Right... when hiding you want to meet or beat the passive perception... so tie goes to the hiding character.
Just a different way of saying it really.
That’s not actually true (though I only recently learned that it’s not actually true).
In a contest, a tie means that the status quo is maintained. This means that if you’re trying to hide, you fail to hide. It also means that if you’re trying to detect an already hidden creature, you fail to detect it.
Right... when hiding you want to meet or beat the passive perception... so tie goes to the hiding character.
Just a different way of saying it really.
That’s not actually true (though I only recently learned that it’s not actually true).
In a contest, a tie means that the status quo is maintained. This means that if you’re trying to hide, you fail to hide. It also means that if you’re trying to detect an already hidden creature, you fail to detect it.
Huh. That isn't very intuitive given DCs work the other way around, but it does seem that passive checks are treated the same as rolled checks.
That’s not actually true (though I only recently learned that it’s not actually true).
In a contest, a tie means that the status quo is maintained. This means that if you’re trying to hide, you fail to hide. It also means that if you’re trying to detect an already hidden creature, you fail to detect it.
So if you hide with a stealth check result of 18, and I later search with a perception check result of 18, are you suggesting I would not detect your presence? That's interesting. Where are you getting that from?
EDIT: OK, this is very interesting, and it speaks to how I have run stealth and searching. I found this entry that backs up your statement referring to contested ability checks.
If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.
When I try to hide from someone or when I try to search for a hidden person, I don't treat it like I am doing a contested check. When someone tries to hide, I have them make an ability check against a DC appropriate for the situation. And when a character searches for a hidden creature, I have them make a perception check against a DC equal to the stealth roll of the creature who previously attempted to hide. It feels strange to have a person attempt to hide and then call for a contested roll between them and anyone who might detect them.
Have I been doing this wrong?
EDIT2: On second thought, I don't think the semantics really matter. Either it's a contested ability check and a stealth roll equal to passive perception fails to hide, or else it's a check made against a DC of one higher than the PP of the detector. The requirement is the same either way, and it really doesn't matter exactly how you treat it.
It's interesting, though. If I'm trying to hide from you, the tie goes to perception (status quo). But if I'm hidden, and you search for me, the tie still goes to perception (status quo doesn't apply)? Surely you have to apply the same standard in both cases.
It's interesting, though. If I'm trying to hide from you, the tie goes to perception (status quo). But if I'm hidden, and you search for me, the tie still goes to perception (status quo doesn't apply)? Surely you have to apply the same standard in both cases.
What I said in my post is that if I search for you (already hidden) and it’s a tie, you remain hidden; the tie doesn’t go to perception.
Careful - this way lies madness, if you press too hard on that particular piece of RAW. I don't recommend obsessing over it.
No need to obsess. It's one of the most straightforward and concise rules in the game. Only four words.
You'll run into serious problems in all manner of places if you rely on this literally - for example, it will mean you are automatically hidden from a deafenedGrimlock that can smell you, which is clearly not intended.
"Unseen and unheard" is a poor attempt to say "unperceived". The senses used do not have to be vision and hearing *per se*.
Related: if you are heard but not seen, you're still an unseen attacker, so it is unlikely to be material that you may not be technically "hidden". RAW, the sentence you quoted is also absurd; it means that if you are heard but not seen, attacking doesn't give away your position. I've not once had a DM who would agree with that. Attacking always renders me visible, if possible.
In general, from what I often hear from DMs in threads like these, it isn't worth even attempting to hide, it will often be wasted action economy which will often be negated by the DM anyway. If one is a rogue, then attack stuff next to an enemy of the enemy or get a way to become invisible.
In general stealth mechanics are too DM dependant in this edition in my opinion.
Right... when hiding you want to meet or beat the passive perception... so tie goes to the hiding character.
Just a different way of saying it really.
That’s not actually true (though I only recently learned that it’s not actually true).
