I do tell them, yes. Not literally "You succeed at your stealth check," but I describe the reaction of enemies they're trying to hide from. I believe in transparency, but I think the description is more fun for my players, and for me as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons, for You are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup,
Ok, so your characters cast pass without trace. +10 stealth. Barring magic, the highest PP you are likely to get from any guard or sentry is 15, which means that, for the duration of PWT (up to 1hr, and they can probably cast it at least 2x) assuming everyone in the party rolled a 5 or better, they are guaranteed to pass every check. Furthermore, they KNOW that the lowest stealth in the party is a 22 (12+10)... which is pretty good. Even if they have dogs (Keen Senses PP+5) they are safe.
Please explain to me how you keep this encounter even remotely interesting? I can only think of 3 ways. 1) DM hijacking that prevents characters from taking certain actions because they aren't realistic 2) magical Macguffins like helms of true sight or anti-magic field traps 3) deus ex machina. The king's sorcerer appears just as you reach the heavily guarded captain's tent (without issue). He has dragon's blood in him and instantly identifies you.
I much prefer the player agency of the push your luck approach, to the heavy-handedness of the above.
Not sure where that "lowest stealth in the party is 22 (12+10)" is coming from. You were assuming they rolled at least a 5 earlier.
If there's 4 creatures in the party there's only a 40% chance they'll all roll 5 or higher on the d20. The chances are even lower for larger parties, even more so if one or more of them has disadvantage on Stealth checks from their armor. For party with 5 creatures, one of them with disadvantage, you're already looking at only a 26% chance they'll all roll 5 or higher.
Besides, hiding inherently limits the party in a lot of ways. Even with Pass Without Trace, you still need something to hide behind or darkness. If you're relying on darkvision, that means a -5 penalty to spotting tripwires, pressure plates, or clues. You also can't cast spells with verbal components, and opening doors is risky - they can make noise or be rigged with traps from the other side. Even if everyone has impossibly high Stealth checks, it's very unlikely they'll be able to navigate an entire dungeon stealthily.
Also, Alarm is a first-level ritual with an 8 hour duration and no costly components so it's super easy to have in dungeons with no hand-waving. Unless you have Detect Magic at the time, there's no way to know if you're going to trigger it. At higher levels, when the party can consider taking on smart monsters with treasure hoards, Glyph Of Warding is another fantastic trap that's really to detect and lasts until triggered or dispelled.
So I don't think it's hard at all to challenge a party with Pass Without Trace. And if they somehow get lucky and creative and complete their objective through subterfuge, kudos to them! Throw some Inspiration their way for finding a solution to their problems that doesn't involve kicking down every door and killing everything that opposes them.
You can always roll perception for guards the pp is just a set number assumed you took 10 on dice to speed up the process but stealth vs perception is originally an opposed check. Also passive perception is only mentioned in hiding not sneaking around so by RAW you should be rolling perception for any guard if people are trying to sneak past them anyway.
I agree, but inquisitive coder seems to think that this is wrong and/or impossible, so I'm curious how he does it without "rolling every encounter" which is a "bad way to realize this idea" and "rolling once so they have at least a chance of success"... Going back, I see that he's in favor of keeping stealth secret, so I suppose there is some degree of tension, but still...
If you're going by the books, Passive Perception is always what's used unless people are actively looking for you (which they wouldn't be doing if they don't know you're there, and requires an action in combat.) The rules for using Stealth while traveling in Chapter 6 of the Player's Handbook refer you to the Hiding rules, which use passive Perception. Jeremy Crawford also covered this extensively in the Dragon Talk podcast.
RAW, the party decides to start moving, declares a traveling speed and marching order, and if they're moving stealthily they roll their Stealth checks. Those checks are compared to the passive Perception of every creature they come across, until they stop being stealthy or get spotted.
Rolling Perception for every single creature takes longer and like I said earlier the chance that the hiding creature will be able to succeed drops off dramatically as you increase the number of creatures making checks. Having to succeed on 2-3 checks is really hard.
It depends on the situation. If they're rolling against passives, I'll give them a general indication. "You have a reasonable expectation that you're quiet"- especially if they're trying to sneak against a group of diverse creatures that might have different passives.
