| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1FrogReaverMar 15, 2015 11:08:08 | The Important Rules
"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."
I consider the above rule to mean that creatures in combat are using their active perception to constantly search for threats.
Since D&D is played with a DM deciding whether something succeeds or fails or is uncertain then consider the below scenarios.
So If you attempt to come out of hiding to approach a creature it usually sees you because the DM typically considers that creature as having automatically succeeded on its perception check.
However, some creatures the DM may determine automatically fail that perception check due to being very distracted and thus you get to remain hidden on your approach to that creature.
Now, sometimes the DM may determine that a creatures active perception check to spot you is uncertain. In those cases he may have the creature roll perception to determine whether it succeeds or fails.
Just to reiterate, I believe stealthing in combat is about creatures using their active perception. But a creature using active perception doesn't always have to roll a dice to determine the result. Dice are only rolled when the outcome is uncertain.
What this means for a typical hiding rogue? It means that when you do anything in combat that could open up line of sight to yourself that the DM can determine that a monster automatically succeeds on its active perception check to see you. So if you hide and then pop your head around a corner to line up a shot the monster may see you and you may not get advantage on that roll.
However, if you pop your head around a corner that the monster is paying no attention to then the monster may auto fail its perception check and you remain hidden on the shot and get advantage.
If the monster is trying to watch a large portion of the environment for you then the outcome on whether it sees you may be uncertain. The DM may have the monster roll a perception check in this circumstance to determine if it sees you.
Thoughts, opinions? |
| #2FrogReaverMar 15, 2015 11:43:15 | These guidelines leave the power of combat stealth up to the DM.
For example, a DM can make any of these general ruleings if he doesn't want to rule it as much on a case by case basis.
1. DM can have all monsters auto succeed the perception check when a rogue pops his head around a corner to try and shoot them. 2. DM can have no monster ever auto succeed the perception check when a rogue pops his head around a corner to try and shoot them. 3. DM can always have the monster in question roll a perception check since the outcome it uncertain. 4. DM can allow the first one to auto succeed and then the next attempt to have a chance for success due to uncertainy. And maybe any subsequent tries auto fail. 5. DM rules first place you popped out auto succeeds. DM can rule that if you can move sufficiently far from the first place you popped your head out that it auto succeeds as well. If not then it has a chance for failure and if you are too close to the same place you tried the first time that it auto fails.
There's even more ways than this for a DM to setup his general case hiding rulings based around that perception check.
My personal favorite right now is number 5 with a few set distances in place for player and DM ease. |
| #3akaddkMar 15, 2015 16:58:21 | I don't know why it's so complicated for people or why it even has to be an argument. It's just common bloody sense which unfortunately doesn't seem to be all that common.
If someone is looking in the direction of the person trying to stealth, then popping out from behind cover means... OMG! They can see you!
Stealth is not invisibility. Why is this difficult for people to comprehend? |
| (Reply to #3)Rhenny |
|
| (Reply to #4)OoftaMeg |
|
| #6NoonMar 15, 2015 18:54:24 |
|
| #7akaddkMar 15, 2015 19:18:53 |
|
| #8FrogReaverMar 15, 2015 19:28:50 | Yes my method even allows facing to be used to determine if the monster sees you pop out from behind the crate.
The monster faces you: auto success on perception roll
The monster faces away from you: auto failure on perception roll
The monster is turned so that it would only see you in its peripheral vision: outcome is uncertain so a perception roll is used to determine what happens
This all happens because the enemy gets a perception check and the dm decides if it's certain ir uncertain.
|
| #9IlseMar 15, 2015 19:47:16 | I must say that I am not completely in favour of this kind of interpretation. While I agree that Stealth is not invisibility, that set of "rules" in particular does not take into account the actual stealthiness of the rogue or the actual watchfullness of the watcher.
