In all these cases you are not able to speak with a strong voice and you also DON"T speak with a strong voice (because you're not able to)
Agreed.
If you're calling your ruling common sense, its not.
Maybe a counter-example would better illustrate where I'm coming from...
Sitting at my desk right now, I'm fully capable of singing a song, reading aloud a book, or talking on the phone. Clearly I'm able to speak in a strong voice because there are no impediments to me doing so. However, if there was a baby sleeping in the room and I didn't want to wake it, I could choose to whisper to someone else rather than speaking in a strong voice.
Neither are an in universe mechanic. [snip]
And since this is not a computer game, how would the universe know, or why would it care, if you COULD speak with a strong voice unless you actually ARE speaking with a strong voice?
OK, I think I'm starting to see why we are in disagreement. (I could be wrong.)
From what I'm gathering, in your games the universe is listening to the casters and if it cannot hear them then nothing happens.
Example In-Universe Mechanic: The universe ignores all conditional modifiers but has only a +0 Perception modifier — if your Verbal components can't meet even that then it is like failing to provide the Verbal component.
Is that what you mean by an in-universe mechanic? I'm not trying to be an ass, I swear. I've seen you mention the in-universe mechanic principle in the side-thread about taking-10 and I didn't fully grasp what you meant then either.
Even if you disagree with me, do you at least understand where I'm coming from? I don't believe either of us will change the other's mind , I just want to make certain my position isn't being misconstrued.
|
OK, I think I'm starting to see why we are in disagreement. (I could be wrong.)From what I'm gathering, in your games the universe is listening to the casters and if it cannot hear them then nothing happens.
Example In-Universe Mechanic: The universe ignores all conditional modifiers but has only a +0 Perception modifier — if your Verbal components can't meet even that then it is like failing to provide the Verbal component.
Well that man that if the "universe" isn't taking 10 when you cast a spell the DC of noticing you casting a spell without any range modifier should be 1 or less.
Assuming the universe is taking 10 the DC would have to be 10 or less.I can accept both options as reasonable DC for the difficulty of hearing your spellcasting.
A DC of 10 has the same difficulty of hearing someone walking or hearing the details of a conversation at 100' from you, both examples of something that is far from automatic (as our real life experience can easily prove).
As it has proved several times in this thread and the previous one, the problem is that sometime we have degrees of results, while the system is yes/no.
The spellcasting is heard, the perceiving character know someone is there but don't know where he is.
Stealth still work for negating him the capacity to pinpont the hiding guy location but it has failed for the purpose to hiding his existence.
Sometime the discussion about spellcasting seem instead to be about the capacity for the spellcaster to cast his spell and stay totally undetected.
However, if there was a baby sleeping in the room and I didn't want to wake it, I could choose to whisper to someone else rather than speaking in a strong voice.
Ok so you can whisper all of your spells all of the time? How would the world know if you COULD speak in a loud strong voice unless you DO speak in a loud strong voice?
Theoretically your caster could have laryngitis. he would speak in the same volume as the concerned parent, but because he is UNABLE to speak, whereas the parent is simply unwilling to speak, the parents spell goes off but the wizard with a cold's spell does not.
From what I'm gathering, in your games the universe is listening to the casters and if it cannot hear them then nothing happens.
Example In-Universe Mechanic: The universe ignores all conditional modifiers but has only a +0 Perception modifier — if your Verbal components can't meet even that then it is like failing to provide the Verbal component.
Or...that speaking the spell in a loud clear voice is simply part of how spellcasting works. Its the entire point of the verbal component mechanic.
Even if you disagree with me, do you at least understand where I'm coming from?
Honestly no. It seems incredibly pedantic, doesn't seem to have any internal consistency, seems open to abuse/cheese, relies on a Schrodinger's cat mechanic, and steps on the purpose of having a silent spell feat as well as some of the bard's "slip the spell into your music" feats. I can't see a single reason to rule it the way you're trying to.
Honestly no. It seems incredibly pedantic, doesn't seem to have any internal consistency, seems open to abuse/cheese, relies on a Schrodinger's cat mechanic, and steps on the purpose of having a silent spell feat as well as some of the bard's "slip the spell into your music" feats. I can't see a single reason to rule it the way you're trying to.
Well, if you truly have no idea where I'm coming from at this point, and you're going to insult me , then I'm at a loss on how to explain my interpretation any better. Unless you are simply looking for an argument, then I'd suggest going the 'FAQ it and forget' route so that the devs can clarify the matter.
Still wondering whether it's somehow possible to snipe during a full attack.
Well, if you truly have no idea where I'm coming from at this point, and you're going to insult me
I'm not trying to insult you, but you asked if i understood where you're coming from and the answer is no. Your interpretation raises every possible red flag for reasons not to read the rule that way.
Try to imagine a master explaining to his apprentice why he can whisper the spell when he's not being forced to whisper but can't whisper the spell when circumstances make him whisper.
What is so hard to understand here?
I don't like to hit the faq button for things like this because
1) i feel like I'm hitting the "Press to walk" button at the crosswalk (which is effectively disconnected)
2) I don't want to make the writers so twitchy about making statements like this that the next rule book looks like webster's law.
Your interpretation raises every possible red flag for reasons not to read the rule that way.
