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.
I'm mostly advocating that there are lots of things in the rules that show that "it's just stealth vs. perception" does not cover even a significant portion of what sneaking around is like. Because only the DM knows, and if tells you that you are surprised, then you are, even if you have observant.
And yes, they might not have to roll for the stealth, it's completely the DM's decision, I have given you tons of examples both from the RAW (the DMG) and from the RAI (the podcast) that show that if the DM decides that they are hidden, then they are, completely and totally RAW. And that the wizard does not get a roll, again totally RAW.
I guess...why? This seems odd to just force things for the sake of "I can so I will"....
I mean not having the goblins roll or having them have a passive stealth the players can never beat is weird to me. Its like why even bother with passive perception then and just tell them when stuff happens as they have no control over it anyway?
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.
I'm mostly advocating that there are lots of things in the rules that show that "it's just stealth vs. perception" does not cover even a significant portion of what sneaking around is like. Because only the DM knows, and if tells you that you are surprised, then you are, even if you have observant.
And yes, they might not have to roll for the stealth, it's completely the DM's decision, I have given you tons of examples both from the RAW (the DMG) and from the RAI (the podcast) that show that if the DM decides that they are hidden, then they are, completely and totally RAW. And that the wizard does not get a roll, again totally RAW.
I guess...why? This seems odd to just force things for the sake of "I can so I will"....
I mean not having the goblins roll or having them have a passive stealth the players can never beat is weird to me. Its like why even bother with passive perception then and just tell them when stuff happens as they have no control over it anyway?
My thinking too.... Why even bother with rolls at all? You can just tell them if they win or not!
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.
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.
I do, I even wrote it specifically above. For example, PCs go about their camp when an ambush arrives, the PCs with high passive stealth were possibly ignored during the recon.
Another very useful case is when the party is just moving around without taking particular care, some people are just less noisy than others, it's a common trope of the genre, and they will be overlooked / not targeted, for example.
it's in general not for a specific check, it's mostly to see how quiet they are, on average. Of course, when they are discussing or making noise they will not get the benefit of it.
Well if you are allowing it for PCs I can see it then...I would only have a problem if it was a creature only thing you used.
Honestly passive stealth was never on my radar as I always viewed it as an ACTIVE activity. I would have them do multiple checks moving between areas. I do group checks for stealth and if the group rolls well enough the more stealthy folks help the less stealthy ones. Promotes the party moving together and less of the rogue going by themselves to scout.
Also TBF this is still just Stealth vs. Perception. You are just modifying how they get their stealth number. Its really as simple as stealth vs. perception.
My thinking too.... Why even bother with rolls at all? You can just tell them if they win or not!
You really should be reading this section of the DMG, really in detail, and try to imagine what the choices to for a game. Once more, it's not for everyone, and if you have fun with your games rolling all the time, it's fine. But the "ignoring the dice" is not only a lot of fun, but it's also totally RAW, and exactly as written: "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."
It does not mean never rolling dices, and we do it in combat most of the time, for example, or in lots of other cases, but when we feel that randomness makes sense (which is the case for combat, combat is always very chaotic, and I know you don't like me talking about LARPs, but it's certainly something that you can see there).
Sounds like you guys would be better off playing another system.
5e is mostly a dungeon combat sim acting like it's a free form ttrpg
Well if you are allowing it for PCs I can see it then...I would only have a problem if it was a creature only thing you used.
Honestly, although I don't do it in this case, the DM can absolutely do whatever he wants about rules for PCs or not. For example, I sometimes use Death Saves for NPCs and monsters, why should it be a PC thing only ? And some things apply more often to PCs or more often to monsters, nobody should be keeping score.
Honestly passive stealth was never on my radar as I always viewed it as an ACTIVE activity. I would have them do multiple checks moving between areas.
You do know that this is not RAW, right ? RAW is very clear: "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."
It does not say to change your roll when you change areas, this is homebrew... :p
I do group checks for stealth and if the group rolls well enough the more stealthy folks help the less stealthy ones. Promotes the party moving together and less of the rogue going by themselves to scout.
