D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Flamestrike]

Way too many forumists place the blame for poorly written explanations on DMs instead of the rules designers.

WHY DO YOU PLAY THIS GAME?

All you (literally) do is post about how it is. This rule sucks, that rule sucks, the designers suck, its unbalanced wah wah wah.

The lead designer just said 'we wrote the rules simple so DMs can make the game their own'. Just do... that, and stop handwringing and sooking all the time.

Seriously mate, its godawful to read so much negativity all the time.

 

[schnee]

Seriously mate, its godawful to read so much negativity all the time.

Practice what he preaches.

This is all I saw:

Originally Posted by CapnZapp View Post
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A hidden creature in combat is rarely totally unsee-able. They'll often be peeking around a pillar or tree, or around the corner ready to attack from hiding.

There are other visual clues as well; a shadow sticking out around the corner, a scabbard poking out from behind a rock, bushes or long grass moving as they sneak around, puddles splashing as they step in them, their outline in smoke, fog or rain, the fog of their breath, thier footprints in the carpet, mud or snow, blood dripping from their wounds et etc.

There is also other senses. You can hear the creaking of their armor, the jangling of those thousands of coins they like to carry around with them, or hear them let out an accidental stifled cough.

You might even be able to smell them. Check your players inventories. I bet you most of them dont have 'soap' listed on their character sheet, and when was the last time one of them told you he was having a bath?

I had my player characters detected by smell already. They do wash regularily now. But it is hard to exactly pinpoint vy smell. And in combat its ok for me to use passive perception when someone tries to hide.
Never forget though that in many situations PP is already 5 lower due to disadvantage on sight and, depending on the kind of battle it is usually loud and so disadvantage on listening is also justified.
My main problem though is surprising enemies. And in geberal I would just give away that something does not seem right when something does not beat passive perception. But in general I would first ask you to look for danger to actually pinpoint hidden creatures, except when they try to sneak up from the front.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[daviddalbec]

Well I am not sure, but I think 5e "passive skills" are not exactly the same as 3e Take 10.

IIUC the 5e "passive skills" are suggested for things you are doing repeatedly i.e. continuously all the time, for example being alert for any possible hidden monster or trap along the way.

There's nothing about "passive skills" that explicitly requires to have plenty of time or be relaxed, although naturally the DM can always decide when a passive skill is inappropriate.

And in addition (not related to your post), "repeatedly" should not be confused with "something I've been doing many times before", it refers to your current activity not to your past. The latter is already represented by proficiency, level and possibly expertise, which together already set a minimum autosuccess.

Oh, good point, I did add my own interpretation there to the meaning of passive skills. As Crawford pointed out, you may "use" your passive even in the heat of battle (barring some exceptions he suggested). It really seems important for the DM to find the line where something becomes accute/unique/specific enough where we have a case #4 and not #3 as I put it, and only active checks are acceptable. If you want to convince to *a* guard on the street of something it would probably be an active check, but maybe by the second guard the DM realizes you're going to be doing this all night and goes with passive? Still persuade is different from skills like Perception, insight, maybe investigate, as the Player MUST be agent in persuade. You aren't going to have a situation where a player doesn't know it, but his presense persuades some creature of something. Well, I guess that MIGHT happen.

Here's another question about that line. He brought up only having to roll stealth once and it applying until you are revealed in this podcast right? When does a situation become "repeated" use of that skill to warrant considering the PC's passive Stealth check?

 

[Flamestrike]

I had my player characters detected by smell already. They do wash regularily now. But it is hard to exactly pinpoint vy smell. And in combat its ok for me to use passive perception when someone tries to hide.

Thats how its supposed to work. The assumption (in combat) is you generally always notice the presence and general location of all nearby combatants that haven't yet successfully taken the Hide action.

Its what Ive been saying for years, but no-one here believed me.

My main problem though is surprising enemies. And in general I would just give away that something does not seem right when something does not beat passive perception.

Its not difficult mate. Got a group of monsters sneaking up on the party, or waiting in ambush?

Roll a single Stealth check (using the lowest stealth bonus of all the critters in your group of monsters, because if the PCs hear one monster, they arent surprised). Compare that result to the passive perception of the PCs in your group.

PCs with equal or higher Passive perception scores are not surprised on round one. PCs with lower passive perceptions scores are surprised on round one.

But in general I would first ask you to look for danger to actually pinpoint hidden creatures, except when they try to sneak up from the front.

Thats exactly how you locate a creature that is hidden (as a consequence of first becoming unseen, and then taking the Hide action, and rolling higher than your passive perception).

You must take the Search action, and roll higher on your Perception check than they got on their Stealth check.

Inquisitive Rogues (UA) can do it as a bonus action.

 

[daviddalbec]

Thats how its supposed to work. The assumption (in combat) is you generally always notice the presence and general location of all nearby combatants that haven't yet successfully taken the Hide action.

Its what Ive been saying for years, but no-one here believed me.



Its not difficult mate. Got a group of monsters sneaking up on the party, or waiting in ambush?

Roll a single Stealth check (using the lowest stealth bonus of all the critters in your group of monsters, because if the PCs hear one monster, they arent surprised). Compare that result to the passive perception of the PCs in your group.

