First of all, thanks so much for all your comments. Second, I learned a lot about things not necessarily related to my post - or maybe tangentially. Third, all of your comments brings it home to me, as a new DM, that there are always extenuating circumstances and possibilities that you're free to choose from. I think the key is to be consistent, regardless which path you adhere to.
Okay, a couple of things. I ruled in my PbP game that as soon as an intention to harm was made, initiative must be rolled. I did this because neither part was surprised. Sure, you could argue the PC and their familiar should have been, but they knew something was there and were on their toes. The goblins knew something was coming and were waiting. Actually, some of the players heard the gobbers arguing and one even saw a goblin dragging their comrade back to cover.
Anyways, I realized that regardless of how I felt about it, which was that the shots should have went off like a readied action. Regardless of that, I asked for initiatives because the players need to have that opportunity to have their dexterity (through initiative) matter. The goblins were ready, the PC was cautious; PC couldn't hide they were trying to be stealthy. The gobs knew there was someone coming. So in that moment they raise their bows and draw. The PCs and gobs have 3/4 cover and with this ruling, only one goblin rolled higher initiative. In my game, this meant they did loose the arrows but the PC snapped back at the last second and the other goblin was just too slow, in spite of him waiting for an enemy to come around the corner.
The person who posted about the readied actions - I think that's a pretty neat idea and it does happen a lot in PbP and you would need to be clear that you can't just have a series of "unlesses" and "ifs" to make it really work.
Here is the map from the battle, if you're interested.
I think you resolved it really well! I think I would have handled it the same way now that I can clearly see the full context with the map and all.
I just wanted to talk a bit about the DM's ability to adjudicate and improvise outside of the scope of traditional combat. If a DM wanted to, they could skip attack rolls entirely in a situation where enemies have set up a blockade of archers, and instead call for a DEX save from the scout who fails their stealth check. Like... let's say you stick your head out, make a DC10 DEX Save... on a failure you take 4d6 piercing damage, on a success you pull your head back in time and avoid all the damage. There's no one rule that tells you this is how this is meant to be resolved, but as a DM it's something you're allowed to do. If a player foolishly runs headlong into a field watched over by archers and you don't feel like rolling 18 separate attacks, you don't have to. You don't even have to base damage on the damage die that bows actually use... if you decide their failure results in 9d12 damage, well... that's what happens. Your players don't need to know what specific dice you rolled for that behind your screen.
Again, I don't really think I would go for that type of improvisation in the specific scenario that started this discussion, but it was just something that some of the conversation got me thinking about... and may have been discussed before. There was a lot of very wordy discussion in this thread and I admit that I lost track of the detailed conversation at a few points.
i guess my reasoning for disadvantage was a bit of feel bad in case the PCs face got knocked off (he's a wizard, so maybe it's the case he shouldn't be looking around dangerous corners anyway :)
Stupid games win stupid prizes. A wizard will never learn to keep their ass behind cover and at the back of the party if you coddle them and save them from a well deserved ass whooping.
First of all, thanks so much for all your comments. Second, I learned a lot about things not necessarily related to my post - or maybe tangentially. Third, all of your comments brings it home to me, as a new DM, that there are always extenuating circumstances and possibilities that you're free to choose from. I think the key is to be consistent, regardless which path you adhere to.
Okay, a couple of things. I ruled in my PbP game that as soon as an intention to harm was made, initiative must be rolled. I did this because neither part was surprised. Sure, you could argue the PC and their familiar should have been, but they knew something was there and were on their toes. The goblins knew something was coming and were waiting. Actually, some of the players heard the gobbers arguing and one even saw a goblin dragging their comrade back to cover.
Anyways, I realized that regardless of how I felt about it, which was that the shots should have went off like a readied action. Regardless of that, I asked for initiatives because the players need to have that opportunity to have their dexterity (through initiative) matter. The goblins were ready, the PC was cautious; PC couldn't hide they were trying to be stealthy. The gobs knew there was someone coming. So in that moment they raise their bows and draw. The PCs and gobs have 3/4 cover and with this ruling, only one goblin rolled higher initiative. In my game, this meant they did loose the arrows but the PC snapped back at the last second and the other goblin was just too slow, in spite of him waiting for an enemy to come around the corner.