Exactly what red flags does a DC 10-15 Perception check raise?
Try to imagine a master explaining to his apprentice why he can whisper the spell when he's not being forced to whisper but can't whisper the spell when circumstances make him whisper.
If that's what you think I've been stating then I'd agree that there's no sense in it. However that is NOT the case that I've been making. If the examples I've already provided haven't illustrated that by now then I don't know what to tell you...
Ah-ha! Thanks. We've always played it that way, but I never had a rule quote for it before.Oh - one request. Can we please get a definition of what it means to "pinpoint" a creature? Does that mean you know exactly what space, but still have normal total concealment miss chance? Or that you know exactly where they are and can hit them as if they weren't hidden/invisible?The first, not the second. You can find that on page 563 of the Core Rulebook.
I might be late to the party, but it means you know what square they are in.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
re: the Creating a Diversion / Feint over-lap, I thought I´d also mention this ability:
If we go on the assumption that the new Blog version of ´Diversion to Hide´ is instead rolled into Feint, the Heretic Escape ability would basically be granting a conditional (after an attack) Improved Feint (as Move Action).
That´s in addition to something somebody mentioned for an Archer Archetype (or something)
which ´specially´ allowed a Ranged Feint...
---------------------------------------------------
Question: In context of the new/proposed Stealth rules, how would the Heretic Escape ability work?
You make an attack as a standard action. That lets you attempt a diversion to hide as a Move action (using Bluff).
(apparently the only reason you would want/need to use this under the new rules is if you aren´t already in Concealment, since ANYBODY could spend a Swift/Move Action to Stealth if that were true)
If you succeed you are hidden... But you are still in the same square, and if you aren´t in an area with Concealment, your stealth will end at the end of your action. Since 5´ step isn´t an action ´per se´, and can be taken ´during´ other actions, it seems like the prime use-case for this ability would be if you are able to 5´ step into adjacent shadows (concealment) without the enemy knowing which square you entered...??? Just trying to make sure I understand this correctly.
EDIT: I think it´s Errata that there is a missing ´to´ in the Escabe ability, between ´move action´ and ´attempt´.
------------------
NOTE: in the CURRENT rules (not Blog), Stealth says:
...but doesn´t give any action type for that... and Bluff itself doesn´t mention this usage at all.
(Feinting in Combat is a Standard Action, but this doesn´t reference Feitn, only Bluff)
It previously was never stated, which was incredibly annoying because as you can see what sort of action completely changes the use for the ability.
If the worry is that an invisible spellcasters can stay in the same square and cast spells gaining a +40 bonus to Stealth, that was always the case. This is not a change in the rules.
I didn't think you were allowed to stealth if you were standing out in the open with invisibility. As i read it, if you were standing in the middle of a football field it didn't matter how sneaky you are, you had to rely completely on the invisibility and couldn't add your stealth to it. The DC to find you was 40 (hard) not 40 +your stealth roll (impossible)
I think BNW`s reading/play-style re: Invisibility/Stealth is great, and would be good if it were made clear in the new rules. Actually, it also rather goes along with the `can I stealth because I have Blur running?` issue. (mist mail be a similar corner case)
MOST people still not being able to see INvisible people if they run around heedless, but more Perceptive people who are close-by being able to see the outline (or whatever) while still suffering Full Concealment unless Mr. Invisible takes care to move thru area of ACTUAL Concealment, or moves slowly so they can Stealth (etc) seems MORE than reasonable to me, and feels like how the current rules are MEANT to work, even if all the details don`t fall in line (CURRENTLY).
Still wondering whether it's somehow possible to snipe during a full attack.
House rule it, Yes!
If you think it's feasible, and it would add to your groups fun. Just remember that you can use any rule for and against the characters participating!
Your question seems to have been lost in the noise created by Verbal components though! ;)
IN-UNIVERSE EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU MUST -BE ABLE- TO SPEAK IN A STRONG VOICE:
Forced Quiet:With a gesture, you muffle sound around the target, making it unable to yell or otherwise make loud noises. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT SPELLCASTING BY THE TARGET. The target can still use sonic effects, but the DC of these effects decreases by 2. The target gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against sonic effects. The target gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Stealth checks.
Notably, it prevents you from making loud noises. It doesn't prevent you from having a normal conversation. A strong voice does not need to be shouting - but it does need to be above a whisper. Thus being unable to shout doesn't affect your spellcasting, but sonic spells (which are effectively noise loud enough to hurt) are affected.
Heya Folks,
Thanks for the great discussion. Sorry I've been away from this for a while. Another project devoured my rules attention, but I'm just about done with that one, so I'm heading back to this one.
Here is my short list of things I want to tackle on here in the next few days.
1) The problem with creating the distraction. You will probably see a limit to the actions you can take when you make a distraction to make sure it doesn't compete with the feint and the Sleight of Hand rules.
2) The issues involved with a creature having the ability to observe someone due to lack of cover or concealment on their turn. This one's a little tricky, but I think there is a solution.
3) The camouflage and hide in plain sight issue. Wow. Wow. That's all I have to say about that right now.
4) Speaking with a strong voice. I think this one is easily solved too.
I think those are the main issues right now.
