D&D 5E Sneakity Sneak

[Oofta]

I handle it a couple of ways.

First, I rarely rely on perception when determining encounter distance. Encounter distance depends more on what can reasonably seen and/or heard and whether there is any indication of attack.

Some monsters (such as gargoyles if IIRC) are indistinguishable from statues, no matter what your perception is there is no reason to suspect that statues are going to attack without some other information.

Other monsters may be virtually silent (i.e. ghosts or other incorporeal monsters) until they can be seen.

There may be circumstances where the bad guys simply blend into the background or simply can't realistically be perceived. Assassins on a crowded street for example, or a monster waiting silently behind a closed door.

Second, I distinguish between being surprised during the first round of combat and the encounter distance. If you're in a heavily forested area, the perceptive PC may hear something crashing through the woods from a certain direction but that doesn't mean they get to attack before the monster enters the clearing 20 feet away. Even then I'll probably ask for an active perception to verify they know where the sound is coming from.

I make sure that a high perception is rewarded as well. I don't want people to feel like it's a useless investment. There has to be a balance between "wow, you've been ambushed again!" and "you see the orcs half a mile away on the other side of the mountain, what do you want to do?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

[*]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

If the issue is it's hard to stealth up close to attack in melee, range penalties won't help, but giving advantage or changing a DC is no great stretch for the DM.

[*]pitting your stealth against the best perception of the group is inherently broken

It does make sense, though: if one member of the party spots the ambush, it's spoiled, if any ambusher give's himself away, it's spoiled. And 5e does tend to prioritize that sense of sense over fears of brokenness.

passive perception is in practical play much too generous

I disagree. Passive scores as a DC is much more workable than contested checks. Imagine if the party each rolled contested perception vs stealth for each ambusher. At least one PC is going to spot at least one ambusher.

Group checks were introduced in 4e and relieved some of the issues with multiple characters (or monsters) performing one task, with a single success (or failure) determining the results. 5e retained this mechanic, it's just a matter of deciding when to use it.

When wanting to get stealthy monsters close to the party, the DM could:

• Narrate the success of the ambush without worrying about rules or rolls.
• Call for a group perception check against an arbitrary DC.
• Call for a group perception check against a DC based on the stealth bonuses of the ambushers.
• Make a group stealth check for the ambushers against the party's highest (or average, I suppose) passive perception.
• Call for individual perception checks, with those who fail being surprised.
• Whatever else the DM can think of.

Or the DM could make a specific house rule to cover stealth and share it with the players. Which, I know, is not the point of the thread.

But why must they beat the best passive perception score of the group?

On the assumption that the one with the best perception will give a warning of some sort, I assume.

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?

A possible justification for a group check, instead.

 

[knasser]

• 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?

This doesn't work well for me. I feel that Legolas should be able to warn Pippin that a goblin is about to leap out on him, even if that goblin is targetting Pippin and not Legolas. This is both because in a game I want someone to be able to protect their friend and because I see no realistic explanation as to why a goblin should be hard to spot if it's ambushing your friend but easy to spot if it is ambushing you. I mean, it would make sense if you were all staggered apart whilst walking through the countryside and one was up ahead and the other behind, but not in the typical D&D scenario where the party is all funneling along together.

I think what you're trying to capture here is Initiative. Maybe when the goblin emerges Legolas catches it a few seconds ahead of Pippin. So I can see it determining who is surprised, but not who notices something. This makes sense to me.

Separately, I think the real problem is that the game tries to put hiding and spotting on an equal footing. There's not enough differentiation between some cunning and well-prepared ambush and a wolf stalking up behind you. Maybe the difficulty for perception shouldn't be the creature at all (or not mostly), it should be a factor of the circumstances of the ambush. It shouldn't really matter, realistically speaking, if the brown spider hiding in the undergrowth is a level 1 monster, it should still be harder to spot than the Ancient Black Dragon which gets given a big stealth bonus just because it's a high level monster that will be battling high-level characters. How do you reconcile this stuff?

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's a general problem with skills in 5e.

Fundamentally everyone is crap at their best skills and only a bit more crap at their worst.

This means that a character who is good at what they do, and trained to do it will end up with roughly a 25% chance to fail against someone who has no training and no aptitude, and is unprepared for the action.

I think the answer is probably to be simply assume that defensive skills are at disadvantage unless specific measures are currently being taken, giving the edge to the initiator of the opposed skill contest.

 

[transtemporal]

Why don't you just give the monsters some ranged attacks or include monsters that have ranged attacks in your encounters?

Is there a monster union mandate on melee-monsters only or something?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

How fast are the PCs moving? Fast movement is -5 to Perception.

Who is in front? Generally, only the front rank gets a chance to notice a trap or ambush (or maybe the second rank, at disadvantage).

What are they doing? Characters who are drawing maps, or navigating, or tracking a creature, or foraging for food do not get Perception checks to spot traps and ambushes.

