jgsugden
Legend
There was a fair amount of Stealth discussion in the Sage Advice column with people commenting on alternate approaches. I thought I'd post (another) new thread for people to post the alternative game system or homebrew approaches they like.
For myself, I think I may revert back to something I used 20 years ago for a while. I feel like they went the wrong way when they tried to make stealth simplified into a single roll when it has too much that it is trying to cover. To that end, I favor going a bit old school and considering stealth as battles versus the senses and thinking of it in terms of not being seen, not being heard and not being smelled - and dealing with each separately.
In AD&D they had the rules for moving silently and rules for hiding in shadows and they were separate rolls. I am not endorsing the entire AD&D system as the math was horrible (my 5 year old can be sneakier than a high level thief could - those percentages were awful!), but I think the approach is right when it comes to considering each sense differently.
I would favor a system that addresses each sense separately. You'd have rules to avoid being seen, avoid being heard, and when relevant (as in you're trying to sneak past something with keen smell), avoid being smelled.
Doesn't that involve a lot of rolling? Potentially - but that is ok. In fact, it can be good. Combat involves a lot of rolls. The time it takes is one of the reasons why the combat pillar dominates our thoughts for D&D. Adding some more elements to exploration/scouting that require us to slow down and manage the situation better can make that segment of the game more interesting. As an example, the stealth system in BG3, while not perfect, is much more engaging than pencil and paper because there is strategy, dynamism, and thrills to it - without being impossible to pull off.
To that end, I'd give creatures default perception scores for sight, hearing and smell, similar to the idea of passive perception. These would represent how observant creatures are when they are not on alert and are not focused on a task - like how you are when you walk around town and are pondering whether to stop for a drink on the way to where you are going. There were then be modifiers that you'd apply to these scores based upon how vigilant creatures are:
Then, when someone attempts to hide, they enact passive stealth scores for moving silently, being hidden, and masking scent. You then compare compare the perception scores to the stealth scores and see if the perception exceeds the stealth (after factoring in modifiers as discussed below). If the perception matches the stealth in any category, the two roll off in an opposed ability check with the result determining whether the perceiver has identified the stealthy party (perception roll > stealth roll +1), has not noticed the stealthy party (stealth roll > perception roll + 1) or has been alerted that something is amiss, but not precisely what it is (rolls are within 1 of each other). Once alerted, it makes future noticing more likely. However, as there would be no more than one opposed role per sense between parties per round with a new role being possible after the hiders next turn ends, the stealthy party would have a chance to retreat to remain unobserved.
There would be modifiers for each type of roll depending upon circumstances: Cover, distance, background distractions (hearing someone when there is a nearby waterfall is harder than a silent room).
The net effect is that a stealthy party would look at a battlemat and estimate the perceptiveness of potential observers and would try to maximize the bonuses to their stealthy rolls by using the environment, timing their movements to stay as far from potential observers, benefiting from distractions, etc... The DM would know the passive differential and would be able to estimate how many bonuses might be required to be lost by the stealthy party before a roll is required.
Example: Bob the Rogue wants to sneak into a manor house that is being guarded by two human guards walking the wall surrounding the manor, and by a guard dog that is asleep in the yard - but Bob does not know of the dog. At the distance Bob is at and with the obstructions between the dog and Bob, an opposed roll is required to know of the dog - and the DM makes the rolls in secret and determines Bob is unaware.
Bob has devoted resources to being very stealthy and has a +9 to hiding, +7 to moving silently, and a +2 to masking scent. He assesses the guards and determines they don't look special and estimates that they have +10 base vision, + 10 base hearing, and +0 smelling. If correct, that means that sneaking past them would require him to maintain a bonus of at least +1 to hiding, +3 to moving silently, and not getting a penalty of 2 to masking scent. He knows that if he stays X feet from the guards they will not detect him if they are not being attentive, vigilant or focused because that distance gives him a +4 bonus. Bob might be incorrect about their abilities, or they might be more attentive than he realizes, however. That is up to the DM to determine, but should be determined prior to Bob attempting his stealth. Bob tells the DM how he plans to move and then DM determines whether the bonuses would change anywhere along the path in a way that would cross a threshold where a roll would be required. The DM determines the path requires no rolls versus the guards because he maintains a sufficient level of bonuses. However, the dog has a 10 smelling score and Bob comes within range of the dog's ability to smell him, even with that -5 penalty for being unalert, before Bob even detects the dog. This would require a roll between the two with all the modifiers to determine if Bob is actually detected and identified by the dog (awakening it and identifying it), if it remains unaware (continues sleeping) or is alerted without identifying Bob (waking up). As there is one check per round, if the Dog woke up and Bob became alerted to it, Bob would need to relocate to keep from being detected.
