D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[FrogReaver]

So all this talk about passive perception... I want to know when do we use passive stealth?

 

[Satyrn]

I don't know. It may be an edition of D&D you imagined or made up yourself, but it isn't 5e.

Oh. I had figured that since you had said "It's only odd if you're expecting it to work how it does in some other edition" that you had an edition in mind.

The rest of my post was a joking little ramble making fun of myself for not know one tiny little detail of rule. I mean, I don't cram my head with little details like which skill wins out on a tie in one specific case.


And it really does seem odd to me that that if you're trying to hide from someone you'd only need to match their perception. I see it as the Sneak trying to get an advantage over the Observer, which makes me judge that the Sneak needs to win the contest to succeed.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . And right now, I can't remember how I run attack rolls.

I just can't remember if we require the attack roll be greater than the AC.

I think I'm going dumb.

 

[Hriston]

You're mixing up 'noticed'. You are making 'un-noticed' = 'un-observed', but rules-wise 'un-noticed' = 'hidden'.

No, I'm not mixing it up. I get that unobserved (the way you are using it) = unseen, whereas unnoticed = hidden, at least in situations where otherwise you would be noticed. You've spent a lot of ink explaining this to me unnecessarily when I haven't said otherwise. I think you would have an easier time understanding me if you weren't so quick to assume I'm getting something so fundamental wrong.

You have to be un-observed in order to attempt to hide (whether there are current witnesses or not). But before you successfully hide then, although 'un-observed' you are not 'un-noticed', because you can be heard, signs of your presence are un-concealed from senses other than sight. JC talks about bumping into things, creatures being aware that an invisible creature has struck them, and so on.

In the situation we're discussing, the rogue is in combat with the enemy. The enemy can see him. The rogue is currently being observed. He is not hidden.

The rogue wants to hide. He will have to take the Hide Action In Combat (because being in combat means he needs to take actions to do stuff), but he is not allowed to take the Hide action while he is being observed.

So the rogue has to do something to become un-observed. Note that being 'un-observed' is not the same thing as 'un-noticed' in 5E. The rogue can become invisible if he has the means, or he could move behind the big packing crate in the middle of the warehouse floor, which takes him out of the direct line of sight of his enemies.

Now he is 'un-observed', but not yet 'un-noticed'. The enemy watched him move behind the crate, they know he is there, they can hear his feet scuff the floor, hear his weapons and armour creak in their harnesses, whatever fluff reason you want to use to explain that he is not yet hidden.

The rogue's un-observed but un-hidden status still provides meaningful benefits: the benefits of being invisible with regards to his enemy, at least until they or he moves back into line of sight. But he is not 'hidden'. He is still 'noticed'.

If he wants to become 'hidden' (and 'un-noticed') then while he remains un-observed he must take the Hide Action In Combat.

This is all fine. I agree with every word. The rogue takes the Hide action, which means that he stays out of sight and stays quiet. From that point forward, he is hiding, and his DEX (Stealth) check, the mechanical representation of his attempt to hide, is contested by the WIS (Perception) check of any creature that searches for him until he is discovered by that creature or stops hiding. This 'hiding' is the state of affairs as we go into any contest, and whether he is discovered is what remains to be resolved by any such contest. If a searching creature wins the contest, the rogue is discovered. But if the rogue wins, or in the event of a tie, then the rogue remains undiscovered.

In regard to JC's comments, when using 'natural language' we all tend to talk about 'who beats who'. We rarely talk about ties because it's a mouthful to say "equals or exceeds" every single time. JC wasn't commenting on what to do in a tie.

This is a good example of giving your opinion when you haven't bothered to properly digest the posts to which you are replying or the evidence that's been given. I gave Jeremy Crawford's reply because I felt it was an unequivocal statement in its own right, and because anyone could look up the full exchange on twitter or sageadvice.eu for themselves. But I'll post the entire exchange now to show how ridiculous your position is with reference to Crawford's intent.

Q: @JeremyECrawford What if Stealth Check equals Passive Perception check?
In case of tie a Passive Score it's like a DC or it's like a Contest?

A: When hiding, you want to meet or exceed another creature's passive Perception score.

Now you can explain to me how he wasn't talking about what to do in case of a tie.

 

[Hriston]

Ah, 'you're not the boss of me'. My four year old nephew pulled that one recently.

Your nephew's right. You aren't the boss of him, and you aren't the boss of this forum. If you have a problem with someone's tone, take it to a mod.

 

[Hriston]

Oh. I had figured that since you had said "It's only odd if you're expecting it to work how it does in some other edition" that you had an edition in mind.

Someone up-thread had said something about it working the opposite way in 3.x, I believe, and then continued to try to rationalize why it should work the same way in this edition. I've never played 3.x, so I don't know whether it actually works that way in that edition or not. It just seems like having preconceived notions about how the game works is a common hurdle to understanding the rules the way they're written. Otherwise, why would you take issue with this particular rule?

The rest of my post was a joking little ramble making fun of myself for not know one tiny little detail of rule. I mean, I don't cram my head with little details like which skill wins out on a tie in one specific case.

Okay, but stepping into a discussion of details you can't be bothered with and giving an opinion can seem a bit dismissive of the interests of people who have bothered with the details.

And it really does seem odd to me that that if you're trying to hide from someone you'd only need to match their perception. I see it as the Sneak trying to get an advantage over the Observer, which makes me judge that the Sneak needs to win the contest to succeed.

I think it helps if you understand it as a contest where one side is trying to notice a hidden threat and the other side is trying to remain unnoticed.

. . . And right now, I can't remember how I run attack rolls.

I just can't remember if we require the attack roll be greater than the AC.

An attack roll isn't a contest but I think it helps to see passive Perception operating similarly to an opponent's AC or the DC of an ability check. Just as AC is the number you need to meet or exceed to hit an opponent, a creature's passive Perception score is the number you need to meet or exceed to keep it from noticing you.

 

[Maxperson]

Your nephew's right. You aren't the boss of him, and you aren't the boss of this forum. If you have a problem with someone's tone, take it to a mod.

Some of us prefer not to be tattletales and instead talk to the person directly. It's more respectful that way as well.

 

[Hriston]

Some of us prefer not to be tattletales and instead talk to the person directly. It's more respectful that way as well.

There was nothing respectful about the posts [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] addressed to me. Forum rules dictate that such issues be left to the moderators for the very good reason that otherwise you have certain posters playing policeman of the forums.

 

[FrogReaver]

There was nothing respectful about the posts [MENTION=16728]schnee[/MENTION] addressed to me. Forum rules dictate that such issues be left to the moderators for the very good reason that otherwise you have certain posters playing policeman of the forums.

All I got to say is who is being the policeman now????? Who isn't leaving it to moderators now????

 

[Hriston]

All I got to say is who is being the policeman now????? Who isn't leaving it to moderators now????

Let me guess. Is it you? As for me, all I said is if you have a problem with the way you perceive my tone, don't expect me to backpedal because you ordered me to "cool my jets". If you really think that kind of intervention is necessary, take it to the mods and let them do it. I'm happy to leave it there.