D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[iserith]

OUt of curiosity, what in the rules had you running it this way? I thought the rules were fairly, though not explicitly, clear that you are hidden while doing the thing that breaks hidden, but not after.

I was basing my ruling on a creature no longer being hidden if it can be seen. So you'd no longer be hidden the moment you pop out to attack, whereas it seems the intent is a little closer to D&D 4e's handling of it in that you're hidden until you hit or miss. What this meant in play was that hidden was harder to achieve as it was more circumstantial (e.g. you have darkvision and the other guy doesn't and there's no light) which felt about right for the benefit.

Now I expect a lot more "I try to hide behind this tree, then pop out to attack..." in my upcoming sessions.

Then again, I also don't understand why people consider Perception the uber skill.

Probably because it's a very good defense in games that are run in particular ways. True story, I sometimes test out prospective DMs by taking a character with a very high passive Perception score. If they fret about it, it's an immediate red flag for me.

Edit: Though in one case, that backfired on me because the DM didn't say anything. And that was because he did't use passive checks - so my investment was basically a waste. D'oh!

 

[Satyrn]

Probably because it's a very good defense in games that are run in particular ways. True story, I sometimes test out prospective DMs by taking a character with a very high passive Perception score. If they fret about it, it's an immediate red flag for me.

Edit: Though in one case, that backfired on me because the DM didn't say anything. And that was because he did't use passive checks - so my investment was basically a waste. D'oh!

I was gonna chime in here to laughingly say it would probably take me half a dozen sessions before I noticed what your Passive Perception was. I don't use it often, but I also often don't pay attention to the numbers my players use until a trend forces me to notice.

It took me months - and several successful dominations or charms - to realize one player's 3e fighter had an 8 Wisdom.

 

[iserith]

I was gonna chime in here to laughingly say it would probably take me half a dozen sessions before I noticed what your Passive Perception was. I don't use it often, but I also often don't pay attention to the numbers my players use until a trend forces me to notice.

It took me months - and several successful dominations or charms - to realize one player's 3e fighter had an 8 Wisdom.

I run on Roll20 (even for in-person games), so I have the players put their passive Perceptions in their display name which show up across the bottom of the screen e.g. "Corbet - PP 17."

The running joke is that everyone has to display it in order to see who has the biggest PP.

 

[Satyrn]

I run on Roll20 (even for in-person games), so I have the players put their passive Perceptions in their display name which show up across the bottom of the screen e.g. "Corbet - PP 17."

The running joke is that everyone has to display it in order to see who has the biggest PP.

Well then, I'd list my gnome battlemaster as "Zook - I drive a Lamborghini."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was basing my ruling on a creature no longer being hidden if it can be seen. So you'd no longer be hidden the moment you pop out to attack, whereas it seems the intent is a little closer to D&D 4e's handling of it in that you're hidden until you hit or miss. What this meant in play was that hidden was harder to achieve as it was more circumstantial (e.g. you have darkvision and the other guy doesn't and there's no light) which felt about right for the benefit.

Now I expect a lot more "I try to hide behind this tree, then pop out to attack..." in my upcoming sessions.



Probably because it's a very good defense in games that are run in particular ways. True story, I sometimes test out prospective DMs by taking a character with a very high passive Perception score. If they fret about it, it's an immediate red flag for me.

Edit: Though in one case, that backfired on me because the DM didn't say anything. And that was because he did't use passive checks - so my investment was basically a waste. D'oh!

Interesting. Thanks for the info on your game, btw. I was wondering if I had missed some rules text in the phb that made it seem that way, but it seems like it's just vague enough that people have been ruling however makes sense to them? For me, that has meant you are hidden until the action which breaks stealth is resolved. I do wonder, how is Stealth even worth investing in, done the other way?
I mean, I guess situations where you're just trying to get somewhere unseen, but it seems to me that a big part of stealth has always been the ambush, and that ruling, if I'm reading it right, makes the ambush nearly impossible? Once you declare an attack, you aren't hidden, and thus get no benefit from being hidden on the attack, right? Can you surprise someone? If so, how? AM I wildly misunderstanding you?

Not trying to criticise your game or anything, I'm just still not sure I get it.

Regarding Perception, I guess I can see that, though it doesn't explain why so many people seem to think it is universally the most powerful skill.
IME, Perception is about as useful as the other skills that aren't survival and animal handling.

 

[Arial Black]

That it's impossible for that to happen to mere mortals.


It won't happen without fail like the passive perception. When you have to roll to hit, you can fail like normal. When you have passive perception of 20, you are quasi-godlike in your ability to ALWAYS hit that number. Circumstances that alter your number no longer leave you with a 20.



It exists in every game that uses passive perception. Those random rolls will be detected by a passive 20 100% of the time that they are 20 or under. That's perfection.

