D&D 5E Stealth, Spot, and Listen

[Stormonu]

Wouldn't you just make one check, adding the modifier from the skill with the better bonus?

In your example, someone's invisible sneaking around. Character has Spot +3 and Listen +2. Being invisible imposes a huge penalty to Spot checks. So the detector makes a Listen check.

What's so hard about that?

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think that follows at all. "Deaf: You fail perception checks that involve hearing." "Blinded: You fail perception checks that involve sight."

If you put something like these in the rules, then you're clearly making a big mistake.

If you replace "involve" with "require", then it's ok.

Check the current wording of the Blinded and Deafened conditions in the playtest rules: the first IMHO is badly worded and will lead to possible abuse or inconsistencies with other rules, the second is much better.

 

[Jester David]

I don't think that follows at all. "Deaf: You fail perception checks that involve hearing." "Blinded: You fail perception checks that involve sight."

-O

Which means you need to identify in the game which Perception checks are hearing based, and which are sight based.
If you're already doing that you might as well call them spot and listen.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you are actually being trained to look for subtle clues in your environment then you're being trained to use all your senses. It makes no sense to have separate training for using your eyes (spot), ears (listen), or hands (search).

I don't agree with this at all.

Nobody trains ALL their senses. In every single way they use them. They just don't.

Does a master wine taster have superior hearing because they've trained themselves to pick out particular flavors? Not in the least.

Does someone who has superior long distance eyesight and who can pick out details that others can't, mean that they are also really good at finding where they put their keys? No way.

Is someone who trained to recognize the sounds of nature... being able to distinguish a babbling brook amongst the call of the birds, mean they are able to notice the small trail of blood that dripped down the hallway every 20 feet? Nuh uh.

But as soon as you put all of these things together into a single skill called "Perception"... a skill that a good 50% of the party will probably end up having... you now suddenly have a party full of Daredevils. Which for one is really lame... and two, makes nobody really that special.

The way everyone in the game is set up... everyone HAS "perception", because everyone has an INT and WIS modifier. That's our way of telling us whether they are good at noticing anything and everything under the sun with any of their senses. Now to that... we only now should add in the specific situations where a particular character gets a bonus. Spot/Search/Listen to me might even still be too "generic" of a bonus (especially due to training). I'd much rather have "Danger Sense" or "Alertness" as a skill, which tell us the person was specifically trained in spotting ambushes. And only ambushes. No bonus in addition for finding secret doors, or finding someone hiding behind a wall during combat, or noticing the historical details painted in a tapestry, or anything like that.

Those are all separate skills, and should be treated as such in my opinion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't see anything wrong with having Search and Spot as separate skills (Investigation vs Awareness) but I think having a Listen skill is going overboard.

Overspecialization can lead to just as much silliness as over-generalization. Imagine a master mountain climber who can't climb a simple tree because all of his bonuses are in Mountain Climbing.

I see the Spot/Listen split as being very similar. When I'm looking for someone (during a paintball game, for example) I don't cover my ears and just gaze around. I reach out with multiple senses. A noise might prompt me to look in a certain direction, or if I'm inside a vibration in the floor might indicate I should listen carefully. Having multiple checks for such things only penalizes the player (because they have more chances to fail).

You can still distinguish better hearing or worse eyesight using non-skill modifiers. An elf might get a bonus to checks that involve hearing (whether that's an Awareness check to hear his ambushers shifting in the bushes, or an Investigation check to hear noises behind a secret door).

 

[Obryn]

Which means you need to identify in the game which Perception checks are hearing based, and which are sight based.
If you're already doing that you might as well call them spot and listen.

The difference, of course, being that you're not spreading your trained skills so thinly.

And you don't need to necessarily identify them. A DM can handle this sort of thing. It's never posed a problem in any game I've run where the senses are combined.

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

The difference, of course, being that you're not spreading your trained skills so thinly.

Spreading skills thinly only matter when there are other skills in the game that aren't spread equally as thin. So long as every trained skill has a narrow focus and a smallish window of opportunity use... then everything works out okay. It's only when you split up Spot/Listen/Search but still have a complete Diplomacy that you get issues. Because that "always on, always usable" Diplomacy skill overshadows in use over the now-three Spot/Listen/Search.

