D&D 5E ranger getting caught all of time---What to do?

[iserith]

I know your position on who decides when to roll, dude.

I don't know who knows what about my positions, so you'll have to forgive me repeating myself.

That's not what I said. I said the *character* is capable of making a check.

As in, the rules contain within them clear instructions on how being a a low dex dwarf in plate mail affects stealth checks.

Characters don't make checks. They do stuff in the fictional world. The rules contain instructions for how to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the stuff they do in the fictional world. But the DM determines whether there is or isn't uncertainty.

If someone was on sentry duty, and such a dwarf was trying to sneak past them (he is obscured from sight) the rules are pretty clear: the DM can have him roll a Stealth check at disadvantage with a -1 penalty from dexterity.

So if your position is that when that dwarf is trying to sneak up on someone who is foraging he automatically fails... We have a weird disconnect. He's actually worse at stealth when the person he is sneaking up on is distracted?

Or, less weird but still weird, you decide that if it's a situation where you'd let him roll vs. a sentry then vs. a forager he just auto succeeds?

It avoids the most egregiously backwards scenario. But then I'm back to a previous comment that this removes any sense of granularity between various levels of situational awareness and various levels of stealth training. Everyone is the same in this situation, which, while arguably consistent with the RAW, makes no damn sense.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about the situation in your view. If the barbarian is foraging, then he or she is not alert to danger. A creature successfully sneaking up on the barbarian gets the drop on him or her. A creature that doesn't successfully sneak up on the barbarian doesn't get the drop on him or her. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your objection.

 

[MostlyDm]

The rules contain instructions for how to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the stuff they do in the fictional world. But the DM determines whether there is or isn't uncertainty.

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about the situation in your view. If the barbarian is foraging, then he or she is not alert to danger. A creature successfully sneaking up on the barbarian gets the drop on him or her. A creature that doesn't successfully sneak up on the barbarian doesn't get the drop on him or her. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your objection.

The critical issue is that "successfully" in there, and how you are determining it.

I'm going to break this down a bit more to hopefully clarify why your method seems odd to me.

Jump in when you disagree.

We have Jonny Hawkeyes, a human rogue with expertise in Perception. He has +7 perception, passive perception 17.

We have Glor the goblin, with +4 to stealth checks. And we have Bractar the Bold, a dwarf in plate mail with a -1 to stealth checks.

Jonny is on sentry duty on a dark night. The DM determines that the darkness and foliage grant any interloper the obscurement necessary to attempt stealth.

If Glor tries to sneak in, he can roll a stealth check. Depending on how dark it is and what light sources Jonny has, the DM may or may not apply advantage or disadvantage mechanics.

If Bractar tries to sneak in... It goes exactly the same. Stealth check, possible disadvantage to Jonny and/or removing Bractar's disadvantage per DM ruling.

Glor is *much* more likely to succeed than Bractar.

Now, instead of sentry duty, Jonny is foraging in those same dark woods.

Your position is that Glor automatically succeeds, right? There is no uncertainty.

Does Bractar automatically succeed?

If not, then Bractar is demonstrably better at stealth when he is going up against sentries as opposed to distracted foragers. Certain failure vs likely failure. I think that's a huge problem.

If so (and I think this is the one you would choose) then we have a different problem. As soon as Jonny starts foraging, there is no different between Glor and Bractar. They both automatically succeed. Similarly, Jonny could be Blind Bob for all the good his situational awareness does him.

It levels everything out so that as soon as someone engages in a distracting actively, there is absolutely no distinction between observant and unobservant people, or between sneaky people and bumblers.

 

[iserith]

The critical issue is that "successfully" in there, and how you are determining it.

I'm going to break this down a bit more to hopefully clarify why your method seems odd to me.

Jump in when you disagree.

We have Jonny Hawkeyes, a human rogue with expertise in Perception. He has +7 perception, passive perception 17.

We have Glor the goblin, with +4 to stealth checks. And we have Bractar the Bold, a dwarf in plate mail with a -1 to stealth checks.

Jonny is on sentry duty on a dark night. The DM determines that the darkness and foliage grant any interloper the obscurement necessary to attempt stealth.

If Glor tries to sneak in, he can roll a stealth check. Depending on how dark it is and what light sources Jonny has, the DM may or may not apply advantage or disadvantage mechanics.

If Bractar tries to sneak in... It goes exactly the same. Stealth check, possible disadvantage to Jonny and/or removing Bractar's disadvantage per DM ruling.

Glor is *much* more likely to succeed than Bractar.

Now, instead of sentry duty, Jonny is foraging in those same dark woods.

Your position is that Glor automatically succeeds, right? There is no uncertainty.

Does Bractar automatically succeed?

If not, then Bractar is demonstrably better at stealth when he is going up against sentries as opposed to distracted foragers. Certain failure vs likely failure. I think that's a huge problem.

If so (and I think this is the one you would choose) then we have a different problem. As soon as Jonny starts foraging, there is no different between Glor and Bractar. They both automatically succeed. Similarly, Jonny could be Blind Bob for all the good his situational awareness does him.

