Want to make sure I have the basic surprise mechanic down. Take this situation:
A party of 5 are moving through a dungeon at slow speed, in an attempt to be stealthy.
They encounter a group of monsters who were not being stealthy.
How do you determine which (if any) of the monsters are surprised?
I would be inclined towards the following:
>Each party member makes a Stealth check
>Take the second highest overall roll (as per group checks, half the party must succeed, and fractions are always rounded down, so we need two successes on the stealth check for this group)
>Compare this value against the passive perception of each monster to determine which are surprised.
Now, if one of the monsters was actively standing lookout, we give that particular one a Perception check to use in place of their passive perception.
Does this mesh with your understanding, or did I miss something?
Per the rules, everyone who is sneaking makes the Stealth check. The DM determines, in the case of your example, that the monsters might be surprised. The Stealth checks are compared to the monster's Passive Perception to see if they notice. Any creature that doesn't is surprised. See page 69 of the Basic Rules.
Passive Perception, in my view, "represents the average result for a task that is done repeatedly" (page 59) which would include a monster on the lookout. As far as group checks go, I don't believe the rules for determining surprise (page 69) indicate one is called for, but I don't see anything wrong with that interpretation. A reading of group check rules (page 59) would seem to indicate one should be called for if the whole group is sneaking; however, oftentimes characters during travel will be opting to engage in activities other than sneaking and a group check wouldn't apply since they're not all "trying to accomplish something as a group."
iserith is correct. The player would make a stealth chck vs the monsters passive perception any monster who's passive perception is higher than the stealth roll is NOT surprised, everyone else is. The only thing I would add is if the monsters where already aware that the player characters are in the area and are actively looking for them, then it would be an opposed skill check stealth vs an active perception roll.
The relevant passages seem to be:
On page 69, "...the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."
On page 59, "To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails."
Taken by itself, p69 seems to suggest (as iserith says) that it's a compare-all-checks-against-all-checks scenario; the potential ambushees need only meet the *minimum* check of all the ambushers. But, it occurs to me, if you did the group check thing, it *would* technically be "comparing the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding". You're not comparing all-to-all, but you're comparing the composite outcome of the "Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding", determined by whoever is one better than median result. (On the other hand, it *is* strictly laid out that the potential ambush-ees do *not* use the group check mechanic, it's everyone for himself on the perception side.)
I'm torn on this one. To my logic brain, this seems to be stretching it a bit (how exactly can a rogue stifle clanking plate armor noise?), but to my players-have-fun brain, this seems like it might actually be a cool way to run it. I like the idea of a party being able to group-stealth, sneaking past a without necessitating that *every member* abstain from clunky armor and the like,
I also feel like *ambushing* people ought to be harder than *sneaking past* people.
"Ruling, not rules" thoughts:
I'd probably use the straight group check dynamic, as written, for the "sneaking past" scenario, presuming no one is trying to go into a square where they cannot hide without at least attempting a distraction.
For ambushing, I'd probably be stricter. I'd use the "everyone needs to succeed" rule on this one. But, I would be amenable to allowing, on a one-for-one basis, characters proficient in stealth to 'cancel out' the disadvantage of an equal number of characters non-proficient in stealth, provided the party provides *some* explanation for how they are attempting to do this.
Stacktrace wrote:
Good point about the rounding down rules only applying to die rolls, and the "at least half" wording for group checks.
I was unsure if the Group check rules were intended to apply here, hence the question. I rather like that a party has a reasonable chance at being stealthy, even with a few metal heads among them. Also could play quite well with the inspiration rules to remove disadvantage from one of the heavy armor wearers for a particularly important situation.
I could also see a rogue taking point, rolling a single stealth check to check out the situation ahead of the group, and then only motion for the rest (and the group check) when the situation is most favorable.
Thanks everyone for your input.
Chimerasame wrote:
passive perception sucks and just means monsters always fail to spot party rogues or indeed the whole party if yiu use group checks. in a dangerius place, all monsters will be keeping at least one active lookout, and pcs will all be keeping a lookout all the time.
Here's a thought: If the characters are travelling through the dungeon and some are sneaking about (say they're moving at a slow pace and can do this), does that not represent a task being repeated over and over and thus these characters could use Passive Stealth per the Passive Check rules? So if they're coming up on a group of monsters that is not being stealthy, you'd compare the PCs' Passive Stealth to the monsters' Passive Perception? I don't think the rules would agree with me, but that seems reasonable. What do you think?
iserith wrote:
I'd rather it be set in stone so that players can make meaningful decisions based on their understanding of the rules rather than have to consider how their DM will rule something that could otherwise be concrete.