Still wondering whether it's somehow possible to snipe during a full attack.No. That would require a full-round action, which is not possible with these stealth rules. "as a standard action, you can make one ranged attack " or the old ones "you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again." This is CLEARLY stated, therefore I do not believe it is subject to house rules.
To interject here and not to derail the play test, everything is subject to house rules if the group agrees! Just because it say in the "Framework" rules you can't perform a full round action doesn't mean that you can't house rule it!
As I said house rule it yes if it makes the game more fun for you all! It's a game after all. Not a law book or tenets of scripture to be obeyed without question! Try to have fun
Snipe, stealth -20, opposed perception, succeed or fail? Only the GM knows the outcome of the perception check!
Unleash pain upon the stealthy character for!
Still wondering whether it's somehow possible to snipe during a full attack.No. That would require a full-round action, which is not possible with these stealth rules. "as a standard action, you can make one ranged attack " or the old ones "you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again." This is CLEARLY stated, therefore I do not believe it is subject to house rules.To interject here and not to derail the play test, everything is subject to house rules if the group agrees! Just because it say in the "Framework" rules you can't perform a full round action doesn't mean that you can't house rule it!
As I said house rule it yes if it makes the game more fun for you all! It's a game after all. Not a law book or tenets of scripture to be obeyed without question! Try to have fun
Snipe, stealth -20, opposed perception, succeed or fail? Only the GM knows the outcome of the perception check!
Unleash pain upon the stealthy character for!
I'll point out that there are ways to use Stealth with a full-round action in the rules right now, with the playtest rules as written, but they are all exceptions. The greatest example is, of course, greater invisibility but here's another one off the top of my head, the silent hunter racial trait from the APG. It allows you to make Stealth checks while running.
If you want to create the ability to snipe with full round actions, before making a global house rule, think about making an exception-based rule via a trait, a feat, spell, or magic item.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Something tha tis only tangential to this thread, but is important for the whole hidin and invisibility question:
Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
I have seen some recent post where the writer position was that a Spell-Like or Supernatural ability don't break invisibility.
Maybe a FAQ would be useful there as I think that the RAI was for SU and spell like abilities used on foes to break invisibility. Probably even Ex abilities.| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also worried about the sheer number of rolls now required. Not only from a game-speed mechanic, but from the point of view of the rogue. The more rolls that there are, the more the mechanics favor the underdog.
Consider a rogue with a +20 stealth versus a guard with a +15. The rogue has snuck along the wall and is now 30' from the guard. He wants to move out to the guard, draw his blade, and stab as a move, free, and standard action, respectively. Let's assume he has fast stealth.
For simplicity's sake, lets also say that the guard is taking 10, which means the rogue only needs to roll a 5 in order to succeed on a check. This gives him a 80% chance of succeeding.
However, he has to roll twice: once for the move action and again for the free action, which drops his chance of succeeding down to 64%. If he is spending several rounds approaching these guards, and they aren't taking 10, then it makes his odds even worse.
I've never been a fan of mechanics which add more die rolls where a single failed die roll negates all of them. They have always seemed to me a way for the DM to simply get the result he wants by demanding repeated rolls (I had this happen with an old DM of mine who hated the social skills, so he would just have me roll diplomacy over and over--i.e., for every sentence I spoke--until I failed).
That said, I think these rules are infinitely superior to the old muddled ones, and we played them yesterday to great success, with two alterations:
- drawing a weapon as a free action does not call for a new stealth check
- when approaching a group in stealth, you roll stealth once and they roll perception once. You don't roll again until you make an action other than move. That stealth and perception roll stay, although modifiers on them (such as distance modifiers) change according to the situation.
Something tha tis only tangential to this thread, but is important for the whole hidin and invisibility question:
Invisibility
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.I have seen some recent post where the writer position was that a Spell-Like or Supernatural ability don't break invisibility.
Maybe a FAQ would be useful there as I think that the RAI was for SU and spell like abilities used on foes to break invisibility. Probably even Ex abilities.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.
RAW they are correct. I never noticed that before. I am sure RAI that any attack breaks invis. It does need to get fixed though.
|
|
- when approaching a group in stealth, you roll stealth once and they roll perception once. You don't roll again until you make an action other than move. That stealth and perception roll stay, although modifiers on them (such as distance modifiers) change according to the situation.
That is part of taking 10.
If you aren't taking 10 or the conditions don't permit that because there is some kind of distraction hand waving away the extra rolls is too favourable for the guy hiding.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
particularly when everybody and their mother takes ranks in Perception...
well how much stuff did YOU get away with when mom was right there?
Definitely a class skill for moms.|
|
Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.
Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised.
If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.
Who is exactly the target when using stealth and perception?
Being the target give an advantage as your check result give a DC that neeed to be beaten, so practically the equivalent of a +1 to the check.|
|
That is part of taking 10.
If you aren't taking 10 or the conditions don't permit that because there is some kind of distraction hand waving away the extra rolls is too favourable for the guy hiding.I vehemently disagree. I think Bascaria's numbers speak for themselves. Did you actually bother to read them? They get exponentially worse when one throws in multiple guards. Or multiple PCs...particularly when everybody and their mother takes ranks in Perception...
Part of the fundamental flaw in the existing stealth system IMO, is that Perception really is too broad (and powerful) a skill from a balance perspective. I find in games I run that basically every single character takes ranks in Perception.
