PDA

View Full Version : Stealth adventure in a non-stealth campaign?



Icewalker
2008-12-04, 11:39 PM
I'm writing a campaign. It is relatively average on the whole, and made to be runnable by anyone once I'm done (I'm going to post it as a premade campaign in the homebrew section).

However, there are two parts in the campaign where stealth is needed. How does one accomplish a stealth-based adventure in a standard dnd party, containing people with no hide or move silently whatsoever?

The first is in a palace, sneaking past assorted guards to assassinate a man, and the second is in the lair of a cult, sneaking in to steal something.

skywalker
2008-12-04, 11:48 PM
I'm writing a campaign. It is relatively average on the whole, and made to be runnable by anyone once I'm done (I'm going to post it as a premade campaign in the homebrew section).

However, there are two parts in the campaign where stealth is needed. How does one accomplish a stealth-based adventure in a standard dnd party, containing people with no hide or move silently whatsoever?

The first is in a palace, sneaking past assorted guards to assassinate a man, and the second is in the lair of a cult, sneaking in to steal something.

My experience with this is one of two things will happen:

1. The sneaky character(s, there will generally be two, the rogue/ranger and the batman wizard can manage, in an intelligent party) leave everybody else behind, and then try and kill/steal the objective themselves.

2. The players ignore every "stealth" cue you've given them, kick in the door and kill everything. If it's not possible to kill everything, it's your fault for railroading them into an encounter they couldn't solve the way they wanted. Not saying it's right but that might be how they wind up seeing it.

Icewalker
2008-12-04, 11:56 PM
One thing that is going to be pointed out, to a large degree for later purposes, is that if they are discovered, they will be killed: they cannot take a palace full of guards, regardless of being the adventurers. This hopefully will stop 'let's barge in and kill them all.'

The whole party is needed, at least for the first one, as they have to fight this guy once they sneak to him.

Yukitsu
2008-12-05, 12:02 AM
Typically, I see that as a challenge, and not one to sneak, but one to prove otherwise. It usually ends with several piles of corpses, necklace of fireball explosions everywhere, and a total party wipe. If it weren't for the fact that all the players are on the same page, it would probably be a bad thing.

Stealth missions never work in a full party. Yes, generally one person will make a stealth based character, but at least one person will resent that individual getting to solo several parts of the mission, and at least one person will be too ADHD to remember not to holy word all the cultists. In other words, never force a single solution onto the party. If it turns out that it would be problematic, and they come up with another reasonable solution (cast teleport, use rope, cloud kill, cast teleport=assassination) then they should be allowed to succeed using that method.

NEO|Phyte
2008-12-05, 12:04 AM
Send the rogue in, scry on the rogue, then dimension door the rest of the party in?
:edit: if psionics are in, replace scry with sense link, assuming it doesn't take more than ML minutes to get the sneaking done.

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 12:28 AM
Especially with human opponents it's difficult for players to judge what kind of hazard they can take. Because a 1st level human and a 10th level human have wildly varying power levels yet either could be a standard palace guard depending on the size of the country, its military level, its economy, the paranoia of its ruler, and the location in the palace.

We have to assume that if stealth is required it is because the danger is so great. You can foreshadow in a number of ways:

1: Association with known power level ally: "The palace guard has a number of captive basilisks with magical barding."

2: Power level of threats they overcame: "Last Summer assassins attacked the palace tower with flying carpets and wands of lightning. It rained woolen ashes and blood for three days."

3: Reputation: "The most distiguished, heroic, and patriotic soldiers in the army are given an invitation to join the elite palace guard. Only one in twelve is accepted."
"One whole basement level is devoted to a magical training zone where the guards face illusory threats. They typically train hours every day under the care of priests who administer Cure Exhaustion spells."
"The palace guards rotate out with special strike teams behind the front lines of the war where they demolish buildings, city walls, bridges, and spearhead assaults to break up units of heavy cavalry and enemy elites."

4: Direct experience: "I knew a guy who tried to sneak in with his brother to steal some artifact from the palace art gallery. This brother was the head of the Thieve's Guild in Shroomport. Anyway, the guy escaped with his life. He watched his brother get caught by one of the palace guards. The bastard moved like the wind in a rainstorm. Before the guildmaster could get off his heels the guard drew his sword and slashed him once. Just once. And in the same motion shook off the blood and sheathed it. As my friend was running he saw his brother fall to the ground in two halves, cloven from crown to crotch."

Of course D&D is not a good system for dealing with such disparities in power. After all, a palace guard who was once an unbelievable threat is a cakewalk six months later. A system where characters start out more powerful, and untrained characters are far more durable, while the upper limit is not far in power from the beginning, where each level is worth only very little power, would represent this campaign concept better.

