D&D (2024) Thoughts on Stealth and D&D2024

[ezo]

You aren't hiding unless the DM says you can take the hide action, and they can if they want, decide you can only take that action right before it's going to actually come up.

I know what you mean but I disagree slightly with the way you said it. You can attempt to Hide whenever you want, you just have to meet the criteria. If you have Heavy Obscurement, "cover", and within no enemy's line of sight.

Another point why I think this is a bit ridiculous. What if an enemy is hiding from you so you cannot see them, can you still try to hide? According to the rule, no, but what does the DM tell you?

Player: I'm going to Hide behind that tree.
DM: You can't.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because you can't. You can move behind the tree, but you can't take the Hide action right now.
Player: Umm... ok... looks to other players quizzically
This goes back to my point. IRL unless you screw up when you attempt to Hide you always think (or hope at least) you are hidden.

Now, in many cases the player will certainly know a creature can see them, in which case "hiding" is futile and they are, at best, simple moving into Heavy Obscurement or "cover".

Which brings up the issue of Darkvision. You move to Heavy Obscurement, so think you can Hide eventhough you can see an enemy, but without Darkvision they cannot see you since you are Heavily Obscured. But, little do you know that enemy has Darkvision and can see you. So, the DM tells the player "Sorry, you cannot Hide," which makes no sense to the player because their character should think they can Hide and should be able to take the Hide action.

I mean, you would think the penalty to Passive Perception would cover this, but until you successfully Hide, the creature can see you. I know how a DM can make a "ruling" on this, but do you understand why the RAW actually fails to cover such situations without tipping off to the player metagame information (at least)?

IMO a PC should always be able to take the Hide action, it is just obvious that under many circumstances you would fail automatically.

So as an example, the PCs are travelling somewhere and decide to move at a slow pace and travel stealthily. The DM is fully within RAW to say ok that happens and then only call for a stealth check when the random encounter takes place, those that succeed that DC 15 stealth check are hidden and get surprise, those that fail don't get surprise even if the stealth roll is say 13 and the random encounter creatures only have a PP of 12. They failed their stealth check and so don't gain the benefits of being hidden even though they techinically took the hide action hours befores the encounter.

Well, you could run it that way, certainly. However, this is why I think Passive Stealth should also be a thing. If you are moving at a slow pace and traveling "stealthily", use Passive Stealth with the idea of "repeated checks" average to 10 as the typical result.

The DM should not then call for a check when the random encounter takes place. He already knows what their totals are. The problem, of course, then is the DC 15 requirement. Many PCs will not have a Passive Stealth at 15 or higher unless "stealth" is sort of a "thing" for the PC to normally do. This is another reason why the DC 15 is pointless. The DM will compare the total to any Perceptions when required (passive or otherwise) and know the result. By including the DC 15, the game is basically telling the player "Hey, you didn't make it, so assume you aren't hiding". In theory, I don't have a huge issue with this, just that DC 15 is definitely too high for it because until the "event occurs", the PC should not know behforehand if their efforts succeed or fail.

Compare this to combat. In many games, if your total is 15 or better, there is a good chance to you hit (if you roll 15, it is practically a sure thing!). But what about a 12 or 13? Maybe. There are many creatures out there with more modest ACs. Likewise, there are many creatures with more modest Perceptions. To my mind the idea of the DC 15 is basically saying, "Ok, you don't think you've screwed up--hopefully nothing can see or hear you." But when 66% of the creatures have Passive Perceptions of 14 or lower, with DC 15 it isn't just you think you did it, in most cases you did and know it.

In a weird way, they are making it harder to hide in general, but at the same time practically ensuring success if you make it. Maybe that was their goal? But anyway, let's ignore Passive Stealth for now since I don't know how many DMs would take advantage of using Passive checks for things other than Perception. Moving on...

Calling for the Stealth check when the encounter happens. I think when you mean the DM calls for a check it is really the PCs "prior" action--i.e. their last Stealth total to help establish the current situation? Not, in fact, what they will be doing the first round? If so then that is perfectly good for this situation.

