Pass without trace is a great spell, and one rightly used to great result by adventurers and NPCS.
However. There's one aspect of the spell that seems to be actually counter to what it's RAI effect is (emphasis mine):
A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you, masking you and your companions from detection.
So imagine a fort or keep or some guarded structure (preferably with elevated observation spots for those guarding it), with cleared ground for at least a couple hundred feet around (assume no significant hills). And it's noon, on a cloudless, sunny day.
Our band of intrepid adventures casts pass without trace to "sneak up" on the structure....but wouldn't they actually stand out, clearly, to any observers of the open ground as a moving blot of shadow?
This is an extreme example, to be sure, but my reading of the spell is that it's only useful in environments/situations where a large clump of darkness wouldn't immediately signal something magical or anomalous. Or am I leaning too far into verisimilitude, and not allowing the game mechanics to work as game mechanics?
The party still get +10 to their checks, because that’s the effect of the spell. But I can definitely imagine imposing disadvantage on stealth checks under the extreme circumstances you describe. That’s why the advantage/disadvantage mechanic exists.
Lyxen, yes, the third option would also be my choice but I don't always assume I'm applying/interpreting things wisely or "rightly" (knowing that is considered right will vary from table to table, as you say).
A situation something like this came up at our table and I pretty much ruled that the spell wouldn't do anything helpful as it was so conspicuous. Players were fine with that.
Yep, I think you ruled very well. In general, best practice is to only ask for a roll when you think there is a chance of success/failure. Otherwise, you can just narrate the outcome or explain to your players how you think a particular action would play out.
Pass without trace is a great spell, and one rightly used to great result by adventurers and NPCS.
However. There's one aspect of the spell that seems to be actually counter to what it's RAI effect is (emphasis mine):
A veil of shadows and silence radiates from you, masking you and your companions from detection.
So imagine a fort or keep or some guarded structure (preferably with elevated observation spots for those guarding it), with cleared ground for at least a couple hundred feet around (assume no significant hills). And it's noon, on a cloudless, sunny day.
Our band of intrepid adventures casts pass without trace to "sneak up" on the structure....but wouldn't they actually stand out, clearly, to any observers of the open ground as a moving blot of shadow?
This is an extreme example, to be sure, but my reading of the spell is that it's only useful in environments/situations where a large clump of darkness wouldn't immediately signal something magical or anomalous. Or am I leaning too far into verisimilitude, and not allowing the game mechanics to work as game mechanics?
You still get the benefit of the 'silence' part of the spell, but it's important that the DM has to require a check for a +10 to matter. If you can't hide, there's no stealth check - you're seen automatically. Pass Without Trace does not grant cover or concealment, it only enhances it.
I would rule that a "veil" of shadows isn't an inky blob like a Darkness spell. It just blends into other things that obscure vision. Moderate foliage would do it, even in bright light, but without something for the spell to work with, you would be seen. If you really just *had* to perhaps a small sneaky critter like a Halfling or a Druid could hide among the others in a group.
I've noticed sometimes that a lot of players treat a high Stealth roll as essentially just turning invisible regardless of the situation one is in. No matter how high of stealth someone rolls, if they don't actually have something to hide behind it's not worth anything.
One thing that seems to get missed a bit is that stealth doesn't apply if you can be clearly seen. All Pass Without Trace does is add +10 to your stealth rolls. It does not give the characters any opportunity to use stealth when it doesn't exist.
A party crossing an open field in daylight without cover WILL be seen. They can't hide and casting pass without trace doesn't help. They won't be leaving any tracks but it doesn't matter if the creatures can be seen.
On the other hand, a party trying to move through a 5' tall wheat or grass field undetected would certainly do better with Pass Without Trace since the signs of their passage that would normally be very visible (grass moving in weird ways) would be suppressed.
I think RawWouldBeKing stated it well: "Pass Without Trace does not grant cover or concealment, it only enhances it."
I would allow Pass without a Trace to enhance a group trying to sneak in with an approaching caravan/wagon/contingent of scouts. That way if they absolutely HAD to go right then in the middle of the day, they could spend the spell and still be able to sneak in.
But wouldn't the specific location/environmental factors affect that? If the caravan is wending its way through a forest, or a hilly, rocky place with a lot of twists and turns (thus providing visual cover), that makes sense. But if the caravan is crossing an open plain?
I'm with the people pointing out that the DM decides if a skill is possible to use. You can't hide in an open area with no cover.
Also to point out: shadows are dim light in d&d. So the party would just be less illuminated, not dark. Like someone under the shade of a tree on a sunny day, they will pop out less from their brighter surroundings.
I'm with the people pointing out that the DM decides if a skill is possible to use. You can't hide in an open area with no cover.
Also to point out: shadows are dim light in d&d. So the party would just be less illuminated, not dark. Like someone under the shade of a tree on a sunny day, they will pop out less from their brighter surroundings.
