Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E skills and the Perception vs Stealth imbalance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6987277" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>The probability of one monster with +5 passing a DC 15 check is indeed 55%.</p><p></p><p>However, the probability of two monsters <em>both</em> passing is only 55% x 55% or 30,25%. </p><p></p><p>More generally, the probability of N monsters all passing is 55%^N. For N=5 the probability is only about 5%. </p><p></p><p>If you only make the check when the monsters are in position, thus turning the check into the answer to the question "who's surprised?" this might be okay. </p><p></p><p>But if you use this check to determine if the heroes spot the monsters already when they try to sneak up on the party, when there is still time to do something about the ambush (such as fleeing etc), this doesn't work at all, since it means only one in twenty ambushes actually happens.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>If I agree that your number 55% is good enough for me too, I want the math to result in 55% of all ambush attempts to actually succeed. What happens on the "surprise round" is an entirely secondary concern to me.</p><p></p><p>Now, using group checks would get us there. The probability of five out of five checks succeeding might only be 5%, but the probability of at least three out of five checks succeeding is 59%.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Now the statistics of group checks swings rather heavility based on the number in the group. I found an old thread complaining about how the probabilities actually decrease if a group of two unskilled characters are joined by a third, even if that character is highly skilled. The reason, of course, is that the addition of the third character means that now 66% of the group needs to succeed compared to only 50% of the original two-man group. That is to say, one out of the two unskilled characters STILL needs to succeed: all the addition of the expert has done is added the risk of that expert failing (however small). </p><p></p><p>To illustrate this, compare the above scenario to when one of the five monsters decide to hang back. The probability of setting up the ambush drops from 59% to 39%!</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Probability of 3 to 5 checks out of 5 making it: 59%</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 9px">Probability of 3 to 4 checks out of 4 making it: 39%</span></p><p></p><p>So while group checks should probably be standard, they do add a measure of unpredictability that might catch DMs unawares.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6987277, member: 12731"] The probability of one monster with +5 passing a DC 15 check is indeed 55%. However, the probability of two monsters [I]both[/I] passing is only 55% x 55% or 30,25%. More generally, the probability of N monsters all passing is 55%^N. For N=5 the probability is only about 5%. If you only make the check when the monsters are in position, thus turning the check into the answer to the question "who's surprised?" this might be okay. But if you use this check to determine if the heroes spot the monsters already when they try to sneak up on the party, when there is still time to do something about the ambush (such as fleeing etc), this doesn't work at all, since it means only one in twenty ambushes actually happens. --- If I agree that your number 55% is good enough for me too, I want the math to result in 55% of all ambush attempts to actually succeed. What happens on the "surprise round" is an entirely secondary concern to me. Now, using group checks would get us there. The probability of five out of five checks succeeding might only be 5%, but the probability of at least three out of five checks succeeding is 59%. --- Now the statistics of group checks swings rather heavility based on the number in the group. I found an old thread complaining about how the probabilities actually decrease if a group of two unskilled characters are joined by a third, even if that character is highly skilled. The reason, of course, is that the addition of the third character means that now 66% of the group needs to succeed compared to only 50% of the original two-man group. That is to say, one out of the two unskilled characters STILL needs to succeed: all the addition of the expert has done is added the risk of that expert failing (however small). To illustrate this, compare the above scenario to when one of the five monsters decide to hang back. The probability of setting up the ambush drops from 59% to 39%! [SIZE=1]Probability of 3 to 5 checks out of 5 making it: 59% Probability of 3 to 4 checks out of 4 making it: 39%[/SIZE] So while group checks should probably be standard, they do add a measure of unpredictability that might catch DMs unawares. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E skills and the Perception vs Stealth imbalance
Top