Another way to encourage stealth is for the palace guards to be Good, but the man to be assassinated is an impostor and is Evil. And so the PCs cannot simple waltz through killing the guards, who are just doing their sworn and Good duty in protecting their leige, because such an act would be alignment-ruiningly bad for the PCs. Especially since there are alternatives, like stealth ...

Finally give many ways for the mission to be accomplished. Maybe they can talk their way in past most of the outer defenses by using some ruse. Maybe they can find (with much difficulty) information on secret passages which are known only to the royal family and so are defended only by traps and magic.

//

As for the lair of the cult, you're left with an interesting alternative. They have to sneak because the demigods from a strange dimension that they worship can inhabit any cultist and empower him like Agents in the Matrix. So if they meet ANY cultist, they will have to deal with a powerful demigod, and if they fight EVERY cultist then EVERY cultist will be that powerful because the spirit just jumps from one dead body to a new live one. This means the cultists don't have to personally be especially powerful which is much more believable.

This should be an obvious clue to the PCs that fighting any cultists is a Very Bad Idea. Getting stuck fighting six cultists on their way to the toilet is an Exceedingly Bad Idea. Hopefully at this point they realize that stealth is a good option but more importantly that a direct assault is impossible. If they persist, TPK remorselessly. They must learn sometime.

//

All plans go wrong. Assume that the PCs fail in the stealth, diplomacy, or secret passage gambit. What happens when they don't run away?

The palace guards will kill first and speak with dead later. Maybe the guard captain doesn't trust them but he's willing to send a runner to check out the PCs' evidence that the real king has been turned into a newt and is hiding in their inn room.

The cultists will obviously want to sacrifice the PCs in some kind of awesome (I mean horrible) ritual. This gives one a chance to escape and release the others, pick up the majority of their equipment and magic items in other parts of the dungeon, capture the relic, and leave before anyone notices. So maybe the cultists' demigods will decide to capture the PCs alive, the better to steal their souls when the stars are right.

skywalker
2008-12-05, 12:57 AM
@^ If they're that powerful, they're probably pretty good at spotting, too. I think it's pretty inane to say "yes, they're incredibly powerful, but they're practically blind, you can sneak right by." Ask anyone who's played Metal Gear Sold, it requires some rather tenuous suspension of disbelief.

Yukitsu also said some very smart things.

I think, in the end, forcing your party to do something they'd rather not do is silly. There should always be some sort of alternative.

Quellian-dyrae
2008-12-05, 02:01 AM
@^ If they're that powerful, they're probably pretty good at spotting, too. I think it's pretty inane to say "yes, they're incredibly powerful, but they're practically blind, you can sneak right by." Ask anyone who's played Metal Gear Sold, it requires some rather tenuous suspension of disbelief.

Actually, given the nature of D&D skills, this is not only quite plausible, but possibly the best way to handle things. If you want the quest to be a challenge for a group without stealth, make the guards equally poor at Spot/Listen. They are a powerful force of warriors, not a bunch of scouts.

Now, more likely, the party will have at least one character skilled in stealth, as was mentioned above. Likewise, hiring a bunch of skilled fighters without any way of detecting assassins (which nobles are often paranoid of) is foolish. So, make sure there's a couple high-alertness foes or alarming traps to detect intruders. These can be dealt with by the rogue in the usual manner (sneak in and take out guards, disarm traps), but you might also include some options for a party without a skillmonkey/troubleshooter. Maybe certain times when the alert guards are off-duty, or routes that can get them past the alarms.

Once they're in, their stealth character might be able to get through the keep effortlessly, but it will be a challenge for the rest of them. Include a few events where they have to scramble for cover or pull off some fast thinking to prevent it from going into just roll after roll. If the party is smart, they'll have their stealthy member scout ahead to check out locations of guards, good places to hide, and alternate routes. In all, it rewards a stealthy character for his or her skill choices, while still letting everyone participate and be challenged.

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 02:18 AM
Or the stealth character acts as a scout, and when he sees the coast is clear of the very Spotty guards then the PCs shuffle through under Silence and Invisibility magic. Or chameleon stuff. Elven bathrobes. Whatever buffs them enough so the very alert guards can't hear them 100' away through two closed doors.

But the fighters will have to leave their armor at home.

The party thief, under generous stealth buffs, should be able to outsneak the very alert and powerful guards - after all, while they may be high level and very alert they aren't specialized in spotting things and they don't have the powerful short-duration buffs that the PCs can pile onto a single thief.

skywalker
2008-12-05, 02:29 AM
But the fighters will have to leave their armor at home.