Calm down.
I have already done the same math Bascaria did in the previous thread on perception.Bascaria covered several points.
The chance to be detected and wanting to reduce the stealth check to only one roll whatever was the distance between covered by the :
the in game mechanic change a lot if the guy using stealth can take 10 and if the guard will take 10.
- If the guard take 10 adding more guards with the same level of skill do absolutely nothing.
When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hidden
The hiding guy stealth check set the DC to beat for all the guards. Barring distance modifiers they will all make it of fail it.
This is hardly right as having more onlooker should increase the chance of detection.- If the hiding (and a good percentage of the people posting in these 2 threads agree that is is possible) guy take 10 he set a DC the chances are similar to those Bascaria depicted. He should to that most of the time unless his skill is low and he is gambling all on a good roll. A difference of 5 points as in Bascaria example is small. A character using stealth as one of his main instruments should add up several bonuses. If not he is only a dabbler.
The maximum results the guards get determine when you need to start rolling the dices.
- The worse option is if both roll. The variation is between the worse roll from the hiding guy and the better roll from the percepting guys.
That mean that they will start rolling the dices early and roll a lot of dices. That is a very bad situation fro teh rogue.
If you noticed I am against the idea of using a single roll and keeping it as long as the guy move. Too easy to game it.
"I start hiding at 100' from the enemy. I hide from my friends too. Friends, if you see me give me a hand signal that my stealth result is too low." If the guy is seen by his friends he move away and retry till he get a good result.
With that kind of shenanigans the guy doing that could even take 20 till he is perfectly hidden and "respect" the suggested RAW.
So the taking 10 option need some explanation (especially a official confirmation that the hiding guy can take 10), but reducing all to a single dice roll is counter-productive and a bad simulation.
--
Then there is the other argument Bascaria did, reducing some unmotivated roll.
I am not against the idea of reducing some of the extra rolls. The problem is deciding what rolls are "extra" and what not.
In Bascaria example the rogue is moving 30', then unsheathing his blade and attacking.
He has chosen the worst way to do his job and there are all the reasons for 2 rolls. Unsheathing a weapon produces some noise, doing that within reach of the guard is a good reason for him to get the extra roll as he ahs a chance to hear the noise.
As unsheathing the weapon is a action that can be done for free while moving if you have a +1 or better BAB the rogue could have done that at the start of his move, with a -2 modifier to the guard perception.
Even better, as it is part of another action (the wording in the rules is a bit trick, but it say "free action combined with a regular move") it should be subsumed in the movement action so that moving and unsheathing the weapon require a single roll of the die.
Possibly other action could be aggregated in a single die roll, but it is hard to judge as some free action is harder to conceal than other (for example a quickened spell against unsheathing a weapon).
Here is my short list of things I want to tackle on here in the next few days.
1) The problem with creating the distraction. You will probably see a limit to the actions you can take when you make a distraction to make sure it doesn't compete with the feint and the Sleight of Hand rules.
2) The issues involved with a creature having the ability to observe someone due to lack of cover or concealment on their turn. This one's a little tricky, but I think there is a solution.
3) The camouflage and hide in plain sight issue. Wow. Wow. That's all I have to say about that right now.
4) Speaking with a strong voice. I think this one is easily solved too.
I think those are the main issues right now.
I would add:
5) If a creature has Scent, when (if ever) does it need to make a smell Perception roll against a hidden object or creature? If the answer is "never", then when (if ever) does it need to make a smell Perception roll, period?
Part of the reason you never saw this issue of Spells while stealthing come up before was because Hide and Move Silently were two differnet skills. I know in my group we generally assumed that if you were casting a spell, talking at a normal volume or greater, or doing other things that made an noise you couldn't use Move Silently but you could Hide.
Foes could try to pinpoint a Hidding caster by his incantations for summon monster if they hit the appropriate DC for his volume. (usually assigned as normal conversation equivalent).
With the combining of all at into Perception your left with 5 sub-skills (sight, sound, taste, touch, sell). Only one of those gives you "Line of Sight" while the rest could give you varying degrees of knowledge of a creatures presence or even general location.
To avoid extra rolls but preserve the variance inherent in the skill we have to establish DC thresholds for 5 things on one roll. Much like how Climb or Swim checks have a fail by 5 and you fall/sink bit. I've been seeing arguments that Invisibility (the spell) should not aid make you "quieter" which is the current in-game affect of it giving a flat +20/40 to Stealth.
Normal Senescence and the 5:
Sight, Success gives you Line of Sight
Hearing, Success pinpoints the targets square (so within 5 feat). Bats with Blindsense thematic to hearing can get Line of Sight
Touch, would likely pinpoint the exact spot but not give line of sight (so far this is not addressed for combat impacts.
Taste, .... Not sure about licking something to revel it in combat. Closer link to smell.
Smell, we have an example from sent that it pinpoints the square much like Hearing does. Sent does so automatically with a set distance. Which does not preclude its use as a perception check without Sent.
DBZA
"Krilin, do you sense that?
"I taste that!"
So why does this ramble involve casting? Mainly making the point that I almost never saw disagreement over caster be forbidden from Move Silently in 3.5 without Silent Spell. The legacy issue of combining the two leaves us with this oddity in Pathfinder.
