If you don't use passives, hiders become statistically more likely to fail stealth the more creatures they hide from.
Take 5 orcs for example. Right now, say you just have to beat a DC10 to hide from all 5. Without modifiers that's a %45 chance. If you roll to contest all 5 orcs, the odds of you hiding is (1/stealthscore)^5 which is much less. If you really get noodly you can roll 5 stealth rolls VS 5 perception rolls, and your chances are still much lower than beating their passive.
I'm curious why you would not use passive perception against stealth checks in the hypothetical example you gave. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
So after a few levels PASSIVE perception is all that a pc needs to worry about, and rolling is not needed. I don't see how passively walking around should be higher than actively looking for traps etc. Honestly I have a player make his rogue just for this bad rule.
Wood elf +1 to wisdom which he put his 15. Thus 16 (bonus +3) proficiency +2 then expertise. This giving first level 17 passive perception with no roll!
I just thought I would point out ... PASSIVE and ACTIVE refer to the PLAYER actions and not to the character actions.
In a passive check the player does not roll dice. In an active check the player does roll dice. For example, when a character is actively looking around as when they would be when exploring a dungeon or other high risk area then they are aware of their surroundings, paying attention, but not rolling dice every 6 seconds ... their passive perception score is used even though the character is actively paying attention. In fact, most characters are actually paying attention most of the time which is why their passive perception is almost always in play and is a "floor" for their perception checks.
There are cases in the rules ... traveling for example ... where if a character is doing something else while traveling that takes their attention away from their surroundings. They do NOT get a passive perception check at all. They had to be actively watching for passive perception to actually be used.
It isn't true that a character that isn't paying attention has a better perception than one who does ... since if they aren't paying attention or are sufficiently distracted they may not get a passive check at all. However, if the CHARACTER actions involve paying attention to their surroundings, which for most characters is always the case if they aren't doing anything else ... then a passive check can be made ... it is called passive because the PLAYER, not the character, isn't doing anything to resolve the check.
I completely agree that you would use passive in the case of "not wanting the player to know a roll was taking place". But that is obviously INSTEAD of a roll, not in addition to a roll. Huge mathematical difference (10 or roll keep the highest, instead of 10). You realize that this is like auto-advantage if you give them both right?
So if AND ONLY if the PCs are in the exploration phase of the game, then I will use thier passive perception (flat, disadvantage or advantage depending on travel pace and other environmental factors).
If they are in combat, I make them take the search action if they are looking for hidden enemies. Basically the hider wastes an action to avoid detection, the searcher wastes an action to cancel it out - just like casting a spell/countering a spell. I'm not "calling for a perception" like a save every time someone tries to hide. They just disappear into obscurement, until you find them.
Technically if player A doesn't ask for a perception check you would default to Passive Perception. In those cases where a PC knows that his passive perception is going to be higher than anything he can likely roll, because of feats or a really high attribute, he could just say I never want to actively look for anything, which would then technically use his passive score anyway because he isn't actively looking. Basically using both eliminates the silliness that results from a player who isn't actively keeping watch actually being more perceptive than if he had actively been keeping watch. Personally I think the game would have been better off without passive perception, but if using it, it really does only make sense to only have a player roll for perception when they don't already succeed on their passive check, because if they don't actively do it, they would have succeeded.
Its basically just easier to tell all the PCs to roll so as to prevent the PCs from knowing the true DC of the check, but to include the player in noticing it, who was technically only rolling to not tip off the other players for what the DC is. So technically you shouldn't call for a player to make an active check, if their passive already succeeds.
Technically :) ... the players never ask for a check ... the DM does.
Also, passive skills are narrative tools. When played properly, the players may never know that their passive skills were involved and this applies to all passive skills.
Examples:
1) walking down a hallway with a DC16 perception check required to see a trap. This is actually pretty difficult for tier 1 characters except perhaps a rogue with expertise and a good wisdom score.
If you have a DC17 passive perception, the DM describes the situation "Everyone is moving forward along the hallway, <character with high passive> notices that one of the stones in the next section of floor is slightly discolored. What do you do?"
If you don't have a high enough passive perception in this case ...
If the party is proceeding cautiously and checking for traps - the DM requests a die roll (an active check). If the party isn't keeping an eye out for traps or are distracted (perhaps being pursued) then they may just trigger the trap.
2) In a discussion with an NPC, telling the character a story. There are elements of the story that have been exaggerated and others that might not be true DC15. A character with a passive insight might notice after listening for a while that some aspect of the story seems inconsistent or perhaps the persons voice always rises a bit at certain parts which may indicate that they are trying to overemphasize it.
In the character passive insight is 15 or higher, the DM narrates "You listen to the story of great heroics, it sounds fascinating but some elements don't seem to add up ... it was warm in the story but it was in the south and the time of year was winter there" or "It is a great story but the party about single handedly killing the basilisk with a polished shield sounds off".
