D&D 5E Stealth, Spot and Listen: Now with Poll!

[Lackhand]

Sorry to fork threads, [MENTION=84383]kerleth[/MENTION]!

I was reading the Stealth, Spot, and Listen thread and realized that it's a bit echo-chambery, because everyone has a strongly held opinion of how this should work, but it's kind of hard to keep all the different designs straight.

At least for me.

So: poll!

No special snowflake option, since nothing here will be exactly what you're after -- pick the closest one, and feel free to elaborate if I've grossly missed anything.

I actually wish I could post multiple polls, since I also kind of want to know how many rolls people like in this kind of scene.
Two+ per turn (opposed rolls from hider and seeker on each seeker's round)?
One per turn (hider rolls on their turn, seeker on theirs)?
Two+ per round (hider rolls to set DC, each seeker rolls on their turn)?
One per round (I'm not sure how this could work. I'd guess only the hider rolled, which seems unfair to ambushed PCs )?

There's a lot of options here!

 

[Wyckedemus]

I prefer Dexterity vs. Wisdom checks.

A single Sneak skill can modify the Dexterity check, and a person can use either Spot or Listen to modify the Wisdom check, as long as the situation allows for it.

It's not a special flower. It's the current suggested Rule As Written. So I could not vote on the poll. I would advise that future polls include the rule as written as an option.

Thanks!

 

[Li Shenron]

I like the current idea in 5e playtest rules: basically Dexterity vs Wisdom, and if you have skills that apply, you can get a bonus but without stacking, so Spot and Listen may each help (if the scenario allows that) but they would normally overlap.

This is not maybe RAW, but how the second-last playtest round package suggested to me. The last package however uses skill die instead of a bonus, so the stacking issue is now more fuzzy... should you roll 2 skill die and take the best?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I like reducing it to two skills (Spot and Sneak). But unlike the second playtest, I'd keep search/track separate from Spot.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and others have expressed concern about how items like Boots of Elvenkind work with unified sneak/spot mechanics, but I think that quick DM guidelines could cover that. (For example, you get advantage on sneak checks when enemies are unable to see you or unable to hear you, and automatic success if they can't do either.)

My basic reasoning is that with only four trained skills, having a character be perceptive shouldn't take up two of them.

I'd combine Persuade and Intimidate for similar reasons: Intimidate is just a scary way of persuading people.

 

[Lackhand]

It's the current suggested Rule As Written. So I could not vote on the poll. I would advise that future polls include the rule as written as an option.

Thanks!

I personally would put that in the two skill bucket -- I see why one might quibble that three and two are a little different, but what's one to do?

I don't feel that merely by being the current setting, we should specially privilege anything. If you like skills for this, you have to pick either few, broad skills or many narrow skills (or something else entirely I haven't thought of yet!)

Cheers!

 

[Raith5]

I like reducing it to two skills (Spot and Sneak). But unlike the second playtest, I'd keep search/track separate from Spot.
@Manbearcat and others have expressed concern about how items like Boots of Elvenkind work with unified sneak/spot mechanics, but I think that quick DM guidelines could cover that. (For example, you get advantage on sneak checks when enemies are unable to see you or unable to hear you, and automatic success if they can't do either.)

My basic reasoning is that with only four trained skills, having a character be perceptive shouldn't take up two of them.

I'd combine Persuade and Intimidate for similar reasons: Intimidate is just a scary way of persuading people.

I agree with the divide between Spot and Sneak (or in the edition TMNBN: perception and stealth) because I think the act of sneaking (unheard or unseen) and the act of perceiving (looking or hearing) are similar acts - although different conditions (ie blindness or deafness, darkness or fog) may intervene. However, I think this conditions are best left in the resolution of skills than skills themselves because in essence a skill is an action. However, I think the act of persuading or intimidating are different forms of activity - that require different narrations by the player.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Supposition 1:
"Skills" are to be an optional rules module that lay on top of and modify ability checks. Therefore, skills cannot be an essential part of the rules.

Supposition 2:
The rules will need to govern surprise, stealth, and detection of stealth. Given supposition 1, they will need to do this without reference to skills.

Result:
The basic rules governing stealth and perception can be articulated as opposed ability checks: Dexterity vs. Wisdom. This can be modified on the fly so that a ranger trying to disguise his wagon might use Wisdom, and a town guard conducting a thorough search might use Dexterity or Intelligence.

This can inform the basic rules for surprise: surprise happens in the first round of combat when one side is caught unprepared. If a creature has hidden from you (such as via a Dexterity check that you failed to beat with your Wisdom check), you are not aware of it.

Skills are fine for folks that want 'em, but they don't need to be assumed as integral rules.

 

[Argyle King]

However many skills are on one side of the equation should also be on the other side.

If there's only one stealth skill, there should only be one skill that opposes it. Having stealth on one side, but then having two different skills on the other side is a set up which too heavily favors stealth. In theory, I'd prefer there be stealth and camouflage versus spot and listen, but that doesn't really work right without facing rules, so I favor the way 4E handled it. Spot and Listen should be combined into Perception.

 

[Ashtagon]

My house rules have Stealth (Hide and Move Silently rolled together) and Perception (Spot, Listen, and Search rolled together).

 

[Lackhand]

Supposition 1:
"Skills" are to be an optional rules module that lay on top of and modify ability checks. Therefore, skills cannot be an essential part of the rules.

Supposition 2:
The rules will need to govern surprise, stealth, and detection of stealth. Given supposition 1, they will need to do this without reference to skills.

Result:
The basic rules governing stealth and perception can be articulated as opposed ability checks: Dexterity vs. Wisdom. This can be modified on the fly so that a ranger trying to disguise his wagon might use Wisdom, and a town guard conducting a thorough search might use Dexterity or Intelligence.

This can inform the basic rules for surprise: surprise happens in the first round of combat when one side is caught unprepared. If a creature has hidden from you (such as via a Dexterity check that you failed to beat with your Wisdom check), you are not aware of it.

Skills are fine for folks that want 'em, but they don't need to be assumed as integral rules.

I feel like I agree with everything you've said up until the conclusion, when I suddenly disagree

I mean, it sounds like you favor a version which is pretty similar to 3e or 4e, in that it's opposed checks.

Fine!

If you want to let characters specialize at all (I do! I do!), which sort of rules widget do you favor for letting them express just how stealthy -- or Holmesian (detective, not author) -- they are?

A designer cannot punt on this question: elves, goblins, halflings, and the giant eyeball-men of Rigel Nine will need some way to reflect their special talents at Hide and Seek.