Any new look the stealth rules needs to consider the impact of all 5 senses in locating a creature and how that is most efficiently and fairly resolved. So far all these rules were looking at are devoted almost exclusively to sight.
=====
On the Sent issues. IMO we can make two or three categories of "super sense". First however we need the baseline. This assumes Human.
Sight: Line of Sight
Sound: Reveals creatures space(es), pinpoint in other words
Touch: Pinpoints adjacent creature, automatic if you hit the creature
Taste: Reveals presence but not location (big penalty associated)
Smell: Reveals presence but not location
This gives us, Reveal, Pinpoint, Line of Sight. Super Senses would increase those by a step each time. Thematically you could have a creature with Blindsight Taste (which would be many kinds of reptiles).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any new look the stealth rules needs to consider the impact of all 5 senses in locating a creature and how that is most efficiently and fairly resolved. So far all these rules were looking at are devoted almost exclusively to sight.
QFT. I said that in the first pass, and I'll say it again. Although what you said gave me an idea to refine it...
Stealth vs. Perception is not a matter of "yes/no". It's a matter of accuracy. The three stages you mention, I would rename thus:
Detect means you know a creature is nearby, but don't know which square.
Locate means you know which square, but treat them as fully concealed or invisible.
Observe means you can target the creature.
Or, to put it in a stealth-centric perspective...
Observed means you completely failed at being stealthy.
Located means observers know where you are (which square), but can't see/observe you.
Detected means your presence is known, but they don't know where, exactly.
Undetected means they have no clue as to your presence.
Normal hearing and scent would both be able to detect at a distance, and gauge approximate direction. At immediate range, or at close range with effort, they would locate.
Blindsense and tremorsense would locate within range.
Blindsight and sight would observe, but not detect or locate a hiding creature.
If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.
If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.
Distraction
Not bad. It only provides a form of concealment, not total concealment (and thus no sneak attack), and also allows a single stealth check to be made within 1 round. This part is great.
Comparing it to HiPS, HiPS allows a character to hide without distracting anyone, at any time. I love the idea of a Ranger whose favored terrain is the open steppe, and while surrounded by enemies in melee range, he seemingly falls into the ground like a ghost, and the enemies are all confounded, and search the area to no avail.
One thing I would do to the distract action is to make subsequent attempts be harder and harder; -4 per additional distraction in a given combat, made against the same target.
Distraction should also work on multiple creatures. Looking behind a group of orcs at an imaginary dragon and saying "oho, I'd like you to meet my friend!" should be able to distract multiple orcs.
Any new look the stealth rules needs to consider the impact of all 5 senses in locating a creature and how that is most efficiently and fairly resolved. So far all these rules were looking at are devoted almost exclusively to sight.QFT. I said that in the first pass, and I'll say it again. Although what you said gave me an idea to refine it...
Stealth vs. Perception is not a matter of "yes/no". It's a matter of accuracy. The three stages you mention, I would rename thus:
Detect means you know a creature is nearby, but don't know which square.
Locate means you know which square, but treat them as fully concealed or invisible.
Observe means you can target the creature.Or, to put it in a stealth-centric perspective...
Observed means you completely failed at being stealthy.
Located means observers know where you are (which square), but can't see/observe you.
Detected means your presence is known, but they don't know where, exactly.
Undetected means they have no clue as to your presence.Normal hearing and scent would both be able to detect at a distance, and gauge approximate direction. At immediate range, or at close range with effort, they would locate.
Blindsense and tremorsense would locate within range.
Blindsight and sight would observe, but not detect or locate a hiding creature.
If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.
If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.
Interesting. I like this, although it's probably a bigger rewrite than they're looking to do right now. Would it make any sense to provide a stage between Detect and Locate where you know the direction, but not the actual space (useful for AoEing a suspected threat)? Maybe rename "Detect" to that, and add an "Aware" for "somewhere, but I have no idea where"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. I like this, although it's probably a bigger rewrite than they're looking to do right now. Would it make any sense to provide a stage between Detect and Locate where you know the direction, but not the actual space (useful for AoEing a suspected threat)? Maybe rename "Detect" to that, and add an "Aware" for "somewhere, but I have no idea where"?
I was struggling a bit with that concept and realized that "Detect" is very much like a generic "Area Effect" kind of observation.
I compare detected to an area effect, because it can be a radius ("she's near", "she's far", "somewhere near that tree"), a set of shape-able cubes ("somewhere in this room"), a line ("he's down that hallway") or a cone ("there-ish", "to the south, roughly"). The closer you get to locating the stealth-er, translates to a smaller area.
===========
On a side note, I chose the words with care.
Detect works intuitively with Detection spells, like Detect Evil. Round 1 of any area-based detection spell simply says whether they're in the cone or not. Hence my comparison to area effects.
Locate works intuitively when considering spells like locate creature, and also the concept "I have your location".
Observe works well with terminology from other stealth entries, and meshes seamlessly with the text of Hide in Plain Sight.
Interesting. I like this, although it's probably a bigger rewrite than they're looking to do right now. Would it make any sense to provide a stage between Detect and Locate where you know the direction, but not the actual space (useful for AoEing a suspected threat)? Maybe rename "Detect" to that, and add an "Aware" for "somewhere, but I have no idea where"?I was struggling a bit with that concept and realized that "Detect" is very much like a generic "Area Effect" kind of observation.
