D&D 5E Observations and opinions after 8 levels and a dragon fight

[weldon]

I took that number from the 3 quarters concealment baseline requirement to hide.

3/4 = 75% (concealed ) -> 25% (visible)

There is no such concealment requirement for hiding. Maybe you are thinking of another edition?

The way I understand this is as follows…

If I've already been noticed by a creature, then I cannot hide because I am "seen" by the creature. I have to get 100% cover (concealment) before I can attempt to hide (unless there are other factors like Mask of the Wild in effect). This is the only way to change conditions from "seen" to "unseen." If the creature is looking for me while I am hidden, they use their active perception check with modifiers based on lightly or heavily obscured conditions (and possibly other effects). If they succeed, I am "seen" by the creature.

If I haven't yet been noticed by a creature (I am unseen or hidden when I approach) then I can attempt to move towards or past them using stealth. Their active or passive perception is used to determine if they notice me and I become seen. If I succeed on my stealth check, they don't notice me. If I fail, once I am "seen" I cannot hide (until moving behind 100% cover makes me "unseen" again).

My reading of blindsight is that the obscured conditions and other lighting/darkness conditions don't impact these perception checks. But there is still a chance for the PC to use stealth to move undetected within the range of blindsight.

The 3rd edition rules suggest that a creature with blindsight doesn't "usually" have to make a check to notice any creature in range. So even 3rd edition rules suggests that there is some non-zero chance that a PC can still successfully use stealth (although it approaches zero). Up to the DM to determine that chance I suppose. In this edition, I would probably lean towards using the advantage/disadvantage rules when I thought the odds should be modified by the circumstances.

 

[Cyberen]

Well done, weldon.

 

[SirAntoine]

I guessed there would be a different experience.

If you ask Emerikol, for example, any monster played intelligently can beat most parties. How are things going there on wizards.com, by the way?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Rogue can't do this while the dragon is in the lair. He might be able to do it while the dragon is out of the lair. Stealth does not work against dragons, period. They have blindsight. They can move quickly and full attack. If the rogue separates from the party, he can be attacked alone by the dragon. It would chew him up quickly.

I disagree with this. Blindsight simply says they can perceive their surroundings without relying on sight. Depending on the circumstances I would certainly give the Dragon advantage on their opposed Perception check but it's not an automatic thing.

For most creatures that ability is the result of exceptional senses such as hearing and smell. In some cases (such as pit vipers) it's the ability to detect heat at close range, and many creatures can detect vibrations. But all of these are generally less precise than sight except at closer ranges. The only type of Blindsight that I'd say is as reliable, if not more so, than sight is echolocation.

But for simplicity's sake, we have one rule - Blindsight. Each DM/group is going to have to interpret a rule such as this on their own, but characters (and monsters) in my campaign you usually have some chance, no matter how small, to succeed.

And yes, the rules state for sight 'you can't hide from a creature that CAN see you' but I read that as 'DOES' because in my experience, just because you can doesn't mean you do. I was at an office recently where they were installing new A/C components on a roof right outside the window of the office, and I thought that it would be cool to move those things with the very large crane that was there. I was literally sitting right next to the window. A client came in with a question and we had a short conversation, and in the midst of it I was about to point out they were going to move the A/C in a moment and we looked out the window and they were already done.

Having said that, I agree that a battle with a dragon should be very, very difficult. That's the way it should be. The only thing that disappoints me about the 5e dragons is that they don't have immunity or at least resistance to nonmagical weapons. At least they don't in the MM, as for my campaign.

Of course that also means that suit of dragonscale plate you fashion after slaying the dragon confers the same benefit...

Ilbranteloth

 

[Starfox]

The only thing that disappoints me about the 5e dragons is that they don't have immunity or at least resistance to nonmagical weapons.

Wouldn't that run counter to 5E's "no magic items required" mantra?

Don't get me wrong, I think specific weapons can be a great part of a plot - like the silver bullet to slay a werewolf. But this is a plot device, not just a generic "magic" weapon. I'd run these as "slaying" weapons (not using a 5E term here, more a general quality) good against specific opponent, a device that once the plot has been resolved allows you to fight an opponent you wouldn't normally be able to fight.

 

[Starfox]

Rogue can't do this while the dragon is in the lair. He might be able to do it while the dragon is out of the lair. Stealth does not work against dragons, period. They have blindsight. They can move quickly and full attack. If the rogue separates from the party, he can be attacked alone by the dragon. It would chew him up quickly.

Your arguments have been run through the shredder enough rules-wise, I'll not contribute to that (except by selective use of the "laugh" and "xp" buttons). I think you were proven wrong, repeatedly, but I am not going to repeat those arguments.

But what you're saying here is a bit different - you're saying a rogue's main ability (to scout/infiltrate/ambush) is supposed to be worthless against a rather common type of boss monster. This basically reduces the play options of the rogue to support fighter, invalidating the choice of class.

Just as in my post above, I feel this runs counter to the spirit of 5E as I perceive it. Just like requiring magic weapons is a no-no because it would render fighters unable to fight dragons in an edition where magic weapons are explicitly optional. Players should not have their core abilities reduced to nothing against whole classes of monsters.

This was done quite a lot in 1E (anti-magic fields being obnoxiously common) but was largely phased out in later editions. Lets not try and bring it back.

 

[Derren]

Wouldn't that run counter to 5E's "no magic items required" mantra?

Why? Both resistant (Peryton) and immune (Lycantropes with silver vulnerability or Iron Golems) creatures already exist.

 

[Schmoe]

You could also read the description for the spell Enthrall, which imposes disadvantage to perceive[\i] someone, which implies perceiving still requires a Perception check. In fact, perceive and perception are basically the same word.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Wouldn't that run counter to 5E's "no magic items required" mantra?

Don't get me wrong, I think specific weapons can be a great part of a plot - like the silver bullet to slay a werewolf. But this is a plot device, not just a generic "magic" weapon. I'd run these as "slaying" weapons (not using a 5E term here, more a general quality) good against specific opponent, a device that once the plot has been resolved allows you to fight an opponent you wouldn't normally be able to fight.

Immunity does, so I'd be OK with just resistance for Adult and older dragons. There are plenty of other monsters that have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons.

After you asked the question it dawned on me that some abilities (like the Barbarian Rage) don't specify nonmagical, which means even magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage is halved. That's significantly different, and I think I'll go that route with dragons (at least ancient ones).

Ilbranteloth

 

[B9anders]

FWIW, we got an answer to this only a few days later:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/553730387751337984

Jeremy Crawford:

"A creature can try to hide within blindsight range behind cover."

"Blindsight lets you spot an invisible creature in range, but that creature can still try to hide behind something with Stealth."