2018 Stealth Rules (Closed-Book / Light-Rules)

[GMMichael]

Since heads are spinning over in this thread . . .

D&D (2024) - New stealth rules.

Taken from here DC 15, with cover, and turns you invisible. Am I reading this right that you can hide around a corner and just walk past the guards at the front entrance? Suggested fix. In the Hide action, add You also lose the condition if you end your turn with no cover and no concealment

www.enworld.org

. . . I thought some perspective on stealth would be nice. I'll use the Modos 2 rulebook as my example of what stealth could (should?) look like.

The TL;DR is that there is one primary rule and two skills (considered list items, not rules) involved in sneaking around. The rule is Awareness, which says that a character cannot defend against another's attack without being aware of the other (or its attack). The two skills are Sneak and Detect, and their usage is mainly to apply bonuses to rolls made for the situation. The PC gets a good outcome (a Pro) for rolling higher than the opposition, should the GM ask for a roll. There's no Hide Action or Invisibility condition that need defining; there's just the PC's desire to become hidden, and the rolls that the GM calls for to resolve the situation. With few governing rules, it's up to the GM and PC to tell the story of what happens when the PC attempts to sneak past an observer.

Spoiler: Gritty Details

The Modos 2 Hide Action looks like this:

" "

So the PC just tells the GM that she's hiding. "I hide behind the corner, where the guards at the front entrance can't see me" (to use @mellored 's example). If the GM wants a roll to see how well it goes, he can ask for one. Since it's not a mental or spiritual exercise, he'd probably say "roll a physical contest," and the PC would add her Sneak skill points (if available), in addition to her physical bonus to the roll (her Contest). The result doesn't establish invisibility as a condition, and there's no Success or Failure; the PC is just hiding.

The Modos 2 Sneak skill looks like this:

For avoiding attention. Use this skill to find places to hide, make little or no noise, or conceal objects. A Pro sneak contest indicates that your opponent does not have Awareness of you.

Awareness is a rule related to defenses; if an opponent isn't aware of you, it can't defend against your attack(s). A "Pro . . . contest" is a roll result that exceeds the rolls of those opposing it. "Walking past the guards" at the front entrance would clearly make them aware of the PC, regardless of her contest. The PC may object, "but my contest was off the chart! Can the guards beat a 25 to detect me?" The GM could 1) point out that it's the GM who decides if rolls are needed, or 2) roll a contest for the guards, applying the Difficulty bonus of spotting someone walking by in decent lighting. The latter might include a reference to the game's only table, the Difficulty table, which gives a +8 bonus for Difficult actions, or +12 for Arduous actions (+16 is Impossible, but we'll assume that it's not impossible to walk straight past a guard without her noticing someone).

Suppose there is a reason that the guards wouldn't notice the PC walking past. There's a battle, or a riot, or it's a moonless night. Maybe the guards are both sleeping. The GM can roll a contest for the guards to detect the PC and apply a Difficulty penalty. This is likely a mental contest, since it involves senses and attention. The guards could use the Detect skill if they have it:

For gaining information from your senses. Normally a non-action, this skill can require an action to use when you must focus or spend time to detect something.

There's no requirement for the GM to treat the guards as PCs; the difficulty of sneaking past guards can simply be a Difficulty Contest (as with the Arduous penalty above). The GM can instead model the contest after a PC's effort, using the guard's mental bonus and detect skill points as bonuses and guard's difficulty of finding someone in adverse conditions as a penalty to his roll.

The outcome of comparing contests is a Pro or Con - a good or bad result. These depend on what the GM and PC think has happened. Let's say that the PC attempted to sneak past in broad daylight, and the GM decided to roll an opposing contest. Even if the PC gets a Pro, she can still be spotted. "The guards, not being blind, see your approach. One says, 'hey, you're a fellow Southlander, aren't you? I'll let you in, but I want half of what's in that sack when you leave." (The Sneak Pro would indicate that the guards don't have Awareness, so they would be unable to defend if the PC should decide to make some sort of attack at that time.) Perhaps the PC's hero points (player-designed features) are "moves like a vampire." If the PC rolls a Con (i.e. the guards roll a Pro) the PC can still dash through the shadows to pass the guards unseen, but the guards feel such a wave of fear as the PC passes that they alert the sergeant of the guard without knowing who (or what) has been near.