What I'm saying here is that yes, if you are watching intently the crate behind which you think that a rogue is hiding, it will make it difficult for the said rogue to pop-out and sneak attack you. But what does "intently watching" mean ? Everyone gets distracted and it's often a measure of willpower (hence the wisdom bonus on perception BTW) to be able to intently watch something for a long period of time without being distracted. And when you're in combat, I really defy you to only keep watch on a crate when someone is actively trying to kill you with his sword. There will be times when, even if you are facing in the right direction, you will not be watching the crate that well (or at all, actually).
Also, a good rogue can certainly be creative, not watch from the same angle or position, use a small balde just to catch a reflection, wait until he hears a shout or a particularly ferocious exchange with the weapons to just pop an eye out. So his skill at that has to be taken into account.
And finally, even though you might suspect that there is someone there, there is still no guarantee at all that you'll be able to react or dodge when he suddnely pops-out and shoots oyu, because he is just too fast and has timed it perfectly.
This is why, for me, the rolls are often reasonnably appropriate.
Also, on general principle, I dislike any kind of "auto-success" or "auto-failure". I'm much more in favour of using advantages or disadvantages than actual "auto" results, and this also makes things a bit more fair to the actual abilities of the participants. |
| (Reply to #9)FrogReaver | 1. As as a general principal I dislike rolling all the time for little thing.
2. The perception can be vs the rogues stealth check so even that gets taken into consideration.
3. A creature doesn't need to watch intently at the crate to see the rogue popping out. Maybe the creature glanced over at the right time. Maybe he seen movement in his peripheral vision.
4. My method allows you to call everything uncertain and always have the creature in question roll perception vs the rogues stealth if you like to roll a lot.
5. I never suggested not ever applying advantage or disadvantage to the check. This can still be used anytime something is uncertain.
|
| #11OnelostroadMar 15, 2015 20:58:58 | I think the default rule for perception in combat is that all participants are on a 360 degree constant vigilance. In my reading of the rules, I don't see much about facing affecting perception. For example, a rogue doesn't get a sneak attack merely by being "behind" his opponent. If that's how you choose to run your game, I think that's perfectly acceptable and even adds a level of realism to the game.
I do see how the rules regarding sneaking/hiding/perception can be confusing and there are plenty of threads to evidence that. I think it's only natural for players to want to ulitize rules to their advantage so when a rule's contraditory of ambiguous they want to read it in the manner that is to their benefit.
But as a DM, I feel it's my responsibility to bring balance and some sense of realism to my game. So recently, I had to have an dialogue with one of my players on this exact topic. This is what I told him:
"I appreciate your reading of the rules but just know that rules work differently in an RPG than they do in a board game. The rules are sprinkled with phrases like, "When the DM wants...," or "The DM might..." Those are important phrases because ultimately it's the DM that decides the outcome of any situation, action, or roll. I try to do this in a manner that's fair to the players, realistic, and also allows for dramatic and/or cinematic moments."
