D&D 5E Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???

As others have said, I would recommend your DM consider using the passive stealth check for the PC. This allows the DM to get an idea as to how stealthy your character is normally. If something would change that would cause the characters stealth to potentially change then a roll is most likely needed. What could change that would affect a repeatable stealth roll? I would suggest the following: rain, dense & dry brush, very soft ground or deep mud, dense loose gravel, fog, etc. This is a list of terrain or environmental conditions one would find outside.

Stealth inside is a different matter in my mind. Depending on the materials in the structure the sound from walking may echo through a hallway or may be stopped by sound absorbing materials (i.e. curtains). In addition, the interior of structures have a lot of variation in visibility. The lighting may be bright, dim, or dark. The room may have columns and walls lined with mirrors or polished stone or the walls may be wood or a similar material that does a poor job of reflecting light. The variation from room to room may be enough for a new roll needed in each room. However, in my opinion, if a character has spent enough time in a particular room such that the stealth check becomes repeatable then I would use the passive stealth score.

Some additional things your DM mind find useful regarding the passive stealth score. If the character has advantage on the roll or disadvantage on the roll, then it is a modifier of +5 or -5 respectively. I believe the DM may also choose a number modifier other than that. For example, a passive stealth across dense gravel may be the passive score -2. A passive stealth through dense fog near a wharf may be the passive score +3.

In the end though, it's up to your DM to decide if a roll is necessary. I tend to like less rolls and use passive scores. Other on this thread tend to like more rolls.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I rather think that the way you run is has slightly more going on, as in, the player declares sneaking, you determine the uncertainty and ask for a roll or not, but, either way, you narrate the results conclusively. As in, "I sneak", you don't ask for a roll, the result is 'You creep across the room and do whatever it is you want to, no one attacks and you see no one," or "you creep across the room, but an Orc sees you and cries out! Roll initiative!" And, at that point, I'm perfectly fine with the way you run it. But not everyone does it this way, they include intermediate steps. I've mostly stopped the intermediate things, preferring to get to a meaningful action with consequences, but I have previously run in other circumstances, where a declaration of sneaking can be done and resolved without immediate consequence. If your style of running is to not have stakes on a roll, as in sneaking and succeeding doesn't result in a completed action, just an intermediate point, then asking for random rolls is useful as it encourages more player involvement in the scene.

I think it's those "intermediate steps" that are the cause of the issue and the techniques the follow are an attempt at a solution. Unless those intermediate steps are core to some kind of preferred play experience - and, in my experience, they are habit more than anything else - my suggestion to DMs is that they stop doing that to prevent needing to do all the "anti-metagaming" measures downstream.
 

I think it's those "intermediate steps" that are the cause of the issue and the techniques the follow are an attempt at a solution. Unless those intermediate steps are core to some kind of preferred play experience - and, in my experience, they are habit more than anything else - my suggestion to DMs is that they stop doing that to prevent needing to do all the "anti-metagaming" measures downstream.

Like having 4 or 25 simple steps to combat metagaming. 1st, pre-roll about 16-78 d20s and record the results. Then, if the moon is waxing gibbous, and the DM is facing south, ask the player to pick a card, any card, but don't show the results to anyone. Now, if the card is red, but the moon is WANING, then use the 3rd roll of your pre-rolled rolls. Flip the card. If it's face down after the flip you succeed but only partially. Then everyone puts their heads down and their thumbs up. Wait, what were we resolving again?


-Brad
 

Unless that is you agreeing with me that only rolling when it actually matters doesn't negatively affect game-play, but does save time because it doesn't involve prompting for, making, and reporting as many die rolls, I'm entirely lost as to the relevance of your question.

No, it's pointing out that your scenarios equally support both arguments. Why that would me I should agree with you, now, I'm not sure.
 

I love having random unnecessary rolls to keep players on their toes. Sets the mood. :devil:

Metagaming players gunna metagame!

If I think its getting out of hand I can usually combat that with a knowing stare and a "really?" If the player still wants to proceed they'll come up with some reasoning... and I'll reply a hesitant "okaaaay...", and let them continue. Players quickly learn that messing with the game this way is like tempting fate. DM holds all the cards and you've not seen them all yet.
 

