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

[FrogReaver]

Picking a lock is an approach to the goal of opening a locked door. Breaking it down is another.

It's amazing how "pick a lock to open a locked door" satisfies the goal and approach but, "I quickly consider my life experiences to recall any thing about the enemy I'm facing that can be used for an advantage in fighting it", does not, and I would be asked to specific my approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's amazing how "pick a lock to open a locked door" satisfies the goal and approach but, "I quickly consider my life experiences to recall any thing about the enemy I'm facing that can be used for an advantage in fighting it", does not, and I would be asked to specific my approach.

By whom? Not me, that’s not how I handle lore recall.

 

[FrogReaver]

By whom? Not me, that’s not how I handle lore recall.

Other's with a similar playstyle to you. I assumed you shared that quirk but since you don't, does that mean you would count that as a valid goal and approach? If so, what would the meaningful consequence of failure be?

 

[FrogReaver]

By the way, what is the meaningful consequence of failure to trying to pick a lock and failing?

There wasn't a consequence as far as I can see, before you attempted the check the door was locked. After you attempted the check the door was still locked.

 

[Charlaquin]

Other's with a similar playstyle to you. I assumed you shared that quirk but since you don't, does that mean you would count that as a valid goal and approach? If so, what would the meaningful consequence of failure be?

I don’t view recalling lore as an action the PC performs. That’s not how memory works. If there is a relevant piece of lore that the PCs might or might not know off the top of their heads, I tell it to them if anyone has a relevant proficiency. If a player asks me if their character knows something specific, I generally say it’s up to them what their character knows. If a player wants their character to learn something they don’t already know, then they have to take action, such as examination, experimentation, or research, and I will resolve that action as I would any other.

 

[Krachek]

The skills system ask some common sense from Dm and players.
I never been in a game where a player ask for a persuade check without describing or telling first person what he do.
How a Dm run a persuade encounter depends on its experience. He can make a memorable moment from a check failure.
The Dm have all liberty to ask more information about players intent or argument.
He has also all liberty to ask or not for an roll, assign dc, give advantage or disadvantage.
It’s job is to make the story go forward in an entertainment way.

 

[FrogReaver]

For Stealth I'm pretty sure the implication of the rules, if not the outright rules, are roll once and compare to passive Preception until something about being stealthy changes dramatically enough to need a new roll. That isn't that different than your suggestion of one roll vs the entire camp, since at a practical level probably every single orc is going to have the same score, so if the rogue can beat one they can beat them all.

It's still at the 1pc vs multiple npc level. Just because I beat one orc shouldn't mean they all should fail to see me. Just because I fail to beat one orc doesn't mean they all should fail to see me. That's the flaw with the book prescribed 5e method as you and I understand it.

The solution is to not worry about which individual orcs you beat and to have the mechanics work out what happens in the scene (in a broad general sense) and let the DM fill in the specifics. The current 5e approach doesn't do that. Instead it attempts to fill in details about who spotted you and fails at doing that in any meaningful way, (either they all spot you are none do).

My approach differs because I'm setting a DC based on the scene (not based on the NPC). Failure simply means you are spotted. The DM could have all the orcs spot you, only a handful, only 1. The book method fails to deliver that kind of detail. You either beat all or none. (Barring advantage or disadvantage).

 

[Beleriphon]

It's still at the 1pc vs multiple npc level. Just because I beat one orc shouldn't mean they all should fail to see me. Just because I fail to beat one orc doesn't mean they all should fail to see me. That's the flaw with the book prescribed 5e method as you and I understand it.

The solution is to not worry about which individual orcs you beat and to have the mechanics work out what happens in the scene (in a broad general sense) and let the DM fill in the specifics. The current 5e approach doesn't do that. Instead it attempts to fill in details about who spotted you and fails at doing that in any meaningful way, (either they all spot you are none do).

My approach differs because I'm setting a DC based on the scene (not based on the NPC). Failure simply means you are spotted. The DM could have all the orcs spot you, only a handful, only 1. The book method fails to deliver that kind of detail. You either beat all or none. (Barring advantage or disadvantage).

But if I beat the first vigilant orc guard, nothing else changes, then I beat all of them. So I roll once against a fixed number, and assume that I beat everything until something changes. Like I narrate walking into the light of the camp fire, or now I'm sneaking into the chieftain's tent or something else.

Its the exact same method, although a slightly different rationale for where our target number comes from. In effect, we're saying to the sneaking character, "You're roll wasn't good enough, first group spotted you, lets deal with that." They deal with the fallout and roll again and get a better result so now you're much better hidden via X,Y,Z means and you make as far as you described. You're at the back of the chieftain's tent, what not?

 

[FrogReaver]

But if I beat the first vigilant orc guard, nothing else changes, then I beat all of them. So I roll once against a fixed number, and assume that I beat everything until something changes. Like I narrate walking into the light of the camp fire, or now I'm sneaking into the chieftain's tent or something else.

Its the exact same method, although a slightly different rationale for where our target number comes from. In effect, we're saying to the sneaking character, "You're roll wasn't good enough, first group spotted you, lets deal with that." They deal with the fallout and roll again and get a better result so now you're much better hidden via X,Y,Z means and you make as far as you described. You're at the back of the chieftain's tent, what not?

It's not the same method because it doesn't yield the same outcome. That method allows you to either sneak past all orcs or none. My method determines whether you successfully sneaked up to the encampment. You could sneak past all orcs on success or on failure any number of orcs might see you, 1, some or all.

 

[Beleriphon]

It's not the same method because it doesn't yield the same outcome. That method allows you to either sneak past all orcs or none. My method determines whether you successfully sneaked up to the encampment. You could sneak past all orcs on success or on failure any number of orcs might see you, 1, some or all.

I'm perhaps misunderstanding.

I'm just suggesting the target number is derived from something to do with the orcs statblock rather than a number selected for whatever reasons the DM feels is appropriate. Success or failure on said check determines what happens. I'd operate on the basis that failure means the first group of orcs spots the sneaking character, however that isn't necessarily how it should go with my suggestion.

On a success we do the same thing you're doing, you get to the next stage of whatever you want to be happening. On failure at least one orc has spotted you. What happens? No where that happens is going to depend on how as a group we want to handle that.

I'm curious to get more detail about how you would handle your process and where it differs. Lets assume in your scenario we have a target number of 20. Our erstwhile PC, lets call them Pat Chaperone, get a total of 19 on their relevant check. What happens? Clearly Pat has failed to be sneaky, but what would you do to determine what happens? What would be different if Pat instead got a total of say 4 instead?