I compare detected to an area effect, because it can be a radius ("she's near", "she's far", "somewhere near that tree"), a set of shape-able cubes ("somewhere in this room"), a line ("he's down that hallway") or a cone ("there-ish", "to the south, roughly"). The closer you get to locating the stealth-er, translates to a smaller area.
Hmm. That makes sense. I would clarify it a bit, though: "Detect means you know a creature is nearby, but don't know which square. You may have a general idea of their location, or just an awareness that there is someone around."
I think I'm going to use this set of definitions for my current game, even if they don't make it into the core rules. Nicely done!
As the rules are written, and considering the discussion that 'Creating a Diversion to Hide' as written in this round of playtesting conflicts with the feint combat maneuver and the improved feint feat, why not replace the entire 'Creating a Diversion to Hide' paragraph in the stealth rules with a reference to feint and integrate feint properly with the new hidden condition?
Adjust feint in the following way:
Expand:
"If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn."
To something like:
"If successful, you gain the hidden condition until the end of your next move or standard action. It will not last beyond the the end of your turn, but then the target still loses their dexterity bonus to AC (if any) against your next melee attack so long as this attack is made on your next turn."
That is part of taking 10.
If you aren't taking 10 or the conditions don't permit that because there is some kind of distraction hand waving away the extra rolls is too favourable for the guy hiding.I vehemently disagree. I think Bascaria's numbers speak for themselves. Did you actually bother to read them? They get exponentially worse when one throws in multiple guards. Or multiple PCs...particularly when everybody and their mother takes ranks in Perception...
Part of the fundamental flaw in the existing stealth system IMO, is that Perception really is too broad (and powerful) a skill from a balance perspective. I find in games I run that basically every single character takes ranks in Perception.
Calm down.
I have already done the same math Bascaria did in the previous thread on perception.Bascaria covered several points.
The chance to be detected and wanting to reduce the stealth check to only one roll whatever was the distance between covered by the :
the in game mechanic change a lot if the guy using stealth can take 10 and if the guard will take 10.
- If the guard take 10 adding more guards with the same level of skill do absolutely nothing.
When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as hiddenThe hiding guy stealth check set the DC to beat for all the guards. Barring distance modifiers they will all make it of fail it.
This is hardly right as having more onlooker should increase the chance of detection.- If the hiding (and a good percentage of the people posting in these 2 threads agree that is is possible) guy take 10 he set a DC the chances are similar to those Bascaria depicted. He should to that most of the time unless his skill is low and he is gambling all on a good roll. A difference of 5 points as in Bascaria example is small. A character using stealth as one of his main instruments should add up several...
Let's say my 4th level halfling rogue is trying to sneak into the elven encampment. I have 19 dex and max ranks in stealth, plus my +4 bonus for being small. That gives me a +15. The elven camp is guarded by 2 1st level rangers. They have 14 wisdom and 1 rank in perception, giving them a +5 in perception, counting the elves' +2 racial bonus.
I don't yet have fast stealth, so my speed is halved. It is further halved because I can't see too well in the dark. So I move 5' per action. I have to make a stealth roll for every 5' that I move. Let's give me the further advantage of assuming that I win ties in the opposed roll. We'll also give me a +2 advantage for advantageous conditions for the darkness. That means I have a +17, the elves a +5.
If I roll a 1, and they a 20, then I will be spotted at 65' so that is when I need to start making my stealth checks. In order to cover that 65' I need to make 13 successive rolls. On the first on, I have a 99.5% chance of making it. On the second, I have again a 99.5%, but only a 99% chance of having made both the first and second rolls.
By the time you get to the 13th roll, there is only a 65% chance that my halfling rogue has successfully managed to sneak up on these elves.
That gets worse if I tried to do ANYTHING ELSE during my walk towards the elves (turn around and signal to my allies that there are only 2 elves on watch, and they should move around to flank, charging in on my signal, for example).
The more rolls you have, the more of an advantage the underdog has. I'm not saying that the halfling should have a 100% chance of sneaking up on some 1st level elves, but 65% seems pretty low for a character pretty heavily invested in stealth going up against 2 characters who are 3 levels lower and just doing what any 1st level character would do (put a point in the most heavily used skill in the game, regardless of class).
Does having only 1 roll for the entire approach (which in this example would give the rogue a 93.6% chance of success) lead to the possibility of exploitation? Perhaps. It didn't at our table with a gentlefolks' agreement to not do that. You could also get around by not allowing a try again roll until the situation has radically changed, similar to knowledge checks. You roll badly, too bad. You roll well? Awesome. You are just feeling super stealthy today. We also roll perception checks for traps in the open with the understanding that if the rogue is out ahead looking for traps and rolls terribly, the player is going to walk him through that door just as assuredly as if he had rolled a 20 and gotten back a result from the DM of "you find no traps."
Drawing a weapon - do some weapons make noise when you draw them? Sure, although it is less than you've been lead to believe by sound cues in movies. It's not hard to design a sheath which draws silently, though -- just give it a lining of felt. And I don't think pulling a sap off a belt loop would ever make noise, no matter how much you manage to bungle it.