This is different, this is really active stealth, in particular helping others. It's when the party decides to be quiet and, in particular, move at half speed. But some people are just naturally more quiet than others, even walking quicker.
Also TBF this is still just Stealth vs. Perception. You are just modifying how they get their stealth number. Its really as simple as stealth vs. perception.
Again, listen to the podcast:
... [we] state upfront is we very intentionally in 5th edition have put stealth in the domain of the DM
This more than almost any other part of the game, is going to rely on the Dungeon Master.
Which can mean there are cases where the DM might decide no rolls are even necessary
They're not even paying attention. So basically, you know the group if they even rolled effectively, would have a plus Infinity on their checks and. No stealth roll is even required, right?
Often when you're sneaking around and when your photos are sneaking around, there is hidden information. You as players don't know everything because that's why we're even talking about stealth. If someone else is sneaking up on you, well, you don't know. If you don't have all the information, and so the DM. This is also an area where the DM has to kind of hold their cards. A little closer to their chest than they do normally, and with certain things in the game.
Etc.
None of this has anything to do with Stealth vs. Perception.
Nah stealth is active sorry...that is RAW for sure. If you are holding still I can see it but if you are moving you are making more stealth checks and that is completely in line with the rules. Otherwise one good stealth check at the start of a dungeon means you get to sneak through the whole thing? That is just wrong.
Its 100% stealth and perception...you are just adding words to it to make it seem more complicated but 100% of what we have talked about is stealth vs perception. Its up to you as a DM on how you get the numbers but thats it. It always boils down to the number and what you feel is a valid way of contesting them. If you have them forgo a roll completely then its you deciding the stealth check was never needed in the first place....in which case its not applicable at all to anything.
It's either stealth or a held action, not both, because as soon as you release the arrow, you give up any stealth you might have had.
I didn't read the thread from end to end, so I might have missed the part where the OP clarified the situation. I tend to think that a held action is reasonable in some situations, maybe including this one, and it wouldn't require a roll from the goblins. They could use their passive perception.
If they're trying to get a free attack by stealth, then I think they need to make a roll.
Yes, players do it all the time, but they normally have to make rolls to succeed at it.
I agree with the argument that the DM has discretion, as long as the DM applies the same rules for players and monsters. If monsters automatically get an ambush because they're stealthy and the wizard is not, then next time the rogue tries to sneak up on some trolls, he automatically succeeds too, right?
Nah stealth is active sorry...that is RAW for sure.
Why don't you prove it ?
I have specifically and repetitively sent you two quotes straight from the PH (about passive) and from the DMG (about the role of dice) that prove that you are wrong. Just read them and understand them.
If you are holding still I can see it but if you are moving you are making more stealth checks and that is completely in line with the rules. Otherwise one good stealth check at the start of a dungeon means you get to sneak through the whole thing? That is just wrong.
Not only is that absolutely RAW (but honestly, see what I mean when I say that you have strange ideas that you think are RAW but just are not), but JC adresses it SPECIFICALLY during the podcast: "What if, for example, though, you hide around the corner of a hallway from someone who's in an enemy that's in the hallway, get that you put you so you're hiding around the corner. You're still hidden. But you decide to move and want to go into a room as well. Do you still use the initial spell check or do you have to roll again when you're moving? You do not have to roll again. Interesting, yeah you the main. The main thing you have to do too once. Once you have made your check the main thing you have to do to remain hidden is make sure people can't see you clearly. "
You should definitely listen to it again, it might change your perspective on things and make you understand the RAI. And it might make you actually start playing according to the RAW instead of your idea of it.
Its 100% stealth and perception...you are just adding words to it to make it seem more complicated but 100% of what we have talked about is stealth vs perception. Its up to you as a DM on how you get the numbers but thats it. It always boils down to the number and what you feel is a valid way of contesting them. If you have them forgo a roll completely then its you deciding the stealth check was never needed in the first place....in which case its not applicable at all to anything.
