| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 15:32:08 | Please double check me here internet gamers.
"A passive check is a special kind o f ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent
"When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group
So let's assume we are all as a group exploring together and trying to make sure our group is undetected. Rather than rolling a stealth check for every 30' of explortation, the DM should use our passive dexterity (stealth) as a group check right?
Okay, from there, at least 3 of 6 PCs take the following:
Max Dex (lets assume 20 by level 10) Cleric 1 (Trickery Domain) Rogue 1 (Expertise: Dexterity(Stealth).
I believe the result is that three of us would then have a 28 passive stealth, which beats the passive perception of every monster in the manual, resulting in surprise for every encounter you could possibly face while exploring cautiously. While you are it, you might as well take two more rogue levels, so now you have assassinate that will always trigger.
Am I missing a rule here? |
| #2Tempest_StormwindMay 15, 2015 15:56:35 | Group checks don't refer to passive checks. You'd have to be actively rolling Stealth against the monster's passive Perception score. Doesn't really change the argument, though, since I think your modifiers are high enough that you're almost always going to succeed anyway.
My logic is if half your team devoted two character levels to stealth (in two classes that don't really dovetail; clerics and rogues rely on different sets of scores) and maxed out everything you could do to be stealthy, then yes, they deserve to carry the team like this.
Two things to note: First, this assumes no source of disadvantage, and that's reasonably common, especially among paranoid foes.
Second, and more to the point, checks are only called for if there's a chance of success and a chance of failure. If it's an impossible task, there's no check, and no amount of check modifiers or passive scores will make it possible. If the DM doesn't call for a check, this rules interaction never triggers - and he's perfectly legit in saying "This is impossible" when it matters. |
| #3JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 16:29:09 | I imagine traps and alarms and whatnot could generate disadvatange, but since we are apparently wis and dex, there's no reason not to take Alert and Observant as well, so we go first, cant be surprised in return and notice traps and secret doors. Basically, they are the sweeper team.
I dont see anything in the RAW that says you cant passively perform a check as a group. If we are all out trying to convince the people of the city to vote for Bahamut in the upcoming divine elections, it happens over time, so its the average result of a task done repeatedly, and we are all trying to succeed as a team, so its a group check.
If Bilbo, a completely untrained idiot with improved invisibility, can sneak up on Smaug, I imagine three Cyric zealots can explain to thier group how not to knock over any vases on the way through the dungeon.
I'll note that Smaug probably had a 27 PP (as per ancient red dragons) and walking down a pile of loose gold probably imposed disadvantage.
Impossible is things like hitting the moon with an arrow. Not, "really incredibly unlikely." Actually impossible. If that were a passive 30 (which it would be by the time you got +5 proficiency bonus), it would be mean you routinely do the almost impossible. |
| #4BoldItalicMay 15, 2015 16:39:16 | If a character tries to hide or escape attention, he makes a Stealth roll. That result stands until he stops being stealthy and reveals his position somehow. He doesn't need to re-roll every turn.
For a Level 10 rogue with Dex 20 and expertise in Strealth, the roll would be d20+13 (that's +5 from his Dex modifier and +8 from his proficiency bonus doubled).
If several characters moving together try to hide simultaneously, they each roll individually. They can't make a group check because they don't know what DC they are up against.
If there is a monster who might potentially see them, the monster's passive perception is effectively used as the DC for the hide action. The DM knows what monsters are present and what their passive perceptions are, but the players don't.
The monster might spot some characters and not others. If the monster spots any of the characters, it cannot be surprised. So the worst stealth roll in the group is crucial. That's why rogues scout ahead on their own, while tanks in metal armour wait behind. |
| #5JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 16:41:21 | Interesting side note: a cleric 1 / rogue 11 with a 22 dex (assume he read a book on dex) literally is always doing the almost impossible when it comes to stealth. ninja vanish and ****. |
| #6JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 16:42:58 |
|
| #7JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 16:53:23 | Let me give you a parrallel example that everyone I think agrees with. Your party is trying to avoid getting lost in the woods. Everyone is working together to make that you dont get lost. So you all make a group survivial check. Everyone agrees on that right?
Now assume you split off two scouts. These scouts go ahead and try to find the path while everyone else waits behind. In that case, only the two scouts make the survival check. Still everyone agrees right?
