D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Lanliss]

If the players can't trust the DM's judgment, they don't belong in that game. If you don't trust the DM, the game is doomed anyway. My players know that I'm not going to "screw" them out of anything.

That said, if you like to use it as a metric for what is in doubt, have at it. As long as everyone is having fun, you're playing the game right. It's just far too unrealistic for me to use in that way.

I was tired when I wrote that, I should have picked something less adversarial. Here is a better wording, it is good for groups that like less Arbitrary decisions on the part of the DM.

My main issue (issue meaning a personal point of view, not that I think you are wrong) with your second point, it being unrealistic, is that I actually have never been in the type of situations heroes face. Walking through a hostile countryside, knowing you could be attacked at any moment, I feel like I would be at a moderate-to-high level of alert at all times, unless I was sufficiently distracted doing something that took my attention.

 

[schnee]

Just to support the 'specific beats general' mentioned above:-

Similar deal with Wood Elf 'Mask of the Wild'.

PHB p. 24: Mask of the Wild. You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.

 

[jgsugden]

...Why are simple traps a part of the game in 5th edition when the players only end up crying about them and many DMs get frustrated about how to handle them?

there are several threads that discuss how you can go about making good traps that really work as a part of a 5th edition campaign. Some of the suggestions are to not make the Trap stand alone, but instead to have it be part of a larger encounter, and to used traps in places where if they are discovered they can still be a feature in a subsequent combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Then don't use passive scores. Problem solved.

There's no problem dude

This conversation started with my stating my opinion about my dislike for the mechanic and why, not my stating that it was a problem. We're having a discussion, not a problem solving session.

 

[Maxperson]

Edit: Max, I accidentally quoted you; pardon me if you get an alert for it.

I did, but no worries!

 

[Maxperson]

I was tired when I wrote that, I should have picked something less adversarial. Here is a better wording, it is good for groups that like less Arbitrary decisions on the part of the DM.

I don't particularly like arbitrary, either. It means random or without thought and I put quite a bit of thought into my rulings to get them right. Not trying to give you a hard time!

My main issue (issue meaning a personal point of view, not that I think you are wrong) with your second point, it being unrealistic, is that I actually have never been in the type of situations heroes face. Walking through a hostile countryside, knowing you could be attacked at any moment, I feel like I would be at a moderate-to-high level of alert at all times, unless I was sufficiently distracted doing something that took my attention.

Soldiers in war zones, despite being on high alert and knowing how the enemy ambushes, were still successfully ambushed sometimes. Nobody is perfect.

 

[schnee]

Why are simple traps a part of the game in 5th edition when the players only end up crying about them and many DMs get frustrated about how to handle them?

I think the text they used to introduce them in the DM's Guide is just abominable, and is the cause of all the problems.

"They can be anywhere and be anything, there's no rhyme or reason woohoo!" is how it reads. That is straight out of AD&D 'fun house dungeon' thinking. Bad bad bad.

What I would have rather seen is the 'verisimilitude' way. Teach DMs how to make traps that are a natural and easy consequence of the people who built them, and the purpose of the place they're in.

1) Put traps where they make sense.
Guarding something important, in a way that won't be accidentally tripped by the people who put it there. That means they are in a place that nobody is ever supposed to be (i.e. inside a king's long-buried tomb) or is where everyone who is there is extremely familiar with the trap (i.e. the secret door to a conspirator's hideout).

2) Make the kind of trap thematically appropriate for the owners.
Kobolds will have crude pits and deadfalls, maybe with sharpened wood stakes. A mage will use glyphs of warding. Gnomes will have well-machined mechanical traps. An assassin will use poison needles.

3) Make the trap's effect make sense.
If it's on the outside of a place, then it is usually to prevent others from getting in - via dissuading (a low-damage dart trap), catching them (a pit), or alerting guards to their presence (sounds an alarm). If it's on the inside of a place, then it can range from merely preventing entry (locking a door) to lethal (flaming oil).

4) Make the level of damage make sense.
If the trap could catch someone friendly, then it will not cause harm. (The secret door to the King's mistresses' quarters will lock the door and sound a small bell for the King's private advisor to go handle the situation tactfully.)
If the trap will likely catch a stranger or enemy, it's damaging but not lethal. (The forest around a secret base has a series of deadfalls, pits, and painful snares so the place gets a dangerous reputation and the locals advise people to stay out.)
If the trap protects something valuable to an elite member of the group, it will be lethal. (You'd be crazy to mess with the phylactery of a Lich without taking extreme precautions!)

You get the picture.

This sort of planning for traps makes them much more honest. Over time, good players will start to think like a villain, and start to logically deduce the best times and places to search for traps, and won't search everywhere out of blanket paranoia.

 

[Lanliss]

I don't particularly like arbitrary, either. It means random or without thought and I put quite a bit of thought into my rulings to get them right. Not trying to give you a hard time!

Soldiers in war zones, despite being on high alert and knowing how the enemy ambushes, were still successfully ambushed sometimes. Nobody is perfect.

That just says, to me, that the enemy rolled a higher stealth than both the Soldiers passive perception and their perception check. Same result on a different side of the equation I guess. I feel like it is more realistic to attribute a successful ambush to skill on the part of the attacker, rather than a failure on the player end. Unless the players declare something stupid like "I charge straight through the clearing", then they deserve the ambush.

 

[discosoc]

lol, 5e is such a hot mess.

 

[SkidAce]

lol, 5e is such a hot mess.

While I understand in the context of this discussion, and based on the "varying views" on how stealth should work, I couldn't disagree more.

The word I use is elegant.