That's a great point. I think that it's common for a player to basically say, "I'm going to make a Stealth Roll and make my way in there", but that's not really how it works. The player basically states what they intend to accomplish, and then the DM decides when that necessitates a roll. If there's no opportunity for stealth there would never be a call for a stealth roll in the first place, so Pass Without a Trace is basically a non-factor until the players can devise a scenario that would cause the DM to ask for a stealth roll.
A great Stealth roll by itself can't violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if you're a Rogue with Expertise in Stealth and within the effect of Pass Without Trace. That roll of 40 on your Stealth check can't negate the fact that you're standing in an open field in broad daylight. What it COULD do is prevent a guard who isn't looking in your direction from hearing your approach. So if you can sprint from the boulder you're hiding behind while the guard's back is turned and get up against the wall where the guard won't notice you from up on the battlement, that 40 Stealth roll will come in handy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pass without trace is a great spell, and one rightly used to great result by adventurers and NPCS.
However. There's one aspect of the spell that seems to be actually counter to what it's RAI effect is (emphasis mine):
So imagine a fort or keep or some guarded structure (preferably with elevated observation spots for those guarding it), with cleared ground for at least a couple hundred feet around (assume no significant hills). And it's noon, on a cloudless, sunny day.
Our band of intrepid adventures casts pass without trace to "sneak up" on the structure....but wouldn't they actually stand out, clearly, to any observers of the open ground as a moving blot of shadow?
This is an extreme example, to be sure, but my reading of the spell is that it's only useful in environments/situations where a large clump of darkness wouldn't immediately signal something magical or anomalous. Or am I leaning too far into verisimilitude, and not allowing the game mechanics to work as game mechanics?
The party still get +10 to their checks, because that’s the effect of the spell. But I can definitely imagine imposing disadvantage on stealth checks under the extreme circumstances you describe. That’s why the advantage/disadvantage mechanic exists.
Lyxen, yes, the third option would also be my choice but I don't always assume I'm applying/interpreting things wisely or "rightly" (knowing that is considered right will vary from table to table, as you say).
A situation something like this came up at our table and I pretty much ruled that the spell wouldn't do anything helpful as it was so conspicuous. Players were fine with that.
Yep, I think you ruled very well. In general, best practice is to only ask for a roll when you think there is a chance of success/failure. Otherwise, you can just narrate the outcome or explain to your players how you think a particular action would play out.
You still get the benefit of the 'silence' part of the spell, but it's important that the DM has to require a check for a +10 to matter. If you can't hide, there's no stealth check - you're seen automatically. Pass Without Trace does not grant cover or concealment, it only enhances it.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
I would rule that a "veil" of shadows isn't an inky blob like a Darkness spell. It just blends into other things that obscure vision. Moderate foliage would do it, even in bright light, but without something for the spell to work with, you would be seen. If you really just *had* to perhaps a small sneaky critter like a Halfling or a Druid could hide among the others in a group.
<Insert clever signature here>
I think this is key to making rulings.
I've noticed sometimes that a lot of players treat a high Stealth roll as essentially just turning invisible regardless of the situation one is in. No matter how high of stealth someone rolls, if they don't actually have something to hide behind it's not worth anything.
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
One thing that seems to get missed a bit is that stealth doesn't apply if you can be clearly seen. All Pass Without Trace does is add +10 to your stealth rolls. It does not give the characters any opportunity to use stealth when it doesn't exist.
A party crossing an open field in daylight without cover WILL be seen. They can't hide and casting pass without trace doesn't help. They won't be leaving any tracks but it doesn't matter if the creatures can be seen.
On the other hand, a party trying to move through a 5' tall wheat or grass field undetected would certainly do better with Pass Without Trace since the signs of their passage that would normally be very visible (grass moving in weird ways) would be suppressed.
I think RawWouldBeKing stated it well: "Pass Without Trace does not grant cover or concealment, it only enhances it."
But wouldn't the specific location/environmental factors affect that? If the caravan is wending its way through a forest, or a hilly, rocky place with a lot of twists and turns (thus providing visual cover), that makes sense. But if the caravan is crossing an open plain?
I'm with the people pointing out that the DM decides if a skill is possible to use. You can't hide in an open area with no cover.
Also to point out: shadows are dim light in d&d. So the party would just be less illuminated, not dark. Like someone under the shade of a tree on a sunny day, they will pop out less from their brighter surroundings.
That's a great point. I think that it's common for a player to basically say, "I'm going to make a Stealth Roll and make my way in there", but that's not really how it works. The player basically states what they intend to accomplish, and then the DM decides when that necessitates a roll. If there's no opportunity for stealth there would never be a call for a stealth roll in the first place, so Pass Without a Trace is basically a non-factor until the players can devise a scenario that would cause the DM to ask for a stealth roll.
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
A great Stealth roll by itself can't violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if you're a Rogue with Expertise in Stealth and within the effect of Pass Without Trace. That roll of 40 on your Stealth check can't negate the fact that you're standing in an open field in broad daylight. What it COULD do is prevent a guard who isn't looking in your direction from hearing your approach. So if you can sprint from the boulder you're hiding behind while the guard's back is turned and get up against the wall where the guard won't notice you from up on the battlement, that 40 Stealth roll will come in handy.