D&D 5E Questions on stealth...

[Shiroiken]

Ugh. You know, I'd kinda felt the same way for a while but didn't want to go raising a stink and rules lawyering, but I guess I'll have to bring it up sooner or later. I already had the GM try to shut down using higher level spell slots to the boost the Life Cleric passive on healing spells. I actually had to rules lawyer that one cause what's the point of it otherwise? I would have lost 70% of my bonus healing under that interpretation. But yeah, the GM wants us not to murder everything so I'll have to try to talk about it.

I don't think rules lawyering is the answer. The problem isn't the rules. I don't even think it's the DM's interpretation of the rules. I think the problem is the difference between the DM and the player/group. Each DM is different, with their own desires and motivations. You should talk with the DM about his style of play and goals for the game. If he's just going to shut down all stealth, then don't bother with it, but explain to him why.

If you can't come to agreement on things, it might be best to seek out a new DM (or become one yourself). You and the DM will probably be happier in the long run.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

There's also the possibility that your DM has a certain portion of content prepared and is simply not confident enough to ad-lib deviations from the content they feel ready to use during a session. Those wily stealthers and wizzy wigs have a habit of sending the best-laid plans awry. Them and mice.

Anyway, enough speculation on my part.

As many have said, have a chat with your DM, state your expactations of play and listen to what they have to say in response. Really listen. Then you'll be better prepared to decide what to do next.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Talk to him. He's going to unreasonable lengths to make stealth useless, then going to unreasonable lengths to make magic useless. Point out to him that his purpose at the table is to produce a world that is enjoyable to play in, and arbitrating that stealth doesn't work in situations where it's perfectly reasonable for it to work is not doing that. As is adding countermeasures like antimagic fields to low level games without substantial warning.

I've seen you post before, and it sounded like your DM had a specific solution in mind and was kiboshing anything that didn't stick to it. Point out to him that D&D is not a game where it makes sense to retry a scenario until you find the solution, and therefore the DM has to accept solutions that deviate from what he had in mind, and also build scenarios that have information the PCs can use. If your gate is guarded by a permanent anti magic field with an on off switch, that's pretty much a legendary beyond-9th-level spell, tons of people will know it's there (because their minor magic effects stopped when they went near the gate, or because they've tried to sneak through etc), and wizards across the realm will probably want to study it.

You also might want to point out that gaining a skill proficiency requires at least 250 days of 8-hour a day practise. I daresay that at least one person in your group has successfully hidden from someone while still being able to see them. I doubt they had 2000 hours of stealth training to do so.

 

[Garresh]

Eh the situation is tricky. To my knowledge I'm the only player dissatisfied(shocker). We have another rogue but she's mostly cool with stuff. Course it could be because she hasn't been playing the class as long, and only recently switched to it in 5e. Could also be I'm being annoying petty as well. Like, I think I'm the only one who's annoyed when I see a door with an arcane lock cast on it destroy the rogues lockpicks, only to have the druid dispel it, and I'm playing a sorcerer atm...

Eh. I guess I'll just try to diplomatically raise the issue, and if nothing comes of it I'll just cross off a handful of classes and never touch them with a 10 foot pole. That or drop out. Hm. That or I'll just pick a divination wizard and say screw all this crap as I spam arcane eyes everywhere.

 

[Bigkahuna]

Sometimes there is too much political correctness in role-playing so I'm just going to say it. Your DM seems kind of douche to me. I said it early but as soon as you hear GM's pulling out anti-magic fields, sticking arcane locks on everything, notifying you that "your character is not very good at this".... those are all signs of crappy GMing... and crappy GMing is not a "style".. it is what it is.. crappy GMing.

The GM's job is to make the characters the center of the story, its his job to let the players come up with a plan and manipulate the game to ensure whatever nutty plan they come up with there is a way for it to succeed and a way for it to fail, with benefits and consequences for either. The success and failure should be driven by the characters abilities and narrative flare, so you let them describe the scene, let them make checks based on the actions they take and if they fail then, that's when you hit them with consequences and if they succeed you let them and figure out the new route to the story.

Now I think to be fair to the GM, often inexperience can make a GM appear douche as their lack of confidence and fear of derailment can cause them to pigeon hold and steer the story... but the impact on the game is the same between intentional douchiness and unintentional dcouhiness and it must be addressed all the same.

