Is stealth even worth it?

[Gudrae]

Allow me to start by saying in the games I play the most frequent class played seems to always be some kind of rogue or other stealth character (party balance can get odd), and after some discussion I have managed to get it out of my players that we generally play a “pseudo kick down the door/war as sport” kind of play. (Tactical thoughts and harsher combats/play do come up from time to time and has increased in frequency recently.) So it isn't that the archetype is disliked, but I have noticed some things that make me seriously question the desire to ever play a stealth based character.

1. If one person wants to go stealth ahead to gain information on what is coming so they can react accordingly, the entire party will follow within 15 ft there is nothing that can be done about this. Unless
2. You manage to get them to wait, but to prevent the issues that rise from someone trying to single player the entire dungeon the stealthy is meta-game barred from going more than two rooms/~80 feet in whichever is shortest.
3. also to prevent the dungeon master from having to read out descriptions multiple times distance from main group is barred similarly. And the room descriptions are frequently abbreviated to the point where it can become generally unhelpful.
4. As a check on murder hobo ism the mystery of “is this a good guy?” the nature of could/should we kill a person (even when they are wearing an enemy uniform) becomes painfully thick. Frequently it takes 3 rounds of us being attacked and us observing/trying to talk to them to know if we should kill them. Because of this, the idea of a truly thought out ambush is most often laughable. (Even if we crawl on our stomachs for 8 hrs through heavy cover in the middle of the night, pick a lock on a natural 20, oil the hinges and open the door slowly as if the wind were blowing open the door so only a half-ling or gnome could fit through it still feels like or will inevitably turn into the Monty Python's constable walking into the room with a bright light behind him banging his truncheon on the door frame yelling “Alright what's all this then?”)
5. If the dungeon master ever expected/intended the players to use stealth in the preparation of the game one could land a flightless train without anyone noticing or the consequences of being spotted at that time didn't do anything more than include an extra small combat.

Its not even that I necessarily disagree with much of the spirit of these (sometimes hard sometimes soft) rules (in particular the prevention of players trying to solo a dungeon). Its also not really that its a DM imposing it on us, truth be told I think most of it is we are too cautious as per the example of being attacked unopposed for 3 rounds by the bad guys just too be extra super redundantly sure.

While admittedly some of this is exaggerated it is rather closer to accurate than I think I would probably like. Particularly when I read the way people on this forum seem to be able to obtain and use foreknowledge to a much greater degree than I can imagine, much less actually utilize.

I guess what I am looking for is

I. Has anyone else had these or similar issues in your play?
II. Am I using stealth wrong somehow?
III. How have you used stealth usefully?
IV. Is my confusion for why people love stealth characters in play skewed due to our typical method of play? (Clerics Rule!!)
V. How do you actually gather information on person/place/thing?

For context I play mostly 5th ed and 3.5

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I. Has anyone else had these or similar issues in your play?
- Yes, one DM made fun of the clanky character being soo close.

II. Am I using stealth wrong somehow?
- Sometimes a greedy rogue type will wanna investigate on his own. The DM should mention how long its been to the party or have a bad guy spring up and fight just the rogue.

III. How have you used stealth usefully?
- Yes. Besides the obvious, we did a PVP contest in the woods and stealth was tons of fun.

IV. Is my confusion for why people love stealth characters in play skewed due to our typical method of play? (Clerics Rule!!)
- Some ppl just like different things. That's fine. Makes for a good party!

V. How do you actually gather information on person/place/thing?
- Sneaking around looking via stealth or shape change or a familiar or asking commoners.

Stealth is an interesting thing. Its up to the DM and players to make it both reasonable and not over powered.

[wookietek]

What we do for party stealth is that as long as someone is proficient in stealth then they can "help" the party be stealthy. Only half the party has to succeed for them to be stealthy, but it does slow down their movement considerably.

[Hilary]

Yes. Stealth is worth it. If this fails to translate from the real world into the game world, then that is the fault of the DM.

Firstly, Passive Stealth should serve as a minimum value. So if your passive score is higher, your minimum is higher.

Secondly, Passive stealth could be used as the only stealth - no active rolling. This makes it even more valuable.

Thirdly, not all adventures take place in dungeons. Above ground, a scout is invaluable.

Fourthly, even in dungeons, a scout is valuable - may not for every foot of the dungeon, but in certain areas.

If the other players can't wait two minutes for the DM to deal with the stealthy player getting some 1 on 1 time, then let them leeroy jenkins themselves to an early death.

Personally, I think the find familiar spell should be used for recon.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I just generally tell the whole group what the stealthy character(s) see and assume they relay that info room by room or area by area unless the character(s) fail their check, which happens very rarely. Just speeds things along.

Sounds like someone is basically trying to nerf stealthy characters from your description by making it deliberately unwieldy. Rogues and others should benefit from intelligent play IMO.

[LudicSavant]

II. Am I using stealth wrong somehow? *Shakes Magic 8-Ball*

Signs point to yes.


III. How have you used stealth usefully? Absolutely! You don't even need to split the party to do it. If you're stealthed right alongside them and nobody else is, you still get the Minimum Benefit: Enemies don't attack you until your initiative comes up, and you get Advantage on your first attack. Or you could just cast something like Pass Without Trace and make the entire team stealthy.

But of course you can also have someone scouting ahead or spying on the enemy. Has been incredibly useful in plenty of campaigns.


V. How do you actually gather information on person/place/thing? Too many methods to list, not even sure where to begin. Divinations, familiars, wildshaping into a literal fly on the wall, researching at your local library, disguises, mind-reading, you name it.

[Blood of Gaea]

Another great strategy is to scout less distance at a time. When you're going room to room in a building, have the Rogue use their stealth to try to scout the next room. Worst case scenario, combat starts right away as normal. This of course works better if the party as a whole has decent stealth, but is still reasonably effective even with a clunker among you.

[OldTrees1]

1. In our group, when someone that we care about (so not disposable familiars) has been scouting, the party tries to stay 1-2 rounds away. It helps that the scout often has exceptional senses (Expertise in Perception) to extend their scouting even further. 30-120ft is a bit better than 15ft. And when they do so they have loud individuals hang back and everyone tries to be quiet & sneaky.

2. There was one time when my dungeon guide character, protected by invisibility, did an extended scouting mission through a fortress the party was trying to retrieve an item from. They were trying to find the next safe room to sneak the party to, but instead found the objective and returned to the party. That was fun in that context, but I would need the group to be even more enthusiastically on board before I would repeat it.

There was another time a diviner used arcane eye to map out a dungeon before the party entered. I kept cutting away from their arcane eye to focus on what the rest of the party was doing in the meantime. That worked, but I don't know how much of that was luck.

So I am a fan of the scout having a leash of some kind. Either the scout has a plan to only go so far, or the party expects the scout to return within a time period.

3. Oh I just read out the room descriptions once unless it is a new session. Our group pays attention and can separate player and character knowledge until their character would also see the room.

4. PCs only really do an ambush if the party itself is stealthy. In your case non lethal ambushes sound like they would be relevant here. 5E makes non lethal easy.

5. I generally run sandboxes which means I need to be prepared for the unexpected. This ends up having tactics like stealth have more reasonable odds rather than an impossible/trivial binary.

I. As detailed above I have had a tangentially similar experience, but different enough that I would not call it an issue.

II. I noticed you omitted combat stealth. Once some is sufficiently skilled at stealth and sufficiently mobile (or has assistance impairing senses / invisibility) then they can act like Predator during combat. That can be quite fun.

I also noticed you omitted the party choosing to travel stealthily as a unexpected tactic.

III. Scouting just a bit ahead of the party works rather well. If you are rather perceptive then you greatly extend the party's senses while staying within a safe range. It is not the same as a solo scouting mission but it is a highly effective edge for the party. This was very apparent when my Dungeon Guide was scouting a safe path through a dungeon.

In combat stealth can be very fun. It is only really effective as a defensive edge, but it is a fun one.

Stealthy parties can move past / through areas the enemies did not anticipate possible. As a DM I love when this happens. In one case the Druid was going to burrow in and out as an earth elemental to rescue a hostage. If not for a string of 5 3s in a row they would have succeeded and temporarily bypassed all the enemy forces. As a DM I would have loved that as a happy surprise.

IV. Almost certainly. However even getting the party to trail the scout by 30-60ft instead of 15ft would be a decent improvement on your experience. Oh, and Clerics can stealth too. Clerics with Heavy Armor Dex 10s can stand a bit further back, use Guidance, and move at half speed. That extra distance should make it harder to hear them over the scout.

V. Knowledge checks, talking to NPCs, short range / forward scouts, good guesses, diplomacy, etc.

[Tanarii]

60ft is about the right distance to count as a separate party for the scout. Enemies aren't going to hear even heavily armored character walking without attempting to use stealth at more than 120ft without exceptional hearing, so if you assume the scout is trying to detect things 60ft ahead of themself before they get detected at that range, you're good. 65ft is the average starting distance for a no-stealth encounter, so 60ft works well as a baseline for the scout detecting unhiding enemies. And 120ft is the max starting random encounter distance, so that's a fine distance for not being perceived even without trying to hide.

Unless, you know, you're yelling at each other, breaking down doors, or casting Thunderwave.

[Samayu]

It gets tiring to use the same schtick every time. Send the rogue to check out the area, and report back. Or even check for traps and listen at the door. So just make sure you don't do it the same way every time, and people should be OK with the stealthy one scouting ahead from time to time.

In our group right now, I'm the one who takes charge, and I'm a paladin (heavy armor and good HP and saves), so I go first all the time. I get tired of the routine of having to check every door for traps, so I seldom bother. Sometimes I'll call someone up to listen at the door, and sometimes I'll send the rogue ahead to scout. It makes him happy to have a role sometimes, and he's not hogging the spotlight. But he can't do any extended scouting missions. Just check it out and report back. It helps that he's smart enough to know he could die if he gets caught.

