In fairness, Jeremy Crawford has been explicit in saying that passive scores are a floor, but that only matters when an active skill check is being made. That is a distinction that only matters in combat where searching requires an action.
I believe that is the point of passive skills. It's what you do when you're not trying.
I mostly agree with this, with a caveat. "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." A passive skill check means the PLAYER does not roll a die. It does not mean that a CHARACTER is successful every time.
If you want to use passive stealth against passive perception for determining whether an unhidden invisible creature is detected by someone else, then it's certainly not the worst idea I've heard. In fact, it's better than most. I'm just pointing out there is a potential problem with using passive stealth in this way and a DM should consider that in deciding whether to use that mechanism to accomplish such a goal.
Passive Stealth as your default stealthiness doesn't work. I know theoretically the DM can use a passive check for any skill, but some make far more sense than others, and Stealth and Perception have more rules baggage attached to them than other skills.
Yes, some people (and other creatures) are naturally quieter than others, but that doesn't mean everyone that's good at being deliberately quiet is always quieter than other people even when they're casually walking about.
But the bigger problem is that Stealth is always contested by passive Perception and there's no luck in comparing two passive scores. The creature will either always be noticed or always slip past any given observer.
The adventuring rules (which are the main set of rules in play when you're not in combat) let any creature roll Stealth if they're moving about at a slow pace. Does it really matter if they're being stealthy on purpose or subconsciously? A roll will work just fine either way.
Just to clarify, I did not imply that everyone always has a passive stealth score, I only implied that it might work as a way to represent a level of stealth in situations when you by definition is stealthy even though not intentially trying to hide. This would be when invisible for example, or when walking around at pitch darkness.
I do see the argument that it is strange that a rogue is better at moving stelthily when not trying to hide though. Would it make more sense to make it a straight dc?
Let say pinpointing the location of an invisible creature is a perception (active or passive) DC 15+1 for each 5 feet away?
Let say pinpointing the location of an invisible creature is a perception (active or passive) DC 15+1 for each 5 feet away?
If that works for you, then go for it. I prefer to judge every situation on its own merits. The basic rules set out guidelines for ability check DC based on the difficulty of the situation. Just pick the number that works best.
I am one of those people with a high "passive stealth". People are always accusing me of sneaking u on them when I think I am just walking normally.
I am not sure that this translates into a high Passive Stealth game mechanic, or even that Stealth would generally work as a passive ability in D&D.
I think invisible creatures should be able to passively hide if no one is actively trying to find them and no one is aware of the presence. If you know there is an invisible assassin hiding in the room I don't think the assassin should automatically be able to hide without taking an Action to do so. You know he is there and are actively trying to sense his location and presence.
I think invisible creatures should be able to passively hide if no one is actively trying to find them and no one is aware of the presence. If you know there is an invisible assassin hiding in the room I don't think the assassin should automatically be able to hide without taking an Action to do so. You know he is there and are actively trying to sense his location and presence.
But are you taking an action to do so?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Being invisible allows you to hide without any sort of concealment, it shouldn't automatically make you hidden or you are greatly increasing its power.
”When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. 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.”
Until ... you stop hiding. You stop hiding when you attack but what else constitutes stopping hiding.
Does not using your action (or bonus action) to Hide mean you have stopped hiding?
I’ve been reading this as moving and using other actions does not mean you stop hiding unless that movement or action causes you to be discovered. In other words, you don’t have to use your action every turn in order to remain hidden.
The traveling rules that you can only be stealthy when traveling at a slow pace but it seems like movement’s effect on stealth during an encounter is left up to the DM.
Does not using your action (or bonus action) to Hide mean you have stopped hiding?
Once you are hidden, you remain hidden until anyone detects you or until you do something that makes you no longer hidden. You don't need to actively maintain your hidden status.
It should also be noted that you do not have to constantly hide. Once you hide (with advantage because invisible), you are hidden until you are found, either by someone spending a turn to look for you (which will be contested against your stealth check) or you give yourself away. And as long as you stay invisible, you can always re-hide.
I feel like there was a lot of back and forth conversation only to eventually come to the same conclusion I pointed out near the beginning.
I worry about passive uses of active skills leading to strange situations.
For example, Conan (a barbarian with DEX (Stealth) +6) walking down a street while under some strange invisbility spell. He is not taking any steps to move quietly, so his passive DEX (Stealth) is 16. Approaching the gates to the vault, he starts placing his feet carefully and muffling his gear. The player rolls a 5, so his DEX (Stealth) is 11.
So, while not trying to be stealthy, he is roughly 50% more stealthy then when he was trying? What the?
I worry about passive uses of active skills leading to strange situations.
