D&D 5E ranger getting caught all of time---What to do?

[ad_hoc]

What happened when we last played I messed up and reveled myself by shooting an ogre and a gnoll the third time however I was told there was rustling in the bushes and decided to hide.

There is a difference between being a scout and being a one man army.

Do you want to play a team game? You should be designing characters knowing that you will be operating in a team.

It sounds like you have made your character to be a loner which is very disrupting to the game.

It might be a good idea to just make a new character.

 

[Noctem]

That makes more sense in scouting. Should I dual wield then instead of using a shield? I'm using a rapier as my main weapon because it uses a d8 and is a finesse weapon.

Dual Wielding could be a solution sure. But shield + rapier is really good for a character like yours. If you find you have the time to put on / take off the shield then it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[iserith]

Ah, I should have just kept reading.

This view is just so alien to me, not sure where to find common ground to begin a discussion.

The idea that you have *no* chance to notice hazards around you *while foraging* specifically... that is, engaging in an activity where you are carefully searching the wilderness around you?The mind boggles.

The game makes it pretty clear that passive Perception isn't "always-on radar." It's a trade-off. You're either keeping alert for danger or you're doing something else that is sufficiently distracting. If you're a ranger in favored terrain, you can do both. I think this is a good thing because otherwise passive Perception is too strong and the meaningful decision relating to it happens during character build rather than in-game. The common complaint of Observant feat being too good also goes away when treated as the trade-off it's intended to be - you can't do anything distracting while exploring the dungeon (or whatever) to gain the full benefit.

 

[Gulogulo101]

We are having down time between when we play again what would be a good thing to tell our DM that my character is doing on the down time?

 

[iserith]

We are having down time between when we play again what would be a good thing to tell our DM that my character is doing on the down time?

Hiding.

 

[MostlyDm]

The game makes it pretty clear that passive Perception isn't "always-on radar." It's a trade-off. You're either keeping alert for danger or you're doing something else that is sufficiently distracting. If you're a ranger in favored terrain, you can do both. I think this is a good thing because otherwise passive Perception is too strong and the meaningful decision relating to it happens during character build rather than in-game. The common complaint of Observant feat being too good also goes away when treated as the trade-off it's intended to be - you can't do anything distracting while exploring the dungeon (or whatever) to gain the full benefit.

So, if you are a barbarian searching the woods for food, you have no passive perception. Goblin sneaking up on you? He automatically succeeds.

How do you handle someone ill suited to stealth? A clumsy dwarf in full plate is approaching you... He also automatically surprises you?

Or do you decide that he has no chance of success, and thus can't make the attempt? I mean, by the rules he's still capable of making a stealth check. -1 with disadvantage, but a check nonetheless.

Depending on your answer, your way of playing results in either: everything succeeding, which strains credulity when a platoon of heavily armored hobgoblins marches right up behind you. Or retaining some element of "some succeed and some don't" but artificially limiting this distinction to DM fiat by not using a roll and checking the roll against something.

Seems like using advantage and disadvantage mechanics would work way better. That can dramatically hamper a PC's ability to perceive danger when distracted while still keeping things like relative skill important.

If you get disadvantage to your passive and the dwarf in full plate gets advantage he has a shot. But it's not guaranteed.

 

[iserith]

So, if you are a barbarian searching the woods for food, you have no passive perception. Goblin sneaking up on you? He automatically succeeds.

Yes, probably. Luckily, you have three to four other adventurers in the party some of whom might be alert for hidden danger.

How do you handle someone ill suited to stealth? A clumsy dwarf in full plate is approaching you... He also automatically surprises you?

Not necessarily. Remember, before we turn to the mechanics to resolve an outcome, the DM must decide if the outcome is uncertain. In this case, the DM might say the clumsy dwarf in plate mail has no chance of sneaking up on anybody and thus no roll.

Or do you decide that he has no chance of success, and thus can't make the attempt? I mean, by the rules he's still capable of making a stealth check. -1 with disadvantage, but a check nonetheless.

Players don't get to decide if they can or cannot make an ability check. Nobody's entitled to an ability check. It's for the DM to use when the outcome is uncertain.

 

[DMCF]

OK. DM is my brother so that'll be fun!!

BLOOD FEUD! YEAH!

 

[MostlyDm]

Players don't get to decide if they can or cannot make an ability check. Nobody's entitled to an ability check. It's for the DM to use when the outcome is uncertain.

I know your position on who decides when to roll, dude.

That's not what I said. I said the *character* is capable of making a check.

As in, the rules contain within them clear instructions on how being a a low dex dwarf in plate mail affects stealth checks.

If someone was on sentry duty, and such a dwarf was trying to sneak past them (he is obscured from sight) the rules are pretty clear: the DM can have him roll a Stealth check at disadvantage with a -1 penalty from dexterity.

So if your position is that when that dwarf is trying to sneak up on someone who is foraging he automatically fails... We have a weird disconnect. He's actually worse at stealth when the person he is sneaking up on is distracted?

Or, less weird but still weird, you decide that if it's a situation where you'd let him roll vs. a sentry then vs. a forager he just auto succeeds?

It avoids the most egregiously backwards scenario. But then I'm back to a previous comment that this removes any sense of granularity between various levels of situational awareness and various levels of stealth training. Everyone is the same in this situation, which, while arguably consistent with the RAW, makes no damn sense.

 

[BoldItalic]

Actually, it's the player, not the character who rolls the dice and makes the check (if one is needed). The character doesn't know anything about it. The player rolls, the DM tells the player the outcome and the player's character somehow knows whether to laugh or cry.