Things don't change much if the PC is in combat, where actions are normally tracked. The guards already have Awareness of the PC (or else she wouldn't be in combat). The PC can announce her intent to hide, whether or not she's "heavily obscured" or behind "total cover" or "in an enemy's line of sight." Being obscured or behind cover should grant the PC a difficulty bonus to her physical contest to hide, depending on the conditions, and the guards would know where they last saw the PC clearly. Attacking the hidden PC becomes more difficult because the guards need Awareness for that, and the Sneak skill requires them to roll a contest for Awareness. The GM can decide if detecting the PC is a non-action (part of the effort of attacking her), or if an action is required to do some searching. A Pro mental contest to detect the PC means the guards have Awareness, and can thus attack the PC, who might still benefit from obscurity depending on the situation. Should the guards roll Cons to detect, the PC can still take an action to pass the guards. The situation still suggests that guards would have Awareness of someone emerging from concealment. But if the PC timed her actions right, she can "walk past the guards" when they have no actions left to use in the round. The narrative of this might imply that the guards were busy searching when she found an opening to sneak through the entrance, or any other creative explanation the PC and GM can imagine.

Does this answer questions? Raise questions? Make the new D&D rules look better? I hope a simplified, narrative approach offers an alternative for those stumbling over a more technical approach to stealth!

 

[Reynard]

I still feel like it is convoluted with Awareness (essentially a condition). It should not be that hard. The PC wants to get past the guard and says how they are going to do it . The GM decides if it works, fails, or requires a roll. I really feel like we are overcomplicating Stealth and Perception waaaaaay too much.

 

[mellored]

There is just 1 sentence missing from the 5e rules. Something along the lines of...

You also lose the invisible condition if you have no cover and no concealment from an enemy (at the end of your turn).

That's all we need to fix the issue.

 

[GMMichael]

I still feel like it is convoluted with Awareness (essentially a condition). It should not be that hard. The PC wants to get past the guard and says how they are going to do it . The GM decides if it works, fails, or requires a roll.

Sure, you could consider Awareness a Condition. It seems to be a general one, not just 5.5-style, since its roots go back to the invention of Saving Throws (i.e. "you were probably aware of that dragon-claw coming at you, so use AC against it. The magic trap, probably not, so make a saving throw instead).

I included the Awareness rule because having a Defense rule implies that all Attacks permit Defenses, which is not always the case.

There is just 1 sentence missing from the 5e rules. Something along the lines of...

You also lose the invisible condition if you have no cover and no concealment from an enemy (at the end of your turn).

I can fix it in four words.

. . . an enemy finds you, an enemy sees you, you make an attack roll . . .

The irony is that we have a 5th ed. and 5.5 ed. because 3rd ed. was considered too clunky. (And, apparently, the 4th ed. healing rules went over well.) Too many "modifiers?" Let's use Advantage. Numbers too big? Let's cap ability scores and limit AC. Op attacks too convoluted? Let's limit them to one use. Yet here we are, with Conditions interacting with Actions that require noting check results that act as DCs that need to be used in response to enemy Actions in order to undo Conditions that . . .

 

[mellored]

I can fix it in four words.

How can an enemy see you if your invisible?

That's the crux of the issue, so that won't work as a fix.

No that i am saying my wording is ideal, but it's a mistake that can easily be corrected.

 

[GMMichael]

How can an enemy see you if your invisible?

That's the crux of the issue, so that won't work as a fix.

But you're not invisible. You just have the Invisible Condition. WotC suggests this in the Condition wording, "if a creature can somehow see you . . ."

 

[Reynard]

But you're not invisible. You just have the Invisible Condition. WotC suggests this in the Condition wording, "if a creature can somehow see you . . ."

I can't for the life of me figure out why the designers of the "natural language" edition decided to get all rulespeak about this one thing in particular.

 

[GMMichael]

I would agree to (the invisible condition should break at the end of your turn without cover), as a general statement, if you include being in an enemies line of sight. Walking down an empty hallway because you stealthed past guards and stopped by an arch to peer out into a courtyard shouldn't break stealth to the guards below in the courtyard even though you ended at least one turn without cover.