In one case it's a roll versus a score (attack roll versus AC) and in the other case it is also a roll versus a score (Stealth roll versus passive perception). There is no difference!

You might as well complain about the 'perfection' of the guy's AC (he has 'perfect' defence of 20 and any attack roll less than that misses 1 million times out of a million!) or the 'perfection' of the DC to save against a particular caster's spells (he has a 'perfect' DC of 20 and any save less than 20 fails 1 million times out of a million!).

Right now you are complaining about the guy's 'perfect' passive Perception score and the fact that any Stealth roll less than 20 fails 1 million times out of a million!

It is not 'quasi-godlike' to always have an AC of 20, or a save DC of 20, or a passive perception of 20!

Roll 1d6. Every single time you roll a 6, then it's a 6 one million times out of a million! Shocking, but true!

The reality of the situation is that the attack roll, saving throw and Stealth check all are rolled, and that roll means that 'perfection' of the static number does not lead to 'winning' 1 million times out of a million.

 

[Arial Black]

Actually isn't it the case that in 5e an ability check opposed roll tie (Perception vs Stealth), tie reverts to the status quo? So wouldn't you need a 21 to find a DC 20 stealth npc?

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

I was convinced you are wrong, and did my research to prove it. The result of the Stealth check simply sets the DC for any subsequent Perception check. That's how it worked in previous editions, without question, and that's how I play it in 5E.

Turns out I was wrong and you were right! Good for you! There is no language anywhere in 5E (I looked!) that suggests that it works like before. All it says about hiding etc. is that it's an opposed check (and a passive score is treated exactly like it is the result of a check), and it doesn't mention any alteration of the general rule about ties in opposed checks leaving the situation unchanged.

So, instead of the Stealth result being a DC for the Perception check (so equal means detected), equal now means that the situation is unchanged.

Does that mean that effectively Stealth now wins all ties whereas before Perception won all ties? Not quite.

If there are bandits hidden in the trees, you don't know they are there before you turn the corner in the road leading to the ambush. When Perception/Stealth is contested, a tie means that you still don't know they are there. In this case Stealth effectively wins the tie.

But what about hiding in combat? If I'm fighting an unhidden rogue and he uses his Cunning Action to duck behind a tree and hide, then we contest Stealth/Perception as usual. If this is a tie, then in this case 'unchanged' means that I still see him! In this case, Perception effectively wins the tie!

Mind. Blown.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I was convinced you are wrong, and did my research to prove it. The result of the Stealth check simply sets the DC for any subsequent Perception check. That's how it worked in previous editions, without question, and that's how I play it in 5E.

Turns out I was wrong and you were right! Good for you! There is no language anywhere in 5E (I looked!) that suggests that it works like before. All it says about hiding etc. is that it's an opposed check (and a passive score is treated exactly like it is the result of a check), and it doesn't mention any alteration of the general rule about ties in opposed checks leaving the situation unchanged.

So, instead of the Stealth result being a DC for the Perception check (so equal means detected), equal now means that the situation is unchanged.

Does that mean that effectively Stealth now wins all ties whereas before Perception won all ties? Not quite.

If there are bandits hidden in the trees, you don't know they are there before you turn the corner in the road leading to the ambush. When Perception/Stealth is contested, a tie means that you still don't know they are there. In this case Stealth effectively wins the tie.

But what about hiding in combat? If I'm fighting an unhidden rogue and he uses his Cunning Action to duck behind a tree and hide, then we contest Stealth/Perception as usual. If this is a tie, then in this case 'unchanged' means that I still see him! In this case, Perception effectively wins the tie!

Mind. Blown.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

No problem I tend to default to the "old" method, too, but then recalled the passage in the PHB about using ability scores. The example there was trying to push open a door vs trying to keep it closed. Yeah, it is different in this edition, and you're right. I was considering hidden creatures, not hiding in combat, so it does seem the Hide fails if the Perception equals it.

 

[Hriston]

When you take the Hide action in combat, or "try to escape [your] foes' notice" out of combat (It doesn't matter which. There's no difference.), you are hidden "ntil you are discovered or you stop hiding", which means that in a contest between a creature that's trying to hide and one that's trying to notice hidden creatures, the one hiding wins a tie by default because the situation before the contest was that the creature was indeed hidden, as determined by the DM.

 

[Uller]

.



It exists in every game that uses passive perception. Those random rolls will be detected by a passive 20 100% of the time that they are 20 or under. That's perfection.

That's pretty much the standard mechanic in a d20 system. Those random saving throws will defeat a spell 100% of the time they equal or exceed the save DC. Meaning some critters never succeed a save and some will always succeed a save. So?

If it bothers you implement a nat 1 always fails and a nat 20 always succeeds for saves or ability checks just like attacks. Then even the guy with the passive perception of 25 will still fail to notice 5% of the hiding mooks with only a +5 or less stealth.