Then the fighters will be useless when they actually reach the objective. They will stay home, with their armor.

I have actually played situations like what you are describing before. We tried kicking in the door, and when that didn't work, we told the DM: "We're playing a new game now. Thanks but no thanks, we'll keep our armor."

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 02:36 AM
This is caused by a mating of your character to your equipment. They are not the same.

Do you think it to be a possibility that you could end an adventure with less wealth than you started? Horrors! But in real life it often happens. And in the game it happens to everyone you meet. So why should the PC be a miraculous exception?

I'm not saying it should happen frequently, or even more than once.

I think a fighter shouldn't stay home rather than trade out his +1 Full Plate for a chain shirt.

EDIT: Chilling effect due to forum rules caused self-censorship.

VerdugoExplode
2008-12-05, 02:42 AM
There's an appropriate saying for this situation, something along the lines of
"When all you have is a hammer all your problems look like nails."

If none of them are stealth savvy they aren't going to be doing anything sneaky, or at least doing it with any degree of success. If only one person is stealthy the rest get to wait around and do nothing while he does all the work, which is going to leave those left behind very bored. If they accompany the stealthy person they might feel challenged or they might feel horribly out of place and wonder why there has to be a stealth portion. These ideas aren't for every group, just like if you made a group who loved hack and slash get into politics with no chance of fighting in sight.

You can make the guards like those of many other games, who have short term memory problems and are concussed by a strong gust of wind but the characters may find themselves wondering why such an incompetent group was chosen to defend a vital target. You could make the guards somewhat effective with +2 or so to spot but the non stealthy people will probably be noticed eventually seeing as how hide and move silently aren't a top priority when skill choices come around.

I suggest you give them options on how to proceed rather than force them to be stealthy. Say there's an old catacomb used by the nobles to escape which they can use to get into the castle without needing to be stealthy, or a sewer entrance, or bribery, or some other method which won't punish them for their character choices.

AslanCross
2008-12-05, 02:43 AM
Chances are your PCs will either skip the stealth and bash heads, or they go with stealth, fail at a critical moment, and all hell breaks loose.

However, a few spells could solve any stealth problems: invisibility and iron silence. Iron Silence cancels out the ACP for Hide and Move Silently, so Mr. Fighty-Wighty can actually sneak in full armor (assuming he has the skill ranks.)

Seeming is a good way to get in without the use of stealth. Hiding in plain sight, as it were. The only problem is that they need to come up with a way to survive being detected.

My party has just finished a rather short stealth run through a hostile castle. They knew they were going to be detected eventually, so they came up with a very jarring diversion: setting the barracks on fire.

They got in by using a combination of invisibility and seeming. Once the invisibility duration ended, they still looked like hobgoblins. They went up to the gatehouse to spring open the portcullis for allied troops, but eventually the Rogue just decided to sneak the hobgoblin commander (who was on the gateouse) for half his HP.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-05, 02:45 AM
This is caused by a mating of your character to your equipment. They are not the same.

Do you think it to be a possibility that you could end an adventure with less wealth than you started? Horrors! But in real life it often happens. And in the game it happens to everyone you meet. So why should the PC be a miraculous exception?

I'm not saying it should happen frequently, or even more than once.

And certainly if a fighter would rather stay home than trade out his magic Full Plate for a chain shirt, if there is simply no way he can part with 4 or 5 points of AC, and he would simply stay home and sip his warm beer and reminisce about old times while possibly wetting himself in his armor regularly, then there is nothing I can say to that "adventurer" that would change his life for the better.

I am only human.The issue is that it's not just 4-5 points of AC. It's a 20-25% chance of not being hit in the face with a sword, as well as Fortification to make getting hit less likely to kill you and Blurring for another 20% chance of not being hit that they're giving up. These people are risking their lives, they're allowed to be cautious.

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 02:52 AM
An option I've toyed with which would work better in 1E is requiring everyone to either be a Wizard or a class that has stealth skills. In 3E you also need to require that they keep up the stealth skills to maximum every level which is more difficult to swallow. In 1E if you had stealth skills at all they raised at a predictable rate when you went up a level.

Another option is to set them up ahead of time. Give them the opportunity to get in with a ranger band and quickstep over 2 years of forest combat against orcs or something. Along the way, they each get one character level in a single new prestige class. This prestige class has a special ability in the level one space that you MUST use one skill point per level on stealth regardless of which class you rise in, but that you get a rank each in Move Silent and Hide for that one point, and the PrC has both as class skills.

If the player refuses, saying he wants to put the level in his own prearranged class progression, just say he can take the PrC level or leave it but he can't choose something else. It's a free level for crying out loud. Give the class other abilities that are decent.