The elven camp is guarded by 2 1st level rangers. They have 14 wisdom and 1 rank in perception, giving them a +5 in perception, counting the elves' +2 racial bonus.Not to split hairs, but since it may change your percentages, their perception would be a +8 because it's a trained class skill.
You are absolutely right, good catch. It just proves my point even more. Means that a 4th level rogue would only have a 65% chance of sneaking up on 2 clerics (and particularly poor ones, with only 14 wisdom!), while he would have to get to 7th level to have that same chance of sneaking up on 2 1st level rangers.
Locate means you know which square, but treat them as fully concealed or invisible.
I would change this to pinpoint to match the blindsense and tremorsense descriptions.
If a creature is detected by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to locate and a +2 to observe a hiding creature.
If a creature is located by you, you would get a +4 on perception checks to observe a hiding creature.
I don't like this though. It is just more rolling an complication added in.
|
|
Let's say my 4th level halfling rogue is trying to sneak into the elven encampment. I have 19 dex and max ranks in stealth, plus my +4 bonus for being small. That gives me a +15. The elven camp is guarded by 2 1st level rangers. They have 14 wisdom and 1 rank in perception, giving them a +5 in perception, counting the elves' +2 racial bonus.
I don't yet have fast stealth, so my speed is halved. It is further halved because I can't see too well in the dark. So I move 5' per action. I have to make a stealth roll for every 5' that I move. Let's give me the further advantage of assuming that I win ties in the opposed roll. We'll also give me a +2 advantage for advantageous conditions for the darkness. That means I have a +17, the elves a +5.
If I roll a 1, and they a 20, then I will be spotted at 65' so that is when I need to start making my stealth checks. In order to cover that 65' I need to make 13 successive rolls. On the first on, I have a 99.5% chance of making it. On the second, I have again a 99.5%, but only a 99% chance of having made both the first and second rolls.
By the time you get to the 13th roll, there is only a 65% chance that my halfling rogue has successfully managed to sneak up on these elves.
That gets worse if I tried to do ANYTHING ELSE during my walk towards the elves (turn around and signal to my allies that there are only 2 elves on watch, and they should move around to flank, charging in on my signal, for example).
The more rolls you have, the more of an advantage the underdog has. I'm not saying that the halfling should have a 100% chance of sneaking up on some 1st level elves, but 65% seems pretty low for a character pretty heavily invested in stealth going up against 2 characters who are 3 levels lower and just doing what any 1st level character would do (put a point in the most heavily used skill in the game, regardless of class).
Does having only 1 roll for the entire approach (which in this example would give the rogue a 93.6% chance of success) lead to the possibility of exploitation? Perhaps. It didn't at our table with a gentlefolks' agreement to not do that. You could also get around by not allowing a try again roll until the situation has radically changed, similar to knowledge checks. You roll badly, too bad. You roll well? Awesome. You are just feeling super stealthy today. We also roll perception checks for traps in the open with the understanding that if the rogue is out ahead looking for traps and rolls terribly, the player is going to walk him through that door just as assuredly as if he had rolled a 20 and gotten back a result from the DM of "you find no traps."
Drawing a weapon - do some weapons make noise when you draw them? Sure, although it is less than you've been lead to believe by sound cues in movies. It's not hard to design a sheath which draws silently, though -- just give it a lining of felt. And I don't think pulling a sap off a belt loop would ever make noise, no matter how much you manage to bungle it.
1) Why your halfling isn't taking 10? For him rolling the dice mean 9 unnecessary checks.
2) You pretend a incredibly high chance of success.
Apparently your halfling is moving in a situation where the only cover is the darkness. Why he is not moving so that he has objects between him and the elven guards most of the time?
If he is moving in plain with only some bush giving insufficient cover to allow him to break LOS, well, he is in the worse position possible for a stealth operation and the eves have placed themselves in the best position. Kudos to them.
3) Why a guy trying to move stealthy for 100' should have the same chance of failure of a guy who was behind full cover till he got to 10' and only then tried to move stealthily where the elves could see him?
(here we have the sound/smell problem, the elves could hear him even behind cover, but that is a separate problem)
Using stealth should not be impossible, but it should not be a walk in a park that you fail only 1 time in 20.
---
Another problem of your scenario (and the whole stealth/perception argument) is: how far can people see by night?
We all know that if there aren't artificial light sources but the sky is clear and the moon if full we can see well enough to go around without problems.
How far we can see in those conditions?
How far under a cloudy or moonless sky?
How would this affect someone who had constant total concealment (i.e.: always in shadow, or darkness) throughout an encounter? I'm thinking about combats under the effect of a darkness spell her3e, where one side is not affected by the darkness and can use stealth, and the other side is affected by the darkness, but has limited range/use lighting.
Alternatively, how would it affect a single creature who can create shadows or blurring or fading around it enough to grant itself total concealment, but doesn't otherwise affect the ambient lighting in the area. Is that equivalent to invisibility? Or less so? Or nowhere near so?
1) The problem with creating the distraction. You will probably see a limit to the actions you can take when you make a distraction to make sure it doesn't compete with the feint and the Sleight of Hand rules.
I'm not sure if anyone has suggested it before, if they have I throw my agreement in with them, but perhaps this could help with this one.
Bluff to create distraction.
You now must spend a move action to actually move (which does allow Stealth to be started).