The person who posted about the readied actions - I think that's a pretty neat idea and it does happen a lot in PbP and you would need to be clear that you can't just have a series of "unlesses" and "ifs" to make it really work.
Here is the map from the battle, if you're interested.
I think you resolved it really well! I think I would have handled it the same way now that I can clearly see the full context with the map and all.
I just wanted to talk a bit about the DM's ability to adjudicate and improvise outside of the scope of traditional combat. If a DM wanted to, they could skip attack rolls entirely in a situation where enemies have set up a blockade of archers, and instead call for a DEX save from the scout who fails their stealth check. Like... let's say you stick your head out, make a DC10 DEX Save... on a failure you take 4d6 piercing damage, on a success you pull your head back in time and avoid all the damage. There's no one rule that tells you this is how this is meant to be resolved, but as a DM it's something you're allowed to do. If a player foolishly runs headlong into a field watched over by archers and you don't feel like rolling 18 separate attacks, you don't have to. You don't even have to base damage on the damage die that bows actually use... if you decide their failure results in 9d12 damage, well... that's what happens. Your players don't need to know what specific dice you rolled for that behind your screen.
Again, I don't really think I would go for that type of improvisation in the specific scenario that started this discussion, but it was just something that some of the conversation got me thinking about... and may have been discussed before. There was a lot of very wordy discussion in this thread and I admit that I lost track of the detailed conversation at a few points.
Good viewpoint here. I appreciate the fact you are less concerned with the "right" answer and more on the "whats right for YOU answer". I know I can get caught up in rules based explanations as balance is a core focus for me. I think that I can create a good experience by creating consistent rules that the players can ensure they can play by. I do less DM winging it and more establishing a baseline that they can interact with how they see fit.
Ultimately its more about what works for you guys...if you want more dynamic changes in rules to fit the wildly unpredictable world and the players go for it you can do that and make it work. If your players want predictable rules that force them to think within those constructs that works too.
Just talk with them after the fact and see if your solution is what you all want to do and go from there.
I don't think you can have a held action unless the goblins detected the heroes before they peeked and knew they were coming imminently. They can hold their bows drawn indefinitely just because they're on alert to adventurers in the vicinity.
Nor do I think they get surprise, because they are not hidden behind any kind of cover. Once the rogue peeks, they see each other, and neither is surprised. Roll initiative for the goblins and the rogue. The rest of the party, however, do not see the goblins and are surprised. They roll initiative but do not act in the first round.
I don't think you can have a held action unless the goblins detected the heroes before they peeked and knew they were coming imminently. They can hold their bows drawn indefinitely just because they're on alert to adventurers in the vicinity.
While I agree, and although it could be taken round after round, "ready" only lasts one round anyway. But it's not a problem, the goblins knew the wizard was coming as he had failed his stealth check.
Nor do I think they get surprise, because they are not hidden behind any kind of cover.
Just look at the map, they absolutely are behind a 3-foot wall, which is more than enough for a goblin to hide behind.
Moroever, you are (as many here) confusing cover and obscurement. Even without the wall, they could be in darkness (not magical, just the absence of light) and therefore not visible to the wizard whereas hs is perfectly visible to them, due at least to darkvision if not also the fact that he might be carrying some illumination that would not reach the goblins until the light itself goes around the corner.
Once the rogue peeks, they see each other, and neither is surprised.
Not necessarily. If it's within combat, the arrows will fly before the wizard sees the goblins, just as he starts moving around the corner. It obviously depends on the trigger of the ready action, but if properly formulated it would totally be the case.
Moreover, see above, the wizard might not even see the goblins, possibly in darkness, and behind a low wall anyway.
Roll initiative for the goblins and the rogue.