In a contest, a tie means that the status quo is maintained. This means that if you’re trying to hide, you fail to hide. It also means that if you’re trying to detect an already hidden creature, you fail to detect it.
I think it should've been such that to beat a DC you'd have to roll higher, not just meet the DC. It makes sense mathematically that way I think. IE. to hit a 16 AC enemy you'd need a total attack of 17+. If I recall correctly that's not exactly how it works.
You'll run into serious problems in all manner of places if you rely on this literally - for example, it will mean you are automatically hidden from a deafenedGrimlock that can smell you, which is clearly not intended.
"Unseen and unheard" is a poor attempt to say "unperceived". The senses used do not have to be vision and hearing *per se*.
Related: if you are heard but not seen, you're still an unseen attacker, so it is unlikely to be material that you may not be technically "hidden". RAW, the sentence you quoted is also absurd; it means that if you are heard but not seen, attacking doesn't give away your position. I've not once had a DM who would agree with that. Attacking always renders me visible, if possible.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. You didn't seem keen on my post #6, so I was providing citation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s not actually true (though I only recently learned that it’s not actually true).
In a contest, a tie means that the status quo is maintained. This means that if you’re trying to hide, you fail to hide. It also means that if you’re trying to detect an already hidden creature, you fail to detect it.
Huh. That isn't very intuitive given DCs work the other way around, but it does seem that passive checks are treated the same as rolled checks.
Learn something new.
So if you hide with a stealth check result of 18, and I later search with a perception check result of 18, are you suggesting I would not detect your presence? That's interesting. Where are you getting that from?
EDIT: OK, this is very interesting, and it speaks to how I have run stealth and searching. I found this entry that backs up your statement referring to contested ability checks.
When I try to hide from someone or when I try to search for a hidden person, I don't treat it like I am doing a contested check. When someone tries to hide, I have them make an ability check against a DC appropriate for the situation. And when a character searches for a hidden creature, I have them make a perception check against a DC equal to the stealth roll of the creature who previously attempted to hide. It feels strange to have a person attempt to hide and then call for a contested roll between them and anyone who might detect them.
Have I been doing this wrong?
EDIT2: On second thought, I don't think the semantics really matter. Either it's a contested ability check and a stealth roll equal to passive perception fails to hide, or else it's a check made against a DC of one higher than the PP of the detector. The requirement is the same either way, and it really doesn't matter exactly how you treat it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's interesting, though. If I'm trying to hide from you, the tie goes to perception (status quo). But if I'm hidden, and you search for me, the tie still goes to perception (status quo doesn't apply)? Surely you have to apply the same standard in both cases.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
What I said in my post is that if I search for you (already hidden) and it’s a tie, you remain hidden; the tie doesn’t go to perception.
from TexasDevin >>
You'll run into serious problems in all manner of places if you rely on this literally - for example, it will mean you are automatically hidden from a deafened Grimlock that can smell you, which is clearly not intended.
"Unseen and unheard" is a poor attempt to say "unperceived". The senses used do not have to be vision and hearing *per se*.
Related: if you are heard but not seen, you're still an unseen attacker, so it is unlikely to be material that you may not be technically "hidden". RAW, the sentence you quoted is also absurd; it means that if you are heard but not seen, attacking doesn't give away your position. I've not once had a DM who would agree with that. Attacking always renders me visible, if possible.
In general, from what I often hear from DMs in threads like these, it isn't worth even attempting to hide, it will often be wasted action economy which will often be negated by the DM anyway. If one is a rogue, then attack stuff next to an enemy of the enemy or get a way to become invisible.
In general stealth mechanics are too DM dependant in this edition in my opinion.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Woops, I've learned that you should be careful with that word. "madness".
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I think it should've been such that to beat a DC you'd have to roll higher, not just meet the DC. It makes sense mathematically that way I think. IE. to hit a 16 AC enemy you'd need a total attack of 17+. If I recall correctly that's not exactly how it works.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. You didn't seem keen on my post #6, so I was providing citation.
"Not all those who wander are lost"