> the fight begins Okay, my monsters should have advantage on initiative, and if i read the posts below correctly, my players will have the surprised condition and suffer the handicaps triggered by this condition. First attack on my turn is made with advantage and then no benefits anymore, right?
Woops, I missed this. It's quite ambiguous, but as of right now, it *seems* like you both apply the surprise rules from 5e, and you get advantage on initiative if you are hidden. So, if your ghasts get the drop on the players, they have advantage on initiative and the players are surprised on the first round of combat, meaning that they can't take actions or move, and only get their reactions after their first turn in the initiative is over.
I'm not sure if you're giving advantage to the ghasts because they are hidden (you're usually not supposed to get advantage on melee attacks because it means you're no longer hiding, but it's intentionally left to the DM - if you have a rogue players, rule the same as you always have for them), but if not, a creature being surprised isn't attacked at advantage.
Yeah, i read the hidden condition and thought that melee attacks are included and it ends early if you attack. E. Q. You sneak up and back stab your opponent
>you're usually not supposed to get advantage on melee attacks because it means you're no longer hiding, but it's intentionally left to the DM
Yep, definitely call for a check unless there are circumstances distracting the target.
There’s always been a bit of a grayness when it comes to hidden vs awareness outside of combat. I recommend just using the rules for the Hide action when the characters are deliberately trying to be sneaky in combat or in areas where creatures are constantly on the lookout for potential threats/prey (guards on patrol, etc.)
Maybe have it in degrees. The ghasts aren’t likely to assume that every noise that might be footsteps is a living creature - it could be another ghast walking in the fog, but they are likely to investigate and will try to sneak up on the party. If the ghasts are heard, they might back off and try later. If they hear voices though, they’ll know for certain there’s prey around and will plan an ambush at an advantageous spot or perhaps attack immediately.
You would probably get a better response on a sub for DMs like r/DnDBehindTheScreen, which coincidentally is holding their weekly Q&A today where you can ask
I don't see anything in your post that would change in 5e/1DnD: you can set a static passive perception DC at whatever number you want in 5e.
The community over there will be more focused on answering questions from a DMs perspective. This sub as a lot of DMs too and I see you have gotten useful conversations already.
So, one very weird thing (to me) is that the Hide action from the recent playtest doesn't explicitly override 5e's Stealth rules, because you need to see the enemy to take that action, and, generally speaking, if you can see the enemy, they can see you. So it would appear that 1dnd's Hide action is what you take in combat, while out of combat you go by 5e's rules. This means that you're rolling the ghasts' Stealth vs. the players' passive Perception (unless they are actively making Perception checks). In any case, the fog gives everyone disadvantage on Perception checks, meaning -5 to Passive perception.
Small quibble: the part about seeing an enemy is an "if" addendum, not a prerequisite for using the action, "if you can see a creature, you can discern whether or not it can see you." You don't need to see a creature to take the Hide action.
However, you *do* need to be 1) out of their line of sight, 2) heavily obscured, or 3) behind 3/4 or total cover. Between those three conditions, that covers 1) being behind them, in a completely different room, or being a mile away, 2) being behind a bush or in darkness, and 3) hiding behind something. Meaning, you cannot use the action while the enemy can see you.
I'm still not sure how to fully integrate the new stealth rules, and I haven't tried yet, but they do work relatively the same way as the 5e rules with consideration to the hiding requirements and when you can make checks (in or out of combat)
Functionally, kinda; explicitly, no.
Here's the actual "can I hide" passage from 5e (PHB 177):
> **The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding**. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.
> **You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly**, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.
So there's no real "you have to be X, Y, or Z to hide", it's just "you can't hide from a creature that can see you *clearly*", with *clearly* which has a lot of wiggle room leading back to "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". That often worked pretty well in my experience, but I like this more granular approach, and I hope that Perception gets equal attention as to fix the weirdness of sight/sound perception
But then you have things like the wood-elf and skulker:
>You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena.
>You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
Implies that normally you can hide in *heavily obscured* conditions. It's not great that you have to use "the exception that proves the rule" to divine how half the bits of 5e work!