OK, I have proven to you from both the RAW and the RAI that you are wrong about this, time and time again. I am not adding words, you are just not reading the words that contradict your thinking, whether they come from me, from the designers, or the RAW.
That's fine, you can play the game whatever way you want. But please stop claiming that you are playing RAW, because you are not (it's as simple as asking for new rolls for entering a new area, it contradicts the RAW specifically and the RAI as well, proven black on white above).
He's obviously talking about short moves while hidden not moving through a whole dungeon. You have to infer some context or else you are saying one stealth roll moves you through an entire dungeon as long as you are not seen...which is just stupid.
Literally no other skill works this way but stealth does somehow? yeah no.
You can't roll one athletic check to climb a mountain.
Yeah I'm not too familiar with the podcast but if JC is saying that you can sneak through a castle with a single check if you stay out of sight.... He's ******* crazy.
Never have I ever had a DM interpret it that way and I wouldn't have the balls to ask them lol
Yeah I'm not too familiar with the podcast but if JC is saying that you can sneak through a castle with a single check if you stay out of sight.... He's ****ing crazy.
Never have I ever had a DM interpret it that way and I wouldn't have the balls to ask them lol
Yeah I'm not too familiar with the podcast but if JC is saying that you can sneak through a castle with a single check if you stay out of sight.... He's ****ing crazy.
Never have I ever had a DM interpret it that way and I wouldn't have the balls to ask them lol
lol!
Yeah I don't follow JC much cus he's been wrong before and his rulings are often dumb as hell.
Just do stealth vs. perception or don't ask for a check and make yo life simple dimple!
Yeah I'm not too familiar with the podcast but if JC is saying that you can sneak through a castle with a single check if you stay out of sight.... He's ****ing crazy.
Never have I ever had a DM interpret it that way and I wouldn't have the balls to ask them lol
lol!
Yeah I don't follow JC much cus he's been wrong before and his rulings are often dumb as hell.
Just do stealth vs. perception or don't ask for a check and make yo life simple dimple!
Can't argue with that unforunately.....he has a history of poor rulings.
Absolutely right. Many design choices in 5e were made to streamline (not simplify) play, to make it easier to roleplay, and focus on the adventure, not the dice. The rule around rolling once for stealth 'until you are discovered or stop hiding' is one such rule to prevent plunging a session into every player watching another play making dozens of stealth checks as they sneak around.
But that doesn't mean 'roll once for the entire dungeon.' It means 'roll once until you're discovered, or you stop hiding.' (Bold is the important bit).
Opening a door? You're not hiding. Talking loudly enough to be heard? You're not hiding. Rifling through a bookcase? Not hiding. Stepping out in full view of an enemy patrol? Not hiding. Doing something that might get you noticed? Not hiding.
But it does prevent scenarios like this:
Player: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room' DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner' Player: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner' DM: 'Roll a stealth check. You sneak around the corner, keeping to the shadows. There are goblins lazily sat around a firepit in the centre of the room'. Player: 'I'd like to try and stick to the walls, in the shadows, and get to the other side of the room' DM: 'Roll a stealth check... as you advance, one of the goblins looks up from their rat-on-a-stick'. Player: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?' DM: 'There are piled up crates nearby' Player: 'I'd like to hide behind them' DM: 'Roll a stealth check...
5e wants that same scenario to go like:
Player 1: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room' DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner'. Player 1: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner' DM: 'As you sneak around the corner, sticking the shadows, you notice a group of goblins lazily sat around a firepit'. Player 1: 'I'd like to stick to the walls in the shadows, and try and get to the other side of the chamber'. DM: 'You proceed into the chamber, sticking to the walls - Player 2, what are you doing?' Player 2: 'I want to cast sending and whisper a message spell to Player 1 asking for an update'. DM: 'You send the spell. Player 1, you're hugging the wall in the chamber... one of the goblins suddenly looks up from his rat-on-a-stick'. Player 1: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?' DM: 'There's crates piled up against the wall about 15ft away' Player 1: 'I'd like to try and dash behind them, quickly but quietly' DM: 'That action is going to require another stealth check'
It's either stealth or a held action, not both, because as soon as you release the arrow, you give up any stealth you might have had.