[Gudrae]

For the purposes of combat yes, we do have a few characters that get to have the drop from time to time, but never really more elaborate preparation. Mostly just first to tag.

As to my use of dungeon, I actually meant it in a this is the part of the play where stealth is used rather than specifically.

As to spying on non actively hostile enemies (such as in town). This does happen from time to time, and admittedly has sustained effectiveness.



OldTrees1

4. PCs only really do an ambush if the party itself is stealthy. In your case non lethal ambushes sound like they would be relevant here. 5E makes non lethal easy.

5. I generally run sandboxes which means I need to be prepared for the unexpected. This ends up having tactics like stealth have more reasonable odds rather than an impossible/trivial binary.


The whole party requiring stealth do to what I'm thinking might explain somethings. I'm not entirely sure how a non lethal ambush would be functionally different except in end goal. Now that you mention it, sandboxes might have something to do with it. Even the most sandboxie game I've played in while a sandbox was also a world that the DM had made some +15 years prior with a different set of players, and while we could go anywhere and do anything I always had the feeling that there was a sense of "I know how I want this site based event to go down."

We have done the party chooses to move stealthily and do so frequently, admittedly this may be a case of "Working as intended," because I just can't remember a time the decision was ever followed with "Oh, yeah... that was a good choice. (You clearly see the monsters that were an hour and 45 mins into your journey)/(You watched as the enemy you didn't know was there lost your tail [admittedly wilderness centric as this is less true when we know we have a tail in a city we do something about it]) and avoid problem.



OldTrees1

Stealthy parties can move past / through areas the enemies did not anticipate possible. As a DM I love when this happens. In one case the Druid was going to burrow in and out as an earth elemental to rescue a hostage. If not for a string of 5 3s in a row they would have succeeded and temporarily bypassed all the enemy forces. As a DM I would have loved that as a happy surprise.

IV. Almost certainly. However even getting the party to trail the scout by 30-60ft instead of 15ft would be a decent improvement on your experience. Oh, and Clerics can stealth too. Clerics with Heavy Armor Dex 10s can stand a bit further back, use Guidance, and move at half speed. That extra distance should make it harder to hear them over the scout.


Neat! Although I'm not sure that this in a game I have been in would have required deep investment into stealth. It would probably have worked though.

Yes, I am fully aware that Clerics can be stealthy too. When a majority/super majority of the party is made up of rogues/ninjas/monks that get booboos and like to try and like to pick fights with the big bad you allocate resources to it. It is interesting to consider when it is something that the class at first glance is not what its place in the party would suggest. Our party once came across a homebrewed ring of silence that the party couldn't quite figure out what it could be used for at level 16 as it only provided silence within a 5ft square and the party generally preferred the knowledge that they had been spotted and spell casting over total silence at that point. My eyes widened, mouth agape. Full plate, shield cleric ninja powers activate! That, a glove and a manacle and you have an anti caster bindings.



Tanarii

Unless, you know, you're yelling at each other, breaking down doors, or casting Thunderwave.


What!?!? I can't hear you. The rogue couldn't pick the lock and is now using a ram just to be sure there aren't bad guys we need to sneak up on!



Samayu

It gets tiring to use the same schtick every time. Send the rogue to check out the area, and report back. Or even check for traps and listen at the door. So just make sure you don't do it the same way every time, and people should be OK with the stealthy one scouting ahead from time to time.


This may be a big part of it. already checking doors is a bit much. There are days where it feels like we've entered the dungeon of a thousand doors. I get the sense that at least I myself just need to get better at guessing when stealth would be appropriate.

So I'm getting the feeling that at the table the idea that one maps out a majority or all of a dungeon is more of an edge case where the entire party is really accepting and looking for that kind of play and magic is heavily involved. This and while many a stealthy player has visions in his head of doing complete scouting of entire complexes and dodging guards so that the party can be prepared for all situations to include days in advance, scouting in dungeons is much more akin to a wire camera under a door and I should really cool it with the full splinter cell esk non violent play through interpretations that I have been picking up on somewhat in these forums (and other places).

[OldTrees1]

The whole party requiring stealth do to what I'm thinking might explain somethings.
Yeah, the non stealthy members can mitigate their impact on the scout's stealth without needing to be proficient. However if the party wants to be stealthy as a unit (like in the case of ambushes) then it gets a bit harder. That is probably why I have not seen the PCs pull off an ambush, we tend to not have a fully stealthy party.


I'm not entirely sure how a non lethal ambush would be functionally different except in end goal.
Well, your PCs tend to not know until round 3 if they should kill. Non lethal ambush delays that decision until after the post combat diplomacy.


Now that you mention it, sandboxes might have something to do with it. Even the most sandboxie game I've played in while a sandbox was also a world that the DM had made some +15 years prior with a different set of players, and while we could go anywhere and do anything I always had the feeling that there was a sense of "I know how I want this site based event to go down."
I always approach running sandboxes as "Here is what I think the PCs will do, but really I am asking rather than telling them how it will go down. That way they get agency and I can be surprised."


We have done the party chooses to move stealthily and do so frequently, admittedly this may be a case of "Working as intended," because I just can't remember a time the decision was ever followed with "Oh, yeah... that was a good choice. (You clearly see the monsters that were an hour and 45 mins into your journey)/(You watched as the enemy you didn't know was there lost your tail [admittedly wilderness centric as this is less true when we know we have a tail in a city we do something about it]) and avoid problem.
I was more referring to short distances / indoors rather than hours / outdoors, however you have a good point. Stealth on days long travel will have mostly invisible benefits. You might get fewer random encounters, be harder to trail, etc.

In my current campaign the PCs took it upon themselves to escort an NPC out of one town to escape the observation of the local count. They rapidly and stealthily escorted the NPC to another town on the way, aborted travelling to the final destination, and obscured evidence the NPC even entered that intermediate town. As a result the local count, despite having numerous mundane and supernatural resources, lost track of the PCs for a week and lost track of the NPC for almost a month instead of for a day. I still don't know if the players realized how well they thwarted the local count.


Neat! Although I'm not sure that this in a game I have been in would have required deep investment into stealth. It would probably have worked though.
Quite fair, I was using stealthy in the generic sense there rather than the explicit skill. The Druid had some dexterity but no stealth proficiency. Although they did fail due to bad luck that would have been less likely if they had been trained.


Yes, I am fully aware that Clerics can be stealthy too.
That was about how non stealthy Clerics can mitigate how noisy they are. Hence why I assumed Dex 10, heavy armor, no proficiency, but access to Wisdom and Guidance.
Case A: 1d20(at disadvantage)+1d4+0 from out of sight and 60ft away
Case B: 1d20(at disadvantage)+0 from in plain sight 15ft away
Case C: Not even rolling as they backlight the scout from 15ft away

[Sigreid]

The tendency in my group is to be stealthy as all heck as much as possible. It's hard to overstate the advantage of striking first and hard from the shadows.

[Tanarii]

The tendency in my group is to be stealthy as all heck as much as possible. It's hard to overstate the advantage of striking first and hard from the shadows.
It's also hard to overstate how difficult it is to achieve without making some careful party build choices, or a DM that cooperates with a convenient seperate party rules and a willingness to start with half the party e.g. 90ft away from the enemies, or regularly blowing a 2nd level spell slot. Achieving surprise isn't always worth the investments required.

OTOH scouting is fairly critical unless your DM is going full blown CaS. It can save you from making a huge blunder.

[MoiMagnus]

Main uses of stealth at my table:
(1) When everyone in the group is either proficient in stealth or invisible, you can do full stealth mission.
(2) During downtime activities where every PC is minding their own business for an afternoon (or a full week), it's one of the best skills (Cha-based skills are very good too).

[Warpiglet-7]

This is a good topic. It has really got me evaluating previous play.

In my experience, stealth as a main weapon does not seem to work; and unless you are a force recon marine sniper and can hit someone at a distance, it probably should not.

As a tool, it can have value. I can think of instances of a party member being held in a hut or tent and needing rescue. Or perhaps the need to sneak past a long guardian to get some keys or information/intel.

I can think of times in which someone throws up an illusory wall (5th edition) and the caster wants to hide behind it while the orcs walk past.

Some of these things work...they are fun and have purpose.

But walking into heavily fortified dungeon and expecting to get past a lot and so forth...I don’t see it work especially with non stealthy party members in tow.

Not worthless, still fun, just not much of an all encompassing weapons people would like it to be. Has a place....

As to the annoying parts...yeah. If there is a lot of party cohesion and I am setting my buddies up with intel, they are usually into and laughing as they hear about the near misses and almost getting caught etc., but if the stealthy guy wants to dominate and run the show it can be a slog. In that event, if someone is gone “too long” we usually say screw it, let’s advance and get into the action quicker...

[heavyfuel]

Stealth is the best skill in the game.

Perception is nice, but you only need one character with really high perception. A Familiar with Keen Senses is probably enough Perception for the entire group.

If my class doesn't allow Stealth as one of my proficiencies, I'll try my hardest to gain proficiency through other means (namely background or racial skills).

Most combats are over in 3~4 rounds of combat, so making enemies Surprised for the first round means you made them lose 25~33% of their actions. And you did that without spending any resource.

Sure, you're probably not going to manage that every time. But you will occasionally. And it's not like you're going to lose anything if you fail your Stealth check. The consequences of failing a Stealth check are the same as not using Stealth, so you might as well try.

[Tanarii]

Sure, you're probably not going to manage that every time. But you will occasionally. And it's not like you're going to lose anything if you fail your Stealth check. The consequences of failing a Stealth check are the same as not using Stealth, so you might as well try.
Agreed, there's almost always no reason not to try an ambush with the entire party, if you're going to attack as a single party anyway.

