D&D 5E Questions on stealth...

[Plaguescarred]

Not moving, or concealing your movement as much as you can, is part of what you're trying to do when making a stealth check to hide, so i wouldn't grant advantage strickly for that.

A DM could always rule outside combat that an observer is too distracted by things going on around im to be able to actually "clearly" see you even though you're not typically heavily obscured, invisible or unseen in some other fashion such as from blindness etc.


This reminds me of this awareness video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4

 

[Garresh]

I kind of feel like the Snipers Field Manual(I think that's what its called) published by the US military, and the accounts and field reports of actual snipers in Vietnam and Iraq should be required reading by every DM. It's pretty jarring when taking 3 grenades to the face and walking it off is considered reasonable but hiding in half a foot or so of grass or hiding after firing at an enemy is considered broken, overpowered, and unrealistic. Snipers do that kind of crap on a routine basis in an engagement. Might clear up some of these misconceptions I see floating around.

 

[Ahglock]

I don't even find with surprise stealth to be too good. With it the rogue might equal out to the damage of the fighter over the fight. That doesn't bother me. Maybe if entire groups were strath focussed it might become a issue but like everything else I'd modify my encounter design.

I find surprise too weak in many cases. An initiative roll before they are aware bothers me. A dex check to notice something at the last second bothers me. The idea that you always know something is happening bothers me. I hate the surprise rules and don't find them too powerful.

Let's say a group of guards are walking down a alley. A rogue sneaks up on a trailing guard and declares I'm gonna sap him and if he falls unconscious try to catch his body so it doesn't make noise. Roll initiative. Okay everyone is in combat mode now and has 360 awareness and apparently know something is up. Whether successful or not at sneaking. I house rule that so only him and that trailing guard rolls initiative.

Let's say lone pc is walking through the forest. Elves have sneaked up on him. One decides too shoot him with an arrow but he misses. Why have I rolled initiative and let the PC know something is up? Is it physically impossible not to notice an arrow fly behind your back? Shouldn't that be a perception check to see if he noticed something in the first place. Without the skulker feat not only did he auto notice, he knows where the shot came from and sees the elf. If he had been hit why should he auto know where the shot came from? When did trying to find where the sniper was firing from become a automatic success? Now yes a rogue could fire the arrow, move behind cover and hide again but why was he spotted automatically in the first place?

 

[Guest 6801328]

No. I'm not. Everytime we have one of these threads where people insist that stealth ends as soon as you can be seen we have people coming out of the woodwork with examples from real life showing the opposite. We're talking about a game where characters routinely kill gigantic monsters with swords, wounds are healed with the power of believing real hard and arcane bolts are summoned to unerringly strike their target. But the rogue tip toeing past a guard is too much.

The problem isn't stealth being an I win button. The problem is the surprise rules. Characters that are good at stealth also tend to win initiative. Which means they tend to get two full rounds of actions before their foes can act. In a game where most fights last only 3 or 4 rounds that leaves DMs feeling like stealth made it too easy.

We fixed this in our group by changing the surprise rules. When you are surprised and your init comes up you become unsurprised and are moved to the back of the queue. You still get to act this round, just at the end of it. So the rogues and monks have a greater incentive to strike then move away during the surprise round rather than stand there and get two rounds worth of attacks. It does wonders for nerfing ambushes without taking away a key feature of so many classes.

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I do agree that I just don't give a rats hindquarters how hard it is to sneak in real life. (For the record, I also don't care how much plate armor weighs, how historically accurate dual-wielding is or isn't, or the physics of Darkvision.)

All that matters is whether or not a mechanic contributes to nuanced decision-making in the game.

If the utility of stealth is so great that it reduces interesting decision-making...such as whether or not to try to sneak up at the beginning of combat, or even which proficiencies to invest in...then we have a problem. And if the Surprise round factor is as great as you describe, then that would seem to suggest such a problem.

But I think that surprise problem can be mitigated in ways other than trying to apply a particularly harsh "realism" filter to it. It's easy enough for a DM to:
- Design encounters that can't be trivialized by stealth
- Design encounters that put stealthers at risk
- Occasionally have sneaky bad guys pull the same trick on the adventurers
- Balance the encounters under the assumption that a couple targets are going to die fast
- And, yes, sometimes give the rogues a setup where their stealth shines and they get to hug themselves for one-shotting the bad guys.

Maybe what we need is a discussion not of how stealth works, but of how surprise works. Because unless the whole party is stealthy the mooks aren't going to be surprised.

 

[Garresh]

Honestly, I'm not sure there's any way to reach a real solution here. I've noticed that both in tabletop games, and even in video games, a lot of people tend to hate stealth mechanics. In Team Fortress 2, the spy was rarely used in competitive, and against a competent team had nowhere near the impact of a Medic. But it still was hated, and many of it'd abilities were never buffed while other classes got new features.

In Skyrim forums and posts, people often talk about how broken stealth is. They're not wrong, but it neglects the fact that Alchemy, Enchanting, Smithing, Stunlock Destruction, and Illusion were also overpowered. You could by mid levels use destruction to perma stun a dragon the death, and alchemy can actually reduce your shout cool down to 0. But stealth got all the flak. It was seen as the problem child because it could kill someone then hide. Nevermind that it was not very good against dragons and bosses. Nope. Hiding OP. All the decent skyrim overhaul mods actually buffed most skills but nerfed stealth.

