This scenario is most certainly not a "specific circumstance". The orcs are using stealth from an advantageous position to avoid notice from those watching for danger and won't move until the quarry is close. Isn't that how an ambush works?
It works, with the following limitation: whether such a site for a perfect ambush exists or not, and how efficients the orcs are at it are dependent on ONLY one thing, what the DM provides, what he chooses to put in front of the adventurers.
And because the DM is choosing, if the DM chooses all the time to have perfect ambushes that the characters have no way to detect in advance, for me it's not only boring, but it's also not fair to the players, not taking into account what they might do. In short, not my preferred style of gaming.
The very act of moving from their hiding spot determines whether the orcs get the jump on party who is traveling down the road. Not done stealthily enough and some portion of the party is going to be ready for it.
That is the last minute detection, and as you've noticed, I'm very much in favour of that and not gimping the players on this segment of play. But what I'm also saying is that the hiding spot might not be perfect, or the use of the hiding spot might not be perfect because of the limitations of the creature. An Otyugh might be completely out of sight, but still betrayed by his awful smell, etc.
It seems to me that you want to exclude this typical ambush example because it perhaps shows the flaw in your interpretation of the traveling/hidden threat/surprise rule intersection.
First, there is no flaw that you have demonstrated, and second no, I'm doing it exactly for the reasons that I indicate in the game. I'm not going to ask if YOU are discussing in good faith here, so can we please avoid this kind of insulting innuendo ?
If I understand your typical ruling, most of the time you want Stealth to be rolled twice by any hidden enemies: once to avoid notice by those "watching for danger" when they are within X distance and then once more when combat is about to start to determine surprise (if those "watching for danger" did not notice them initially).
No, and this just shows that you have not understood how stealth works. In this, I totally support and apply the RAW: "
Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."
This means that I don't roll twice. I roll once, and as long as the ambushers are not discovered, the same roll applies. Moreover, since the "DC" is the passive, it does not change, so if they have passed the test, the only thing that might change the result is a change in the conditions (for example, a PC creates a light, removing the disadvantage that he had on spotting enemies, etc.).
This is very clearly explained in the podcast: "They keep that result whatever the total is from that from that check, they keep it until someone discovers them or they decide there if they're going to stop hiding. So this is relevant, particularly in combat, as one of the actions that you can take in combat on your turn is to hide. I mean, you need to spend your whole action doing it. And. This rule means if, let's say, you want to hide for multiple rounds, you don't keep making dexterity. Still checks round after round, you just make it once. You basically. What this means is you only have to spend 1 action trying to hide and then once you've done it, you keep whatever that result was until. You're no longer hidden, and again, that's either because you you've run out of hiding or you know you made a loud noise or someone discovered you as soon as as soon as that happens, even one person discovers you. Basically. That nullifies whatever you rolled, and if you want to hide again, you're going to have to make another check. And what that means in combat, that means you're going to have to spend your action doing it again. What if, for example, though, you hide around the corner of a hallway from someone who's in an enemy that's in the hallway, get that you put you so you're hiding around the corner. You're still hidden. But you decide to move and we won't go into a room as well. Do you still use the initial spell check or do you have to roll again when you're moving? You do not have to roll again. Interesting, yeah you the main. The main thing you have to do too once. Once you have made your check the main thing you have to do to remain hidden is make sure people can't see you clearly. And make sure you're not making a bunch of noise, and the number that you get from your check really determines how well are you succeeding at those things. How well are you succeeding at staying out of sight and staying quiet? And that's ultimately what hiding means, hiding if you're hidden the way the rules define it, it means you're both. Not noticed visually in it and you're not heard people people can't hear you. You're still obviously making a little bit of noise. Unless you're magically completely silenced. Yeah, you might even be technically visible, but let's say you're creeping through some fog. You might be creeping just well enough. And being just quiet enough that people don't notice you now is that rule to speed up play as far as so not making sure you have rules tell check every round or yeah and we in general don't don't want people to have to make a bunch of roles for really what is a single process."
For me, it's a fundamental rule, and a very, very good one. It speeds up play considerably because you don't have to roll again, and because stealth is so often pitted against passive, you knwo the results in advance, no need to roll again.
It's my position that making the orcs roll twice for stealth is one time too many according to the rules - among other issues, rolling twice has the consequence of nerfing surprise and elevating perception. You argue that this is "more heroic" - but do you apply the same mechanics to the enemies? That would also make the perception of enemies more powerful if the PCs are trying to be stealthy and, therefore, make it harder for the PCs to surprise enemies. Right?
Absolutely not right, the RAW has a very different view on the subject, one that I suggest you think of in more detail, and following it just takes care of that suspicion that you might have.
Rather than adding "specific circumstance" as an exception to how you read the travelling/hidden threat/surprise rules, doesn't it make sense that there is always just ONE check in a surprise scenario?
As I've explained, in the end, there is only ONE roll done for stealth. It's just that it might be used at different times, with some characters ahead of the ambush if they are taking some precautions, and in any case at surprise time for all characters, but note that if the characters looking for danger failed at the time, they will fail exactly the same at surprise time because neither the roll nor their passive has changed, in general. And if the circumstances HAVE changed, then it's normal to take them into account, but it's still not a new roll, it's just that the stealth or the PP might get a +/-5 dur to adv/dis or an auto fail/success.
Any creature is welcome to try to hide regardless of their stealth bonus. Just as any PC is welcome to try to hide regardless of theirs. Doing something successfully in D&D can sometimes be luck and sometimes be skill and often is a bit of both.
That has been exactly my position with
@iserith, some creatures are gifted for stealth and others not, but unless there are specific roleplaying circumstances that preclude stealth, most creatures, even non-intelligent ones, will try to achieve surprise by stealth.
The "all the time" part here does resonate with me. Not every creature or group of creatures should be trying to ambush the party. Not every encounter involves hidden threats. Certainly mixing it up is good practice. I don't know about "unfair" though. It's the DM's job to create challenges for the player and their PCs. "Annoying" might be a better word. An entire campaign of enemies trying to ambush the PCs would get old.
OK for "annoying", if you think it's more appropriate. I would still use "unfair" since it's really the DM tweaking the game so that PCs cannot succeed at some tasks, which is really not my conception of the game...
