Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6945490" data-attributes="member: 12731">Well, there are two things to consider. First, yes, the Stealth vs Perception "battle" became very lopsided in this edition. But before we fix that, we need to remember that the Rogue is built on Stealth. And in order to make that a fun character to play, it needs to be reliable. In other words, make Stealth just a little less good, a little less reliable, and you could just as well have played a Fighter. And a Fighter does just as much damage (if not more) with infinitely better staying power.(Remember, 5E mostly does away with niche protection - you can build a decent stealther on top of any class thanks to Backgrounds.)What I'm trying to get at is: while I'm sure Stealth is borked, I'm not sure it is for Rogues.I would be wary of flushing Rogues out from the shadows. What I would recommend, though, is to make the change to Stealth that you no longer need to beat the best Perception in the party - you only need to beat the party member you want to stalk/ambush/pounce.My justification is this: 5E did away with almost all numeric penalties. While this is mostly a good thing, the way you don't get any detailed environmental penalties on Perception makes Perception too good compared to Stealth.Previously you could bog down play with -2 for every N feet of distance, another -2 here for ambient noise (dripping water, wind rustling the leaves) and a third -2 there for bad lighting, soft ground or any other circumstancial penalty. I don't think any one of us wants to go back to that stuff. But what "that stuff" did, was, it allowed the DM to justify why only Bob the Fighter was given a Perception roll when the wolves were about to jump him, and not the living radar high-wisdom Cleric of the group.My solution is, in the spirit of 5E, simple to the point of being "crude but effective". Allow only the party member about to be jumped to make a Perception roll (or only use her passive score). Even if Radar is close by, try arguing he doesn't get a roll at all, and even if the players force you, give him disadvantage. And don't allow him to use his passive score (by actively rolling you can get a lower result than 10, especially with disadvantage).This would help immensely with the classic scenario "the wolves are circling the camp fire".It would not, however, flush out the Rogue. But I'm not sure that would be a good thing. To fix that issue, you will simply have to revert WotC's decision to be very stingy with skill proficiencies. Add +5 or even +10 to select monsters to give them a fighting chance of beating the Rogue's Stealth check. Just be sure to telegraph this at least somewhat. Giving +10 Perception to all Kobolds is not fun for the Rogue. Giving +10 Perception to even one Kobold is not fun either, unless the Rogue can scout out which one.If the Rogue isn't given at least a minimal chance of taking out the enemy's eyes and ears, you could just as well dump Stealth from the game, and then you could just as well tell the player "I don't like having Rogues in the party, please choose another class to play".Good luck!</blockquote>

Verification