It can perfectly well be both. You only lose your hidden status when the arrow hits or misses, not when you release it. SO you get the benefit from your stealth for the attack roll, including the advantage.
I didn't read the thread from end to end, so I might have missed the part where the OP clarified the situation. I tend to think that a held action is reasonable in some situations, maybe including this one, and it wouldn't require a roll from the goblins. They could use their passive perception.
If they're trying to get a free attack by stealth, then I think they need to make a roll.
Yes, players do it all the time, but they normally have to make rolls to succeed at it.
It depends how you do it at your table, at ours, sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the expediency, and all of this, again, perfectly RAW.
I agree with the argument that the DM has discretion, as long as the DM applies the same rules for players and monsters.
Why ? Where does it say this in all the rules ? There are rules for PCs (Death Saves, Extra Attacks), and there are rules for monsters (MultiAttack, some attacks with automatic grapple, Limited Usage Powers, etc.). Nowhere in the RAW does it say that you have to use exactly the same rules for the monsters as for the players.
Again, this is (thankfully) not 3e where players had this entitled attitude that made them think that they could audit what the DM was doing and how he was building his monsters.
If monsters automatically get an ambush because they're stealthy and the wizard is not, then next time the rogue tries to sneak up on some trolls, he automatically succeeds too, right?
Maybe, maybe not, only the DM knows the exact circumstances. Once more, the DM can do, as per the RAW, exactly what he wants without having to justify himself. Obviously if his way of DMing doesn't make the players happy, they can discuss it, but nothing in the rules say anything about applying exactly the same rules exactly the same way. The first rule of the gams is that the DM is key to all the rulings, full stop.
Again, I'm not advocating creating different rules on purpose to piss off anyone, but DMing is a sufficiently complicated task without adding more requirements to the task.
Monsters have different abilities. It's like they have a different character sheet. But there are certain actions available to any creature, monster or NPC or PC. Any creature with arms or similar appendage can make a grapple check. Any creature can make an Insight check. Any creature with a melee attack can make an opportunity attack. Any creature can make a Stealth or Perception check. I'm suggesting that you should use the same rules for those generic actions whether the creature is a PC or a monster.
Of course, rule 0, so you can do whatever you want, and if there are unusual circumstances not covered by any rule, make stuff up as you go along.
5e is mostly a dungeon combat sim acting like it's a free form ttrpg
Like 60% of the PHB is combat/spells
Think about this argument for a minute.
Yes, it true that the part of the game that requires the most rules takes up the most space. The free-form part of the game only takes a couple paragraphs to describe because if it was pages and pages of rules it wouldn't be free form anymore.
How many pages do you need explaining DM discretion? The PHB is a reference for when you need rules. You don't need permission or direction to use your imagination.
Absolutely right. Many design choices in 5e were made to streamline (not simplify) play, to make it easier to roleplay, and focus on the adventure, not the dice. The rule around rolling once for stealth 'until you are discovered or stop hiding' is one such rule to prevent plunging a session into every player watching another play making dozens of stealth checks as they sneak around.
But that doesn't mean 'roll once for the entire dungeon.' It means 'roll once until you're discovered, or you stop hiding.' (Bold is the important bit).
Opening a door? You're not hiding. Talking loudly enough to be heard? You're not hiding. Rifling through a bookcase? Not hiding. Stepping out in full view of an enemy patrol? Not hiding. Doing something that might get you noticed? Not hiding.
But it does prevent scenarios like this:
Player: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room' DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner' Player: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner' DM: 'Roll a stealth check. You sneak around the corner, keeping to the shadows. There are goblins lazily sat around a firepit in the centre of the room'. Player: 'I'd like to try and stick to the walls, in the shadows, and get to the other side of the room' DM: 'Roll a stealth check... as you advance, one of the goblins looks up from their rat-on-a-stick'. Player: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?' DM: 'There are piled up crates nearby' Player: 'I'd like to hide behind them' DM: 'Roll a stealth check...