Your GM is effectively running your characters for you.. you either resolve things the way he intends for you to resolve them or you auto fail... that my friend is not role-playing, that is puzzle solving, the puzzle being "how does the GM want us to solve this".

 

[Garresh]

While I am very frustrated with the situation, my GM is not a douche. Just a bit arrogant and hard to persuade. Our group is a bit odd in that we generally have always gone off the books with mechanics so to speak, but I don't think this is so much malice as misunderstanding. In a lot of other ways, she'd be very open to stuff and not a dick about things. I just have a ridiculously hard time persuading where balance is concerned. But I have that problem with every GM, and with my Homebrew binder port being called OP in places. That's nothing new.

Anyways, not trying to call you out on calling my GM out for doucheyness. You're right the situation sucks. But I'm always trying to extend some courtesy here since this issue hasn't really started until 5e. I think in part due to how specific Pathfinder and 3.5 were on things. Anyways. Ridiculousness of this aside, I think it can be salvaged, and they'll hear reason. Just need to approach correctly. Much like my D&D characters... I dump charisma.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not offended, and I don't find your assessment wrong...except in calling it outright doucheyness. It is possible to be a douche by accident. XD

 

[Garresh]

So we're rolling up house rules for intelligence based thieves tools uses to get through magical wards up to a certain level, and using arcana for a weak detect magic to allow at least the knowledge of the presence of something, if not the school or spell. Should be in good shape at this rate.

 

[Agamon]

So we're rolling up house rules for intelligence based thieves tools uses to get through magical wards up to a certain level, and using arcana for a weak detect magic to allow at least the knowledge of the presence of something, if not the school or spell. Should be in good shape at this rate.

Hey, if the DM is willing to work with you to make things better, good on him.

 

[Garresh]

Hey, if the DM is willing to work with you to make things better, good on him.

Lol yep. DMs not a dick...just frustrating sometimes. We're working out a good system though. ^_^

 

[I'm A Banana]

So I've about finished with making an infiltrator style character for a campaign, but I wanted to make sure my understanding of stealth is clear after my last sneaky character was largely useless.

Stealth requires you have concealment from the target, correct?

Stealth requires that you be unseen. Typically, this means invisible, or behind total cover, or in a space that is totally concealed. A blinded enemy can't see you, either.

When outside of combat, how does stealth work without cover?

It doesn't - if you can be seen, your stealth breaks. If you move while stealthing, you must remain unseen from those you are stealthing from. Whenever they get line of sight, your stealth is over.

Invisible rogue, sneaking past guards when he walks into an antimagic zone. Is he immediately revealed, or is he allowed a stealth check? What if it's at night?

If the invisibility is stripped off, he's immediately revealed. "At night" isn't enough concealment to be unseen typically. If the guards were blinded or if the rogue was behind a wall or something, though, the rogue could keep stealth.

During a bright day, a rogue tries to hide on a roof to wait for certain targets to pass by in the street below. Can he hide on the edge so he can see down, or does he have to break like of sight completely so he can't see the road in order to stealth?

Basically a DM judgement call - if the rogue can be seen, stealth ends. I'd probably allow a rogue to stealth in this circumstance with the usual trust that most folks don't habitually look up on roofs, but if the enemies are expecting an ambush or something, I might rule differently.

I have a feeling my GM was ruling stealth a bit incorrectly, but wanted to check. I enjoy playing stealth characters but my GM said I'm not very good at them. What happened in those cases was no stealth allowed, guards were instantly alerted. And in the ambush situation, I had to move to the center of the roof so I had total concealment and wait for the party to signal me that it was time to strike. But I see elsewhere that stealth is apparently different in and out of combat, so I need ruling help.

The big things is that if you can be seen, you cannot be hidden. Sometimes, the rules are explicit about if you can be seen - you can be seen in dim light, for instance. Sometimes, the situation is a bit more up to DM judgement - are the guards distracted and talking among themselves so they don't see you sneak up behind them? Maybe. The DM ruling wasn't wrong in either situation, because if someone is looking at you, you aren't hidden from them.

The DM's judgement call is whether or not someone is looking at you when it's ambiguous.