D&D (2024) Am I crazy, or did they just turn Stealth into full Ninja mode?

[James Gasik]

That’s where one check against many passive scores comes in handy.

Oh likely, but I get the feeling that either the check would have disadvantage or the bandits would have advantage, with so many eyes in play, at least at some of the tables I've played at, lol.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. They’re trying to render the stealth rules in a way that their VTT will be able to execute.

it is not something that a VTT should be executing on, too many nuances and games like Solasta do not work that way for stealth anyway. It is not a good programming model.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, the drunk enemy should have disadvantage (-5) on their passive Perception, and the sneaking character may have a hard time getting the necessary conditions to hide in the well-lit camp and/or may have disadvantage on their stealth check. I do agree that the set DC 15 doesn’t do a good job though.

What’s the difference in difficulty of sneaking past 100 orcs vs sneaking past 1? Using passive perception there is no difference. That should highlight the problem of passive perception nicely.

Another problem solved by only calling for checks when the outcome is immediately relevant.

Doesn’t help for the problem I’m highlighting. Example: I try to sneak past the doormen. I then must sneak past the first patrol. Then the 2nd. That’s 3 stealth checks using either passive perception or set dc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh likely, but I get the feeling that either the check would have disadvantage or the bandits would have advantage, with so many eyes in play, at least at some of the tables I've played at, lol.

So the question then is how many orcs before they get advantage?

 

[James Gasik]

Up to the DM, I'm afraid, there's no hard and fast rules for advantage/disadvantage, right? But one could argue two is sufficient; you could assume if there are two Orcs on watch, they could both take the Help action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm a nearing 50 overweight lifetime nerd and I am constantly scaring the crap out of people because they can't hear me walking up behind them. I'm not even trying to be sneaky, I'm just a quiet walker

15 is way too high a baseline.

this is why opposed cheks make more sense... I am betting most of those people would (in a fair system) be distracted or concentrating gaining disadvantage/-5 to perception

 

[Stalker0]

I'm a nearing 50 overweight lifetime nerd and I am constantly scaring the crap out of people because they can't hear me walking up behind them. I'm not even trying to be sneaky, I'm just a quiet walker

15 is way too high a baseline.

This is just an issue with assuming humans are a total "baseline". The system assumes that humans on average are as good as hiding as we are at spotting. That is false, humans are way better at hiding in general.

Same with lying/insight. Humans are much better at lying in general than we are at assessing lies.

 

[Charlaquin]

What’s the difference in difficulty of sneaking past 100 orcs vs sneaking past 1? Using passive perception there is no difference. That should highlight the problem of passive perception nicely.

If there are 100 orcs, it’s going to be very difficult to maintain the conditions necessary to hide from all of them at once, since their lines of sight likely cover a lot of ground. If the DM wants to represent that in an abstract way, they could always use advantage on the orcs’ passive perception, disadvantage on the sneaker’s stealth, and/or some other situational penalty at their discretion. But the fact that this can be resolved with one roll instead of 100 is a feature, not a bug.

Doesn’t help for the problem I’m highlighting. Example: I try to sneak past the doormen. I then must sneak past the first patrol. Then the 2nd. That’s 3 stealth checks using either passive perception or set dc.

Well, sure; it’s three separate instances of trying to sneak past someone. It’s not as if you didn’t have the opportunity to go back to your party and report your findings after the first patrol, or try to get a jump on the first patrol, or something. You’re essentially trying to tackle three separate encounters back to back on your own. That’s a decision you can certainly make, but you should know it’s a huge risk.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Up to the DM, I'm afraid, there's no hard and fast rules for advantage/disadvantage, right? But one could argue two is sufficient; you could assume if there are two Orcs on watch, they could both take the Help action.

The issue with "on watch" is that most humans (which we use as a baseline for how we view most DnD beings) can't intensely watch for long periods of time. Two can split the work up better than one, and three better than two.

I think Passive Perception is just the"normal state" all particular beings are at, with modifiers to it made depending on the likelihood of a threat being present.

Hey Grog, you have watch tonight! (Grog uses his passive score)

Hey Grog, Bitey called in sick so you're working a double!! (Grog uses passive score with disadvantage)

Hey Grog, scouts say humans are sneaking in from the canyon. Look sharp!!! (Grog uses passive score with with advantage)

Hey Gro- [boss is cut off by an arrow flying into his chest] (Grog makes a perception roll on his turn in combat)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you read a little closer, I put in a specific clause for that. If you become unhidden due to movement, you can still conduct one action as if you were hidden (which would allow for the sneak attack).

My apologies, I missed that bit. That addresses the biggest "hole" I saw in it.