As BioWizard already stated, their aren't any rules that specifically state that hooved creatures cannot be just as stealthy as anybody else. They don't make stealth checks with disadvantage because of having hooves, and some creatures (such as the satyr) are even proficient in stealth.
Now, speaking from more of a house rule standpoint, I suppose a DM could impose disadvantage on stealth checks by hooved creatures because they aren't wearing soft-soled shoes. From a certainly standpoint, I could see the logic that hooves aren't going to move around on that stone dungeon floor nearly as quietly. However, if a DM were going to impose disadvantage on stealth checks, then I would say that they should provide some sort of alternate benefit to offset imposing this disadvantage.
For example, maybe hooved creatures gain the sure footed trait, which gives advantage against attempts to knock it prone. Sure that hooved tiefling isn't very quiet while walking around, but those clomping hooves also make him a lot more steady on his feet...but again, this would be more of a house rule than anything specific to the rules.
It's not like the other characters are Bilbo Baggins walking around with bare feet. The boots adventurers wear would have to be very hard-soled to protect vs. the environment and stand up to all the hiking and mountain climbing and everything else PCs get up to. Those hard soles would make a lot of noise by default walking around dungeons as well. The stealth check is to see if, despite those hard-soled boots, are you able to place your feet in such a way as to make little enough noise that someone at some distance away won't hear you. I don't view the soles of boots as being all that different from hooves.
Plus people are wearing armor, shields, swords with long sheaths that when you duck down or turn around a corner might SMACK into the wall, etc. Are you penalizing people for wearing metal weapons, carrying potions that can clink together, carrying sacks of coins that might jingle, etc? No? Then why penalize the teifling for having hooves?
I think it's mostly just handwaived. A DM could ask what every character is wearing and assign modifiers to the check - DC 10 for the character in ballet slippers, DC 25 for the one in clogs - but that gets to be a bit (or a lot) too simulationist to be practical, never mind fun. Similar adjustments would have to be made for every other activity as well, after all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Plus people are wearing armor, shields, swords with long sheaths that when you duck down or turn around a corner might SMACK into the wall, etc.
While I continue to agree with you, BioWizard, I would like to voice a few thoughts on some of the comparisons that you provided:
Yes, wearing armor and trying to move around in it can be a noisy thing. So much so that some armors already has disadvantage built into the rules based on their concept/design. For example, clunky plate armor would be louder than leather armor and would rightfully deserve the disadvantage penalty.
A long sheath bumping the wall is probably not a constant noise making situation. I view your example of turning and smacking the wall as being more of a situation where the player rolled low on their stealth check and the DM narrates the low roll accordingly.
Walking in hard-soled boots (or with hooves) is a fairly constant thing, since most creatures don't have the option to continue moving without walking, so movement is going to continue to potentially make noise with each footstep. Not saying that stealth should be at disadvantage, but it's not a sudden "bump into something" situation.
Again, I'm not advocating that hooves should give disadvantage, but I would view that somewhat differently than dealing with longer weapons or shields that might inadvertently bump into something.
Are you penalizing people for wearing metal weapons, carrying potions that can clink together, carrying sacks of coins that might jingle, etc? No? Then why penalize the teifling for having hooves?
Well, if someone is the type of DM to penalize a creature with hooves (i.e., tiefling, satyr, minotaur, etc.) on their stealth checks, then I would kinda expect that they'd be the type of DM to also impose penalties to all of the above quirky circumstances that you described. Personally, I would not go that route under normal circumstances, but there's bound to be other DMs who would.
And, I add the "normal circumstances" qualifier because there might be times that I would rule otherwise. For example, the rogue trying to sneak a dozen bags of coins out of the castle treasury under their clothes might be at disadvantage on stealth because of those clinking coins...but that would be fairly circumstantial.
A DM could ask what every character is wearing and assign modifiers to the check - DC 10 for the character in ballet slippers, DC 25 for the one in clogs - but that gets to be a bit (or a lot) too simulationist to be practical, never mind fun.
Yeah, that would get really convoluted very fast. Isn't the idea that the character's Dexterity (Stealth) check needs to beat the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check in order to remain unnoticed? I get that the monk with the really sleek slippers would probably make less noise than the paladin stomping around in their metal-plated boots, but most DMs probably are just factoring those in as part of the flavor more so than providing any special benefit or drawback...although the paladin is probably also in heavy armor, so disadvantage for that, right?
Well, if someone is the type of DM to penalize a creature with hooves (i.e., tiefling, satyr, minotaur, etc.) on their stealth checks, then I would kinda expect that they'd be the type of DM to also impose penalties to all of the above quirky circumstances that you described. Personally, I would not go that route under normal circumstances, but there's bound to be other DMs who would.
As long as it's consistent, I'd not mind it. I would not go the route either because that is a huge headache.
My point is, there are all kinds of other noisy things about the person of an adventurer other than the armors listed in the book as being such, and we don't penalize any of those other things (and the armors give major advantages such as good AC in exchange).
There is nothing in RAW about hooves being a disadvantage on stealth, so unless you are going to pick on other things also not in RAW such as a long sheath dragging on the ground while you crouch or a bag of coins jingling, it'd be patently unfair to do it for a hoofed character.
Deer have hooves and can still be very quiet. But I agree with the overall sentiment that being simulationist to this degree is either 1) the DM looking for a way to penalize someone or 2) a game that delves so deep into every little thing that you never actually accomplish anything or have any fun.