For example, Conan (a barbarian with DEX (Stealth) +6) walking down a street while under some strange invisbility spell. He is not taking any steps to move quietly, so his passive DEX (Stealth) is 16. Approaching the gates to the vault, he starts placing his feet carefully and muffling his gear. The player rolls a 5, so his DEX (Stealth) is 11.
So, while not trying to be stealthy, he is roughly 50% more stealthy then when he was trying? What the?
He actively tried to be stealthy, thus prompting a roll, and did not do well. That is the nature of actively trying to do something.. sometimes you **ck up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Passive stealth of 10 + Dex(Stealth) is almost like giving everyone the 11th level Rogue ability Reliable Talent.
I might go with 0 + Dex(Stealth). If the creature sensing has disadvantage on its passive perception, a stealthy individual might remain undetected while a individual wearing armor that causes disadvantage on Dex(Stealth) would never be able to get past an alert average perception creature. That’s how it should be.
This would also mean that trying to be stealthy will always be better than not trying at all.
Again, remember how invredibly big a difference it would make to be totally invisible. I am pretty sure I could run around outside and none would notice me if I was invisible, even when not trying to avoud detection (although not clapping my hands either).
i just find it really strange that I have to spend an action to be better hidden than some dude who is not invisible.
i guess you can make an experiment. Go outside at night, have one person go with a lightsource and the other go in near blck clothes. Does it make sense that they are equally easy to find, when neither is trying actively to hide?
i just find it really strange that I have to spend an action to be better hidden than some dude who is not invisible.
Think of it this way: who is more likely to be noticed? The normal guy walking behind a crowd and using them as cover, or an invisible guy pushing through the crowd. A visible guy hiding in a dark corner of a room behind cover, or an invisible guy in front of the door.
Because if you aren't hiding, you aren't hidden. But you only have to roll to hide once until you stop being hidden. And if you are invisible you can hide in plain sight with advantage.
i just find it really strange that I have to spend an action to be better hidden than some dude who is not invisible.
What's the problem? Being hidden means you're unseen and unheard. The person that's not invisible can easily be seen unless they move somewhere they're hard to see and try to hide. Being quiet takes deliberate effort, and most combat actions are mutually exclusive with being quiet.
In my experience people get hung up on examples involving an invisible creature that's standing there doing anything. But if they're just standing there not doing anything, you can say they're being stealthy. It really doesn't matter if they're being stealthy on purpose or not.
It matter a lot. Say a wizard casts improved invisibility. Next round he moves 10 feet, casts Lightning bolt (giving up his position), then moves 20 feet in a random direction. By the rules, everyone knows exactly where he is, and only have disadvantage to hit. To me that seems really strange, since people only have sound to go by when asserting where he is (even though he is not using the stealth-skill). Pinpointing a persons location down to 5 feet by sound alone is super-hard. Note that the wizard in question have not spent any actions using stealth, since that would mean he couldn't cast lightning bolt.
I think the above is probably the most classic use of Improved invisibility.
To take a similar logic case using very similar circumstances. An archer darts out from an alley (10 feet), fires his bow down the road (giving up his position) and moves into another alley - out of sight (20 feet in a random direction). Everyone agrees people will have a hard pinpointing his exact location even though he is not stealthing. After all, they cannot see him. I would assume invisibility follows the same logic, unless it is really just a semi-invisiblity that leaves a distortion like rain on a window or something.
…then moves 20 feet in a random direction. By the rules, everyone knows exactly where he is, and only have disadvantage to hit. To me that seems really strange, since people only have sound to go by when asserting where he is (even though he is not using the stealth-skill).
What is on the ground? Mud or snow or dungeon slime, to show footprints? Leaves or dust, to swirl up and show sign of passage? Is the wizard carrying noisy gear? Is she stressed from the combat, breathing heavily and noisily?
If the the floor is clean stone and the wizard is wearing soft shoes and no noisy clothing then I'd say she might be undetectable. That would be a great time for the canny player to say, "My character pulls out a bag of flour/caltrops/sand/whatever."
However, I suspect the real reason for the "everyone knows where you are" ruling is fun. It is no fun when a foe you can't locate keeps attacking you, with no chance for you to counterattack.
It matter a lot. Say a wizard casts improved invisibility. Next round he moves 10 feet, casts Lightning bolt (giving up his position), then moves 20 feet in a random direction. By the rules, everyone knows exactly where he is, and only have disadvantage to hit. To me that seems really strange, since people only have sound to go by when asserting where he is (even though he is not using the stealth-skill). Pinpointing a persons location down to 5 feet by sound alone is super-hard. Note that the wizard in question have not spent any actions using stealth, since that would mean he couldn't cast lightning bolt.
Like Greenstone_Walker said, the wizard could still leave a trail. The details aren't too important and shouldn't be too hard to come up with. You could say they left footprints, stepped on a twig, their coin purse jingled, their arcane focus glows faintly when they cast the spell and leaves a brief trail afterwards. Whatever makes sense contextually.
