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

[Rya.Reisender]

How does everyone handle stealth checks? Do you let the players know right away that they failed or keep it to yourself until they get found out. Always feels a little weird to say, "You feel like you're not quite moving so quietly as you hoped." Thoughts?

I don't allow to roll stealth until there's someone that could potentially see you. On a failed roll, the players notice immediately anyway, because the one that notices them will react to them. No need to hide rolls that way.

 

[ClearlyTough69]

You are losing track of the whole point of turn-based checks.

But what is the point? From what you're saying, you make a check for each turn (which I assume to be the 10 minute turn of AD&D) but most of them are irrelevant. The only one that matters is the check rolled on the turn when there is a creature to keep hidden from. That's one check - the same single check that others and I make, at the point that the Stealth check is contested by another creature's Perception.

 

[Li Shenron]

But what is the point? From what you're saying, you make a check for each turn (which I assume to be the 10 minute turn of AD&D) but most of them are irrelevant. The only one that matters is the check rolled on the turn when there is a creature to keep hidden from. That's one check - the same single check that others and I make, at the point that the Stealth check is contested by another creature's Perception.

One of the main points is pretty much to "cover" routine tasks (stealth, trapfinding, guarding your back, pathfinding...) without forcing the players to guess where/when exactly those tasks would be needed.

A possible reason why this system was proposed in the playtest, was because there are always people complaining about DMs who put dangers in nondescript locations that are impossible to guess by reasoning, and players who react to those DMs by starting to check every 5ft for traps. The turn-based exploration tasks provide a possible way to protect the players from those DMs, and DMs from those players. But at the same time, the turn-based system is not incompatible with also checking at specific interesting times or locations.

Another interesting point of the turn-based exploration system (but beyond the discussion on stealth) lies within the fact that it requires each PC to choose one or two tasks, but not more. So it actually encourages every player to find something to do during each turn of exploration (instead of always whining that "my Fighter has no out-of-combat abilities!"), and at the same time it doesn't let other PCs dominate and always do everything, because they are limited to 1-2 tasks (even tho, again, should some specific need arise, the DM can still ask/let such player do more checks). But as I said, this is beyond the thread's topic.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't allow to roll stealth until there's someone that could potentially see you. On a failed roll, the players notice immediately anyway, because the one that notices them will react to them. No need to hide rolls that way.

This is where I would like to try running D&D like a videogame. Where you mess up sneaking, the guard doesn't really see you yet, but he has noticed something suspicious and investigates in some way.

That would be what the player notices, and now he gets a chance to sneak away unnoticed leaving a confused guard. Or maybe the player sneaks up to the guard for a hopefully knockout blow, or just breaks cover and charges screaming, sword drawn. Whatever.

The point is, that one single first failed Stealth check doesn't need to reveal the stealthing character.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is where I would like to try running D&D like a videogame. Where you mess up sneaking, the guard doesn't really see you yet, but he has noticed something suspicious and investigates in some way.

That would be what the player notices, and now he gets a chance to sneak away unnoticed leaving a confused guard. Or maybe the player sneaks up to the guard for a hopefully knockout blow, or just breaks cover and charges screaming, sword drawn. Whatever.

The point is, that one single first failed Stealth check doesn't need to reveal the stealthing character.

So you are saying you can fail a stealth check and still be stealthy?

 

[Satyrn]

So you are saying you can fail a stealth check and still be stealthy?

Yes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes.

Can you fail an athletics check and still climb?

 

[Satyrn]

Can you fail an athletics check and still climb?

Yes.

 

[Satyrn]

Now to answer the question I think you're implying. Failing a check only makes you stop doing what you were doing if the DM rules the failure in such a way that you couldn't continue.

If that Athletics check resulted in 1) "not progressing" the player could continue climbing by trying a different path. If failure resulted in 2) "plunging to your death," then no you can't continue climbing.

In my Stealth scenario, I'm saying I want to rule the failed save as resulting in something like #1: "still hidden, but with a complication."

 

[FrogReaver]

Now to answer the question I think you're implying. Failing a check only makes you stop doing what you were doing if the DM rules the failure in such a way that you couldn't continue.

If that Athletics check resulted in 1) "not progressing" the player could continue climbing by trying a different path. If failure resulted in 2) "plunging to your death," then no you can't continue climbing.

In my Stealth scenario, I'm saying I want to rule the failed save as resulting in something like #1: "still hidden, but with a complication."

I've never seen a climb check fail result in still climbing but with a complication. I don't even know what that would look like.