If the enemies are actively looking for them, I generally tend to roll out in the open for most rolls anyway, so my players can easily see what the results of the d20 are. They might not know what bonuses the enemies are getting to the roll, but again, they have a general idea what the result was (and also, if that enemy rolled low while the player(s) rolled fairly high, and still succeeded, that they might want to run!).
As far as the rerolling question goes, I'll have them reroll their stealth checks anytime the situation changes. Sneaking past three goblin patrols in the same terrain? No reroll. Differing terrain, a new type of enemy with a higher passive has been sighted, or you broke stealth earlier to enter combat? Reroll time.
Well, PC's would have access to a whole lot of visual indicators that can't really be conveyed to their Players, but:
Meta-gamewise: attackers should know before they attack if they have advantage against their target (unless maybe an opponent is purposefully pretending not to see them).
(unless maybe an opponent is purposefully pretending not to see them).
Then, you can also use the players passive insight vs. a deception or performance check by the target :)
I think that would be about the point where there are too many dice rolls for what its worth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
If the player's stealth roll is over the opponent's Perception roll then say, "You sneak through the hallway. None of the guards move their heads or react. It looks like no-one has noticed you."
There are some rolls that I make for the Players. Stealth is one of them. When my player character choose to be stealthy, all I give them is “Okay, you’re being stealthy... Now what are you doing?” Whether they roll. One or a twenty, they never how successful they are, nor how perceptive my monsters are. One of my Rogue players relied on Stealth, and thought that when he was “stealthy” he was effectively untraceable. This way, they never really know what they’re up against... they just know how skillful their PC is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” - Albert Einstein (Saturday Evening Post - 1929)
I think it's fine if you want to roll Stealth for your players in secret, but I think that by the same logic you could also justify rolling Perception, as well as Charisma and Intelligence checks for your players in situations where they wouldn't automatically know that they are successful or not. Then at that point you're just playing with yourself.
I think it's fine if you want to roll Stealth for your players in secret, but I think that by the same logic you could also justify rolling Perception, as well as Charisma and Intelligence checks for your players in situations where they wouldn't automatically know that they are successful or not. Then at that point you're just playing with yourself.
In practice there's very few situations where there's a need to hide other rolls. Consider Perception. Either 1) they're not actively looking, in which case you use passive Perception behind the scenes; 2) they're actively looking and succeed; or 3) they fail and try again. Telling them they find nothing isn't going to deter them from continuing to check until they roll a 20.
It generally doesn't make sense to reroll social checks or knowledge checks so it doesn't matter if they find out they failed or not. They can't meaningfully act on that information.
Also, passive checks aren't limited to Perception.
You don't see your 3rd example as being just as problematic as a character changing their actions due to a low Stealth roll?
I don't. Unlike failing a Stealth check, there's practically no consequence for failing a Perception check.
If the player thinks a bookcase is suspicious, and there is in fact something hidden in it, and they can find it with a nat 20, they're going to find it eventually. The DMG even advices you to skip the check in these cases and just assume they succeed after 10x the time of a single check. If they don't have infinite time, it's up to them how much time they want to burn before moving on to other things.
That said, I don't let players "make Perception checks"; they have to tell me what they're examining.
Well the consequence, as with all checks, is success or failure. If players can't accept a roll that predicts likely failure, and decide to act in a way that reflects what they as a player know or suspect rather than what their character would know or suspect, then they are not playing in the spirit of the game (at least in the spirit I would expect as a DM). Example: A player is asked to roll a Perception check to spot a trap on the path they are travelling and they roll a 9. Suddenly, because of this roll they decide to stop and look again, even though they didn't spot anything. Now, you could say that it is too late for them to do anything differently because their initial failure means they sprung the trap because they didn't see it. That just goes back to my earlier point about asking for checks when there are immediate consequences. But maybe it's not immediate and the trap is 60ft away. I would expect the player to acknowledge that their character did not see anything and continue on as their character normally would.
Again, there is no rule that says actions can't be retried just because they involve an ability ability check. The DMG explicitly says retries are possible. See DMG Chapter 8: Running The Game, Using Ability Scores, Multiple Checks:
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task.
