ever Hunger Games look like?
Is it better to use mosfet with gate driver IC or mosfet with lower VGs on
What does “We have long ago paid the goblins of Moria,” from The Hobbit mean?
6+8=71 move two matches
Is my sink P-trap too low?
Can a business put whatever they want into a contract?
Is it acceptable to use decoupling capacitor ground pad as ground for oscilloscope probe?
How To Make Earth's Oceans as Brackish as Lyr's
What does "boys rule, girls drool" mean?
Is there a theorem in Real analysis similar to Cauchy's theorem in Complex analysis?
What's the benefit of prohibiting the use of techniques/language constructs that have not been taught?
Test to know when to use GLM over Linear Regression?
What is this WWII four-engine plane on skis?
How many people need to succeed in a group check with three people?
How does doing something together work?
Why does dd not make working bootable USB sticks for Microsoft?
What are the typical trumpet parts in classical music?
How to install Rasbian Stretch on Raspberry Pi 4?
What is the word for a person who destroys monuments?
Why are two-stroke engines nearly unheard of in aviation?
How many people need to succeed in a group check with three people?
How does doing something together work?How to determine surprise when only part of a side is stealthy?Should I have to roll to copy a spell into my Book of Ancient Secrets?Can I use Teleportation Circle with a random sigil sequence, hoping it leads somewhere?Can a kenku wizard use Expert Forgery when copying a spell scroll into their spellbook?Can an Arcane Trickster copy a Wizard spell from a scroll into their “spellbook”?How does Bardic Inspiration work with Passive Perception?What are other rules for combined effort skill checks when cumulative effort matters?Will Open Legend’s “Every Roll Matters” rule unbalance my D&D 5e campaign?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
In the comments of this answer it came up that the section on "Group Checks" states:
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...
It came up what does "half the group" mean when there also exists a rule on "Round Down":
There’s one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
There are two possibilities brought up in those comments:
At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The 1.5 people required rounds down to 1 person, so 1-3 people must succeed on the check.
Which of these interpretations is correct?
dnd-5e
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In the comments of this answer it came up that the section on "Group Checks" states:
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...
It came up what does "half the group" mean when there also exists a rule on "Round Down":
There’s one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
There are two possibilities brought up in those comments:
At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The 1.5 people required rounds down to 1 person, so 1-3 people must succeed on the check.
Which of these interpretations is correct?
dnd-5e
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
In the comments of this answer it came up that the section on "Group Checks" states:
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...
It came up what does "half the group" mean when there also exists a rule on "Round Down":
There’s one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
There are two possibilities brought up in those comments:
At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The 1.5 people required rounds down to 1 person, so 1-3 people must succeed on the check.
Which of these interpretations is correct?
dnd-5e
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
$endgroup$
In the comments of this answer it came up that the section on "Group Checks" states:
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...
It came up what does "half the group" mean when there also exists a rule on "Round Down":
There’s one more general rule you need to know at the outset. Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
There are two possibilities brought up in those comments:
At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The 1.5 people required rounds down to 1 person, so 1-3 people must succeed on the check.
Which of these interpretations is correct?
dnd-5e
dnd-5e
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Medix2Medix2
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
11.5k2 gold badges38 silver badges113 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Which of these interpretations is correct?
Surely this one:
- At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The rounding rule applies when the rules require that "you divide a number in the game". It is not necessary to divide a number in the game to know whether you have more than half the people in the group succeed.
This is similar to a democratic election. We don't expect if there are 3 voters, that "success" is defined by anything other than exceeding half of the total.
For further reinforcement of this idea, I consider some other aspects:
- The degenerate case of a "group of one", as a variation of "proof by induction". If rounding down is the correct approach, then zero members of this group need to succeed. Clearly, that's not the intent of the rule. And it doesn't make sense that we would have to special-case "group of one" as a completely different set of rules from "group of more than one" (since we intuitively understand that in the "group of one", we need "at least" one person to succeed).
- In every other case I am aware of, the "round down" rule has the consequence of making it harder for the actor involved. It is not logical that in this one scenario, we would then apply the "round down" rule in a way that makes it easier for them.
Bottom line: I find many logical points in favor of the group having to succeed in excess of half the number of the group, and no logic in thinking that fewer than half can succeed and still have the group be successful overall.