But if, for example, your party includes a Fighter with Dex 8 and heavy armor and Cleric with same, the chances of success are about 4% against perception 10 enemies, before you include any other party members. Even with only one of them it's 20% before you factor in the rest of the party. So final odds are likely to range from effectively 0% to single digit.

[Alcore]

I have only done play by post so there is never a physical room or table limiting anything... so there is no problem with stealth, or splitting up or going off to handle a job you built yourself for while the party uses your distraction to good effect.


I tend to find players to be self defeating. Especially D&D players and you will know them when you see them even if you stray from D&D. They are even self defeating as a group. The most infuriating players i can think of are those conditioned by D&D.

Never design an encounter that splits the party, or highlights a rarely used class feature or expects an edgelord loner to act like a loner. You will fail. They will fail.

V. They blunder around looking for clues or i hand them the clues because the rest were destroyed by both party and villain...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Allow me to start by saying in the games I play the most frequent class played seems to always be some kind of rogue or other stealth character (party balance can get odd), and after some discussion I have managed to get it out of my players that we generally play a “pseudo kick down the door/war as sport” kind of play. (Tactical thoughts and harsher combats/play do come up from time to time and has increased in frequency recently.) So it isn't that the archetype is disliked, but I have noticed some things that make me seriously question the desire to ever play a stealth based character.
I'm definitely seeing some muddled desires on your players' parts. On one hand, they seem to want a tactical wargame using the D&D ruleset. On the other hand, many of them seem to want to play a Batman/Assassin's Creed sort of fantasy, where they're awesome because nobody can see them. Both of these are legitimate desires, but they are difficult to fulfil simultaneously.

But before I go prescribing things about the issues I think your game has, I'll answer your actual questions.


I. Has anyone else had these or similar issues in your play?
II. Am I using stealth wrong somehow?
III. How have you used stealth usefully?
IV. Is my confusion for why people love stealth characters in play skewed due to our typical method of play? (Clerics Rule!!)
V. How do you actually gather information on person/place/thing?
1. No.
2. It's hard to say what, exactly, the source of the issues you describe is without sitting in on a session where they come up. But if you're describing them as issues, then something's going wrong.
3. With a specific goal in mind. Something we need to find out, a reason for scouting ahead stealthily, a plan to get in. Or at least a plan not to be spotted, if we know enough about our enemies' movements to plan an ambush.
4. Possibly? I'm not sure what you're asking.
5. That depends on the person/place/thing, but whatever social skill Gather Information was folded into (Persuasion?) is a good start. Divinations are fine too.

Now for the prescription.

First, talk with your players. Ask why so many of them play stealthy characters if stealth is so rarely useful. Do they want to use stealth more? Do they want to play stealthy heroes? Do they just like sneak attack?
If they do want to play the stealthy badass like Batman or Assassin's Creed, you can't just design a normal dungeon crawl and find some way to cram that gameplay in. Assassin's Creed isn't designed the same way as Streets of Rage, after all. You'll need to design adventures with stealth in mind. Going through the issues described:

1 & 2: Either set up opportunities for everyone in the party to split up and do stealthy stuff (without splitting up so much that they can't rush to support each other), or design a stealthy "path" that the entire party can use at once. Either of these would let everyone in the party contribute at once without ruining the stealthiness.
3: ...don't read room descriptions multiple times? Read it once, and make sure every room has a distinctive enough identity or a memorable feature so you can just say "You're in the chapel" or "It's the room with the shark-girl statue".
4: Two options. One, make sure the players know what to expect before they interrogate an enemy. Two, give the players non-lethal takedown options, like you have in a lot of stealth games. (Not Assassin's Creed, I don't think, but most others.) The latter suits the stealthy-badass fantasy and reduces potential moral ramifications of killing them.
5: Plan your dungeons with stealth in mind. What can the players reasonably expect to do ahead of time? How can their presence be detected by the enemy leaders? What happens in that case? Critically, how can the players continue if they're detected? Stealth games have a variety of answers; nobody agrees on which ones are good, and most (especially "Game Over, try again" and "You have to wait for heat to die down") don't work in TRPGs. One option common to action games with stealth elements tacked on is to let you do stuff in "stealth mode" until you mess up, then you're in "action mode" and can't do stealth take-downs and get shot at and stuff. That might be a decent model—the players go around, gathering information and softening up the enemy, then when they're discovered they have to fight whatever's left.
Bonus: If you're going to focus on stealth gameplay, focus on things that the players can sneak in and do, particularly ones that will make "action mode" easier. It's easier to come up with things like that for sci-fi, but with enough exposition it can work in fantasy too. An example I thought of off the top of my head: A necromancer has a great onyx mirror that lets them see through the eyes of their undead minions. If the players are detected, the necromancer will use that power to quickly identify where the PCs are, and every zombie in the base will slowly flow towards their location. If the mirror is broken/stolen/whatever, though, the necromancer can't do that, and the zombies simply continue to react to whatever's in their room.

[Tanarii]

Another option for split the party is to stay with the party and what they're doing, while the scout is off scouting. Have him make any stealth check, and if he gets spotted and in trouble, cut to the chase. Otherwise just have them come back and report what they saw.

That works best if you're trying to run the game like a story, a novel or movie, rather than an interactive world. I'm not a fan of it, but lots of people are.

[anthon]

stealth only works as good as the DM likes it to.

i have had DMs who were hostile to stealth and would have entire groups of monsters simply "immune" to stealth around the clock, and stealth boiled down to a check you made if they were unconscious.

stealth taken to its norm though, in large jagged caverns and forests,
is about as potent as the innate ability to fly, like the bird man race with too many "aa's"

it is a central attribute for some classes and combinations, like assassin or rogue/ranger, and any ninja build.

if your campaign drags the whole group everywhere where the worst stealth wins,

then stealth is a dump stat/skill.

important note: at very high level, the super monsters all have absurd passive perceptions so your stealth ability and anything tied to it is dead in the water. Stealth builds work best in forests, big cities, and anywhere with non-epic enemies. When i crashed into the passive perception wall, even my 29 stealth check was insufficient and half the party died.

[Mellack]

Agreed, there's almost always no reason not to try an ambush with the entire party, if you're going to attack as a single party anyway.

But if, for example, your party includes a Fighter with Dex 8 and heavy armor and Cleric with same, the chances of success are about 4% against perception 10 enemies, before you include any other party members. Even with only one of them it's 20% before you factor in the rest of the party. So final odds are likely to range from effectively 0% to single digit.

That seems exactly why there are the group check rules.

[Xetheral]

It's also hard to overstate how difficult it is to achieve without making some careful party build choices, or a DM that cooperates with a convenient seperate party rules and a willingness to start with half the party e.g. 90ft away from the enemies, or regularly blowing a 2nd level spell slot. Achieving surprise isn't always worth the investments required.

OTOH scouting is fairly critical unless your DM is going full blown CaS. It can save you from making a huge blunder.

Encounter range, hearing distance, and environmental noise can make a huge difference. Remember that if the DM rules that the PCs are out of maximum hearing range, any character in full cover is automatically hidden, no check required. So in a situation where the party can select the encounter location and distance, the non-stealthy characters can usually hide automatically, while the stealthiest character peaks out and monitors the enemy's progress towards the ambush point.

This does require a Combat-as-War game though, where encounters are often PC-driven, rather than planned in advance by the DM or rolled randomly. It can work for planned/random encounters, however, if the PCs learn of the enemy's presence before the enemy learns of theirs, permitting them to move the planned/random encounter to a location suitable for an out-of-hearing-range ambush.

Note that these tactics can work even at short range when there is sufficient environmental noise to drop hearing range close to zero. Marketplace ambushes, gravel roads, driving rain/thunder (Control Weather for the win), squeaky wagon axles, mounted opponents on rocky terrain, spooked livestock/mounts, musical performances, and orchestrated distractions can all help reduce maximum hearing range to below 30', enough for melee characters to gain surprise automatically as long as they have a source of full cover.

[Tanarii]

That seems exactly why there are the group check rules.
Nope. Surprise explicitly requires individual checks.

Which makes sense. All it takes is one person to give you away.

[Telok]

I. Has anyone else had these or similar issues in your play?
II. Am I using stealth wrong somehow?
III. How have you used stealth usefully?
IV. Is my confusion for why people love stealth characters in play skewed due to our typical method of play? (Clerics Rule!!)
V. How do you actually gather information on person/place/thing?

I. Yes. Amost exclusively with/while an inexperienced DM and in a D&D game.

II. to V. Depends on the DM. A game with solid and explicit hide & seek rules helps but mostly it's all the DM, how well they've read the rules, how good they are at understanding probability calculations, and if the rules have good examples. Modules and railroads tend to fiat NPC/monster success and PC failure, although sometimes it's fiat via the "must explicitly declare exactly what you do, guess the exact right thing to do, and roll very high" method.

[Sigreid]

It's also hard to overstate how difficult it is to achieve without making some careful party build choices, or a DM that cooperates with a convenient seperate party rules and a willingness to start with half the party e.g. 90ft away from the enemies, or regularly blowing a 2nd level spell slot. Achieving surprise isn't always worth the investments required.

OTOH scouting is fairly critical unless your DM is going full blown CaS. It can save you from making a huge blunder.

We been playing together a long time. Stealth is almost an automatic skill choice for everyone.

[sambojin]

Depends on the character. One of my favourite class/race combinations to play is Firbolg Moon Druid. Stealth tends to come up pretty regularly for successful party/ personal use, due to things like PwT, wildshape forms with high stealth bonuses regardless of Dex, and popping racial-invis for a round every once in a while when in wildshape. Having the super-Disguise Self spell as a sr ability is useful when in caster form too. You've certainly got advantage in the "I do stealth-stuff" area from a narrative perspective.

Now with things in Tasha's such as summoning owl familiars for a WS charge, Enlarge/Reduce on your spell list, and a bit of stat adjustment, they're even better (so much better than a Rogue in some ways, even without expertise or auto-10's).

