D&D 5E Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???

[Prakriti]

Seriously though, the checks are not needed unless the result is uncertain (something is there to detect you).

With Stealth, as with Perception, you should have the player roll even when there is no uncertainty, otherwise you are telegraphing information to the players that their character should not know, namely, "There are creatures nearby."

For example, if the party is sneaking through a dungeon, and you don't ask for a Stealth roll until they sneak past a passageway blocked by a curtain, then the players knows that there's something beyond that curtain that could detect them. In essence, you are telling them, "There are creatures nearby; let's see if they detect you."

 

[discosoc]

With Stealth, as with Perception, you should have the player roll even when there is no uncertainty, otherwise you are telegraphing information to the players that their character should not know, namely, "There are creatures nearby."

Passive checks handle that, although they really aren't needed for stealth because...

For example, if the party is sneaking through a dungeon, and you don't ask for a Stealth roll until they sneak past a passageway blocked by a curtain, then the players knows that there's something beyond that curtain that could detect them. In essence, you are telling them, "There are creatures nearby; let's see if they detect you."

Dungeons are a perfect example of places where stealth is uncertain, so of course a check *could* be asked for up front. You still probably don't want to get bogged down with repeated stealth checks every room or something. Plus, unless you are rolling the player's stealth check, you might already telegraph the presence of something because they know what they rolled ("I rolled really bad on stealth, yet nothing is attacking me so it's probably clear...").

I personally, actually like the suspense of random stealth requests while in places like dungeons. They enter the dungeon and the ranger states that he's stealthing ahead to scout for danger. You say OK, and have him explore a few rooms or something. On room 3 you ask for his stealth check, and then proceed as before. Now the player is wondering who's there, and what he missed or if he's even safe. He might then just turn back and report to the rest of the group that there's something there, or he felt like "someone was watching me" but really has no idea.

Just the overall foreboding experience of sneaking around in a presumably hostile dungeon with unknown enemies. Exactly what it would probably feel like.

 

[Bawylie]

You should always ask the player to roll Stealth when they are attempting to be stealthy, even when there are no creatures nearby to detect them. Otherwise, you are just telling the player when there are and when there are not creatures nearby.

No you shouldn't, and no it doesn't.

If I am not asking for a roll, it means I already know the outcome of the action. It doesn't indicate the presence or absence of observers.



-Brad

 

[ClearlyTough69]

A few things I do to avoid metagaming.

1. I get each player to roll 3d20 at the beginning of each session. I record the results and then use them in place of asking the player to make a roll if I need to (more on that later). The players don't know which order I'll use their rolls in, and they don't know if or when I'll use them. I do not use these in place of passive skill checks, only for skill checks where the PC isn't sure who well they've done.

2. When a hiding PC comes upon a creature that is not hiding, the PC automatically detects the creature. I ask the player to give me three Stealth checks, having already decided which of the three results I'll use, and use that to determine whether the PC is spotted.

3. When a hiding PC comes upon a creature that is also hiding, I use one of the player's pre-rolled d20 results to determine the PC's Stealth check. I then determine the results of the two contests: Stealth vs passive Perception to determine who sees whom.

• If the PC detects the creature I let the player know; I also let them know if the creature shows signs of having noticed the PC.
• If the PC doesn't detect the creature, the player remains oblivious to the creature.

If I need to determine advantage or disadvantage for the PC's check, I use the other two pre-rolled d20 results: the highest result becomes the roll with advantage and the lowest result becomes the roll with disadvantage.

4. If I run out of pre-rolled d20 results, I ask the player to roll three more, and note these down.

In summary, the players make all their own rolls, but they don't always know which of their rolls is being used, or when it is being used.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You should always ask the player to roll Stealth when they are attempting to be stealthy, even when there are no creatures nearby to detect them. Otherwise, you are just telling the player when there are and when there are not creatures nearby.