How is this any different from stealth? The only difference I can see is that instead of arbitrary DC (moderate easy hard whatever) there is an exact DC based on the passive perception of the monsters.
To use your "rogues scout ahead while tanks stay behind" scenario. Three trained trackers see thier idiot friends starting to go west instead of north and tell them, hey, trust us, that's the wrong way. Three especially nimble murder hobo's go over to the tanks and say, "stop talking. walk heel toe, like this. dont swing your giant plate arms when you walk." |
| #8Tempest_StormwindMay 15, 2015 17:10:28 |
|
| #9JohnnyBlaiseMay 15, 2015 20:15:50 |
|
| #10WizardVMay 15, 2015 23:44:22 | Look at HotDQ episode 1 for an example of a group stealth check implemented by WotC. In that example success or failure determines whether an encounter happens. In a standard encounter like walking from room to room the DM would ask each player to make a stealth check separately. I've never heard a DM ask for a group stealth check to have a group sneak up to and ambush an enemy. In no way is stealth automatic. Hell, in several threads on here prominent rules lawyers have argued that even being invisible and having a +28 modifier does not mean creatures are not aware of your presense. The rules provide little guidance here, you are entirely at the mercy of your DM.
Aside from a check, you might walk into the alarm spell. Your scent may be tracked. If the DM feels you are trivializing encounters things will go wrong if he wants them to. He might have the monsters call for guards and have any number of monsters he feels like suddenly show up. He might just add monsters specifically for you to gank and then have the expected encounter start after your surprise round.
Also, if you're talking about group optimizing you forgot pass without trace. |
| #11BoldItalicMay 16, 2015 0:05:35 |
|
| (Reply to #11)Coredump00 |
|
| #13JohnnyBlaiseMay 16, 2015 14:30:48 | Agreed that the rules provide very little guidance, especially in areas of things like invisibility stealth and darkness. But I'm not wrong in making a, "the rules don't say you can't" argument right?
I mean, yes obviously DMs can do whatever they want - that kind of goes without saying (and honestly its more than a little annoying that it gets brought up on every rules question thread).
But there is already a published example of "group stealth" in the very first published module, as well as published examples of using passive checks for extended actions. I just dont think I've ever seen them both used at the same time; but I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work.
As someone else mentioned, the "group" stealth check is already pretty amazing in this build, even if you can't use a "passive" stealth. Odds are good that for at least the first 5-10 levels, nothing will ever even beat a rolled stealth (we are talking about a +13 here at level 2, which means minimum 14 - not a lot of 18 wisdom monsters in tier 1 and 2).
|
| #14BoldItalicMay 16, 2015 14:38:03 |
|
| #15BoldItalicMay 16, 2015 14:44:56 | Just out of interest, how do you get +13 on a Stealth check at level 2? Even with a Dex of 20 and expertise in Stealth, you only get +9. Where has the other +4 come from? |
| #16JohnnyBlaiseMay 16, 2015 15:02:51 |
|
| #17BoldItalicMay 16, 2015 15:27:06 | Yes, if you can explain how a more-stealthy character can help a less-stealthy character to be more successful at avoiding monsters. Your DM will reasonably ask "how exactly are you doing that?" and then set a DC for you each to roll against. The DC will depend on what you say you are doing. Roping yourselves together might work against sink holes and pit traps but it doesn't make you any more silent or hard to see. What is your coresponding technique? If it's really good, the DM can simply decide: "you successfully emerge from the dungeon without encountering any more wandering monsters or finding any more treasure" and you can all go home, if that's what you want.
You still need to get the numbers right, though. Can you explain how you are calculating the adjustments for Stealth rolls? Your numbers seem to be askew. |
| (Reply to #14)Coredump00 |
|
| #19JohnnyBlaiseMay 16, 2015 18:20:12 |
|
| #20BoldItalicMay 16, 2015 23:43:18 |
|
| #21JohnnyBlaiseMay 17, 2015 22:07:50 | I'm obviously not inventing passive skill checks. It says very clearly what they are and when they are used, and there is an very explicit example of a group stealth check in the very first published module.