Between the surprise rules on Basic page 69 and the rules for noticing threats on Basic page 65, neither the Dexterity (Stealth) checks nor the Wisdom (Perception) checks are typically group checks. With sufficient numbers on both sides, the number of Dexterity (Stealth) checks might get so unmanagable as to require a group check, but it does not seem to be intended to be a group check.
Overpromises wrote:
I would not use a group check here, just compare every characters' Stealth result against the most perceptive monsters' passive perception.
iserith wrote:
Stacktrace wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
iserith wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Stacktrace wrote:
iserith wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
JamesManhattan wrote:
JamesManhattan wrote:
JamesManhattan wrote:
I understand the logic behind trying to apply the group check rules, but the language in the Surprise section doesn't seem to offer much wiggle room, at least as far as I read it. If group checks were possible, they would seem to apply in many (arguably most) cases, so I would think the designers would have explicitly referenced that possibility. Instead, the language indicates that each individual attempting to hide rolls a Dex (stealth) check that is compared against the passive Wis (perception) of the opponents.
Aldente wrote:
why do people like passive perception? the same pc spots everything all the time. the same sneaky guy gets past all the monsters all the time. the fun is in the rolling, and getting different results. paasive perception is a terrible mechanic in a game based on d20 rolls. why use passive perception at all?
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
As I understand it, the monsters are not surprised at that point.
Psikerlord wrote:
Noon wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noon wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Noon wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
I started reading through the Lost Mine of Phandelver today; and, the first encounter in it has the DM using a single Stealth check roll for all the goblins in the encounter. We were concerned whether a group check was permissable for a Stealth check; and, the first example in the first adventure uses an even more simplified method. Huh...
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I can confim that the phandelver adventure's first encounter uses the method described. lol wut? But I figure that it's to make it more simple for starting DM's and it's supposed to reflect a group stealth check being used. It can be very swingy of course but it's not necessarily bad.
EDIT: I can also confirm that the goblins are getting +6 to stealth checks as per their entry in the adventure.
Overpromises wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Noon wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
If you want to house rule, go ahead.
But as to RAW I think you get to act in the surprise round if you see any enemy. If the DM rolls a monster group stealth check (one roll), then you either are surprised or not based on if your passive was better then the group roll (and the question is if you get to act at all). If the DM rolls a different stealth check for each monster, if all enemies beat your passive perception then you cant act at all. If you see even one enemy you can act in the first round, but you cant see any enemy who's stealth beat your passive perception (until they stop hiding/have no cover or they attack someone) so you may only have one target you can see.
The group check or not is up to the DM (based on how quickly they want the game to go, how experienced they are as a DM, if the monsters are more spread out, etc.), that's why the starter set starts with an easy group monster stealth check which is the easier option. An opposed perception check roll shouldn't be done unless the character is actively searching the area (and maybe only one of the characters is doing that not all of them), but the passive is what you notice if you arn't even actively trying to find anything.
E-Tallitnics wrote:
iserith wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Tichrimo wrote:
hmm interesting, what was take 10 used for? to prevent players from saying " i keep searching for secret doors till I roll a 20" ?
A better fix for this is the rule that you can only try some things once, and not again until circumstances change in your favour, ie only one secret door check/history check unless things change somehow. hmmm I cant rem if that was a proper rule or a houserule of ours.
Mainly take 10 was to cut down on silly failures at relatively simple tasks when a player character wasn’t under any stress. Generally they couldn’t take 10 in combat.
There was also a take 20, which was very similar to just keep trying anything with no failure penalty until you roll a 20. It took 20 times as long as a normal skill check.
Psikerlord wrote:
This thread was very helpful. I learned the following:
Like monsters will share a stealth roll that gets compared to the passive perception of each individual in the party. Those who do not perceive the mosters, lose a turn.
Where it becomes complicated is when there are different individuals with different stealth checks. For instance, the reverse.
Example 1: The party tries to sneak up on goblins. 5 stealth rolls vs the same perception roll.
Example 2: goblins are trying to hide from PC's marching down the hallway. Also, glued to the ceiling above is a Lurker. The goblins make a noise but the lurker makes it's stealth roll. How does that work?
I'm NOT interested in house rules - only in exactly how D&D 5 rules work in these instances.
Neptune0923 wrote:
Neptune0923 wrote:
aljergensen wrote:
Neptune0923 wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
aljergensen wrote:
Stacktrace wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
I like individual stealth so I can call out the guy who tries to hip-throw the tree while "sneaking" through the woods.
Had a Dragonborn that decided to roll a grand total of a 0 on a stealth check one time in 4e.
OH LAWD.