D&D 5E A Reliable Talent for Expert Stealth

iserith · Jul 9, 2019

Xeviat said:
I actually find it to be bad design that the social skills aren't "mind control". We accept a saving throw against a mind control spell, but we won't accept an insight check against a deception or persuasion check?

Magic is the difference.

Xeviat said:
I actually had this discussion with my players a while back, and they agreed to play along with NPC social skills checks. We only used it a little (because one of the players was playing a court advisor wizard), but it did create some fun situations where the players out of character had good reason to suspect one of the advisors, but the advisor was so charming that they were convinced to back off for the time being. They then had to pursue different avenues.

House rules are fine, but the issue in this situation for me is that the players always determine how their characters think and what they do and say. That means there is never uncertainty as to the outcome of the NPC's attempt to persuade and thus no ability check. The outcome is whatever the player says it is.

Xeviat said:
You wouldn't tell the Enchanter, no I don't have to roll a will save for this NPC because reasons, would you?

I might, in some circumstances.

77IM · Jul 9, 2019

iserith said:
House rules are fine, but the issue in this situation for me is that the players always determine how their characters think and what they do and say. That means there is never uncertainty as to the outcome of the NPC's attempt to persuade and thus no ability check.

What if there IS uncertainty, on the part of the player, as to what their character thinks and does and says?

In that situation, shouldn't the DM call for an ability check of some sort? It might be analogous to knowledge checks:
"I try to recall the lore about grungs..." = roll Intelligence (History or Nature) against a static DC
"I struggle with whether or not to take the grung's offer..." = roll Wisdom (Insight) against the grung's Charisma check

This is certainly how I run NPCs when I DM. If I'm certain what the NPC is going to do, then the PCs can't make a Charisma check to determine the outcome (this is how I interpret "Charisma is not mind control"). It's only when I'm uncertain what this particular NPC is going to do that I allow the check.

Why can't players be allowed to enjoy the same uncertainty as DMs, and let the dice decide?

iserith · Jul 9, 2019

77IM said:
What if there IS uncertainty, on the part of the player, as to what their character thinks and does and says?

In that situation, shouldn't the DM call for an ability check of some sort? It might be analogous to knowledge checks:
"I try to recall the lore about grungs..." = roll Intelligence (History or Nature) against a static DC
"I struggle with whether or not to take the grung's offer..." = roll Wisdom (Insight) against the grung's Charisma check

This is certainly how I run NPCs when I DM. If I'm certain what the NPC is going to do, then the PCs can't make a Charisma check to determine the outcome (this is how I interpret "Charisma is not mind control"). It's only when I'm uncertain what this particular NPC is going to do that I allow the check.

Why can't players be allowed to enjoy the same uncertainty as DMs, and let the dice decide?

Like I said, house rules are fine. Personally, I don't actually care how the player makes the decision in the face of the NPC's attempt to persuade (to continue with that example), but I'm not calling for a roll here as DM. That breaks the rule of players determining what their characters do. The player is free to roll a die to figure out what the character does if he or she wants. Or flip a coin. Or whatever. But leave me out of it.

Fenris-77 · Jul 9, 2019

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - if you think the social interaction rules in the DMG are fine and sufficient we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're going to put it down to issues of spotlight management and DM control, which, I'll admit, I find just a wee bit insulting given that you have no idea who I am or how I run my table, but again, fine, that's something else I will put down to differences in style and taste.

I have reasonable-to-good game design skills, and a more than passing familiarity with both 5E and other systems. The 5E SIP rules are under-written for what I want, and cause balance issues for the party in the kind of game I want to run. That's more in the way of fact than opinion. It's only fact for my game of course, not the system in general, nor anyone else's game necessarily. That said, if anyone else wants to suggest that it's my lack of rules knowledge or lack of table control that are the problem, feel free to message me, but's let not clutter up the thread with it.

iserith · Jul 9, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
@iserith - if you think the social interaction rules in the DMG are fine and sufficient we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're going to put it down to issues of spotlight management and DM control, which, I'll admit, I find just a wee bit insulting given that you have no idea who I am or how I run my table, but again, fine, that's something else I will put down to differences in style and taste.

I have reasonable-to-good game design skills, and a more than passing familiarity with both 5E and other systems. The 5E SIP rules are under-written for what I want, and cause balance issues for the party in the kind of game I want to run. That's more in the way of fact than opinion. It's only fact for my game of course, not the system in general, nor anyone else's game necessarily. That said, if anyone else wants to suggest that it's my lack of rules knowledge or lack of table control that are the problem, feel free to message me, but's let not clutter up the thread with it.

