Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Stealth Revamp
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7026435" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>I think the very first step that has to be taken in order to start making Hiding rules work is to change the way people are looking at Dexterity (Stealth) checks. People continually look at those checks as a pass/fail proposition against other people's Passive Perception, which is the exact opposite way it should be looked at in order to avoid conceptual questions like Invisibility. Because by looking at it that way-- you roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check against a "target number" of someone's Passive Perception-- you then have retextualize it after the fact when your Dexterity (Stealth) check number <em>becomes</em> the "target number" for someone else who makes an Active Perception check. </p><p></p><p>To make it as easy to understand as possible, we need to get rid of the idea of a "pass/fail" state for Dexterity (Stealth) checks. Instead... the way we need to conceptualize it is that ANYBODY can try and Hide. To do so, you follow any necessary rules the game has in place to illustrate you covering yourself from visual, aural, footprints, odor, and air/environmental movement. Once you have completely those conditions per the rules, you have hidden yourself from notice and you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check <em>to see how well you have accomplished it</em>.</p><p></p><p>THAT's what the check is-- creating a "target number" for other people to notice you. That's it. You never "fail" at Stealthing. You aren't "Hidden" versus "Not Hidden". Sure, a piss-poor Dexterity (Stealth) check might mean you did a horrible job at trying to hide, but you didn't "fail". And why is this conceptualization important? Because the process isn't <strong>binary</strong>. Because all other creatures out there have varying Passive Perceptions, your check might have you higher than some, but lower than others. There is no "pass/fail" because there is always that middle ground between the two.</p><p></p><p>So let's stop explaining these Dexterity (Stealth) checks as something you "succeed" at or "fail" at. Characters aren't "Hidden" or "Not Hidden". <strong>Instead</strong>, let's explain the check for what is actually is-- it tells us <em>how well</em> we are hidden. If the DM lets you roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check, it's because you are hiding. And the number you roll tells you HOW WELL you have done it.</p><p></p><p>Once you do that... a lot of problems people have with trying to conceptualize the rules fall away-- especially with something like Invisibility. People always ask "How can I not be hidden if I'm invisible? That makes NO SENSE!". And that's true from a narrative standpoint-- if we are still thinking in the binary "pass/fail" of being Hidden, if people can't see you, <strong>why aren't</strong> you hidden from everyone? Why is a Dexterity (Stealth) check necessary? You're invisible to everyone godammit! There *is no* "fail" here!</p><p></p><p>But once we take away <em>the idea</em> of the "pass/fail" of hiding... it becomes easier to understand. "You're invisible? Good! You're hiding from everyone! Now the question is, how well have you hidden yourself from everyone else's other senses? Smell, hearing, touch etc.? Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to see what it would take for others to possibly notice you even while invisible." And then once that check is made, we have the "target number" for everyone else to try and find that invisible person.</p><p></p><p>Now of course some players will still complain about this because they feel like Invisibility should be a catch-all for being completely unperceivable. Which... fine... if that's how they want to play it then NO AMOUNT of rejiggering of the stealth rules will satisfy them-- you'd actually have to change the rules of Invisibility in order to reach the point that some players might want (since Invisibility only blocks visual perception and thus is basically equivalent to someone standing behind a wall-- they both can't be seen but that's it.)</p><p></p><p>Beyond that though... just reconceptualizing the whole process as something where someone decides they want to hide, they put themselves into a position to do so which follows whatever requirements the game sets up, and then they roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check to see how well they did... makes things just easier to understand. After that... other creatures use their Passive Perception or make an Active Perception Search check to see if they notice the person hiding. If they get over the hiding person's Dexterity (Stealth) check, then they do. And the hiding character does not get the bonuses that come for being hidden.</p><p></p><p>TL;DR: A Dexterity (Stealth) check doesn't tell us whether are "Hidden" or "Not Hidden"... if the DM has us making a check then it means we *are* hidden, and the number rolled tells everyone else how well we did it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7026435, member: 7006"] I think the very first step that has to be taken in order to start making Hiding rules work is to change the way people are looking at Dexterity (Stealth) checks. People continually look at those checks as a pass/fail proposition against other people's Passive Perception, which is the exact opposite way it should be looked at in order to avoid conceptual questions like Invisibility. Because by looking at it that way-- you roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check against a "target number" of someone's Passive Perception-- you then have retextualize it after the fact when your Dexterity (Stealth) check number [I]becomes[/I] the "target number" for someone else who makes an Active Perception check. To make it as easy to understand as possible, we need to get rid of the idea of a "pass/fail" state for Dexterity (Stealth) checks. Instead... the way we need to conceptualize it is that ANYBODY can try and Hide. To do so, you follow any necessary rules the game has in place to illustrate you covering yourself from visual, aural, footprints, odor, and air/environmental movement. Once you have completely those conditions per the rules, you have hidden yourself from notice and you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check [I]to see how well you have accomplished it[/I]. THAT's what the check is-- creating a "target number" for other people to notice you. That's it. You never "fail" at Stealthing. You aren't "Hidden" versus "Not Hidden". Sure, a piss-poor Dexterity (Stealth) check might mean you did a horrible job at trying to hide, but you didn't "fail". And why is this conceptualization important? Because the process isn't [B]binary[/B]. Because all other creatures out there have varying Passive Perceptions, your check might have you higher than some, but lower than others. There is no "pass/fail" because there is always that middle ground between the two. So let's stop explaining these Dexterity (Stealth) checks as something you "succeed" at or "fail" at. Characters aren't "Hidden" or "Not Hidden". [B]Instead[/B], let's explain the check for what is actually is-- it tells us [I]how well[/I] we are hidden. If the DM lets you roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check, it's because you are hiding. And the number you roll tells you HOW WELL you have done it. Once you do that... a lot of problems people have with trying to conceptualize the rules fall away-- especially with something like Invisibility. People always ask "How can I not be hidden if I'm invisible? That makes NO SENSE!". And that's true from a narrative standpoint-- if we are still thinking in the binary "pass/fail" of being Hidden, if people can't see you, [B]why aren't[/B] you hidden from everyone? Why is a Dexterity (Stealth) check necessary? You're invisible to everyone godammit! There *is no* "fail" here! But once we take away [I]the idea[/I] of the "pass/fail" of hiding... it becomes easier to understand. "You're invisible? Good! You're hiding from everyone! Now the question is, how well have you hidden yourself from everyone else's other senses? Smell, hearing, touch etc.? Make a Dexterity (Stealth) check to see what it would take for others to possibly notice you even while invisible." And then once that check is made, we have the "target number" for everyone else to try and find that invisible person. Now of course some players will still complain about this because they feel like Invisibility should be a catch-all for being completely unperceivable. Which... fine... if that's how they want to play it then NO AMOUNT of rejiggering of the stealth rules will satisfy them-- you'd actually have to change the rules of Invisibility in order to reach the point that some players might want (since Invisibility only blocks visual perception and thus is basically equivalent to someone standing behind a wall-- they both can't be seen but that's it.) Beyond that though... just reconceptualizing the whole process as something where someone decides they want to hide, they put themselves into a position to do so which follows whatever requirements the game sets up, and then they roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check to see how well they did... makes things just easier to understand. After that... other creatures use their Passive Perception or make an Active Perception Search check to see if they notice the person hiding. If they get over the hiding person's Dexterity (Stealth) check, then they do. And the hiding character does not get the bonuses that come for being hidden. TL;DR: A Dexterity (Stealth) check doesn't tell us whether are "Hidden" or "Not Hidden"... if the DM has us making a check then it means we *are* hidden, and the number rolled tells everyone else how well we did it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Stealth Revamp
Top