D&D 5E Stealth, Spot, and Listen

Many of these issues were discussed in this thread, too.

The assumption of many posters there, as here, that too many characters will end up choosing a background that gives training in Perception seems strong enough that it should be countered, and I am leaning towards the belief that Spot, Listen and/or a joined Perception skill just shouldn't be in the game. This removes the perceived "need" for skill training (freeing up possibilities and diversity), but leaves two or three problems that would need to be solved:

1. If there are no skills for senses, then Stealth becomes increasingly effective in later levels, and detecting hidden characters significantly more challenging. In some ways, that's the purpose of stealth. And it may be that that's just the case: there's a hidden assassin, and the GM says, "everyone make a Wisdom roll", and the highest of the separate results is compared to the stealth roll. In that case, multiple sentries is a real benefit, but a high-level rogue is still likely able to evade non-magical detection. Still, one feels that someone ought to be able to do something as one rises in levels to increase one's chances to detect opponents. Skill training is an established solution that works conceptually for many players, despite some inconsistencies about what is being trained.

2. Elf bonuses, etc. Right now, all elves are trained in Spot and Listen. So we are no longer talking about uber-training of particular senses, we are talking about any other race achieving what every elf always has. The skill training is excessive, but toned down it could still exist: e.g. "Elves get advantage on Wisdom rolls to detect hidden creatures." or something. That, at least, sets the model for other races and their senses, and permits conditional modifiers (e.g. to detect a certain species, when underground, at night, etc.).

(For someone who wanted enhanced senses, one could add a feat that allowed you to add you skill die to perception rolls (or something like that to give to hunting dogs, Gnolls, dragons, etc.).)

I think this is a bigger problem than just twiddling a single knob. The solution I would like to see would require a combination of a number of things:

a. remove Spot and Listen from the skill set. (That requires a solution to the above two problems, which is doable, but not there yet)
b. reduce the number of opportunities for hiding within combat.
c. develop "enhanced senses" (like the Scent ability in 3.X) for certain creatures (but not normally available to PCs)
d. combine Track and Search into a single skill (called...?), rolling Wisdom to Track and Intelligence to Search.

Kobold Stew said:

a. remove Spot and Listen from the skill set. (That requires a solution to the above two problems, which is doable, but not there yet)
b. reduce the number of opportunities for hiding within combat.
c. develop "enhanced senses" (like the Scent ability in 3.X) for certain creatures (but not normally available to PCs)
d. combine Track and Search into a single skill (called...?), rolling Wisdom to Track and Intelligence to Search.

Click to expand...

I also came to the conclusion that a combined perception skill is too good, the use of two separate skills is too bad and the use of the best of two separate skills doesn't achieve anything. I would make perception, that is not deliberately looking for things as you might with search or track, should be a straight wisdom roll. When I think about it, the only way I can envisage training one's senses is via improving wisdom anyway - all the archetypes of such training usually involve mysticism and looking inside oneself, whereas the rugged hunter knows how to track and find things, and reacts quickly when surprised, rather than avoiding it. Clearly stealth will remain a skill though, and there needs to be a defence against this. The best I came up with is to give you a flat +X (whatever the modifier for being trained is) bonus if you are on sentry duty, but as you mention it, having more sentries could be the solution here, though still, if the assassin rolls well you can't do anything about it. Perhaps a group skill check mechanic is required, something as simple as +1 per assistant to a maximum of the highest ability modifier in the team. Perhaps you need to hire wise elves if you're the king, or resort to magical sensors - heck, if Rogue's are naturally unspottable with enough stealth skill and a good roll of the dice, that's AWESOME.

Or perhaps we split perception into two skills along existing active/passive, int/wis lines and have Alertness entirely for opposing stealth and Search for tracking and finding things (not creatures).

billd91 said:

That really just leads to two opposed checks for anyone trying to be sneaky and little chance for success because the observer now has two chances to notice him, needing to succeed at one or the other. The sneak, however, needs to beat the spot and the listen. It's better, from a game flow perspective, to just have one opposed roll. Let the observer apply whichever of his spot or listen is higher.

Click to expand...

