I have not come up with a satisfying way to handle stealth checks.
I am working a campaign where some goblins ambush players. Do I roll one check for all 4 goblins? Seems too hard. One check per goblin? One of them is almost certain to roll poorly and be caught, which means the entire party is not surprised.
In general, think the trick is if each individual creature (monster or NPC) makes a roll, it is incredibly difficult for all of them to pass the opposite Perception check, which ruins surprise. But if it’s one roll for a group, then you’re not really penalized for mixing stealthy and unstealthy players/creatures.
How do other people roll stealth checks?
And on a related note, if only one member of the party has a passive perception high enough to notice, do you give that member a moment to warn the rest of his party and thus ruin the element of surprise?
Roll 4 stealth checks for the 4 goblins and compare it to the PCs' passive WIS (Perception) scores. You could also ask the players to roll, but using the passive rule speeds up play at the table.
If a PCs fails to notice all of the goblins then that PC is surprised. If a PC fails to notice some of the goblins then that PC is not surprised, but the unnoticed goblins get advantage on their first attack because they are hidden.
Makes sense, but under that understanding if I use player passive scores, the lowest is likely 10. Which amongst 4 goblins, one will most likely not make, and therefore no party members are surprised.
is surprise supposed to be this hard to accomplish?
You could make the Goblins make a group skill check - so that gives an average number for the party to try and beat, and no individual goblin will screw up the goblin group's overall stealth.
Those with high enough passive perception would likely avoid being surprised in the first round of combat. Remember that passive perception doesn't mean they can spot the hiding goblins a mile away.
1) Note the highest passing Perception among the players, or the passive PER of whoever is on watch if the rest are sleeping, and use it as a DC
2) Do a group check for the goblins using that DC, counting successes and failures (crit successes and failures count double). If they get more successes than failures, they successfully sneak up on the party
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I usually treat each Stealth vs Perception contest individually.
I usually never use contest group check as a contest is when a creature’s efforts is directly opposed to another’s, its treated on an individual basis where group check treat success on a party basis.
To determine Surprise for exemple, each Stealth check must be contested against each Perception check and even a single successful Perception vs Stealth contest means you're not surprised.
For a group Stealth vs Perception where say a DM would compare everyone's Stealth check to the highest Passive Perception score of the opposing side, if half succeed, the party succeed, otherwise it fails. Problem with this approach is that an entire side would be surprised or not, contrary to what Surprise rules say when ''a member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren’t.''
This wouldn't be possible with contest group check as success/failure is determined on a party basis, rather than on an individual basis..
Good thoughts fellas. Thank for the input. I'm feeling better now.
Is there a rule-of-thumb distance at which you can passively perceive a hiding character (or anything else)? i.e. 60 feet?
Nothing is stated in the rules where there is a limit to how far away Passive Perception would trigger that would be the call of the DM giving the situation at play.
As a follow up - can you hide in the middle of combat when monsters can see you? i.e. can you drop back into a forest or behind a tree? I know if you come charging at them they will see you, but what about merely hiding behind some kind of cover?
As a follow up - can you hide in the middle of combat when monsters can see you? i.e. can you drop back into a forest or behind a tree? I know if you come charging at them they will see you, but what about merely hiding behind some kind of cover?
Yes you can always try to hide when possible, even in combat or other situation where others know exactly where you are. If you keep hiding behind the same tree over again, or another obvious location, a part of the benefit of being hidden will be inefective though, which is to have enemies not know your location and attack a space/square they think you're in, since they will know exactly where to do it. But you are still hidden - unseen and unheard and the benefits of Unseen Attackers and Targets rule still apply.
