D&D 5E Asymmetrical stealth

[Charlaquin]

This is the real difference then in the way we each employ the hiding rules. As I posted upthread, there would need to be a means of staying out of sight that any creature attempting to be stealthy is availing itself of for the attempt to have a chance of success in my games.

Mine too.

That means the rogue and the fighter are "invisible" from the orcs' point of view, i.e. neither one of them can be seen without something changing about the situation. The fighter may be detected by hearing, or even scent if the orcs are close enough, but even though they notice one unseen creature doesn't mean they are aware of any others.

This doesn’t track with the previous statement for me. The orcs hear the fighter clanking around in his plate armor. They come to investigate the source of the noise, establishing line of sight to the fighter in the process. There is no reason the rogue 5 feet away from the fighter would not also be visible to the orcs.

 

[redrick]

Mine too.


This doesn’t track with the previous statement for me. The orcs hear the fighter clanking around in his plate armor. They come to investigate the source of the noise, establishing line of sight to the fighter in the process. There is no reason the rogue 5 feet away from the fighter would not also be visible to the orcs.

But in the time the orcs are coming to investigate the clanking, the rogue, still undetected, could move away. The fighter sits there with a big, "You got me" look on their face, and then the rogue jumps out from behind a tree and slits an orc throat.

 

[Hriston]

This doesn’t track with the previous statement for me. The orcs hear the fighter clanking around in his plate armor. They come to investigate the source of the noise, establishing line of sight to the fighter in the process. There is no reason the rogue 5 feet away from the fighter would not also be visible to the orcs.

Well, that's something changing about the situation, isn't it? No one would be able to remain hidden under those circumstances unless they were, in fact, invisible. But that isn't being determined by the Stealth/Perception contest. It's being determined by the orcs' movement.

 

[Charlaquin]

But in the time the orcs are coming to investigate the clanking, the rogue, still undetected, could move away. The fighter sits there with a big, "You got me" look on their face, and then the rogue jumps out from behind a tree and slits an orc throat.

If the rogue has the opportunity to do so before the orcs get there, sure. In that case, I would have the rogue and any characters who snuck away with her make another stealth check to do so without being heard.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, that's something changing about the situation, isn't it? No one would be able to remain hidden under those circumstances unless they were, in fact, invisible. But that isn't being determined by the Stealth/Perception contest. It's being determined by the orcs' movement.

Right, what’s being determined by the Stealth/Perception contest is if the orcs hear the group’s movement or not. The group check failed thanks to the fighter, so the orcs did hear them. Now if the rest of the group wants to move away from that location before the orcs get there, potentially leaving the fighter behind, they have to make a new check.

 

[jgsugden]

The last few posts are an example about how subjective all of this can be. The DM should decide on a system that works for his group and use it - but don't worry if it isn't perfect. No system is perfect.

Mine is closest, obviously, but there are many inferior ones that also work and can be used without destroying the game.

 

[Hriston]

Right, what’s being determined by the Stealth/Perception contest is if the orcs hear the group’s movement or not. The group check failed thanks to the fighter, so the orcs did hear them. Now if the rest of the group wants to move away from that location before the orcs get there, potentially leaving the fighter behind, they have to make a new check.

The orcs really only heard the fighter. Personally, I'd let the rogue's check result stand for as long as the rogue stays out of sight and doesn't do anything to draw attention.

 

[5ekyu]

The last few posts are an example about how subjective all of this can be. The DM should decide on a system that works for his group and use it - but don't worry if it isn't perfect. No system is perfect.

Mine is closest, obviously, but there are many inferior ones that also work and can be used without destroying the game.

Exactly... and this is complicated that stealth check and hiding are not synonymous - stealth checks can be and IMX are commonly also called into question for being unnoticed as opposed to specifically hidden. Want to make it across town without being spotted by guards is not the same as sneaking up on someone for a surprise or hiding for a invisible thing. Even on the smaller scale of just getting from here behind the wagon to the tens on a crowded street. A *lot* of "stealth" is not just stepping lightly and moving slowly or even dex related. That is part of the reason for me that for many cases group stealth resolution make sense - especially if one uses alt-stats for it - like say WIS when it really boils down more to observation, opportunity and discipline than coordination.

For example, i do not find it at all uncommon to use WIS(stealth) vs WIS(Per) (active or passive whatever) for my two-groups-approach-each-other is there surprise. I also have been known to use the various terrain related skills if they are travelling in impeding terrain.

 

[Warpiglet]

Yes. DnD is a role playing GAME. We can't forget the game part. It needs to be playable and fun. It is not much fun if everyone is hanging back while one or two sneaky characters scout everything.

But there are times where rolling for everyone makes sense. And times when it doesn't. If the whole party is making athletic checks to jump a chasm unless the players are doing something creative I'd have them each roll separately. But if 30 goblns are chasing them and have to make the leap? Nope...not making 30 rolls. I'll make one roll and if it succeeds, only a few gobos fall. If it fails maybe 3d6 fall...keep the game moving. Don't build in too many incentives to split the party.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

It is not essential to hang back. What we are saying is if you want a BONUS, you might need to hang back.

I am all for player empowerment and the rule of fun, but believe some things have to be earned and choices should matter. You can still fight a group on your terms without surprise, you just don't always get a round of freebies. Freebies are EXTRA and not mandatory.

However, people gotta do what is right for their individual game.

I like the distinction some others have made and will consider it myself. Getting right up on someone should be riskier. However, as a group travelling overland, it might make sense for a group check to remain undetected a la Lord of the Rings with Strider leading the way and per the movies, Frodo yelling at friends not to have a fire at the top of a hill! THAT seemed like a group effort (and a group fail)!

I would make the distinction between whether or not others could perhaps influence the choices and actions of party members. Just myself, I do not see waldo the thief being able to help bruno the fighter be quiet up close in heavy armor.

Either way, have fun!

 

[Uller]

It is not essential to hang back. What we are saying is if you want a BONUS, you might need to hang back.

I am all for player empowerment and the rule of fun, but believe some things have to be earned and choices should matter. You can still fight a group on your terms without surprise, you just don't always get a round of freebies. Freebies are EXTRA and not mandatory.

However, people gotta do what is right for their individual game.

I like the distinction some others have made and will consider it myself. Getting right up on someone should be riskier. However, as a group travelling overland, it might make sense for a group check to remain undetected a la Lord of the Rings with Strider leading the way and per the movies, Frodo yelling at friends not to have a fire at the top of a hill! THAT seemed like a group effort (and a group fail)!

I would make the distinction between whether or not others could perhaps influence the choices and actions of party members. Just myself, I do not see waldo the thief being able to help bruno the fighter be quiet up close in heavy armor.

Either way, have fun!

And this is the distinction I generally make. Moving as a group and remaining stealthy is a group check. Move past the guard outpost on the road or move to get within sight of the guarded door...group checks. But move up to slit the guard's throat? Or wait in ambush to start a fight? Individual checks.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app