Your example would never come up because RAW you don't ask players to make Perception checks to notice things they're not aware of; you look at their passive Perception to determine that. Players only roll Perception when they're actively looking for something, and failing to find it doesn't mean it's not there or that they can't keep looking.
Case in point, if an enemy the player is aware of successfully hides in combat, and the player uses the Search action but fails to find it, the player still knows the enemy's there. You wouldn't expect them to accept the failure and let the enemy go.
But if the player suspects a trap and actively searches you would ask for a Perception check, no? If they roll low, then you allow them to keep rolling until they get a high roll? Or do away with rolls altogether and just grant them success after a certain amount of time? Does it makes sense that the character knows exactly how perceptive he or she is being at any given time? No, the player knows, not the character. It's the same thing with Stealth, imo.
I think the line from the DMG you quote would be more applicable to efforts that have recognizable effects. Can't lift the rock? Try again. Didn't persuade the guard? Try again. Didn't find what you were looking for? Sure try again, but only if it makes sense for the character to know that they've missed something. There's only so many times you can try something before it becomes silly.
Idk, maybe you're right, but I'm just not getting the logic.
Idk, maybe you're right, but I'm just not getting the logic.
Have you never been looking for something, or seen someone looking for something, and then find it in a place you already searched and swore it wasn't there just a minute ago?
I.e. "where's the remote?" and you search the couch, then the floor, then start looking on the TV stand... and it's not anywhere, so you go back to the couch and check again because it's got to be somewhere, and there it is right in a spot you swear you already checked.
Well, that same "I'll check again because maybe I just missed something" reasoning applies even if you aren't looking for a specific object that you feel certain is somewhere nearby.
Yeah, I've certainly had moments like that, but I don't see why the same reasoning applies to someone looking for traps, treasure or hidden monsters. Looking for a familiar object in a familiar environment is much different than trying to find an unknown item in a dangerous, mysterious dungeon. It's probably why "The Quest to Find my Car Keys" isn't a very popular adventure module.
The point I'm trying to make is that if a character can't know how stealthy they are being, then the same logic can apply to other uncertain checks, such as checks to see how perceptive they are being. If someone fails at a Perception check, then how can they perceive how unperceptive they are being and be allowed to stop and check again? Players should be trusted to play with the knowledge their characters have, not the knowledge the players have. In order to close that gap I would play it as the character looking for something who fails their check might be aware that they are not really focused on the task at hand, or like you suggest, have a niggling feeling that there is something to find, and "know" that they have failed their "Perception roll." In the same way, a character who is trying to be stealthy and fails, might be aware of noise they are making. This way the DM doesn't need to make secret rolls for the characters.
The point I'm trying to make is that if a character can't know how stealthy they are being, then the same logic can apply to other uncertain checks, such as checks to see how perceptive they are being.
...
In order to close that gap I would play it as the character looking for something who fails their check might be aware that they are not really focused on the task at hand, or like you suggest, have a niggling feeling that there is something to find, and "know" that they have failed their "Perception roll." In the same way, a character who is trying to be stealthy and fails, might be aware of noise they are making.
It rarely makes sense to map d20 numbers to how well a character is performing a task. The dice are just a way to resolve random events.
Consider a game of Find Waldo. How many 6 second intervals is it going to take you to find him? Who knows? Depends on how long it takes you to arbitrarily decide to look in the right direction, and how long it takes your brain to finally filter Waldo out from all the noise. Sometimes you'll find him very quickly and sometimes it'll take you a long time. Failing to find him quickly doesn't imply you're doing a poor job, you just haven't gotten lucky. But if Waldo is there, you will find him eventually. And if he's not, it's up to you how many times you want to fail before you decide there's nothing to find. You could give up after 1 minute, 5, or 20.
The idea that the character is aware they rolled low doesn't really make sense. You're always doing your best at whatever task you're attempting; it'd be stupid not to. Sometimes you fail because of forces beyond your control. If a character was aware they were moving noisily, they'd self-correct and start moving quietly, or just stop trying to be stealthy altogether.
The idea that the character is aware they rolled low doesn't really make sense. You're always doing your best at whatever task you're attempting; it'd be stupid not to. Sometimes you fail because of forces beyond your control. If a character was aware they were moving noisily, they'd self-correct and start moving quietly, or just stop trying to be stealthy altogether.