It levels everything out so that as soon as someone engages in a distracting actively, there is absolutely no distinction between observant and unobservant people, or between sneaky people and bumblers.

I think our disconnect has to do with when we start looking to the mechanics.

I'm only looking at passive Perception and Dexterity (Stealth) when I can't decide who gets the drop on whom. A distracted character and a sneaky goblin? Goblin succeeds. A distracted character and a loud, clanking dwarf? Dwarf fails. I don't need to roll dice to determine an outcome here.

 

[MostlyDm]

Yep, that's the disconnect. Presumably you'd also say the dwarf automatically fails to sneak past a sentry?

I'd consider these cases of uncertainty.

For one thing, why even have things like negative modifiers and disadvantage when in armor, if being so disadvantaged instead results in an automatic failure?

For another, I'm much more inclined to allow attempts to achieve results in the face of difficult odds. That's the *point* of difficult odds, to my view. Not to guarantee failure, but to make success difficult (and all the sweeter, on the occasions you beat the odds.)

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Now, instead of sentry duty, Jonny is foraging in those same dark woods.

Note that the rule saying "characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats" is specifically as the group travels through a dungeon or the wilderness (as noted in the "Activity while traveling" section).

Also note that the Passive Perception section of the Hiding sidebar says "When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

In situations where Jonny is foraging but isn't traveling your interpretation to use Passive Perception is perfectly valid. (As always each GM may interpret the rule however they please.)

 

[MostlyDm]

Note that the rule saying "characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats" is specifically as the group travels through a dungeon or the wilderness (as noted in the "Activity while traveling" section).

Also note that the Passive Perception section of the Hiding sidebar says "When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

In situations where Jonny is foraging but isn't traveling your interpretation to use Passive Perception is perfectly valid. (As always each GM may interpret the rule however they please.)

If anything, I would interpret that as: Jonny is ranging some distance from the group, trying to forage. So, yeah, his passive perception is not going to contribute to *the group's* chance. But if someone were sneaking up on him alone, I'd probably still roll against passive... Perhaps rolling with advantage and/or applying -5 to Jonny's passive.

The idea that scouting the woods for food is incompatible with maintaining situational awareness is just too nonsensical for me.

 

[Koloth]

Its hard sometimes to talk to him but I will try. He seems to play favorites with our rouges. I think that he is frustrated with what has been happening because even though everyone in the party is all level 3 there is 7 of us total so its hard to find something for us to fight.

The fact the DM is frustrated as well is a heads up that the entire group needs to have a 'How do we make this more fun and less frustrating' discussion ASAP. If you are frustrated and the DM is frustrated, it is probable that other players are also frustrated. Needs to be fixed or it will probably not end well. Bad vibes tend to breed more bad vibes. If you have noticed the rouges are favorites, the other non rouges likely have as well.

Most fun RPG sessions are a cooperative effort between the DM and players. While the DM is lord and master of his/her game, the players are lord and masters of their butts and can always invoke the 'get up and leave' maneuver if the game gets too out of hand.

 

[iserith]

Note that the rule saying "characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats" is specifically as the group travels through a dungeon or the wilderness (as noted in the "Activity while traveling" section).

"Traveling" applies to both the feet and mile level as appropriate to what's relevant at the time. I take it to mean it the trade-off applies all the time which makes perfect sense to me and also addresses common complaints about passive Perception.

Also note that the Passive Perception section of the Hiding sidebar says "When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

I think there's a difference between "searching for something hidden" and "staying alert for danger" when it comes to adjudication. In the case of the text you quote, I think the passive Perception applies because the "someone" referenced is staying alert for hidden danger and not searching for something hidden. The latter might call for an ability check rather than a passive one due to it not being a task being performed repeatedly.

 

[iserith]

Yep, that's the disconnect. Presumably you'd also say the dwarf automatically fails to sneak past a sentry?

I'd consider these cases of uncertainty.

For one thing, why even have things like negative modifiers and disadvantage when in armor, if being so disadvantaged instead results in an automatic failure?

For another, I'm much more inclined to allow attempts to achieve results in the face of difficult odds. That's the *point* of difficult odds, to my view. Not to guarantee failure, but to make success difficult (and all the sweeter, on the occasions you beat the odds.)

Context is everything. I look at that first, then the mechanics when I can't decide. In practice, what we individually do at the table probably looks very much the same unless you're an adherent to the "Roll With It" method in the DMG (page 236 or so? I don't have my books handy).

 

[Wednesday Boy]

"Traveling" applies to both the feet and mile level as appropriate to what's relevant at the time. I take it to mean it the trade-off applies all the time which makes perfect sense to me and also addresses common complaints about passive Perception.

I think there's a difference between "searching for something hidden" and "staying alert for danger" when it comes to adjudication. In the case of the text you quote, I think the passive Perception applies because the "someone" referenced is staying alert for hidden danger and not searching for something hidden. The latter might call for an ability check rather than a passive one due to it not being a task being performed repeatedly.

Those are fair rulings. I was trying to highlight that when to use Passive Perception isn't as clear cut as you originally suggested and with GM adjudication both you and MostlyDM can be right.