Imagine your DM ruled that every time you made a Deception roll, you had to come up with a lie so convincing that it made sense in 'reality'.
Literally every single game I have played in has ruled it this way. You have to come up with a convincing lie (Deception), or a convincing argument (Persuasion); you have to explain where your character is hiding / how they are avoiding being noticed (Stealth); you have to describe how they use their muscles to do something to use Athletics, or how they use their agility to roll Acrobatics; you have to explain how they try to befriend or control an animal (Animal Handling); you have to explain how they look for clues (Investigation), or how they attempt to track something (Survival). etc... etc...
The most fundamental and most basic rule of the game is that you as the player describe or role-play what your character is doing, then the DM decides what the DC is and what roll you make to accomplish that. That's why it is a Role Playing Game, rather than a "I push the Deception button" game.
i.e. the game works as such:
DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light." DM: "Roll Perception." Player: "27" DM: "You get a glimpse of the silhouette of a humanoid figure walking past the window."
It does not work as: DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I rolled a 27 Perception, so is the evil necromancer in the mansion?" DM: "Yes, the evil necromancer is in the basement holding a petrified hand and a magic crystal."
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
That’s an interesting interpretation- can you point to a rule that supports it? Additionally, have you actually looked at typical Passive Perceptions and seen how many are notably higher than 15 before Rogues that want to Hide are guaranteed 19-20 on their rolls?
I don't understand the question. DMs can rule that passive Perception checks are enough to end the Invisible condition by enemies detecting and Finding the Rogue, without a Search action. It depends on the DM. I'm just saying it's probably fair to tell the player when that's going to happen so they can decide whether they want to do it or not.
I'd only use Passive Perception to determine whether you notice a hidden creature already. When a creature take the Hide action, it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check instead.
Imagine your DM ruled that every time you made a Deception roll, you had to come up with a lie so convincing that it made sense in 'reality'.
Literally every single game I have played in has ruled it this way. You have to come up with a convincing lie (Deception), or a convincing argument (Persuasion); you have to explain where your character is hiding / how they are avoiding being noticed (Stealth); you have to describe how they use their muscles to do something to use Athletics, or how they use their agility to roll Acrobatics; you have to explain how they try to befriend or control an animal (Animal Handling); you have to explain how they look for clues (Investigation), or how they attempt to track something (Survival). etc... etc...
The most fundamental and most basic rule of the game is that you as the player describe or role-play what your character is doing, then the DM decides what the DC is and what roll you make to accomplish that. That's why it is a Role Playing Game, rather than a "I push the Deception button" game.
i.e. the game works as such:
DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light." DM: "Roll Perception." Player: "27" DM: "You get a glimpse of the silhouette of a humanoid figure walking past the window."
It does not work as: DM: "You see an abandoned mansion before you, a light flickers in the upper right window." Player: "I rolled a 27 Perception, so is the evil necromancer in the mansion?" DM: "Yes, the evil necromancer is in the basement holding a petrified hand and a magic crystal."
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish. The times you describe how are usually things like attack rolls after you know their success/failure. Which you can do for stealth or any skill, I roll a 25, okay no one seems to see you. Then they describe how the distracted them by flicking a pebble at the vase and moving past them while they were distracted. Which just works because they rolled good enough to sneak past people. Or I rolled a 20 on medicine to stabilize, cool he is stabilized and then you describe your totally not scientific methods to stabilize people with a arrow through their head in 6 seconds or less. But in all cases first you described what you were trying to accomplish, sneak past the guards, stab the ogre, stabilize bob.
That is not to say I think the 2024 system of roll a 15 and now you are invisible is great, but a warlock at level 5 can turn invisible pretty much as will as dim light is pretty easy to come by, so whatever a rogue can do it with a easy roll.
Realistically, a DC 15 is just a Rogue telling themselves they're hiding. If their Stealth roll doesn't pass the passive Perception, that won't prevent them from being detected. In some ways, it's a trap. I would say that IF you can see the creatures you're hiding from, the DM should reveal if their passive Perception might be enough to break your Stealth check. A Rogue should be able to intuit when their hiding might be compromised.
That’s an interesting interpretation- can you point to a rule that supports it? Additionally, have you actually looked at typical Passive Perceptions and seen how many are notably higher than 15 before Rogues that want to Hide are guaranteed 19-20 on their rolls?