On the other hand, if the character's passive insight isn't good enough, the DM may ask for an insight check or not at their discretion.
Finally, if the character decides to "never actively look for anything at all" they won't even get a passive check since they aren't looking. They will only ever get an active check. Passive and active refer to the player activity and not the character actions ... the player is passive when they do not roll dice and they are active when they do roll dice. Whether a passive or active check is required is up to the DM decision based on the circumstances but if a character chooses to not pay any attention and never look around ... they will never get a passive check.
Lost Mines of Phandelver has a good example in the first couple of pages. If the party searches for traps as they move along a trail then a passive check is made first. If they aren't looking or none of the passive scores are high enough then an active check is made.
I'm a bit late to the thread, which seems to be necro'd, but JohnBlaise's opinion early in the thread that hiding should be a 1 vs 1 contested check against a rolled perception is flawed because hiding is 1 vs. many. Someone that wants to hide/stealth rolls to hide from everyone he could possible hide from. So in terms of action vs action fairness, it's absolutely broken to require one creature's stealth check to cause ALL the other creatures to have to use their actions to counter that one action. That's the poster child example of 'not fair' and 'very broken'.
And for a 1 vs. 1 situation, just as a thought experiment: Say a heavily armored bloke with DEX as a dump stat rolls a 2 stealth/hiding ending with a ZERO total, how can you ever justify that bloke is not visible unless an equivalent action is used to spot him? That just ends up in a stalemate, ie: each creature has 1 action:
Bloke hides (his turn ends)
I search (my turn ends)
Bloke hides (his turn ends)
I search (my turn ends)
Bloke hides (his turn ends)
I search (my turn ends)
ad infinitum.
I'm sorry, but my opinion is firmly that passive perception is very much required in the game design. DM's that don't use it are going to get schooled by their players if their players have any strategic chops.
[edited to say; what I wrote might not be right because I was basing my understanding of 2024 PBH Stealth and Invisibility on an interview from 2017]
Thank you for the link! This was very helpful and interesting.
It seems like the big takeaway, for me, is that matters of Stealth are up to the discretion of the DM.
I was briefly non-confused about Invisibility and then I started reading about the Hide Action in the 2024 PHB again, and then I was a bit confused again and then I listen to that part of the interview again. In the interview, he said that “Invisibility typically comes from Magic” (Replaying the interview, he goes on to say) “although other effects in the game can make you literally invisible”.The Hide Action definition in the books saysthat a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check, imparts the 'Invisible condition'.
Okay, so it seems to me like there might be 2 types of ‘Invisibility”: Magical Invisibility vs Non-Magical/Environmental-based “invisibility” (or maybe just having the "Invisible condition" and the benefits of). I think Magical Invisibility might mean that you are truly “invisible” ie impossible to see with ordinary vision, even when out in the open and away from cover and that Non-Magical Invisibility (or meeting the requirements for having the "Invisible condition"), just means “unseen”, in the ordinary sense, likely due to being behind cover or out of the line of sight of any enemies. Invisibility does not necessarily mean impossible to perceive or locate or to know that someone is there (because of noise and other perceptible signs that an invisible creature is interacting with the environment) .
At the time this interview though was about 2014 Hide (unseen & unheard) rather than 2024 Hide (invisible)
Oh no, I checked the date of the post on dndbeyond, but not the date of the interview. Other than the date of the podcast and 2014 Hide (unseen & unheard).vs 2024 Hide (invisible), did I get anything else wrong? Stealth and invisibility for 2024 were just starting to make sense to me, as I was understanding them from the interview. AGGGGG!
Stealth is a skill. The Hide action rely on a Dexterity check wether you have any Stealth proficiency, but may not strictly be used to hide, moving quietly is another example of where it could be used..
I'm new so don't judge me to much. I will copy some of my thoughts on Stealth/Surprise/Assassination to this forum, in hope that it will be useful to someone(I encountered some hardships when searching out info on Assassins myself so I want to make it easier for others) :]
I like RAW explanations, but some parts of it is super sketchy (I assume it's that way because of fear of some players trying to do some exploits). I still think it should follow common logic if possible and reward creative tactical plays. So these would be my "HomeBrew" suggestions for scenarios against passive enemies who are just living/patrolling their camp:
Assassinate can fail against some unique or boos mob with some artifacts or some specific skill etc. It should not be able to fail lightly on some lowly Orc Scout if executed correctly (emphasis on correctly here).
Attack CAN and should be possible to happen outside of combat, because if I attack someone before they realize it and kill them with my attack(or do something else like paralyze to obstruct their perception completely) thy perish before any combat can even start, or they don't know they are in combat because of strong paralysis/illusion.