So I encourage DMs to stand up and, ultimately, feel empowered by those phrases in the PHB that point to the significance of the DM's decision making ability. Before these situations come up, establish with your players the guided tenents of how you're generally going to adjudicate situations (Realism? Cinematic action? Player advantage?). In doing so, you might avoid a lot of rules lawyering, nit-picking, and bickering at the table. |
| #12IlseMar 15, 2015 21:01:56 |
|
| (Reply to #11)Ilse |
|
| #14arnwolf666Mar 15, 2015 22:05:14 | I would let a person make a stealth check in combat against anyone distracted with fighting someone else in combat. If you have someone actively swinging a sword at you then you are distracted. |
| (Reply to #12)FrogReaver |
|
| #16RavixMar 15, 2015 23:02:49 | On the other side, looks like I'm just going to active roll perception every turn just because I can. |
| #17PsikerlordMar 15, 2015 23:44:38 | Experienced players, and DMs, will discuss their preferred hiding approach in session zero. It's just one of a number of topics that ought to be covered to avoid disappointment (Along with "what optional rules are we using? Feats? Multiclassing? Flanking? Slow healing? etc). |
| #18IlseMar 15, 2015 23:44:46 |
|
| #19IlseMar 15, 2015 23:46:21 |
|
| #20Sands666Mar 15, 2015 23:53:32 | Hiding in the middle of a fight just seems ridiculous to me. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a fight where the person was able to hide in the middle of it CONSTANTLY? I'm sure there are circumstances but I'll never ever consider that normal. If you even have an option to hide in the middle of combat (like large shrubs that completely shroud your person), you should be rolling with disadvantage because your opponent is literally watching you run and jump into the bushes. Muddying up the way this is interpreted to allow a character to hide in combat constantly really ruins the story of a combat for me. It's just not believable. Negotiating believability for game mechanics isn't something I'm willing to do to push it THAT far for. |
| (Reply to #19)Sands666 |
|
| #22RavixMar 16, 2015 0:11:49 |
|
| #23Sands666Mar 16, 2015 0:48:42 |
|
| (Reply to #19)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #16)FrogReaver |
|
| #26Sands666Mar 16, 2015 1:08:48 |
|
| (Reply to #18)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #20)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #16)Coredump00 |
|
| #30NoctaemMar 16, 2015 8:40:52 |
|
| (Reply to #19)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #30)FrogReaver |
|
| #33NoctaemMar 16, 2015 9:24:11 | Actually it's covered in the rules:
If you leave your hiding spot and approach ... you are no longer hidden.
Paraphrasing here but I know for a fact that the rules require you to leave hiding AND approach. Just sticking your head out to shoot at an opponent with a ranged weapon does not count as leaving your hiding spot and approaching. So as long as you don't do both of those things, you can remain hidden to make your attack and then lose hidden anyway hit or miss.
But again you're inventing a scenario and then basically saying "the DM is allowed to give creatures perception checks outside of their turns without using actions because you stuck your head out of your hiding spot". Well yes, I think it's established that DM's can attempt to rule however they please about every single rule in the book. However at some point, a DM granting actions outside of their turns to the monsters because he doesn't like that you beat the passive perception of the monsters is just bad DM'ing. Like the rogue already rolled to beat passives using one of his actions on his turn instead of something else after moving behind cover that you provided during the encounter which was sufficient to allow the roll in the first place, he succeeded, let him have his 1 attack with advantage for petes sake! This to me just reeks of DM vs player mentality.
We all win by just following the rules. You step out of your hiding spot and approach, you are no longer hidden UNLESS the DM warrants the creature is distracted in which case you can remain hidden... |
| (Reply to #30)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #33)Coredump00 |
|
| #36supreme_slayerMar 16, 2015 12:57:04 | It would make sense for a DM to say that someone is automatically spotted, but getting into "facing" rules is just ridiculous to me. In certain cases of course it makes sense, but to say that for a full 6 seconds again and again that these excperienced fighters and killer monsters are paying attention only to a small scope of the situation is absurd. If you want to go by facing rules, players also don't know what's happening to their allies unless they specifically shout at them, or specifically say they are looking over at them. Which apparently would mean they are facing away from the guy they are fighting?
If there's a mad berserker who is hell bent on destroying the Wizard in front of him, it makes sense he might not pay any attention to the rogue trying to hide from him. Though technically at that point, he is being attacked by something he can't see anyways. If you REALLY want to get into the nitty-gritty of facing. Having such a scenario possible is a good thing, but to track and assume it for all situations is too much for me. |
| (Reply to #33)FrogReaver |
|
| #38NoctaemMar 16, 2015 10:05:49 |
|
| (Reply to #38)FrogReaver |
|
| #40Fake-HealerMar 16, 2015 10:07:45 | Seems like this is a perfect opportunity to use passive perception. Someone in melee literally can't be seeing in all directions and is distracted by opponents. They aren't actively looking everywhere to see everything. Passive perception is a good idea to use in these instances and anyone with stealth could use the stealth rules to try to approach them or get the drop on them, maybe with a negative to the stealth check like a -2 or a disadvantage or somesuch. We are looking at much lower numbers for skills than in previous editions so most characters have around an average of a 12ish passive perception and a person using stealth well would only be running around with a +6 or so...perhaps just ruling that using stealth in combat is done with disadvantage would make it usable but not too powerful. Not sure how this all scales as I don't have my books out and don't feel like running actual numbers but it doesn't seem totally off base.
|
| #41FrogReaverMar 16, 2015 10:12:05 | Nocatem I have a question.