Is this a fiddly system? Yes. The fiddle gives it some weight and makes the stealth part of the game more interesting. A DM would be required to do as much for stealth as they do for combat. However, a lot of that fiddle is illusory. You really only need to look at those scores if they get close to each other ... and most of the time the stealthy party will be trying to keep enough bonuses going to not need to roll. Thus, you don't have to calculate every score every time - just when the DM gets a sense that a situation might be close. For example, smell only matters when something has enhanced smell or when a PC has been skunked, etc... Most of the time it would be the last sense to have to overcome.
I built out this system for 3E a ways back, but the group I used it with disbanded and I stuck with the base systems rather than teach this to each group. There was a lot more to it with a large table of modifiers for smell, sight and hearing situations (cover, distance, being downwind/upwind, levels of background noise, light conditions vs vision, etc... but as a DM I found it pretty easy to use (although a lot of that was a level of familiarity coming from having written it). However it was all pretty intuitive.
In effect, this allowed PCs to be stealthy without rolling a lot of dice, but with them playing close attention to the game board and enemies. That felt better. The attention to the board and keeping your modifiers high felt more like someone trying to be stealthy than a simple roll and a declaration of intent.
It accommodates concepts like invisibility (+10 bonus to being hidden incorporates most of the concept well) and other 'natural' conditions making it more or less likely for someone to be detected.
The biggest frustration with it was the round based combat system allowing creatures to thread needles because of the abstraction of time and movement - similar to how sometimes D&D combat movement makes no sense. I recall wringing my hands over how to handle some situations that came up where the 'real world equivalent' and the 'under the timing of the D&D rules you technically ...' logic were grating against each other and I didn't want to be unrealistic or unfair - but had to pick one.
What other systems do people support?
For myself, I think I may revert back to something I used 20 years ago for a while. I feel like they went the wrong way when they tried to make stealth simplified into a single roll when it has too much that it is trying to cover. To that end, I favor going a bit old school and considering stealth as battles versus the senses and thinking of it in terms of not being seen, not being heard and not being smelled - and dealing with each separately.
In AD&D they had the rules for moving silently and rules for hiding in shadows and they were separate rolls. I am not endorsing the entire AD&D system as the math was horrible (my 5 year old can be sneakier than a high level thief could - those percentages were awful!), but I think the approach is right when it comes to considering each sense differently.
I would favor a system that addresses each sense separately. You'd have rules to avoid being seen, avoid being heard, and when relevant (as in you're trying to sneak past something with keen smell), avoid being smelled.
Doesn't that involve a lot of rolling? Potentially - but that is ok. In fact, it can be good. Combat involves a lot of rolls. The time it takes is one of the reasons why the combat pillar dominates our thoughts for D&D. Adding some more elements to exploration/scouting that require us to slow down and manage the situation better can make that segment of the game more interesting. As an example, the stealth system in BG3, while not perfect, is much more engaging than pencil and paper because there is strategy, dynamism, and thrills to it - without being impossible to pull off.
To that end, I'd give creatures default perception scores for sight, hearing and smell, similar to the idea of passive perception. These would represent how observant creatures are when they are not on alert and are not focused on a task - like how you are when you walk around town and are pondering whether to stop for a drink on the way to where you are going. There were then be modifiers that you'd apply to these scores based upon how vigilant creatures are:
- Focused (+5 to one sense score) - you're specifically focusing on using that sense to detect
- Vigilant (+3 to all sense scores) - you're trying to be alert in general
- Attentive (+1 to all sense scores)- you've got nothing else to do so you tend to pick up on more things
- Base - no modifier
- Engaged (-1 to all sense scores) - you're dealing with a distracting environment
- Distracted (-3 to all sense scores) - your focus is dedicated towards some other thing
- Unalert (-5 to all sense scores) - you're asleep or really out of it (perhaps from being poisoned)
Then, when someone attempts to hide, they enact passive stealth scores for moving silently, being hidden, and masking scent. You then compare compare the perception scores to the stealth scores and see if the perception exceeds the stealth (after factoring in modifiers as discussed below). If the perception matches the stealth in any category, the two roll off in an opposed ability check with the result determining whether the perceiver has identified the stealthy party (perception roll > stealth roll +1), has not noticed the stealthy party (stealth roll > perception roll + 1) or has been alerted that something is amiss, but not precisely what it is (rolls are within 1 of each other). Once alerted, it makes future noticing more likely. However, as there would be no more than one opposed role per sense between parties per round with a new role being possible after the hiders next turn ends, the stealthy party would have a chance to retreat to remain unobserved.