Remember however that we're not making two *skill* checks on either side of this supposed equation. Some people may still thinking in the 3E/4E mindset for "skills."

The Sneaking person is *not* making a Sneak check. He is making a single Dexterity ability check to try and avoid detection. If a Sneak/Stealth skill is applicable, he gets a bonus to the ability check.

The observing creature is *not* making one or two Spot or Listen checks. He is making a single Wisdom ability check to try and perceive a hidden foe. If having good hearing would help him, he gets the Listen Bonus. Or if having particularly keen eyesight would help, he gets the Spot bonus. (Of course they wouldn't stack).

This set up allows for for certain races and classes to excel in areas of expertise that make sense. These two "skills" are indeed different enough to be separated and they make logical sense in the world. Examples below.

An Elf or a Ranger might have good vision and therefore a Spot bonus to appropriate ability checks. This is different compared to Listen because it works when there is too much noise, or if you're deafened, or under a silence effect that prevents a person from being able to listen properly.

A Rogue or a Gnome might have good hearing and get a Listen bonus to appropriate ability checks. This is different compared to Spot because it works when there is total concealment or invisibility or a barrier like a door blocking line of sight.

Having a single Perception skill is too all-encompassing and powerful when compared to most other skills. Skills are not supposed to be a more comprehensive bonus to an ability check. They are supposed to be situational.

Does this make sense?

Wyckedemus said:

The Sneaking person is *not* making a Sneak check. He is making a single Dexterity ability check to try and avoid detection. If a Sneak/Stealth skill is applicable, he gets a bonus to the ability check.

The observing creature is *not* making one or two Spot or Listen checks. He is making a single Wisdom ability check to try and perceive a hidden foe. If having good hearing would help him, he gets the Listen Bonus. Or if having particularly keen eyesight would help, he gets the Spot bonus. (Of course they wouldn't stack).

Click to expand...

The problem there is that the sneaker gets the benefit of only investing in one of the skills, but the person who wants to detect sneaking has to have both opposing skills. Otherwise you, the sneaker, choose to hide, and I, with only listen, can't use it against you. There are situations as you describe where one skill is clearly appropriate and the other not, but in the case that you need to both hide and move silently, it's not fair to let you pick your favourite, and non-sensical if I try to oppose it with the wrong one (ie: I also got to pick).

I kind of feel like this thread misses the point in some respects.

We make ability checks. Period. Want to search the room for a secret door? Which ability is it? Wisdom? Intelligence? One could argue either, and I think THATS the point. The DM (as the arbiter of such things) makes the call.

So how do skills fit in? Spot could be used to help find the secret door whether its a wisdom to check or Intelligence check, but also if its any other ability.

I could use spot to aid in my charisma check. How you ask? If I am trying to befriend the local haberdasher, and th RP of the situation has us discussing the details of his work, perhaps I "spot" some of the finer detail, making him warm to my charms. Sure "perception" would work too, but in this mechanic perception broadens. Why couldn't I use perception on ANY check? Doesn't everything, at some level, require the use of senses? Maybe an Int check to remember a fact or detail, but I can hear a player arguing for its inclusion even there (I remember things better because of my sharp perception).

This is why perception cannot be a lump skill. It applies to everything (or nearly everything) when ability checks are used. Rather than call them spot, listen, etc. I suppose you could call them sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch (I totally want a +2 to touch, lol!) but thats not very evocative, and while +2 smell might have some uses, most of us aren't narrating our games where taste, touch,and smell are very useful.

Chris_Nightwing said:

The problem there is that the sneaker gets the benefit of only investing in one of the skills, but the person who wants to detect sneaking has to have both opposing skills. Otherwise you, the sneaker, choose to hide, and I, with only listen, can't use it against you. There are situations as you describe where one skill is clearly appropriate and the other not, but in the case that you need to both hide and move silently, it's not fair to let you pick your favourite, and non-sensical if I try to oppose it with the wrong one (ie: I also got to pick).

Click to expand...

I don't see that as a problem. I see that as needless symmetry. Sneak/Stealth makes sense as one skill someone would be trained at or be naturally good at. It would be an extremely rare circumstance where a race or class is good at one and not the other, or use one and not the other.