In the situation where a character leaves his hiding spot and approaches an enemy in combat....
I think typically the monster notices the player. However, sometimes the DM may rule the monster is soo distracted it doesn't. Sometimes the DM may rule it's uncertain. What should be done when the DM rules it's uncertain whether the enemy you are trying to approach notices you?
In the uncertain situation what should the DM do to resolve that uncertainty? |
| (Reply to #40)FrogReaver |
|
| #43NoctaemMar 16, 2015 10:25:35 |
|
| (Reply to #43)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #42)Fake-Healer |
|
| #46NoctaemMar 16, 2015 10:45:47 | I didn't avoid the question, I blatantly answered it and further explained that there's no point talking about how dm's could houserule to change the ruled outcomes of the scenario you gave.... |
| (Reply to #46)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #45)FrogReaver |
|
| #49NoctaemMar 16, 2015 12:04:48 |
|
| (Reply to #49)FrogReaver |
|
| #51NoctaemMar 16, 2015 12:55:08 |
|
| #52IlseMar 16, 2015 15:29:41 | I am totally with Noctaem on this one. The game is actually extremely clear about the perception part of things. To hide from somone, you roll your stealth against the target's passive perception. There is uncertainty, because you ROLL your Stealth: Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
Note that, to hide from someone, that person must not be able to see you at all: You can’t hide from a creature that can see you.
Now, on his turn, someone can ACTIVELY look for you, because that means taking an ACTION: Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
And: When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
You have another confirmation on this in the passive checks section: A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
And: The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks.
So, for me, it's very clear (actually, it can't get clearer thatn this), you have to take the search action to search (duh!) and therefore make an active perception check and actually get a roll.
Now, once you are hidden, you will stay hidden until either you are discovered (by the above mean, for example). You will also be discovered if someone gets rid of the "cover" that you used to get hidden, for example moving around it, or creating some light, etc.
This means that when you become visible again, you will not remain hidden (again duh !), this means that when you move out of your cover and (for example) approach your target, you will not remain hidden (unless your are invsible, of course, but that's another topic):
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you.
But again, because this is 5E, there are possibilities for the DM:
However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.
You also stop being hidden when you attack, even if you don't break cover (except when it's a ranged weapon and you have the skulker feat, or when you have improved invisiblity, etc.). If you are hidden — both unseen and unheard — when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.
So all of this is very, very clear and does not need lengthy discussions or other principles than what is in the rules.
For me, there are still two things that need a DM's adjudication, though:
Thoughts ?
|
| #53Greenstone.WalkerMar 16, 2015 16:59:15 |
|
| (Reply to #38)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #16)arnwolf666 |
|
| #56OnelostroadMar 16, 2015 17:35:15 |
|
| (Reply to #56)FrogReaver | So let's talk about this.
Suppose players pass an area and don't notice a treasure chest in the corner because they have low passive perceptions
Suppose while they are walking the treasure chest is teleported to a very apparent location. The pcs already failed to notice the chest and nothing new has been rolled. Do the pcs now notice this chest?
Yes because circumstances have changed.
|
| (Reply to #52)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #55)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #56)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #59)arnwolf666 |
|
| #62IlseMar 16, 2015 20:50:55 | Guys, you are complicating something that is really simple. Out of combat, you do not need to take actions, so if you are "actively searching", you will get perception rolls. Otherwise, you will simply have your passsive perception.