5e wants that same scenario to go like:
Player 1: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room' DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner'. Player 1: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner' DM: 'As you sneak around the corner, sticking the shadows, you notice a group of goblins lazily sat around a firepit'. Player 1: 'I'd like to stick to the walls in the shadows, and try and get to the other side of the chamber'. DM: 'You proceed into the chamber, sticking to the walls - Player 2, what are you doing?' Player 2: 'I want to cast sending and whisper a message spell to Player 1 asking for an update'. DM: 'You send the spell. Player 1, you're hugging the wall in the chamber... one of the goblins suddenly looks up from his rat-on-a-stick'. Player 1: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?' DM: 'There's crates piled up against the wall about 15ft away' Player 1: 'I'd like to try and dash behind them, quickly but quietly' DM: 'That action is going to require another stealth check'
Makes much more sense than what Lyxen was stating and it's much more in line with actual common sense.
You guys are really incredible. In a sense, it's really funny.
This guy (JC) has designed the most successful table top roleplaying game ever. You are complet fan of his work and you discuss passionately about what he has produced. To the point that you argue forcefully about using the RAW, which you seem to forget are the Rules that he, himself, has Written !
These rule specifically tell you, absolutely RAW: "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence." It doesn't tell "until the DM has decided that you need to roll again because he likes to have you roll dice, just in case, that time, it's funny because you fail" or something of the kind. It's not "until you leave the room", or "until there are other guys who can spot you". It' , again "Until you are discovered or you stop hiding...".
Then we have, in particular, OptimusGrimus, here, and here, recommending the podcast from the same designer and citing it as a source to be listened to about stealth !
And now, when the same designer who has written the rule above explains the RAI behind the RAW, in very clear terms, and says, explicitly "You do not have to roll again" which is 100% in line with the RAW, suddenly it's a bad ruling ? LoL, honestly.
Come on, guys, be fair. The RAW is explicit, the RAI is 100% in line with it. You might not play it that way, that's fine, but all the people who have read the rules correctly and understood once more the podcast because it is again 100% explicit and simple play by that rule. Because this has been designed as a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying one, because it has been streamlined to be fast and asking for rolls slows down the game for no real benefit whatsoever.
And all the DM in our groups play that way, because it's simple, fast, it works in all cases, there is literally not one single downside from it. What we do, however, because it avoids all sources of metagaming, is having a hidden roll, that way the played does not know whether he can be daring or not. And again, that is perfectly RAW.
Now, if you disagree, please find the rule that says that you need to roll stealth again for any other reason than the ones that I have given you above, i.e. you are discovered or stop hiding. I challenge you.
Bro calm down....
You're not making a lot of sense. I think you might be confused.
You can't just hide 100% you have to do other stuff then hide again.
5e is mostly a dungeon combat sim acting like it's a free form ttrpg
Like 60% of the PHB is combat/spells
Think about this argument for a minute.
Yes, it true that the part of the game that requires the most rules takes up the most space. The free-form part of the game only takes a couple paragraphs to describe because if it was pages and pages of rules it wouldn't be free form anymore.
How many pages do you need explaining DM discretion? The PHB is a reference for when you need rules. You don't need permission or direction to use your imagination.
Yeah but it's a bit weird to go from this tight mechanical combat to this free form bit and so on.
Out of combat has just enough rules to create stupid arguments like this but not enough guidance to create clear encounters.
Like most things in 5e it's half baked at best.
Also... Just because the edition is successful doesn't make it good or even well balanced. Overall 5e is kinda a mess.
I don’t feel what you guys are saying is disallowed, I think it depends on how you want to run your game. If you’re just walking stealthily I think one roll is appropriate until something comes up. Like your stealth roll is how well you’re masking your noise and how careful you’re being - it’s the status quo until DM changes the status quo based on your perception of what’s around you. I don’t see a problem rolling multiple times climbing a mountain - I’d treat that like a perception check during tests when keeping watch. No game I know of rolls for every minute of watch, nor do they roll once for multiple tests. I think you could roll once, up to the DM. I have a preference as do all of you (and it’s not rolling one time only!) As for monster actions vs PC well it is and can be different based on what they can do. I mean, do you all give death saves for monsters other than main villains? I know I don’t.