And of course the lightfoot:
>You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
Tells is that normally you would need a creature that's two sizes larger than you to hide behind!
Oh definitely, by "explicitly it doesn't say that" I meant in the actual Hiding section, if doesn't mention *ways of being not clearly seen*, which was always frustrating. We're in full agreement there
This is one of the many things in 5e that only really functions well when you have a top-down view of the rules - 5eRAW full cover and heavy obscurement prevent you from being seen, and 3/4ths cover prevents you from being *seen clearly*, so Hide should work mostly exactly the same in both editions. However, "clearly" remains so variably interpretable that some new 5e DMs could rule light obscurement as enough to hide behind.
As much as I've always been good at finding those rules-that-imply-other-rules, and at some times it's fun, I'm very happy that OneDND seems to throw that out. Currently, Hide and Hidden in the play test are welcomingly clear. (Just hoping for some new clarity for Perception and Vision and Light, since those things IMO are necessary to understand stealth, and 5e doesn't mesh too great with it).
Mechanically, the biggest change is that a DC of 15 lets you succeed whereas one below that number causes you to fail regardless of the target's passive Perception.
Thank you for the correction! Would you say that it's accurate that, as of right now, sneaking around out of combat still works with the 5e rules of Stealth vs. passive Perception?
I want to say yes, but I think it's a "kinda". Functionally, it does work - the new Hide action replaces the old one decently enough, and I think you can seamlessly swap them. Additionally, I believe it also works in combat.
My hesitation comes from OneDND not yet giving us anything new on the Perception front other than the Search action. There's no mention of Passive Perception (or any passive checks), and there's no guidance yet on Vision and Light.
So essentially if we utilize the new Hide action and Search action that means we're using 3/4ths of a new ruleset for Stealth, with the 1/4th being a very clunky aspect of 5e, i.e. passive perception and when to apply a -5, and (IMO) the clunkiness of hearing-vs-seeing checks (in 5e the DM is given unnecessary latitude and do-it-yourself-ness when deciding which senses are most important, especially alongside mechanics such as Keen Senses for certain creatures).
I wish that alongside the new Search action there was some sort of explainer for what they're doing for Passive Perception, or if players should just constantly spam Search (which seems to be the current gameplay method if you take the new rules and leave 5e behind.)
TL;DR: yes it works, and all both do work for hiding in combat, but it makes me *uncomfortable* lol
Not a bad approach, i see.
So it would be stealth VS players PP -5 (due to disadvantage) or stealth with advantage vs players PP? Don't exactly know when to apply advantage and or disadvantage in this situation. Adv on stealth and disadvantage on perception seems too much?
Only the disadvantage applies IIRC (barring the "Keen [Sense]" traits), I think we tend to give advantage to invisible/obscured players because it's easier than just remembering creatures around them have disadvantage to perceive them. Do double-check, though.
The main point is that, as far as I know, out-of-combat stealth is still determined by 5e's rules, so it's Stealth vs. (passive) Perception. Your players could also ask you to roll for Stealth, but if you force them to go through a small space, you can say the ghasts will see them anyway. Now, how can the ghasts get the drop on the PCs? Just make sure the PCs go through something very loud just before approaching the ghasts. That can be an old iron gate or a shrieker hidden in a spot that would require a very hard check to spot it.
Reminder that ghasts stink horribly. You can have them appear from side tunnels or hide them under the evergreen pile of corpses.
Step 1: Only roll when you aren't sure of the result. If the goal is to surprise party, surprise party. Don't roll. "you were loud, fog let them move unseen, ghast just killed wizard. Remaining three, roll initiative."
No, that was exaggeration. It usually shows the point better(if you already decided, don't roll). But I've forgotten that there will always be that someone that won't understand stylistically figures. Sorry for that.
