D&D 5E Stealth Checks - How do you handle them?

[Li Shenron]

Don't call for a roll until it matters. It doesn't matter what your players get on the dice at that point, they can't get a do over.

I prefer to make them roll when they think it matters. Most of the times failed stealth checks cause immediate consequences, but occasionally you may want to come up with some delayed consequences. By making the players roll when they say they want to be stealthy, I am giving away less information, compared to calling for a roll only when it matters (the extra information being, that now they know something must have made it matter).

Also I just don't allow a do-over. If you made noise while trying to be stealthy, I don't see how you could have another try...

One thing that IMHO really helps when dealing with many stealth situations, is turn-based exploration rules. More precisely, I am thinking of those situations where the PCs are trying to be stealthy for an extended amount of time against generic dangers (e.g. scouting ahead or navigating a dungeon), rather than a very specific instance (e.g. sneak past a specific guard, slowly open a specific door...). I am sorry they ended up not including turn-based exploration rules like the drafts they had during 5e playtest, because they really make sense. That kind of rule allows a PC to make a Stealth check that applies for a certain time window (such as 10 minutes or 1 hour), and therefore the DM doesn't need to worry about telling the players exactly when (or even if) their PC needed to make the check. Passive checks kind of cover that, but they are boring compared to having the players make the rolls.

 

[iserith]

I prefer to make them roll when they think it matters. Most of the times failed stealth checks cause immediate consequences, but occasionally you may want to come up with some delayed consequences. By making the players roll when they say they want to be stealthy, I am giving away less information, compared to calling for a roll only when it matters (the extra information being, that now they know something must have made it matter).

I don't see why I'd want to have the player roll and the result is some kind of delayed consequence. Why not just roll when it's, you know, consequential? Do you have any examples of what you mean?

One thing that IMHO really helps when dealing with many stealth situations, is turn-based exploration rules. More precisely, I am thinking of those situations where the PCs are trying to be stealthy for an extended amount of time against generic dangers (e.g. scouting ahead or navigating a dungeon), rather than a very specific instance (e.g. sneak past a specific guard, slowly open a specific door...). I am sorry they ended up not including turn-based exploration rules like the drafts they had during 5e playtest, because they really make sense. That kind of rule allows a PC to make a Stealth check that applies for a certain time window (such as 10 minutes or 1 hour), and therefore the DM doesn't need to worry about telling the players exactly when (or even if) their PC needed to make the check. Passive checks kind of cover that, but they are boring compared to having the players make the rolls.

That's exactly what passive checks are for. The PCs would also have to be moving at a slow pace which in my view should come with trade-offs such as having less time to complete a goal, environmental effects taking a larger toll, or a greater chance of running afoul of a wandering monster.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't see why I'd want to have the player roll and the result is some kind of delayed consequence. Why not just roll when it's, you know, consequential? Do you have any examples of what you mean?

Any time you are trying to stealthily enter or cross a place without knowing who is the opponent of your stealth: maybe you're infiltrating a palace, or a whole city of drow, trespassing an elven forest, reaching a meeting shack in the docks at night, or mingle with a crowded marketplace. In these kind of situation your failed stealth can alert someone of your presence, without causing immediate combat but rather delayed consequences. I prefer to roll beforehand for the whole area because I like that it's up to the players to tell me they want to be stealthy. If I tell them to roll (when it matters), it's a head's up that they actually have a reason for the check.

That's exactly what passive checks are for.

That's what I said. But rolling is more fun for the players than using passive scores.

And not to derail the thread, but passive checks have their own faults anyway, same as (or worse than) the old Take10 rule, even when you use them as intended (i.e. for "routine tasks"). They really should have used turn-based exploration rules instead.

 

[iserith]

Any time you are trying to stealthily enter or cross a place without knowing who is the opponent of your stealth: maybe you're infiltrating a palace, or a whole city of drow, trespassing an elven forest, reaching a meeting shack in the docks at night, or mingle with a crowded marketplace. In these kind of situation your failed stealth can alert someone of your presence, without causing immediate combat but rather delayed consequences. I prefer to roll beforehand for the whole area because I like that it's up to the players to tell me they want to be stealthy. If I tell them to roll (when it matters), it's a head's up that they actually have a reason for the check.

