D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

Jester David · Apr 30, 2017

robus said:
I don't like the fact that you can't knock someone unconscious with a single blow (in RAW). If you can get yourself into the right spot (via stealth) you should be able to do it. It's a classic adventure move after all. My house rule: a strength vs passive constitution check. If strength wins (I.e. Force of the blow) then the creature is knocked unconscious. I'll give a PC disadvantage of the size of the monster is huge (or bigger)

If the monsters are bigger than the PCs (like bugbears) do they get advantage to knock out the PCs?

Caliban · Apr 30, 2017

Maxperson said:
Let's go more general and just look at +10 vs. DC 15. Failing 20% of the time at anything doesn't equal highly competent to me. Making it perception doesn't change that.

So fighters with a +10 to hit aren't highly competent? I'm looking at what it takes to achieve a +10. That much experience and effort = highly competent. The game itself (with bounded accuracy) makes even highly competent people fail at moderate tasks far more often than is realistic.

Because it's a game.

[edit: A lot of this may also have to do with how the game changes once you allow feats and multi-classing - suddenly bonuses that would take you until level 13+ to achieve can be attained by level 5 or 9. All the monsters and DC's assume no special feats, so the PC's can gain a huge advantage if they are using those options and the DM doesn't adjust the NPC's and such to match.)

trinculolives · Apr 30, 2017

I am so tired of how traps interact with passive Perception. It is my least favourite part of the game by far. Players moan and complain if they stumble into a trap, and they are bored if they avoid a trap, and they are bored if they disable a trap. Traps are just kind of lame.

Yeah, I know. It's my fault for not making better traps.

Maxperson · Apr 30, 2017

Caliban said:
So fighters with a +10 to hit aren't highly competent? I'm looking at what it takes to achieve a +10. That much experience and effort = highly competent. The game itself (with bounded accuracy) makes even highly competent people fail at moderate tasks far more often than is realistic.

A 5th level fighter with a +1 sword and an 18 strength has +8. I wouldn't call a 5th level anything close to highly competent. Competent sure. Not highly competent, though. A 10th level fighter with a +2 sword and 20 strength has +11. That's just +3 more than the 5th level fighter, and a huge portion of each is strength and a magic weapon. Not two things associated with competence of the individual.

Because it's a game.

More like because of the much smaller range of pluses in 5e. A 10th level PC should be highly competent, but the game only giving him +3 more than a 5th level PC sort of wrecks that.

[edit: A lot of this may also have to do with how the game changes once you allow feats and multi-classing - suddenly bonuses that would take you until level 13+ to achieve can be attained by level 5 or 9. All the monsters and DC's assume no special feats, so the PC's can gain a huge advantage if they are using those options and the DM doesn't adjust the NPC's and such to match.)

Which in my opinion is all the more reason not to use passive scores. Passive scores make that much more powerful. There's no need to adjust the numbers if you get rid of passive scores and have them roll.

Caliban · Apr 30, 2017

Maxperson said:
Which in my opinion is all the more reason not to use passive scores. Passive scores make that much more powerful. There's no need to adjust the numbers if you get rid of passive scores and have them roll.

Then don't use passive scores. Problem solved.

Satyrn · Apr 30, 2017

robus said:
I don't like the fact that you can't knock someone unconscious with a single blow (in RAW). If you can get yourself into the right spot (via stealth) you should be able to do it. It's a classic adventure move after all. My house rule: a strength vs passive constitution check. If strength wins (I.e. Force of the blow) then the creature is knocked unconscious. I'll give a PC disadvantage of the size of the monster is huge (or bigger)

I wouldn't even call that a house rule. I'd think of it as a reasonable ruling that stemmed from first deciding that the combat rules don't apply.

You're just using the ability/skill check rules as they're intended: player tries something, anything, DM decides what ought to be rolled, if a roll ought to be made.

I've really grown to hate the phrase "Rules as Written".

Satyrn · Apr 30, 2017

trinculolives said:
I am so tired of how traps interact with passive Perception. It is my least favourite part of the game by far. Players moan and complain if they stumble into a trap, and they are bored if they avoid a trap, and they are bored if they disable a trap. Traps are just kind of lame.

Yeah, I know. It's my fault for not making better traps.

Traps are hard for me, too.

I find I have to go the Indiana Jones way: The trap is obvious, like that boulder sitting on a ramp that will be released when you take the idol. If it gets loose, the fun comes from spending a couple rounds of action describing how the players flee from it, rather than just doing a "save or squash" roll.

I've used a pedestal that collapses from beneath their feet - forcing them to decide to either just fall with it, try some acrobatic stunt to leap from it to a hanging rope, or just teleport or featherfall. It gives each player a chance to escape in a manner suitable to their character and winds up feeling a bit like a combat encounter against the environment.

Not that you asked for advice.

Edit: Max, I accidentally quoted you; pardon me if you get an alert for it.

trinculolives · Apr 30, 2017

Satyrn said:
Traps are hard for me, too.

I find I have to go the Indiana Jones way: The trap is obvious, like that boulder sitting on a ramp that will be released when you take the idol. If it gets loose, the fun comes from spending a couple rounds of action describing how the players flee from it, rather than just doing a "save or squash" roll.

I've used a pedestal that collapses from beneath their feet - forcing them to decide to either just fall with it, try some acrobatic stunt to leap from it to a hanging rope, or just teleport or featherfall. It gives each player a chance to escape in a manner suitable to their character and winds up feeling a bit like a combat encounter against the environment.

Not that you asked for advice.

Edit: Max, I accidentally quoted you; pardon me if you get an alert for it.

It's happened all of one time, but the only way I've been able to create an enjoyable trap is by running it like a combat encounter. I moved the party into Initiative, and made it incredibly clear what steps they needed to take to either escape the trap or disable it. Complex traps, in other words, like those presented in the Trap UA, are the only ones that both I and my players seem to enjoy.

Why are simple traps a part of the game in 5th edition when the players only end up crying about them and many DMs get frustrated about how to handle them?

Satyrn · Apr 30, 2017

trinculolives said:
Why are simple traps a part of the game in 5th edition when the players only end up crying about them and many DMs get frustrated about how to handle them?

Tradition! :lol:

robus · Apr 30, 2017

Jester David said:
If the monsters are bigger than the PCs (like bugbears) do they get advantage to knock out the PCs?

Sure if that's their objective, and they've manœuvred themselves into situation that warrants it.

D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

Jester David

Hero

Caliban

Rules Monkey

trinculolives

Villager

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Caliban

Rules Monkey

Satyrn

First Post

Satyrn

First Post

trinculolives

Villager

Satyrn

First Post

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller

Similar Threads