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

[Bawylie]

I knew it! You three are in cahoots!

Wth is a cahoot?


-Brad

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Definitely. This is one reason why turn-based* exploration rules are a good idea, because you handle the whole turn with one check.

*it's not really necessary to use strictly "turns", you can cover a whole area as just a single turn of whatever length you decide

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.

Well I wouldn't say they suck, but they do have problems, at least all those I mentioned: passive vs active, distributed vs concentrated, retried vs one-shot.

You are suggesting some very complicated house rules for complex scenarios, while I am suggesting something which is still pretty simple, only "one step more complex" than the base rules, so to speak

The point is, a check distributed over a turn does not prohibit to also allow some specific checks. You can decide to allow a general check to "be stealthy", "search for traps" or "look around carefully" AND also allow a player to check a specific door for example. It's up to the DM to always decide if they get a roll or not, but the combination of turn-based tasks with ad-hoc specific tasks can help you against all those problems:

distributed vs concentrated: the turn-based check covers anything the player may overlook while the specific check rewards a player who has the right intuition; turn-based checks only remove the reward, and specific checks have the risk of prompting some players to start check everything at every step

retries vs one-shot: the turn-based check already implies a certain extended amount of time (which may in fact implicitly include retries) with the outcome being known only at the end; it doesn't encourage retrying when the player sees she has rolled poorly, at least not nearly as much as the specific check that is described to take 6 seconds (in fact the turn-based check has a benefit similar to those house rules used by many, where each retry takes a longer time to complete, except that here the time is not increased but it can be made long enough in the first place)

passive vs active: the turn-based check is narratively similar to passive checks, without the issue of removing randomness (the DM can still remove randomness if she really wants... just decide there is no need to roll in the first place) or having an active attempt being actually worse than a passive check

Really passive checks should be considered separately depending on whether they are against fixed DC or an opposed roll. Against opposed roll they are actually fine (as long as the opponent is rolling normally), because the essentially change the skill contest into a single check vs DC, which is fine (the two work basically the same, unless you are using different degrees of success, since an opposed check has double swingy-ness). Against fixed DC they totally remove randomness, but if you remove randomness then why are you even wasting time thinking about what kind of check you should be using? At best you can use passive scores to "gauge" what kind of challenges you should handwave and declare an autosuccess, but then for consistency you should allow autosuccess on the same things also when the player actively tries to do them (which most DMs don't).

 

[Satyrn]

Wth is a cahoot?


-Brad

Possibly, it's from the French for cabin.

But in English "in cahoots" is an expression that means - well surely you've heard the phrase often enough, no?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Here's what I do...

1) Determine if the character is eligible for stealth. Is there concealment they can use to successfully hide?
2) Determine any adjustments to stealth - is it dim light, lots of noise, a creaky floor, alert guards, magical aids, the character is staying still or moving excessively after hiding, etc?
3) Determine the DC and have the character roll Stealth modified by adjustments. Succeed or fail.

 

[smbakeresq]

A skilled character will always believe he is being stealthy, so the more skilled you are the less likely you know you are being spotted. Very smart players will make a stealth check and then a perception check to perceive if they are detected by someone else. They won't wait to see if the guard reacts, they will try to perceive if they are noticed. TBH I am the only player I know of that does this, but my kids do it now after I explained it to them.

The same skilled PC could also make a stealth or perception check to see how stealthy a none stealth Skilled PC is doing on his stealth check I.e "dude you stand out like you had fairie fire cast on you."

PC unskilled in stealth really wouldn't know if they were being stealthy until they failed. A PC with a high passive perception might be aware at how bad his attempt is.



Using the above a stealthy PC can make his stealth check and then use a perception check to gauge how he is doing, which will allow him to keep the same stealth check and continue or maybe role again if he perceives something is tipping him off. Likewise, a smart enemy might notice the PC but not try to give it away to lure the PC in, the perception check might pick that up.

 

[Bawylie]

A skilled character will always believe he is being stealthy, so the more skilled you are the less likely you know you are being spotted. Very smart players will make a stealth check and then a perception check to perceive if they are detected by someone else. They won't wait to see if the guard reacts, they will try to perceive if they are noticed. TBH I am the only player I know of that does this, but my kids do it now after I explained it to them.

The same skilled PC could also make a stealth or perception check to see how stealthy a none stealth Skilled PC is doing on his stealth check I.e "dude you stand out like you had fairie fire cast on you."

PC unskilled in stealth really wouldn't know if they were being stealthy until they failed. A PC with a high passive perception might be aware at how bad his attempt is.



Using the above a stealthy PC can make his stealth check and then use a perception check to gauge how he is doing, which will allow him to keep the same stealth check and continue or maybe role again if he perceives something is tipping him off. Likewise, a smart enemy might notice the PC but not try to give it away to lure the PC in, the perception check might pick that up.

Right, so, let's discuss this one.

To begin, it seems like players in this game make checks either before, or as part of declaring their actions. In fact, from the language used, there's not a lot of actions being described in-game, but there is a lot of mechanics-speak.