I'll second what [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] said on the matter, and add this:

It doesn't actually matter if you are telling the player there are creatures nearby, as that knowledge doesn't change what actions are possible for the character to take. All actions remain as they were, either something the character could do with or without particular knowledge (i.e. "I creep up to the nearby corner, weapon drawn, and round the corner swiping wildly" is a thing you can do whether or not you actually know there is something somewhere nearby, and even knowing something is nearby doesn't mean it's around that corner), or something that is entirely outside the realm of what is possible for the character to do (i.e. "I charm the creature that is watching me" when the character doesn't even know where the creature in question is).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll second what [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] said on the matter, and add this:

It doesn't actually matter if you are telling the player there are creatures nearby, as that knowledge doesn't change what actions are possible for the character to take. All actions remain as they were, either something the character could do with or without particular knowledge (i.e. "I creep up to the nearby corner, weapon drawn, and round the corner swiping wildly" is a thing you can do whether or not you actually know there is something somewhere nearby, and even knowing something is nearby doesn't mean it's around that corner), or something that is entirely outside the realm of what is possible for the character to do (i.e. "I charm the creature that is watching me" when the character doesn't even know where the creature in question is).

This conflates option availability with how people actually make choices. It's like saying that, when given the option between two glasses of milk, one spoiled and one not, that it doesn't matter if you're told what the expiration dates are or that one smells bad because you still have the option to drink either one. Since the additional information doesn't change your options, it also doesn't change the decisions you make.

I think that you are advancing the idea that since the player can choose to ignore the information (itself a dubious claim) and choose however they want that the information isn't important. This, unfortunately, applies to all information, though. As in, I'm not limiting the possible range of actions if I do not tell the player that his character is being struck by an enemy. He could still choose to act as if he were struck, whether or not he was actually struck, so that information doesn't limit his actions and so doesn't matter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No you shouldn't, and no it doesn't.

If I am not asking for a roll, it means I already know the outcome of the action. It doesn't indicate the presence or absence of observers.



-Brad

While this is true in principle, in action it does usually indicate an uncertain condition is in effect. When do uncertain conditions apply to stealth checks? When observers are nearby. Ergo, if you ask me for a stealth check in these circumstances, it's because observers are nearby and you are uncertain if I am detected.

So, if I'm approaching an intersection, and state that I'm pausing at the corner to listen while being quiet, and you ask for a roll, I'm not likely to step into the intersection immediately thereafter and remove the cover that's allowing me to (potentially, depending on my roll) remain hidden.

Now, like you I don't ask for random rolls. That's not a high priority for me. If a character begins sneaking around, I'll ask for a roll and note it for future use if the character enters into a situation involving uncertainty on being seen. I find this faster in the long run than waiting for the situation to arise and then asking for a check, but either way works. But, if I did care more about telegraphing in game fiction because of required game mechanics, it doesn't harm anything and does achieve it's goal if you ask for checks randomly in addition to when they're important.

 

[Bawylie]

While this is true in principle, in action it does usually indicate an uncertain condition is in effect. When do uncertain conditions apply to stealth checks? When observers are nearby. Ergo, if you ask me for a stealth check in these circumstances, it's because observers are nearby and you are uncertain if I am detected.

So, if I'm approaching an intersection, and state that I'm pausing at the corner to listen while being quiet, and you ask for a roll, I'm not likely to step into the intersection immediately thereafter and remove the cover that's allowing me to (potentially, depending on my roll) remain hidden.

Now, like you I don't ask for random rolls. That's not a high priority for me. If a character begins sneaking around, I'll ask for a roll and note it for future use if the character enters into a situation involving uncertainty on being seen. I find this faster in the long run than waiting for the situation to arise and then asking for a check, but either way works. But, if I did care more about telegraphing in game fiction because of required game mechanics, it doesn't harm anything and does achieve it's goal if you ask for checks randomly in addition to when they're important.

It's true in principle and in practice.