I'm not sure this helps in other situations, though. I'll give it some thought.

Also, thanks for the discussion so far. It helps to have someone to challange my thoughts about the RAW. For example, the DC 15 issue I think is so hiding is "harder" yet "easier" might have been their goal. I'm not a fan of it, but at least in that light it makes some sense.

 

[Sorinth]

I know what you mean but I disagree slightly with the way you said it. You can attempt to Hide whenever you want, you just have to meet the criteria. If you have Heavy Obscurement, "cover", and within no enemy's line of sight.

Another point why I think this is a bit ridiculous. What if an enemy is hiding from you so you cannot see them, can you still try to hide? According to the rule, no, but what does the DM tell you?

Player: I'm going to Hide behind that tree.
DM: You can't.
Player: Why not?
DM: Because you can't. You can move behind the tree, but you can't take the Hide action right now.
Player: Umm... ok... looks to other players quizzically
This goes back to my point. IRL unless you screw up when you attempt to Hide you always think (or hope at least) you are hidden.

Now, in many cases the player will certainly know a creature can see them, in which case "hiding" is futile and they are, at best, simple moving into Heavy Obscurement or "cover".

Which brings up the issue of Darkvision. You move to Heavy Obscurement, so think you can Hide eventhough you can see an enemy, but without Darkvision they cannot see you since you are Heavily Obscured. But, little do you know that enemy has Darkvision and can see you. So, the DM tells the player "Sorry, you cannot Hide," which makes no sense to the player because their character should think they can Hide and should be able to take the Hide action.

I mean, you would think the penalty to Passive Perception would cover this, but until you successfully Hide, the creature can see you. I know how a DM can make a "ruling" on this, but do you understand why the RAW actually fails to cover such situations without tipping off to the player metagame information (at least)?

IMO a PC should always be able to take the Hide action, it is just obvious that under many circumstances you would fail automatically.

View attachment 397187


Well, you could run it that way, certainly. However, this is why I think Passive Stealth should also be a thing. If you are moving at a slow pace and traveling "stealthily", use Passive Stealth with the idea of "repeated checks" average to 10 as the typical result.

The DM should not then call for a check when the random encounter takes place. He already knows what their totals are. The problem, of course, then is the DC 15 requirement. Many PCs will not have a Passive Stealth at 15 or higher unless "stealth" is sort of a "thing" for the PC to normally do. This is another reason why the DC 15 is pointless. The DM will compare the total to any Perceptions when required (passive or otherwise) and know the result. By including the DC 15, the game is basically telling the player "Hey, you didn't make it, so assume you aren't hiding". In theory, I don't have a huge issue with this, just that DC 15 is definitely too high for it because until the "event occurs", the PC should not know behforehand if their efforts succeed or fail.

Compare this to combat. In many games, if your total is 15 or better, there is a good chance to you hit (if you roll 15, it is practically a sure thing!). But what about a 12 or 13? Maybe. There are many creatures out there with more modest ACs. Likewise, there are many creatures with more modest Perceptions. To my mind the idea of the DC 15 is basically saying, "Ok, you don't think you've screwed up--hopefully nothing can see or hear you." But when 66% of the creatures have Passive Perceptions of 14 or lower, with DC 15 it isn't just you think you did it, in most cases you did and know it.

In a weird way, they are making it harder to hide in general, but at the same time practically ensuring success if you make it. Maybe that was their goal? But anyway, let's ignore Passive Stealth for now since I don't know how many DMs would take advantage of using Passive checks for things other than Perception. Moving on...

Calling for the Stealth check when the encounter happens. I think when you mean the DM calls for a check it is really the PCs "prior" action--i.e. their last Stealth total to help establish the current situation? Not, in fact, what they will be doing the first round? If so then that is perfectly good for this situation.

I'm not sure this helps in other situations, though. I'll give it some thought.

Also, thanks for the discussion so far. It helps to have someone to challange my thoughts about the RAW. For example, the DC 15 issue I think is so hiding is "harder" yet "easier" might have been their goal. I'm not a fan of it, but at least in that light it makes some sense.

