D&D 5E Questions on stealth...

[Garresh]

So I've about finished with making an infiltrator style character for a campaign, but I wanted to make sure my understanding of stealth is clear after my last sneaky character was largely useless.

Stealth requires you have concealment from the target, correct?

When outside of combat, how does stealth work without cover?

How does stealth work in these situations:

Invisible rogue, sneaking past guards when he walks into an antimagic zone. Is he immediately revealed, or is he allowed a stealth check? What if it's at night?

During a bright day, a rogue tries to hide on a roof to wait for certain targets to pass by in the street below. Can he hide on the edge so he can see down, or does he have to break like of sight completely so he can't see the road in order to stealth?

I have a feeling my GM was ruling stealth a bit incorrectly, but wanted to check. I enjoy playing stealth characters but my GM said I'm not very good at them. What happened in those cases was no stealth allowed, guards were instantly alerted. And in the ambush situation, I had to move to the center of the roof so I had total concealment and wait for the party to signal me that it was time to strike. But I see elsewhere that stealth is apparently different in and out of combat, so I need ruling help.

 

[Shiroiken]

First: the Stealth rules have been left deliberatly vague, allowing each DM to decide for himself how to run it. Thus, your DM can't rule stealth incorrectly, since he is the final arbiter. The downside of this, are games where the DM hates stealth and never allows it to work. You are better off talking to your DM about how they plan to work stealth, and adapting to their style.

In your first example, I'm pretty sure you'd immediatly be spotted. By the rules, you'd no longer have concealment from the guards, so stealth is impossible. Some generous DM's may provide you warning of the zone, or a check at disadvantage if there is somewhere you could quickly hide.

In your second example, I would allow you to look over the edge, but by RAW (rules as written) you cannot. This is exactly the type of example meant to be determined by the DM.

 

[Bigkahuna]

As above, though I would make a bolder statement and call BS on this DM. Anti-magic fields? No stealth checks when their is an opportunity for an interesting ambush encounter? Your DM is designing failure, both for the adventures and the game itself.

The goal of a well orchestrated and DM'ed game is to ensure that cool stuff happens, predominantly lead by the adventuring parties action. Adding Anti-Magic fields and garbage like that is how a great adventure is turned into a "screw it, we kick down the door and kill everyone" adventuring, the very thing DM's bitch about endlessly.

 

[Li Shenron]

How does stealth work in these situations:

Invisible rogue, sneaking past guards when he walks into an antimagic zone. Is he immediately revealed, or is he allowed a stealth check? What if it's at night?

During a bright day, a rogue tries to hide on a roof to wait for certain targets to pass by in the street below. Can he hide on the edge so he can see down, or does he have to break like of sight completely so he can't see the road in order to stealth?

I have a feeling my GM was ruling stealth a bit incorrectly, but wanted to check. I enjoy playing stealth characters but my GM said I'm not very good at them. What happened in those cases was no stealth allowed, guards were instantly alerted. And in the ambush situation, I had to move to the center of the roof so I had total concealment and wait for the party to signal me that it was time to strike. But I see elsewhere that stealth is apparently different in and out of combat, so I need ruling help.

There's a hundred ways to adjudicate stealth in 5e...

My personal opinion is that each scenario is different, and thus consistent ruling (which normally is widely regarded as a good thing in gaming) might actually get in the way.

So for instance in case of your roof example, I would not be able to answer in general. It depends on the roof's location and shape, the sources of light, the time of day, where are your opponents and what are they doing, how are you dressed, even what is the weather like, etc. As a DM, I'll describe some of these stuff, let the player ask about more details, and state her plan. I would definitely tell the player beforehand what kind of rolls she need to make in order for her plan to work, so she can re-consider it if the odds are too low.

So that's my only suggestion to you: ask your DM to talk to you about the situation before you roll those dice. After all, if your PC is the expert at stealth, she should be able to assess the situation before doing anything, and back off if chances of success are too low. Just like when someone is attempting a jump, the DM tells her how far she has to jump, so why can't the DM do the same for stealth?

And I agree that in-combat and out-of-combat stealth works differently. In-combat the situation is generally more standardized and follows the rules more carefully. In case of sneaking in combat, in general I don't make it easy, on the assumption that everyone is moving around all the time, and so to me it makes sense that they have 360 degrees visibility (at least because I don't use facing) even tho they are busy fighting. But out-of-combat there are plenty of situations when the guards are facing one way and not the other (and they aren't constantly spinning around for the whole 6-hours shift!), and creeping up behind someone is a totally valid idea that shouldn't be vetoed by rules mostly meant for combat.

 

[Garresh]

So in the first example there would still be no stealth even with dim lighting? What about if I take Skulker feat? Also, our GM has gotten pissed because we kicked down the door and killed like 30 people before... Uh. Any suggestions for optimal stealth given these conditions?