To take a similar logic case using very similar circumstances. An archer darts out from an alley (10 feet), fires his bow down the road (giving up his position) and moves into another alley - out of sight (20 feet in a random direction). Everyone agrees people will have a hard pinpointing his exact location even though he is not stealthing.
In a situation like this the chase rules in the DMG are a better fit than the combat rules.
The party's spell caster having access to greater invisibility brought this to the forefront in our last game so it is on my mind again. I think I know how I would like to handle this and I don't think it runs afoul of any of the stated rules or policies concerning invisibility or perception. My preference right now when someone is trying to discern the location of an invisible but unhidden opponent is to require the search action against a situationally appropriate DC to pinpoint the location of the invisible person and that would maintain a sort of "target lock" on the invisible person from then on even as they change location unless/until they take the hide action. If the DC of the situation is below the searcher's passive perception, then no search action is required. I feel like that frees me up as DM to determine the DC of the detection based on environmental variables as well as actions taken by the invisible person. I can do this on the fly without bogging down the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In fairness, Jeremy Crawford has been explicit in saying that passive scores are a floor, but that only matters when an active skill check is being made. That is a distinction that only matters in combat where searching requires an action.
I mostly agree with this, with a caveat. "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." A passive skill check means the PLAYER does not roll a die. It does not mean that a CHARACTER is successful every time.
If you want to use passive stealth against passive perception for determining whether an unhidden invisible creature is detected by someone else, then it's certainly not the worst idea I've heard. In fact, it's better than most. I'm just pointing out there is a potential problem with using passive stealth in this way and a DM should consider that in deciding whether to use that mechanism to accomplish such a goal.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Passive Stealth as your default stealthiness doesn't work. I know theoretically the DM can use a passive check for any skill, but some make far more sense than others, and Stealth and Perception have more rules baggage attached to them than other skills.
Yes, some people (and other creatures) are naturally quieter than others, but that doesn't mean everyone that's good at being deliberately quiet is always quieter than other people even when they're casually walking about.
But the bigger problem is that Stealth is always contested by passive Perception and there's no luck in comparing two passive scores. The creature will either always be noticed or always slip past any given observer.
The adventuring rules (which are the main set of rules in play when you're not in combat) let any creature roll Stealth if they're moving about at a slow pace. Does it really matter if they're being stealthy on purpose or subconsciously? A roll will work just fine either way.
Just to clarify, I did not imply that everyone always has a passive stealth score, I only implied that it might work as a way to represent a level of stealth in situations when you by definition is stealthy even though not intentially trying to hide. This would be when invisible for example, or when walking around at pitch darkness.
I do see the argument that it is strange that a rogue is better at moving stelthily when not trying to hide though. Would it make more sense to make it a straight dc?
Let say pinpointing the location of an invisible creature is a perception (active or passive) DC 15+1 for each 5 feet away?
If that works for you, then go for it. I prefer to judge every situation on its own merits. The basic rules set out guidelines for ability check DC based on the difficulty of the situation. Just pick the number that works best.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I am one of those people with a high "passive stealth". People are always accusing me of sneaking u on them when I think I am just walking normally.
I am not sure that this translates into a high Passive Stealth game mechanic, or even that Stealth would generally work as a passive ability in D&D.
I think invisible creatures should be able to passively hide if no one is actively trying to find them and no one is aware of the presence. If you know there is an invisible assassin hiding in the room I don't think the assassin should automatically be able to hide without taking an Action to do so. You know he is there and are actively trying to sense his location and presence.
But are you taking an action to do so?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Being invisible allows you to hide without any sort of concealment, it shouldn't automatically make you hidden or you are greatly increasing its power.
Under Hiding in PHB p177
”When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. 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.”
Until ... you stop hiding. You stop hiding when you attack but what else constitutes stopping hiding.
Does not using your action (or bonus action) to Hide mean you have stopped hiding?
I’ve been reading this as moving and using other actions does not mean you stop hiding unless that movement or action causes you to be discovered. In other words, you don’t have to use your action every turn in order to remain hidden.
The traveling rules that you can only be stealthy when traveling at a slow pace but it seems like movement’s effect on stealth during an encounter is left up to the DM.
Once you are hidden, you remain hidden until anyone detects you or until you do something that makes you no longer hidden. You don't need to actively maintain your hidden status.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I feel like there was a lot of back and forth conversation only to eventually come to the same conclusion I pointed out near the beginning.
I worry about passive uses of active skills leading to strange situations.