But if you also split Diplomacy up into High Society, Low Society, Negotiation, Animal Handling, Grovelling, Monster Contact, etc... now you have lots of smaller slices that all of which are equal in what and when they can be used.

You also then get to have PCs with UNIQUE skill sets... as opposed to the current system where two or more PCs are eloquent speakers in EVERY situation, half the PCs are like Daredevil in EVERY situation when it comes to sensing things, two or more PCs potentially know every single thing there is to know when it comes to Nature, etc. etc.

It's hard to feel your training is special when one to three other PCs in your party are trained in exactly the same thing. Especially when their ability modifier is larger than yours.

 

[Kinak]

I actually kind of like these being split up, especially in the situation this thread lays out (bonuses just not stacking).

The reason is pretty simple: Perception is the most used skill in my games, bar none. If you're not maxing out Perception when I'm DMing, you're gimping yourself and "Perception-monkey" is a legitimate build when I DM.

So, it's entirely possible that it plays out differently at other tables, but Perception is worth any two (probably three) other skills at mine.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't plan on using skills or checks at all, but both light and sound should be part of stealth rules. Scent, temperature, medium substances, obstacles and other stuff too, if we want to get into the nitty gritty of it.

Default natural sensory perception abilities by race and also ESP would be useful to define.

 

[mlund]

Nobody trains ALL their senses. In every single way they use them. They just don't.

Does a master wine taster have superior hearing because they've trained themselves to pick out particular flavors? Not in the least.

Irrelevant. We're talking about survival skill and investigative training. In those situations you train eyes, ears, and methodology or you aren't trained. Paying attention to touch, taste, and smell can be nice too, but they aren't the focal points.

Does someone who has superior long distance eyesight and who can pick out details that others can't

That's not a skill, that's a physical ability. As noted, specific physical abilities like "keen ears," "sharp eyes," or whatever are perfectly fine attributes to have alongside skill training. You can't skill-train away being hard of hearing, nearsighted, not-an-elf or whatever.

But as soon as you put all of these things together into a single skill called "Perception"... a skill that a good 50% of the party will probably end up having... you now suddenly have a party full of Daredevils.

Daredevil is a superhero. He's isn't what he is because he's particularly skilled at those things (though it helps).

The situation is much more analogous to front-line soldiers dealing with things like ambushes and booby-traps. Either someone gets good at spotting warning signs or you get dead quickly. Very few groups have someone who "trains to listen" while someone else "trains to look" and someone "trains to scrutinize" - that's just ridiculous. You're either developing the skill to observe and scrutinize your environment with your eyes, ears, and mind under a particular set of circumstances or you aren't.

I'd much rather have "Danger Sense" or "Alertness" as a skill, which tell us the person was specifically trained in spotting ambushes. And only ambushes. No bonus in addition for finding secret doors, or finding someone hiding behind a wall during combat, or noticing the historical details painted in a tapestry, or anything like that.

I agree with the general principle, if not the specifics.

"Alertness" should jolly well help you notice someone hiding during combat, as well as identify traps and other hazards. A skill is not Spidey Sense - it is a completely mundane phenomenon. You notice things are out of place, that people are hiding, that objects have been disturbed, that birds stopped singing, that women and children are conspicuously absent from the street, or that everyone is constantly giving you sideways glances when they think you can't see them.

No, it probably doesn't alert you to things like whether or not that Mona Lisa is a forgery.

I can see a firm distinction between Investigation and Awareness, or even some broader skills that encompass situational awareness. There's no need to be so narrow that two characters couldn't confront the same problem using two different attributes, and there's no reason two different skills couldn't apply to the same problem either. Exclusive silos (monster X only goes under skill Y, searching the room is only skill Z) are unnecessary.

I'd much rather see a skill list like "Alertness," "Investigation," "Low Society," "Polite Society," "Commerce," than "Spot," "Listen," "Search," "Diplomacy," "Bluff," "Use Rope," etc.

- Marty Lund