Addendum:
Some, such as the person who posted the original claim that prompted this question, argue that because the group-success rules involve a comparison against "half the group", that necessarily invokes the "you divide a number in the game". However, I don't find this line of argument compelling. There are lots of times that halving or other divisions come up, without requiring rounding down.
For example, if my party decides that 25 gold should be split four ways by giving three members 6 and a fourth member 7, is that contrary to the rules? We did "divide a number", after all. Such a strict reading of the round-down rule that requires me to literally round-down every single division result I might ever do in the context of playing the game is excessive and IMHO absurd.
Furthermore, the scenarios where the rules envision "dividing a number" involve situations where that number is then mathematically applied to some other number. Effects of ability scores, or damage resistance, for example. Since numeric results in the game require integer values, some rounding must be done, so the rules spell out that the rounding is always downward.
But no rounding at all is required to understand whether you have had fewer or more than half of a group succeed.
And since there appears to be some confusion as well on why I only consider "fewer than" and "more than", let me make it plainly clear: the only scenario that is in question is the one where the group has an odd number of members. And half a person cannot succeed or fail, so clearly the number of members that succeed can only be strictly less than or more than half the number of the group. That my language above does not include the possibility of "equal to" is solely because that possibility does not exist in this scenario.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You have quoted all the necessary rules for this. You put them together like this:
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...
Okay, we need 'half' the group to succeed. What does 'half' mean? In 5e we use normal language unless the book tells us to do something weird instead. In this case, as you quoted, the book does tell us to do something weird instead! It says:
Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
So, whereas half of 5 would usually be 2.5, in this game it's 2. Similarly, when one applies these rules to the number '3' one can see that, because '3' is an odd number, halving it makes you end up with a fraction. That means you round down and end up with the next integer number down, in this case '1'. Similarly, if you halved 1, you'd end up with 0.
Note, however, that in doing this we are making up what 'round down' means. In common parlance, you usually can't 'round down' without reference to something-- you 'round down to the nearest whole number' or 'round down to the nearest ten' or something like that. Used on its own, the phrase is somewhat unclear-- it might mean 'to the nearest whole number' or 'to the nearest integer' or 'to the nearest non-fraction', and not all of these are meanings that result in a reasonable game (though they all, except 'non-fraction' because that is an incoherent idea in its usual expression, mean 3/2 rounds to 1). Because rounding down to the nearest integer is the least completely terrible as a rule, when using this rounding rule it should be assumed you do that.
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
At least 2 people.
Keep the fraction, fractions are cool!
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.
If you have 3 people, then the amount of people $X$ that must succeed is given by $$X geq frac32$$
Because $X$ is an integer with possible values $0, 1, 2, 3$, then the answer is that at least 2 people must succeed the group check.
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156264%2fhow-many-people-need-to-succeed-in-a-group-check-with-three-people%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Which of these interpretations is correct?
Surely this one:
- At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The rounding rule applies when the rules require that "you divide a number in the game". It is not necessary to divide a number in the game to know whether you have more than half the people in the group succeed.
This is similar to a democratic election. We don't expect if there are 3 voters, that "success" is defined by anything other than exceeding half of the total.
For further reinforcement of this idea, I consider some other aspects:
- The degenerate case of a "group of one", as a variation of "proof by induction". If rounding down is the correct approach, then zero members of this group need to succeed. Clearly, that's not the intent of the rule. And it doesn't make sense that we would have to special-case "group of one" as a completely different set of rules from "group of more than one" (since we intuitively understand that in the "group of one", we need "at least" one person to succeed).
- In every other case I am aware of, the "round down" rule has the consequence of making it harder for the actor involved. It is not logical that in this one scenario, we would then apply the "round down" rule in a way that makes it easier for them.
Bottom line: I find many logical points in favor of the group having to succeed in excess of half the number of the group, and no logic in thinking that fewer than half can succeed and still have the group be successful overall.
Addendum:
Some, such as the person who posted the original claim that prompted this question, argue that because the group-success rules involve a comparison against "half the group", that necessarily invokes the "you divide a number in the game". However, I don't find this line of argument compelling. There are lots of times that halving or other divisions come up, without requiring rounding down.