It's occasionally a combat thing (Moons tend to do other lockdown/ blocking/ movement/ summoning things in combat, not really stealth, but hey, they don't personally do much damage either), but it's often a did-a-thing or won-encounter-by-avoidance thing in plenty of other parts of an adventure. It's just a good chassis for actually doing a bit of stealth pre/ in-combat as well. Stealth is definitely worth it for a party or for scouting/ doing-things as a character with the different movement forms/ speeds/ sizes and vision types available to you, as well as all those sweet, sweet short-rest resources you've got. Disposable HP helps too.

Is the stealth skill itself worth it? I honestly don't know if it would change much on my options with that character build, but I tend to simply take it as an RP/ build way of saying to the DM "yes, this is one of the things I do". From lvl1 onwards, and it peaks at lvl4 :)

((Having super-Disguise Self as a sr non-concentration racial spell is amazing. Remember, it takes an action to see through against your Wis spell DC, and you can look like any humanoid race 3'4"-7'4" tall as a minimum-height Firbolg, more or less. It opens up plenty of dungeon crawling stealth options. Having +10minimum/+17 on stealth checks by lvl3 with PwT and wildshape can be pretty darn broken as well, and all forms are a bit stealthy with the stealth skill. By all means, bonus-action pop invis for a round if you really need to as well, even in wildshape. You can 60' move stealth-horse when required. They can hear you, but at least they can't see you for a moment.
You've also got a respectable array of vision-blocking/ obscurement spells later on too, but Fog Cloud/ Dust Devil/ Sleet Storm can make things pretty hard to see at lvls1-5, so there's always an option there. Even things like Gust of Wind or Tidal Wave (an amazingly underrated spell) do have decent affects against non-darkvision creatures in the dark))

[Gudrae]

OldTrees1

Well, your PCs tend to not know until round 3 if they should kill. Non lethal ambush delays that decision until after the post combat diplomacy.


That is very welcome and good advice.



Warpiglet-7

This is a good topic. It has really got me evaluating previous play.

In my experience, stealth as a main weapon does not seem to work; and unless you are a force recon marine sniper and can hit someone at a distance, it probably should not.

As a tool, it can have value. I can think of instances of a party member being held in a hut or tent and needing rescue. Or perhaps the need to sneak past a long guardian to get some keys or information/intel.

I can think of times in which someone throws up an illusory wall (5th edition) and the caster wants to hide behind it while the orcs walk past.

Some of these things work...they are fun and have purpose.

But walking into heavily fortified dungeon and expecting to get past a lot and so forth...I don’t see it work especially with non stealthy party members in tow.

Not worthless, still fun, just not much of an all encompassing weapons people would like it to be. Has a place....

As to the annoying parts...yeah. If there is a lot of party cohesion and I am setting my buddies up with intel, they are usually into and laughing as they hear about the near misses and almost getting caught etc., but if the stealthy guy wants to dominate and run the show it can be a slog. In that event, if someone is gone “too long” we usually say screw it, let’s advance and get into the action quicker...


Thank you for your interest!

I wont deny it has a place. We have and continue to use stealth for reasonable to great success. I'm more in the place where because a deeper level of investigation is not expected/frowned upon (Maybe?) that I'm just not convinced its worth the deeper investment that some have suggested/desired.



heavyfuel

Stealth is the best skill in the game.

Perception is nice, but you only need one character with really high perception. A Familiar with Keen Senses is probably enough Perception for the entire group.

If my class doesn't allow Stealth as one of my proficiencies, I'll try my hardest to gain proficiency through other means (namely background or racial skills).

Most combats are over in 3~4 rounds of combat, so making enemies Surprised for the first round means you made them lose 25~33% of their actions. And you did that without spending any resource.

Sure, you're probably not going to manage that every time. But you will occasionally. And it's not like you're going to lose anything if you fail your Stealth check. The consequences of failing a Stealth check are the same as not using Stealth, so you might as well try.


I'll certainly agree on paper, but in my experience something akin to the following will happen. Some/all party members choose the stealth option. Some succeed, some fail. To make sure that the party that hides successfully are not outed by the others they move some 40 ft or greater to the left or right. The enemy spots the main group. Combat begins. In a general sense the opposing parties charge at each other and attack. The stealthies have the option of dropping stealth to reach target and attack, losing all advantage and purpose really or move up close and attack next turn or two. Putting him behind the number of attacking rounds. (Admittedly assumes melee combatant and wilderness environment. Further, Ill admit that being in the front would assist considerably as far as prior detection experience has shown that the other party members bumble into the back of the rogue often enough to ruin it or the rogue gets super beaten up as he is the first one spotted, and is wearing less than ideal armor stats.) Which can probably be boiled down to we, or at least I am too cautious and stealth is a risk game.



GreatWyrmGold

I'm definitely seeing some muddled desires on your players' parts. On one hand, they seem to want a tactical wargame using the D&D ruleset. On the other hand, many of them seem to want to play a Batman/Assassin's Creed sort of fantasy, where they're awesome because nobody can see them. Both of these are legitimate desires, but they are difficult to fulfil simultaneously.


I believe you are correct, and is increasing in correctness continually.



anthon

stealth taken to its norm though, in large jagged caverns and forests,
is about as potent as the innate ability to fly, like the bird man race with too many "aa's"


I agree, I'm just not sure I've witnessed it requiring heavy character build investment.



anthon

important note: at very high level, the super monsters all have absurd passive perceptions so your stealth ability and anything tied to it is dead in the water. Stealth builds work best in forests, big cities, and anywhere with non-epic enemies. When i crashed into the passive perception wall, even my 29 stealth check was insufficient and half the party died.


Interesting to know. Thank you.



Xetheral

Encounter range, hearing distance, and environmental noise can make a huge difference. Remember that if the DM rules that the PCs are out of maximum hearing range, any character in full cover is automatically hidden, no check required. So in a situation where the party can select the encounter location and distance, the non-stealthy characters can usually hide automatically, while the stealthiest character peaks out and monitors the enemy's progress towards the ambush point.


You make a good point, and I have tried such tactics before but its been a while. I seem to remember it beginning and ending with "without a direct and active personal threat within melee combat range onto opposing person at least 40% (typically 65%) of enemies you attempt to pull around a corner will instead alert other allies of your threat by leaving to other rooms." (We do have better responses from animals and monsters than from humanoids in this regard.) It could just be I was burned once and have been afraid to try again.

Further, this is somewhat the crux of my issues with stealth to begin with. Namely, how do I make the above both more available, and more successful.

Well, this and how do players on these forums seem to come up with ways to know every spell they need for specifically "this" dungeon via information gathering. I've just never been able to figure out how you could do this without doing it as your running it including five minute work day. However this is generally beyond the scope of what I intend for this discussion.



Telok

II. to V. Depends on the DM. A game with solid and explicit hide & seek rules helps but mostly it's all the DM, how well they've read the rules, how good they are at understanding probability calculations, and if the rules have good examples. Modules and railroads tend to fiat NPC/monster success and PC failure, although sometimes it's fiat via the "must explicitly declare exactly what you do, guess the exact right thing to do, and roll very high" method.


While I will state again that many of these things are at the approval/recommendation of the players. It might be that we have been shifting toward premade modules recently. Being that I personally have never run a premade module nor read one to prevent spoilers, has anyone who has seen symptoms of "Well, the players CAN bypass this encounter. However, its really cool and I put a lot of work into putting it together you should really try it!"?



Sigreid

We been playing together a long time. Stealth is almost an automatic skill choice for everyone.


This is True for me as well.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What we do for party stealth is that as long as someone is proficient in stealth then they can "help" the party be stealthy. Only half the party has to succeed for them to be stealthy, but it does slow down their movement considerably.

Pretty sure that was the resolution mechanic presented in the opening scene HotDQ. Its a good ruling.

Also, max range of message is 120', it's the squad radio of the arcane trickster who throws up illusionary walls to help hide themselves when scouting.

[Segev]

It is worth noting, in case it hasn't been yet, that pass without trace can make a whole party get a +10 to Stealth.

[Ettina]

It is worth noting, in case it hasn't been yet, that pass without trace can make a whole party get a +10 to Stealth.

Yeah, pass without trace makes even the 10 Dex, full plate character with no Stealth proficiency halfway decent at stealth. In combination with group check rules, it's basically an auto-win - as it should be, since you spent a 2nd level spell slot on it.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Given a renewed global interest in hypersonic flight...Stealth vis a vis the B2"Stealth Bomber" is probably not worth it. Those planes are expensive to build and maintain.
💵💰🪙🛩

"Stealth" vis a vis a D&D party is generally worth it.

(As always with facetious content, the joke may have appeared funnier in my head🃏)

[Contrast]

What we do for party stealth is that as long as someone is proficient in stealth then they can "help" the party be stealthy. Only half the party has to succeed for them to be stealthy, but it does slow down their movement considerably.


Pretty sure that was the resolution mechanic presented in the opening scene HotDQ. Its a good ruling.

For reference, you may wish to check out the 'group check' rule, found on P175 of the PHB.


1. If one person wants to go stealth ahead to gain information on what is coming so they can react accordingly, the entire party will follow within 15 ft there is nothing that can be done about this.

I mean...do you want to die? Stealthing around alone will definitely get you killed at some point. I don't care if you're a level 20 rogue who can't roll less than a 43 on stealth - at some point you'll bump into something with tremorsense 120ft that will paralyze you and eat you whole.

If you aren't a level 20 rogue, 1s happen.Are the benefits of sneaking ahead worth the risk of your character just being dead if they flub one check? I've taken the wind from the sails of more than 1 person keen to do this amazing solo stealth plan with the question 'what is your plan when you're totally separated from the party, find some enemies and then roll a 1 on stealth?'. One of the reasons Pass Without Trace is so good is that it makes stealthing the entire party much more viable.