There is no rogue here, just a clumsy wizard and his clumsy familiar.
The rest of the party, however, do not see the goblins and are surprised. They roll initiative but do not act in the first round.
Of course, but I think this is another topic entirely.
Darkness wasn't mentioned, and if it's dark, I'd have to assume the wizard also has dark vision, or what's the point of peeking? He could be carrying his own light source, but then he should get no chance for stealth. The goblins could be hiding behind the wall, but that also wasn't mentioned, and if they were, I'd make each of them that wanted a chance to shoot in any potential surprise round make a stealth check, as they would have to be peeking.
To be holding their action, the goblins would have to be aware of the party the round before. That's possible, if the wizard failed his check so badly that the goblins heard him coming down the hall. I had assumed he just failed in the moment he stuck his head out around the corner. Or if the goblins otherwise knew the party was coming imminently, because of a silent alarm or something like that. I'd let the goblins hold their bows drawn for up to maybe a minute.
I don't think you can have a held action unless the goblins detected the heroes before they peeked and knew they were coming imminently. They can hold their bows drawn indefinitely just because they're on alert to adventurers in the vicinity.
While I agree, and although it could be taken round after round, "ready" only lasts one round anyway. But it's not a problem, the goblins knew the wizard was coming as he had failed his stealth check.
Nor do I think they get surprise, because they are not hidden behind any kind of cover.
Just look at the map, they absolutely are behind a 3-foot wall, which is more than enough for a goblin to hide behind.
Moroever, you are (as many here) confusing cover and obscurement. Even without the wall, they could be in darkness (not magical, just the absence of light) and therefore not visible to the wizard whereas hs is perfectly visible to them, due at least to darkvision if not also the fact that he might be carrying some illumination that would not reach the goblins until the light itself goes around the corner.
Once the rogue peeks, they see each other, and neither is surprised.
Not necessarily. If it's within combat, the arrows will fly before the wizard sees the goblins, just as he starts moving around the corner. It obviously depends on the trigger of the ready action, but if properly formulated it would totally be the case.
Moreover, see above, the wizard might not even see the goblins, possibly in darkness, and behind a low wall anyway.
Roll initiative for the goblins and the rogue.
There is no rogue here, just a clumsy wizard and his clumsy familiar.
The rest of the party, however, do not see the goblins and are surprised. They roll initiative but do not act in the first round.
Of course, but I think this is another topic entirely.
Darkness wasn't mentioned, and if it's dark, I'd have to assume the wizard also has dark vision, or what's the point of peeking? He could be carrying his own light source, but then he should get no chance for stealth. The goblins could be hiding behind the wall, but that also wasn't mentioned, and if they were, I'd make each of them that wanted a chance to shoot in any potential surprise round make a stealth check, as they would have to be peeking.
To be holding their action, the goblins would have to be aware of the party the round before. That's possible, if the wizard failed his check so badly that the goblins heard him coming down the hall. I had assumed he just failed in the moment he stuck his head out around the corner. Or if the goblins otherwise knew the party was coming imminently, because of a silent alarm or something like that. I'd let the goblins hold their bows drawn for up to maybe a minute.
Your initial thought is correct as held actions before initiative is not a thing.
I agree with most of that. Still, even with a hide action or bonus action, you have to make a stealth check against at least the wizard's passive perception. If there's a large party of goblins, probably at least one will fail and present some target for the wizard in the first round, whereas the rest will get advantage on their attacks.
I agree with most of that. Still, even with a hide action or bonus action, you have to make a stealth check against at least the wizard's passive perception. If there's a large party of goblins, probably at least one will fail and present some target for the wizard in the first round, whereas the rest will get advantage on their attacks.
Also, if the wizard spots even one goblin, he can use his movement on his turn to duck back around the corner and avoid getting hit by any goblins he outrolled in initiative. They could then, of course, hold their actions for a free shot when the party does show up.