There is an official ruling on this in Sage Advice Compendium;
Do the lightfoot halfling and wood elf hiding racial traits allow them to hide while observed? The lightfoot halfling and wood elf traits—Naturally Stealthy and Mask of the Wild—do allow members of those subraces to try to hide in their special circumstances even when observers are nearby. Normally, you can’t hide from someone if you’re in full view. A lightfoot halfling, though, can try to vanish behind a creature that is at least one size larger, and a wood elf can try to hide simply by being in heavy rain, mist, falling snow, foliage, or similar natural phenomena. It’s as if nature itself cloaks a wood elf from prying eyes—even eyes staring right at the elf! Both subraces are capable of hiding in situations when most other creatures can’t, but neither subrace’s hiding attempt is assured of success; a Dexterity (Stealth) check is required as normal, and an observant foe might later spot a hidden halfling or elf: “I see you behind that guard, you tricksy halfling!”
@danthompson67need help. If a rogue is in complete cover, can they BA hide? DM rules that enemies are constantly aware despite cover.
@JeremyECrawfordThe Hide action is one of the actions you can take in combat (PH, 192) because you can, indeed, hide in combat. #DnD
@TeddyYudain as per the rules of Hiding, in combat would the Stealth check be contested by an Active or Passive Perception check?
@JeremyECrawfordThe Hide action (PH, 192) states that it follows the rules for hiding (PH, 177), which explain the use of active and passive checks. #DnD
@Alphastream Issue that came up most often at Winter Fantasy was rogues wanting to always hide around corner, next end move out and attack hidden.
@JeremyECrawford That's a legitimate use of Cunning Action.
@JeremyECrawford The Hide action is one of the actions you can take in combat (PH, 192) because you can, indeed, hide in combat. #DnD
@Alphastream When you break cover, aren't you no longer hidden?
@MerricBIf you keep hiding in the same space, I've seen DMs rule disadvantage on the Hide check - like @mikemearls
@JeremyECrawford Or you can have the foes stop falling for it: "Hi there. I've followed you behind this corner."
@Alphastream I am curious: when the rogue starts round hidden behind wall, moves out, attacks... is she hidden during the attack? Or, broke cover and no?
@JeremyECrawford Are you referring to an attack from behind cover, or are you referring to a rogue who moves X ft. in the open and then attacks?
@Alphastream Later. Rogue starts hidden, moves out to see foe, attacks. Players like to argue they are still hidden on attack.
@JeremyECrawfordYou can attack while hidden and gain the benefit. But if you run out into the open and then attack, you're not hidden when you attack. #DnD
@danthompson67 my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding.
@JeremyECrawford Yes
@danthompson67 say if the rogue has to come from behind corner/tree/cover to get a line of sight, that's ok?
@JeremyECrawford Yes.
@bmfrosty Is it up to the DM to set the difficulty or is that always opposed to a perception check?
@JeremyECrawfordSee "Hiding" (PH, 177) for how hiding works. Unless someone is actively searching, Stealth is opposed by passive Wisdom (Perception). #DnD
@TubaDanCross you can watch someone go behind a rock and they hide but someone turns invis and you know where they are
@JeremyECrawford The main point to the rules is that you can't see either of those people.
@BoostGeek So shooting a bow while hidden maybe grant the advantage, but running out in melee dont, does that sound about right?
Nice. That’s a super helpful reply. Thanks for clearing that up. My players don’t have much stealth, but understanding the rules helps to make goblin combat much more interesting!
As an alternative, you could treat the ambush as an encounter and just assign a DC to noticing that something is off. A well-prepared ambush by experienced rangers would most likely be very difficult to notice, a hastily set up ambush by freshly recruited soldiers wouldn't be so well prepared. So set a DC based on the assumed difficulty to notice the ambush (let's say 20 for the first, 12 for the second).
Then you have another choice: either to make one perception check per group, let each player make a check, or require at least half of the group to succeed the check (a matter of taste, really). If the group succeeds, they notice that something is wrong and are alerted which would ruin the surprise.
Also, don't forget to consider the situation and add advantage/disadvantage to the checks. If the ambush is well-prepared, you could give the ambushers advantage. If the adventurers are busy arguing amongst themselves, give them disadvantage. Advantage/disadvantage also works on passive checks if you prefer using those.
