D&D 5E Stealth

[Bacon Bits]

Please note: I'm not arguing that this is the way it has to work or that this is the way that it works at my table, I'm just answering the question, "Why do I keep reading how Stealth needs errata or clarifying or is plain broken for some folk?" I'm just saying that this is what I've seen people have problems with.

~~snip~~

You're correct about the change to heavy obscurement. I missed that change. Not that anybody ever played it the way it was written, but that's a good change.


On Naturally Stealthy:

The point is that it's not clear how Naturally Stealthy changes the stealth rules. Does it still need to be reasonable to hide? That's hard to judge, because Naturally Stealthy is usually not reasonable. If we say that there's no relaxing, then the racial feature is basically useless. It will let you hide in a crowd. Honestly, I kind of wish it had been called, "Hide in the Crowd." It's not bad if it's weaker, considering that it competes with Dwarf-style poison resistance, but many tables and players are ruling it as a consistent, reusable form of advantage. The designers haven't told us which way they expected us to rule or just how powerful they expected this ability to be.

The question being asked is, "What does Naturally Stealthy actually do?" Giving me your answer to that isn't the reason I'm asking questions. I'm simply pointing out where the rules are amgibuous based on the number of questions I've seen asked.

You state in response to my Rogue and Barbarian example that, "it is only possible for the lightfoot to hide repeatedly as you describe if he and his barbarian friend are at least lightly obscured," and later, "if everyone knows where he is then he is not hidden from anyone." Why? Naturally Stealthy says you only need to be obscured by a creature to attempt to hide. The plain English meaning of the ability directly contradicts your two statements. If you have to have light obscurement, too, then exactly what does Naturally Stealthy do? If you still can't hide when people know your location, why can you hide by ducking around a corner or into a closet? See, we're back at the same questions again.

And keep in mind, many DMs will first encounter questions like these when a player at their table is a Halfling Rogue whose schtick is using Naturally Stealthy as much as possible.

Basically, what you said here is where the questions are coming from:

There is no contradiction unless the DM simultaneously rules that you can be seen clearly and that circumstances are appropriate for hiding nevertheless, in which case the contradiction is not within the rules themselves, but between the rules and the DM's ruling. I agree, however, considering the time I spent puzzling over them until I reached my own conclusions, that they certainly could have been more clear.

On Cover vs Obscurement vs Hiding:

You note that heavy obscurement makes you an unseen attacker, but that's not the only effect of hiding. Hiding makes you an unseen attacker *and* makes your location unknown. Being in heavy obscurement does not do that. Being invisible does not do that. Being in total cover does not do that (and doesn't make you an unseen attacker, either). All those conditions allow a character to take an action and hide to make their location unknown, but unless they do that, the game assumes location is still known.

The point of the example with the Ranger/archer behind total cover isn't to say that he can't take an action to hide. The point isn't to say that what the Rogue is doing is "obviously ridiculous." It's to draw some attention to the inconsistency of total cover and hiding. Because in the real world those two are a lot more consistent than they are in the game.

I'm not saying anything is broken or bad or wrong. I'm saying it's not obvious and not intuitive. And, while it is consistent, it doesn't feel like it is. It feels like someone is ignoring reality, and that stretches suspension of disbelief. That's why people are stopping to ask questions like, "Is this right? It doesn't seem right."

---

You just listed exactly why you leave it up to the DM.

And what if it's the DM who's asking the questions? What if the DM is trying to figure out designer intent of just how powerful stealth is supposed to be and what the designers intended the players to be able to do? If the first rule is, "It works if the DM says it works," then how the heck am I supposed to know what power level steath is designed to have? If the second rule is, "Apply common sense and logic," what happens when the results don't make sense no matter how you rule? There are many abilities in the game which explicitly defy logic. That's the point of those abilities: to be extraordinary (not in the 3e sense of extra-ordinary, but in the plain English sense). When you arrive at an inconsistent result or an unrealistic result, common sense fails, too. Now what? The rules just left you out in the cold.

Yes, I can make a ruling and move on. I've got no problem with that. The point is that people are getting confused and feel like the rules are failing them. So they're asking questions about how things should work from the designer's point of view, because their knowledge of reality is no longer accurately modeled by the game. And every interpretation they make or adjustment they adopt has consequences they discover later that they didn't intend. They're being left with a choice of drastically changing their interpretations of some rules (Naturally Stealthy) in order to preserve the logic of rules as a whole (which ideally are as consistent as natural laws in our world). And if they've got characters with those abilities that they're about to reinterpret, well, you've just significantly impacted your game.