 

[Bigkahuna]

eh .. your GM is his own problem.

Kicking down doors and killing everyone is the default action of players who don't see any other way of doing it.

Its the GM's job to lead them down that path of alternative solutions by depicting the scene with thought put into opportunities they can exploit. Mentioning an open windows, some clues about defenses in place, pointing out a particular item on a character, mentioning a distraction. Something to give the players to use as part of a plan.

Your GM does the opposite by creating anti-magic areas, having enemies scanning roof tops and stuff like that. Aka, making any other plan than simply kicking down the door and killing everyone a pointless en-devour.

For what its worth, over zelous and linear GMs are more common than the good kind.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So in the first example there would still be no stealth even with dim lighting? What about if I take Skulker feat? Also, our GM has gotten pissed because we kicked down the door and killed like 30 people before... Uh. Any suggestions for optimal stealth given these conditions?

For your first example (the invisible character) the question of remaining Hidden in the antimagic zone with or without dim lighting or the Skulker feat comes down to this:

To become Hidden, the character must first either be completely out of Line of Sight from the person who might detect you, or you become Heavily Obscured from them. If there is no direct line of visualization between you and the person who could see you (either there is a wall/object completely blocking view, or you are Invisible) you are out of Line of Sight and qualify to roll a DEX (Stealth) check to become Hidden. However, if at any point that blocking terrain or invisibility is no longer there (the invisibility ends or the searching person moves to a point where the object you are behind is no longer between the two of you) the Hidden condition ends immediately. So in your first example, once you entered the antimagic zone and the invisibility ended, you would immediately become seen assuming there was no further blocking terrain between you.

You can also become Hidden if you become Heavily Obscured. Dense foliage, opaque fog or smoke, or being in darkness all qualify as Heavily Obscured, which means you also can now make a DEX (Stealth) check to become Hidden as well.

However, some types of characters can make that DEX (Stealth) check without being out of LOS or Heavily Obscured-- Wood Elves only need to be Lightly Obscured while in foliage, Halflings only need to be Lightly Obscured by being behind other larger creatures, and those with the Skulker feat only need to be Lightly Obscured by being in Dim Light. If any of those three types of characters achieve that level of Lightly Obscured, then can make DEX (Stealth) checks to become Hidden as well.

So in your invisible character scenario... if that PC had the Skulker feat, they would have remained Hidden when the antimagic field dropped the invisibility only if certain conditions were met. If it was night time where the guards were and if there was a light source in the area by the guards (say, a torch), there would be a distance of Bright Light from that source (in the case of the torch, Bright Light out to 20 feet) in which the PC could not be Hidden at all when the invisibility dropped. The PC would plainly be in Line of Sight from the guards and thus his Hidden status is gone. There would then be a distance of Dim Light past that 20' radius zone (in the case of the torch, Dim Light a further 20' radius out, so between 20' and 40') which if the PC *did* have the Skulker feat they would still retain their Hidden status because they are allowed to be Hidden while Lightly Obscured by Dim Light. Finally, anything past that distance (40' out and further) is considered Darkness and thus if the PC is there they are still Heavily Obscured (even if they didn't have the Skulker feat) and thus retain their Hidden status regardless.

So whether your PC would have remained Hidden would all have come down to where he was located at the time when the antimagic field dropped his Invisibility and the light source (if any) the guards had at the time you were moving. Because that would adjust the distances of Bright Light, Dim Light, and Darkness and determine whether you qualified to retain your Hidden status.

 

[DEFCON 1]

During a bright day, a rogue tries to hide on a roof to wait for certain targets to pass by in the street below. Can he hide on the edge so he can see down, or does he have to break line of sight completely so he can't see the road in order to stealth?

And in the ambush situation, I had to move to the center of the roof so I had total concealment and wait for the party to signal me that it was time to strike. But I see elsewhere that stealth is apparently different in and out of combat, so I need ruling help.

In this case... trying to hide on a roof on a bright day would depend entirely on what the DM would rule as far as line of sight issues. First off, "total concealment" doesn't really exist as a concept in 5E-- there are no rules for "concealment" per se. There is Cover... but that only applies towards targeting and bonus defense. For Hiding though, it comes down again to being Obscured-- usually Heavily Obscured. Ordinarily, you would need to be behind something to create that Heavy Obscurement and thus try to be Hidden. If you were over the peak of the roof, that would probably apply; behind a chimney; depending on the height of the roof and the angle down to the road below, just being a distance back from the roof's edge might break line of sight. In those cases, I personally would allow you to roll a DEX (Stealth) check to try and become Hidden.

