I'm suggestting that your pessimism is unnfounded, and that there can be RPG rules that work pretty seamlessly. (My further conjecture: reduce granularity. Most of the debates around Stealth/Perception in 5e seem to hinge on issues of granularity - eg [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] drawing a distinction between the two stages of the ambush, in part because of concerns over rules around time, distance etc.)
D&D 5E 5E skills and the Perception vs Stealth imbalance
"Pretty seamlessly"? Whatever that even means. And I reject your attempt to color my comment as pessimistic. That's a pretty shady tactic there, chief. All I said is that no system is immune to causing a problem for a particular group. That's not pessimism. That's just human nature. Even cops-n-robbers has problems. "<BLAM!><BLAM!>, I shot you!" "No you didn't!, <BLAM!> I shot *you*!" "Nuh uh!" "Uh huh!"
That you and he have a problem is clearly true. I don't refute that. But I, and plenty of others, have found no such problem. Therefor, can it be fairly couched as being the system's fault? For the system to be to blame, wouldn't virtually everyone need to see/experience this "problem"?
Bawylie
A very OK person
Alright let's talk about posting guards and stealth/perception resolution.
Presumably I post guards in an area to defend it from theft or intrusion, so what good are they if they get snuck up in and murdered in round 1?
Fair question. But it boils down to how you resolve that ambush.
The players intend to sneak up on and kill the guards. The guards are "on alert" for just this circumstance. You're the DM, how do you resolve the outcome?
The rules say to roll stealth against passive perception (add 5 if the creature has advantage). Good deal.
But is that the end of it? 1st, I posted guards that I want to be alert who should be actively looking for danger. So as DM, I'm at least putting advantage in. 2nd, I would like to minimize the opportunity for someone to hide (not eliminate, bc I want to have the stealth option open for players, just risky). And 3rd, I need an x-factor like a guard dog or something with a sense of smell that will signal or alert the guards and make the ambush impossible.
If I have these components together, guards retain their usefulness. Players are confronted with a meaningful choice about their approach to the thing I'm guarding, and a question of priorities (deal with the dog 1st, ignore the dog, wait it out for an opportune time, just rush in, some combo?)
Maybe we're insufficiently looking at in-game circumstances when we're resolving perception and stealth. Remember that the roll is the last damn thing you do before game circumstances change, before there's surprise or no surprise at all. And the best part of it isn't whether or not the players ambush the guards, it's the play that leads up to that roll. It's the riskiness and tension that either pays off gloriously or fails spectacularly that's the fun part and where (IMO, of course) our focus belongs.
Side note - I've noticed a lot of this over some years, and recently. It's a tendency to look at rules and conclude that they produce undesirable outcomes. Say what you will about various rules, that's all good and certainly there's room for improvement, but these things exist to facilitate in-game action and resolve ambiguities - not to create action or take the place of a narrative. In other words, it's important for me to remind myself that this game (and lots of others) devolves into boring unplayable gibberish when we (I, really) treat it like "rules first, throw dice and numbers at our obstacles until there aren't any more numbers or dice or obstacles left."
-Brad
Presumably I post guards in an area to defend it from theft or intrusion, so what good are they if they get snuck up in and murdered in round 1?
Fair question. But it boils down to how you resolve that ambush.
The players intend to sneak up on and kill the guards. The guards are "on alert" for just this circumstance. You're the DM, how do you resolve the outcome?
The rules say to roll stealth against passive perception (add 5 if the creature has advantage). Good deal.
But is that the end of it? 1st, I posted guards that I want to be alert who should be actively looking for danger. So as DM, I'm at least putting advantage in. 2nd, I would like to minimize the opportunity for someone to hide (not eliminate, bc I want to have the stealth option open for players, just risky). And 3rd, I need an x-factor like a guard dog or something with a sense of smell that will signal or alert the guards and make the ambush impossible.
If I have these components together, guards retain their usefulness. Players are confronted with a meaningful choice about their approach to the thing I'm guarding, and a question of priorities (deal with the dog 1st, ignore the dog, wait it out for an opportune time, just rush in, some combo?)
