D&D 5E 5E low level monster skill checks

[CapnZapp]

...

You are basically justifying the rules with the argument they're there. A load of crap that's most unconvincing, so I'll just summarize:

• you don't have to tell me how the rules are working thank you very much.
• stealthy monsters aren't stealthy unless they actually are able to stealth, and to do it to adventurers, that's my whole argument
• don't use monsters with special modes of movement as examples. Monsters don't need the stealth if they can travel through walls or dirt.

The gem is "the monsters would have had the bonus if they were meant to have it" takes the price. It essentially says that the devs can do no wrong. That's rich in a discussion predicted on the theory monsters have piss-poor skill scores, that this an active detriment to enjoying the game, and that the blame for this should be squarely put at the devs' feet.

Anyway. This tells me there's no point listening to you, since you apparently treat the MM as holy writ: the words are true because they're in the book.

 

[Ashrym]

You are basically justifying the rules with the argument they're there. A load of crap that's most unconvincing, so I'll just summarize:

• you don't have to tell me how the rules are working thank you very much.
• stealthy monsters aren't stealthy unless they actually are able to stealth, and to do it to adventurers, that's my whole argument
• don't use monsters with special modes of movement as examples. Monsters don't need the stealth if they can travel through walls or dirt.

The gem is "the monsters would have had the bonus if they were meant to have it" takes the price. It essentially says that the devs can do no wrong. That's rich in a discussion predicted on the theory monsters have piss-poor skill scores, that this an active detriment to enjoying the game, and that the blame for this should be squarely put at the devs' feet.

Anyway. This tells me there's no point listening to you, since you apparently treat the MM as holy writ: the words are true because they're in the book.

Stealthy is subjective. There are plenty of creatures in the MM who are moderately stealthy around +4 bonus and some extremely stealthy like pixies (+8) or invisible stalkers (+10). The problem is you are treating outliers with expertise and high wisdom as a standard that doesn't exist. The context of a description as "lurky" or "stealthy" doesn't imply "against rogues with expertise in perception". The standard is d20 no bonuses and +5 is moderately good while +10 is great.

Refer to page 238 of the DMG.

The ask yourself, "Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate, or hard?" If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will success at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both.

That's why we don't normally see DCs higher than 20. The expectation has always been either high proficiency or high score for moderate ability and both for hard. Beyond that is exceptionally hard or nearly impossible. It seems like you have a perception issue just because high numbers are possible with a couple of classes at extreme levels. A +4 intellect devourer is moderately stealthy.

Ankhegs were a previously mentioned example and I demonstrated it why that bonus doesn't matter. A person can place any two groups together and the result is the same -- high perception only impacts acting on the first round of combat or not (and varies among the groups as well), and checks are made by each PC so not everyone succeeds in the check. The only real difference is they might see each other from farther away or the party might possibly surprise the NPC's.

This gets into one of the serious flaws of your premise on using stealth against high level rogues (because it's not parties, it's a class or two).

A +17 stealth character, monster, or NPC cannot sneak up to a -2 (8 passive) perception fighter. The fighter does this by looking down a well lit hallway on watch. It's not possible to hide if the hider can be seen. Hiding requirements prevents it. Preventing stealth is as easy as destroying any place to hide most of the time, or keeping to clear open areas. The conditional requirement is more restrictive than the actual skill bonus differences.

I found your response rather hostile, tbh. I was offering help because it appeared to be in perspective issue. It still does. It looks like you are setting the bar with expertise and high ability scores, which is impractical when the goal was to be inclusive of all classes. Being inclusive to all classes means keeping the bar where they can reasonably achieve success too. Bigger numbers because your opinion is that it's required to be stealthy doesn't make the rules or devs incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

 

[S'mon]

Stealthy is subjective. There are plenty of creatures in the MM who are moderately stealthy around +4 bonus and some extremely stealthy like pixies (+8) or invisible stalkers (+10). The problem is you are treating outliers with expertise and high wisdom as a standard that doesn't exist. The context of a description as "lurky" or "stealthy" doesn't imply "against rogues with expertise in perception". The standard is d20 no bonuses and +5 is moderately good while +10 is great.

Refer to page 238 of the DMG.


That's why we don't normally see DCs higher than 20. The expectation has always been either high proficiency or high score for moderate ability and both for hard. Beyond that is exceptionally hard or nearly impossible. It seems like you have a perception issue just because high numbers are possible with a couple of classes at extreme levels. A +4 intellect devourer is moderately stealthy.