But in these cases... it would come down to DM adjudication as to whether the rogue would themselves be allowed to look out around the Heavily Obscuring terrain to try and see the targets coming. Some DMs (like it seems, yours) might rule that just sticking your head out once while the target was in the area would immediately break line of sight (and thus removing the Hidden status)... but I myself would possibly rule that if you were to stick your head out to look at the target, I'd just give the target Advantage on their Passive Perception check to notice you (which is a +5 to Passive Perception) since you are making a part of yourself seen for only a quick moment. But to eliminate that possibility altogether... I (as DM) would allow the PC to do the old "mirror on a stick around the corner" trick to watch the target without taking themselves out from behind the Heavily Obscuring terrain, and thus maintaining his Hidden status without any issue (and the target thus does not gain Advantage on their Passive Perception). But another DM might not allow that.

It really comes down to talking with the DM out of game and coming to a consensus on what the DM is ruling as far as being out of line of sight is concerned, and what you need to have to try and gain the Hidden status with a DEX (Stealth) check.

 

[Oofta]

As others have stated, stealth is really, really up to the DM. The way I generally handle stealth may be different from any other DM.

I can tell you how I would roll and why. In general I start with the rules and then try to apply common sense and what would make sense to me.

Invisible rogue, sneaking past guards when he walks into an antimagic zone. Is he immediately revealed, or is he allowed a stealth check? What if it's at night?

First, setting up an anti-magic zone without broadcasting it somehow is not something I would normally do. However, there are several reasons why someone might lose the spell.

Outside of combat I do not assume that guards are looking all directions at all times. But if you are in a a hallway and the guards are looking down that hall, they will see you. If it's night, it depends on how well they can see in the dark.

If the guards are looking down a hall in only one direction and you've successfully snuck past them, yes I would allow a check since they are only actively looking in one direction. That, and guard duty is incredibly boring ...

There are various times I'll enforce a reasonable "facing" rule, but possibly impose disadvantage on the stealth check. If you want to sneak across a wall and there's a guard walking patrol for example I'll let you time your crossing so you can sneak across when he's not watching. If, however, you didn't pay enough attention and realize there's a guard in a tower watching the same section of wall you will still be spotted.

During a bright day, a rogue tries to hide on a roof to wait for certain targets to pass by in the street below. Can he hide on the edge so he can see down, or does he have to break like of sight completely so he can't see the road in order to stealth?

How paranoid are the people you are tying to ambush? If they're unsuspecting I might allow this (in bright daylight it might be with disadvantage). However I might also allow for some creativity here - set up a distraction to draw their attention or be prone on the roof while using a small mirror to look down onto the street.

If this is someone who is suspicious and has a reason to be scanning the rooftops? Probably not going to work. It's going to be very situational though. A wide street, long lines of sight, a quiet street with little to distract the people being ambushed are all going to come into play.

Ultimately though you have to have this discussion with the DM and try to figure out what makes sense. He's the arbiter of the rules and stealth is not a guarantee no matter how high your roll is.

 

[Ahglock]

I'm gonna say one your DM is wrong. You do not need cover and concealment if you are not in combat. You can just walk behind them, wait until they are not looking etc.

I hate to use reality but if you were walking down a street would you 100% of the time notice someone peaking their head out while on a roof above you? If the answer is no like it damn well should be if you aren't lying to yourself a stealth check vs passive perception should be the answer.

Has anyone ever walked up behind you without you noticing you and startled you? Was it pitch black, did they have concealment against you? Again if it's possible that's what stealth checks are about.

You can sneak up on people during overland travel if you move at half pace is there apparently concealment like everywhere?

Until dice are rolled for initiative stealth works differently than the cover and concealment model people keep talking about. It's not a round per round movement necessarily though. You are hidden in a shadow and wait until the guard is distracted by a noise, attractive person, lord what's his name and move past him while he isn't looking.

So let's look at your anti magic example. Okay so yes it's possible it's a completely featureless well lit corridor with 2 guards at the end so stealth would be impossible. But assuming there like be places to hide and or times the guards aren't 100% vigilant I'd ask are you fully relying on invisibility or are you sneaking with invisibility. If you were boldly walking down the center of the street yeah I'd probably have you spotter or maybe a check to see if you are surprised. If not surprised and you win imitative a opportunity to dash behind cover before they notice. If you are actually sneaking in, waiting for he guards too look the other direction before dashing between cover spots then a standard stealth check.

Now given the absolutely moronic surprise rules you can't get too awesome by the rules. Like on your roof scenario you can't drop down behind the guards murder one of them quietly and then use your guard disguise to take his place. Why once you made the declaration I murder that dude then it's combat and everyone has 360 vision. But hey it's the surprise round so you still have advantage and get the sneak attack off.

Me I'd let you narrow the combat down to that one guy so the other guards are not in combat and if you successfully kill the dude in one action and make a stealth check your do it unaware. Assuming a single rear guard and not side by side.

On a rooftop wtf that is a standard stealth check that is about as normal of a stealth check as you could invent. I'd have to go out of my way to invent a scenario where I'd even give you disadvantage on that check.