The scenario in the OP sounds similar to an encounter that can occur in the adventure Lost Mine of Phandelver. In that adventure, there are actually detailed instructions for how to handle the issue of stealth for that particular encounter which don't necessarily 100% line up with RAW for stealth, but specific beats general as always. It says: "Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check for the goblins: roll one d20 for all of them, add their Stealth skill modifier (+6) to the roll, and compare the total to the characters’ passive Wisdom (Perception) scores. A character whose score is lower than the goblins’ check total is surprised".
So, in that case it was recommended that the DM make one single stealth roll for the entire group of NPC enemies. Perhaps the idea there is that the group of enemies was already successfully hidden long before anyone was around and they are remaining stationary, lying in wait. They are already unseen and unheard and their location is unknown. Their main challenge now is to just remain quiet long enough to successfully coordinate an attack as a group in such a way that it doesn't prematurely tip off the PCs before executing their ambush in a surprising manner. Conceptually, this should make it less likely for an individual monster to completely blunder their efforts to remain hidden through the start of the encounter and the math behind making a single roll clearly benefits the group in this way. I've seen suggestions that for such situations a DM should make one stealth roll for each different type of monster. Like, if there were some Ogres hiding alongside the Goblins for some reason then the Ogres get their own roll and the Goblins get their own roll. Again, I do not think that this method is actually supported anywhere by the rules as written but it's a common method for a DM to use in specific types of stealth situations such as this "lying in wait" stealth scenario. One side benefit of this method is that it greatly reduces the number of times that a DM is rolling dice for certain encounters which can greatly speed up gameplay and put less of a spotlight on DM activity instead of on player activity. There is some precedent in the DMG for trying to reduce excessive DM dice rolling for large combat encounters, but in the OP scenario where there are only 4 enemies perhaps that benefit has limited value. Keep in mind that there is not really any way to use this method for a group of PCs trying to be stealthy since PCs are not the same type of monster with the same stats. Having this method only available to monsters can give the monsters of the world a tactical advantage.
A couple of methods which do appear in the rules are listed under "Working Together" and "Group Checks".
Working together is basically when a character provides Help to another character in attempting to perform a task which can grant advantage on a relevant skill check. However, this method specifies that "a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help." This should pretty much always be true of stealth also -- you cannot Help a stealth check, especially when everyone involved are all trying to be stealthy.
Group Checks seem like a more reasonable option when an entire group is trying to be stealthy together. However, upon carefully reading it seems like it doesn't quite fit for group stealth.
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't.
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.
Succeeds at what exactly? Until there is an enemy nearby there really isn't any sort of DC or contest to determine success or failure. The stealth check just represents how stealthy you are being on an ongoing basis. I guess it could sort of work though -- you just have to keep track of the lowest check from the top half of all of the checks from the group and that becomes the group's stealth for hiding. According to the rules for hiding, "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is [used] . . ."
There's another inconsistency vs the rules in that adventure that I referenced above. In that adventure it stated "A character whose score is lower than the goblins’ check total is surprised". However, in the rules for hiding it is described as a contest. ("that check's total is contested by the . . . ") In a contest: "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." This means that if the stealth check is equal to the perception check or score then the hidden creature should remain hidden and undiscovered and unnoticed and that the other creature would still be surprised. In effect, the perception score is setting the DC and the stealth check must equal or exceed that value, even though the stealth check may have been rolled well in advance.
The last method is to just follow the rules for hiding which seem to indicate that each creature makes its own individual attempt to hide with its own individual stealth roll. For a situation such as attempting to set up an ambush in advance I agree with the OP that this is a very unsatisfactory solution which provides for a mathematically tiny chance of success, probably unrealistically so in certain scenarios. I think that this method is better in the middle of combat when individual PCs or monsters might independently determine that they want to take the Hide action but it should not be applied to the scenario in the OP imo.
Although not perfect, I think that the Group Check rules are the best option for the scenario presented by the OP. On the other hand, if you think that the surprise mechanics are overpowered and want to make it a very rare occurrence in your world (along the lines of achieving a critical hit) then go ahead and always use individual checks.
