D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Lanliss]

The game doesn't really support the Mongolian barbarian concept either.

A little bit of the UA knight (The one that rides horses) might help, though the Rage doesn't help any with bow attacks. Although, from my limited knowledge of Mongols, they didn't do a lot of "Raging" anyway. It was mostly strategic sweeps with horses and bows, and a lot of Overwhelming numbers IIRC. Not a history buff, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Psikerlord#]

If passive perception = minimum perception, that is broken. I have always considered passive perception a bad mechanic regardless (eg: static perception vs static trap DC = a problem); this makes it doubly so.

Clearly the rules do not say passive perception is your minimum. If that really was the intent - which I seriously doubt - epic fail on conveying that in the book. This interview further underscores for me that stealth is busted in 5e. They should have just written: it's up to the GM to adjudicate, and left it at that.

For 6th edition, please remove passive perception and "taking 10". They're not a good innovation, they're bad. It was a good experiment, maybe, but it hasnt worked. Back to what works for 6th, please.

What was wrong with a simple: GM decides if you can try to hide/move silently. If yes, Dex (Stealth) check vs Wisdom (perception) check. Done.

 

[Psikerlord#]

oops double post

 

[Iosue]

I've been saying this almost as long as the game has been out. Even used the term "floor"!

I use passive checks for other skills in the games I DM. And the distinction between those and Reliable Talent (and Take 10, for that matter) is just that: it's a DM call, a tool to simply judge if I need to call for a roll, or just get a general feel for the environment. A good example would be dual surprise. Say, a PC and a monster, neither attempting to be stealthy, round a corner and run into each other. Is either surprised? In TSR D&D, I'd resolve this with surprise rolls. With 5e, I can just use passive perception vs passive stealth. If an NPC lies to a PC, I might use their passive deception vs the PC's passive insight, or roll a deception check vs the PC's passive insight, as a guide to how to role-play it. A slightly treacherous path that requires a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to safely navigate? PCs whose passive acrobatics clear the DC navigate it with no problem, while those who don't have to make a roll.

But if I decide a check is needed for a player initiated action, that's generally going to require a roll. The treacherous path, I might use passive acrobatics, but if the thief is swinging from the chandelier, I'll call for a roll, and in that case Reliable Talent comes into play.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I've been saying this almost as long as the game has been out. Even used the term "floor"!

I use passive checks for other skills in the games I DM. And the distinction between those and Reliable Talent (and Take 10, for that matter) is just that: it's a DM call, a tool to simply judge if I need to call for a roll, or just get a general feel for the environment. A good example would be dual surprise. Say, a PC and a monster, neither attempting to be stealthy, round a corner and run into each other. Is either surprised? In TSR D&D, I'd resolve this with surprise rolls. With 5e, I can just use passive perception vs passive stealth. If an NPC lies to a PC, I might use their passive deception vs the PC's passive insight, or roll a deception check vs the PC's passive insight, as a guide to how to role-play it. A slightly treacherous path that requires a DC 10 Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to safely navigate? PCs whose passive acrobatics clear the DC navigate it with no problem, while those who don't have to make a roll.

But if I decide a check is needed for a player initiated action, that's generally going to require a roll. The treacherous path, I might use passive acrobatics, but if the thief is swinging from the chandelier, I'll call for a roll, and in that case Reliable Talent comes into play.

How does taking the roll out of the game for those situations make it better?

 

[Iosue]

How does taking the roll out of the game for those situations make it better?

The roll isn't taken out of the game. It was never there in the first place.

As the DM, I make the call on when rolls will happen, and I will only do that when I want to introduce probability into the result.

 

[Lanliss]

How does taking the roll out of the game for those situations make it better?

It resolves one of the main issues I have seen with Passive perception, where you are able to somehow roll lower than Passive, making it the better choice. I personally like passive, and think it works fine. Even more fine with these clarifications. YMMV of course.

 

[Maxperson]

It resolves one of the main issues I have seen with Passive perception, where you are able to somehow roll lower than Passive, making it the better choice. I personally like passive, and think it works fine. Even more fine with these clarifications. YMMV of course.

I dislike passive perception. I don't care how perceptive you are, you are not going to be on your A game 100% of the time. There will be times when you have the perceptive equivalent to a brain fart. I also don't care how imperceptive you are. There will be times when you have a perceptive flash of inspiration. Rolling is how that is accomplished. Passive perception is too unrealistic for me.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I dislike passive perception. I don't care how perceptive you are, you are not going to be on your A game 100% of the time. There will be times when you have the perceptive equivalent to a brain fart. I also don't care how imperceptive you are. There will be times when you have a perceptive flash of inspiration. Rolling is how that is accomplished. Passive perception is too unrealistic for me.

Very much agree. Taking the random out of the game is a big mistake imo - esp for something as important as stealth and perception. Knowledge skills, maybe, but even then I prefer a roll with degrees of success providing higher levels of knowledge (ala shadowrun legwork)

 

[Psikerlord#]

The roll isn't taken out of the game. It was never there in the first place.

As the DM, I make the call on when rolls will happen, and I will only do that when I want to introduce probability into the result.

It was always a roll up until passive perception came along in 5th (or was passive in 4th too, I cant remember now. There was take 10 and take 20 which were the precursors in 3rd, and were also a problem). Prior to that there was no such mechanic and stealth/perception worked just fine.