Edit -


important note: at very high level, the super monsters all have absurd passive perceptions so your stealth ability and anything tied to it is dead in the water. Stealth builds work best in forests, big cities, and anywhere with non-epic enemies. When i crashed into the passive perception wall, even my 29 stealth check was insufficient and half the party died.

Not that your point wouldn't still stand, but are you sure passive perception was the culprit here? While I don't rule it out, the highest passive perception I've been able to find on a creature is 27. Many of them do have special senses though that, depending on circumstance, may simply make it impossible to successfully attempt a hide check in the first place.

Edit 2 - I've found precisely 3 creatures with a PP of higher than 27. Tiamat 36, molydeus's 31 and Demogorgon 29.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, pass without trace makes even the 10 Dex, full plate character with no Stealth proficiency halfway decent at stealth. In combination with group check rules, it's basically an auto-win - as it should be, since you spent a 2nd level spell slot on it.
Group checks don't apply to surprise or hiding though.

They might in other sneaky situations of course. But those two are explicitly individual.

Edit: to be clear, not contesting PWT. Spend a resource, get a (very good) benefit. That's fair, and depending on your opposition that could easily be enough in itself. 2d20d1+9 is going to beat PP 10 every time, for example.

[Gudrae]

Contrast

I mean...do you want to die? Stealthing around alone will definitely get you killed at some point. I don't care if you're a level 20 rogue who can't roll less than a 43 on stealth - at some point you'll bump into something with tremorsense 120ft that will paralyze you and eat you whole.

If you aren't a level 20 rogue, 1s happen.Are the benefits of sneaking ahead worth the risk of your character just being dead if they flub one check? I've taken the wind from the sails of more than 1 person keen to do this amazing solo stealth plan with the question 'what is your plan when you're totally separated from the party, find some enemies and then roll a 1 on stealth?'. One of the reasons Pass Without Trace is so good is that it makes stealthing the entire party much more viable.


This is at least in part my point.

If going ahead/alone will more often than not get you killed or be totally barred, then heavy investment is not necessary to be used in a build.

If the rest of the party can be equivalent where stealth (is going to be used) is concerned by merit of barely paying attention and a spell that is not only exceptional at its intended task but is so easy to get that one could get it by accident in a character build much less by a (typical?) 4 character party, why provide a deeper investment into stealth when one can't/shouldn't do the more involved stealthy things? Perhaps even more so if the literal druid fly on the wall tactic holds merit, or if a caster's familiar can do the same thing without even the threat of character death.

Perhaps it would be worth restating for clarification and emphasis. I don't think that stealth is bad. Far from it really. I just don't know if I see reason to put heavy investment into it when aspects of greater stealth are having its legs pulled out from under them or out done so incredibly by what could amount to afterthoughts in a character build.

[Contrast]

Group checks don't apply to surprise or hiding though.

I think it would probably be more accurate to say that a DM decides when a group check is appropriate or not. The hiding/surprise rules lay out how you can normally use abiity checks to resolve those situations and the group check rules offer a DM a separate modifier on how ability checks may work in a given situation. I don't see any particular reason a DM couldn't combine those if they felt it appropriate to do so.


Perhaps it would be worth restating for clarification and emphasis. I don't think that stealth is bad. Far from it really. I just don't know if I see reason to put heavy investment into it when aspects of greater stealth are having its legs pulled out from under them or out done so incredibly by what could amount to afterthoughts in a character build.

It really depends what you mean by heavy investment - a rogue putting expertise in it is getting use out of Cunning Action. For everyone else its just a skill proficiency which isn't nothing but I'm content with the opportunity cost there.

If you know everyone else is going to be clanking around in heavy armour then yeah, just not the parties style. But if its just one or two people thats within the realms of 'ok so we'll drop Enhance Ability on the plodfoots, maybe throw a bardic inspiration their way'. As has been mentioned, Pass Without Trace is the critical lynchpin though.

This depends a lot on what type of game you play but there are also non-combat uses to stealth. Want to trail someone through the city without them noticing you following them? Want to sneak into the mayors office and riffle through his papers without anyone knowing about it? It's very likely you'll be rolling stealth. Yes a caster can cast Invisibility and Silence and teleport but...well welcome to the life of the martial.

[sophontteks]

Stealth for halflings, and to a lesser extent wood elves, is really good in a way I never see people use. It's perfect for backliners. These two races have the ability to both hide in plain sight and hide while moving.

I love halfling sorcerers and warlocks, because they can hide behind people. Since I am in a party, I'm always behind people, thus I can always try to hide, and if I succeed, I'm always out of sight.

This is great for casters, because it makes sure that my character isn't targeted before he can move, even if my initiative roll isn't good, or if the party is surprised.

A warlock then gets advantage on his first EB, and a sorcerer with subtle spell can more easily use illusion and mind-altering spells, which won't break stealth either (barring the obvious problem if everyone around you moves away.).

It's a great defensive ability for spellcasters. Every round they can't be targeted is a good round.

[Randomthom]

The greatest problem I've seen is the stealthy character wants their moment to shine and says "I'll scout ahead" and then everyone else follows 15 ft behind because they're bored and makes too much noise, botching the stealth attempt and annoying the rogue player in the process.

This is particularly problematic on a VTT like Roll20 or Foundry (my preference) where the visuals are often relied upon to convey the descriptive job that the DM might otherwise be providing.

The solution, in this case, is to tell the rogue (other stealthy characters are available) to make a stealth check, perception check and investigation check. Tell them not to move on the VTT and instead, using the results of those rolls, create a narrative of their experience. Tell the player that they can interrupt your narrative in one of your given pauses with a "STOP" to retreat with the information already earned. This means that everyone gets to experience what the rogue does (i.e. no waiting while the VTT does all the descriptive work using visuals that only the rogue can see while the rest wait in the boring corridor). This also creates great tension and drama.

For example, Volandris, Elf Rogue wants to scout ahead of the clankys. The DM asks for a stealth, perception and investigation check. Volandris gets Stealth 14, Perception 19 and Investigation 6. Ask for other rolls as & when they become important during the narrative.

The DM decides what this means and starts describing, inserting pauses in case the player wants to retreat... "your soft footed approach and keen ears allow you to travel 40 feet up the corridor to a door ... where you hear two of the dungeon's denizens eating noisily in the room beyond ... The door is slightly ajar and you push it gently open to try and get a good look at the creatures, you see a bugbear tearing lumps of flesh off of a recent kill, you can't see the other though ... you push the door open a little further to get a look at the other creature but failed to recognise the tiles on the floor were a rune, now visible that the door has been opened slightly. You see the second bugbear as it glances quickly in your direction, the silent alarm in it's head alerting it to your presence. Roll initiative."

At any moment the player could have decided that was enough information to take back to the reast of the team but they might also trust in their rolls being good enough to get them that extra titbit more and it should if they rolled well, give them what their rolls deserve but no more. Decide when to cut them off, when they've been too greedy and punish them appropriately.

[Tanarii]

I think it would probably be more accurate to say that a DM decides when a group check is appropriate or not. The hiding/surprise rules lay out how you can normally use abiity checks to resolve those situations and the group check rules offer a DM a separate modifier on how ability checks may work in a given situation. I don't see any particular reason a DM couldn't combine those if they felt it appropriate to do so.
Hiding and surprise are some of the very few specifically laid out operations for resolution. Changing the way they work goes beyond a ruling, into house rule territory.

More importantly it fundamentally changes the way surprise works, the likelihood of it occurring. Players need to know in advance in session 0, because it's a huge power boost to certain classes, features, spells and items. And makes other features and spells far less valuable. As well as drastically changing the standard tactics that will be used at the table.

[Xetheral]

Hiding and surprise are some of the very few specifically laid out operations for resolution. Changing the way they work goes beyond a ruling, into house rule territory.

More importantly it fundamentally changes the way surprise works, the likelihood of it occurring. Players need to know in advance in session 0, because it's a huge power boost to certain classes, features, spells and items. And makes other features and spells far less valuable. As well as drastically changing the standard tactics that will be used at the table.

Hiding and Surprise are both very open-ended, and table-specific rulings are a necessity. I agree it's wise go over how they will be treated during session 0, but I think that's true whether one feels they are houseruling or not. Even if there is a "default" way to handle hiding and surprise, there is no consensus on what that "default" actually is, which makes it pretty useless as a baseline.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is particularly problematic on a VTT like Roll20 or Foundry (my preference) where the visuals are often relied upon to convey the descriptive job that the DM might otherwise be providing.

The solution, in this case, is to tell the rogue (other stealthy characters are available) to make a stealth check, perception check and investigation check. Tell them not to move on the VTT and instead, using the results of those rolls, create a narrative of their experience. Tell the player that they can interrupt your narrative in one of your given pauses with a "STOP" to retreat with the information already earned. This means that everyone gets to experience what the rogue does (i.e. no waiting while the VTT does all the descriptive work using visuals that only the rogue can see while the rest wait in the boring corridor). This also creates great tension and drama.
I'll ask my group if they watn to try this out on roll20. I like a lot of what you put there.


Group checks don't apply to surprise or hiding though. What?
Not sure what you mean there.
Surprise is determined before initiative is rolled. I don't get how it's not group based (and then 'not surprised' like Alert feat gets factored in on a character by character basis ...)

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I find the concept of this thread rather alien to the game we play at our table. Stealth rolls are probably the single biggest factor in success vs failure in many sessions. Knowing what to fight, when to fight, and who to fight, as well as getting the upper hand if your party chooses to fight are crucial.
As an example, during our last session our Rogue rolled a 2 and alerted the guard. The result was a fight against the guard and 2 other rooms worth of baddies that dropped 2 characters before they ultimately succeeded. Had they been able to deal with the guard alone and quietly, they would likely have continued on their way relatively unscathed.

