D&D 5E How to skill check (and why 5e got stealth wrong)

[FrogReaver]

I want to provide an alternative framework to the goal and approach method that's gotten so much attention the last few days. I'm going to call it the situation - action method.

Skill checks are inherently about resolving uncertainty. That's why when there isn't uncertain there's no point in rolling. That said, skill checks are not about resolving uncertainty relating to your goal, but rather uncertainty brought about through whatever action you took to achieve your goal. A simple example might help.

Goal: You want to the Lord Mayor of the Town to not increase hostilities with their neighboring town. Action: You attempt to persuade him. Resolution of Action: The DM determines there's no chance you can persuade him, Consequences of Action: but there is uncertainty about whether your attempt to persuade him will anger him. So he calls for a persuasion roll to determine whether the Lord Mayor is angry at you.

When should the DM demand an approach to go along with the action? When the approach might change the outcome or the DC he will set.

Approach: In the above example, the action to attempt to persuade the Lord Mayor could have been met with the DM asking the player to clarify "what he says or does to persuade him", because the DM knows that if you mention something about Blithe the sorcerer desiring the increased tensions that the Lord Mayor has a real chance to heed your advice. In this case the approach becomes important even though it isn't always.

So far I've explained the Action Framework. What do I mean about situation? Well this part is simple as well. Currently in D&D we pit players against individual NPC's. For example, consider a rogue attempting to sneak up to a camp of orcs we measure the pc vs each member's passive perception in the camp of orcs (assuming it's uncertain in the first place). That resolution method doesn't make sense other than under a heavy simulationist framework. The current method would be to resolve the Rogue's Action of sneaking up to the camp of orcs by comparing the pc's stealth check to each individual orc's passive perception. The better method would be for the DM to set a DC that takes into account the whole situation. In this case a camp of orcs on the lookout might be assigned a DC 20.

Going back to the Lord Mayor persuasion example, the DC may depend on who else is present for the persuasion attempt, or if you chose a particularly busy time to bring this before the Lord Mayor etc.

Anyways, this is my preferred resolution methodology. Determine if a check needs made by considering both the action and the consequences of that action, and only asking for additional approach information as needed and then if either of them auto succeed or fail and what consequences the action may have for failure or success. If a check gets made assign a DC that takes into account the whole situation.

Hopefully this helps put some thought and definition into the more traditional styles.

 

[abirdcall]

The better method would be for the DM to set a DC that takes into account the whole situation. In this case a camp of orcs on the lookout might be assigned a DC 20.

I think the DM is already empowered to do that.

The quick and easy method given by the rules is to have advantage/disadvantage.

I think few people would say that being more granular, in this case giving the orcs a +9 rather than advantage's +5, is against the spirit of the rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the DM is already empowered to do that.

The quick and easy method given by the rules is to have advantage/disadvantage.

I think few people would say that being more granular, in this case giving the orcs a +9 rather than advantage's +5, is against the spirit of the rules.

The DM is empowered to do anything.

By the way, I'm not suggesting we give the Orcs + anything. I'm suggesting the whole situation be taken into account and a DC assigned.

 

[Oofta]

I just make multiple opposed rolls based on how many orcs I think could reasonably be observing the area. Some of them may have advantage or disadvantage based on normal environmental variables.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just make multiple opposed rolls based on how many orcs I think could reasonably be observing the area. Some of them may have advantage or disadvantage based on normal environmental variables.

But you don't actually need to know which orcs spotted the rogue in this situation, or even how many. The rogue is just wanting to sneak up to the encampment. The question is whether he gets spotted. Once he's spotted you can take that part of the story wherever is most interesting or most fun or most realistic - Whatever your sensibilities desire.

 

[Charlaquin]

I want to provide an alternative framework to the goal and approach method that's gotten so much attention the last few days. I'm going to call it the situation - action method.

Skill checks are inherently about resolving uncertainty. That's why when there isn't uncertain there's no point in rolling. That said, skill checks are not about resolving uncertainty relating to your goal, but rather uncertainty brought about through whatever action you took to achieve your goal. A simple example might help.

Goal: You want to the Lord Mayor of the Town to not increase hostilities with their neighboring town. Action: You attempt to persuade him. Resolution of Action: The DM determines there's no chance you can persuade him, Consequences of Action: but there is uncertainty about whether your attempt to persuade him will anger him. So he calls for a persuasion roll to determine whether the Lord Mayor is angry at you.

When should the DM demand an approach to go along with the action? When the approach might change the outcome or the DC he will set.

Approach: In the above example, the action to attempt to persuade the Lord Mayor could have been met with the DM asking the player to clarify "what he says or does to persuade him", because the DM knows that if you mention something about Blithe the sorcerer desiring the increased tensions that the Lord Mayor has a real chance to heed your advice. In this case the approach becomes important even though it isn't always.