You can pretty much trace a similar pattern through most games. Evelyn in league of Legends was hated because she was a useless pubstomper, then because she was overpowered, then because she was useless. All over the course of 2 years with almost nothing but Nerfs given to her. Same deal with Techies in Dota. A stealth hero without any stealth abilities, who has to sneak manually somewhere and plant landmines. He's a trash hero, but still hated.

The problem is that most people see stealth as Overpowered because it is, but only in a very specific context. If you're successful, you're bypassing or eliminating enemies at seemingly no personal risk. But if you're failing, you're horrifically behind the curve compared to other classes. That's kind of the point though. A mundane encounter for a stealthy character should become life-threatening should they fail, or at least they should have to retreat and let the big Kids protect them. When context is ignored, a DM or player feels like they're overpowered, because they are seen to be dispatching nooks with no problems. Until they're soloing or bypassing bosses, that's not an issue. Because they have a specific role as scout or burst damage in boss fights, after which they retreat and pass off to the better combat classes to do their thing while they become supporting damage.

I mean what's worse, killing a bunch of mooks before they can react IF you get the drop on them, or killing a bunch of mooks before they can react regardless of who got the drop, because you empowered a fireball or used warlock slots with a smite paladin? Those are both overpowered too within the context, but like stealth the cost is high. Well maybe not so high with Fireball, but it can be a little strong when it doesn't threaten the single target damage of a dps character. So why stealth when it has counters and encourages good play?

I don't get how people can advocate for removing or limitijg playstyles that features high risk high reward play, and which encourafes and reinforces a clever approach. Because I see this same mindset spanning like all of gaming. And I really just can't wrap my head around it. I don't try to tell a fighter or a barbarian they can't be a bad dude. I just kinda sit back and enjoy the show. Maybe if I'm a caster I throw a haste on them so they can be better at their job and feel good about their role.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Maybe what we need is a discussion not of how stealth works, but of how surprise works. Because unless the whole party is stealthy the mooks aren't going to be surprised.

No, please no. We've had plenty of threads (even recently) about Surprise based upon the Sage Advice rules that were just given, and they result in just as much disagreement amongst DMs as the Hiding rules do.

The only sane thing to do at this point is to just take the baseline rules and description of what is written about Hiding and about Surprise in the books... and then let the DM make their decision on how they want to interpret and play those rules. And then, all the players can learn and understand how the DM is choosing to run with them, and then create and run PCs that use them in that way if they so choose.

There's no compromise or universal agreement to be found here, because every DM believes in something different when it comes to Hiding and Surprise. So let's not even attempt to try and find one.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think stealth is most appropriately employed as a fight starter, and not something that should be happening mid fight most of the time. For better or worse, that view doesnt gel very easily with the devs giving the rogue bonus action hiding. Layer on this the confusing stealth rules and i find the whole issue a big mess.

I think the best approach to stealth is to largely remove it from most combat, leave it to adhoc GM rulings outside of combat, and give rogues abilities that do not rely on stealth.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What exactly is the problem with a ranged rogue repeatedly using Hide during combat? I also find it a little bit cheesy, but is the result so terrible? A melee rogue can get two attacks, and if one of them lands he gets his Sneak Attack (and both might land). A ranged rogue using the Hide cheese gets Advantage, and if either roll is successful he gets his Sneak Attack bonus.

Sure, the ranged rogue has some advantages...doesn't need an ally with 5' of the target, is more likely to get his Sneak Attack damage combined with a crit (the melee rogue might get Sneak Attack with mainhand, then roll crit with offhand), gets dex bonus added to damage regardless of which roll hits, and of course doesn't expose himself to danger.

But the ranged rogue has downsides too: Disadvantage if the target is prone, loses Advantage if he fails his Stealth roll, and probably others I'm thinking of.

All in all I think it's a wash. I haven't seen ranged rogues really be OP, just cheesy.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I came to find over time that hiding is mostly used repeatedly in combat to gain advantage only by PC who can hide more easily (Skulker feat, wood elf and lightfoot halfling etc..) otherwise hiding is used defensively by most other creatures who wish to conceal their position, since they already have advantage by having to be unseen in order to attempt to hide.

 

[Springheel]

However, some types of characters can make that DEX (Stealth) check without being out of LOS or Heavily Obscured-- Wood Elves only need to be Lightly Obscured while in foliage, Halflings only need to be Lightly Obscured by being behind other larger creatures, and those with the Skulker feat only need to be Lightly Obscured by being in Dim Light. If any of those three types of characters achieve that level of Lightly Obscured, then can make DEX (Stealth) checks to become Hidden as well.

As I understand it, the reason a character who is heavily obscured could attempt to hide, even if the opponent is looking their direction, is because observers are basically blind to them. Can a wood elf who is lightly obscured by nature attempt to hide while someone is looking in their direction in the same way? If they can't, then I'm a bit confused by the usefulness of the ability. But on the other hand, if they can, what is actually happening, narratively speaking? Is the intention that wood elves are so well hidden when not trying that even a regular forest makes opponents "blind" to them?