The D&D ability check rules handle this just as smoothly as a rules-light game. Remember: rulings, not rules . . .

How to run this in D&D without conditions or confusing action types:

Spoiler: D&D

DM: The front entrance guards didn't seem to notice your passing. You're now in an arcade that overlooks a courtyard. The personal chambers are at the end of the arcade. We'll stay in initiative order, since one false step could land you in big trouble. It's your turn.

PC: Let's do this. Do I see or hear any more guards around?

GM: You don't see anyone. You hear some sort of rustle come from the courtyard.

PC: I peer into the courtyard. Stealthily.

DM: Make another Dexterity (stealth) check for that, and a Wisdom check to examine the courtyard.

PC: I got 5 on Stealth. I'm proficient in Perception, so I'm adding that for 12. Yikes, my Stealth was bad!

DM: (Rolls a Wisdom check for the guards in the courtyard, 4 and 10). That Stealth was bad, but you have Advantage for poor lighting in the arcade. (PC rolls again, gets 13). You make out two guards in the lanternlight across the courtyard, letting their spears dip, and shuffling their feet a bit. They don't notice you. Yet. It's your turn again.

PC: Whoa! I'm done peering. I sneak down the arcade to the personal chambers. Can I reroll Stealth? With Advantage?

DM: You can keep the 13, or roll normally since you're moving now instead of peering.

PC: I'll keep the 13.

DM: (Rolls Wisdom for the guards to detect the movement, opposed by the PC's 13 total.) "Did you hear something?"

PC: Oh no.

DM: "No. Did you?" "Aye. In the arcade. I'm going up there. Maybe Lady Miranda is looking for a midnight snack. She'll need an escort." (One guard moves to the stairs, the other forfeits his movement and remains on guard.)

How to run this in Modos 2 extended conflict:

Spoiler: Modos 2

GM: The front entrance guards didn't seem to notice your passing. You're now in an arcade that overlooks a courtyard. The personal chambers are at the end of the arcade. We'll stay in extended conflict, since one false step could land you in big trouble. You're initiating.

PC: Let's do this. Do I see or hear any more guards around?

GM: You don't see anyone. You hear some sort of rustle come from the courtyard.

PC: I peer into the courtyard. Stealthily.

GM: Roll physical to see how stealthy you are for this turn, and mental to examine the courtyard. Two actions.

PC: I'm adding Sneak to the first and Detect to the second: 5 and 12. Yikes, my Sneak was bad!

GM: (Both guards in the courtyard use an action to observe, with a mental contests, 4 and 10). That Sneak was bad, but I'm giving you 4 difficulty for poor lighting in the arcade, and 4 more for being stealthy, which brings your contest up to 13. You make out two guards in the lanternlight across the courtyard, letting their spears dip, and shuffling their feet a bit. They don't notice you. Yet.

PC: Whoa! I'm done peering. I sneak down the arcade to the personal chambers for my last action.

GM: (Rolls Mental for the guards to detect the movement, opposed by the PC's 13 total.) "Did you hear something?"

PC: Oh no.

GM: "No. Did you?" "Aye. In the arcade. I'm going up there. Maybe Lady Miranda is looking for a midnight snack. She'll need an escort." (One guard moves to the stairs, the other forfeits his last action and remains on guard.)

 

[GMMichael]

I can't for the life of me figure out why the designers of the "natural language" edition decided to get all rulespeak about this one thing in particular.

In 5.5 specifically? Or 5th ed in general? I have two guesses:

• Creature and class abilities get codified, many including special abilities to detect, to be sneaky, and to critical hit. Therefore, there must be general stealth rules that apply to all other creatures and classes, so the two categories may seamlessly interact (those with special abilities, and those without). Also, some rules lose their sparkle when they're not invoked by other rules; they can be eschewed. Interacting rules help prevent this.
• The "natural language" aspect, along with "rulings, not rules" were just marketing ploys to help sell what is really 3.5 edition revised. 3.5 ed. was all about rulespeak, so the trend continues.