I don’t think I disagree with any of this. However, I do question how the DM can know whether or not the approach might change the outcome or the DC without hearing the approach first. Or, to be blunt, I don’t believe they can. Certainly, I would not be confident in my own assumption that the approach can’t change the outcome or DC without having heard the approach.

So far I've explained the Action Framework. What do I mean about situation? Well this part is simple as well. Currently in D&D we pit players against individual NPC's. For example, consider a rogue attempting to sneak up to a camp of orcs we measure the pc vs each member's passive perception in the camp of orcs (assuming it's uncertain in the first place). That resolution method doesn't make sense other than under a heavy simulationist framework. The current method would be to resolve the Rogue's Action of sneaking up to the camp of orcs by comparing the pc's stealth check to each individual orc's passive perception.

Who is “we,” exactly? I don’t think that’s how I’d resolve such an action.

The better method would be for the DM to set a DC that takes into account the whole situation. In this case a camp of orcs on the lookout might be assigned a DC 20.

Going back to the Lord Mayor persuasion example, the DC may depend on who else is present for the persuasion attempt, or if you chose a particularly busy time to bring this before the Lord Mayor etc.

Anyways, this is my preferred resolution methodology. Determine if a check needs made by considering both the action and the consequences of that action, and only asking for additional approach information as needed and then if either of them auto succeed or fail and what consequences the action may have for failure or success. If a check gets made assign a DC that takes into account the whole situation.

Hopefully this helps put some thought and definition into the more traditional styles.

Again, I agree with you, I think this is an excellent action resolution method. But I propose that additional approach information is always needed. I always need it, at any rate.

 

[Oofta]

But you don't actually need to know which orcs spotted the rogue in this situation. The rogue is just wanting to sneak up to the encampment. The question is whether he gets spotted. Once he's spotted you can take that part of the story wherever is most interesting or most fun or most realistic - Whatever your sensibilities desire.

But to me the "whole situation" is basically taking into consideration the number of times the rogue might be spotted, right? You can do that with a set DC, use passive perception for the orc, possibly have the rogue roll stealth multiple times as he crosses different sections of the camp.

I'm saying that because as a DM, taking the whole scenario into account is kind of meaningless. Or at least it is to me. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know how I would set the DC ... what factors would I take into consideration? What if it's not just orcs (perception +0) but they've captured a black dragon wyrmling (perception +4)?

If I break it up into a couple of scenes then I know what to do. The outskirts of the encampment the rogue may have advantage or even automatic. Sneaking through the heart of the camp? Goes from being not all that much more difficult to very dangerous with the rogue rolling with disadvantage and orcs having advantage (+5 to passive if I go that way).

For social encounters I'm much more likely to set a DC and adjust based on approach, context, points raised and other details.

 

[MarkB]

The current method would be to resolve the Rogue's Action of sneaking up to the camp of orcs by comparing the pc's stealth check to each individual orc's passive perception. The better method would be for the DM to set a DC that takes into account the whole situation. In this case a camp of orcs on the lookout might be assigned a DC 20.

I notice that you didn't suggest asking for an approach when determining how to resolve the whole "rogue sneaking into a camp of orcs" situation. This certainly seems like something that may be modified significantly based upon the chosen approach.

On the other hand, I've never really liked the "multiple stealth rolls" approach to sneaking either, because - barring something like Reliable Talent - once you're requiring more than 2-3 rolls, the player's luck will almost inevitably run out at some point. It's basically imposing super-disadvantage on the check.

 

[FrogReaver]

I notice that you didn't suggest asking for an approach when determining how to resolve the whole "rogue sneaking into a camp of orcs" situation. This certainly seems like something that may be modified significantly based upon the chosen approach.

On the other hand, I've never really liked the "multiple stealth rolls" approach to sneaking either, because - barring something like Reliable Talent - once you're requiring more than 2-3 rolls, the player's luck will almost inevitably run out at some point. It's basically imposing super-disadvantage on the check.

1. It was just an example

2. If you think it would matter then call for one.. Depending on the details I probably would. But in the context of a encampment with a clearing surrounded by the forest then I wouldn't require an approach, though a well placed volunteered approach could help, up to the player (provided the rogue was wanting to get right up to the edge of the camp.)

 

[FrogReaver]

On the other hand, I've never really liked the "multiple stealth rolls" approach to sneaking either, because - barring something like Reliable Talent - once you're requiring more than 2-3 rolls, the player's luck will almost inevitably run out at some point. It's basically imposing super-disadvantage on the check.

Yep. that's the part 5e did wrong with stealth. They treated it like a 1pc v many npc skill, but it really should 1 pc vs 1 situation, like all other skills