For example, if my party decides that 25 gold should be split four ways by giving three members 6 and a fourth member 7, is that contrary to the rules? We did "divide a number", after all. Such a strict reading of the round-down rule that requires me to literally round-down every single division result I might ever do in the context of playing the game is excessive and IMHO absurd.
Furthermore, the scenarios where the rules envision "dividing a number" involve situations where that number is then mathematically applied to some other number. Effects of ability scores, or damage resistance, for example. Since numeric results in the game require integer values, some rounding must be done, so the rules spell out that the rounding is always downward.
But no rounding at all is required to understand whether you have had fewer or more than half of a group succeed.
And since there appears to be some confusion as well on why I only consider "fewer than" and "more than", let me make it plainly clear: the only scenario that is in question is the one where the group has an odd number of members. And half a person cannot succeed or fail, so clearly the number of members that succeed can only be strictly less than or more than half the number of the group. That my language above does not include the possibility of "equal to" is solely because that possibility does not exist in this scenario.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Which of these interpretations is correct?
Surely this one:
- At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The rounding rule applies when the rules require that "you divide a number in the game". It is not necessary to divide a number in the game to know whether you have more than half the people in the group succeed.
This is similar to a democratic election. We don't expect if there are 3 voters, that "success" is defined by anything other than exceeding half of the total.
For further reinforcement of this idea, I consider some other aspects:
- The degenerate case of a "group of one", as a variation of "proof by induction". If rounding down is the correct approach, then zero members of this group need to succeed. Clearly, that's not the intent of the rule. And it doesn't make sense that we would have to special-case "group of one" as a completely different set of rules from "group of more than one" (since we intuitively understand that in the "group of one", we need "at least" one person to succeed).
- In every other case I am aware of, the "round down" rule has the consequence of making it harder for the actor involved. It is not logical that in this one scenario, we would then apply the "round down" rule in a way that makes it easier for them.
Bottom line: I find many logical points in favor of the group having to succeed in excess of half the number of the group, and no logic in thinking that fewer than half can succeed and still have the group be successful overall.
Addendum:
Some, such as the person who posted the original claim that prompted this question, argue that because the group-success rules involve a comparison against "half the group", that necessarily invokes the "you divide a number in the game". However, I don't find this line of argument compelling. There are lots of times that halving or other divisions come up, without requiring rounding down.
For example, if my party decides that 25 gold should be split four ways by giving three members 6 and a fourth member 7, is that contrary to the rules? We did "divide a number", after all. Such a strict reading of the round-down rule that requires me to literally round-down every single division result I might ever do in the context of playing the game is excessive and IMHO absurd.
Furthermore, the scenarios where the rules envision "dividing a number" involve situations where that number is then mathematically applied to some other number. Effects of ability scores, or damage resistance, for example. Since numeric results in the game require integer values, some rounding must be done, so the rules spell out that the rounding is always downward.
But no rounding at all is required to understand whether you have had fewer or more than half of a group succeed.
And since there appears to be some confusion as well on why I only consider "fewer than" and "more than", let me make it plainly clear: the only scenario that is in question is the one where the group has an odd number of members. And half a person cannot succeed or fail, so clearly the number of members that succeed can only be strictly less than or more than half the number of the group. That my language above does not include the possibility of "equal to" is solely because that possibility does not exist in this scenario.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Which of these interpretations is correct?
Surely this one:
- At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The rounding rule applies when the rules require that "you divide a number in the game". It is not necessary to divide a number in the game to know whether you have more than half the people in the group succeed.
This is similar to a democratic election. We don't expect if there are 3 voters, that "success" is defined by anything other than exceeding half of the total.
For further reinforcement of this idea, I consider some other aspects:
- The degenerate case of a "group of one", as a variation of "proof by induction". If rounding down is the correct approach, then zero members of this group need to succeed. Clearly, that's not the intent of the rule. And it doesn't make sense that we would have to special-case "group of one" as a completely different set of rules from "group of more than one" (since we intuitively understand that in the "group of one", we need "at least" one person to succeed).
- In every other case I am aware of, the "round down" rule has the consequence of making it harder for the actor involved. It is not logical that in this one scenario, we would then apply the "round down" rule in a way that makes it easier for them.