So then they gain 4-5 more levels and consequently gain 4-5 points of stealth. Makes things easier.

EDIT: Chilling effect due to forum rules caused self-censorship.

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 02:59 AM
The issue is that it's not just 4-5 points of AC. It's a 20-25% chance of not being hit in the face with a sword, as well as Fortification to make getting hit less likely to kill you and Blurring for another 20% chance of not being hit that they're giving up. These people are risking their lives, they're allowed to be cautious.

If you possess custom-enchanted armor with a +5 bonus equivalent in value, you can afford either to pile on a magical silence effect on it, or buy a decent mithril chain shirt with some enhancement bonus on it to lessen your chance of getting hit.

This is like a melee fighter complaining because the campaign has two adventures that involve flying on dragonback and using either reach weapons (which he isn't twinked out in) or missile weapons. It's two adventures in the whole thing, and it's just taking away some of your buff.

If the group is like you they would just say "nah we skip this one, we don't want to do this mission" and the DM would probably just shrug and move on. But you miss out on whatever enjoyment you would have had in that part of the game.

When the party enters Myth Drannor and they know they'll have to deal with the occasional dead magic or wild magic zone, do the spellcasters all just stay home? It would be silly.

EDIT: Chilling effect due to forum rules caused self-censorship.

skywalker
2008-12-05, 03:00 AM
This is caused by a mating of your character to your equipment. They are not the same.

Do you think it to be a possibility that you could end an adventure with less wealth than you started? Horrors! But in real life it often happens. And in the game it happens to everyone you meet. So why should the PC be a miraculous exception?

I'm not saying it should happen frequently, or even more than once.

And certainly if a fighter would rather stay home than trade out his magic Full Plate for a chain shirt, if there is simply no way he can part with 4 or 5 points of AC, and he would simply stay home and sip his warm beer and reminisce about old times while possibly wetting himself in his armor regularly, then there is nothing I can say to that "adventurer" that would change his life for the better.

I am only human.

I'm just explaining how I've seen actual sessions go. The difference between +5 full plate and a +0 chain shirt is a bit more than 5 points of AC...

When the only two options are "We can all go, and I will suck, and possibly die," and "We can all not go, and I will not suck, and we'll find some damn dragon that we don't have to sneak up on," most intelligent people would choose the second option. Intelligent people play to their strengths. For the big guy in armor, that's kicking in the door and cracking skulls. So why should the PC be a miraculous exception?

I think a smart, well-prepared party who knows what they're supposed to do (and the level of challenge) could handle it.

If they know the guards are too tough to fight, if they know they're going to have to kill the king, if they know the king is too tough for the rogue to simply knife him in his sleep, etc. Then they can prepare/buy silence, invisibility(I mean, really, if you're going to move the fighter around, do it right. Go all out), whatever else you need to sneak into any place, etc.

But honestly, that's a lot of knowledge you're expecting them to have and act on. So it will be pointed out that the guards are too tough. What's to stop the logic of "Well, if he calls the guards, we're screwed." ? I played a scenario similar to what you're describing once, and the end result? We started watching youtube videos instead, forgot about the game, and the campaign was never played again.
EDIT:

An option I've toyed with which would work better in 1E is requiring everyone to either be a Wizard or a class that has stealth skills. In 3E you also need to require that they keep up the stealth skills to maximum every level which is more difficult to swallow. In 1E if you had stealth skills at all they raised at a predictable rate when you went up a level.

Another option is to set them up ahead of time. Give them the opportunity to get in with a ranger band and quickstep over 2 years of forest combat against orcs or something. Along the way, they each get one character level in a single new prestige class. This prestige class has a special ability in the level one space that you MUST use one skill point per level on stealth regardless of which class you rise in, but that you get a rank each in Move Silent and Hide for that one point, and the PrC has both as class skills.

If the PC is a freak and refuses, saying he wants to put the level in his own prearranged class progression (say, he wants a level as Earthfire Jedi Padawan Clustergem Spartan instead) just say he can take the PrC level or leave it but he can't choose something else. It's a free level for crying out loud. Give the class other abilities that are decent.

So then they gain 4-5 more levels and consequently gain 4-5 points of stealth. Makes things easier. Except the jerk powergamer who had to have everything lined up just right. He can sit in the inn while everyone else plays. Everyone else knows a good thing in a free level when they see it.

Yes, of course, silly me, thinking we should allow people choices. Only "jerk powergamers" want choices. It becomes very easy once you force everyone to take ranks in stealth skills. Icewalker specifically asked about characters with no stealth skills.

Also, please, please don't use the word "twink."