Right, but at least some of those things do scream "passive check" to me. "When it matters" is to me when something about the scene depends on resolving the uncertainty of their attempt to be sneaky. I'm struggling to imagine a check that isn't immediately followed up on a result.

That's what I said. But rolling is more fun for the players than using passive scores.

Eh, I'd rather never roll as a player. It tends to mean I failed to achieve outright success. A passive check also means I avoid rolling less than 10.

And not to derail the thread, but passive checks have their own faults anyway, same as (or worse than) the old Take10 rule, even when you use them as intended (i.e. for "routine tasks"). They really should have used turn-based exploration rules instead.

Curious as to what faults you see. I also did the playtest, but don't remember the turn-based exploration rules. Do you recall how those worked?

 

[Creamsteak]

I am of the mind that "passive stealth" should be applicable as much as "passive perception" is, it just requires that you move at half speed. So stealth only really gets rolled to (1) hide, or (2) intentionally take your action to stealth. So for example, if you're a dex 18 character with proficiency, your natural +6 is a passive 16 and you can easily sneak by an inactive opponent. The problem of course is if you want to avoid a sentry that is actively using perception or someone looking for you, in which case you might use your action to roll stealth to hope to get a higher result to avoid them.

That usually means that you don't even need to roll for anyone that's actually pretty stealthy, and the 0 dex non-proficient guy has to "try" to get past even an 11 passive, so he's probably going to spend his action to do so.

 

[Li Shenron]

Right, but at least some of those things do scream "passive check" to me. "When it matters" is to me when something about the scene depends on resolving the uncertainty of their attempt to be sneaky. I'm struggling to imagine a check that isn't immediately followed up on a result.

We've used it many times. You sneak into an area, you fail to stay stealthy, the locals discover you are here and then prepare a surprise for you later: setup an ambush, arm themselves fully and wait for you, activate a trap, flee with or hide the mcguffin...

Of course, you can also let them roll at the time of the effects if you like.

Eh, I'd rather never roll as a player. It tends to mean I failed to achieve outright success. A passive check also means I avoid rolling less than 10.

Curious as to what faults you see.

Pretty much what you just said. Passive checks are automatic successes when they are not automatic failures. In the first case, a passive check is actually better than an active check, so a smart player who guesses correctly when to use a skill, is punished by now having a chance of failure in place of the automatic success. We had tons of discussions on these forums about the pros and cons.

I also did the playtest, but don't remember the turn-based exploration rules. Do you recall how those worked?

They were just unfinished drafts with only a few possible actions defined, but the structure was in place. Essentially, turn-based meant that you'd use them to describe extended amounts of time broken down into smaller parts (1 minutes for dungeon exploration, 1 hour for wilderness exploration), and during each part every PC chose one action such as guarding vs threats, gathering food, avoiding getting lost, or moving stealthily. One check covers the whole turn.

They could have generalized the idea to allow everything you could do while exploring, including especially trapfinding, which is the traditional pain in the Iuz if a paranoid player starts to check every spot for traps after the DM punished him for not checking the only one place where there really was a trap.

I thought it was a great idea that really helped against this neverending problems of passive vs active, retried vs one-time, distributed vs concentrated...

 

[EborElf]

Does anyone handle the elf hide in foliage or monk teleport between shadows differently than a normal stealth check?

 

[iserith]

We've used it many times. You sneak into an area, you fail to stay stealthy, the locals discover you are here and then prepare a surprise for you later: setup an ambush, arm themselves fully and wait for you, activate a trap, flee with or hide the mcguffin...

It seems like an ongoing effort at being stealthy to me, so it's a good place for a passive check (objections to passive checks aside). Anyway, I will try to assume for the sake of the discussion that there is a time when you'd want to have a check now and narrate later. The desire on the part of some DMs appears to be that the PCs can't use the result of the roll to inform their subsequent decisions which necessitates a "secret roll" in which case that's another place for a passive check. I'm not into secret rolls personally, but I'm trying to work with the scenario under discussion. In this kind of scenario, I would probably ask for the check now and, if it's a failure, narrate how some shady type follows the PCs and observes them for a while before wandering off. This would presage the ambush attempt later and even give the PCs another chance to change their fate if they can figure out a way to discreetly disappear their tail.

