D&D 5E Sneakity Sneak

[CapnZapp]

part of my series on how D&D 5.1 Edition might look like.

this is not meant as a homebrew or houserule thread

In a recent thread I've explored how 5E crosses an invisible line making ranged parties have too few compromises to really uphold the fantasy genre it supposedly is steeped in.

One issue that came up regarding having monsters close in to melee, is having them ambush the party.

Where "ambush" in this context means starting the encounter within striking distance of the party. A monster that can move 30 ft and deliver melee attacks when it is its initiative turn, to be precise.

It has nothing to do with surprise rounds or assassin abilities or actual ambushes. Just that the monster deliver its attacks without having to waste time closing to melee.

Now, the 5E rules for stealth are generously openended, if you want to put a positive spin on it. Put otherwise, they're notoriously ill-defined and impossible to use without heavy interpretation.

But I hope we can all agree that a wise character with proficiency will start with a minimum passive perception of 15, which quickly rises to 18 and finally reaches north of 20.

Sneaking within striking distance of a party with such a character is almost impossible, even for creatures that are supposedly natural stalkers.

This is new with 5E. Why is that?

Let's do what I did with Slow Axes with Dwarfs, and identify the specific rules that make things turn out that way. The idea is that we then know what we can change back if this is a problem for us.

 

[CapnZapp]

• most monsters fall hopelessly behind proficient characters. Perception vs stealth is just perhaps the most visible consequence
• 5E did away with perception penalties for range
• pitting your stealth against the best perception of the group is inherently broken
• passive perception is in practical play much too generous

Monsters generally need a power-up or they will routinely fail to beat the best passive perception score of the party. Even DC 15 is very hard for many many monsters, and I simply don't see a party having a best passive perception score lower than 15.

But why must they beat the best passive perception score of the group? Surely your mind when exploring a long-lost tomb or trudging through undervegetation is focused on your own survival, not the half-blind fighter thirty foot away?

And why do you get to always roll 10 on your perception roll?

And why aren't there penalties for distance and such. Actually it would make much sense if you're always at a disadvantage when trying to spidersense an impending ambush. (How's that for a simple solution)

---

What I'm saying is:

If the tiger (or kobold or whatever) only needs to beat the character it's about to pounce on, that would go a long way of turning the tables. That is, you don't check the other characters at all.

Even if you do, you could easily argue they would gain disadvantage in most practical cases.

Other than that, animals have absurdly poor stealth stats in 5E compared to heroes.

---

If you routinely start your encounters with the monsters 20 ft away, here's how you would actually accomplish this without handwaving.

 

[Helldritch]

Passive check are too easy. Simple as that.

Possible ways to make it more suitable for DMs.
1) Remove proficiency in passive checks. Base starts at 10. With maxed wisdom that makes it a 15. That would still be high but much more managable.
or
2) Base check starts at 5. We still factor in proficiency and stats. Again it should give something around 16 at max stat and max proficiency.
or
3) Add stealth skills to all monsters that are supposed to be stealthy. Give advantage to ambushers on stealth check and see what it leads to.

I personnaly suspect that the number 2 and 3 could even be used together. I am using number 3 at the present and surprise on the group is still relatively rare but it does happen now.

For random encounter distance, I use (2d4 x10' - (Stealth roll - Passive perception)x10') up to a max of 80' indoors or forested areas.
or 3d4x10' - (stealth roll - Passive perception) x 30' (no max distance) for open plains or big areas. It is not perfect but it helps. It also adds a bit of realism. In a desert they encountered two groups of hobgoblins. 1st one was a 270' and the second was at 40'. The second group was geared toward stealth (using lower armor because they were scouts with hobgoblin stats). The first fight was relatively easy. But the second was hard. So far I am quite happy with what i've done.

 

[wedgeski]

My first reaction is: creature ambushes should be rare because ambushes are *deadly*...but a deadly round of attacks that only happens once in a while is still a deadly round of attacks, so that's not really an argument.

This may be a new development in 5E simply because the DM has no Take 10 or Take 20 option for foes. A "preparer's advantage" granting Advantage or +5 to the creature's Stealth roll in situations where it is able to spend reasonable time preparing the ambush, or in terrain with which it is intimately familiar (i.e. it's hunting grounds), might go some way to increasing its chances of success.

Otherwise, creatures that are natural stalkers should simply have traits which make them natural stalkers, re: piercer. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that monsters and PC's have to follow the same set of rules.

