D&D 5E Dealing with stupidly high rolls.

[Kobold Boots]

The starting point when dealing with any stupidly high threshold that the PC's are operating at, is realizing that they're not the only things in the gameworld that can operate at that level.

- So the PC's can pass without trace through the evil woods.. you know what.. so can the fey. If the fey see hummies walking through the woods without trace, they're "interesting" .. have fun.

Sometimes you have a math problem, and sometimes you have a math opportunity. If you can turn it into a good story while you figure out what math needs to really be "fixed" power to you.

Be well
KB

 

[niklinna]

I go differently.

Extended tasks (sneak up to the camp thats 500' away) are resolved with three-way tosses similar to desth saves. Get to three wins to make it there, three fails get spotted, 1 and 20 can double, etc.

So in this generic defined approach each roll would be for say about 150ish ft of travel. Success means advance without notice (plus likely some info). Failure means no advance and change in circumstances for the worse (maybe you were not heard but a patrol came out or a gang to have a smoke.)

That's still requiring a roll when success is uncertain, but consequences are. I didn't say the consequences had to be dire, but the posts I was replying to strongly implied that, so the clarification is good to make.

 

[guachi]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In my current game the only time Pass Without Trace has been used is against the PCs. The PCs were on a patrol to scout out humanoid movements on the border of humanoid and human lands. The PCs were ambushed as the humanoids were using Pass Without Trace. They were surprised and took long range longbow fire that was at normal difficulty as the range disadvantage was counteracted by hiding advantage.

The PCs were at something like 300' and the only long-range weapon the five PCs had was a heavy crossbow. I had forgotten the sorcerer had taken the haste spell and the PCs did the thing you should do with an ambush, they charged it. One twin haste and off the two fastest PCs went. One was a war dog that was effectively a Barbarian as a class (it's just easier to have an NPC that's an animal) and had 50' movement and the wood elf had an item that allowed it to cast longstrider as a free action once/long rest.

Off the two went like shots and it was quite exciting as all five (well, four PCs and one NPC dog) had to decide how best to engage the enemy. They eventually caused the humanoids to flee (successfully, as they still had Pass Without Trace up).

 

[Shiroiken]

Woah, you can disagree with my opinion. But saying it is nonesense is going a bit far. The principle of not splitting the party is a fairly well established one. It create whole chunks of play time where a slice of the party (normally 75%) is left twiddling their thumbs while the DM and rogue go exploring the dungeon. You're group may be cool with that, but other groups might not, ours would certainly get tired of it. Though it depends of course on the tactical situation, the size of the dungeon and how succinct the DM and scout player is. I said that you needed to be careful with it, not that it couldnt be done.

The aim of D&D isnt to achieve the objective using the least resources... its to have fun doing it. If your group gets satisfaction that way cool, but the journey is just as important as the destination to me.

Each player and group has their own personal goal of playing an RPG. You care far more about that R than G, while I care more about the G than the R. To me, your opinion on this is nonsense, while I'm sure the reverse is true. No offense is intended or implied.

As for splitting the party, it depends on how you do it. In my example game, everyone was paying attention while the scouts were exploring. The DM already had to describe everything, so it didn't actually take table time away from the group. The scouts would explore from an intersection to the next area or intersection, then report back to us, where we would decide which direction to go. The entirety of our time "twiddling our thumbs" was when they made the occasional stealth or perception check. Probably a total of 60 seconds over the course of the session. Having the scouts explore the whole place before we do anything would actually be bad strategy, because we couldn't come the scouts' aid if things went wrong.

It makes for a better story is the reason why... Tolkein doesn't need to come up with a reason. Its called a 'temporary suspension of disbelief', you accept that it wasn't an option and don't worry about it.

We've just completed the first part of Cubicle 7's Mirkwood campaign book, travelling through the forest was dangerous, nerve wracking, spooky and ultimately fatal for some of the travels. Of course we could have just gone round... but then that wouldnt have been very interesting. Arduous journey's are part of what makes Tolkein, Tolkein.