As for the amount of text devoted to combat, I mean there is also a lot devoted to non combat, downtime, crafting, interactions, etc. combat gets the most because, as you’ve proven, there’s more technical details to argue about. That’s why there’s so many posts here on questions about mechanics and tactics. You can always negate or homebrew what you don’t like.
Seems to be a lot of piling on of this one guy but what he (and many others) have said make sense in their own games. thanks again for all your replies. They and the ensuing convos have been very interesting for me as a new DM.
And we come to the core of the problem. [...] It does not change the fact that, if you take these design principles into account, 5e is not a mess, it's just, absolutely on purpose, a set of guidelines, nothing more, because the designers recognise the fact that, contrary to the early editions, the more recent editions like 3e and 4e failed not only to capture the spirit of the game, but also to entertain people in the long run.
Completely agree.
I find it ironic that many players' dissatisfaction with playing 5e comes from either not following RAW, or houseruling their own changes. Honestly, so much upset could have been avoided at tables I've sat at - and so many 'imbalance issues' could have been resolved - if RAW was the first port of call.
Does following RAW sometimes seem unnatural? Yes. Does it sometimes require some narrative acrobatics to resolve? Yes. But whether it's the old argument about 'assassins having to be ahead in the initiative order to use their assassinate ability', or 'can you counterspell a counterspell?' or 'can I ready an action out of combat?' ... the rules are written the way they are, because it works.
If you start tinkering with the mechanics in one place, it throws something out of balance somewhere else. Almost always.
For what it's worth, having played every edition of D&D (some more than others) 5e is by far my favourite. It's incredibly easy to get into and introduce new players to, thanks to streamlined and approachable rules - yet rather than 'dumbing down' the game, actually makes it effortlessly easy to be as creative with your character as you like. It gives players the confidence to roleplay the character they envision; and the DM the freedom to make stuff happen.
Holy crap I come back and there is a full on dissertation on 5e....
5e's half baked rules are not this magic blend of simplicity and elegance people make it out to be. It's mostly the designers being lazy and making most things to "let the DM decide" which is code for "we couldn't be bothered"
Basically any outside of combat activity is not addressed with any kind of detail. If you say the "crafting" guides in Xanathars is good then you just haven't seen good guides.
It's as deep as a puddle but it's also the only thing you can get anyone to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess...why? This seems odd to just force things for the sake of "I can so I will"....
I mean not having the goblins roll or having them have a passive stealth the players can never beat is weird to me. Its like why even bother with passive perception then and just tell them when stuff happens as they have no control over it anyway?
My thinking too.... Why even bother with rolls at all? You can just tell them if they win or not!
Well if you are allowing it for PCs I can see it then...I would only have a problem if it was a creature only thing you used.
Honestly passive stealth was never on my radar as I always viewed it as an ACTIVE activity. I would have them do multiple checks moving between areas. I do group checks for stealth and if the group rolls well enough the more stealthy folks help the less stealthy ones. Promotes the party moving together and less of the rogue going by themselves to scout.
Also TBF this is still just Stealth vs. Perception. You are just modifying how they get their stealth number. Its really as simple as stealth vs. perception.
Sounds like you guys would be better off playing another system.
5e is mostly a dungeon combat sim acting like it's a free form ttrpg
Like 60% of the PHB is combat/spells
Nah stealth is active sorry...that is RAW for sure. If you are holding still I can see it but if you are moving you are making more stealth checks and that is completely in line with the rules. Otherwise one good stealth check at the start of a dungeon means you get to sneak through the whole thing? That is just wrong.