So for reference page 19 of the PHB talks about hiding and says "The Dungeon Master decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding" so cover/obscurement/etc... all comes after the DM deciding if you can hide or not. This doesn't stop the characters from doing things like hiding behind a tree it just means the mechanics of hiding aren't being used yet, you aren't saying to the player "No you can't hide" like video games do with the whole you can't rest now because monsters are nearby, you just say "Ok you hide behind the tree, now what?", no roll they just do it. It's Shrodinger's Stealth, the player has both succeeded and failed at stealth, once we get to a point where we need to know we open the box, ie roll the d20 and get a result.

As for the meta-gaming aspect it's not unique to stealth, it's something that comes up all over the place and each table needs to find a way that works for them. I think in 2e it was suggested that the DM roll the dice for the character and that the character always believes they've succeeded at being stealthy, you could use a passive stealth, you could call for rolls at random so they don't know when it's a real/fake roll, and sure you can come up with a house rule for passive stealth.

My take on the DC 15 thing is that it's only meant for in combat, they wanted to make hiding in the middle of combat more difficult which I don't love but whatever. As a guess maybe they felt with Steady Aim and the Vex weapon mastery it's not needed as much.

 

[ezo]

you just say "Ok you hide behind the tree, now what?", no roll they just do it.

Ok, but is that then their action: the Hide action? If it isn't, you are in fact telling them they cannot Hide and allowing them to do something else.

As for the meta-gaming aspect it's not unique to stealth, it's something that comes up all over the place and each table needs to find a way that works for them. I think in 2e it was suggested that the DM roll the dice for the character and that the character always believes they've succeeded at being stealthy, you could use a passive stealth, you could call for rolls at random so they don't know when it's a real/fake roll, and sure you can come up with a house rule for passive stealth.

FWIW "Passive Stealth" wouldn't be a house-rule. Any ability (skill) check can be used as Passive.

But, yes, it has long been an issue even with AD&D when a thief would attempt to Hide in Shadows and Move Silently. Especially early on when the numbers were so incredibly low! I recall I used to use double the percentage for a "known fail". E.g. if MS was 30%: 01-30 you knew you made it, 31-60 you think you made it, 61+ you knew you failed.

My take on the DC 15 thing is that it's only meant for in combat, they wanted to make hiding in the middle of combat more difficult which I don't love but whatever. As a guess maybe they felt with Steady Aim and the Vex weapon mastery it's not needed as much.

That could well be the case, but without any such clarification, I feel a bit "left in the dark" (if you'll forgive the pun... ).

 

[Epic Meepo]

But anyway, let's ignore Passive Stealth for now since I don't know how many DMs would take advantage of using Passive checks for things other than Perception. Moving on...

For what it's worth, my house rules use passive Stealth, passive Perception, and environmental considerations to determine encounter distance. So you're not alone in using passive Stealth.

 

[Sorinth]

Ok, but is that then their action: the Hide action? If it isn't, you are in fact telling them they cannot Hide and allowing them to do something else.

The basic game loop isn't players performing Actions, it's them telling the DM what they want to do and the DM adjudicating what happens. There's no chance of failure to hide when nobody is looking so it just happens, you have succeeded in hiding behind the tree without needing to make a roll, just like you succeed at riding a horse without making an Animal Handling check right up until something comes along that makes success/failure uncertain. At which point the uncertainty is resolved with dice.

Or as another example suppose a player wants to use an axe to bash through a wooden door. In combat sure the player can say I take the Attack action and swing at the door. We handle it like any other attack and I think the DMG even has some pre-defined set of AC and HP for different doors. But out of combat with no time constraints they aren't taking the Attack action, they want to axe the door so it just happens without any rolls and the DM simply narrates success.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The basic game loop isn't players performing Actions, it's them telling the DM what they want to do and the DM adjudicating what happens. There's no chance of failure to hide when nobody is looking so it just happens, you have succeeded in hiding behind the tree without needing to make a roll, just like you succeed at riding a horse without making an Animal Handling check right up until something comes along that makes success/failure uncertain. At which point the uncertainty is resolved with dice.