[Xetheral]

I find the concept of this thread rather alien to the game we play at our table. Stealth rolls are probably the single biggest factor in success vs failure in many sessions. Knowing what to fight, when to fight, and who to fight, as well as getting the upper hand if your party chooses to fight are crucial.
As an example, during our last session our Rogue rolled a 2 and alerted the guard. The result was a fight against the guard and 2 other rooms worth of baddies that dropped 2 characters before they ultimately succeeded. Had they been able to deal with the guard alone and quietly, they would likely have continued on their way relatively unscathed.

I definitely think the value of stealth comes down to the style of the campaign. When who, when, and where to fight are up to the PCs, an investment in stealth greatly expands the party's options for dealing with potential threats. When instead who, when, and where to fight is up to the DM (or the module writer), an investment in stealth is often of much more marginal benefit.

[MoiMagnus]

I find the concept of this thread rather alien to the game we play at our table. Stealth rolls are probably the single biggest factor in success vs failure in many sessions. Knowing what to fight, when to fight, and who to fight, as well as getting the upper hand if your party chooses to fight are crucial.
As an example, during our last session our Rogue rolled a 2 and alerted the guard. The result was a fight against the guard and 2 other rooms worth of baddies that dropped 2 characters before they ultimately succeeded. Had they been able to deal with the guard alone and quietly, they would likely have continued on their way relatively unscathed.

Usefulness of stealth depends a lot on encounter/world design.

On a lot of table, the encounter/world is designed in such a way that "brute-forcing" your way with the full team if much safer than sending the Rogue alone with a probability of being cornered alone.
Stealth becomes "If you're lucky, you get an easier time at a task that could be reasonably solved without stealth anyway. If you're unlucky, you are now is a situation much worse than if you tried to brute-force."

In fact, the same could be said of Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation skills. Depending on your playstyle, they could be major component with every session hanging on one of those rolls to determine if a deadly fight happen or if the PCs get away peacefully. Alternatively, the DM could shut done every tentative of using them by just putting enemies that will not engage in any social behaviour with the PCs.

[Contrast]

Hiding and surprise are some of the very few specifically laid out operations for resolution. Changing the way they work goes beyond a ruling, into house rule territory.

More importantly it fundamentally changes the way surprise works, the likelihood of it occurring. Players need to know in advance in session 0, because it's a huge power boost to certain classes, features, spells and items. And makes other features and spells far less valuable. As well as drastically changing the standard tactics that will be used at the table.

Lets imagine a load of players come up with a totally ridiculous plan of smuggling themselves into a city during a siege by hiding inside of a giant wooden horse, with the plan that once they're inside they'll leap out and murder the gate guards at night.

The DM decides that given they're all hiding in one location and the real question is if the group as a whole makes too much noise and raises suspicion, so decides to run it as a group Con (Stealth) check to represent their patience/fortitude to keep still and quiet for hours against the highest passive perception of the nearby guards.

The same DM doesn't typically use group checks for stealth but decided in this instance given the circumstances where the group succeeded or failed as a group and were in a position to help each other that a group check would be appropriate.

None of this is how the rulebook examples of hiding or surprise is written but I really don't think I could decribe this DM as using a house rule. Those are all literally just rules from the rulebook, being used as advertised in the rulebook for the purposes laid out in the rulebook.


Regardless and in the interests of not bogging down in the thread, this exchange is probably sufficient to establish to anyone reading that the use of group checks for stealth is a...contested subject on which opinions vary. With regard to my original point - I totally agree with Tanarii that the correct answer is to talk to your DM at session 0 about how they intend to run this sort of thing.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Usefulness of stealth depends a lot on encounter/world design.

On a lot of table, the encounter/world is designed in such a way that "brute-forcing" your way with the full team if much safer than sending the Rogue alone with a probability of being cornered alone.
Stealth becomes "If you're lucky, you get an easier time at a task that could be reasonably solved without stealth anyway. If you're unlucky, you are now is a situation much worse than if you tried to brute-force."

In fact, the same could be said of Deception/Persuasion/Intimidation skills. Depending on your playstyle, they could be major component with every session hanging on one of those rolls to determine if a deadly fight happen or if the PCs get away peacefully. Alternatively, the DM could shut done every tentative of using them by just putting enemies that will not engage in any social behaviour with the PCs.

I think that's a fair comparison to the social skills. Either way, I tend to think that a game where you could just "brute force" your way through the entire thing would be uninteresting. To me players should be using some variety of non-combat skills/ tactics to achieve success. I try to balance my encounters on the assumption that players will avoid or get the upper hand somehow on at least some of the encounters. I wouldn't consider myself much of a DM if the players could just walk into every situation, start swinging, and expect to survive.

[Tanarii]

Hiding and Surprise are both very open-ended, and table-specific rulings are a necessity. I agree it's wise go over how they will be treated during session 0, but I think that's true whether one feels they are houseruling or not. Even if there is a "default" way to handle hiding and surprise, there is no consensus on what that "default" actually is, which makes it pretty useless as a baseline.
The default is each creature rolls individually, and any opponent who spots any one of them is not surprised.

"Otherwise, 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."
PHB p189

There's room for questions in edge cases sure. There is even an explicit statement that some choose to interpret as a wider DM "permission" to vary, which is silly, because the DM can do any rule they want. (As well as being an edge case interpretation of the wording.) But if you're going to, notify your players. Their reasonable assumption is going to be it works per the default.

I mean, Group Checks doesn't even work mechanically. How do you determine which number to compare to each enemies Passive Perception?


What?
Not sure what you mean there.
Surprise is determined before initiative is rolled. I don't get how it's not group based (and then 'not surprised' like Alert feat gets factored in on a character by character basis ...)
I mean the Group Check resolution mechanic is explicitly not used for surprise or hiding.

[Xetheral]

The default is each creature rolls individually, and any opponent who spots any one of them is not surprised.

"Otherwise, 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."
PHB p189

There's room for questions in edge cases sure. There is even an explicit statement that some choose to interpret as a wider DM "permission" to vary, which is silly, because the DM can do any rule they want. (As well as being an edge case interpretation of the wording.) But if you're going to, notify your players. Their reasonable assumption is going to be it works per the default.

I mean, Group Checks doesn't even work mechanically. How do you determine which number to compare to each enemies Passive Perception?

As you acknowledge in your post, there is no consensus about surprise: some people interpret the the "default" to be "DM determines surprise", some people interpret the default to be "DM is required to determine surprise by calling for individual Dex (Stealth) checks" and (as evidenced by this thread), some people interpret the default to be "DM is required to determine surprise by calling for Dex (Stealth) checks, but still has the usual flexibility surrounding ability checks (like calling for a group check)". So even if there is a default, there is demonstrably no consensus regarding what that default is.

Even if the above ambiguity were to be resolved, all the usual ambiguity surrounding Dex (Stealth) checks applies, such as: "What is the maximum hearing distance in the current environmental conditions?"; "Should disadvantage apply if the character can only potentially be seen or heard, rather than both?"; "Are the targets sufficiently distracted that a Dex (Stealth) check can be made even in the absence of cover?". All of these are questions that have tons of variation from table to table.

Put simply, no matter how confident a DM is that they are running hiding and surprise "by the book", I'd argue they are still worth discussing in session zero, because player expectations can and will vary on these notoriously controversial topics.

[Tanarii]

As you acknowledge in your post, there is no consensus about surprise: some people interpret the the "default" to be "DM determines surprise", some people interpret the default to be "DM is required to determine surprise by calling for individual Dex (Stealth) checks" and (as evidenced by this thread), some people interpret the default to be "DM is required to determine surprise by calling for Dex (Stealth) checks, but still has the usual flexibility surrounding ability checks (like calling for a group check)". So even if there is a default, there is demonstrably no consensus regarding what that default is.Edge cases doesn't mean ambiguity about the default. Even niche word reading about the DM choosing if surprise occurs doesn't mean ambiguity about the default. There's absolutely no ambiguity what the default resolution process is. It's very clear what the default is:

"Otherwise, 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."
PHB p189


Even if the above ambiguity were to be resolved, all the usual ambiguity surrounding Dex (Stealth) checks applies, such as: "What is the maximum hearing distance in the current environmental conditions?"; "Should disadvantage apply if the character can only potentially be seen or heard, rather than both?"; "Are the targets sufficiently distracted that a Dex (Stealth) check can be made even in the absence of cover?". All of these are questions that have tons of variation from table to table.Sure. That's where edge cases come into play.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean the Group Check resolution mechanic is explicitly not used for surprise or hiding. OK, I think that I follow you, but can you take me one step further: how does this interact with the Pass Without Trace spell since that is a group thing: do you just ramp up their passive score by 10?

[Segev]

I mean, Group Checks doesn't even work mechanically. How do you determine which number to compare to each enemies Passive Perception?

Each passive perception is a DC. If half the group beats a particular passive perception, that creature doesn't notice the group.

[sophontteks]

Each passive perception is a DC. If half the group beats a particular passive perception, that creature doesn't notice the group.
Conceptually, how does the group cover the people that failed the check?

Thats my standard for group checks. They are supposed to be rare. They only work when another player is able to compensate for the failure of another.

Group stealth checks of all kinds create serious problems where a large group of decently stealthy people can ensure a successful stealth check every time. You rule group stealth snd suddenly entire armies can roll more consistent successful stealth checks then a small group of scouts designed to be stealthy. It's the law of averages making stealth better as you add more people to the stealth check and eventually it's so consistent it is guaranteed.

It doesn't make sense.