I think in general there just need to be conditions. Under certain conditions, some of the monsters might get a free shot, but it's not generally true that a whole party of monsters on guard for potential intruders get free shots whenever you fail a stealth check.
Also, if the wizard spots even one goblin, he can use his movement on his turn to duck back around the corner and avoid getting hit by any goblins he outrolled in initiative. They could then, of course, hold their actions for a free shot when the party does show up.
I think in general there just need to be conditions. Under certain conditions, some of the monsters might get a free shot, but it's not generally true that a whole party of monsters on guard for potential intruders get free shots whenever you fail a stealth check.
Yeah especially if you have invested in Perception (to spot such things) or the Alert feat (Avoid surprises).
Based on the way this is going back & forward, I think the correct approach would have been to not end combat between these events - the party killed some goblins, and some other goblins fled and then readied their actions. The party & the goblins are aware of one another, so really it should have continued with actions at initiative order.
The issue stems from the arbitrary break in combat where the goblins, who were literally just around the corner, suddenly (RAW) lose their readied action because the party stopped acting like they were in combat. Initiative should be maintained for as long as there are enemies within reasonable combat distance (unless the DM wants to prevent metagaming), and if the DM decides to drop initiative briefly, it should be continued as soon as the goblins are involved. Effectively, the wizard spent a turn moving to the corner and peeking around, and the goblins has spent a few turns readied to fire when he did so.
The whole surprise/readied action/ hiding thing is more pertinent to situations which don't immediately follow a combat.
Yeah I would be pretty pissed if I pumped passive perception and the creatures always got free shots in without having to roll stealth checks.
The DM does what he wants. He could decide to roll or not, he could decide to apply the passive, it's absolutely his call to say that you have not noticed them because they were too well hidden.
Of course, it's better not to abuse this, but in our games, we apply the DMG suggestion of rolling as little as possible, and this applies to everyone, PCs, NPCs and Monsters. Not only does this prevent metagaming, but, as mentioned in the DMG: "This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities."
So if the DM, wanting to speed up play, and deciding that one party is much better than the other anyway, and not wanting some metagaming of the PC suddenly "having a bad feeling about this" turns around because he hears the stealth checks or is asked to roll initiative, decides that the passive stealth of the goblins with a 16 is much greater than the passive perception of the wizard (low level, probably 10), he is perfectly alright to do so.
It's not a question of being "pissed off", but if you play "badly" (not in the sense that it's bad roleplaying but in the sense that your character takes inconsiderate risks) in a harsh environment, you will get the consequences coming back to bite you. And this is why we don't roll dices that often, because at our tables we usually agree about the inevitable consequences of some decisions. And, very important, it's not to teach anything to anyone, it's just the internal consistency of having adventures in a dangerous world, that everyone around the table, players and DM agree to.
I think he means he would be angry that his choice is invalidated due to "reasons" which is a bad approach IMO. Like the whole idea of stealth/suprise is basically stealth vs. perception and if you are circumventing that for nebulous reasons that are not clear to the group that's a problem. If I picked Observant to make my passive perception really high and the DM didn't even roll against it because they were "too hidden" I would likely be upset too. Especially if that was not addressed before I took the feat.
If you outline this ahead of time its less likely to be an issue but the RAW way would be for them to stealth roll vs your passive perception.
I agree that the interruption in the combat would likely be not needed and this would allow for the natural flow of the game to go better if it had not.
I mean...no I would just roll the stealth check and let the dice decide as its whats called for in this case. They did not mention any kind of environmental factors that would provide an advantage to the goblins so it would be a straight stealth roll vs passive perception. Its very clear.
If the goblins roll low so be it....but if they roll 10+ yeah they will beat the wizard which is fine. You used the rules and the outcome was determined as RAW dictated.
You should obsoletely have a conversation with your players if you plan on using environmental features or passive stealth (which TBH I have never seen anyone use) to increase stealth checks for enemy's if someone is taking observant. Its just good DMing to let people know how their choices could be impacted by your style of play. If they know it and they still choose it....well as Grickle stated that is on them.