However, it makes logical sense that hearing and vision are the two most common perception senses, and races and classes can be good at one, and not the other. In most circumstances, when making a Wisdom check to perceive a foe, having either one of those skills is going to be helpful, so there is no issue. But there are a myriad of situations where one applies and the other doesn't.

Hiding and Moving Silently do not need to exist separately to follow a needless symmetry to mirror Spot and Listen.

It's still only one check per contestant.

Obryn said:

I don't think that follows at all. "Deaf: You fail perception checks that involve hearing." "Blinded: You fail perception checks that involve sight."

-O

Click to expand...

Isn't that too much? Auto fail if it involves sight? How does a blind person function? If a goblin is stalking him, doesn't he have a chance of hearing the goblin?

Do you mean "Deaf: You fail perception checks that involve only hearing." "Blinded: You fail perception checks that involve only sight."?

That aside, I am not a fan of a super-skill called Perception or Awareness. Not in this ability based resolution system. A player can come up with an argument that being trained "Perception" can apply to almost any Wisdom ability check.

"Oh, I use my 'Perception' to perceive that guy's motives. And can I use Perception to see if that guy is polymorphed, or possibly has a mundane or magical disguise? And I use Perception to peruse this map to find the secret door. And I use it to look for the secret passage we just read about. I also use it to listen at said door. And I use it to keep an eye out for that invisible stalker that the map says is in here."

No thanks.

Wyckedemus said:

Isn't that too much? Auto fail if it involves sight? How does a blind person function? If a goblin is stalking him, doesn't he have a chance of hearing the goblin?

Do you mean "Deaf: You fail perception checks that involve only hearing." "Blinded: You fail perception checks that involve only sight."?

That aside, I am not a fan of a super-skill called Perception or Awareness. Not in this ability based resolution system. A player can come up with an argument that being trained "Perception" can apply to almost any Wisdom ability check.

"Oh, I use my 'Perception' to perceive that guy's motives. And can I use Perception to see if that guy is polymorphed, or possibly has a mundane or magical disguise? And I use Perception to peruse this map to find the secret door. And I use it to look for the secret passage we just read about. I also use it to listen at said door. And I use it to keep an eye out for that invisible stalker that the map says is in here."

No thanks.

Click to expand...

I'd rather see no Perception skill at all than have it subdivided so far. YMMV, of course. I think a different skill for social interaction isn't a bad idea, but rolling it into Diplomacy seems even cleaner.

-O

There are already broader generalizations that encompass large areas of expertise. They are called Abilities.

Why argue rolling more skill functionality into "Diplomacy" or Persuasion" when we're really just talking about Charisma checks at that time.

Or rolling Spot, Listen, Search, Sense Motive, Tracking all into "Perception" when we're really just talking about Wisdom checks.

It makes no sense to have a single skill that encompasses most of what an Ability score already does. We're really just talking about becoming trained in an ability score at that time.

The skill list exists to break specializations down into recognizable, common-sense areas of expertise that enhance selective uses of your natural ability checks. It only exists to give a character more customizability. They aren't necessary to the game, which is why we've seen them portrayed as optional. But many people will revolt if they can't customize their character to be a great lockpicker or a master of arcane lore. I believe the skills should be fairly close in functionality and breadth. Which means less issues where you have an Uber-Persuasion skill compared to a Climb skill, and more Diplomacy and Bluff, and Intimidate, and Gather Rumors which are closer in impact to the game when compared to Climb.

I also do not think that Climb, Jump, and Swim should be rolled into "Athletics", which is really just another word for being trained in "Strength."

I don't object at all to removing skills from the game, entirely. If there must be a skill system, the smaller and simpler the better, IMO. I'd rather have a group of broadly-trained adventurers than excessive skill specialization. You disagree; that's fine. This is one area that could pretty easily be modular.

Honestly, I think D&D should steal a page from FATE and use something like Aspects in place of hard-coded skills, but I doubt that will fly!

(And yes, I know the Rogue would have to change in such a setup.)