I don't understand the question. DMs can rule that passive Perception checks are enough to end the Invisible condition by enemies detecting and Finding the Rogue, without a Search action. It depends on the DM. I'm just saying it's probably fair to tell the player when that's going to happen so they can decide whether they want to do it or not.
The question comes from the fact that in a Rules and Mechanics forum, “the DM can just come up with something” is not a strong talking point. The point is discussing the rules as they’re written and parsing the intent of the text, not coming up with house rules.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option. Just like you wont describe how you stabilized someone, or knew the history of their family, or how you mixed the potion. You aren't describing how, you are describing what you want to accomplish.
That's where your experience differs from mine and from examples in this thread. No, skill checks do not need to be something you can do, but they need to be something you can narrate and make sound plausible enough for the DM to say it's possible and tell you what check to make. It's true that in some cases you really don't need anything more than "I sneak past the guards", but in more challenging conditions more narrative is expected.
That seems to be a misinterpretation of their point. Of course you say I try to convince the guards to let us pass. You don't actually need to act out the lie to perfection though. For stealth you will be fairly generic as well, about as generic as your "I try to see if there is something or someone moving in the room with the light" example. As that is describing a end result, I am perceiving what is in that room I can see. It is not really describing how you do it though. Like when making a medicine check to stabilize, I say i use my medicine skill to stabilize bob, I'm not a EMT though so I am not describing bandages and CPR or whatever.
Or I try to sneak past the guards. How, who knows I'm not a ninja and you can't describe the scene to perfection for me to know every possible option.
This is where the back and forth with the DM comes in. Players can and should ask follow-up questions of the DM if something they want to do depends on a detail that wasn't discussed in a scene. For example:
DM: "You approach the beautiful stately home sitting atop a slight rise in the centre of perfectly manicured lawns and gardens. Around the perimeter is a metal fence 7 feet high topped with sharp points. A locked gate bars the cobblestone path leading from the main road to the front door, and three guards are visible patrolling the perimeter."
Rogue Player: "I'd like sneak past the guards and look for a rear door, what do the gardens look like? is there a hedge or something I could hide behind?"
DM: "Yes, along one side of the property is a tall hedge, make a Perception check."
Rogue: "18"
DM: "You notice that the hedge is thick and dense and blocks line of sight, however, you also notice some thorns along its branches."
Rogue: "Ok I'm going to sneak around the other side of the hedge, but avoiding touching the hedge itself."
DM: "Roll Stealth."
etc... etc...
For a deception example, it wouldn't be sufficient to say "I try to convince the guards to let us pass", but you could say something like "I tell the guards we're performers who were hired to provide entertainment for the party." Or you could and often would act out the conversation. Of course the quality of your acting doesn't affect the DC / roll, but the context of your argument does. If you lie that the party are performers to provide entertainment and you're all dressed like medieval SWAT that's a high DC, if you instead lied that you were exterminators and needed access to a sewer inside the property to deal with an Olytugh that would be a lower DC.
I honestly don't understand what you're asking. I can't answer it if you won't explain. Whether or not you're invisible only matter when it's relevant if someone sees you. Otherwise, it's just a fancy word on your condition sheet.
You can be found with passive Perception, if your Invisible condition is from the Hide skill. It's not the same as the Invisibility spell.
I don't understand the question. Whether you're invisible or not only matters when someone could see you. The Invisible condition acquired through Hiding can end if an enemy finds you, which can be from passive Perception.
Seeing through the Invisible condition from Hide requires a Perception roll. Passive Perception is only useful in a circumstance where the player wouldn't already have a clue that someone/something was Hiding to give them that clue. Once they know that it's likely they need to search for something, they'd need to take an Action to make the Perception check.
Seeing through the Invisible condition from Hide requires a Perception roll. Passive Perception is only useful in a circumstance where the player wouldn't already have a clue that someone/something was Hiding to give them that clue. Once they know that it's likely they need to search for something, they'd need to take an Action to make the Perception check.
The rule here is unclear and depends on the interpretation of "when an enemy finds you." Talk to your DM. A more generous interpretation would say that even God Himself wouldn't notice you on a DC 15 Stealth roll unless He used a Search action. The least generous rule is to say a passive Perception above your check always finds you.
Seeing through the Invisible condition from Hide requires a Perception roll. Passive Perception is only useful in a circumstance where the player wouldn't already have a clue that someone/something was Hiding to give them that clue. Once they know that it's likely they need to search for something, they'd need to take an Action to make the Perception check.
That strikes me as a problematic ruling. If the rest of the party starts yelling "the thief is hiding!" it becomes harder for the monsters to find the thief?