There would be modifiers for each type of roll depending upon circumstances: Cover, distance, background distractions (hearing someone when there is a nearby waterfall is harder than a silent room).
The net effect is that a stealthy party would look at a battlemat and estimate the perceptiveness of potential observers and would try to maximize the bonuses to their stealthy rolls by using the environment, timing their movements to stay as far from potential observers, benefiting from distractions, etc... The DM would know the passive differential and would be able to estimate how many bonuses might be required to be lost by the stealthy party before a roll is required.
Example: Bob the Rogue wants to sneak into a manor house that is being guarded by two human guards walking the wall surrounding the manor, and by a guard dog that is asleep in the yard - but Bob does not know of the dog. At the distance Bob is at and with the obstructions between the dog and Bob, an opposed roll is required to know of the dog - and the DM makes the rolls in secret and determines Bob is unaware.
Bob has devoted resources to being very stealthy and has a +9 to hiding, +7 to moving silently, and a +2 to masking scent. He assesses the guards and determines they don't look special and estimates that they have +10 base vision, + 10 base hearing, and +0 smelling. If correct, that means that sneaking past them would require him to maintain a bonus of at least +1 to hiding, +3 to moving silently, and not getting a penalty of 2 to masking scent. He knows that if he stays X feet from the guards they will not detect him if they are not being attentive, vigilant or focused because that distance gives him a +4 bonus. Bob might be incorrect about their abilities, or they might be more attentive than he realizes, however. That is up to the DM to determine, but should be determined prior to Bob attempting his stealth. Bob tells the DM how he plans to move and then DM determines whether the bonuses would change anywhere along the path in a way that would cross a threshold where a roll would be required. The DM determines the path requires no rolls versus the guards because he maintains a sufficient level of bonuses. However, the dog has a 10 smelling score and Bob comes within range of the dog's ability to smell him, even with that -5 penalty for being unalert, before Bob even detects the dog. This would require a roll between the two with all the modifiers to determine if Bob is actually detected and identified by the dog (awakening it and identifying it), if it remains unaware (continues sleeping) or is alerted without identifying Bob (waking up). As there is one check per round, if the Dog woke up and Bob became alerted to it, Bob would need to relocate to keep from being detected.
Is this a fiddly system? Yes. The fiddle gives it some weight and makes the stealth part of the game more interesting. A DM would be required to do as much for stealth as they do for combat. However, a lot of that fiddle is illusory. You really only need to look at those scores if they get close to each other ... and most of the time the stealthy party will be trying to keep enough bonuses going to not need to roll. Thus, you don't have to calculate every score every time - just when the DM gets a sense that a situation might be close. For example, smell only matters when something has enhanced smell or when a PC has been skunked, etc... Most of the time it would be the last sense to have to overcome.
I built out this system for 3E a ways back, but the group I used it with disbanded and I stuck with the base systems rather than teach this to each group. There was a lot more to it with a large table of modifiers for smell, sight and hearing situations (cover, distance, being downwind/upwind, levels of background noise, light conditions vs vision, etc... but as a DM I found it pretty easy to use (although a lot of that was a level of familiarity coming from having written it). However it was all pretty intuitive.
In effect, this allowed PCs to be stealthy without rolling a lot of dice, but with them playing close attention to the game board and enemies. That felt better. The attention to the board and keeping your modifiers high felt more like someone trying to be stealthy than a simple roll and a declaration of intent.
It accommodates concepts like invisibility (+10 bonus to being hidden incorporates most of the concept well) and other 'natural' conditions making it more or less likely for someone to be detected.
The biggest frustration with it was the round based combat system allowing creatures to thread needles because of the abstraction of time and movement - similar to how sometimes D&D combat movement makes no sense. I recall wringing my hands over how to handle some situations that came up where the 'real world equivalent' and the 'under the timing of the D&D rules you technically ...' logic were grating against each other and I didn't want to be unrealistic or unfair - but had to pick one.
What other systems do people support?