But changing the rules during the game without clearly setting the expectations for the players is not a good move IMO.
Passive stealth? That's a thing? Yeah that the DM makes the creatures and knows the passive of the players and would use a passive score to overcome their perception instead of a roll... That's rough.
I would never do that as you are basically just saying "lol goblins go shhhhh" and they can't win a stealth vs perception battle as you likely made it impossible for them.
Well I think he is talking about passive stealth...but its a bit hard to tell. I don't advocate passive skills either unless its over a very long period of time.
I mean...no I would just roll the stealth check and let the dice decide as its whats called for in this case. They did not mention any kind of environmental factors that would provide an advantage to the goblins so it would be a straight stealth roll vs passive perception. Its very clear.
If the goblins roll low so be it....but if they roll 10+ yeah they will beat the wizard which is fine. You used the rules and the outcome was determined as RAW dictated.
Once more, RAW does NOT require a roll. Just a check, and it's not the same thing.
You should obsoletely have a conversation with your players if you plan on using environmental features or passive stealth (which TBH I have never seen anyone use) to increase stealth checks for enemy's if someone is taking observant. Its just good DMing to let people know how their choices could be impacted by your style of play. If they know it and they still choose it....well as Grickle stated that is on them.
But changing the rules during the game without clearly setting the expectations for the players is not a good move IMO.
No one is changing the rules, it rather seems to me that there are lots of ideas that you consider for granted but which are absolutely not part of the rules, only things that you imagine. Everything that I have written is absolutely RAW. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Of course taking the environment into account is part of the RAW:
Consider granting advantage when …
Some aspect of the environment contributes to the character’s chance of success.
Consider imposing disadvantage when …
Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely (assuming that aspect doesn’t already impose a penalty to the roll being made).
And this is on active and passive checks. Please let go of this notion that "you are entitled to a simple roll of perception in all circumstances", the RAW absolutely do NOT say this. Completely the contrary, in fact.
And this has nothing to do with someone taking observant. On the contrary, I am a passionate advocate of NOT changing the DC according to whoever does a task or how, and been in many heated discussions with DMs who think that if a PC is good at something, then the DC should be higher so that there is a "challenge". A challenge of what, I wonder, apart from being lucky at dice ? So no, I will not increase the DC because a PC is observant, but just because you have the feat does not mean that you will notice everything and if, as the DM, I tell you that, yes you are observant, but noticed nothing, then you will have to trust me. I know lots of things that you don't, as I'm the DM. And I'm not here to make you feel bad, I'm here so that you have fun, but that does not mean that your character will be having fun, this is a dangerous world for him.
Honestly I can't really discern what your approach is then....are you giving ADV to the goblins? are you letting them use passive stealth? Are you just saying they do not have to roll at all for the stealth?
You keep mentioning several different things and its kind of like a flurry of thoughts...I am not sure what you are advocating for at this point.
You are not the only one mate.... I'm not sure what he saying either.
ADV would make them most sense from what the wide variety of stuff you have tossed out but even then I don't see it in this case.
Passive stealth seems memey overall and while you can use it....I would question it for a stealth check? It's like why?
And if you aren't making the gobbos roll stealth at all you might as well be just saying "lol goblins go shhh" and dabbing on your players because that makes no sense either
Passive stealth? That's a thing? Yeah that the DM makes the creatures and knows the passive of the players and would use a passive score to overcome their perception instead of a roll... That's rough.
It's still 100% part of the RAW. Read the sections on passive checks, they apply to whatever skill the DM chooses, and in particular: "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." The example is given on perception but it is not restricted to it or any type of skill.
I don't use passive stealth that often, but I do occasionally to see how quiet creatures (or PCs, for example around their camp) are. Very useful stat to have, and actually my foundry is configured to display it on all my tokens when I hover.
I would never do that as you are basically just saying "lol goblins go shhhhh" and they can't win a stealth vs perception battle as you likely made it impossible for them.