Passive perception should always apply; it's the creature's baseline ability to notice things, just by existing. If they want to take extra effort to find something, then it's an action.
What annoys me most with the "a Perception check isn't necessarily the only way to find someone" argument is that it isn't one. It doesn't mean that you can just shoehorn any kind of situation and deem that it's a valid way to find someone who's hiding. It's not a wildcard that you can use to make up new rules. If there are other ways to find a hidden creature than rolling for Perception or using Passive Perception, then that method must be documented in the rules.
what annoys me is passive perception is just as often as good or better as active perception. If they want to set up passive as base 10, then when people use an action to perceive they should get advantage or something. and yes i know they wanted to get rid of this stuff with 5e but circumstantial bonuses would solve a lot of this. Adv/dis sometimes does not really cut it. a open well lit courtyard with no cover or concealment could be like the opposite of pass without trace and apply a -10 or higher penalty to stealth or + that to perception basically implying only distractions that get guards to look away will allow stealth.
what annoys me is passive perception is just as often as good or better as active perception. If they want to set up passive as base 10, then when people use an action to perceive they should get advantage or something. and yes i know they wanted to get rid of this stuff with 5e but circumstantial bonuses would solve a lot of this. Adv/dis sometimes does not really cut it. a open well lit courtyard with no cover or concealment could be like the opposite of pass without trace and apply a -10 or higher penalty to stealth or + that to perception basically implying only distractions that get guards to look away will allow stealth.
This is the basis for why I rule that passive Perception generally applies against Stealth checks that were made to Hide. That way, if someone is Hidden from you, it's usually because you already failed passive Perception and must use an action to Search. Otherwise you get wonky situations where not Searching is a better way to look for Hidden creatures which makes no sense. Using an action should always be advantageous.
As for open courtyards, the way I see it, the Hide check is applied against passive Perception and is the bar active searchers need to pass to detect a Hidden character. So once you make the initial check, you're Invisible per the Hide skill unless someone with a high enough passive Perception notices you, OR you come across a Stealth challenge.
A Stealth challenge is a situation in which your hiding is compromised. This can be a bunch of leaves giving away your presence and position, open courtyards, teams of guards searching for you systematically, or a variety of other things. The DC for this is set by me, the DM, and is based on the Perception of the involved creatures, but not exactly simply based on their Perception modifier. Emphasis here is on awareness and perception, not literal invisibility. An open, well-lit courtyard means you have little means to hide from direct eyesight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every corner is visible to a guardian at every moment. It's a very high DC, but possibly not insurmountable.
How much of a game this is depends on how many characters are involved and how central it is to the fantasy not only of the PC involved but of the party. As a rule of thumb, two to five checks is fine for a single or pair of PCs using Stealth to solve a problem. If the entire team is hiding and it's that kind of campaign (spies, ninjas, Mission Impossible heists, etc), then it should be designed as a full on group skill challenge with far more complexity and moments for characters to strut their stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't understand the question. DMs can rule that passive Perception checks are enough to end the Invisible condition by enemies detecting and Finding the Rogue, without a Search action. It depends on the DM. I'm just saying it's probably fair to tell the player when that's going to happen so they can decide whether they want to do it or not.
I'd only use Passive Perception to determine whether you notice a hidden creature already. When a creature take the Hide action, it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check instead.
The question comes from the fact that in a Rules and Mechanics forum, “the DM can just come up with something” is not a strong talking point. The point is discussing the rules as they’re written and parsing the intent of the text, not coming up with house rules.
That's where your experience differs from mine and from examples in this thread. No, skill checks do not need to be something you can do, but they need to be something you can narrate and make sound plausible enough for the DM to say it's possible and tell you what check to make. It's true that in some cases you really don't need anything more than "I sneak past the guards", but in more challenging conditions more narrative is expected.
This is where the back and forth with the DM comes in. Players can and should ask follow-up questions of the DM if something they want to do depends on a detail that wasn't discussed in a scene. For example:
DM: "You approach the beautiful stately home sitting atop a slight rise in the centre of perfectly manicured lawns and gardens. Around the perimeter is a metal fence 7 feet high topped with sharp points. A locked gate bars the cobblestone path leading from the main road to the front door, and three guards are visible patrolling the perimeter."
Rogue Player: "I'd like sneak past the guards and look for a rear door, what do the gardens look like? is there a hedge or something I could hide behind?"