There also seems to be some element of finding a way to re-roll a check you don't like by supposedly perceptioning any errors.

A lot of this is backwards to me. At my table, players don't declare what checks they're making. Instead they describe what they're doing and how they're doing it. Like "I sneak around, sticking to shadows and cover, so that I can get over there without being noticed." At that point, I can call for a Dex (stealth) check, if I need one. I mean maybe that action automatically succeeds. Or automatically fails. But it's up to me as DM to determine that and set a DC. It's not up to the player.

But whatever is going on happens as part of the in-game circumstances. And any dice are tied to efforts in pursuit of a goal (they are not tied to efforts alone or to goals alone). So "I'm sneaking" on its own isn't enough to get a Dex (stealth) check. And "I make a perception check" says literally nothing at all about what you're doing or how.

Interesting to see someone who plays it so thoroughly differently than I do though.


-Brad

 

[Valmarius]

the more skilled you are the less likely you know you are being spotted.

I would assume that training in stealth would include knowing when you've been spotted.
Does a PC trained in Survival have no idea when he becomes lost? Surely they'd be the first to know.

The only way I can imagine this playing out is if the PC had some kind of Flaw related to overconfidence or Hubris.

I guess it falls into the question of, are you rolling to determine the outcome of a certain activity, or are you rolling to set the difficulty of something else (a DC for guard's perception to beat)?

 

[Ganymede81]

I made a small Excel spreadsheet that keeps track of player's passive skill scores. It also has a column that provides randomly generated stealth checks with applicable bonuses. Instead of having them roll their stealth checks, I just use the randomly generated values. That way there is no need for either the players or myself to make stealth checks.

 

[smbakeresq]

I would assume that training in stealth would include knowing when you've been spotted.
Does a PC trained in Survival have no idea when he becomes lost? Surely they'd be the first to know.

The only way I can imagine this playing out is if the PC had some kind of Flaw related to overconfidence or Hubris.

I guess it falls into the question of, are you rolling to determine the outcome of a certain activity, or are you rolling to set the difficulty of something else (a DC for guard's perception to beat)?

Knowing where you are is not an absolute condition, everyone who gets lost believes they are headed in the right direction until they are in fact lost.

How would you know if you are spotted if you can't see the spotter or if the spotter sees you and acts as if he doesn't? You wouldn't. The perception check is to see if you think you have given up the game, either through your own knowledge or the reaction of other.

People who train skills believe in them, wether that belief is well founded is an awareness question.

 

[smbakeresq]

Right, so, let's discuss this one.

To begin, it seems like players in this game make checks either before, or as part of declaring their actions. In fact, from the language used, there's not a lot of actions being described in-game, but there is a lot of mechanics-speak.

There also seems to be some element of finding a way to re-roll a check you don't like by supposedly perceptioning any errors.

A lot of this is backwards to me. At my table, players don't declare what checks they're making. Instead they describe what they're doing and how they're doing it. Like "I sneak around, sticking to shadows and cover, so that I can get over there without being noticed." At that point, I can call for a Dex (stealth) check, if I need one. I mean maybe that action automatically succeeds. Or automatically fails. But it's up to me as DM to determine that and set a DC. It's not up to the player.

But whatever is going on happens as part of the in-game circumstances. And any dice are tied to efforts in pursuit of a goal (they are not tied to efforts alone or to goals alone). So "I'm sneaking" on its own isn't enough to get a Dex (stealth) check. And "I make a perception check" says literally nothing at all about what you're doing or how.

Interesting to see someone who plays it so thoroughly differently than I do though.


-Brad

I have no idea how you get that, that assumption. It goes like this

Using your example, same description. I call for the stealth check, even if I don't need it, I never let the player know whether its predetermined or not. I would call for the check even if no one was there to see them. If the player was aware to enough to say "while I am sneaking around I watch the guard to see if he notices me" or "while slinking around I really keep my head on a swivel" or even "I want to use my perception check to see if I notice that the someone notices me" I would let the Perception check go, and play it for there. I great perception check would allow a PC a bonus to the stealth check, or to notice that the PC is being baited in, or even a chance to avoid a predetermined outcome like an auto-success or auto fail. In a lot of games the PC will roll a 1 and know he failed and change his action, but we keep going and maybe he can out of it.

The people behind the PC are aware that on their character sheet are skills, and they are skilled in some of them. They want to use them, and letting them use them in creative ways rewards that type of play. For example, a perception check to notice a weakspot to get a bonus to hit, a performance check to recognize a ceremonial as opposed to functional outfit, or an insight to check to communicate with a creature whose language you do not speak, or the strength for intimidation check. If you are using the mobile feat on difficult terrain you better make an acrobatics check to get away with it, or trying to use Great Weapon Master with a Maul on a swaying deck of ship I might call for an athletics check to avoid being pulled off balance. This works both ways, you want to jump off a table for leverage on a swing of the axe for double weapon damage, sure, make that athletics check. INT checks are the toughest, as it reveals giving away information.

I always believed you got to keep them rolling.