D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Satyrn]

I am actually finding lately that I like Dwarves more with a Texan/Southern accent. Blasphemy, I know.

"Y'all wan' sum grits wi' yer healin' poshun?"

 

[Satyrn]

"You jus' axin' fer trubble, pardner"

 

[Oofta]

I am actually finding lately that I like Dwarves more with a Texan/Southern accent. Blasphemy, I know.

Do they all look like Yosemite Sam?

 

[Lanliss]

Do they all look like Yosemite Sam?
View attachment 83719

Well, one of my backup characters in [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] 's game is a Dwarf Gunslinger Artificer, so probably.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, one of my backup characters in @iserith 's game is a Dwarf Gunslinger Artificer, so probably.

"I say, I say boy, you like done pick right. Them guns are a heap safer than messin' with science."

 

[Valetudo]

I suggest everyone who has a problem with passive perception change it to 8 plus mods instead of 10. Its not a complete fix but helps alot at early levels and doesnt hurtmuch at higher levels when your senses should be honed from adventuring. And just my opinion but both crawford and mearls should not have the last say on rulings.

 

[Maxperson]

There's no rule that says you can't hide while being observed. Plus the Skulker feat specifically allows you to attempt to hide as long as you are lightly obscured.

That's flat out wrong. Here's the rule from the 5e PHB

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."

It doesn't get clearer than that.

 

[Maxperson]

I think part of my problem with Perception is that people seem to notice things more when they fall into some area they are skilled in, so someone skilled in Stealth should know the tricks other sneaks might use and thus should have a better chance to spot them, someone with Arcana would have their eye drawn to signs of hidden magic, someone trained in thieves tools would know the best places to utilize them thus be better at finding traps, etc. Perception is a weird catchall to me, which I suppose is just there for simplicity. I have yet to grow comfortable with it.

That's why I favor what the other fellow here does(can't remember his name). I give more information away for higher end rolls AND for more specific knowledge based on what the PC specializes in. A wizard will get more information for a roll of 20 than a paladin will when it comes to arcane things.

 

[Prakriti]

Some interesting tweets from Crawford:

"The DM decides whether to use passive Perception."
Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/858003664572514304

"Passive checks are a tool for the DM. The DM decides whether the rule is used at all."
Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/858010481268621313

Carte blanche for DMs, I guess. If you don't like passive Perception, don't use it in your games.

 

[Jester David]

Passive Perception as the "floor" makes sense. If an invisible creature is in the chamber with a sentry, either the sentry notices (the Stealth check is < the Passive Perception) or they don't. But if the sentry spots something unusual (a door open, papers having been moved) that suggest an invisible creature, they can attempt to roll. It doesn't matter if they roll lower, because their Passive Perception was already too low.
Similarly, if a group of invisible creatures is sneaking through a room and one is detected, a creature can attempt a Perception check to see if they're alone. But a really bad roll doesn't negate their detection of the one they already sensed.

I tend to use Passive Perception as a general examination of a chamber or hallway. It's a wide net, and sets the bar for how much is automatically noticed without a check. How much information I, as the DM, freely offer. But I tend not to let it apply when searching for something specific. It can spot the strange bit of the floor (aka the trap) the unusual stonework (aka the secret door) or the sound of motion (the sneaking enemy) but it doesn't replace the PCs telling me what they're looking for or where they're searching. \


The podcast itself was solid. Some good reasoning for why the stealth rules are the way they are. Especially the concept of sneaking up on someone distracted by a performance or using stealth to avoid attention on a crowded street and the like. There's a lot of potential uses for stealth that wouldn't work with harder rules that codify stealth as requiring cover or other obstructions of sight.