[Xetheral]

Edge cases doesn't mean ambiguity about the default. Even niche word reading about the DM choosing if surprise occurs doesn't mean ambiguity about the default. There's absolutely no ambiguity what the default resolution process is. It's very clear what the default is:

"Otherwise, 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."
PHB p189

There's disagreement in this very thread about whether the typical DM tools for ability checks, such a group checks, are available to the DM when calling for a Dex (Stealth) check to determine surprise. Accordingly, there evidently are multiple interpretations of what the "default" is, which, to me, is enough to show that the "default" is open to multiple interpretations, which meets the definition of ambiguity. I understand that you disagree and nevertheless believe that your interpretation of the "default" is unambiguously correct. Fair enough, although I confess I don't see the utility of asserting a lack of ambiguity to the same people who disagree with your interpretation.

I still stand by my claim that it's worth discussing stealth and surprise in session zero, regardless of whether the DM thinks their approach is the "default" or not.

[Segev]

Conceptually, how does the group cover the people that failed the check?

Thats my standard for group checks. They are supposed to be rare. They only work when another player is able to compensate for the failure of another.

Group stealth checks of all kinds create serious problems where a large group of decently stealthy people can ensure a successful stealth check every time. You rule group stealth snd suddenly entire armies can roll more consistent successful stealth checks then a small group of scouts designed to be stealthy. It's the law of averages making stealth better as you add more people to the stealth check and eventually it's so consistent it is guaranteed.

It doesn't make sense.

I wasn't trying to do more than answer a very specific question about how you determine what DC you're comparing which rolls to in a group stealth check vs. a group of observers with different passive perceptions.


I could come up with an explanation if I wanted to, though I won't make promises about how satisfying it would be. The simplest being that the better rollers are actively moving along with the ones who rolled poorly, guiding their steps to stay quiet and compensating for mistakes they make by catching things bumped into, or creating believable distractions that don't arouse suspicion to pull eyes and attention away when the plate mail wearing clanker is moving across the highly visible gap.

If it doesn't satisfy, there's nothing wrong with the DM ruling group checks don't work for stealth. But you can make up justifications if you like.

Again, though, all I was doing was answering a mechanical question, not giving any sort of justification on the fiction layer, with the post you quoted.

[Contrast]

I mean the Group Check resolution mechanic is explicitly not used for surprise or hiding.

I mean the only thing the Group Check resolution mechanic is explicitly used for is Wisdom (Survival) checks to navigate a swamp.

Implicitly it is used whenever the DM feels appropriate circumstances call for it.


The solution, in this case, is to tell the rogue (other stealthy characters are available) to make a stealth check, perception check and investigation check. Tell them not to move on the VTT and instead, using the results of those rolls, create a narrative of their experience. Tell the player that they can interrupt your narrative in one of your given pauses with a "STOP" to retreat with the information already earned. This means that everyone gets to experience what the rogue does (i.e. no waiting while the VTT does all the descriptive work using visuals that only the rogue can see while the rest wait in the boring corridor). This also creates great tension and drama.

I will say there's a couple of problems here in my opinion - firstly, either your players wait patiently for you to finish your description at which point you may have narrated them into a combat far from the rest of the party, which is bad. Or you're teaching your players the lesson that they can get mechanical advantage by interrupting you mid-description, which is also probably not going to lead to better gameplay.

[sophontteks]

I wasn't trying to do more than answer a very specific question about how you determine what DC you're comparing which rolls to in a group stealth check vs. a group of observers with different passive perceptions.


I could come up with an explanation if I wanted to, though I won't make promises about how satisfying it would be. The simplest being that the better rollers are actively moving along with the ones who rolled poorly, guiding their steps to stay quiet and compensating for mistakes they make by catching things bumped into, or creating believable distractions that don't arouse suspicion to pull eyes and attention away when the plate mail wearing clanker is moving across the highly visible gap.

If it doesn't satisfy, there's nothing wrong with the DM ruling group checks don't work for stealth. But you can make up justifications if you like.

Again, though, all I was doing was answering a mechanical question, not giving any sort of justification on the fiction layer, with the post you quoted.
I was just asking how that worked. The rest wasn't directed at you or anything. It's just my take on group checks. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked.

[Ettina]

Conceptually, how does the group cover the people that failed the check?

Thats my standard for group checks. They are supposed to be rare. They only work when another player is able to compensate for the failure of another.

Group stealth checks of all kinds create serious problems where a large group of decently stealthy people can ensure a successful stealth check every time. You rule group stealth snd suddenly entire armies can roll more consistent successful stealth checks then a small group of scouts designed to be stealthy. It's the law of averages making stealth better as you add more people to the stealth check and eventually it's so consistent it is guaranteed.

It doesn't make sense.

You know that scene in a lot of movies where multiple characters are sneaking together, and one gets startled and is about to make an involuntarily squeak of surprise, but another character quickly covers their mouth? That's a higher-rolling person compensating for a low roll in a group Stealth check.

Could also be stuff like stopping them from stepping on the twig you noticed and they didn't, or steadying them when they stumble so they don't have to stomp to get their footing, or catching the thing they almost knocked over...

[sophontteks]

You know that scene in a lot of movies where multiple characters are sneaking together, and one gets startled and is about to make an involuntarily squeak of surprise, but another character quickly covers their mouth? That's a higher-rolling person compensating for a low roll in a group Stealth check.

Could also be stuff like stopping them from stepping on the twig you noticed and they didn't, or steadying them when they stumble so they don't have to stomp to get their footing, or catching the thing they almost knocked over...
I'm fine with that. If a player is about to talk or break stealth, another player could stop them. They can't make a man in plate sneak around though.

I did enjoy sneaking around as a youth. Guiding someone to be sneaky isn't a thing, espesially if they have two left feet and plate armor. You guide by scouting ahead. And telling them when the coast is clear.

You gotta go out and try it. Try to actually make someone more sneaky without making a sound or drawing attention to yourself in the process.

[goodpeople25]

I'm fine with that. If a player is about to talk or break stealth, another player could stop them. They can't make a man in plate sneak around though.

I did enjoy sneaking around as a youth. Guiding someone to be sneaky isn't a thing, espesially if they have two left feet and plate armor. You guide by scouting ahead. And telling them when the coast is clear.

You gotta go out and try it. Try to actually make someone more sneaky without making a sound or drawing attention to yourself in the process.
Lots of people can't go to the gym to try that out you know.

[Segev]

I'm fine with that. If a player is about to talk or break stealth, another player could stop them. They can't make a man in plate sneak around though.

I did enjoy sneaking around as a youth. Guiding someone to be sneaky isn't a thing, espesially if they have two left feet and plate armor. You guide by scouting ahead. And telling them when the coast is clear.

You gotta go out and try it. Try to actually make someone more sneaky without making a sound or drawing attention to yourself in the process.

Technically, neither is jumping 24 feet in plate armor, and yet that's the minimum that a 24-strength barbarian could manage.

You just outlined a means of "guiding somebody to be more stealthy:" signal them when to move, and to where. There's also creating diversions (with sufficient skill, the diverted observers may not even realize they were distracted by something at all), exploiting environmental noise, pointing out the right places to step to avoid creaking floorboards, etc.

It may or may not satisfy you, but you're playing a magical elf game where people can, without magic, climb a brick wall at half their normal jogging speed, hold their breath for an entire combat while vigorously fighting, see in complete darkness, have such powerful awareness that they can act as if they can see within 10 feet of themselves even with their eyes closed or missing, perfectly mimic any other creature's vocalizations you've ever heard for at least one minute (yes, the Actor feat has a bullet point that is the Kenku racial ability), and any number of other extraordinary feats. A party that is skilled in stealth being able to lead one or two members who aren't such that they can, as a group, sneak past things is not particularly harder to buy, to me. Would you be complaining if it took a feat to make group stealth checks? If not, consider that the reason they don't have a feat locking off the ability is that it's not supposed to be that special, and whatever it is about the feat that would make you okay with it can be assumed to be had by anybody who is decent at sneaking.

[sophontteks]

Technically, neither is jumping 24 feet in plate armor, and yet that's the minimum that a 24-strength barbarian could manage.

You just outlined a means of "guiding somebody to be more stealthy:" signal them when to move, and to where. There's also creating diversions (with sufficient skill, the diverted observers may not even realize they were distracted by something at all), exploiting environmental noise, pointing out the right places to step to avoid creaking floorboards, etc.

It may or may not satisfy you, but you're playing a magical elf game where people can, without magic, climb a brick wall at half their normal jogging speed, hold their breath for an entire combat while vigorously fighting, see in complete darkness, have such powerful awareness that they can act as if they can see within 10 feet of themselves even with their eyes closed or missing, perfectly mimic any other creature's vocalizations you've ever heard for at least one minute (yes, the Actor feat has a bullet point that is the Kenku racial ability), and any number of other extraordinary feats. A party that is skilled in stealth being able to lead one or two members who aren't such that they can, as a group, sneak past things is not particularly harder to buy, to me. Would you be complaining if it took a feat to make group stealth checks? If not, consider that the reason they don't have a feat locking off the ability is that it's not supposed to be that special, and whatever it is about the feat that would make you okay with it can be assumed to be had by anybody who is decent at sneaking.

A 24 strength barbarian is stronger then anyone realistically is, so his feats do not surprise me. And we do have magical options in this world to allow this already. There is no need to explain group stealth works because magic when we have the tools for this already in the game.

I've already pointed out some of the immersion-breaking problems with the group checks. I'll explain the big three in my opinion below. Overall I think it is a very toxic mechanic to add to the game. It doesn't add to any experience, it's just mechanically superior to individual rolls.

- It is making groups stealthier then individuals through the law of averages. The larger the group, the easier it is to guarantee the stealth roll. It gets to the point where whole armies can walk through unnoticed, but a single rogue may roll poorly and get caught.

- It's taking away the stealthy character's moment to shine. He's no longer the stealthy one. Everyone on his team is equally able to stealth, and any attempt to actually scout or act stealthy is mechanically punished. To me, it sounds like the players who aren't stealth "want to have their cake and eat it too" where they get to be as stealthy as the rogue for free.