Its 100% stealth and perception...you are just adding words to it to make it seem more complicated but 100% of what we have talked about is stealth vs perception. Its up to you as a DM on how you get the numbers but thats it. It always boils down to the number and what you feel is a valid way of contesting them. If you have them forgo a roll completely then its you deciding the stealth check was never needed in the first place....in which case its not applicable at all to anything.
It's either stealth or a held action, not both, because as soon as you release the arrow, you give up any stealth you might have had.
I didn't read the thread from end to end, so I might have missed the part where the OP clarified the situation. I tend to think that a held action is reasonable in some situations, maybe including this one, and it wouldn't require a roll from the goblins. They could use their passive perception.
If they're trying to get a free attack by stealth, then I think they need to make a roll.
Yes, players do it all the time, but they normally have to make rolls to succeed at it.
I agree with the argument that the DM has discretion, as long as the DM applies the same rules for players and monsters. If monsters automatically get an ambush because they're stealthy and the wizard is not, then next time the rogue tries to sneak up on some trolls, he automatically succeeds too, right?
He's obviously talking about short moves while hidden not moving through a whole dungeon. You have to infer some context or else you are saying one stealth roll moves you through an entire dungeon as long as you are not seen...which is just stupid.
Literally no other skill works this way but stealth does somehow? yeah no.
You can't roll one athletic check to climb a mountain.
Yeah I'm not too familiar with the podcast but if JC is saying that you can sneak through a castle with a single check if you stay out of sight.... He's ******* crazy.
Never have I ever had a DM interpret it that way and I wouldn't have the balls to ask them lol
lol!
Yeah I don't follow JC much cus he's been wrong before and his rulings are often dumb as hell.
Just do stealth vs. perception or don't ask for a check and make yo life simple dimple!
Can't argue with that unforunately.....he has a history of poor rulings.
Absolutely right. Many design choices in 5e were made to streamline (not simplify) play, to make it easier to roleplay, and focus on the adventure, not the dice. The rule around rolling once for stealth 'until you are discovered or stop hiding' is one such rule to prevent plunging a session into every player watching another play making dozens of stealth checks as they sneak around.
But that doesn't mean 'roll once for the entire dungeon.' It means 'roll once until you're discovered, or you stop hiding.' (Bold is the important bit).
Opening a door? You're not hiding.
Talking loudly enough to be heard? You're not hiding.
Rifling through a bookcase? Not hiding.
Stepping out in full view of an enemy patrol? Not hiding.
Doing something that might get you noticed? Not hiding.
But it does prevent scenarios like this:
Player: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room'
DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner'
Player: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner'
DM: 'Roll a stealth check. You sneak around the corner, keeping to the shadows. There are goblins lazily sat around a firepit in the centre of the room'.
Player: 'I'd like to try and stick to the walls, in the shadows, and get to the other side of the room'
DM: 'Roll a stealth check... as you advance, one of the goblins looks up from their rat-on-a-stick'.
Player: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?'
DM: 'There are piled up crates nearby'
Player: 'I'd like to hide behind them'
DM: 'Roll a stealth check...
5e wants that same scenario to go like:
Player 1: 'I'd like to scout the corridor ahead and see if there are enemies in the next room'
DM: 'Roll stealth check. You reach the end of the corridor, and can hear goblins in the chamber around the corner'.
Player 1: 'I'd like to sneak around the corner'
DM: 'As you sneak around the corner, sticking the shadows, you notice a group of goblins lazily sat around a firepit'.
Player 1: 'I'd like to stick to the walls in the shadows, and try and get to the other side of the chamber'.
DM: 'You proceed into the chamber, sticking to the walls - Player 2, what are you doing?'
Player 2: 'I want to cast sending and whisper a message spell to Player 1 asking for an update'.
DM: 'You send the spell. Player 1, you're hugging the wall in the chamber... one of the goblins suddenly looks up from his rat-on-a-stick'.
Player 1: 'Crap! Anything to hide behind?'