If enemies are sparse and conditions are right (cover, low visibility etc.) it should be possible to do multiple assassination's in a row without any combat starting. I would ADD Exhaustion factor here. So maybe 2-3 kills in a row before first level of Exhaustions. And 2 more attempts with all disadvantages from Exhaustion, before you hit Exhaustion lvl2.
If kill happens and you are able to hide, and kill is traceless enough then other enemies remain untriggered or in surprised state. Hiding as bonus action behind or under a dead body of large enemy should be a realistic tactic for skilled assassin.
Any enemies that can spot you should be accounted separately, they can inform etch other, but not necessarily do if there is no reason to. Field of view becomes more significant.
Any noticeable traces of attack(wounds, arrows etc.) obviously would put enemies at alert state and start combat. But if there is enough distance between them, they at least should take time to come closer to investigate, or not be bothered for some time by strangely sitting Orc friend, who is 100ft away.
Maybe in END game this could get ridiculous, correct me if you have experience on END game. But I think there is always ways to balance it correctly to, you can always equip some enemies with extra protection for balance, or add more of them. Most of these situations are RARE and has many conditions to fulfil successfully anyways. And it perfectly fits Assassins archetype. The goal is to execute a cool combination, not to win every fight in a cheesy way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you don't use passives, hiders become statistically more likely to fail stealth the more creatures they hide from.
Take 5 orcs for example. Right now, say you just have to beat a DC10 to hide from all 5. Without modifiers that's a %45 chance. If you roll to contest all 5 orcs, the odds of you hiding is (1/stealthscore)^5 which is much less. If you really get noodly you can roll 5 stealth rolls VS 5 perception rolls, and your chances are still much lower than beating their passive.
I'm curious why you would not use passive perception against stealth checks in the hypothetical example you gave. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I just thought I would point out ... PASSIVE and ACTIVE refer to the PLAYER actions and not to the character actions.
In a passive check the player does not roll dice. In an active check the player does roll dice. For example, when a character is actively looking around as when they would be when exploring a dungeon or other high risk area then they are aware of their surroundings, paying attention, but not rolling dice every 6 seconds ... their passive perception score is used even though the character is actively paying attention. In fact, most characters are actually paying attention most of the time which is why their passive perception is almost always in play and is a "floor" for their perception checks.
There are cases in the rules ... traveling for example ... where if a character is doing something else while traveling that takes their attention away from their surroundings. They do NOT get a passive perception check at all. They had to be actively watching for passive perception to actually be used.
It isn't true that a character that isn't paying attention has a better perception than one who does ... since if they aren't paying attention or are sufficiently distracted they may not get a passive check at all. However, if the CHARACTER actions involve paying attention to their surroundings, which for most characters is always the case if they aren't doing anything else ... then a passive check can be made ... it is called passive because the PLAYER, not the character, isn't doing anything to resolve the check.
Technically :) ... the players never ask for a check ... the DM does.
Also, passive skills are narrative tools. When played properly, the players may never know that their passive skills were involved and this applies to all passive skills.
Examples:
1) walking down a hallway with a DC16 perception check required to see a trap. This is actually pretty difficult for tier 1 characters except perhaps a rogue with expertise and a good wisdom score.
If you have a DC17 passive perception, the DM describes the situation "Everyone is moving forward along the hallway, <character with high passive> notices that one of the stones in the next section of floor is slightly discolored. What do you do?"
If you don't have a high enough passive perception in this case ...
If the party is proceeding cautiously and checking for traps - the DM requests a die roll (an active check). If the party isn't keeping an eye out for traps or are distracted (perhaps being pursued) then they may just trigger the trap.
2) In a discussion with an NPC, telling the character a story. There are elements of the story that have been exaggerated and others that might not be true DC15. A character with a passive insight might notice after listening for a while that some aspect of the story seems inconsistent or perhaps the persons voice always rises a bit at certain parts which may indicate that they are trying to overemphasize it.
In the character passive insight is 15 or higher, the DM narrates "You listen to the story of great heroics, it sounds fascinating but some elements don't seem to add up ... it was warm in the story but it was in the south and the time of year was winter there" or "It is a great story but the party about single handedly killing the basilisk with a polished shield sounds off".
On the other hand, if the character's passive insight isn't good enough, the DM may ask for an insight check or not at their discretion.
Finally, if the character decides to "never actively look for anything at all" they won't even get a passive check since they aren't looking. They will only ever get an active check. Passive and active refer to the player activity and not the character actions ... the player is passive when they do not roll dice and they are active when they do roll dice. Whether a passive or active check is required is up to the DM decision based on the circumstances but if a character chooses to not pay any attention and never look around ... they will never get a passive check.
