D&D 5E Passive perception Yay or Nay?

[FormerlyHemlock]

It SHOULD be hard for a large group to be stealthy. If you want to sneak up on someone use a small group, or get your skill bonus ridiculously high via Expertise/Pass Without Trace/Invisibility. Three dozen bugbears simply SHOULDN'T be able to all sneak up on the same party without someone giving themselves away, and that is perfectly fine because quantity makes a dandy substitute for surprise.

Group Stealth checks are inappropriate and unphysical.

 

[KarinsDad]

But if you're only here to dump on the stealth rules, then you are derailing the thread, which is asking us Passive perception Yay or Nay?

The OP is talking about hiding and passive perception in his first post. Just trying to stay on topic.

 

[KarinsDad]

Group Stealth checks are inappropriate and unphysical.

While that might have some truth to it in the real world, the issue becomes one of almost never being able to ambush someone if there are 4 or more foes doing the ambushing because of game mechanics (i.e. typically, at least one creature out of four rolls a low stealth check). At least according to the surprise rules and normal math.

With regard to not being able to do a group stealth check in the game, the Rogue puts some grease on the Fighter's armor to make it squeak less, the Bard sneaks forward, keeping the Cleric next to him so that she only breaks cover when he does, etc. No different than a group Athletics check to climb a cliff face with ropes. Those that can, help. Those that cannot, move very slowly.

The math of group stealth checks allow for some of one side to not be surprised, while others on the same side are. Something that is interesting and desirable at times in the game. Not every encounter or maybe not even many encounters, but once in a while it's fun for the players (be it they are the ones stealthing, or the NPCs are doing it).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Or you could just, you know, let the sneaky guys scout ahead while archers and clumsy wizard cover them from a hundred yards back.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Or you could just, you know, let the sneaky guys scout ahead while archers and clumsy wizard cover them from a hundred yards back.

Cleric: "Huh, I see some sneaking shadow over by them..."
Fighter: "They must have a rogue! Fireball him before our's gets too close!"
Wizard: "Casting Maximized Doom-Enhanced Fireball."
DM: "Rogue, you take 618 points of damage."
Cleric, Fighter, Wizard: "Oops!"

Yeah, never again... Just, never again.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, just because you find the prospect dull as all get out doesn't mean it's true for everyone else though. Heck, you could make the same argument about the cleric way back when, that someone *had* to be one in order to have the healing spells (as that was the optimal choice for your party)... and yet we've seen many folks here on the boards say quite plainly that they enjoy being the healer. So a job that I think most people wished upon an NPC that traveled with the party so that no one else in the group had to actually play it... is one that some tables embrace. Same can be said of the searching thief. We might find the idea of describing what we're doing and looking for every 10 feet (and then rolling for results) to be the highest form of tedium... but I'm pretty sure we'd find a table and a thief player that loves it. Probably one that is a fan (and constant player) of the OSR if I had to guess.

I ain't saying there's a *lot* of them... only that odds-on they do in fact exist.

My argument wasn't whether it was boring [tho I found it such]. My argument was due to the lack of agency.

With your cleric example, there IS meaningful choice in casting those healing spells. Any time a slot is used to heal it's a slot that is not used to cast auguries, purge poisons, bless parties, fire holy beams of doom, and all sorts of other non-healing things a cleric can do. And these are meaningful decisions, because sometimes using a resource on a different spell prevents more damage than the healing spell would cure. Meaningful choice, meaningful consequence.

As well, the action used to cast the healing spell, if in combat, is an attack that isn't made. The battle will take one attack longer for every cure spell cast, which may end up drawing out the fight and the party taking more damage. Again, meaningful choice, meaningful consequence.

The analogy doesn't really work towards that argument because even if a caster decides they do nothing BUT heal that is a decision and that decision has consequences.

 

[SirAntoine]

Just because something is always in a character's interest to do, doesn't mean the player doesn't exhibit agency doing it. Rolling for what you try to do is fun.

 

[CapnZapp]

Adding 5 is not math sound at all. Passive = roll 10, nothing more. If you roll, you simply roll, and take your chances. And yes, this means vs multiple foes, there are more chances to spot you. But if you are skilled or roll well, you probably wont be spotted regardless. Working as intended. There is no good reason why you should +5 hiding against 5 guys, but roll normally when hiding against 1.

No.

I could explain it one more time, but since I suspect you aren't listening, I won't.

Have a nice day.

 

[Psikerlord#]

No.

I could explain it one more time, but since I suspect you aren't listening, I won't.

Have a nice day.

I understand your argument, I simply dont agree. We agree to disagree.

 

[Pickles JG]

I almost always use passive skills when I DM. One side rolls the other has a fixed value. Wherever possible it's the players rolling but in situations where they are unaware of the situation I will use a roll against their appropriate skill plus 10 - this will be perception most of the time but insight can come up. Sneaking & Lying are when the PCs are in the dark mostly.