You do realise that if the passive is that high, it's because they have a high skill and that therefore, if you were to roll the dice, it probably would be even more impossible, right ?
Do you let players use passive stealth? If not then I do find that a bit odd you would only use it against players as you have all the knowledge to just make sneaky creatures attack the party at will without having to roll at all....which is a bit problematic to me as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you resolved it really well! I think I would have handled it the same way now that I can clearly see the full context with the map and all.
I just wanted to talk a bit about the DM's ability to adjudicate and improvise outside of the scope of traditional combat. If a DM wanted to, they could skip attack rolls entirely in a situation where enemies have set up a blockade of archers, and instead call for a DEX save from the scout who fails their stealth check. Like... let's say you stick your head out, make a DC10 DEX Save... on a failure you take 4d6 piercing damage, on a success you pull your head back in time and avoid all the damage. There's no one rule that tells you this is how this is meant to be resolved, but as a DM it's something you're allowed to do. If a player foolishly runs headlong into a field watched over by archers and you don't feel like rolling 18 separate attacks, you don't have to. You don't even have to base damage on the damage die that bows actually use... if you decide their failure results in 9d12 damage, well... that's what happens. Your players don't need to know what specific dice you rolled for that behind your screen.
Again, I don't really think I would go for that type of improvisation in the specific scenario that started this discussion, but it was just something that some of the conversation got me thinking about... and may have been discussed before. There was a lot of very wordy discussion in this thread and I admit that I lost track of the detailed conversation at a few points.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Stupid games win stupid prizes. A wizard will never learn to keep their ass behind cover and at the back of the party if you coddle them and save them from a well deserved ass whooping.
Good viewpoint here. I appreciate the fact you are less concerned with the "right" answer and more on the "whats right for YOU answer". I know I can get caught up in rules based explanations as balance is a core focus for me. I think that I can create a good experience by creating consistent rules that the players can ensure they can play by. I do less DM winging it and more establishing a baseline that they can interact with how they see fit.
Ultimately its more about what works for you guys...if you want more dynamic changes in rules to fit the wildly unpredictable world and the players go for it you can do that and make it work. If your players want predictable rules that force them to think within those constructs that works too.
Just talk with them after the fact and see if your solution is what you all want to do and go from there.
I don't think you can have a held action unless the goblins detected the heroes before they peeked and knew they were coming imminently. They can hold their bows drawn indefinitely just because they're on alert to adventurers in the vicinity.
Nor do I think they get surprise, because they are not hidden behind any kind of cover. Once the rogue peeks, they see each other, and neither is surprised. Roll initiative for the goblins and the rogue. The rest of the party, however, do not see the goblins and are surprised. They roll initiative but do not act in the first round.
Darkness wasn't mentioned, and if it's dark, I'd have to assume the wizard also has dark vision, or what's the point of peeking? He could be carrying his own light source, but then he should get no chance for stealth. The goblins could be hiding behind the wall, but that also wasn't mentioned, and if they were, I'd make each of them that wanted a chance to shoot in any potential surprise round make a stealth check, as they would have to be peeking.
To be holding their action, the goblins would have to be aware of the party the round before. That's possible, if the wizard failed his check so badly that the goblins heard him coming down the hall. I had assumed he just failed in the moment he stuck his head out around the corner. Or if the goblins otherwise knew the party was coming imminently, because of a silent alarm or something like that. I'd let the goblins hold their bows drawn for up to maybe a minute.
Your initial thought is correct as held actions before initiative is not a thing.
I agree with most of that. Still, even with a hide action or bonus action, you have to make a stealth check against at least the wizard's passive perception. If there's a large party of goblins, probably at least one will fail and present some target for the wizard in the first round, whereas the rest will get advantage on their attacks.
Exactly!
Also, if the wizard spots even one goblin, he can use his movement on his turn to duck back around the corner and avoid getting hit by any goblins he outrolled in initiative. They could then, of course, hold their actions for a free shot when the party does show up.