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 03:08 AM
I guess what I'm getting at is this is variety. This is what happens when everything doesn't go your way. Such things occur. You don't want to play the same module over and over, right? But you want every adventure to involve your fighter character doing a lot of big tough fighting against monsters that don't pansy around. You are the British complaining that the American colonial rebels won't stand out in a field and fight fair.

This is just silly.

What do you think the thieves and wizards deal with? They're not all about toe to toe rumbling with the dragon. The rogue works best when he's already stealthed when the fight starts, when he can choose just when to even start the fight. The wizard would like to be invisible and buff up before the fight even starts. Sounds like you want kick-in-the-door play, which when undiluted deserves every ounce of derision it attracts.

If that's the kind of game you want, whatever, but there's more to D&D than Swordsages and Frenzied Berzerkers. Sometimes you're working out of your element. And if you try it the result might be entertaining after all.

EDIT: Chilling effect due to forum rules caused self-censorship.

Giving non-stealthers an opportunity to gain stealth skills at a reasonable and actually rather favorable rate is one solution to his question.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-05, 03:14 AM
If you possess custom-enchanted armor with a +5 bonus equivalent in value, you can afford either to pile on a magical silence effect on it, or buy a decent mithril chain shirt with some enhancement bonus on it to lessen your chance of getting hit. That was +3 equivalent. Going from +9 AC, 2 buffs to 4 AC, 4,000 GP to get one of those buffs is a bit more of a let-down than you seem to think.
This is like a melee fighter complaining because the campaign has two adventures that involve flying on dragonback and using either reach weapons (which he isn't twinked out in) or missile weapons.This is the meleer complaining because he's going to have to make himself very vulnerable in order to do something he will still suck at.
It's two adventures in the whole thing, and it's just taking away some of your buff. It's not the end of the world and it's not worth pouting and staying at the inn in *player* protest of the adventure. But it is, from an in-character perspective, a mission the Fighter would do everything in his power to avoid. Heck, the most logical thing i can think of to do in this situation is outsource. Hire a Rogue/Assassin party to do the job while you guys go off and do something you're actually suited for.
If the group is like you they would just say "nah we skip this one, we don't want to do this mission" and the DM would probably just shrug and move on. But you miss out on whatever enjoyment you would have had in that part of the game. So, none? Being a liability is never fun, and being a liability that's very likely to die is even less fun.
When the party enters Myth Drannor and they know they'll have to deal with the occasional dead magic or wild magic zone, do the spellcasters all just stay home? It would be silly. But it wouldn't be silly for the casters to prefer any other job, and maybe even not enter the dead magic zone where they're about as safe as a pizza at a college. I try to think of how my character would act, and a Fighter giving up his biggest defense isn't realistic for me when he's headed into a combat situation.

Edit: I normally play casters, and a free level that doesn't advance casting is a major nerf. It's better in the long run to not take it then catch up on the XP(nerfing you for a few levels) than it is to take a nerf that will last through Epic.

skywalker
2008-12-05, 03:37 AM
I guess what I'm getting at is this is variety. This is what happens when everything doesn't go your way. Such things occur. You don't want to play the same module over and over, right? But you want every adventure to involve your fighter character doing a lot of big tough fighting against monsters that don't pansy around. You are the British complaining that the American colonial rebels won't stand out in a field and fight fair.

This is just silly.

What do you think the thieves and wizards deal with? They're not all about toe to toe rumbling with the dragon. The rogue works best when he's already stealthed when the fight starts, when he can choose just when to even start the fight. The wizard would like to be invisible and buff up before the fight even starts. Sounds like you want kick-in-the-door play, which when undiluted deserves every ounce of derision it attracts.

If that's the kind of game you want, whatever, but there's more to D&D than Swordsages and Frenzied Berzerkers. Sometimes you're working out of your element. And if you try it the result might be entertaining after all.

EDIT: Chilling effect due to forum rules caused self-censorship.

Giving non-stealthers an opportunity to gain stealth skills at a reasonable and actually rather favorable rate is one solution to his question.

First off, you're not giving them. You're forcing them, and then acting like someone who doesn't is being stubborn and "a powergamer."

I'm not complaining at all. My character would probably do fine at this sort of thing. But, the fighter character is sitting over on the other side of the table going "uh, guys... I'm not too sure about this." And the rest of the party goes "Oh, yeah, Trog's wearing that heavy armor... Well, we certainly don't want Fred(who's playing Trog) to be nerfed... I guess we'll just buff up and do this thing Patton style..." If this fails, or obviously would, they say "Hey, we'll just let the rogue (possibly and the wizard) go kill the guy." When the rogue and/or wizard show up and can't kill him by theirselves, they jump out the window (hopefully) and say "guys, I can't get him by myself. What do we do?" Everybody reverts back to plan 1. When plan 1 fails (if everyone lives), the question becomes: "Well, do we try that again?" If everyone doesn't live, the plan becomes "go kill a dragon to make enough money to raise Trog, who was so nice to take those hits for us in his +5 armor." If everybody does live, maybe they try disguises. There should definitely be an option for the players to try the "traveling minstrels" trope.