No insult is intended. Certain of your specific objections seem rooted in issues of spotlight management and other issues that are not the fault of the game. I make no judgment as to what you should or shouldn't do in your own game, only that some of your objections are easily solved without modifying the rules.

Fenris-77 · Jul 9, 2019

iserith said:
No insult is intended. Certain of your specific objections seem rooted in issues of spotlight management and other issues that are not the fault of the game. I make no judgment as to what you should or shouldn't do in your own game, only that some of your objections are easily solved without modifying the rules.

Ok, cool. Lets call it some but not all of my problems then. That leaves us broadly on the same page and no one is upset. I can live with that.

tglassy · Jul 9, 2019

Didn’t read this all.

Do you try to nerf the Paladin’s damage output when they use 2 Divine Smites after getting two Crits (Not impossible, my brothers Paladin has done it) in the same round against a fiend? That’s 40d8’s+10 if using a long sword. Anywhere from 50-250 damage.

Do you nerf the Assassin’s double critical, which can do the same amount of damage as the Paladin in one hit as long as it attacks first in a surprise round?

Do you nerf the Moon Druid who can Wild Shape every round as a bonus action and still cast spells?

Do you nerf the Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard/Arcane Cleric for getting access to Wish and only use it to cast ANY 8th lvl spell in the game?

Do you nerf the Fighter who gets 4 attacks with a +11 Attack at least, more with magic weapons, which can apply a magical weapon’s ability 4 times?

Higher lvl characters get amazing abilities, why is it that DMs feel they need to nerf skill checks? If they were a magic user, they could just cast any number of spells rather than hiding with an ungodly stealth check. Give them better challenges and let them shine at what they’re good at.

JiffyPopTart · Jul 10, 2019

tglassy said:
Didn’t read this all.

Do you nerf the Fighter who gets 4 attacks with a +11 Attack at least, more with magic weapons, which can apply a magical weapon’s ability 4 times?

I'd flip your question back at you. Do you think it would be out-of-line-powerful if a 9th level fighter gained the ability to "treat every attack roll less than a 10 as a 10?" or if sorcerers gained a power that said "Treat opponents saving throw rolls of 10+ as if they rolled a 9 instead"?

If you had read the entire thread...the OP isn't complaining about high level rogues being too sneaky....the OP is saying that the mechanic of EXPERTISE allows character to break the BOUNDED ACCURACY design principle by reliably getting 20+ skill checks without expending some sort of resource to do so. There is a difference between saying high level characters can do some crazy things and saying high level characters can never fail at a basic class ability regardless of who they use it against.

DS

jgsugden · Jul 10, 2019

Folks, the math is not hard. It is basic addition an subtraction. It was obvious to the designers that there a high level rogue with expertise would have a minimum check above 25...

It is an intentional design decision.

It is NOT a problem. It is not something you need to battle. It is one of the things that makes rogues (and bards) shine. It is one of the things that makes them special. They just win at their skills....

Flamestrike · Jul 10, 2019

DMZ2112 said:
I'm curious to hear from other D&D5 dungeon masters how you challenge high-level rogues in terms of going about undetected.

Shorthand: With Reliable Talent and Expertise, an 11th level rogue can easily have a Stealth check result range of 23-33, which is far beyond the capacity of any passive Perception in the Monster Manual and really beyond the capacity of most Perception checks -- if the dungeon master permits a roll -- representing a 'nearly impossible' DC /on average/.

To be clear, /negating/ this advantage would be easy. Denying the rogue a place to hide is not a solution. I'm specifically interested in hearing about scenarios where palatable, credible circumstances were engineered to challenge a rogue with a Stealth check result in the high 20s.

I havent had an issue with it.

Even presuming a Dex 20/ Expertise/ +4 Prof Rogue, you're looking at DC 23.

They still need something to Hide behind (at this Level, most creatures have darkvision, tremorsense, truesight etc) AND the DM has to agree that the circumstances are appropriate for Hiding.

Example (Combat scenario):

DM: OK Rogue, you did 55 damage to the Balor. It screams in rage and stares right at you, intent on cutting you to ribbons! Do you want to do anything with your Bonus action?
Player: I move to the nearby pillar, and then I'll Hide behind it as a Bonus action using my Cunning action class feature.
DM: The Balor is watching you pretty closely. Your attempt fails/ You cant hide there.

That's a bit of an outlier (normally in the chaos of combat, hiding is totally appropriate as long as a creature isnt watching you closely... and watching you closely is hard to do when your Barbarian friend is trying to smash it's face in with an axe) but it's an important rule to remember.

'Hiding' isnt just button mashing in 5E. It requires a little bit of set up and/or context to be even possible in the first place.