 

[nswanson27]

One thing to note is that it's not clear in the rules exactly when combat starts. Obviously, when an attack is made - that case is clear. But can a PC or enemy "start combat" without attacking, and get their move to close in as part of their first turn (having surprise)? Or, is that movement not apart of combat, in which they would try to close in, get spotted, and lose surprise.
I personally lean towards the former as RAI, but I've had plenty of conversations to know this is definitely not universal.
Either way, I (as a player) would make sure the DM applies their ruling consistently across ambushing mobs and PC assassins.

 

[ccs]

I find it humorous that the characters have a worse chance to perceive something if they're actively trying than with a passive check.
Passive = 10 + x
Active = d20 + x
I've actually had players ask if they could just use thier passive score.

In games I run I just don't use passive.
If it's info I allready know I'm going to give or not give, there's no check.
If it's in question? Then I'll tell you to roll and apply whatever modifiers (listed in the book or otherwise) I feel apply.

 

[Imaro]

I find it humorous that the characters have a worse chance to perceive something if they're actively trying than with a passive check.
Passive = 10 + x
Active = d20 + x
I've actually had players ask if they could just use thier passive score.

In games I run I just don't use passive.
If it's info I allready know I'm going to give or not give, there's no check.
If it's in question? Then I'll tell you to roll and apply whatever modifiers (listed in the book or otherwise) I feel apply.

Well a passive perception check is supposed to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, so if they have the time they can just use their passive perception...

 

[Imaro]

My first reaction is: creature ambushes should be rare because ambushes are *deadly*...but a deadly round of attacks that only happens once in a while is still a deadly round of attacks, so that's not really an argument.

This may be a new development in 5E simply because the DM has no Take 10 or Take 20 option for foes. A "preparer's advantage" granting Advantage or +5 to the creature's Stealth roll in situations where it is able to spend reasonable time preparing the ambush, or in terrain with which it is intimately familiar (i.e. it's hunting grounds), might go some way to increasing its chances of success.

Otherwise, creatures that are natural stalkers should simply have traits which make them natural stalkers, re: piercer. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that monsters and PC's have to follow the same set of rules.

I think you have the right of it in this post. First it should be a rare occurrence since few if any players want to loose a character to a "gotcha!!" encounter. Second the creatures that are supposed to be stealthy either have good abilities to back it up... like the Bugbear (high stealth and extra damage on attacks from surprise) or have abilities that give them the power to ambush exceptionally well....Invisibility, False Appearance, Shadow Stealth, etc...

 

[cooperjer]

My take on the stealth / hiding of NPCs is that they work together setting up an ambush. If the NPCs have time to setup and reset their position, i.e. repetitively hiding, then they can use the passive stealth score. If they have assistance from an ally NPC then they have their passive stealth score at advantage. In this case the NPCs are playing by the same rules as the PCs.

If the NPC makes a significant move in position or the environment changes significantly right before the PCs arrive or while the PCs are in the area then the NPC does not get the passive stealth check. In this case they must rely on luck a little more, i.e. roll dice, rather than rely on skill and time, i.e passive score.

How can PCs with a high passive score be ambushed by a hidden NPC? Ideally, though not followed in practice in my game, the PCs roll initiative once combat is started. More clearly, a NPC will have it's bow readied and waiting for a PC to enter an area, i.e a Readied Action. Once the trigger for that readied action occurs the NPC decides if it is going to perform the action or move. Once the trigger has occurred then initiative is implemented. The DM survey's the players for passive perception scores to determine which PC would have been aware / perceived the NPC. At that point the DM can determine who is surprised or not surprised and who is aware of the NPC and not aware of the NPC. The readied action will occur at the top of the initiative because it is a readied action with a triggering event. Play proceeds in initiative order.

As I said, this is in theory and does not normally play out as described. My players have several years of 3.5 play and I have years of various games with a surprise round. It's hard to remove the idea of a surprise round from the group.

 

[Horwath]

I do not see the problem.

At night even with darkvision you have disadvantage on perception.

If mooks are setting an ambush at least 2 mins in advance I would give them advantage on stealth check to set it up.

That is already 10 pts difference on average before counting proficiencies.

also if afraid of closing distance, mooks can attack with javelin from cover, get all the ambush bonuses, grasp a greataxe and jog 30ft to PC's face and wait for the next round.

Only one you should be worried is PC with Stalker and/or Observant feat(s). If he has both then, hell yeah, he deserves to be immune to surprises.

Also if one PCs spots an ambush, only he can react in 1st round, rest of the party is still surprised.