It's assumptions like those that are causing the metagame issues you're complaining about.

You've created the problem that the random useless checks are intended to solve. And then said that others should employ your solution because of your problem.

No, thank you anyway.


-Brad

I find this a bit myopic. There are different playstyles out there, and this isn't a problem created in some of them. You (and @iserth, and me, for that matter) prefer a playstyle where the rolls always move things forward. You would not ask for a stealth check where a success doesn't do anything, for instance, but only when the success moves the game forward. As such, you don't ask for stealth unless it's part of a larger goal. You don't sneak as your goal, you try to get somewhere unnoticed, which, if uncertain, calls for a sneak check. I prefer this as well, and strive to create this in my games -- not asking for rolls unless there are stakes on both sides.

But there's a whole wealth of other, more simulationist, playstyles out there that don't work to frame everything in such a narrative way. For them, sneaking is an objective in and of itself. You may not prefer it, but that's neither here nor there. For those players and DMs, minimizing the information gained from the mechanical engine is a play goal, and random checks are an effective method of obfuscating information from the mechanics engine. I find passive perception does this as well, but everyone gets to pick for themselves.

So, labelling something that works as 'causing it's own problems' for what's essentially a different playstyle than yours isn't something I can agree with, even as I run my games in much the way you do.
 

I find this a bit myopic. There are different playstyles out there, and this isn't a problem created in some of them. You (and @iserth, and me, for that matter) prefer a playstyle where the rolls always move things forward. You would not ask for a stealth check where a success doesn't do anything, for instance, but only when the success moves the game forward. As such, you don't ask for stealth unless it's part of a larger goal. You don't sneak as your goal, you try to get somewhere unnoticed, which, if uncertain, calls for a sneak check. I prefer this as well, and strive to create this in my games -- not asking for rolls unless there are stakes on both sides.

But there's a whole wealth of other, more simulationist, playstyles out there that don't work to frame everything in such a narrative way. For them, sneaking is an objective in and of itself. You may not prefer it, but that's neither here nor there. For those players and DMs, minimizing the information gained from the mechanical engine is a play goal, and random checks are an effective method of obfuscating information from the mechanics engine. I find passive perception does this as well, but everyone gets to pick for themselves.

So, labelling something that works as 'causing it's own problems' for what's essentially a different playstyle than yours isn't something I can agree with, even as I run my games in much the way you do.

I'm not asking you to agree.

My position is that the OP's DM is well within their rights as DM to make a ruling but that the ruling is the wrong one and that I would have ruled differently.

"B-b-but PlayStyle!" is a counter-argument that sidesteps any ability to make a value judgment or offer advice or even a different perspective.

"You can't say that you like doing it your way! Think of the simulationists!!" No, thanks, they can offer their own POV just fine.

The random die roll thing is a weird workaround to this phenomenon that exists where DMs and players have disparate expectations on checks and resolutions. It's a hot-fix. And you only need a hot-fix when there's an immediate problem. Go fix the problem and you won't need the hot fix anymore.

OR just stick with your hot fix. That's fine too, obviously. As to whether anyone else Should Use your hot-fix, that's for them to decide as fits their needs. Maybe they're happier without it.


-Brad
 

I'm not asking you to agree.

My position is that the OP's DM is well within their rights as DM to make a ruling but that the ruling is the wrong one and that I would have ruled differently.

"B-b-but PlayStyle!" is a counter-argument that sidesteps any ability to make a value judgment or offer advice or even a different perspective.

"You can't say that you like doing it your way! Think of the simulationists!!" No, thanks, they can offer their own POV just fine.

The random die roll thing is a weird workaround to this phenomenon that exists where DMs and players have disparate expectations on checks and resolutions. It's a hot-fix. And you only need a hot-fix when there's an immediate problem. Go fix the problem and you won't need the hot fix anymore.

OR just stick with your hot fix. That's fine too, obviously. As to whether anyone else Should Use your hot-fix, that's for them to decide as fits their needs. Maybe they're happier without it.


-Brad

Well and good, but your solution to the 'problem' that the extra rolls are a 'hot fix' for is "change your playstyle to mine."
 



Remove ads

Top