The "combat round" is not the same as the "exploration phase" of the game. Perhaps you are just used to older editions. But if you just read this edition and pretend you never played 3 or 4, you might see that the rules say you use passive checks to replace rolls that the PCs shouldnt know the result of and repeated check averaging. I cannot see how stealth as you explore a dungeon is anything other than a repeated check that you shouldnt know the result of.
Also if you think +21 w/ advantage at level 5 is within the expected realm of "bounded accuracy" you are perhpas not understaning what that concept was intended to mean. |
| (Reply to #4)Saeviomagy |
|
| #23NoonMay 18, 2015 3:37:31 | Looking past the passive check for now - why would you add everyones passive stealth scores together?
So that'd make an army the most stealthy thing of all? Because like hundreds of guys adding their passive scores together?? |
| #24BoldItalicMay 18, 2015 5:27:53 | 5e is only broken if you want it to be.
That's because the rules and mechanics are ultimately decided by the DM and if he decides on broken rules or broken procedures, then, sure enough, his game is broken.
Doesn't mean the game is broken for eveyone else, though.
There is an underlying assumption that the DM and the players want the game to be fun. If a player (or a DM) looks for ways to break the game, they will find them but that doesn't prove the game is broken, it just proves that this particular player is playing in bad faith.
Such people exist and some of them post on these forums.
Meanwhile, everyone else is enjoying themselves.
Terrible, isn't it?
|
| #25SterlingRatMay 18, 2015 7:32:41 |
|
| #26HorwathMay 18, 2015 8:26:59 | New skill: group stealth, must pe proficient with stealth to learn this.
while you are using stealth as a group you all roll d20 and all take the highest roll. then ad personal modifiers to your own score.
that way even fighter in plate can be reasonably stealthy. |
| #27BoldItalicMay 18, 2015 10:09:24 |
|
| (Reply to #27)HermanTheWize |
|
| #29HorwathMay 18, 2015 14:19:59 |
|
| #30BoldItalicMay 18, 2015 16:14:49 |
|
| #31NoonMay 18, 2015 17:36:47 | New ability: Turn game into personal grudgematch.
Non unique item. Rarity: Common. |
| (Reply to #31)SterlingRat |
|
| (Reply to #25)Saeviomagy |
|
| #34Rya.ReisenderMay 19, 2015 3:52:38 | Hiding / Stealth has special rules specifically stated and does not really apply the common rules. It is fairly specific here when passive checks and when active checks apply. Hell, these special cases are even specifically referred to in the "Passive Checks" section.
Noticing threats and countering "Hide" both works active Stealth roll vs. passive Perception.
Plus even if you could theoretically argue you out of having to do an active Stealth roll, don't do it. This just creates an incredibly boring game. Like large amounts of goblins with their +6 stealth always surprising you at every battle because no party member has a passive perception above 15. What group up players would ever want that? |
| (Reply to #33)SterlingRat |
|
| #36FrogReaverMay 19, 2015 11:59:47 |
|
| #37FrogReaverMay 19, 2015 12:24:24 |
|
| #38HermanTheWizeMay 19, 2015 12:22:42 | @FrogReaver Why you no post much anymore? |
| (Reply to #38)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #39)HermanTheWize |
|
| #41NoonMay 19, 2015 16:59:18 |
|
| #42JohnnyBlaiseMay 19, 2015 21:54:35 |
|
| #43BoldItalicMay 20, 2015 0:17:26 | In the exploration phase, between enounters, you don't need to hide every 30 feet or make Stealth rolls, passive or otherwise. It's all covered by "Travelling at a slow pace" (PHB p.182 "Stealth").You simply say your are travelling slowly. It's automatic. There's no chance of failure. Then, you can roll for Stealth when you encounter creatures if you want to surprise or avoid them. |
| (Reply to #42)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #43)FrogReaver |
|
| #46FrogReaverMay 20, 2015 1:13:57 | Thinking about it further I actually find the premise of this thread amusing.
"OP: Look I can abuse passive stealth group checks! Isn't this amazing. The rest of US: but virtually no DM uses passive stealth group checks..." |
| #47NoonMay 20, 2015 3:21:35 | Stacking passive stealth checks - you can't forget the cherry on top!! |
| #48JohnnyBlaiseJun 10, 2015 23:29:06 |
|
| #49BRJNJun 13, 2015 17:04:37 |
|