DM: "Yes, along one side of the property is a tall hedge, make a Perception check."
Rogue: "18"
DM: "You notice that the hedge is thick and dense and blocks line of sight, however, you also notice some thorns along its branches."
Rogue: "Ok I'm going to sneak around the other side of the hedge, but avoiding touching the hedge itself."
DM: "Roll Stealth."
etc... etc...
For a deception example, it wouldn't be sufficient to say "I try to convince the guards to let us pass", but you could say something like "I tell the guards we're performers who were hired to provide entertainment for the party." Or you could and often would act out the conversation. Of course the quality of your acting doesn't affect the DC / roll, but the context of your argument does. If you lie that the party are performers to provide entertainment and you're all dressed like medieval SWAT that's a high DC, if you instead lied that you were exterminators and needed access to a sewer inside the property to deal with an Olytugh that would be a lower DC.
I honestly don't understand what you're asking. I can't answer it if you won't explain. Whether or not you're invisible only matter when it's relevant if someone sees you. Otherwise, it's just a fancy word on your condition sheet.
You can be found with passive Perception, if your Invisible condition is from the Hide skill. It's not the same as the Invisibility spell.
I don't understand the question. Whether you're invisible or not only matters when someone could see you. The Invisible condition acquired through Hiding can end if an enemy finds you, which can be from passive Perception.
This is different from an Invisibility spell.
Seeing through the Invisible condition from Hide requires a Perception roll. Passive Perception is only useful in a circumstance where the player wouldn't already have a clue that someone/something was Hiding to give them that clue. Once they know that it's likely they need to search for something, they'd need to take an Action to make the Perception check.
The rule here is unclear and depends on the interpretation of "when an enemy finds you." Talk to your DM. A more generous interpretation would say that even God Himself wouldn't notice you on a DC 15 Stealth roll unless He used a Search action. The least generous rule is to say a passive Perception above your check always finds you.
That strikes me as a problematic ruling. If the rest of the party starts yelling "the thief is hiding!" it becomes harder for the monsters to find the thief?
Passive perception should always apply; it's the creature's baseline ability to notice things, just by existing. If they want to take extra effort to find something, then it's an action.
What annoys me most with the "a Perception check isn't necessarily the only way to find someone" argument is that it isn't one.
It doesn't mean that you can just shoehorn any kind of situation and deem that it's a valid way to find someone who's hiding.
It's not a wildcard that you can use to make up new rules.
If there are other ways to find a hidden creature than rolling for Perception or using Passive Perception, then that method must be documented in the rules.
what annoys me is passive perception is just as often as good or better as active perception. If they want to set up passive as base 10, then when people use an action to perceive they should get advantage or something. and yes i know they wanted to get rid of this stuff with 5e but circumstantial bonuses would solve a lot of this. Adv/dis sometimes does not really cut it. a open well lit courtyard with no cover or concealment could be like the opposite of pass without trace and apply a -10 or higher penalty to stealth or + that to perception basically implying only distractions that get guards to look away will allow stealth.
This is the basis for why I rule that passive Perception generally applies against Stealth checks that were made to Hide. That way, if someone is Hidden from you, it's usually because you already failed passive Perception and must use an action to Search. Otherwise you get wonky situations where not Searching is a better way to look for Hidden creatures which makes no sense. Using an action should always be advantageous.
As for open courtyards, the way I see it, the Hide check is applied against passive Perception and is the bar active searchers need to pass to detect a Hidden character. So once you make the initial check, you're Invisible per the Hide skill unless someone with a high enough passive Perception notices you, OR you come across a Stealth challenge.
A Stealth challenge is a situation in which your hiding is compromised. This can be a bunch of leaves giving away your presence and position, open courtyards, teams of guards searching for you systematically, or a variety of other things. The DC for this is set by me, the DM, and is based on the Perception of the involved creatures, but not exactly simply based on their Perception modifier. Emphasis here is on awareness and perception, not literal invisibility. An open, well-lit courtyard means you have little means to hide from direct eyesight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every corner is visible to a guardian at every moment. It's a very high DC, but possibly not insurmountable.
How much of a game this is depends on how many characters are involved and how central it is to the fantasy not only of the PC involved but of the party. As a rule of thumb, two to five checks is fine for a single or pair of PCs using Stealth to solve a problem. If the entire team is hiding and it's that kind of campaign (spies, ninjas, Mission Impossible heists, etc), then it should be designed as a full on group skill challenge with far more complexity and moments for characters to strut their stuff.