Making a more robust stealth system - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM Jun 15, 2015 12:11:42	Hey everyone! Yesterday, our session ended up involving the PCs in a forest hiding from and then stalking a group of cultists. During the encounter, one of the players expressed dislike in the simplicity of the stealth system in 5E (all D&D in general, really), and lamented that the system wasn't more granular. He was playing a warlock, and he felt it wasn't right that making an attack automatically revealed his location when he had attacked from hiding behind a tree. He accepted that he had revealed himself through the attack and the verbal components of his spell (eldritch blast), but felt that his opponent shouldn't have automatically known where he was. I played things as I understood them from the book, but said I'd come here to discuss it and figure out if there were other ways to adjucate it in the end. I do think there should be a chance for a hider to remain hidden after an attack. But I also don't want to buff stealth to the point that it becomes the defacto option in my game, unless I accept this and rejigger the whole game to focus around stealth (Metal Gear Dragons?). So how do you play these things out?
#2 akr71 Jun 15, 2015 12:29:39	Without any of the manuals in front of me, I would suggest that there should be an equally proportional chance that the stealth attack does not go off as planned. A ranged weapon or ranged spell attack could be partially deflected by whatever the character is using for cover.
#3 OoftaMeg Jun 15, 2015 13:19:15	I follow the rules more-or-less. Attacking someone reveals your position. I guess I never had a real question about it ... if a crackling bolt of energy just zapped me, I can't see why I wouldn't know approximately where it came from especially considering the relatively close range of most spells. We aren't talking silenced sniper fire here, and things are happening pseudo-simultaneously. The person being attacked can look for the source of the spell an instant after the spell went off, before the warlock has a chance to duck behind cover. From a rules-lawyer perspective, the warlock also lacks the ability to hide after his spell, hiding normally takes an action. Do what is fun for your group but remember that turnabout is fair play. If the PCs can do it so can the enemy.
#4 Nevvur Jun 15, 2015 21:30:36	House rule: Reduce the result of your stealth check by 5 (or some other arbitrary number) every time you attack while hidden. If this reduces the stealth check below the passive perception of an enemy, you've been noticed. Just made this up. I've never used it, and probably never will since I largely avoid house rules, but it might suit your table.
#5 Rya.Reisender Jun 16, 2015 1:54:22	I follow the rules like OoftaMeg. I don't allow staying hidden after an attack, because the rules are pretty clear about this. If it at least was a rogue that could use hide as bonus action I'd say "Just use hide as bonus action right after your attack and if you succeed I will narrate it as though you stayed hidden all the time". A warlock however can never do that. House rule: Reduce the result of your stealth check by 5 (or some other arbitrary number) every time you attack while hidden. If this reduces the stealth check below the passive perception of an enemy, you've been noticed.
#6 Psikerlord Jun 17, 2015 4:39:58	Generally being able to stay hidden and attack would be OP. So I wouldnt normally allow it except in special circumstances, even then I would require a stealth check probably.
(Reply to #6) OoftaMeg	Psikerlord wrote:
#8 Nevvur Jun 17, 2015 9:40:12	OP wants: 1) A chance to stay hidden after the attack 2) To not make this an overpowered option I would amend my proposed house rule to only be an option during the first round of combat, against a surprised opponent (which is the scenario in the original post anyway). I don't like the idea of being able to stay hidden after attacking once surprise has ended, but it seems appropriate enough in the opening chaos of an ambush.
#9 Xeviat-DM Jun 17, 2015 15:24:13	I'm leaning towards taking -5 on your stealth and -5 on your attack to remain hidden after attacking. I like that someone pointed out you wouldn't want to straight up boost stealth without penalizing attacks.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Xeviat-DM

Jun 15, 2015 12:11:42

Hey everyone! Yesterday, our session ended up involving the PCs in a forest hiding from and then stalking a group of cultists. During the encounter, one of the players expressed dislike in the simplicity of the stealth system in 5E (all D&D in general, really), and lamented that the system wasn't more granular.

He was playing a warlock, and he felt it wasn't right that making an attack automatically revealed his location when he had attacked from hiding behind a tree. He accepted that he had revealed himself through the attack and the verbal components of his spell (eldritch blast), but felt that his opponent shouldn't have automatically known where he was. I played things as I understood them from the book, but said I'd come here to discuss it and figure out if there were other ways to adjucate it in the end.

I do think there should be a chance for a hider to remain hidden after an attack. But I also don't want to buff stealth to the point that it becomes the defacto option in my game, unless I accept this and rejigger the whole game to focus around stealth (Metal Gear Dragons?).

So how do you play these things out?

akr71

Jun 15, 2015 12:29:39

Without any of the manuals in front of me, I would suggest that there should be an equally proportional chance that the stealth attack does not go off as planned. A ranged weapon or ranged spell attack could be partially deflected by whatever the character is using for cover.

OoftaMeg

Jun 15, 2015 13:19:15

I follow the rules more-or-less. Attacking someone reveals your position.

I guess I never had a real question about it ... if a crackling bolt of energy just zapped me, I can't see why I wouldn't know approximately where it came from especially considering the relatively close range of most spells.

We aren't talking silenced sniper fire here, and things are happening pseudo-simultaneously. The person being attacked can look for the source of the spell an instant after the spell went off, before the warlock has a chance to duck behind cover.

From a rules-lawyer perspective, the warlock also lacks the ability to hide after his spell, hiding normally takes an action.

Do what is fun for your group but remember that turnabout is fair play. If the PCs can do it so can the enemy.

Nevvur

Jun 15, 2015 21:30:36

House rule: Reduce the result of your stealth check by 5 (or some other arbitrary number) every time you attack while hidden. If this reduces the stealth check below the passive perception of an enemy, you've been noticed.

Just made this up. I've never used it, and probably never will since I largely avoid house rules, but it might suit your table.

Rya.Reisender

Jun 16, 2015 1:54:22

I follow the rules like OoftaMeg. I don't allow staying hidden after an attack, because the rules are pretty clear about this.

If it at least was a rogue that could use hide as bonus action I'd say "Just use hide as bonus action right after your attack and if you succeed I will narrate it as though you stayed hidden all the time".

A warlock however can never do that.

House rule: Reduce the result of your stealth check by 5 (or some other arbitrary number) every time you attack while hidden. If this reduces the stealth check below the passive perception of an enemy, you've been noticed.

Psikerlord

Jun 17, 2015 4:39:58

Generally being able to stay hidden and attack would be OP. So I wouldnt normally allow it except in special circumstances, even then I would require a stealth check probably.

(Reply to #6)

OoftaMeg

Psikerlord wrote:

Nevvur

Jun 17, 2015 9:40:12

OP wants:

1) A chance to stay hidden after the attack

2) To not make this an overpowered option

I would amend my proposed house rule to only be an option during the first round of combat, against a surprised opponent (which is the scenario in the original post anyway). I don't like the idea of being able to stay hidden after attacking once surprise has ended, but it seems appropriate enough in the opening chaos of an ambush.

Xeviat-DM

Jun 17, 2015 15:24:13

I'm leaning towards taking -5 on your stealth and -5 on your attack to remain hidden after attacking. I like that someone pointed out you wouldn't want to straight up boost stealth without penalizing attacks.