PCs with equal or higher Passive perception scores are not surprised on round one. PCs with lower passive perceptions scores are surprised on round one.



Thats exactly how you locate a creature that is hidden (as a consequence of first becoming unseen, and then taking the Hide action, and rolling higher than your passive perception).

You must take the Search action, and roll higher on your Perception check than they got on their Stealth check.

Inquisitive Rogues (UA) can do it as a bonus action.

I agree, as I posted this is what Crawford seemed to really mean by passive perception being a "baseline". If a creature isn't Hidden - meaning it failed to roll higher than surround enemies passive perception - then you wouldn't need to search for it in the first place. Sure, you *almost* have the Reliable Talent feature going in this case, but we already know that that 10 isn't good enough.

I think when I laid out 4 cases of hiding, I was pretty on point.

1. A character's passive perception might find a creature, in which case you don't use your *action* to search for it, because you know it is there.
2. You do not find it with passive, and also never know it is there, which would mean you as a player would not know to use your action to search.
3. You know a creature is there, perhaps you saw it hide behind a stone, in a cabinet or cast invisibility, or you have insider info that it is around, but you (with passive) can't detect it. You'd likely use your *action* to search for it. In this case you can get up to 10 points higher (or 5 higher if you have Observant Feat) on perception than your passive, and maybe reveal the hidden thing.
4. Some situation, such as an specific item being hid in a desk as in the PHB example, you need to be specific about your actions and *actively* interact such that a passive skill doesn't apply. So something not "the average result of a task done repeatedly" and of course not something secret. It'd have to be something accute and novel. I think only in these case, by the rules, do you *have* to use an active check at all, and furthermore a passive cannot be used. Something like "Your passive doesnt find the gnome in this room - I roll active trying to look closer (nat 20) - you still don't find him (he isnt *detectable * from there) - I check inside the chest under the desk (roll 10) - you press your ear up to it and hear breathing" in this case the rogue feature and such do something and the passive does nothing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've been playing this way since 5e came out, so I don't find it strange at all.

Regarding standing still to avoid detection while invisible, IMO that is a significant part of what the hide action is about. Even when they're trying to go unnoticed, there's no guarantee that they won't cough or sneeze or involuntarily flinch as an arrow flies a bit too close, revealing their position.

As to those who say that this makes rogues with Observant OP, I couldn't disagree more. To begin with the rogue used two limited resources, an expertise choice and a feat to get so good. He ought to be awesome at spotting things! Secondarily, he always spots stuff, so what? This gives him an opportunity to shine, so let him. He sees the trap, now he had to figure out what kind of trap it is and how to circumvent it. He sees the secret door, but that doesn't tell him what's on the other side (it might be a treasure room or a monster's secret lair). He notices the ambush, but he still has to find a way to deal with it, he's simply not surprised. Passive perception is not an end unto itself.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I still believe it can be easier to detect people with axtive perception than with passive. Or In many cases I would ve arguing, that you really need to look for something that you get a check. Passive perception shoul only give you a hint when to look.

Example:
You have the feeling something is following you. Someone failed to beat your passive perception check but is behind you and maybe invisible behind some trees.

Now you hear it and walk nearer and actually look for the enemy. You may need to only roll a 6 or so.
Now that you found the one hiding invisible in the bushes I would once again let you use your passive check, now probabky without disadvantage since you know that you have to look for an invisible creature that pushes away the underbrush.

 

[Flamestrike]

I've been playing this way since 5e came out, so I don't find it strange at all.

Regarding standing still to avoid detection while invisible, IMO that is a significant part of what the hide action is about. Even when they're trying to go unnoticed, there's no guarantee that they won't cough or sneeze or involuntarily flinch as an arrow flies a bit too close, revealing their position.

As to those who say that this makes rogues with Observant OP, I couldn't disagree more. To begin with the rogue used two limited resources, an expertise choice and a feat to get so good. He ought to be awesome at spotting things! Secondarily, he always spots stuff, so what? This gives him an opportunity to shine, so let him. He sees the trap, now he had to figure out what kind of trap it is and how to circumvent it. He sees the secret door, but that doesn't tell him what's on the other side (it might be a treasure room or a monster's secret lair). He notices the ambush, but he still has to find a way to deal with it, he's simply not surprised. Passive perception is not an end unto itself.

We've been right all along brother.

We fought the hard fight there!

 

[daviddalbec]

I've been playing this way since 5e came out, so I don't find it strange at all.

Regarding standing still to avoid detection while invisible, IMO that is a significant part of what the hide action is about. Even when they're trying to go unnoticed, there's no guarantee that they won't cough or sneeze or involuntarily flinch as an arrow flies a bit too close, revealing their position.

As to those who say that this makes rogues with Observant OP, I couldn't disagree more. To begin with the rogue used two limited resources, an expertise choice and a feat to get so good. He ought to be awesome at spotting things! Secondarily, he always spots stuff, so what? This gives him an opportunity to shine, so let him. He sees the trap, now he had to figure out what kind of trap it is and how to circumvent it. He sees the secret door, but that doesn't tell him what's on the other side (it might be a treasure room or a monster's secret lair). He notices the ambush, but he still has to find a way to deal with it, he's simply not surprised. Passive perception is not an end unto itself.

Agree