But eventually, if enough of these attempts to keep all your shiny class features(which you, as an adventurer worked hard, nearly died for) while still advancing the plot fail, then it becomes "So guys, I brought my mechwarrior stuff..."

I have seen groups walk away from fights where they had less than 50% odds. In fact, they've probably walked away from more than they've fought.

I am not complaining, I am pointing out that the average D&D playstyle(what most people expect from the game) actually actively discourages "stealthy" gameplay involving the whole party. That's what I've been trying to point out this whole time.

On the subject of your rant about "kicking in the door" and how it's bad for the players other than the fighter, I disagree. The wizard takes no penalty, the rogue gets surprise if you literally kick in the door (meaning sneak attack), and an effective fighter means flanking for the rogue (more sneak attack). What we are talking about here is a situation that specifically nerfs the fighter in such a way that other classes are rarely nerfed (everyone is screwed in an AMF, etc.).

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 03:45 AM
You know what? I'm approaching this wrong. Let me explain.

The players come together because they want to play the same game. They do not want a game about superheroes. They do not want to play cartoon characters. They want to play D&D. And there is an agreement, even if unspoken, that the DM will introduce themes and events and characters that fit with D&D. Our disagreement appears to be centered on what we think fits within that agreed-upon play universe. What possibilities are to be produced by the DM and accepted by the players?

Because at any time if the player is dissatisfied he can leave, and if the DM is dissatisfies he can stop DMing. We see this occasionally.

In my view, D&D can include stealthy elements. In your view as a player it is not acceptable to include stealth elements. If you played in a D&D game where the DM introduced stealth elements (and you were not playing a stealthy character) you would refuse that theme. You would just have your character not participate.

To the DM, that is confusing. What of the agreement? And so the quick-thinking DM realizes that the agreement (unspoken of course) is not what he thought. Of course he is allowed to offer up any theme he chooses, but it's fruitless to offer a theme the players will reject. He must offer themes palatable to them.

You tell your DM in this way that you do not want stealth themes in your D&D. You tell him in this way, over many sessions, what themes are acceptable.

Let us assume that the themes which are unacceptable are those which exclude completely any party member. This is a choice on the player's part of course, but in this gaming group we observe that if a player's character is disadvantaged he will rescind his character from the adventure and in so doing reject the theme.

But the characters in D&D are so varied, what themes are acceptable to everyone? Surely not stealth, as the bulky Fighters must stay behind. Not dead or wild magic, as the spellcasters might be seriously disadvantaged, and everyone dislikes adventuring in dead magic. Underwater adventures require special magic equipment which is often costly, limited melee effectiveness, no ranged weapon use, and altered spell effects. Few will want to play underwater adventures, and surely this theme will be roundly rejected by the players.

What I am saying, in general, is that in my experience players whom I play with seem to be into trying new things even if their characters might be disadvantaged. It is very rare, truly quite rare, for a player to reject a theme. And not for lack of DM creativity and variety, but for an openminded approach to the game.

I suggest only that you reject only those themes that you absolutely object to, and hold theme rejection to a very high standard of character disadvantage before using it. I would say a Cleric who doesn't want to go into a plane where he will lose all contact with his deity and lose all Supernatural abilities and spells is a perfectly reasonable rejection. But a Fighter who loses the use of one of his many magic items in exchange for a weaker version, even though it's important to him, is probably not sufficient cause for rejection.

BobVosh
2008-12-05, 03:47 AM
Pfft. Easy enough. Load up rogue on invise, silence, etc. Party in the portable hole! Rogue sneaks by, and weee portable hole placed on BBEG's back. Then rogue stabs liver as party hops out of the BBEG's butt.

Stealth games aren't fun. Also always follow the rule of 3. 3 solutions for every problem. Someone with the link, feel free to link it.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-05, 03:52 AM
I suggest only that you reject only those themes that you absolutely object to, and hold theme rejection to a very high standard of character disadvantage before using it. I would say a Cleric who doesn't want to go into a plane where he will lose all contact with his deity and lose all Supernatural abilities and spells is a perfectly reasonable rejection. But a Fighter who loses the use of one of his many magic items in exchange for a weaker version, even though it's important to him, is probably not sufficient cause for rejection.The problem I think is that from my perspective, my DM runs us very close to death a lot. Losing your second-most powerful item, the one that exists solely to keep me alive, is to be avoided at all costs. I'm also used to running from levels 5-10, when you can't afford to just get a new suit of armor. At best, you can spend ~500 on an item that's less than half as effective as your current armor as well as missing the bulk of what you've invested in it, meaning you'll probably die. I view this sort of as similar to asking a caster to wear full-plate. No, it's not certain death, but that much of a decrease in effectiveness is a big issue.