And I agree that stealth is a nightmare to make rules for, and nobody has ever made a good system for it. However, when you have rules like Naturally Stealthy, Darkvision, and invisibility, as well as tangential rules like obscurement and cover, you need to give the DM some guidance.

Otherwise, I think shidaku's post above summarizes things very well.

 

[Celtavian]

That's why I think an article for new DMs on how to adjudicate Stealth would be helpful.

 

[Celtavian]

As simply put in Defcon 1's post stealth it relies on common sense, the problem is that there are two actors. The DM, adjudicating the events and the player acting within the events.

Player A says: I jump behind the big orc and hide!
-Well, reasonably the orc is big burly fellow, some 7 feet tall and half as wide. This seems to make sense to the 3' tall halfling.
DM says: No, you can't hide.
-Well, reasonably the orc is in the middle of combat, several of his foes surround him, the ground is barren.

Now, we have two people who are both making reasonable common sense conclusions. Problematically, only one of these people is coming to a reasonable conclusion based on the RAW. The DM is coming to a conclusion based on the situation at hand in the game. The rules say "yes" the DM says "no". Understandably the game has always worked like this. However, this situation puts the player in a situation where they lack authority over their actions. For players coming from a particular previous edition, this is a massive intrusion into their gameplay. The end result is a situation where the rules are irrelevant.

And therein lies the hitch. A rule that is by nature requires its every attempt at implementation to be adjudicated is a rule with a problem. And by this problem other rules are made irrelevant, leading to further problems.

Player agency is a big deal and this poorly written rule has severe impacts on it. Stealth works as written, if you're willing to give the DM full control over when you can or cannot hide.

But that's my take on why it's a problematic rule, as it restricts player agency and places a burden that should be able to be simply analyzed by the player on the shoulders of the DM. While there are times when this is necessary, the poor wording of stealth makes it mandatory in all situations.

Player agency is an illusion the DM creates in any game with a DM or something similar. There is no way a player a can force a DM to do anything he is unwilling to do. The same applies the other way. Thus DM agency is also dependent on players willing to participate in the DM's illusion.

I have always found this idea of player agency strange. It doesn't really exist, never has, and never will. Even examples I saw posted by MarkCMG I saw as someone else temporarily taking the mantle of DM and hoping everyone else went along with the illusion he was creating. That is a play-style, but not player agency. The whole game is an illusion. The rules are there to help you, but trust amongst the group is what really makes it work. If someone is grousing about player agency, it's because he feels the DM is mucking up his character's actions with heavy handed rulings breaking the illusion of player agency or suspension of disbelief or whatever you want to call it. This can go the other way with a player rule lawyering on a DM forcing him to adjudicate things in a way that breaks the illusion of DM agency.

Player agency is a term used by people that either have a bad DM that makes their character feel disempowered or a player that wants to force a DM to allow some ruling that will allow him to do what he wants regardless of how it affects the game.

 

[Sadrik]

I think the problem is that the stealth rules while they work they are needlessly complex and clumsy.

Player says: am I hidden or not?
DM says: well you did not attempt to hide, so you are not.
Player says: well I am behind total cover.
DM says: but that does not hide you. You might make noise alerting the enemies.
Player says: ok but am I unseen? Because I would like to take advantage of the unseen attacker rule.
DM says: you are unseen now but as soon as you come out of cover you would be seen.
Player says: what about the dim lighting? wouldn't that matter?
DM says: No, I think... it is not clear, it says clearly seen... So I think you would not be clearly seen so yes in this case you would be unseen but not hidden.
Player says: That just sounds silly.
DM says: I guess you are never clearly seen in light obscurement so you can be unseen, but if you want to be hidden you have to be a wood elf or halfling can do it with cover.
Player says: But cover does not grant obscurement.
DM says: I am ruling that cover grants light obscurement for our game. When my goblins are in arrow slits they are going to count as lightly obscured, so they can attempt to hide.

Now this seems like a logical way a group might work through this. Is it correct for that group? Yes. Is it correct for the d&d community as a whole? IDK.

 

[Sunseeker]

Player agency is a term used by people that either have a bad DM that makes their character feel disempowered or a player that wants to force a DM to allow some ruling that will allow him to do what he wants regardless of how it affects the game.