Bottom line: I find many logical points in favor of the group having to succeed in excess of half the number of the group, and no logic in thinking that fewer than half can succeed and still have the group be successful overall.
Addendum:
Some, such as the person who posted the original claim that prompted this question, argue that because the group-success rules involve a comparison against "half the group", that necessarily invokes the "you divide a number in the game". However, I don't find this line of argument compelling. There are lots of times that halving or other divisions come up, without requiring rounding down.
For example, if my party decides that 25 gold should be split four ways by giving three members 6 and a fourth member 7, is that contrary to the rules? We did "divide a number", after all. Such a strict reading of the round-down rule that requires me to literally round-down every single division result I might ever do in the context of playing the game is excessive and IMHO absurd.
Furthermore, the scenarios where the rules envision "dividing a number" involve situations where that number is then mathematically applied to some other number. Effects of ability scores, or damage resistance, for example. Since numeric results in the game require integer values, some rounding must be done, so the rules spell out that the rounding is always downward.
But no rounding at all is required to understand whether you have had fewer or more than half of a group succeed.
And since there appears to be some confusion as well on why I only consider "fewer than" and "more than", let me make it plainly clear: the only scenario that is in question is the one where the group has an odd number of members. And half a person cannot succeed or fail, so clearly the number of members that succeed can only be strictly less than or more than half the number of the group. That my language above does not include the possibility of "equal to" is solely because that possibility does not exist in this scenario.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Which of these interpretations is correct?
Surely this one:
- At least 1.5 people must succeed, and since you can't have half-people 2-3 people must succeed on the check.
The rounding rule applies when the rules require that "you divide a number in the game". It is not necessary to divide a number in the game to know whether you have more than half the people in the group succeed.
This is similar to a democratic election. We don't expect if there are 3 voters, that "success" is defined by anything other than exceeding half of the total.
For further reinforcement of this idea, I consider some other aspects:
- The degenerate case of a "group of one", as a variation of "proof by induction". If rounding down is the correct approach, then zero members of this group need to succeed. Clearly, that's not the intent of the rule. And it doesn't make sense that we would have to special-case "group of one" as a completely different set of rules from "group of more than one" (since we intuitively understand that in the "group of one", we need "at least" one person to succeed).
- In every other case I am aware of, the "round down" rule has the consequence of making it harder for the actor involved. It is not logical that in this one scenario, we would then apply the "round down" rule in a way that makes it easier for them.
Bottom line: I find many logical points in favor of the group having to succeed in excess of half the number of the group, and no logic in thinking that fewer than half can succeed and still have the group be successful overall.
Addendum:
Some, such as the person who posted the original claim that prompted this question, argue that because the group-success rules involve a comparison against "half the group", that necessarily invokes the "you divide a number in the game". However, I don't find this line of argument compelling. There are lots of times that halving or other divisions come up, without requiring rounding down.
For example, if my party decides that 25 gold should be split four ways by giving three members 6 and a fourth member 7, is that contrary to the rules? We did "divide a number", after all. Such a strict reading of the round-down rule that requires me to literally round-down every single division result I might ever do in the context of playing the game is excessive and IMHO absurd.
Furthermore, the scenarios where the rules envision "dividing a number" involve situations where that number is then mathematically applied to some other number. Effects of ability scores, or damage resistance, for example. Since numeric results in the game require integer values, some rounding must be done, so the rules spell out that the rounding is always downward.
But no rounding at all is required to understand whether you have had fewer or more than half of a group succeed.
And since there appears to be some confusion as well on why I only consider "fewer than" and "more than", let me make it plainly clear: the only scenario that is in question is the one where the group has an odd number of members. And half a person cannot succeed or fail, so clearly the number of members that succeed can only be strictly less than or more than half the number of the group. That my language above does not include the possibility of "equal to" is solely because that possibility does not exist in this scenario.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Peter DunihoPeter Duniho
1863 bronze badges
1863 bronze badges
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Peter Duniho is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
One example where rounding down makes something quote--un--quote "easier" is when you have resistance to a damage type. 11 damage becomes 5.5 which becomes the "easier" (less deadly) option of 5.0 damage taken. This isn't a very good example (or a counterpoint) as reducing damage and "easier" don't go well together by any means. Your answer makes a lot of sense, and I like the inductive thinking on the "group of 1"
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Medix2: I guess that depends on your point of view. To me, the "actor" where "damage resistance" is applied, is the attacker causing the damage. Rounding down in this case makes the harder on the actor, i.e. the entity doing the damage. YMMV. :) (Another way to look at it: as a general rule, "bigger numbers good, smaller numbers bad"...but you have to consider who it is that wants the bigger number; that's generally going to be the "actor" from the perspective of the round-down rule...since rounding down always makes the number smaller, rounding down translates to "more bad"/"less good".)