Tacoma
2008-12-05, 03:56 AM
I'm going to totally 180 on this.

When I play a rogue (thief in 2E) I never use an ability unless my chance is 95% (assuming a 1 always fails or gives a -10 result). There is no reason to bother picking pockets unless you will succeed every single time.

Boring? Yeah. I just realized this with the above post. Stealth IS boring. Why? It's either about failing a lot and restarting or your always automatically stealth and it's boring because there's no risk.

Stealth is fine for video games. Repetition seems all the rage with those anyway. Metal Gear I'm looking at you. But in a tabletop game you can't just have a fuzzy screen transition and a save game reload. So it has to be always flawless stealth or I don't bother.

Given the original question, I would decide if loading up with stealth magic will guarantee stealth success. If not, we come up with a different plan.

But still. We don't give up and go to the next adventure unless it's just not possible.

Xefas
2008-12-05, 04:00 AM
Here's a simple solution I thought of while studying for an algebra test.

Okay, so you want the PCs to be able to do something, but they don't have the ability to do it. So: Give them the ability to do it.

Have them find a limited use item that polymorphs them into something stealthy or Potions of Arbitrarily Large Stealth Skill Bonuses, or have them find a tapestry that temporarily binds Vestiges to them that give them all crazy rogue powers, Magic Jar them all into the bodies of Rogues for the duration of the adventure, or hell, why not just have someone cast Icewalker's Uncontrollable Hideous Stealth Buff that gives them what they need.

That way, it doesn't matter who takes your adventure and uses it and what party composition they have- those parts will always be possible.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-12-05, 04:16 AM
I'm going to totally 180 on this.

When I play a rogue (thief in 2E) I never use an ability unless my chance is 95% (assuming a 1 always fails or gives a -10 result). There is no reason to bother picking pockets unless you will succeed every single time.

Boring? Yeah. I just realized this with the above post. Stealth IS boring. Why? It's either about failing a lot and restarting or your always automatically stealth and it's boring because there's no risk.

Stealth is fine for video games. Repetition seems all the rage with those anyway. Metal Gear I'm looking at you. But in a tabletop game you can't just have a fuzzy screen transition and a save game reload. So it has to be always flawless stealth or I don't bother.

Given the original question, I would decide if loading up with stealth magic will guarantee stealth success. If not, we come up with a different plan.

But still. We don't give up and go to the next adventure unless it's just not possible.Sarcasm, I assume? I love risk, that's why I stick around with a DM that hit our ~10th level party with Blasphemy(2/3rds of us escaped and rescued the rest). Chance of failure makes the game interesting. But I'm used to games where going without adequate armor means you're probably going to lose the character, which is not fun, and not an IC decision at all.

skywalker
2008-12-05, 04:26 AM
You know what? I'm approaching this wrong. Let me explain.

The players come together because they want to play the same game. They do not want a game about superheroes. They do not want to play cartoon characters. They want to play D&D. And there is an agreement, even if unspoken, that the DM will introduce themes and events and characters that fit with D&D. Our disagreement appears to be centered on what we think fits within that agreed-upon play universe. What possibilities are to be produced by the DM and accepted by the players?

Because at any time if the player is dissatisfied he can leave, and if the DM is dissatisfies he can stop DMing. We see this occasionally.

In my view, D&D can include stealthy elements. In your view as a player it is not acceptable to include stealth elements. If you played in a D&D game where the DM introduced stealth elements (and you were not playing a stealthy character) you would refuse that theme. You would just have your character not participate.

To the DM, that is confusing. What of the agreement? And so the quick-thinking DM realizes that the agreement (unspoken of course) is not what he thought. Of course he is allowed to offer up any theme he chooses, but it's fruitless to offer a theme the players will reject. He must offer themes palatable to them.

You tell your DM in this way that you do not want stealth themes in your D&D. You tell him in this way, over many sessions, what themes are acceptable.

Let us assume that the themes which are unacceptable are those which exclude completely any party member. This is a choice on the player's part of course, but in this gaming group we observe that if a player's character is disadvantaged he will rescind his character from the adventure and in so doing reject the theme.