- It's simplifying stealth to the point where the party is just *always* doing it, and their average roll seldom deviates due to the number of rolls being made. It may as well be hand waved completely. No longer are we trying to scout out danger ahead, or roleplaying any of this. There is no risk. We just roll and keep walkin.

[Valmark]

- It is making groups stealthier then individuals through the law of averages. The larger the group, the easier it is to guarantee the stealth roll. It gets to the point where whole armies can walk through unnoticed, but a single rogue may roll poorly and get caught.

- It's taking away the stealthy character's moment to shine. He's no longer the stealthy one. Everyone on his team is equally able to stealth, and any attempt to actually scout or act stealthy is mechanically punished. To me, it sounds like the players who aren't stealth "want to have their cake and eat it too" where they get to be as stealthy as the rogue for free.

- It's simplifying stealth to the point where the party is just *always* doing it, and their average roll seldom deviates due to the number of rolls being made. It may as well be hand waved completely. No longer are we trying to scout out danger ahead, or roleplaying any of this. There is no risk. We just roll and keep walkin.

It's larger the group of people good at stealth, you mean. If you were to take a group of armored knights in heavy armor they'd have very good chances of failing.

I mean... It's not for free if you need somebody to get a success for you. Like above, you need the stealthy character's success to avoid being discovered.

Same as above, only true if enough people are stealthy otherwise it's not a good idea as a default.

[Segev]

A 24 strength barbarian is stronger then anyone realistically is, so his feats do not surprise me. And we do have magical options in this world to allow this already. There is no need to explain group stealth works because magic when we have the tools for this already in the game.

I've already pointed out some of the immersion-breaking problems with the group checks. I'll explain the big three in my opinion below. Overall I think it is a very toxic mechanic to add to the game. It doesn't add to any experience, it's just mechanically superior to individual rolls.

- It is making groups stealthier then individuals through the law of averages. The larger the group, the easier it is to guarantee the stealth roll. It gets to the point where whole armies can walk through unnoticed, but a single rogue may roll poorly and get caught.

- It's taking away the stealthy character's moment to shine. He's no longer the stealthy one. Everyone on his team is equally able to stealth, and any attempt to actually scout or act stealthy is mechanically punished. To me, it sounds like the players who aren't stealth "want to have their cake and eat it too" where they get to be as stealthy as the rogue for free.

- It's simplifying stealth to the point where the party is just *always* doing it, and their average roll seldom deviates due to the number of rolls being made. It may as well be hand waved completely. No longer are we trying to scout out danger ahead, or roleplaying any of this. There is no risk. We just roll and keep walkin.I disagree with all three of your points.


It is making groups stealthier then individuals through the law of averages. The larger the group, the easier it is to guarantee the stealth roll. It gets to the point where whole armies can walk through unnoticed, but a single rogue may roll poorly and get caught.This is only true if at least half the group are particularly good at it. Take a group of unstealthy people (say, full plate wearers with 8 Dex and no proficiency in stealth), and they will not, on average, sneak better than a single rogue with expertise in stealth. Even in a given singular roll, it would be very unlikely for half the plate-wearing clumsy paladins to roll better than the single rogue does. In fact, the more plate-wearing clumsy paladins you add, the LESS likely it is that half of them will do better than the rogue. Put the rogue in the group with them, and the paladins have an increased chance of half the group successfully sneaking by any particular guard, because that's one less bad roll they have to count in their "half the group."

The law of averages causes the raw d20 rolls to distribute mostly evenly across 10/11. The more you have rolling with the same bonus, the more likely that 10 or 11 will be the lowest raw d20 roll being used as the lowest value (and thus the success threshold of the group). This actually works AGAINST the outlier situations where the expertise-stealth-rogue rolls low and the clanky paladin rolls high, because while it won't change that the single rogue has the swing, the paladin group is far less likely to count the highest


- It's taking away the stealthy character's moment to shine. He's no longer the stealthy one. Everyone on his team is equally able to stealth, and any attempt to actually scout or act stealthy is mechanically punished. To me, it sounds like the players who aren't stealth "want to have their cake and eat it too" where they get to be as stealthy as the rogue for free.The stealthy character still will be the one who has to go off on his own if they need to sneak past something really sensitive, and the stealthy character CAN hide more or less at will while it's not an option for the others. The stealthy character is contributing to the group stealth check by ensuring that one fewer of the less-good rollers will have his roll be the lowest one, raising the median roll out of the group by one position.

And it gives stealthy characters a chance to have stealth be important to the game rather than be a mini-game he only gets to play by himself. The whole party being able to sneak means the stealthy character can set up ambushes with them. It also means the stealthy character's efforts to stealth are less likely to be ruined by the worst stealth character in the party, which otherwise consistently happens.


- It's simplifying stealth to the point where the party is just *always* doing it, and their average roll seldom deviates due to the number of rolls being made. It may as well be hand waved completely. No longer are we trying to scout out danger ahead, or roleplaying any of this. There is no risk. We just roll and keep walkin.It actually would be quite reasonable to declare the group is always trying to stealth, and figure out the group's passive stealth (which would be 10+median stealth bonus). This still means the group is moving at half speed, and that they're having to take special care about their activities. It also is going to be much lower in value than the stealth specialist's passive stealth or typical stealth rolls. Scouting ahead is still viably useful, but no longer so critical that the stealth character has to keep separating from the party.

Unless half the party has stealth scores in the +6 area, the likelihood of running into a creature with a passive perception that will notice the group stealthing party is still pretty high.

[sophontteks]

The fact that a certain threshhold must be met doesn't detract from the issue here. Stealth is not rare. A party can easily have a high average for stealth and the effect is similiar to having the rogues "take 10" power on all stealth checks for the whole party all of the time.

Even the least stealthy players often possess a positive stealth roll, and a high value is not needed to beat most passive wisdom. Just allowing players to average out multiple rolls on its own provides a massive bonus to their stealthyness.

No, a rogue does not, and should not, ever go out alone. At least not until high tier when he can take 10. If the party can guaruntee a 15 or higher stealth (an easy thing to accomplish.) they are stealthier together. Otherwise its just too risky. He could low roll and die.

[JoeJ]

Several people have mentioned the effect of armor, which brings up the question of just how loud moving in real armor is. I don't do SCA, but the impression I get from watching videos of medieval fighting competitions is that the participants don't appear to make a lot of noise just moving. If they're trying to run an obstacle course the armor gets noisy, and beating on shields with swords is loud, but just walking around doesn't seem to make a lot of noise. That suggests to me that stealth in armor might not be as hard as many people assume, even for the guy at the gym. Is there anyone here with actual experience in the sport of historic medieval combat who can comment on this?

[Contrast]

- It is making groups stealthier then individuals through the law of averages. The larger the group, the easier it is to guarantee the stealth roll. It gets to the point where whole armies can walk through unnoticed, but a single rogue may roll poorly and get caught.

Just because a DM decides to use a group check for a stealth roll does not mean all stealth rolls need to be group checks. I do not expect a DM to try and sneak an army past a scout by rolling 10,000 stealth checks until one fails and I don't expect them to keep rolling stealth checks until they know if 5000 passed either.

Indeed, just because a DM sometimes thinks its appropriate for the party to use group checks doesn't mean they will always use group checks for party stealth either.


- It's taking away the stealthy character's moment to shine. He's no longer the stealthy one. Everyone on his team is equally able to stealth, and any attempt to actually scout or act stealthy is mechanically punished. To me, it sounds like the players who aren't stealth "want to have their cake and eat it too" where they get to be as stealthy as the rogue for free.

I feel like you're arguing both sides here.


The fact that a certain threshhold must be met doesn't detract from the issue here. Stealth is not rare. A party can easily have a high average for stealth and the effect is similiar to having the rogues "take 10" power on all stealth checks for the whole party all of the time.

Even the least stealthy players often possess a positive stealth roll, and a high value is not needed to beat most passive wisdom. Just allowing players to average out multiple rolls on its own provides a massive bonus to their stealthyness.

No, a rogue does not, and should not, ever go out alone. At least not until high tier when he can take 10. If the party can guaruntee a 15 or higher stealth (an easy thing to accomplish.) they are stealthier together. Otherwise its just too risky. He could low roll and die.

Stealthy characters are punished because they don't get to shine...but also are incredibly important because the party relies on them and also it actually enables them to stealth because now they can do so with party support whereas otherwise its suicide to try and stealth alone?


- It's simplifying stealth to the point where the party is just *always* doing it, and their average roll seldom deviates due to the number of rolls being made. It may as well be hand waved completely. No longer are we trying to scout out danger ahead, or roleplaying any of this. There is no risk. We just roll and keep walkin.

See my first point. More generally though as a DM if the party is able to stealth in every situation, you probably need to vary up your encounter design a bit. If the party attempting to approach dangerous situations cautiously is a problem...I'm not sure why exactly?

I dispute your general assertion that group check = success. Lets imagine our stereotypical party at level 11 (pretty epic heroes!) - fighter, cleric, mage, rogue. Our fighter tanked Dex and is wearing heavy armour for -1 with disadv. Our cleric is wearing medium armour and took a 14 in dex...but alas he's wearing half plate so also disadvantage. Our mage has Dex 14 and no armour so finally just a flat +2. Our rogue is the only one who actually has stealth prof and he even put in expertise as well as maxing Dex!

So thats -1 (disadv), +2 (disadv), +2, +13 (min roll 23). If we look at 3 potential DCs, our rogue will auto-pass all of them meaning the rest of the party only needs to muster a single success. Easy!

DC10 - 1-(0.75*0.5775*0.35)=85% chance of sneaking past
DC15 - 1-(0.9375*0.84*0.6)=53% chance of sneaking past
DC20 - 1-(1*0.09775*0.85)=17% chance of sneaking past

This is obviously substantially better than our chance without utilising group checks but still far from guaranteed success even against relatively moderate DCs.