Absolutely. I’m that Nat one Player

I meant 18 on the die plus the NPC’s perception bonus.

Could be something other than D&D. +18 is pretty easily achievable in mid-level Pathfinder 2e.

The 2024 rules specifically clarify that stealth is not typically a suitable skill to be rolled in such a way.

Sorry but (1+17+18±20)/4=14

That’s a mean, not a median

D&D 5e was already trash. 2024 is stupid. If you choose to use their system, for whatever reason, ignore anything they say that makes for a bad experience. I can’t see a good argument why this shouldn’t work this way.

All D&D groups should at least consider PF2. It’s better in almost every way. Any confusing D&D rule/exception is pretty much fixed in PF2. It also isn’t owned by WotC/Hasbro, which is a nice bonus.

PF2 is only better if you want tactical combat and lots of options to create builds. Sorry to inform you that's it's not what all tables want, so no, "All D&D groups" does not have to consider PF2.
It's the case in mine (and we play a lot of differents ttrpgs). PF2 is just too much, and is in the same boat as Shadowrun : ain't nobody got time for that.

(also, as 5e is CC-BY now, it is not "own" by anyone (only the D&D brand is), wich is not the case with the ORC licence and Paizo)

PF2 is very similar to 5E. Sure, PF1 is too much, but 2 is basically 5e without the need to memorize a shit ton of exceptions because the rules weren’t thought out when they were first written.

(also, as 5e is CC-BY now, it is not “own” by anyone (only the D&D brand is), wich is not the case with the ORC licence and Paizo)

If you buy an official book or pay a subscription, that money is going to WotC. That’s what I mean by own, and that’s what everyone means. Sure, you can create content for it legally still. That doesn’t not mean they don’t own the system.

Stealth is where I started using BitD style clock long before BitD was published. Stacking failure on stealth roll and increasing the alarm level works better than waiting for the first player to fail

So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue “covers for” a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus? Keep in mind that that “half must succeed” rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone, assuming that success and failure are possible outcomes for both participants. Even if it’s impossible for the other to succeed the rogue is at worst unimpeded.

Keep in mind that that “half must succeed” rule means the rogue is very slightly more likely to succeed with a noisy partner than alone…

That would depend on the DC. The rogue very well could have a 100% chance to succeed alone.

So what, exactly, is the justification for how a rogue “covers for” a plate wearing paladin with no dex bonus?

The rogue would be guiding them, keeping watch for enemies, watching out for hazards, etc. Maybe they’d help the Paladin pad their armor to make it more quite, or give them something to cover it up with so it isn’t shiny. Sneaking encompasses the whole range of stealthy actions, including preparation and movement, most of which can be assisted.

One time I managed to roll 1 to hit, 20 for dex check (had to roll under I forget current rules, over two decades ago), okay I’m dual wielding could be worse, rolled 1 to hit then 20 for dex check on second attack…huh…I don’t buy lottery tickets and barely have interest in scratch tickets at Xmas. That’s my usual luck though those rolls were a once in a lifetime.

Yes probably some house rules going on was 2nd edition just how we played then.

See, I don’t think that 20 does make up for that 1, any more than your 20 on an attack roll lets me roll damage on my 1.

The party isn’t some cohesive, singular unit that catches or avoids attention based on some average of the total behaviour. It’s instead a cloud of actors that are only as strong as its weakest member.

Like, if they were 4 kids sneaking cookies from the cookie jar, and the youngest knocked the jar off the counter, it really doesn’t matter how quiet the other 3 were, the shattering of the jar is going to get them all caught.

No, it’s also better if you want an internally consistent system built on top of sensible principles. Or a system with reliable baseline for power scaling. Or if you want to invite an optimizer or a newbie to your table.

It’s not a “tactical combat RPG”. That’s a wild misconception propagated by both tactical combat fans and people who have looked over the hedge and been scared away by somethings being different. It is, instead, a well crafted systemic RPG, designed with reliability at its centre.

Reliability enables tactical combat, which is why TC fans flocked to the system, but it enables a hell of a lot more, too.

It’s also better if you want a steady stream of new content without paying Hasbro or relying on randos.

Yes, rogue could have a 100% chance of success. Obviously their chance isn’t going to get any better than that, seems like an odd thing to bring up as a counter point though.

As for your suggested explanations for the assistance, none of that lines up with it being at worst non-impactful to do a paired group check. The rogue is completely unimpeded by helping the paladin, and in situations where their chance isn’t already 100% they might even have a better chance, since any possibility for success from the paladin could potentially cover a failure from the rogue. If the rogue only fails on a 3 or less and the paladin needs a 19, that raises the success rate from 85% alone to 86.5% with the paladin tagging along.

Even it was a group comprised entirely of equally skilled rogues I don’t think it makes sense to make them more stealthy in groups, which is what this rule does, for the simple fact that larger groups of people are enormously easier to spot.

If the simple fact that literally any pairing of two people is more stealthy then either of them alone isn’t enough reason to not use this rule for stealth then I don’t know what is.

Sometimes just gotta let random shit happen though.

Well nat1 was so distracting, thr guards run right by 3 of the party members.