But the characters in D&D are so varied, what themes are acceptable to everyone? Surely not stealth, as the bulky Fighters must stay behind. Not dead or wild magic, as the spellcasters might be seriously disadvantaged, and everyone dislikes adventuring in dead magic. Underwater adventures require special magic equipment which is often costly, limited melee effectiveness, no ranged weapon use, and altered spell effects. Few will want to play underwater adventures, and surely this theme will be roundly rejected by the players.

What I am saying, in general, is that in my experience players whom I play with seem to be into trying new things even if their characters might be disadvantaged. It is very rare, truly quite rare, for a player to reject a theme. And not for lack of DM creativity and variety, but for an openminded approach to the game.

I suggest only that you reject only those themes that you absolutely object to, and hold theme rejection to a very high standard of character disadvantage before using it. I would say a Cleric who doesn't want to go into a plane where he will lose all contact with his deity and lose all Supernatural abilities and spells is a perfectly reasonable rejection. But a Fighter who loses the use of one of his many magic items in exchange for a weaker version, even though it's important to him, is probably not sufficient cause for rejection.

That was a very intelligent post. What I am suggesting is not that the player who is disadvantaged is rescinding himself from the adventure. What I am suggesting is that the other players will refuse to enter a situation where said player is disadvantaged to protect him from that fact. I've never seen a player say "Well, I'm not going because I can't sneak in my armor." I have seen a player say "Well, George's fighter can't go, so we're not going." It is almost never as selfish as you indicate.

I think STK made a very good point, the armor is not one of many magic items. After his weapon, it is the fighter's most treasured thing, and, frankly, is probably more important to his function than the weapon. And sure, if he has enough time to buy a new chain shirt, he could, but honestly, he's still nerfed (because there's still an ACP, and he still has no ranks) and the party will probably still be discovered. And if this BBEG isn't capable of being killed by a timely sneak attack or two from the rogue, he'll probably mop the floor with the fighter in his inferior armor.

Maybe we've just got different types of players. My players avoid water like the plague (like most medieval people!), and any time they are forced to either be stealthy or go into dead magic zones (with no alternative), they cry foul. Questions of "Why are you trying to screw us?" surface. The primary theme (which you talked about a lot) that most people expect from D&D is: You kill things. You take their stuff, sell it, and buy more stuff you wanted. You use that stuff to kill more things, whose better stuff you take/sell so that you can get better stuff, and then you use that stuff to kill bigger things. Any interference with the things ->stuff ->bigger things ->better stuff economic progression is cause for alarm for some players.

Eldran
2008-12-05, 05:46 AM
...
However, there are two parts in the campaign where stealth is needed. How does one accomplish a stealth-based adventure in a standard dnd party, containing people with no hide or move silently whatsoever?


Possible Solutions


Teamwork Benefit: Design a "Move Silently" Version of "Cunning Ambush" (PHB2) and use this to allow your Stealthy PC to help out the non-stealthy guys. For "Hide"-situations the original "cunning ambush" TWB is of course an ideal solution. Magic can round out this version through dexterity-boosting spells and the like.

The already mentioned combination of a magical silence effect and invisibility, in this case the "Sphere of invisibility" spell would be perfect. The stealthy PC scouts a little ahead and the others follow him in their cloaking field.

Let the players design a good plan or give them some hints of one through the NPCs they work for or with. The most obvious thing would be to use false uniforms and some background research along with preparations and a good bluff skill. If all fails... go through the sewers...

Michaelos
2008-12-05, 07:24 AM
Here's a simple solution I thought of while studying for an algebra test.

Okay, so you want the PCs to be able to do something, but they don't have the ability to do it. So: Give them the ability to do it.

Have them find a limited use item that polymorphs them into something stealthy or Potions of Arbitrarily Large Stealth Skill Bonuses, or have them find a tapestry that temporarily binds Vestiges to them that give them all crazy rogue powers, Magic Jar them all into the bodies of Rogues for the duration of the adventure, or hell, why not just have someone cast Icewalker's Uncontrollable Hideous Stealth Buff that gives them what they need.

That way, it doesn't matter who takes your adventure and uses it and what party composition they have- those parts will always be possible.

I've done this. It works pretty well. Party fought an Enchantress. Enchantress's Will save busting spells were very effective. The Party did a bit of research, came to the brilliant conclusion (so brilliant that even though I hadn't actually come up with the solution yet, I stole the PC solution and made it true) that the Towns Unpopular and Evil King would have a Crown of Disobedience. Got in touch with some thieves, had them steal it for some treasure, had them fight off Royal guards chasing down said thieves, Went and fought Enchantress, won. (The Enchantress blew herself up, Karmically, being killed by one of her controlled children reading an Explosive runes.)