I think you're making my point. Characters don't know rolls, players do. Players should play according to what their characters know and it shouldn't matter that they know the roll, whether it is Stealth or Perception or any other check. I was only suggesting this approach as a way to bridge the gap between player knowledge and character knowledge, which could be used to justify giving players an excuse to use a different approach or try again at something their characters failed at, but would not necessarily know that they had failed.
As for the Waldo example, that's another case of looking for something you know is there, and also why the Where's Waldo RPG is just as popular as the Quest to Find my Car Keys module. In D&D, the trap, the monster, the hidden door, the enemy who hid during combat etc. may or may not be there - the character doesn't know. The enemy could have teleported or may have become invisible and sneaked away. Who knows? The character looks and assumes that they are doing their best regardless of the actual roll. If they know that a secret door, or whatever, MUST be there and they are willing to spend as much time as it takes to find it then your point is taken. However, if they decide to keep looking, revise their intentions or start getting other characters to copy their action in hopes of success, all based on a bad roll, then they are not playing in the spirit of the game. The latter happens all the time, but inventing a reason for characters to "know" how they rolled gives justification for a second try.
Again, all I'm trying to say is that justifications for keeping Stealth rolls secret could just as easily be extended to other rolls, but ultimately that there shouldn't be any reason to keep rolls for character ability checks secret. Right or wrong, that's the last I'll say on the matter. Thank you for the vigorous debate.
Yeah, I've certainly had moments like that, but I don't see why the same reasoning applies to someone looking for traps, treasure or hidden monsters. Looking for a familiar object in a familiar environment is much different than trying to find an unknown item in a dangerous, mysterious dungeon. It's probably why "The Quest to Find my Car Keys" isn't a very popular adventure module.
The same reasoning applies to someone looking for [insert thing they feel it is important to find, if present] in an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous environment because of this:
It is, logically speaking, more likely that a person find a familiar object in a familiar environment than it is that they find an unfamiliar object in an unfamiliar environment, but everyone still manages to fail that more likely task from time to time. So the assumption that the initial search of an unfamiliar environment did not result in a discovery because of error on the searching person's part is not unreasonable - the person is simply thinking "I didn't find anything... but I have failed at easier searches than a trap could easily be, so there may be something here."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do tell them, yes. Not literally "You succeed at your stealth check," but I describe the reaction of enemies they're trying to hide from. I believe in transparency, but I think the description is more fun for my players, and for me as well.
Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons, for You are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup,
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It depends on the situation. If they're rolling against passives, I'll give them a general indication. "You have a reasonable expectation that you're quiet"- especially if they're trying to sneak against a group of diverse creatures that might have different passives.
If the enemies are actively looking for them, I generally tend to roll out in the open for most rolls anyway, so my players can easily see what the results of the d20 are. They might not know what bonuses the enemies are getting to the roll, but again, they have a general idea what the result was (and also, if that enemy rolled low while the player(s) rolled fairly high, and still succeeded, that they might want to run!).
As far as the rerolling question goes, I'll have them reroll their stealth checks anytime the situation changes. Sneaking past three goblin patrols in the same terrain? No reroll. Differing terrain, a new type of enemy with a higher passive has been sighted, or you broke stealth earlier to enter combat? Reroll time.
Well, PC's would have access to a whole lot of visual indicators that can't really be conveyed to their Players, but:
Meta-gamewise: attackers should know before they attack if they have advantage against their target (unless maybe an opponent is purposefully pretending not to see them).
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Begin and end with the fiction.
If the player's stealth roll is over the opponent's Perception roll then say, "You sneak through the hallway. None of the guards move their heads or react. It looks like no-one has noticed you."
There are some rolls that I make for the Players. Stealth is one of them. When my player character choose to be stealthy, all I give them is “Okay, you’re being stealthy... Now what are you doing?” Whether they roll. One or a twenty, they never how successful they are, nor how perceptive my monsters are. One of my Rogue players relied on Stealth, and thought that when he was “stealthy” he was effectively untraceable. This way, they never really know what they’re up against... they just know how skillful their PC is.
