D&D 5E A Reliable Talent for Expert Stealth

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

Click to expand...

On Saturday my PC group had a 19th level Rogue tried to shoot then hide vs an ancient blue dragon - Passive Perception 27 ...nope. +17 stealth = RT 27 vs PP 27; if you are trying to hide then on a tie situation remains unchanged.

Also, you can normally only hide if you have cover.

I have realized that many DMs go bonkers about one character being "immune" to damage.

But, in reality that is no problem.

My friend was a DM while I played Wood elf rogue(assassin)/ranger(gloomstalker), the perfect ambusher. And while he was pissed at my one sneak attack per round and not getting any damage on me, friends H-orc barbarian with PAM was destroying everything left and right.

in 5 party team, as some mentioned if rogue does not take any damage, all other characters take +25% more damage on average.

doctorbadwolf said:

What do you think “, even as a general default,” means?

Do you understand the difference between a clarifying phrase and an independent statement?

It seriously isn't a complicated sentence, but I’ll go ahead and rephrase it for you.

If a DM rules that the general default is not that breaking line of sight is enough to allow an attempt to hide, they are houseruling.

The rules state that you can hide if you break line of sight. It also says that the DM can countermand that if they think it’s appropriate. (note how this statement does not mean that the default is anything other than “you can hide if they can’t see you”, and in fact acknowledges that default as an implied statement within the explicit statement)

these two statements essentially restate each other, adding a small note of clarification on the particulars of the “process” involved in ruling on stealth.


In case there is still, somehow, confusion, I have not stated that “ruling that stealth isn’t possible in a given moment is a house rule”. If you got here and think I have, you need to reread my statements. I have stated that establishing a default that disallows stealth by simply breaking line of sight is a houserule. It changes the starting point from which stealth is determined.

Click to expand...

The phrase “unless the DM says otherwise” is literally in the rule. How is it a house rule when the DM says otherwise when the rule itself literally says the DM can say otherwise?

tglassy said:

The phrase “unless the DM says otherwise” is literally in the rule. How is it a house rule when the DM says otherwise when the rule itself literally says the DM can say otherwise?

Click to expand...

Because it isn't a house rule, it's that actual literal RAW.

doctorbadwolf said:

What do you think “, even as a general default,” means?

Do you understand the difference between a clarifying phrase and an independent statement?

It seriously isn't a complicated sentence, but I’ll go ahead and rephrase it for you.

If a DM rules that the general default is not that breaking line of sight is enough to allow an attempt to hide, they are houseruling.

The rules state that you can hide if you break line of sight. It also says that the DM can countermand that if they think it’s appropriate. (note how this statement does not mean that the default is anything other than “you can hide if they can’t see you”, and in fact acknowledges that default as an implied statement within the explicit statement)

these two statements essentially restate each other, adding a small note of clarification on the particulars of the “process” involved in ruling on stealth.


In case there is still, somehow, confusion, I have not stated that “ruling that stealth isn’t possible in a given moment is a house rule”. If you got here and think I have, you need to reread my statements. I have stated that establishing a default that disallows stealth by simply breaking line of sight is a houserule. It changes the starting point from which stealth is determined.

Click to expand...

You wrote something silly and contradictory. You are wrong on what the rules say about this. You could argue the DM has made a "ruling", but not that it is a "house rule".

Just own it and quit trying to weasel your way out of what you wrote.

DMZ2112 said:

Oh my gods, six pages. Thank you all for taking the time to respond.



You are not wrong, but this is not in line with your original proposal. You said that high-level rogues should have the chance to sneak when no one else could. I agree with that idea, but that is not what this is. This is a high-level rogue having a chance to be detected when anyone else would be detected as a matter of course. To actually get to the point where such a rogue feels challenged, the monster would require a truly ridiculous bonus to their roll, well in excess of +10.



I hope I didn't shut you down, Ovinomancer; I have a tendency to speak in absolutes that is easily interpreted as a lack of interest in discussion. I'm not certain, I just project confidence.



Good. Yes. That is actually more helpful than it seems. Forest for the trees, and all that.



Is that not this thread?



I will cop to the fact that my issue is far more combat-focused than I thought when I wrote the post. I am much less concerned with someone being Solid Snake /in general/ than I am with someone being Solid Snake /during their initiative phase/. And it's not that the rogue often succeeds at hiding in adverse conditions -- that would not be a problem -- it's that they /always/ succeed, which I see as being just as little fun as never succeeding. That might be an exaggeration, but I do believe that it is uncertainty that drives entertainment in tabletop roleplaying, to a large degree.

What I have taken to doing is assigning each encounter a 'clutter value,' which I report to rogue players at the beginning of the encounter. The clutter value is an abstraction of how much junk is lying around in the encounter area that the rogue can use for cover. It directly translates to the number of times the rogue can hide before the enemy starts getting advantage on their Perception checks because the rogue is reusing hiding spots.

This worked fine until Reliable Talent. After Reliable Talent the enemy can roll for advantage until they are blue in the face and they still won't ever see the rogue. It's irrelevant.

I accept as logically valid the argument that this is fine. Logically valid or not, I do worry that it is less fun to succeed all the time than it is to have even a 5% failure chance.