Are they using darkvision in darkness? That means *all* Perception checks are at disadvantage.

Are they using a light-source? Anything outside the range of the torch or lantern or whatever is invisible to the characters.


Adventurers are generally pretty perceptive - when you live by the sword/spell, you either learn to notice threats or you die - but they are not immune to ambushes.

 

[Helldritch]

I handle it a couple of ways.

First, I rarely rely on perception when determining encounter distance. Encounter distance depends more on what can reasonably seen and/or heard and whether there is any indication of attack.

Some monsters (such as gargoyles if IIRC) are indistinguishable from statues, no matter what your perception is there is no reason to suspect that statues are going to attack without some other information.

Other monsters may be virtually silent (i.e. ghosts or other incorporeal monsters) until they can be seen.

There may be circumstances where the bad guys simply blend into the background or simply can't realistically be perceived. Assassins on a crowded street for example, or a monster waiting silently behind a closed door.

Second, I distinguish between being surprised during the first round of combat and the encounter distance. If you're in a heavily forested area, the perceptive PC may hear something crashing through the woods from a certain direction but that doesn't mean they get to attack before the monster enters the clearing 20 feet away. Even then I'll probably ask for an active perception to verify they know where the sound is coming from.

I make sure that a high perception is rewarded as well. I don't want people to feel like it's a useless investment. There has to be a balance between "wow, you've been ambushed again!" and "you see the orcs half a mile away on the other side of the mountain, what do you want to do?"

I only rely on perception for distance if it is a random encounter. It is really important that these encounters stay on the easy to moderate/hard side of the encounter per day. I should mention that I do enforce the 6-8 average encounters per day (sometimes it's less, sometimes it's more. It really depends on how the session/adventure is playing out.).

The more distance, the more the players will have time to adjust and prepare. My way is not the only way. Everyone more or less do as they please. There is nothing set in DMG for this. That is why I came up with this.

 

[Horwath]

It's a general problem with skills in 5e.

Fundamentally everyone is crap at their best skills and only a bit more crap at their worst.

This means that a character who is good at what they do, and trained to do it will end up with roughly a 25% chance to fail against someone who has no training and no aptitude, and is unprepared for the action.

I think the answer is probably to be simply assume that defensive skills are at disadvantage unless specific measures are currently being taken, giving the edge to the initiator of the opposed skill contest.

Roll skills with 3d6 instead of d20. You WILL see big difference in proficiency then.

 

[Flamestrike]

Considering the rules dont grant passive perception 24/7 while walking about for everyone Im not seeing the problem. Rangers can do so (thanks to natural explorer, and only while in favored terrain) even when engaged in foraging, navigating or tracking.

Other PCs can only contribute passive perception during extended travel (an hour or more) if thats all they are doing. Keeping watch.

Light obscurement provides disadvantage to passive perception (-5). Which clearly applies at ranges outside of 30' in any forest, woodland or outdoor setting that isnt a flat open plain. Heavy obscurement (jungles, dungeons, thick undergrowth or dense foliage) simply auto fails all visual perception checks.

Id also assume most predators are smart enough to sneak up on creatures downwind (likely granting them advantage on stealth) and not sneak up on them over an open plain in full view. Many also have scent (advantage on perception relying on smell).

Beyond all of that, whats the rule of cool? Encounters are more fun (and all forms of combat are balanced) at ranges of 30-60'.

Just set them at this distance, and get on with enjoying the game.

 

[ScaleyBob]

I had a similar problem back in 4e. An Elven Ranger whose Perception and therefore Passive Perception was truly ridiculous. It basically meant traps and Secret Doors were pointless, and trying to sneak up on the Party was really difficult.

I generally either gave up on sneaking, preferring fights to start either slightly closer or after negotiations broke down. so neither side would do the Sneaky Thing. This also gave the opportunity for a lot more Character/Opponent interaction, which wasn't a bad thing overall. Sometimes the PCs even managed to convince their opponents to not attack, or mend their evil ways.

When I did feel the need for sneaky stuff, I usually split the Baddies up. One group would sneak up the front, engage the Ranger so she couldn't perceive so well (it's hard to concentrate on listening when there's a Hyena hanging off your arm), and then have the rest of the baddies attack from a different direction, so to surprize everyone else.

The other option, was just not to let the PCs know which side of the map something might come on from. Not exactly a perfect solution, but it did sort of work. It did create a little bad feeling when a T-Rex did it once, so I avoided it for a bit after that.

Other solutions may include dropping Passive Perception a bit (maybe to 8, plus modifiers rather than 10 - saves are based on this idea, so why not passive skills?), or giving Monsters who are meant to be stealthy inherent Expertise in stealth.

I noticed how good a High Passive Perception was with a previous character. Bard/Cleric half-Elf. Expertise in Perception and a not bad Wisdom, pretty much circumvented Secret Doors and Traps.