Far more common is a scouting scenario wherein the the stealthy adventurer chooses to employ stealth when they KNOW an observer is present.

Very, very few players opt for "stealth all the time" because the travel pace is a terribly expensive cost for a relatively modest benefit.

You seem to have been caught up in a logic problem: "When would DM ask for a stealth check if nothing were there to sneak by?" And extrapolated that because you feel that would never happen, the existence of a stealth check mandates the existence of an observer. It does not.


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's like saying that, when given the option between two glasses of milk, one spoiled and one not, that it doesn't matter if you're told what the expiration dates are or that one smells bad because you still have the option to drink either one.

I don't find it to be even remotely like that.

I think that you are advancing the idea that since the player can choose to ignore the information (itself a dubious claim) and choose however they want that the information isn't important.

Actually, I come at it from the other side - the information isn't necessary in order to arrive at the choice, so worrying about whether or not the player has the information is attempting to police the thoughts of the player, rather than police whether or not the character is doing something they shouldn't be able to.

It is a classic case of the phenomena by which trying to avoid metagaming results in metagaming more often than not, in my experience, because it only raises any warning flags to people that are concerned with the idea of "metagaming" - because they are on the watch for the character using information the character doesn't have, they completely disregard whether or not the character's actions actually require any particular knowledge, and end up forcing the character's actions to be determined explicitly by what the player knows.

For example, to try and clarify because I know you have trouble understanding me, let's look at two scenarios:

Scenario A) Jim, who has never played D&D or any other table-top RPG at all before tonight, is playing Regdar the fighter. As he is cautiously proceeding into a dungeon, he comes to a side hall. Jim knows from the brief spiel given to him about what kind of stuff happens in a D&D game, and how he can describe doing whatever he wants and the DM will tell him what rolls are needed if any, that danger could lurk around the corner. So he says "Regdar creeps up on the corner, hugging close to the wall with his great sword gripped in both hands. He rounds the corner swinging the sword, swiping at the monster he assumes to be there."

Scenario B) George, who has played at least a few campaigns of D&D, is playing Regdar the fighter. He is also cautiously proceeding into a dungeon, and comes to a side hall. George's DM calls for a stealth check, which George makes and reports the result of. He then says "Regdar creeps up on the corner, hugging close to the wall with his great sword gripped in both hands. He rounds the corner swinging the sword, swiping at the monster he assumes to be there."

If Scenario A is acceptable, with Jim having no idea whether a stealth check has been made in secret by the DM or has not been made at all, and Scenario B isn't acceptable specifically because George has the knowledge that there was some reason for a stealth check, then is it not player information the character doesn't possess which is determining the character's action (or, to be more accurate, that the character can't do that particular action)?

 

[iserith]

With Stealth, as with Perception, you should have the player roll even when there is no uncertainty, otherwise you are telegraphing information to the players that their character should not know, namely, "There are creatures nearby."

For example, if the party is sneaking through a dungeon, and you don't ask for a Stealth roll until they sneak past a passageway blocked by a curtain, then the players knows that there's something beyond that curtain that could detect them. In essence, you are telling them, "There are creatures nearby; let's see if they detect you."

Leaving aside my belief that the DM should be telegraphing hidden threats to avoid the perception of challenges as gotchas, as @discosoc notes, if the party is being stealthy while traveling through the dungeon, your best bet is to use a passive check since it's a task they are performing on an ongoing basis. They will, of course, have to be moving at a slow pace which hopefully the DM has set up as a trade-off: They get more wandering monster checks per unit of dungeon covered or they have less wiggle-room to resolve their time-sensitive quest.

But given your example, if they aren't doing so in general, but have chosen to stealth through this one area where someone is hiding, then again, I wouldn't ask for a check unless I knew something would actually happen on a failure. If there is no meaningful consequence of failure that would change the scene in some way (e.g. the monster behind the curtain attacks with surprise!), then I'm not asking for a roll. I will just decide on an outcome.