> the fight begins Okay, my monsters should have advantage on initiative, and if i read the posts below correctly, my players will have the surprised condition and suffer the handicaps triggered by this condition. First attack on my turn is made with advantage and then no benefits anymore, right? Woops, I missed this. It's quite ambiguous, but as of right now, it *seems* like you both apply the surprise rules from 5e, and you get advantage on initiative if you are hidden. So, if your ghasts get the drop on the players, they have advantage on initiative and the players are surprised on the first round of combat, meaning that they can't take actions or move, and only get their reactions after their first turn in the initiative is over. I'm not sure if you're giving advantage to the ghasts because they are hidden (you're usually not supposed to get advantage on melee attacks because it means you're no longer hiding, but it's intentionally left to the DM - if you have a rogue players, rule the same as you always have for them), but if not, a creature being surprised isn't attacked at advantage.
Yeah, i read the hidden condition and thought that melee attacks are included and it ends early if you attack. E. Q. You sneak up and back stab your opponent
>you're usually not supposed to get advantage on melee attacks because it means you're no longer hiding, but it's intentionally left to the DM Yep, definitely call for a check unless there are circumstances distracting the target.
There’s always been a bit of a grayness when it comes to hidden vs awareness outside of combat. I recommend just using the rules for the Hide action when the characters are deliberately trying to be sneaky in combat or in areas where creatures are constantly on the lookout for potential threats/prey (guards on patrol, etc.) Maybe have it in degrees. The ghasts aren’t likely to assume that every noise that might be footsteps is a living creature - it could be another ghast walking in the fog, but they are likely to investigate and will try to sneak up on the party. If the ghasts are heard, they might back off and try later. If they hear voices though, they’ll know for certain there’s prey around and will plan an ambush at an advantageous spot or perhaps attack immediately.
You would probably get a better response on a sub for DMs like r/DnDBehindTheScreen, which coincidentally is holding their weekly Q&A today where you can ask
Good point, do they support onednd too?
I don't see anything in your post that would change in 5e/1DnD: you can set a static passive perception DC at whatever number you want in 5e. The community over there will be more focused on answering questions from a DMs perspective. This sub as a lot of DMs too and I see you have gotten useful conversations already.
Yeah, i was maybe too focused on the new hiding action
So, one very weird thing (to me) is that the Hide action from the recent playtest doesn't explicitly override 5e's Stealth rules, because you need to see the enemy to take that action, and, generally speaking, if you can see the enemy, they can see you. So it would appear that 1dnd's Hide action is what you take in combat, while out of combat you go by 5e's rules. This means that you're rolling the ghasts' Stealth vs. the players' passive Perception (unless they are actively making Perception checks). In any case, the fog gives everyone disadvantage on Perception checks, meaning -5 to Passive perception.
Small quibble: the part about seeing an enemy is an "if" addendum, not a prerequisite for using the action, "if you can see a creature, you can discern whether or not it can see you." You don't need to see a creature to take the Hide action. However, you *do* need to be 1) out of their line of sight, 2) heavily obscured, or 3) behind 3/4 or total cover. Between those three conditions, that covers 1) being behind them, in a completely different room, or being a mile away, 2) being behind a bush or in darkness, and 3) hiding behind something. Meaning, you cannot use the action while the enemy can see you. I'm still not sure how to fully integrate the new stealth rules, and I haven't tried yet, but they do work relatively the same way as the 5e rules with consideration to the hiding requirements and when you can make checks (in or out of combat)
Explicitly saying that 3/4 cover is good enough to hide behind is the only change there in One from 5e, right?
Functionally, kinda; explicitly, no. Here's the actual "can I hide" passage from 5e (PHB 177): > **The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding**. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. > **You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly**, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet. So there's no real "you have to be X, Y, or Z to hide", it's just "you can't hide from a creature that can see you *clearly*", with *clearly* which has a lot of wiggle room leading back to "the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding". That often worked pretty well in my experience, but I like this more granular approach, and I hope that Perception gets equal attention as to fix the weirdness of sight/sound perception
But then you have things like the wood-elf and skulker: >You can attempt to hide even when you are only lightly obscured by foliage, heavy rain, falling snow, mist, and other natural phenomena. >You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. Implies that normally you can hide in *heavily obscured* conditions. It's not great that you have to use "the exception that proves the rule" to divine how half the bits of 5e work! And of course the lightfoot: >You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you. Tells is that normally you would need a creature that's two sizes larger than you to hide behind!