I'm not going to engage in your existentialist argument of if the game is an illusion or not, so lets skip to the tl'dr of your post.

Player agency is a term used by people who understand that the game is a give-and-take. Players have the power to do certain things within the game world. Make checks, interact with people and objects, make attacks, etc. The DM establishes situations wherein the player is able to choose one or more of these actions to come to a resolution. The DM may place certain limitations on player agency, but the DM does not hold the keys to player agency. You can make an attempt to hide in the middle of an open, fairly populated area all you want. The DM can't really stop you from trying, but the DM can say "hey, it's a big open room, everyone can see everyone easily." And give you a really high DC or make you found only moments after you "hide".

That's player agency. The ability to say "I do this." as opposed to Mother May I, "DM, I would like to do X, can I do it?"

Lets frame this in my Orc situation above. Bob is the Halfling, Joe is the half-orc ally. They're fighting a bunch of goblins, the room is simply full of goblins engaging with Bob, Joe and their friends, but otherwise empty.
Bob: I use my movement to get clear of the Goblin and run behind Joe.
-this is a good example of player agency. The Rules say you can use your movement during your turn, so he does.
DM: Okay Bob, that provokes of Goblin #2 *rolls attack* he misses.
Bob: Okay once I'm behind Joe I use my bonus action to hide. *Makes stealth check* rolls 18
-Again, good player agency. The rules tell Bob what he can or cannot do with the skills he possesses. Joe provides enough cover for Bob to attempt to hide behind.
DM response 1: Okay, your stealth is higher than the passive perception of the goblins around you the don't notice you behind Joe's legs.
-This is a good DM response to player agency. The player acted within the rules, the DM reacted within the rules. None of the goblins were actively looking for Bob, so they didn't notice him scamper off behind Joe.
DM response 2: No, you cannot hide, there are too many people here.
-This is a bad response from the DM and a denial of player agency. Using neither the stats of the Goblin, nor what the rules allow Bob to do, the DM has decided that Bob cannot do something. None of the goblins were actively searching for Bob, they were busy fighting, but their mere presence means Bob cannot take an action that the rules were expressly designed to allow him to do.
-Perhaps Goblin #2 was looking for Bob, who ran off, leaving him without someone to attack, in such a case the goblin should be making a perception check to find Bob. Bob should not simply be denied his ability to hide because Goblin #2 was within 30 feet.

Player agency aside, this is exactly why the stealth rules are problematic. Because they require non-rules-based adjudication all the time. This adjudication leads to a reduction of player agency (which is bad) because the players cannot rely on the rules. They must rely on the DM to tell them if they can do something.

 

[Hriston]

The question is whether Goblin #2, or any other goblin, can see Bob clearly as he scampers behind Joe's legs. Bob's player shouldn't expect the goblins to forget where he is if they clearly saw him go back there. That simply isn't being hidden in the sense of having your position unknown.

 

[cloa513]

Isn't these stealth common sense rules too simulationist for a game that isn't simulationist? DnD Next does not have a sense of front, back and sides for players and monsters does it so why are the rules saying decide yourself what is sensible?

 

[Sunseeker]

The question is whether Goblin #2, or any other goblin, can see Bob clearly as he scampers behind Joe's legs. Bob's player shouldn't expect the goblins to forget where he is if they clearly saw him go back there. That simply isn't being hidden in the sense of having your position unknown.

Passive perception. That's exactly what the stat was invented for. Can the Goblin see Bob after he hides? Sure they may know the general direction he went or where they last saw him, but that doesn't mean they know his location, provided Bob beat their passive perception. To attempt to locate him they would have to take time away from fighting and go searching for him.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Here's the revised text from the Basic Rules, p60:



I think, in context, the errata are somewhat more clear in their intent. There is no contradiction unless the DM simultaneously rules that you can be seen clearly and that circumstances are appropriate for hiding nevertheless, in which case the contradiction is not within the rules themselves, but between the rules and the DM's ruling. I agree, however, considering the time I spent puzzling over them until I reached my own conclusions, that they certainly could have been more clear.

Ah I didn't realize they'd updated the Basic Rules. That's crystal clear for me: You ask the DM if you can attempt to hide. Then take it from there. And I love it. They should have just said that in the first place.

 

[PnPgamer]

Yet another stealth thread?! Really?!