That's a great idea. I will remember that.



Eloquently said.



Yeah... these two things are in no way linked. I am a game designer. Game designers are full of s**t.



Minimum. And that minimum value is still out of range for 90% of the Monster Manual.



You are entitled to your opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everyone I've discussed this with, that is not how D&D5 was designed. The rogue class depends on sneak attack every round, with exceptions being the rarity.

Click to expand...

"You are entitled to your opinion, but in the opinion of nearly everyone I've discussed this with, that is not how D&D5 was designed. The rogue class depends on sneak attack every round, with exceptions being the rarity."

Uhhh... so see, there you are kinda linking two things only tangentially related.

The rogues in my games played and ran got sneaks pretty much unless they missed.

They were rarely from hiding in combat.
It's easy to qualify for sneak without hiding in a team game.

But hey

tglassy said:

The phrase “unless the DM says otherwise” is literally in the rule. How is it a house rule when the DM says otherwise when the rule itself literally says the DM can say otherwise?

Click to expand...

“Unless the DM says otherwise” has a specific default. I don’t know how else to make this clear.

If you change the start point from “clear line of sight determines stealth opportunity” to “breaking line of sight is never enough”, you’ve changed the rule. The default assumption, from which DM adjudication is then made, is a rule. Changing it is a house rule.

The default assumption is that you must BOTH break the line of sight AND get the DM’s permission for it to work. JUST breaking the line of sight is not and never has been the default, as the default also requires that the DM decide that the circumstances allow for hiding. It would be perfectly, in the rules, for the DM to say that once you have been seen in combat, you can no longer hide, because people are alerted to your presence. It is also completely, perfectly in the rules for a DM to say “all you need to do is swish your coat in front of the bad guy and drop it, diving to the side” and let you hide, since you technically “broke the line of sight”. It is not a “house rule” to do what the rule says.

doctorbadwolf said:

What do you think “, even as a general default,” means?

Do you understand the difference between a clarifying phrase and an independent statement?

It seriously isn't a complicated sentence, but I’ll go ahead and rephrase it for you.

If a DM rules that the general default is not that breaking line of sight is enough to allow an attempt to hide, they are houseruling.

The rules state that you can hide if you break line of sight. It also says that the DM can countermand that if they think it’s appropriate. (note how this statement does not mean that the default is anything other than “you can hide if they can’t see you”, and in fact acknowledges that default as an implied statement within the explicit statement).

Click to expand...

No, you're reading it wrong. There are three RAW preconditions for Hiding.

1) Break LOS sufficiently (so you can no longer be ''seen clearly'').
2) DM agrees that the circumstances (other than breaking LOS) are sufficient to enable hiding.
3) Succeed in Stealth check via the Hide action opposed by an relevant opponents Passive Perception score.

The rules already cover breaking LOS. You do that at Step 1. The 'circumstances' to be taken into account by the DM to decide if you can/ cannot attempt to hide are circumstances OTHER than simply breaking LOS.

For example, you're being closely observed as you move to your hiding spot and/or and your hiding spot is blindingly obvious.

Following the above RAW flowchart:

1) Break LOS: You move to a lone pillar in the middle of an empty room in full view of the enemy as he watches you closely slinking over to the pillar. You duck behind the pillar and break LOS. Check.
2) DM adjudication: The DM rules that in this circumstance (under close observation, and your hiding spot is blindingly obvious) you cannot attempt to Hide (or more correctly, you can - your check just auto fails).
3) Stealth Check: You take the Hide action anyway. Your Stealth check auto fails.

That is RAW.

Simply 'breaking LOS' is not (and has never been) the only step in hiding from someone. The DM also needs to agree that it's possible for you to Hide from your target, given the circumstances of your attempt.

Example 1:

You're on the run from some Ogres. You enter a room with 3 exits and a large chest. The Ogres are in a nearby room and cant see you. You enter the chest, close the lid (LOS broken, step 1 met) and the DM agrees that the circumstances enable an attempt to Hide. You make your Stealth check and if successful, the Ogres run into the room, and have no idea you're there.

Example 2:

You're on the run from some Ogres. You enter a room with 3 exits and a large chest. The Ogres are in the same room as you and are watching you closely. You enter the chest, close the lid (LOS broken, step 1 met) and the DM rules that the circumstances (you're being watched closely by the Ogres as you climb into the chest) do not enable an attempt to Hide. Your Stealth check is automatically unsuccessful, the Ogres open the chest and beat you to a bloody pulp.

Example 3:

You're on the run from some Ogres. You enter a room with 3 exits and a large chest. The Ogres are watching you closely. You enter the chest, close the lid (LOS broken, step 1 met) and then (peering through the keyhole) Dimension door to one of the nearby hallways and duck behind a wall. The DM agrees that these circumstances enable an attempt to Hide. You make your Stealth check and if successful, the Ogres open the chest, and a confused look comes over their face, when you're not in there.

Can you see the difference in these three examples? See how the (DM step) is one of common sense?

honestly I’m disinterested in this thread after having to explain the same sentence 6 times, but I do appreciate the thoroughness of your response. Thanks for actually reading what I wrote and responding to it accordingly, though!