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh that's a really good point actually, thank you
$endgroup$
– Medix2
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast♦
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@thedarkwanderer: "You don't need to have more than half of the people" -- I assert you do (since there are an odd number of people in the group, you're necessarily going to be either less than or more than half, not equal to), as I've explained in detail above. Your own answer makes it clear you disagree. In what way did you intend for your comment to add to that?
$endgroup$
– Peter Duniho
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You have quoted all the necessary rules for this. You put them together like this:
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...
Okay, we need 'half' the group to succeed. What does 'half' mean? In 5e we use normal language unless the book tells us to do something weird instead. In this case, as you quoted, the book does tell us to do something weird instead! It says:
Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
So, whereas half of 5 would usually be 2.5, in this game it's 2. Similarly, when one applies these rules to the number '3' one can see that, because '3' is an odd number, halving it makes you end up with a fraction. That means you round down and end up with the next integer number down, in this case '1'. Similarly, if you halved 1, you'd end up with 0.
Note, however, that in doing this we are making up what 'round down' means. In common parlance, you usually can't 'round down' without reference to something-- you 'round down to the nearest whole number' or 'round down to the nearest ten' or something like that. Used on its own, the phrase is somewhat unclear-- it might mean 'to the nearest whole number' or 'to the nearest integer' or 'to the nearest non-fraction', and not all of these are meanings that result in a reasonable game (though they all, except 'non-fraction' because that is an incoherent idea in its usual expression, mean 3/2 rounds to 1). Because rounding down to the nearest integer is the least completely terrible as a rule, when using this rounding rule it should be assumed you do that.
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You have quoted all the necessary rules for this. You put them together like this:
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...
Okay, we need 'half' the group to succeed. What does 'half' mean? In 5e we use normal language unless the book tells us to do something weird instead. In this case, as you quoted, the book does tell us to do something weird instead! It says:
Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
So, whereas half of 5 would usually be 2.5, in this game it's 2. Similarly, when one applies these rules to the number '3' one can see that, because '3' is an odd number, halving it makes you end up with a fraction. That means you round down and end up with the next integer number down, in this case '1'. Similarly, if you halved 1, you'd end up with 0.
Note, however, that in doing this we are making up what 'round down' means. In common parlance, you usually can't 'round down' without reference to something-- you 'round down to the nearest whole number' or 'round down to the nearest ten' or something like that. Used on its own, the phrase is somewhat unclear-- it might mean 'to the nearest whole number' or 'to the nearest integer' or 'to the nearest non-fraction', and not all of these are meanings that result in a reasonable game (though they all, except 'non-fraction' because that is an incoherent idea in its usual expression, mean 3/2 rounds to 1). Because rounding down to the nearest integer is the least completely terrible as a rule, when using this rounding rule it should be assumed you do that.
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
You have quoted all the necessary rules for this. You put them together like this:
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...
Okay, we need 'half' the group to succeed. What does 'half' mean? In 5e we use normal language unless the book tells us to do something weird instead. In this case, as you quoted, the book does tell us to do something weird instead! It says:
Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
So, whereas half of 5 would usually be 2.5, in this game it's 2. Similarly, when one applies these rules to the number '3' one can see that, because '3' is an odd number, halving it makes you end up with a fraction. That means you round down and end up with the next integer number down, in this case '1'. Similarly, if you halved 1, you'd end up with 0.
Note, however, that in doing this we are making up what 'round down' means. In common parlance, you usually can't 'round down' without reference to something-- you 'round down to the nearest whole number' or 'round down to the nearest ten' or something like that. Used on its own, the phrase is somewhat unclear-- it might mean 'to the nearest whole number' or 'to the nearest integer' or 'to the nearest non-fraction', and not all of these are meanings that result in a reasonable game (though they all, except 'non-fraction' because that is an incoherent idea in its usual expression, mean 3/2 rounds to 1). Because rounding down to the nearest integer is the least completely terrible as a rule, when using this rounding rule it should be assumed you do that.
