D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Iosue]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" in this case. Some of the things I use passive skills for were rolls back in the TSR days, some other things weren't. In any case, the paradigm in those editions were that DMs decided if something required a roll or not.

If you're talking specifically about stealth and hiding, back in the day there was no "perception" roll. People who wanted to hide had to narrate how they hid, and thieves rolled dice to beat a set target when Moving Silently and Hiding in Shadows. Characters trying to hide do the same thing now, only now the DC is set by their opponents' passive perceptions rather than a static number.

Passive perception was introduced in 4th, by the way. As was passive insight.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I got rid of the take 10 and 20 rules for 3e.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" in this case. Some of the things I use passive skills for were rolls back in the TSR days, some other things weren't. In any case, the paradigm in those editions were that DMs decided if something required a roll or not.

If you're talking specifically about stealth and hiding, back in the day there was no "perception" roll. People who wanted to hide had to narrate how they hid, and thieves rolled dice to beat a set target when Moving Silently and Hiding in Shadows. Characters trying to hide do the same thing now, only now the DC is set by their opponents' passive perceptions rather than a static number.

Passive perception was introduced in 4th, by the way. As was passive insight.

Oh yeah I forgot about that, thieves used to use % skill checks didnt they. I cant remember now how we did ambushes and so on, must have been d6 and on a roll of 1-2 or something you surprised your foe. GM adjudication. I guess I am thinking of 3rd then, when it was an opposed check: hide vs spot skill.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Hey guys, one of my players brought up the following question:
- Jeremy Crawford said that you can do melee attacks from hiding as long as you can attack from your hiding place.
- If you have the Skulker feat you can try to hide even if you are just lightly obscured.
- Consequently, if an enemy doesn't have darkvision and the place is only dimly lit, you can pretty much try to hide anywhere and the whole room can be your hiding place.

So what I'm wondering now, can the PC just hide right next to the enemy (assuming no darkvision and dim light)? This would allow the PC to also get away without using Disengage because once hiding succeeded, you become unseen and unheard and opportunity attack only work for enemies you can see.

 

[Lanliss]

Hey guys, one of my players brought up the following question:
- Jeremy Crawford said that you can do melee attacks from hiding as long as you can attack from your hiding place.
- If you have the Skulker feat you can try to hide even if you are just lightly obscured.
- Consequently, if an enemy doesn't have darkvision and the place is only dimly lit, you can pretty much try to hide anywhere and the whole room can be your hiding place.

So what I'm wondering now, can the PC just hide right next to the enemy (assuming no darkvision and dim light)? This would allow the PC to also get away without using Disengage because once hiding succeeded, you become unseen and unheard and opportunity attack only work for enemies you can see.

By RAW, yes. That is why intelligent enemies should have torches, or lit hallways and rooms. This of course goes through the filter of GM, as you might decide that hiding means the enemy will attack your last location, so if the player didn't move they will get hit despite being hidden. Also, if they cross in front of the lit doorway (Assuming the guard didn't walk through a dark hallway into a dark room), you can say that would reveal his location to the guard, as he is silhouetted against the ambient light.

So yes, Skulker+ Dim light is quite strong, but still up to you if circumstances allow hiding.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Okay, I guess I'll allow it. I don't really see it as that powerful since most creatures have darkvision anyway and the ones who don't usually have light sources in their dungeons. And it's actually not more powerful than just using ranged attacks where hiding is much easier anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay, I guess I'll allow it. I don't really see it as that powerful since most creatures have darkvision anyway and the ones who don't usually have light sources in their dungeons. And it's actually not more powerful than just using ranged attacks where hiding is much easier anyway.

Remember that Darkvision just makes darkness equivalent to dim light (and dim light equivalent to bright light). Skulker + Cunning Action (Hide) is very powerful against monsters that are relying purely on darkvision.

 

[Maxperson]

Hey guys, one of my players brought up the following question:
- Jeremy Crawford said that you can do melee attacks from hiding as long as you can attack from your hiding place.
- If you have the Skulker feat you can try to hide even if you are just lightly obscured.
- Consequently, if an enemy doesn't have darkvision and the place is only dimly lit, you can pretty much try to hide anywhere and the whole room can be your hiding place.

So what I'm wondering now, can the PC just hide right next to the enemy (assuming no darkvision and dim light)? This would allow the PC to also get away without using Disengage because once hiding succeeded, you become unseen and unheard and opportunity attack only work for enemies you can see.

No. You can't hide while being observed and once you attack and are revealed, you are being observed.

 

[Uller]

Remember that Darkvision just makes darkness equivalent to dim light (and dim light equivalent to bright light). Skulker + Cunning Action (Hide) is very powerful against monsters that are relying purely on darkvision.

Personally, I tend to have everyone in dim lighting see things immediately adjacent to them as bright light. Pretty much any light obscuration works like that at my table. If you are in foliage or fog or misty rain or moon light or whatever, people right next to you are not obscured at all.

 

[Volund]

Well, what that DM did and what Crawford said are in agreement. Being completely silent would fall under the bolded category. It's an extra that enabled the Shield Guardian to be hidden.

But it wasn't moving silently. It was a large, heavy creature engaged in melee in a stone tunnel. It wasn't moving or acting in a way that allows creatures to be hidden, and wasn't under a silence spell. My point was that an invisible creature standing in front of you hitting you with melee attacks should just have the benefit of being invisible, not the benefit of being hidden because it isn't trying to hide. I think that was the distinction JC was trying to make in the podcast - stealth and invisibility are not the same, and invisibility should not by itself grant the benefits of stealth. My beef in the encounter I mentioned was that the DM, instead of just giving the shield guardian the standard benefits of invisibility, invented a new mechanic for combating invisible creatures which required us to pick a square to attack with disadvantage. If we hit something, we knew where it was for that turn and that turn only. The next turn it would move and the whole process of trying to locate it by targeting random squares started over again. He even ruled that being hit by it gave us no clue where the attack was coming from. I think he was just improvising to try to make the encounter work like he envisioned. He's a good DM. I just mentioned it because we had the encounter just a few days before I heard the podcast. I was contrasting Crawford's statement - that characters who are looking for an invisible creature will know its general location if it isn't trying to hide - with how my DM ruled that an invisible creature that isn't trying to hide is impossible to find unless you hit it with a weapon.