Lost Mines of Phandelver has a good example in the first couple of pages. If the party searches for traps as they move along a trail then a passive check is made first. If they aren't looking or none of the passive scores are high enough then an active check is made.
I'm a bit late to the thread, which seems to be necro'd, but JohnBlaise's opinion early in the thread that hiding should be a 1 vs 1 contested check against a rolled perception is flawed because hiding is 1 vs. many. Someone that wants to hide/stealth rolls to hide from everyone he could possible hide from. So in terms of action vs action fairness, it's absolutely broken to require one creature's stealth check to cause ALL the other creatures to have to use their actions to counter that one action. That's the poster child example of 'not fair' and 'very broken'.
And for a 1 vs. 1 situation, just as a thought experiment: Say a heavily armored bloke with DEX as a dump stat rolls a 2 stealth/hiding ending with a ZERO total, how can you ever justify that bloke is not visible unless an equivalent action is used to spot him? That just ends up in a stalemate, ie: each creature has 1 action:
I'm sorry, but my opinion is firmly that passive perception is very much required in the game design. DM's that don't use it are going to get schooled by their players if their players have any strategic chops.
Also, keep in mind if you try to hide from the Drow warrior and the DM rolls three times for perception, then wait a minute!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sorry to revive and old thread, but what episode number is it that Jeremy discusses stealth? I can't find the podcast.
Dragon Talk episode 120 w/ James Haeck on D&D writing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
LauraSells01 There is also another Dragon Talk video on Stealth that was made in 2019 if you're interested.
Thank you.
Anyone know the new link now that Wizards has removed it?
James Haeck on D&D Writing - Dragon Talk - An Official Dungeons & Dragons Podcast | Podcast on Spotify
But note that this is from 2017, so doesn't necessarily apply to the stealth/invisibility rules from the 2024 PHB.
[edited to say; what I wrote might not be right because I was basing my understanding of 2024 PBH Stealth and Invisibility on an interview from 2017]
Thank you for the link! This was very helpful and interesting.
It seems like the big takeaway, for me, is that matters of Stealth are up to the discretion of the DM.
I was briefly non-confused about Invisibility and then I started reading about the Hide Action in the 2024 PHB again, and then I was a bit confused again and then I listen to that part of the interview again. In the interview, he said that “Invisibility typically comes from Magic” (Replaying the interview, he goes on to say) “although other effects in the game can make you literally invisible”. The Hide Action definition in the books says that a successful DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check, imparts the 'Invisible condition'.
Okay, so it seems to me like there might be 2 types of ‘Invisibility”: Magical Invisibility vs Non-Magical/Environmental-based “invisibility” (or maybe just having the "Invisible condition" and the benefits of). I think Magical Invisibility might mean that you are truly “invisible” ie impossible to see with ordinary vision, even when out in the open and away from cover and that Non-Magical Invisibility (or meeting the requirements for having the "Invisible condition"), just means “unseen”, in the ordinary sense, likely due to being behind cover or out of the line of sight of any enemies. Invisibility does not necessarily mean impossible to perceive or locate or to know that someone is there (because of noise and other perceptible signs that an invisible creature is interacting with the environment) .
At the time this interview though was about 2014 Hide (unseen & unheard) rather than 2024 Hide (invisible)
Oh no, I checked the date of the post on dndbeyond, but not the date of the interview. Other than the date of the podcast and 2014 Hide (unseen & unheard).vs 2024 Hide (invisible), did I get anything else wrong? Stealth and invisibility for 2024 were just starting to make sense to me, as I was understanding them from the interview. AGGGGG!
The essential of your take was not wrong and they spirit of Hide basically the same, they just coditioned it.
Is Stealth best thought of as a Skill in D&D? Just a Skill that you roll for against a DC of 15, when you take the Hide Action?
Stealth is a skill. The Hide action rely on a Dexterity check wether you have any Stealth proficiency, but may not strictly be used to hide, moving quietly is another example of where it could be used..
I'm new so don't judge me to much. I will copy some of my thoughts on Stealth/Surprise/Assassination to this forum, in hope that it will be useful to someone(I encountered some hardships when searching out info on Assassins myself so I want to make it easier for others) :]
I like RAW explanations, but some parts of it is super sketchy (I assume it's that way because of fear of some players trying to do some exploits). I still think it should follow common logic if possible and reward creative tactical plays. So these would be my "HomeBrew" suggestions for scenarios against passive enemies who are just living/patrolling their camp:
Maybe in END game this could get ridiculous, correct me if you have experience on END game. But I think there is always ways to balance it correctly to, you can always equip some enemies with extra protection for balance, or add more of them. Most of these situations are RARE and has many conditions to fulfil successfully anyways. And it perfectly fits Assassins archetype. The goal is to execute a cool combination, not to win every fight in a cheesy way.