DM: 'There's crates piled up against the wall about 15ft away'
Player 1: 'I'd like to try and dash behind them, quickly but quietly'
DM: 'That action is going to require another stealth check'
Monsters have different abilities. It's like they have a different character sheet. But there are certain actions available to any creature, monster or NPC or PC. Any creature with arms or similar appendage can make a grapple check. Any creature can make an Insight check. Any creature with a melee attack can make an opportunity attack. Any creature can make a Stealth or Perception check. I'm suggesting that you should use the same rules for those generic actions whether the creature is a PC or a monster.
Of course, rule 0, so you can do whatever you want, and if there are unusual circumstances not covered by any rule, make stuff up as you go along.
Think about this argument for a minute.
Yes, it true that the part of the game that requires the most rules takes up the most space. The free-form part of the game only takes a couple paragraphs to describe because if it was pages and pages of rules it wouldn't be free form anymore.
How many pages do you need explaining DM discretion? The PHB is a reference for when you need rules. You don't need permission or direction to use your imagination.
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
Makes much more sense than what Lyxen was stating and it's much more in line with actual common sense.
Bro calm down....
You're not making a lot of sense. I think you might be confused.
You can't just hide 100% you have to do other stuff then hide again.
Yeah but it's a bit weird to go from this tight mechanical combat to this free form bit and so on.
Out of combat has just enough rules to create stupid arguments like this but not enough guidance to create clear encounters.
Like most things in 5e it's half baked at best.
Also... Just because the edition is successful doesn't make it good or even well balanced. Overall 5e is kinda a mess.
I don’t feel what you guys are saying is disallowed, I think it depends on how you want to run your game. If you’re just walking stealthily I think one roll is appropriate until something comes up. Like your stealth roll is how well you’re masking your noise and how careful you’re being - it’s the status quo until DM changes the status quo based on your perception of what’s around you. I don’t see a problem rolling multiple times climbing a mountain - I’d treat that like a perception check during tests when keeping watch. No game I know of rolls for every minute of watch, nor do they roll once for multiple tests. I think you could roll once, up to the DM. I have a preference as do all of you (and it’s not rolling one time only!)
As for monster actions vs PC well it is and can be different based on what they can do. I mean, do you all give death saves for monsters other than main villains? I know I don’t.
As for the amount of text devoted to combat, I mean there is also a lot devoted to non combat, downtime, crafting, interactions, etc. combat gets the most because, as you’ve proven, there’s more technical details to argue about. That’s why there’s so many posts here on questions about mechanics and tactics. You can always negate or homebrew what you don’t like.
Seems to be a lot of piling on of this one guy but what he (and many others) have said make sense in their own games.
thanks again for all your replies. They and the ensuing convos have been very interesting for me as a new DM.
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
Completely agree.
I find it ironic that many players' dissatisfaction with playing 5e comes from either not following RAW, or houseruling their own changes. Honestly, so much upset could have been avoided at tables I've sat at - and so many 'imbalance issues' could have been resolved - if RAW was the first port of call.
Does following RAW sometimes seem unnatural? Yes. Does it sometimes require some narrative acrobatics to resolve? Yes. But whether it's the old argument about 'assassins having to be ahead in the initiative order to use their assassinate ability', or 'can you counterspell a counterspell?' or 'can I ready an action out of combat?' ... the rules are written the way they are, because it works.
If you start tinkering with the mechanics in one place, it throws something out of balance somewhere else. Almost always.
For what it's worth, having played every edition of D&D (some more than others) 5e is by far my favourite. It's incredibly easy to get into and introduce new players to, thanks to streamlined and approachable rules - yet rather than 'dumbing down' the game, actually makes it effortlessly easy to be as creative with your character as you like. It gives players the confidence to roleplay the character they envision; and the DM the freedom to make stuff happen.
Holy crap I come back and there is a full on dissertation on 5e....
5e's half baked rules are not this magic blend of simplicity and elegance people make it out to be. It's mostly the designers being lazy and making most things to "let the DM decide" which is code for "we couldn't be bothered"
Basically any outside of combat activity is not addressed with any kind of detail. If you say the "crafting" guides in Xanathars is good then you just haven't seen good guides.
It's as deep as a puddle but it's also the only thing you can get anyone to play.