Ankhegs were a previously mentioned example and I demonstrated it why that bonus doesn't matter. A person can place any two groups together and the result is the same -- high perception only impacts acting on the first round of combat or not (and varies among the groups as well), and checks are made by each PC so not everyone succeeds in the check. The only real difference is they might see each other from farther away or the party might possibly surprise the NPC's.

This gets into one of the serious flaws of your premise on using stealth against high level rogues (because it's not parties, it's a class or two).

A +17 stealth character, monster, or NPC cannot sneak up to a -2 (8 passive) perception fighter. The fighter does this by looking down a well lit hallway on watch. It's not possible to hide if the hider can be seen. Hiding requirements prevents it. Preventing stealth is as easy as destroying any place to hide most of the time, or keeping to clear open areas. The conditional requirement is more restrictive than the actual skill bonus differences.

I found your response rather hostile, tbh. I was offering help because it appeared to be in perspective issue. It still does. It looks like you are setting the bar with expertise and high ability scores, which is impractical when the goal was to be inclusive of all classes. Being inclusive to all classes means keeping the bar where they can reasonably achieve success too. Bigger numbers because your opinion is that it's required to be stealthy doesn't make the rules or devs incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

I think part of the issue is 5e's 'bounded accuracy' approach which keeps monster numbers low, in contrast to 3e/PF/4e where it was expected they would scale to challenge the best reasonably buildable PCs and so auto-win vs the unskilled PCs. If you expect 3e type numbers, 5e looks odd and maybe defective. It's not hard to fix though if you want a game that feels like 3e - give the monsters Proficiency & Expertise. I quite often do this in my Epic-20 5e campaign, so the Rogue can feel smug about auto-winning against DC 22 or DC 26 instead of DC 15. But I don't do this all the time or the PCs with a 'mere' +9 to Perception would get tee'd off. Playing at E20 I often have Very Hard (25) & Nearly Impossible (30) DCs - but I still try to include plenty of Hard (20) and Moderate (15) DCs, too.

 

[CapnZapp]

That +5 should be considered great is a delusion wholly unconnected to reality. It just means you're the same as the MM writers, who come across as completely ignorant of what abilities the PHB actually hands out to heroes.

I don't want to play a game where monsters might come across as scary to some non-existent assumed baseline character.

I want monsters to be scary to the player's characters.

That means taking actual PHB abilities into account. As well as basic probability theory.

If you are to sneak up on a party of five, and at least one character can be assumed to have a +6 modifier for Perception traing and high-Wisdom, I fully expect and demand that the devs do the number crunching:

What sneak bonus is needed for this monster to usually succeed, given that it's sole purpose of existence is as a lurker monster that gives players the thrill of getting ambushed?

I can't say off hand what that number is, only that it sure as hell ain't anywhere as low as +3.

 

[S'mon]

What sneak bonus is needed for this monster to usually succeed, given that it's sole purpose of existence is as a lurker monster that gives players the thrill of getting ambushed?

I can't say off hand what that number is, only that it sure as hell ain't anywhere as low as +3.

Hardly difficult maths - +6 mod means the highest PP in the group is 16. That sets the DC for the monster Stealth roll. To succeed 55% of the time (roll of 10+) it therefore needs a +7 stealth mod, for a low Challenge monster that would likely be +3 stat mod & +4 for stealth expertise. Although I think (not knowing the math) if it had Advantage you'd get a similar probability with +3 stealth and 2 rolls, needing 13+ on 1 roll.

Edit: I think though players with high PP PCs are not seeking the 'thrill of being ambushed', they're seeking the thrill of NOT being ambushed!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing to remember about skill rolls is they only apply when success or failure is uncertain. Walking towards a guard down an empty corridor? No roll. Seeing a Shadow in a shadow? no roll.

A Mimic does not need to make a skill roll to look like a chest. It automatically looks exactly like a chest, and no amount of perception or investigation will reveal otherwise.

Now, a Shadow does not actually have the "False Appearance" trait in it's stat block, but stat blocks are just a guide, it's up to the DM to dictate the actual situation in the game world.

Overall, it's unlikely that monsters will ever get the drop on players simply by sneaking (there is even a Sword of Warning in the DMG that makes it impossible) - always assume the party will spot the monsters unless they have some special ability or magical assistance. But that supports the notion that the PCs are heroes - you wouldn't expect to sneek up on Aragorn would you?

It's quite common for success or failure to be automatic in 5e. For example the "researcher" feature allows the character to automatically find any book in the library - no skill roll needed.