Pretty much what you just said. Passive checks are automatic successes when they are not automatic failures. In the first case, a passive check is actually better than an active check, so a smart player who guesses correctly when to use a skill, is punished by now having a chance of failure in place of the automatic success. We had tons of discussions on these forums about the pros and cons.

To be clear, I was referring to automatic successes being when the DM simply says "You succeed..." without an ability check, passive checks included. The passive check is just for tasks with uncertain outcomes being performed repeatedly. A player can't decide whether a check is a regular check or a passive one outside of how he or she establishes the amount of time spent on the task. A passive check will tend to also be an abstraction when traveling or exploring anyway, a mechanic to resolve a general task.

They were just unfinished drafts with only a few possible actions defined, but the structure was in place. Essentially, turn-based meant that you'd use them to describe extended amounts of time broken down into smaller parts (1 minutes for dungeon exploration, 1 hour for wilderness exploration), and during each part every PC chose one action such as guarding vs threats, gathering food, avoiding getting lost, or moving stealthily. One check covers the whole turn.

They could have generalized the idea to allow everything you could do while exploring, including especially trapfinding, which is the traditional pain in the Iuz if a paranoid player starts to check every spot for traps after the DM punished him for not checking the only one place where there really was a trap.

I thought it was a great idea that really helped against this neverending problems of passive vs active, retried vs one-time, distributed vs concentrated...

They still have this now, but I guess the part about how long each "turn" is was removed. By my reading, the task "keep watch for danger" (or words to that effect) accounts for hidden monsters and traps and the associated passive check is Perception.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I prefer to make them roll when they think it matters. Most of the times failed stealth checks cause immediate consequences, but occasionally you may want to come up with some delayed consequences. By making the players roll when they say they want to be stealthy, I am giving away less information, compared to calling for a roll only when it matters (the extra information being, that now they know something must have made it matter).

To me, that's really only a difference in narration. I don't actually think that

"We stealth"
"Ok, roll"
<rolling>
"Ok, you sneak up on the compound and are spotted and attacked/scope the place out and return to base"

is any different to
"We stealth"
"Ok, you sneak up on the compound. Roll stealth"
<rolling>
"You're spotted and attacked/you return to base safely"

I'm not going to request multiple stealth checks for attempting a single thing (ie - if you sneak into a camp, that's going to be one stealth check, regardless of the number of sentries) because otherwise you make failure very likely, even with competent PCs.

That said, more complex stealth scenarios are more difficult to adjudicate fairly: you want to stick to one roll, but you also want the PCs to be able to react to things they observe and take more or less risk. I think if you're keen on running an extended stealth scenario and not just have it fail due to lots of rolls, you want to come up with something more complex: the existing rules just suck for that kind of thing.

For starters I'd come up with some kind of alert level for the target that triggers various reactions at different levels, plus some ways the PCs can affect that level positively and negatively. Failing a stealth check should result in an increase in alert level, not an immediate armed conflict unless the PCs just give up on stealth.

It seems like an ongoing effort at being stealthy to me, so it's a good place for a passive check (objections to passive checks aside).

Isn't all stealth an ongoing effort to be stealthy?

Anyway, I will try to assume for the sake of the discussion that there is a time when you'd want to have a check now and narrate later.

The scenarios I envisage are when the players don't have a way to detect the NPCs intentions at the point when they are spotted. As an example, the NPC is himself hidden and the PCs do not detect him when he skulks away to arrange an ambush. Or the NPC is visible, but continues on as normal until out of sight, springing a trap later.

 

[robus]

Isn't all stealth an ongoing effort to be stealthy?

I'd say no, there are two kinds of stealth. One is trying to remain undetected by unknown observers (sentries up ahead but around a a corner for example). This is where passive stealth is good.

The other is trying to remain undetected by known observers (trying to slip past sentries that are currently distracted by a card game or something).

The passive stealth allowed the characters to get close to the sentries without detection (the sentries probably have disadvantage of their passive perception). The active stealth is the PCs focused attempt on slipping by, and thus worth a roll because the need for special stealth is clear and present.