For example, Conan (a barbarian with DEX (Stealth) +6) walking down a street while under some strange invisbility spell. He is not taking any steps to move quietly, so his passive DEX (Stealth) is 16. Approaching the gates to the vault, he starts placing his feet carefully and muffling his gear. The player rolls a 5, so his DEX (Stealth) is 11.
So, while not trying to be stealthy, he is roughly 50% more stealthy then when he was trying? What the?
He actively tried to be stealthy, thus prompting a roll, and did not do well. That is the nature of actively trying to do something.. sometimes you **ck up.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Passive stealth of 10 + Dex(Stealth) is almost like giving everyone the 11th level Rogue ability Reliable Talent.
I might go with 0 + Dex(Stealth). If the creature sensing has disadvantage on its passive perception, a stealthy individual might remain undetected while a individual wearing armor that causes disadvantage on Dex(Stealth) would never be able to get past an alert average perception creature. That’s how it should be.
This would also mean that trying to be stealthy will always be better than not trying at all.
Again, remember how invredibly big a difference it would make to be totally invisible. I am pretty sure I could run around outside and none would notice me if I was invisible, even when not trying to avoud detection (although not clapping my hands either).
i just find it really strange that I have to spend an action to be better hidden than some dude who is not invisible.
i guess you can make an experiment. Go outside at night, have one person go with a lightsource and the other go in near blck clothes. Does it make sense that they are equally easy to find, when neither is trying actively to hide?
Think of it this way: who is more likely to be noticed? The normal guy walking behind a crowd and using them as cover, or an invisible guy pushing through the crowd. A visible guy hiding in a dark corner of a room behind cover, or an invisible guy in front of the door.
Because if you aren't hiding, you aren't hidden. But you only have to roll to hide once until you stop being hidden. And if you are invisible you can hide in plain sight with advantage.
What's the problem? Being hidden means you're unseen and unheard. The person that's not invisible can easily be seen unless they move somewhere they're hard to see and try to hide. Being quiet takes deliberate effort, and most combat actions are mutually exclusive with being quiet.
In my experience people get hung up on examples involving an invisible creature that's standing there doing anything. But if they're just standing there not doing anything, you can say they're being stealthy. It really doesn't matter if they're being stealthy on purpose or not.
It matter a lot. Say a wizard casts improved invisibility. Next round he moves 10 feet, casts Lightning bolt (giving up his position), then moves 20 feet in a random direction. By the rules, everyone knows exactly where he is, and only have disadvantage to hit. To me that seems really strange, since people only have sound to go by when asserting where he is (even though he is not using the stealth-skill). Pinpointing a persons location down to 5 feet by sound alone is super-hard. Note that the wizard in question have not spent any actions using stealth, since that would mean he couldn't cast lightning bolt.
I think the above is probably the most classic use of Improved invisibility.
To take a similar logic case using very similar circumstances. An archer darts out from an alley (10 feet), fires his bow down the road (giving up his position) and moves into another alley - out of sight (20 feet in a random direction). Everyone agrees people will have a hard pinpointing his exact location even though he is not stealthing. After all, they cannot see him. I would assume invisibility follows the same logic, unless it is really just a semi-invisiblity that leaves a distortion like rain on a window or something.
What is on the ground? Mud or snow or dungeon slime, to show footprints? Leaves or dust, to swirl up and show sign of passage? Is the wizard carrying noisy gear? Is she stressed from the combat, breathing heavily and noisily?
If the the floor is clean stone and the wizard is wearing soft shoes and no noisy clothing then I'd say she might be undetectable. That would be a great time for the canny player to say, "My character pulls out a bag of flour/caltrops/sand/whatever."
However, I suspect the real reason for the "everyone knows where you are" ruling is fun. It is no fun when a foe you can't locate keeps attacking you, with no chance for you to counterattack.
Like Greenstone_Walker said, the wizard could still leave a trail. The details aren't too important and shouldn't be too hard to come up with. You could say they left footprints, stepped on a twig, their coin purse jingled, their arcane focus glows faintly when they cast the spell and leaves a brief trail afterwards. Whatever makes sense contextually.
In a situation like this the chase rules in the DMG are a better fit than the combat rules.
The party's spell caster having access to greater invisibility brought this to the forefront in our last game so it is on my mind again. I think I know how I would like to handle this and I don't think it runs afoul of any of the stated rules or policies concerning invisibility or perception. My preference right now when someone is trying to discern the location of an invisible but unhidden opponent is to require the search action against a situationally appropriate DC to pinpoint the location of the invisible person and that would maintain a sort of "target lock" on the invisible person from then on even as they change location unless/until they take the hide action. If the DC of the situation is below the searcher's passive perception, then no search action is required. I feel like that frees me up as DM to determine the DC of the detection based on environmental variables as well as actions taken by the invisible person. I can do this on the fly without bogging down the game.
"Not all those who wander are lost"