Personally, I would roll for all four goblins, that way, if one of them makes a bad roll and the party notices him, then they might think that's the only goblin. That way they're still surprised by the rest of them, resulting in a well laid out goblin ambush.
I have not come up with a satisfying way to handle stealth checks.
I am working a campaign where some goblins ambush players. Do I roll one check for all 4 goblins? Seems too hard. One check per goblin? One of them is almost certain to roll poorly and be caught, which means the entire party is not surprised.
In general, think the trick is if each individual creature (monster or NPC) makes a roll, it is incredibly difficult for all of them to pass the opposite Perception check, which ruins surprise. But if it’s one roll for a group, then you’re not really penalized for mixing stealthy and unstealthy players/creatures.
How do other people roll stealth checks?
And on a related note, if only one member of the party has a passive perception high enough to notice, do you give that member a moment to warn the rest of his party and thus ruin the element of surprise?
Roll 4 stealth checks for the 4 goblins and compare it to the PCs' passive WIS (Perception) scores. You could also ask the players to roll, but using the passive rule speeds up play at the table.
If a PCs fails to notice all of the goblins then that PC is surprised.
If a PC fails to notice some of the goblins then that PC is not surprised, but the unnoticed goblins get advantage on their first attack because they are hidden.
Makes sense, but under that understanding if I use player passive scores, the lowest is likely 10. Which amongst 4 goblins, one will most likely not make, and therefore no party members are surprised.
is surprise supposed to be this hard to accomplish?
You could make the Goblins make a group skill check - so that gives an average number for the party to try and beat, and no individual goblin will screw up the goblin group's overall stealth.
Those with high enough passive perception would likely avoid being surprised in the first round of combat. Remember that passive perception doesn't mean they can spot the hiding goblins a mile away.
Good thoughts fellas. Thank for the input. I'm feeling better now.
Is there a rule-of-thumb distance at which you can passively perceive a hiding character (or anything else)? i.e. 60 feet?
1) Note the highest passing Perception among the players, or the passive PER of whoever is on watch if the rest are sleeping, and use it as a DC
2) Do a group check for the goblins using that DC, counting successes and failures (crit successes and failures count double). If they get more successes than failures, they successfully sneak up on the party
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I usually treat each Stealth vs Perception contest individually.
I usually never use contest group check as a contest is when a creature’s efforts is directly opposed to another’s, its treated on an individual basis where group check treat success on a party basis.
To determine Surprise for exemple, each Stealth check must be contested against each Perception check and even a single successful Perception vs Stealth contest means you're not surprised.
For a group Stealth vs Perception where say a DM would compare everyone's Stealth check to the highest Passive Perception score of the opposing side, if half succeed, the party succeed, otherwise it fails. Problem with this approach is that an entire side would be surprised or not, contrary to what Surprise rules say when ''a member of a group can be surprised even if the other members aren’t.''
This wouldn't be possible with contest group check as success/failure is determined on a party basis, rather than on an individual basis..
Nothing is stated in the rules where there is a limit to how far away Passive Perception would trigger that would be the call of the DM giving the situation at play.
Thanks for the info, everyone.
As a follow up - can you hide in the middle of combat when monsters can see you? i.e. can you drop back into a forest or behind a tree? I know if you come charging at them they will see you, but what about merely hiding behind some kind of cover?
Yes you can always try to hide when possible, even in combat or other situation where others know exactly where you are. If you keep hiding behind the same tree over again, or another obvious location, a part of the benefit of being hidden will be inefective though, which is to have enemies not know your location and attack a space/square they think you're in, since they will know exactly where to do it. But you are still hidden - unseen and unheard and the benefits of Unseen Attackers and Targets rule still apply.
There is an official ruling on this in Sage Advice Compendium;
If it matters to you, the Dev have said you can hide this way in combat; https://www.sageadvice.eu/if-a-rogue-is-in-complete-cover-can-they-ba-hide/
@danthompson67 need help. If a rogue is in complete cover, can they BA hide? DM rules that enemies are constantly aware despite cover.