In combat, it also EXTREMELY simple. The basic assumption is that in combat, you are attentive, and therefore looking around: "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around." And that means that anything hidden is dealt by your passive perception: A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
In combat, you are routinely checking that there is no new threat, etc. That is routine, and that is, exactly as written, your passive perception that counts.
But in combat, apart from that overall vigilance, all what you are doing is taking actions (assuming, as would be reasonable, that you don't want to start a trend of people getting extra-bits like skill rolls on top of the action). You can also communicate and interact with ONE object "for free", but that is about all that you can do outside of taking actions. And there is one action which expressely allows you to make a perception check. What more proof do you need to show you that you need to take that action to have a check ?
Now, as usuall in 5E, your DM can allow you to take checks whenever he feels like it, but the rules are very simple. There is no need for something stupide like "I'm in combat, and therefore alert, but I am still taking a bit more of my attention to check around, but still not being completly distracted so that I do not need to take an action".
Either you are using your general alertness (passive) or you devote your attention to finding something. And that is the exact wording of the Search action.
Another way to look at it is that if you were allowed to take perception checks whenever you feel like it, why would there be the need for a SPECIFIC Search action?
So, sorry guys, but deal with it, in combat:
|
| (Reply to #61)Ilse |
|
| #64Sands666Mar 16, 2015 20:18:21 |
|
| #65arnwolf666Mar 16, 2015 20:24:51 | I'm just tired of playing a game where thieves can't use stealth in most situations. So I give stealth alot of freedom. I don't let the Rogue use stealth against someone that is engaged in combat with him. But maneuvering around those he is not engaged with, I give alot of freedom. I let thieves.. er Rogues, sneak through an entrance using stealth where there are two guards on both sides of an entrance. Because my Rogue, he's Batman, he's that good. The skill is stealth, not Hide in Shadows, not Move Silently. It can include making the distraction in the roll, it can include moving when the enemy is looking the other way. It can mean alot of things. |
| (Reply to #65)Ilse |
|
| (Reply to #66)arnwolf666 |
|
| #68PsikerlordMar 17, 2015 3:34:42 |
|
| #69NoctaemMar 17, 2015 3:49:12 |
|
| (Reply to #66)OoftaMeg |
|
| #71fepriestMar 17, 2015 7:58:40 | How I'd like to implement stealth checks in a game:
|
| #72iserithMar 17, 2015 8:15:57 |
|
| (Reply to #72)FrogReaver |
|
| #74NoctaemMar 17, 2015 9:26:15 |
|
| (Reply to #62)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #65)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #66)Coredump00 |
|
| #78IlseMar 17, 2015 14:42:40 | My feeling is that, yes, it would not be common to spend your action on Search, except for the unusual circumstances depicted by Noctaem, i.e. if it's one of the keys to a specific encounter.
You can also imagine people taking it specifically because they get help , i.e. two people combining to actually find something hard to see, as you woulg get advantage on the roll (or a +5 to your passive perception, which would be a hefty bonus and possibly sufficient to beat the rogues / dark creepers / skulkers encircling the party, etc. ?
By the way, when you have multiple sentinels, that's the way they should probably work together (assuming that they are discipined enough, not basic orcs). That way, they get a +5 to their passive perceptions (actually to the highest of their passive perceptions), which is probably enough to keep Rogues on their toes about not doing stupid things (but instead playing as cleverly as they can). |
| (Reply to #67)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #69)Coredump00 |
|
| #81IlseMar 17, 2015 15:26:10 | @coredump: Again, you are making this much too complex. First, there is the clear statement of what is free: basic communication and interacting with ONE object. That's all. By default, nothing else is free. And actually, even things which are listed as "free" can actually rquire an action at the DM's request: "The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle."
So it's the OTHER way around, things by default are not free, and the DM can actually require you to take an action. And there is a very good reason for this, combat has to be fast and fluid. This is why they limited the number and types of action, and simplified the whole system. And this is why the following statement is dangerous:
|
| #82IlseMar 17, 2015 15:31:25 |
|
| (Reply to #79)arnwolf666 |
|