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

[Selas]

You narrate it because it's something the they have declared that they do.

DM: "The wood door has no lock, knob or any other way you can see to open it."
Fighter: "We don't have time for this. I pull out my battle axe and chop my way through the door."
DM: "Okay. The door was pretty sturdy, so it takes you about 15 minutes to chop your way through it...."

It's a waste of time and effort to have the fighter battle a wooden door until he breaks through. The outcome isn't in doubt, so why waste that time?

This depends on the DM. In 5e by RAW, you can keep trying to pick the lock over and over and over, so if there are no time constraints the PC will eventually roll a 20. If the lock has a DC equal or lower to 20 + the bonus of the PC, why waste the time making him roll?

If you've decided not to allow retries, then the roll should happen.

Agreed. Both CH1 of the PHB and in the DMG it says you roll ability checks when the outcome is uncertain, or you want to build tension. In the first example, the outcome is certain because it's a wooden door vs an Axe; the Axe is going to win. In the second, picking a lock is much more uncertain, so you roll

 

[Sorinth]

Because if a PC wants to chop down a door, they are attacking it. Frankly, without a time constraint or something for tension, I have to ask why are you even narrating this???

So, what about a PC who wants to pick the lock instead of chop down the door with an axe? Do you "just let them do it"? No time constraints, etc. etc. etc.

You narrate what happens because the PC asked to do something. And for lock picking that is exactly what the DMG tells you to do on page 28 "For example, failing a Dexterity check to pick a lock on a treasure chest doesn't mean the character can't try again, but each attempt might take a minute. If failure has no consequences and a character can try and try again, you can skip the ability check and just tell the player how long the task takes."

 

[KYRON45]

Hold the fish loosely my friends.

 

[Sorinth]

Player: "Okay. I'm going to hide behind the tree."
DM: "You hide. Don't bother rolling."
Every player: "Great! There's nothing out there that can see us, so we're somewhat safe."

Or...

Player: "Okay. I'm going to hide behind the tree."
DM: "Give me a stealth check to hide."
Every player: "Uh, oh! Something is nearby."

The players may not say those last parts, but they are going to be aware when something is around and when the area is clear that way. I prefer to always have the stealth check happen. That keeps the players unsure about whether something is really out there, and gives me the number I need just in case something is there or will be wandering by.

The meta gaming angle is everywhere in D&D, each table has to decide how they want to handle it. And if your going down that rabbit hole players should never roll for stealth because knowing what they rolled can also influence their decision making. Which incidentally was the 2e solution to stealth, the DM was supposed to roll it and always tell the player they believe they're doing a good job at stealth.

 

[Maxperson]

The meta gaming angle is everywhere in D&D, each table has to decide how they want to handle it. And if your going down that rabbit hole players should never roll for stealth because knowing what they rolled can also influence their decision making. Which incidentally was the 2e solution to stealth, the DM was supposed to roll it and always tell the player they believe they're doing a good job at stealth.

Completely disagree with the bolded portion. It's not an all or nothing situation.

I can be fine with them rolling, because they won't know if the monsters rolled poorly or well, so if they roll badly they might still be hidden, or found out with a good roll. And I can not be fine with telling them straight out by asking or not asking for a roll, whether there is danger around. I mean, they could hide every minute or two to check for danger, which is way beyond the metagaming pale.

 

[Sorinth]

Completely disagree with the bolded portion. It's not an all or nothing situation.

I can be fine with them rolling, because they won't know if the monsters rolled poorly or well, so if they roll badly they might still be hidden, or found out with a good roll. And I can not be fine with telling them straight out by asking or not asking for a roll, whether there is danger around. I mean, they could hide every minute or two to check for danger, which is way beyond the metagaming pale.

And if they see their rolls they can keep going in and out of stealth until they roll a 20. If players are going to try and exploit the rules it's not a rules problem.