@JeremyECrawford The Hide action is one of the actions you can take in combat (PH, 192) because you can, indeed, hide in combat. #DnD
@TeddyYudain as per the rules of Hiding, in combat would the Stealth check be contested by an Active or Passive Perception check?
@JeremyECrawford The Hide action (PH, 192) states that it follows the rules for hiding (PH, 177), which explain the use of active and passive checks. #DnD
@Alphastream Issue that came up most often at Winter Fantasy was rogues wanting to always hide around corner, next end move out and attack hidden.
@JeremyECrawford That's a legitimate use of Cunning Action.
@JeremyECrawford The Hide action is one of the actions you can take in combat (PH, 192) because you can, indeed, hide in combat. #DnD
@Alphastream When you break cover, aren't you no longer hidden?
@MerricB If you keep hiding in the same space, I've seen DMs rule disadvantage on the Hide check - like @mikemearls
@JeremyECrawford Or you can have the foes stop falling for it: "Hi there. I've followed you behind this corner."
@Alphastream I am curious: when the rogue starts round hidden behind wall, moves out, attacks... is she hidden during the attack? Or, broke cover and no?
@JeremyECrawford Are you referring to an attack from behind cover, or are you referring to a rogue who moves X ft. in the open and then attacks?
@Alphastream Later. Rogue starts hidden, moves out to see foe, attacks. Players like to argue they are still hidden on attack.
@JeremyECrawford You can attack while hidden and gain the benefit. But if you run out into the open and then attack, you're not hidden when you attack. #DnD
@danthompson67 my main problem is can a rogue attack with advantage thanks to hiding.
@JeremyECrawford Yes
@danthompson67 say if the rogue has to come from behind corner/tree/cover to get a line of sight, that's ok?
@JeremyECrawford Yes.
@bmfrosty Is it up to the DM to set the difficulty or is that always opposed to a perception check?
@JeremyECrawford See "Hiding" (PH, 177) for how hiding works. Unless someone is actively searching, Stealth is opposed by passive Wisdom (Perception). #DnD
@TubaDanCross you can watch someone go behind a rock and they hide but someone turns invis and you know where they are
@JeremyECrawford The main point to the rules is that you can't see either of those people.
@BoostGeek So shooting a bow while hidden maybe grant the advantage, but running out in melee dont, does that sound about right?
@JeremyECrawford It does!
Nice. That’s a super helpful reply. Thanks for clearing that up. My players don’t have much stealth, but understanding the rules helps to make goblin combat much more interesting!
As an alternative, you could treat the ambush as an encounter and just assign a DC to noticing that something is off. A well-prepared ambush by experienced rangers would most likely be very difficult to notice, a hastily set up ambush by freshly recruited soldiers wouldn't be so well prepared. So set a DC based on the assumed difficulty to notice the ambush (let's say 20 for the first, 12 for the second).
Then you have another choice: either to make one perception check per group, let each player make a check, or require at least half of the group to succeed the check (a matter of taste, really). If the group succeeds, they notice that something is wrong and are alerted which would ruin the surprise.
Also, don't forget to consider the situation and add advantage/disadvantage to the checks. If the ambush is well-prepared, you could give the ambushers advantage. If the adventurers are busy arguing amongst themselves, give them disadvantage. Advantage/disadvantage also works on passive checks if you prefer using those.
The scenario in the OP sounds similar to an encounter that can occur in the adventure Lost Mine of Phandelver. In that adventure, there are actually detailed instructions for how to handle the issue of stealth for that particular encounter which don't necessarily 100% line up with RAW for stealth, but specific beats general as always. It says: "Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check for the goblins: roll one d20 for all of them, add their Stealth skill modifier (+6) to the roll, and compare the total to the characters’ passive Wisdom (Perception) scores. A character whose score is lower than the goblins’ check total is surprised".