I think in general there just need to be conditions. Under certain conditions, some of the monsters might get a free shot, but it's not generally true that a whole party of monsters on guard for potential intruders get free shots whenever you fail a stealth check.
Yeah especially if you have invested in Perception (to spot such things) or the Alert feat (Avoid surprises).
Yeah I would be pretty pissed if I pumped passive perception and the creatures always got free shots in without having to roll stealth checks.
Based on the way this is going back & forward, I think the correct approach would have been to not end combat between these events - the party killed some goblins, and some other goblins fled and then readied their actions. The party & the goblins are aware of one another, so really it should have continued with actions at initiative order.
The issue stems from the arbitrary break in combat where the goblins, who were literally just around the corner, suddenly (RAW) lose their readied action because the party stopped acting like they were in combat. Initiative should be maintained for as long as there are enemies within reasonable combat distance (unless the DM wants to prevent metagaming), and if the DM decides to drop initiative briefly, it should be continued as soon as the goblins are involved. Effectively, the wizard spent a turn moving to the corner and peeking around, and the goblins has spent a few turns readied to fire when he did so.
The whole surprise/readied action/ hiding thing is more pertinent to situations which don't immediately follow a combat.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think he means he would be angry that his choice is invalidated due to "reasons" which is a bad approach IMO. Like the whole idea of stealth/suprise is basically stealth vs. perception and if you are circumventing that for nebulous reasons that are not clear to the group that's a problem. If I picked Observant to make my passive perception really high and the DM didn't even roll against it because they were "too hidden" I would likely be upset too. Especially if that was not addressed before I took the feat.
If you outline this ahead of time its less likely to be an issue but the RAW way would be for them to stealth roll vs your passive perception.
I agree that the interruption in the combat would likely be not needed and this would allow for the natural flow of the game to go better if it had not.
Yeah that's it mostly.
If you are just handwaving feats away willy nilly that's a bad deal. If you warned them before they took it is on them.
I mean...no I would just roll the stealth check and let the dice decide as its whats called for in this case. They did not mention any kind of environmental factors that would provide an advantage to the goblins so it would be a straight stealth roll vs passive perception. Its very clear.
If the goblins roll low so be it....but if they roll 10+ yeah they will beat the wizard which is fine. You used the rules and the outcome was determined as RAW dictated.
You should obsoletely have a conversation with your players if you plan on using environmental features or passive stealth (which TBH I have never seen anyone use) to increase stealth checks for enemy's if someone is taking observant. Its just good DMing to let people know how their choices could be impacted by your style of play. If they know it and they still choose it....well as Grickle stated that is on them.
But changing the rules during the game without clearly setting the expectations for the players is not a good move IMO.
Passive stealth? That's a thing? Yeah that the DM makes the creatures and knows the passive of the players and would use a passive score to overcome their perception instead of a roll... That's rough.
I would never do that as you are basically just saying "lol goblins go shhhhh" and they can't win a stealth vs perception battle as you likely made it impossible for them.
Well I think he is talking about passive stealth...but its a bit hard to tell. I don't advocate passive skills either unless its over a very long period of time.
Honestly I can't really discern what your approach is then....are you giving ADV to the goblins? are you letting them use passive stealth? Are you just saying they do not have to roll at all for the stealth?
You keep mentioning several different things and its kind of like a flurry of thoughts...I am not sure what you are advocating for at this point.
You are not the only one mate.... I'm not sure what he saying either.
ADV would make them most sense from what the wide variety of stuff you have tossed out but even then I don't see it in this case.
Passive stealth seems memey overall and while you can use it....I would question it for a stealth check? It's like why?
And if you aren't making the gobbos roll stealth at all you might as well be just saying "lol goblins go shhh" and dabbing on your players because that makes no sense either
Do you let players use passive stealth? If not then I do find that a bit odd you would only use it against players as you have all the knowledge to just make sneaky creatures attack the party at will without having to roll at all....which is a bit problematic to me as well.