D&D 5e Stealth Quick Fix

[sparkletwist]

I've ranted in detail about the many rules gaps in D&D 5th edition, but one of the biggest problems to me is the Stealth system, because the rules as written are vague at best and actively unhelpful at worst. There's no actual definition in the rules for what hidden means, and phrases like "you can't hide from a creature that can see you" (PHB p. 177) raise questions that the rules don't answer-- isn't the point of hiding that they don't see you? I think a few small changes can be made to the rules that allow most of what currently exists to be used more sensibly, though, and at least allow the DM to adjudicate things in a logical way with some good guidelines, rather than the incoherent mess that exists now.

The way the rules are currently written, they strongly suggest you have to already be unseen and undetected, and then you can hide, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. My suggestion is to instead use the Stealth check to determine if you are undetected, and, if you are-- that is, if you succeed on the Stealth check-- you are hidden. This actually gives us a coherent definition of what it actually means to be hidden, too.

[ic=Terminology]
Hidden means your current location is unknown to any enemies or potential enemies. They may know your approximate location (e.g., what room you are in) but they cannot exactly pinpoint you.
[/ic]

If you don't know if a character is hidden from another one or not, roll a Stealth vs. Perception check and there's your answer.

When trying to attack a hidden foe, the standard rules can apply: choose a square and attack with disadvantage. If the foe is actually there, you might hit. If the foe is not there, you don't know that, and the DM will just call the roll a miss, regardless. This means that actions that may indirectly give away your location, like knocking over a vase, don't automatically make you not hidden. You remain hidden until a foe actually sees (or otherwise senses) you and confirms you're there. They may automatically be able to see you or they may require a Perception roll depending on the circumstances... I've left this up to the DM, because it's very situational and this is a quick fix. Otherwise, if they can't confirm your location, like if there are just some shadows and they have a pretty good idea you might be there but can't be sure, they have to take the guess and attack with disadvantage and see if they hit anything.

The Hide action in combat is problematic, too, because it's listed as a "combat action" and on PHB p. 192 it says that the Hide action uses the rules for hiding given in chapter 7, but the rules for hiding given in chapter 7 (on p. 177) explicitly say that hiding usually doesn't work in combat. So... what do we do about this? D&D is too abstract to care about facing, but I also think its unrealistic to assume that someone can always see 360 degrees around them, especially in combat when someone might be swinging a sword at you from the other direction, and double especially when trying to oppose someone who is trained at stealth. So, as long as you have a reasonable place to hide (e.g., ducking into shadows, behind a pillar, or whatever) you can hide in combat with a Hide action. You're hidden from anyone who got a Perception check and failed, and you can stay hidden as long as you end your turn in a place where you can hide-- dashing across the open space while their back is turned, or the like. Anyone who didn't get a Perception check when you originally hid gets one when applicable, but if they fail, you still count as hidden from them, so you can sneak out of the shadows and stab them in the back or whatnot.

There are still a lot of holes in these mechanics, like how much cover is valid for hiding and how much benefit the Search action gives you, but these are things a DM can figure out situationally. This is just meant to be a quick fix.

[LoA]

I had an Idea. What if someone started a "1001 House Rules or Something" thread that was devoted to compiling every ones house rules and quick fixes. People here come up with interesting and amazing house rules, and it would be cool to have a resource that made it easier to find every ones stuff.

[Steerpike]

This is essentially how I interpret the 5th edition stealth system. I think the only thing I might do differently, potentially, is to consider granting disadvantage on a stealth check while dashing between hiding places in combat, at least if the open ground is reasonably well-lit, though if another player was actively distracting foes (directly engaged in melee combat, for example) I might drop the disadvantage.

One thing I was curious about - where does it say that hiding usually can't be done in combat?? I'm looking at p. 177 and do not see this at all - the closest I can see is that "in combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted" (emphasis mine).

As I interpret this, you can hide just fine in combat provided you're in a suitable position, but if you leave your hiding spot and get close to someone, they usually see you, but there's plenty of wiggle room for situations where this wouldn't make sense.

Are we just reading it differently or am I missing something?

[sparkletwist]

Are we just reading it differently or am I missing something?

I think we're reading it differently, because it's kind of a mess. I took "in combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you" to mean that hiding probably doesn't work in combat. I mean, it would help if they explained what "usually" means in this context, but, lacking that explanation, I just figured it wouldn't work most of the time so don't bother. It also says "under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted," but it doesn't explain what those certain circumstances are or what counts as a distraction, so I didn't really give this clause a lot of weight. I'll give you that it's possible they meant that those certain circumstances could apply to the midst of combat, but I took the "However" to mean this was a separate thing from the previous stuff about combat, like a situation where you could get the drop on somebody, or whatever. I'll give you that it could mean there are times when hiding in combat works fine, but without an actual mechanical definition of "hiding" or "distracted" I have no idea how to get coherent rules out of this, so I made my own.