This.

Or as another example suppose a player wants to use an axe to bash through a wooden door. In combat sure the player can say I take the Attack action and swing at the door. We handle it like any other attack and I think the DMG even has some pre-defined set of AC and HP for different doors. But out of combat with no time constraints they aren't taking the Attack action, they want to axe the door so it just happens without any rolls and the DM simply narrates success.

This, too. Although I would just add one thing: if there is a chance of success or failure, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, then attempting to axe down the door comes with an ability check. Perhaps one that involves a failure condition that is "success at a cost." Otherwise, yep, 100% just narrate success and move on to the more interesting bits of the adventure like... what's behind that door!

 

[Epic Meepo]

The basic game loop isn't players performing Actions, it's them telling the DM what they want to do and the DM adjudicating what happens. There's no chance of failure to hide when nobody is looking so it just happens, you have succeeded in hiding behind the tree without needing to make a roll, just like you succeed at riding a horse without making an Animal Handling check right up until something comes along that makes success/failure uncertain. At which point the uncertainty is resolved with dice.

Or as another example suppose a player wants to use an axe to bash through a wooden door. In combat sure the player can say I take the Attack action and swing at the door. We handle it like any other attack and I think the DMG even has some pre-defined set of AC and HP for different doors. But out of combat with no time constraints they aren't taking the Attack action, they want to axe the door so it just happens without any rolls and the DM simply narrates success.

Someone should have told this to the designer who wrote the rules for hiding, because the line, "When you try to hide, you use the Hide action," completely misrepresents the core game loop. Your description of how hiding works is clearer and more insightful and than anything present in the core rules.

 

[ezo]

The basic game loop isn't players performing Actions, it's them telling the DM what they want to do and the DM adjudicating what happens. There's no chance of failure to hide when nobody is looking so it just happens, you have succeeded in hiding behind the tree without needing to make a roll, just like you succeed at riding a horse without making an Animal Handling check right up until something comes along that makes success/failure uncertain. At which point the uncertainty is resolved with dice.

Or as another example suppose a player wants to use an axe to bash through a wooden door. In combat sure the player can say I take the Attack action and swing at the door. We handle it like any other attack and I think the DMG even has some pre-defined set of AC and HP for different doors. But out of combat with no time constraints they aren't taking the Attack action, they want to axe the door so it just happens without any rolls and the DM simply narrates success.

Well, that might be your game loop, but it isn't mine.

I make them roll to attack the door. It doesn't "just happen".

 

[ezo]

The basic game loop isn't players performing Actions, it's them telling the DM what they want to do and the DM adjudicating what happens. There's no chance of failure to hide when nobody is looking so it just happens, you have succeeded in hiding behind the tree without needing to make a roll, just like you succeed at riding a horse without making an Animal Handling check right up until something comes along that makes success/failure uncertain. At which point the uncertainty is resolved with dice.

Also, this is the beginning of the encounter, remember, so there is a chance of failure when someone comes along.

The player has to tell you on their turn what they are doing. Since the scenario was the party was traveling stealthily, each round they are trying to Hide (otherwise they aren't traveling stealthily...). This is why I would use Passive Stealth, but asking for a roll to determine your "last Hide" works as well to establish the scene.

If the player tells you on their turn "I hide behind the tree" what are they doing? Just moving behind a tree? Now what? Or are they taking the Hide action? If you tell them they can't, then they aren't "hiding" behind the tree, they are just moving there and will take some other action instead of trying to Hide because you told them they can't.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Sorinth]

Well, that might be your game loop, but it isn't mine.

I make them roll to attack the door. It doesn't "just happen".

If there are no time constraints then why?

They will eventually succeed and whether it takes 3 attacks or 15 attacks is irrrelevant most of the time, so in the rare times it is relevant sure make them roll. If players are in Icewind Dale and tell you they want to go to the store to buy some rations, do you make them roll 3 acrobatics checks to see if they fell prone on some patches of slippery ice? Or do you say you know what it's irrelevant if they fell prone on the way to the store so we can just skip pointless rolling.