D&D (2024) Current Stealth Rule Actually Works As Is. If Moving Out of Cover After Hiding Makes Enemies Immediately "Finds You", Hide Would Be Totally UNUSABLE.

[Mistwell]

I’m not clear what point you’re trying to express here.

It was a joke? Agreeing with you in a funny way by saying the person who skipped the third paragraph of your post was skipping your most persuasive and informative argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

It was a joke? Agreeing with you in a funny way by saying the person who skipped the third paragraph of your post was skipping your most persuasive and informative argument.

Ah, ok. Sorry to ruin the joke by asking you to explain it then, I was just struggling to parse it.

 

[Maxperson]

So the rogue rolls bad on the first stealth check when they're hiding in an empty room to prepare, and now they go "welp, guess I can't hide"?

No. The rogue hides on the first check and has no idea that he rolled badly, so he says, "Awesome! I'm hidden!"

 

[Maxperson]

but rogues can and often "hide" so they can get advantage or move around and such. Stealth is functionly impossible once your not being the wall or in the bushes if we go with this rai.
Thats the enormous problem with stealth rules, they are broken and require the dm to pick and choose how they work.

Functionally nearly impossible in combat, which is how it currently works in 5e. Outside of combat stealth and hiding work differently.

This is the 5e rule.

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen."

Outside of combat creatures aren't as alert, so stealth is much easier.

The 5.5e rules are borked, but making it hard to hide/sneak in combat isn't breaking stealth.

 

[Li Shenron]

Hiding
Adventurers and monsters often hide, whether to spy on one another, speak past a guardian, or set an ambush. The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, you take the Hide action.

This is more or less the only "rule" I have ever needed.

All the rest sounds just like a huge waste of time. They can't even establish solid definitions to base rules upon, because different people have different things in mind when talking about "heavily obscured" or "three-quarter cover". They aren't even objective conditions, so many are the possible variants within. Any attempt at a simulation of reality is a recipe for frustration and little benefit.

 

[ezo]

So, "Passive" Perception now actually has a "passive" component...

Passive Perception

Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature's general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determing whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check.

A creature's Passive Perception equals 10 plus the creature's Wisdom (Perception) check bonus. If the creature has Advantage on such checks, increase the score by 5. If the creature has Disadvantage on them, decrease the score by 5. For example, a level 1 character with a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception has a Passive Perception of 14 (10+2+2). If that character has Advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks, the score becomes 19.

This is horrible.

The terminology before was the horrible part. It was a routine or hidden check mechanic--perfectly fine, just a bad name--should have been "Repeated or Secret checks" or something.

Now, the name is appropriate, but the mechanic sucks: IT SHOULD NOT BE 10 + modifiers!

Using 10 for base is just wrong IMO. 10 is the "average" for making many checks (the routine use) or the default if you are trying but the DM wants it secret (another prior use).

If you aren't actively trying to do it (the current more accurate use of "passive"), it should be base 5.

With a base 10, 45% of the time the PC does worse WHEN TRYING to notice something than when they simply happen to notice it without conscisouly trying.

Something like Reliable Talent gives a base 10, for example, should demonstrate how using 10 for passive perception is simply wrong.

 

[Pauln6]

So, "Passive" Perception now actually has a "passive" component...



This is horrible.

The terminology before was the horrible part. It was a routine or hidden check mechanic--perfectly fine, just a bad name--should have been "Repeated or Secret checks" or something.

Now, the name is appropriate, but the mechanic sucks: IT SHOULD NOT BE 10 + modifiers!

Using 10 for base is just wrong IMO. 10 is the "average" for making many checks (the routine use) or the default if you are trying but the DM wants it secret (another prior use).

If you aren't actively trying to do it (the current more accurate use of "passive"), it should be base 5.

With a base 10, 45% of the time the PC does worse WHEN TRYING to notice something than when they simply happen to notice it without conscisouly trying.

Something like Reliable Talent gives a base 10, for example, should demonstrate how using 10 for passive perception is simply wrong.

I agree. Passive perception should be 5 plus modifiers. I can think of almost no occasions when my PCS want to waste an action searching for someone when they have a 45% chance of getting lower than Passive perception.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So, "Passive" Perception now actually has a "passive" component...



This is horrible.

The terminology before was the horrible part. It was a routine or hidden check mechanic--perfectly fine, just a bad name--should have been "Repeated or Secret checks" or something.

Now, the name is appropriate, but the mechanic sucks: IT SHOULD NOT BE 10 + modifiers!

Using 10 for base is just wrong IMO. 10 is the "average" for making many checks (the routine use) or the default if you are trying but the DM wants it secret (another prior use).

If you aren't actively trying to do it (the current more accurate use of "passive"), it should be base 5.

With a base 10, 45% of the time the PC does worse WHEN TRYING to notice something than when they simply happen to notice it without conscisouly trying.

Something like Reliable Talent gives a base 10, for example, should demonstrate how using 10 for passive perception is simply wrong.

I understand your concerns.

But then I think, the advantage/disadvantage part is important:
In most circumstances, a creature just passing by has disadvantage on passive perception. So it is effectively 5+modifiers. 0+modifiers would be too low to do anything.

Then if you are very highly concentrated watching just a door, advantage raises it to 15+modifiers. Also seems like a good score. 20+modifiers would be too high.

Then I would never use it as a floor for the search action.
I would, as explained in my previus post, use it to give a hint that something seems off and now an active check is needed to confirm or notice more.

For combat, I use passive peception score (+/- 5) to check if characters are surprised (general awareness) and roll initiative with disadvantage.
A creature having beaten DC 15 on their stealth check also gains advantage on initiative. Seems straight forward.

Often that means an ambush is initiative with advantage vs initiative with disadvantage, making it very likely that ambushers go first.

 

[Li Shenron]

Even better, "passive perception" could be base 1. You're not trying? You default to the minimum possible outcome.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Even better, "passive perception" could be base 1. You're not trying? You default to the minimum possible outcome.

Which is a useless score...