[Steerpike]

I read the "however" as directly stating the exceptions to the "usually." Distraction is definitely left vague (though it seems pretty easy to imagine in real life what would be distracting enough).

I read the passage as basically saying that hiding doesn't work in combat if and only if you come out and approach a creature - so you can still hide in combat if you aren't breaking cover to approach someone. For example, if you're sniping from a hiding spot, shooting and then moving out of sight to hide again, that's totally fine. Or if you are retreating and duck round a corner and find a hiding spot from a pursuing monster, that's also fine (you're not approaching, you're not coming out of hiding, and the monster can't see you at the moment you hide). But if the monster missed you and kept moving down the corridor, and you then got out of your hiding spot and approached it, you would no longer be hiding, unless there are circumstances distracting it, like, for example, another party member down the corridor taunting it, or a skillfully cast ghost sound.

[sparkletwist]

That's a sensible enough interpretation, and it's pretty close to what I used in my house rules.

I don't think that's what the rules unambiguously say, though, nor does it still not leave a lot up in the air (i.e, up to the DM) such as what 'usually' and 'under certain circumstances' even mean, or whether "and you approach a creature" must strictly follow "if you come out of hiding and" or if it's possible to not come out of hiding and approach a creature... and, if so, what the rules are for doing that.

So if your point is that you like these house rules, and you do things very similarly already, great. :)
If your point is that the rules in the PHB already say most of this... I don't agree with that at all.

[Steerpike]

I think my point is essentially that I feel this is a good interpretation of the rules that extrapolates well from what is written to flesh out what is a pretty skeletal system.

I think you perceive the rules as more inherently contradictory or messy than I do, but I'd agree they are loose or, in places, relatively vague. 5th generally airs on the side of broad, deliberately general rules, and it sometimes lands more on the side of "vague and confusing" rather than "elegantly simple." Stealth feels closer to the former. Basically I feel the rules are neither bad nor unusable as such - you don't need to violate anything that's written down in the book to use them - but could be more detailed, and you supply a very good account of those details here.

[sparkletwist]

I feel the rules are neither bad nor unusable as such

I don't consider the rules "usable" as written because if you are trying to follow the rules as written in the book you literally can't.

You have to start making stuff up as you go along from the very beginning. They use "hidden" as a term like it has mechanical relevance but never bother to define what it actually does, they never bother to explain what the difference is between Wisdom(Perception) and Intelligence(Investigation) for spotting hidden stuff, they never bother to give any insight as to what the "certain circumstances" might be that would cause a creature to be distracted, and they define "cover" as something affecting attack rolls but never bother to explain how that connects to being "obscured" for the purpose of stealth.

They don't really even bother to define what the Stealth skill is even useful for. The PHB says "when you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check," and it also says "you can't hide from a creature that can see you." So, the check as to whether the creature can see you is not part of the Stealth check, because you can't actually make the Stealth check until it has been determined that the creature cannot see you. The idea that being unseen and being hidden are distinct states is reinforced by the statement "an invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide." Who can see you is seemingly based on some visibility rules on PHB p.183 that are completely deterministic as written: being heavily obscured allows you to hide 100% of the time, because you can't be seen, while lightly obscured allows you to hide 0% of the time, because you can be seen. The wood elf seems to reinforce the idea that this system is actually what they intended because of the ""Mask of the Wild" ability allowing you to hide when lightly obscured. And, no, they don't bother to explain what the sight-based Wisdom(Perception) checks that you have disadvantage on are actually even for... as written, it seems like the only time you'd actually even roll this is when opposing the Stealth check of a wood elf. And when the DM arbitrarily decides that a roll is needed, I guess. Anyway, it also says "signs of its passage might still be noticed" so not leaving tracks is a clearly supposed to be precondition for stealth but the DCs for noticing tracks (on DMG p. 244) are also all static so your Stealth skill doesn't matter there, either. All the Stealth skill does, apparently, is put this "hidden" keyword on you that they never bother to define what it does.

you don't need to violate anything that's written down in the book to use them

You actually do. I mean, it's hard to nail too much down when they're this vague, but still, PHB p. 183 says "a heavily obscured area-- such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage-- blocks vision entirely. A creature in a heavily obscured area effectively suffers from the blinded condition." As written, this means that if you are looking out of a darkened area into a bright area, you still can't actually see anything, because it clearly states you are in a heavily obscured area which blocks vision entirely. There may be more, but that's enough to disprove your assertion.

[Steerpike]

Those seems like very literal interpretation of the rules "by the letter of the law," so to speak, but I don't really want to debate the rules in such a fine-grained way. Like I said, I like your expansions/extrapolations from and clarifications of the rules.