The mountain lions have not eaten all the mountain goats yet. So would seem they can be.
Yeah, nah. Them mountain goats be standing against vertical walls. Not on, against. They do the vertical monk movement thing and then stand still without falling down and flip lions the bird. With hooves. Somehow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone who's ever had the misfortune to unexpectedly stumble across an ill-tempered cow in a field can tell you just how unpleasantly stealthy a hoofed animal can be when it puts its mind to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Like tiefling/satyr as a rogue, you need to climb and walk silently. How can you pull this off?
Soft-soled shoes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Do the rules say the PC character gets disadvantage on stealth checks or can't be proficient in it? If not, then yes, they can be stealthy.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As BioWizard already stated, their aren't any rules that specifically state that hooved creatures cannot be just as stealthy as anybody else. They don't make stealth checks with disadvantage because of having hooves, and some creatures (such as the satyr) are even proficient in stealth.
Now, speaking from more of a house rule standpoint, I suppose a DM could impose disadvantage on stealth checks by hooved creatures because they aren't wearing soft-soled shoes. From a certainly standpoint, I could see the logic that hooves aren't going to move around on that stone dungeon floor nearly as quietly. However, if a DM were going to impose disadvantage on stealth checks, then I would say that they should provide some sort of alternate benefit to offset imposing this disadvantage.
For example, maybe hooved creatures gain the sure footed trait, which gives advantage against attempts to knock it prone. Sure that hooved tiefling isn't very quiet while walking around, but those clomping hooves also make him a lot more steady on his feet...but again, this would be more of a house rule than anything specific to the rules.
It's not like the other characters are Bilbo Baggins walking around with bare feet. The boots adventurers wear would have to be very hard-soled to protect vs. the environment and stand up to all the hiking and mountain climbing and everything else PCs get up to. Those hard soles would make a lot of noise by default walking around dungeons as well. The stealth check is to see if, despite those hard-soled boots, are you able to place your feet in such a way as to make little enough noise that someone at some distance away won't hear you. I don't view the soles of boots as being all that different from hooves.
Plus people are wearing armor, shields, swords with long sheaths that when you duck down or turn around a corner might SMACK into the wall, etc. Are you penalizing people for wearing metal weapons, carrying potions that can clink together, carrying sacks of coins that might jingle, etc? No? Then why penalize the teifling for having hooves?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think it's mostly just handwaived. A DM could ask what every character is wearing and assign modifiers to the check - DC 10 for the character in ballet slippers, DC 25 for the one in clogs - but that gets to be a bit (or a lot) too simulationist to be practical, never mind fun. Similar adjustments would have to be made for every other activity as well, after all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Agreed, and it also makes sense since there are no rules to indicate a stealth penalty for hooves (or hard-soled boots).
While I continue to agree with you, BioWizard, I would like to voice a few thoughts on some of the comparisons that you provided:
Again, I'm not advocating that hooves should give disadvantage, but I would view that somewhat differently than dealing with longer weapons or shields that might inadvertently bump into something.
Well, if someone is the type of DM to penalize a creature with hooves (i.e., tiefling, satyr, minotaur, etc.) on their stealth checks, then I would kinda expect that they'd be the type of DM to also impose penalties to all of the above quirky circumstances that you described. Personally, I would not go that route under normal circumstances, but there's bound to be other DMs who would.
And, I add the "normal circumstances" qualifier because there might be times that I would rule otherwise. For example, the rogue trying to sneak a dozen bags of coins out of the castle treasury under their clothes might be at disadvantage on stealth because of those clinking coins...but that would be fairly circumstantial.
Yeah, that would get really convoluted very fast. Isn't the idea that the character's Dexterity (Stealth) check needs to beat the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check in order to remain unnoticed? I get that the monk with the really sleek slippers would probably make less noise than the paladin stomping around in their metal-plated boots, but most DMs probably are just factoring those in as part of the flavor more so than providing any special benefit or drawback...although the paladin is probably also in heavy armor, so disadvantage for that, right?
As long as it's consistent, I'd not mind it. I would not go the route either because that is a huge headache.
My point is, there are all kinds of other noisy things about the person of an adventurer other than the armors listed in the book as being such, and we don't penalize any of those other things (and the armors give major advantages such as good AC in exchange).
There is nothing in RAW about hooves being a disadvantage on stealth, so unless you are going to pick on other things also not in RAW such as a long sheath dragging on the ground while you crouch or a bag of coins jingling, it'd be patently unfair to do it for a hoofed character.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Deer have hooves and can still be very quiet. But I agree with the overall sentiment that being simulationist to this degree is either 1) the DM looking for a way to penalize someone or 2) a game that delves so deep into every little thing that you never actually accomplish anything or have any fun.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The mountain lions have not eaten all the mountain goats yet. So would seem they can be.
5E removed most of the negatives out of the game. So you don't have to worry about that unless your DM wants you to.
Yeah, nah. Them mountain goats be standing against vertical walls. Not on, against. They do the vertical monk movement thing and then stand still without falling down and flip lions the bird. With hooves. Somehow.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Anyone who's ever had the misfortune to unexpectedly stumble across an ill-tempered cow in a field can tell you just how unpleasantly stealthy a hoofed animal can be when it puts its mind to it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Ahem. Horse boots.
woot woot mcsnoot