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
$endgroup$
You have quoted all the necessary rules for this. You put them together like this:
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...
Okay, we need 'half' the group to succeed. What does 'half' mean? In 5e we use normal language unless the book tells us to do something weird instead. In this case, as you quoted, the book does tell us to do something weird instead! It says:
Whenever you divide a number in the game, round down if you end up with a fraction, even if the fraction is one-half or greater.
So, whereas half of 5 would usually be 2.5, in this game it's 2. Similarly, when one applies these rules to the number '3' one can see that, because '3' is an odd number, halving it makes you end up with a fraction. That means you round down and end up with the next integer number down, in this case '1'. Similarly, if you halved 1, you'd end up with 0.
Note, however, that in doing this we are making up what 'round down' means. In common parlance, you usually can't 'round down' without reference to something-- you 'round down to the nearest whole number' or 'round down to the nearest ten' or something like that. Used on its own, the phrase is somewhat unclear-- it might mean 'to the nearest whole number' or 'to the nearest integer' or 'to the nearest non-fraction', and not all of these are meanings that result in a reasonable game (though they all, except 'non-fraction' because that is an incoherent idea in its usual expression, mean 3/2 rounds to 1). Because rounding down to the nearest integer is the least completely terrible as a rule, when using this rounding rule it should be assumed you do that.
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
the dark wandererthe dark wanderer
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
42.1k7 gold badges108 silver badges218 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Medix2 Whole numbers don't include the negatives. These three are included because they are what is ambiguously meant by 'round down' without reference as used by 'normal people', in my estimation. 5e says we are supposed to 'use natural language' but, to the extent this language is used it is ambiguous. That's why non-fraction is incoherent, that sort of speaker very much does not mean 'irrationals'!
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard "whole numbers" used in that way. Perhaps you mean the natural numbers. I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong here. I'll remove my comments then as they don't seem to apply
$endgroup$
– Medix2
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@illustro whether the natural numbers include zero is not an entirely agreed upon thing. The whole numbers are not a thing used in higher level mathematics. You would simply use Z+ (the positive integers) or N0 (natural numbers without zero). Or simply N if your definition of N didn't include zero. "Whole numbers" is horribly unspecific either referring to integers, non-negative integers, or positive integers which are the three sets being discussed
$endgroup$
– Medix2
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Doesn't this imply that one person attempting a check will automatically succeed?
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@MarkWells no. The group check rules are an exception to the regular ability check rules. One person does not a group make. A group requires at least two creatures to be a group.
$endgroup$
– illustro
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
At least 2 people.
Keep the fraction, fractions are cool!
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.
If you have 3 people, then the amount of people $X$ that must succeed is given by $$X geq frac32$$
Because $X$ is an integer with possible values $0, 1, 2, 3$, then the answer is that at least 2 people must succeed the group check.
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
At least 2 people.
Keep the fraction, fractions are cool!
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.
If you have 3 people, then the amount of people $X$ that must succeed is given by $$X geq frac32$$
Because $X$ is an integer with possible values $0, 1, 2, 3$, then the answer is that at least 2 people must succeed the group check.
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
At least 2 people.
Keep the fraction, fractions are cool!
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.
If you have 3 people, then the amount of people $X$ that must succeed is given by $$X geq frac32$$
Because $X$ is an integer with possible values $0, 1, 2, 3$, then the answer is that at least 2 people must succeed the group check.
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
$endgroup$
At least 2 people.
Keep the fraction, fractions are cool!
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.
If you have 3 people, then the amount of people $X$ that must succeed is given by $$X geq frac32$$
Because $X$ is an integer with possible values $0, 1, 2, 3$, then the answer is that at least 2 people must succeed the group check.
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
edited 3 hours ago
SevenSidedDie
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
216k35 gold badges694 silver badges968 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
answered 6 hours ago
BlueMoon93BlueMoon93
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
18.4k13 gold badges105 silver badges177 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156264%2fhow-many-people-need-to-succeed-in-a-group-check-with-three-people%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