Maybe we're insufficiently looking at in-game circumstances when we're resolving perception and stealth. Remember that the roll is the last damn thing you do before game circumstances change, before there's surprise or no surprise at all. And the best part of it isn't whether or not the players ambush the guards, it's the play that leads up to that roll. It's the riskiness and tension that either pays off gloriously or fails spectacularly that's the fun part and where (IMO, of course) our focus belongs.
Side note - I've noticed a lot of this over some years, and recently. It's a tendency to look at rules and conclude that they produce undesirable outcomes. Say what you will about various rules, that's all good and certainly there's room for improvement, but these things exist to facilitate in-game action and resolve ambiguities - not to create action or take the place of a narrative. In other words, it's important for me to remind myself that this game (and lots of others) devolves into boring unplayable gibberish when we (I, really) treat it like "rules first, throw dice and numbers at our obstacles until there aren't any more numbers or dice or obstacles left."
-Brad
fuindordm
Adventurer
Well, if the guards are alert and trying hard to notice things, and the PCs are trying hard to sneak up, shouldn't neither group get advantage? In that case I would just make it stealth vs passive perception with no modes.
But your post also touches on an important point--encounter distance. If you're fortifying a location, the defenders want to clear the area for a wide radius so that the minimum encounter distance is much larger. You want your guards to have their first chance to notice intruders at 200 yards away.
On the other hand, if you're camping in a hostile forest then the minimum encounter distance is much smaller--maybe only the diamter of the campsite. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage--the PCs' campsite might be less likely to be noticed by hostile creatures, but those that do notice the campsite have total cover up to a much closer point. The type of campsite the party looks for should depend partly on what kind of creatures the ranger says they are likely to encounter, and their own judgement of the tradeoff vs hiding and having lots of advance warning.
So I agree with the central point that you are making, which (I think) is that stealth vs perception is really inseparable from terrain and encounter design more generally.
Cheers,
Ben
Bawylie
A very OK person
Yes that IS my central point. WRT actively searching, im only saying they're not being passive about it. They're not merely standing around looking (like you might be at a market stall or waiting for a bus) they're actually looking for intrusion. So I'd rule they have advantage, but, your game, your ruling, y'know?
If the players wanted to negate the advantage, they might try to watch the guard rotation and time out the best approach, or create some distraction that draws the focus of the guards elsewhere before attempting the ambush.
Whatever really. We just want to highlight the obstacles such that the players can make informed decisions on how they want to proceed in service of accomplishing their goal. That goes back to the overall encounter design. It's not enough to say the guards are standing there, you've got to specify they're alert and diligent. It's not enough to cite encounter distance, you have to call out the one or two hiding places (also that those hiding places may be only temporary sanctuaries). You've got to point out the sniffing dog. Same with the campsite. It's a tighter environment, sure. Still have to set up the scene so that players deciding on an ambush consider how best to accomplish it.
-Brad
ClearlyTough69
Explorer
Horwath
Legend
Unless the raiders approach from the other direction, that is!
Well, it clearly works better if there is a choke point on the way to the camp, but you could be on perched on a tree at the middle of the camp and give then at least a round of warning if it can be approached from anywhere.
If the PCs are doing anything else than walking slowly (moving at half speed), I would impose disadvantage on their passive perception score (-5).
If one PC spot the threat, he will usually do at the very last, meaning that he can shout one warning but hardly the other party members will take advantage of that warning if they didn't spot the threat themselves in the first place.
Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk
Glenn Fleetwood
First Post
OP
You are taking the wrong approach here.
If I have monsters who choose darkness to attack in and the party don't have darkvision, I give the party disadvantage on Perception. The ambushers will also have camouflage in many case, giving them advantage on their stealth checks.
This makes a huge difference. A well prepared ambush gives the party disadvantage and the ambushers advantage on their opposed roles. It's is then difficult to detect the ambush...
You are taking the wrong approach here.
If I have monsters who choose darkness to attack in and the party don't have darkvision, I give the party disadvantage on Perception. The ambushers will also have camouflage in many case, giving them advantage on their stealth checks.
This makes a huge difference. A well prepared ambush gives the party disadvantage and the ambushers advantage on their opposed roles. It's is then difficult to detect the ambush...
tom.zunder
Explorer
I run this with all RPGs the same. All ambushers who succeed, and all ambushees have a surprise round of combat *then* the others join in.
Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet
Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet
Similar Threads