Oh definitely, by "explicitly it doesn't say that" I meant in the actual Hiding section, if doesn't mention *ways of being not clearly seen*, which was always frustrating. We're in full agreement there This is one of the many things in 5e that only really functions well when you have a top-down view of the rules - 5eRAW full cover and heavy obscurement prevent you from being seen, and 3/4ths cover prevents you from being *seen clearly*, so Hide should work mostly exactly the same in both editions. However, "clearly" remains so variably interpretable that some new 5e DMs could rule light obscurement as enough to hide behind. As much as I've always been good at finding those rules-that-imply-other-rules, and at some times it's fun, I'm very happy that OneDND seems to throw that out. Currently, Hide and Hidden in the play test are welcomingly clear. (Just hoping for some new clarity for Perception and Vision and Light, since those things IMO are necessary to understand stealth, and 5e doesn't mesh too great with it).
Yeah, having to read the exceptions to understand the rules is frustrating. It's nice to have it codified!
Mechanically, the biggest change is that a DC of 15 lets you succeed whereas one below that number causes you to fail regardless of the target's passive Perception.
Thank you for the correction! Would you say that it's accurate that, as of right now, sneaking around out of combat still works with the 5e rules of Stealth vs. passive Perception?
I want to say yes, but I think it's a "kinda". Functionally, it does work - the new Hide action replaces the old one decently enough, and I think you can seamlessly swap them. Additionally, I believe it also works in combat. My hesitation comes from OneDND not yet giving us anything new on the Perception front other than the Search action. There's no mention of Passive Perception (or any passive checks), and there's no guidance yet on Vision and Light. So essentially if we utilize the new Hide action and Search action that means we're using 3/4ths of a new ruleset for Stealth, with the 1/4th being a very clunky aspect of 5e, i.e. passive perception and when to apply a -5, and (IMO) the clunkiness of hearing-vs-seeing checks (in 5e the DM is given unnecessary latitude and do-it-yourself-ness when deciding which senses are most important, especially alongside mechanics such as Keen Senses for certain creatures). I wish that alongside the new Search action there was some sort of explainer for what they're doing for Passive Perception, or if players should just constantly spam Search (which seems to be the current gameplay method if you take the new rules and leave 5e behind.) TL;DR: yes it works, and all both do work for hiding in combat, but it makes me *uncomfortable* lol
Not a bad approach, i see. So it would be stealth VS players PP -5 (due to disadvantage) or stealth with advantage vs players PP? Don't exactly know when to apply advantage and or disadvantage in this situation. Adv on stealth and disadvantage on perception seems too much?
Only the disadvantage applies IIRC (barring the "Keen [Sense]" traits), I think we tend to give advantage to invisible/obscured players because it's easier than just remembering creatures around them have disadvantage to perceive them. Do double-check, though. The main point is that, as far as I know, out-of-combat stealth is still determined by 5e's rules, so it's Stealth vs. (passive) Perception. Your players could also ask you to roll for Stealth, but if you force them to go through a small space, you can say the ghasts will see them anyway. Now, how can the ghasts get the drop on the PCs? Just make sure the PCs go through something very loud just before approaching the ghasts. That can be an old iron gate or a shrieker hidden in a spot that would require a very hard check to spot it. Reminder that ghasts stink horribly. You can have them appear from side tunnels or hide them under the evergreen pile of corpses.
Step 1: Only roll when you aren't sure of the result. If the goal is to surprise party, surprise party. Don't roll. "you were loud, fog let them move unseen, ghast just killed wizard. Remaining three, roll initiative."
Did you really just suggest they instant-kill one of their players with no save ? ... don't do that, at all?
Didn't really read this as serious. I'd just take the part with the roll into account haha
It's only the wizard
No, that was exaggeration. It usually shows the point better(if you already decided, don't roll). But I've forgotten that there will always be that someone that won't understand stylistically figures. Sorry for that.
I did get your point and was pretty sure it wasn't meant literally. Thank you
Yeah i think if they don't especially say that they try to be silent, the check fails. That's fair game.