This is why it's a story, and not a game. Things that work in storytelling a novel (or trilogy) often won't fly in an RPG, while the reverse is also true.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Pass without trace is broken, really. +10 party wide is ridic. Certainly tons better than invisibility with the way 5e stealth works (ie poorly). Stealth rogues with expertise are borked if you use passive perception (which is broken), but even if you dont use PP, it's still very OP.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought that "bounded accuracy" would help us to eliminate stupidly high numbers. Things like pass without trace and the rogue's expertise seems to undermine that idea. How do you deal with the difference between "you do the thing" and "you do the thing spectacularly well" when spectacular is suddenly commonplace?

Relevant bonus comic.

First, bounded accuracy is only on the DM's side of things. PCs are not bounded in the same way. Second, the game actually tells you that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. If something is impossible, don't set a DC. Just narrate the failure.

 

[iserith]

Pass without trace is broken, really. +10 party wide is ridic. Certainly tons better than invisibility with the way 5e stealth works (ie poorly). Stealth rogues with expertise are borked if you use passive perception (which is broken), but even if you dont use PP, it's still very OP.

You make some assertions here, but you leave off on explaining why you believe your assertions to be true. Would you explain? My experience is quite different.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Pass without trace is broken, really. +10 party wide is ridic. Certainly tons better than invisibility with the way 5e stealth works (ie poorly).

Stealth is *always* better than invisibility.

All invisibility does is make you unseen. Stealth makes you unseen and unheard and unsmelt and unfelt and untracked and ...

In any case, pass without trace is is not there for the expertise rogues; it is there for the heavily armoured warriors so that the party can reliably sneak the whole party past some nasty encounter.

For example, in out Rage of Demons game, we have an elven bard with expertise in stealth. His normal DEX\Stealth is +12. This means he can sneak past almost everything we might meet. What he can't do is help the heavily armoured fighter/cleric, whose DEX\Stealth is, if I remember right, +0.

Pass without trace has helped us a lot in two encouters. It was not an automatic , "right, we cast this!" however, as rangers don't get a lot of spell slots and they do get a lot of things that require concentration.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Stealth is *always* better than invisibility.

All invisibility does is make you unseen. Stealth makes you unseen and unheard and unsmelt and unfelt and untracked and ...

In any case, pass without trace is is not there for the expertise rogues; it is there for the heavily armoured warriors so that the party can reliably sneak the whole party past some nasty encounter.

For example, in out Rage of Demons game, we have an elven bard with expertise in stealth. His normal DEX\Stealth is +12. This means he can sneak past almost everything we might meet. What he can't do is help the heavily armoured fighter/cleric, whose DEX\Stealth is, if I remember right, +0.

Pass without trace has helped us a lot in two encouters. It was not an automatic , "right, we cast this!" however, as rangers don't get a lot of spell slots and they do get a lot of things that require concentration.

In a game where most enemies have a PP in the early teens, a spell that adds +10 to a stealth roll is, it seems to me, obviously broken. It's partly PP's fault, and partly the utterly massive +10 bonus fault (which affects the whole party, no less).

There is no need for the spell. Simply use a group stealth check (ie half or more of the party need to succeed) to help out the one platemail clanging paladin sneak into the goblin lair. Making a spell meant to aid the non-stealth folks - in this way - was a big mistake. Because the guys who are good at stealth are become infallible ninjas. I've seen it in many games with no paladins and it is very obviously OP.

 

[iserith]

In a game where most enemies have a PP in the early teens, a spell that adds +10 to a stealth roll is, it seems to me, obviously broken. It's partly PP's fault, and partly the utterly massive +10 bonus fault (which affects the whole party, no less).

There is no need for the spell. Simply use a group stealth check (ie half or more of the party need to succeed) to help out the one platemail clanging paladin sneak into the goblin lair. Making a spell meant to aid the non-stealth folks - in this way - was a big mistake. Because the guys who are good at stealth are become infallible ninjas. I've seen it in many games with no paladins and it is very obviously OP.

I disagree. A 2nd-level spell slot that uses Concentration and lasts only an hour is sufficient payment for this bonus. Plus only druids, rangers, and trickster clerics have it (of the PHB classes) and not every party has these characters. Very few in my experience.

A group check costs the party nothing, doesn't require a particular class, and offers a huge advantage to the party when it comes to determining surprise. I would never use a group check to resolve a party's stealth. If you want to be sneaky as a group, plan for it and/or spend some resources.