“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” - Albert Einstein (Saturday Evening Post - 1929)
I think it's fine if you want to roll Stealth for your players in secret, but I think that by the same logic you could also justify rolling Perception, as well as Charisma and Intelligence checks for your players in situations where they wouldn't automatically know that they are successful or not. Then at that point you're just playing with yourself.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You don't see your 3rd example as being just as problematic as a character changing their actions due to a low Stealth roll?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Well the consequence, as with all checks, is success or failure. If players can't accept a roll that predicts likely failure, and decide to act in a way that reflects what they as a player know or suspect rather than what their character would know or suspect, then they are not playing in the spirit of the game (at least in the spirit I would expect as a DM). Example: A player is asked to roll a Perception check to spot a trap on the path they are travelling and they roll a 9. Suddenly, because of this roll they decide to stop and look again, even though they didn't spot anything. Now, you could say that it is too late for them to do anything differently because their initial failure means they sprung the trap because they didn't see it. That just goes back to my earlier point about asking for checks when there are immediate consequences. But maybe it's not immediate and the trap is 60ft away. I would expect the player to acknowledge that their character did not see anything and continue on as their character normally would.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
But if the player suspects a trap and actively searches you would ask for a Perception check, no? If they roll low, then you allow them to keep rolling until they get a high roll? Or do away with rolls altogether and just grant them success after a certain amount of time? Does it makes sense that the character knows exactly how perceptive he or she is being at any given time? No, the player knows, not the character. It's the same thing with Stealth, imo.
I think the line from the DMG you quote would be more applicable to efforts that have recognizable effects. Can't lift the rock? Try again. Didn't persuade the guard? Try again. Didn't find what you were looking for? Sure try again, but only if it makes sense for the character to know that they've missed something. There's only so many times you can try something before it becomes silly.
Idk, maybe you're right, but I'm just not getting the logic.
Yeah, I've certainly had moments like that, but I don't see why the same reasoning applies to someone looking for traps, treasure or hidden monsters. Looking for a familiar object in a familiar environment is much different than trying to find an unknown item in a dangerous, mysterious dungeon. It's probably why "The Quest to Find my Car Keys" isn't a very popular adventure module.
The point I'm trying to make is that if a character can't know how stealthy they are being, then the same logic can apply to other uncertain checks, such as checks to see how perceptive they are being. If someone fails at a Perception check, then how can they perceive how unperceptive they are being and be allowed to stop and check again? Players should be trusted to play with the knowledge their characters have, not the knowledge the players have. In order to close that gap I would play it as the character looking for something who fails their check might be aware that they are not really focused on the task at hand, or like you suggest, have a niggling feeling that there is something to find, and "know" that they have failed their "Perception roll." In the same way, a character who is trying to be stealthy and fails, might be aware of noise they are making. This way the DM doesn't need to make secret rolls for the characters.
It rarely makes sense to map d20 numbers to how well a character is performing a task. The dice are just a way to resolve random events.
Consider a game of Find Waldo. How many 6 second intervals is it going to take you to find him? Who knows? Depends on how long it takes you to arbitrarily decide to look in the right direction, and how long it takes your brain to finally filter Waldo out from all the noise. Sometimes you'll find him very quickly and sometimes it'll take you a long time. Failing to find him quickly doesn't imply you're doing a poor job, you just haven't gotten lucky. But if Waldo is there, you will find him eventually. And if he's not, it's up to you how many times you want to fail before you decide there's nothing to find. You could give up after 1 minute, 5, or 20.
The idea that the character is aware they rolled low doesn't really make sense. You're always doing your best at whatever task you're attempting; it'd be stupid not to. Sometimes you fail because of forces beyond your control. If a character was aware they were moving noisily, they'd self-correct and start moving quietly, or just stop trying to be stealthy altogether.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The same reasoning applies to someone looking for [insert thing they feel it is important to find, if present] in an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous environment because of this:
It is, logically speaking, more likely that a person find a familiar object in a familiar environment than it is that they find an unfamiliar object in an unfamiliar environment, but everyone still manages to fail that more likely task from time to time. So the assumption that the initial search of an unfamiliar environment did not result in a discovery because of error on the searching person's part is not unreasonable - the person is simply thinking "I didn't find anything... but I have failed at easier searches than a trap could easily be, so there may be something here."