So, in that case it was recommended that the DM make one single stealth roll for the entire group of NPC enemies. Perhaps the idea there is that the group of enemies was already successfully hidden long before anyone was around and they are remaining stationary, lying in wait. They are already unseen and unheard and their location is unknown. Their main challenge now is to just remain quiet long enough to successfully coordinate an attack as a group in such a way that it doesn't prematurely tip off the PCs before executing their ambush in a surprising manner. Conceptually, this should make it less likely for an individual monster to completely blunder their efforts to remain hidden through the start of the encounter and the math behind making a single roll clearly benefits the group in this way. I've seen suggestions that for such situations a DM should make one stealth roll for each different type of monster. Like, if there were some Ogres hiding alongside the Goblins for some reason then the Ogres get their own roll and the Goblins get their own roll. Again, I do not think that this method is actually supported anywhere by the rules as written but it's a common method for a DM to use in specific types of stealth situations such as this "lying in wait" stealth scenario. One side benefit of this method is that it greatly reduces the number of times that a DM is rolling dice for certain encounters which can greatly speed up gameplay and put less of a spotlight on DM activity instead of on player activity. There is some precedent in the DMG for trying to reduce excessive DM dice rolling for large combat encounters, but in the OP scenario where there are only 4 enemies perhaps that benefit has limited value. Keep in mind that there is not really any way to use this method for a group of PCs trying to be stealthy since PCs are not the same type of monster with the same stats. Having this method only available to monsters can give the monsters of the world a tactical advantage.
A couple of methods which do appear in the rules are listed under "Working Together" and "Group Checks".
Working together is basically when a character provides Help to another character in attempting to perform a task which can grant advantage on a relevant skill check. However, this method specifies that "a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help." This should pretty much always be true of stealth also -- you cannot Help a stealth check, especially when everyone involved are all trying to be stealthy.
Group Checks seem like a more reasonable option when an entire group is trying to be stealthy together. However, upon carefully reading it seems like it doesn't quite fit for group stealth.
Succeeds at what exactly? Until there is an enemy nearby there really isn't any sort of DC or contest to determine success or failure. The stealth check just represents how stealthy you are being on an ongoing basis. I guess it could sort of work though -- you just have to keep track of the lowest check from the top half of all of the checks from the group and that becomes the group's stealth for hiding. According to the rules for hiding, "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is [used] . . ."
There's another inconsistency vs the rules in that adventure that I referenced above. In that adventure it stated "A character whose score is lower than the goblins’ check total is surprised". However, in the rules for hiding it is described as a contest. ("that check's total is contested by the . . . ") In a contest: "If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest." This means that if the stealth check is equal to the perception check or score then the hidden creature should remain hidden and undiscovered and unnoticed and that the other creature would still be surprised. In effect, the perception score is setting the DC and the stealth check must equal or exceed that value, even though the stealth check may have been rolled well in advance.
The last method is to just follow the rules for hiding which seem to indicate that each creature makes its own individual attempt to hide with its own individual stealth roll. For a situation such as attempting to set up an ambush in advance I agree with the OP that this is a very unsatisfactory solution which provides for a mathematically tiny chance of success, probably unrealistically so in certain scenarios. I think that this method is better in the middle of combat when individual PCs or monsters might independently determine that they want to take the Hide action but it should not be applied to the scenario in the OP imo.
Although not perfect, I think that the Group Check rules are the best option for the scenario presented by the OP. On the other hand, if you think that the surprise mechanics are overpowered and want to make it a very rare occurrence in your world (along the lines of achieving a critical hit) then go ahead and always use individual checks.
Personally, I would roll for all four goblins, that way, if one of them makes a bad roll and the party notices him, then they might think that's the only goblin. That way they're still surprised by the rest of them, resulting in a well laid out goblin ambush.
That is not how surprise works in 5e. If an individual notices a single goblin then that individual is not surprised to begin combat.
I know that is the official rules, but i've been trying a ruleset that's a bit different, i just perfer that way. It was just an idea.