Potentially, attack once with Sneak.
However, they have to make two checks now as supposed to Improved Feint's one. Additionally, if they have to take a move action and actually move (you could even put a distance here, like 10 feet), they possibly open up having to face attacks of opportunity while moving.
That way, Improved Feint still means you spend a move, win one check, get the Sneak Attack. Stealthing means winning two checks, moving, and possibly facing AoOs in order to get Sneak Attack. Obviously better to take Improved Feint, but still allows the possibility of cyclical distract sneaking for one Sneak Attack per round.
...Let's say my 4th level halfling rogue is trying to sneak into the elven encampment. I have 19 dex and max ranks in stealth, plus my +4 bonus for being small. That gives me a +15. The elven camp is guarded by 2 1st level rangers. They have 14 wisdom and 1 rank in perception, giving them a +5 in perception, counting the elves' +2 racial bonus.
I don't yet have fast stealth, so my speed is halved. It is further halved because I can't see too well in the dark. So I move 5' per action. I have to make a stealth roll for every 5' that I move. Let's give me the further advantage of assuming that I win ties in the opposed roll. We'll also give me a +2 advantage for advantageous conditions for the darkness. That means I have a +17, the elves a +5.
If I roll a 1, and they a 20, then I will be spotted at 65' so that is when I need to start making my stealth checks. In order to cover that 65' I need to make 13 successive rolls. On the first on, I have a 99.5% chance of making it. On the second, I have again a 99.5%, but only a 99% chance of having made both the first and second rolls.
By the time you get to the 13th roll, there is only a 65% chance that my halfling rogue has successfully managed to sneak up on these elves.
That gets worse if I tried to do ANYTHING ELSE during my walk towards the elves (turn around and signal to my allies that there are only 2 elves on watch, and they should move around to flank, charging in on my signal, for example).
The more rolls you have, the more of an advantage the underdog has. I'm not saying that the halfling should have a 100% chance of sneaking up on some 1st level elves, but 65% seems pretty low for a character pretty heavily invested in stealth going up against 2 characters who are 3 levels lower and just doing what any 1st level character would do (put a point in the most heavily used skill in the game, regardless of class).
Does having only 1 roll for the entire approach (which in this example would give the rogue a 93.6% chance of success)
(1) It was my understanding you can't take 10 on a stealth check as there is distraction and danger. Even if that is wrong, taking 10 is a normalizing effect, but largely beside my point here.
(2) I'm assuming that the halfling has cover of darkness and some other thing providing concealment or cover. Thick undergrowth would work (his movement speed already having been reduced the maximum amount) or conveniently spaced trees.
(3) Even if you have full cover, you still need to make stealth checks. Anyone trying to sneak up on the elves needs to make a stealth check. Full cover isn't an auto-success. In fact, I am assuming that the halfling has something similar for the entirety of this exercise.
I'm not saying stealth should be an autosuccess. I am saying that a 7th level small rogue should have a greater than 63% chance of successfully sneaking up on two first level characters.
|
|
I'm not saying stealth should be an autosuccess. I am saying that a 7th level small rogue should have a greater than 63% chance of successfully sneaking up on two first level characters.
I suppose you have corrected the level of the halfling to keep up to the class bonus of the rangers.
The problem is what the elves know even if they detect the presence of something.
If your halfling keep behind full cover, unless he fail in some catastrophic way like stubbing a toe and cursing in halfling, all the rangers know is that hey have heard the sound of some small creature moving in the brushes.
It can be a fox, jackal or wolf attracted by the smell of the elves meal. It is worth rousing the camp for that?
So keeping behind cover should help.
If the halfling is signalling silently to his friends "there are 2 guards, flank them", doing that while in sight of the elves require an extra check (movement is easy to detect). If he has full cover there will be no need unless he speak.
--
Your statement is very reductive too: "7th level small rogue should have a greater than 63% chance of successfully sneaking up on two first level characters."
You are cutting out a lot of information.
"A small rogue without low light vision or darkvision that is taking 13 move actions in sight of 2 first level level elf rangers has a 63% chance of success" and I think that is only right.
Note that you have chosen:
a) a class for which perception is a class skill;
b) a race with a bonus to perception.
c) a rogue with a race that don't see in the dark.
So you have staked the test in favour of the people perceiving and then protest the result.
Let's check the math with humans fighters:
As the halfling now is level 7 he has +20 while the guards have +3 (I keep the high wisdom).
At 10' the guards need a 19+ to beat a roll of 1 on the halfling part.
At 15' only a 20 vs a 1 on the halfling part.
So chance to be spotted by one guard at 15' 1/400
At 10' 3/100
At 5' 3/100
The guards are 2.
So, chance not to be spotted 96.54%
That is the chance not to be detected by 2 level 1 guards.
Without the wisdom bonus they had 0% chance to detect him.
Let's make the rogue a human, without the +4 from the small size. he has a +16 to his skill, the guards have a +3.
he take 10, his result is 26. the maximum result from the guards is 23.
0% chance to be detected.
Make the rogue level 4. he will have a +13. Take 10. result 23, and the guards will still be incapable of seeing him.
BTW, why the rogue isn't using a dark cape and some face paint to get a +2 circumstantial bonus to hide in darkness?