Ever wanted to play a rogue-type, but been put off by not being sure how Stealth really works? Ever GMed a shadowdancer PC, or a spellcaster who casts 1-round spells while invisible? Ever wondered why darkness doesn’t work the same way as invisibility, or why there’s a Perception penalty for something 10’ away, or whether a rogue can carry around a rubber plant and hide behind it? Ever been frustrated that a door doesn’t block line of sight? How annoying is that going to be?
If not, you might not have noticed that there are a few issues with Stealth and invisibility. They don’t work that well. Sometimes they work too well, sometimes they don’t work well enough, often they don’t work well together. These clarifications deal with these issues.
The root of all evil is this: for Stealth and invisibility, the game uses two entirely different Perception systems. For Stealth, it’s a simple opposed check. For invisibility, it’s a more sophisticated double DC - a sense/pinpoint system (p563), which doesn’t necessarily use Stealth at all. Over editions, these two systems have grown apart. Or maybe they were never that close to begin with. Anyway, they have rules and modifiers now which do not mesh.
Why not merge the Perception systems? If it would solve issues, why not use straight opposed skillchecks for both Stealth and invisibility - or the sense/pinpoint system for both? Well, when you start looking at it, there are good reasons why not. A universal sense/pinpoint system would skew the balance between Perception and Stealth - the multiple DCs would penalise one or the other, game-wide. And a simple opposed check is too simple for invisibility - distinguishing between sensing and pinpointing is really useful there. Plus, invisibility has to cater to those who aren’t being stealthy - so it can’t just use an opposed Stealth check. It needs clean base DCs for the unstealthy invisible dude.
So there are good reasons for having two detection systems - they just have to work better together. Can’t be too hard, right?
* Issue 1: The Mods
The mods for the Stealth and invisibility detection systems don’t match. Moving at half speed, moving at full speed, not moving at all - read back and forth between Stealth and Appendix 1, apply it all to a sample invisible stealthy dude (let’s call him Wally), and it’s a mess. It’s not all invisibility’s fault, either. There are old bits of writing in the Stealth skill that are...not great. A -5 penalty if you move ‘greater than half but less than your normal speed’? What speed is that, exactly? Does this mean there’s a higher penalty if I move at my normal speed? Because if it’s not -5....
Worse than this by far is the Stealth skill rider on invisibility, which is repeated throughout the core rules, and which I suspect originates with the spell. If you use Stealth while invisible, you get +20 Stealth, +40 while not moving (‘immobile’ as opposed to ‘moving’). These bonusses stack with everything on the invisibility table in Appendix 1, including the base invisibility DCs - in fact, the first +20 is listed on the invisibility table (‘Stealth+20’), while the extra +20 for not moving is listed on it too in the 4th printing of the core rulebook (errataed from a bizarre minus 40), where it even applies to a non-stealthy dude.
So to the eternal question: where’s Wally? Let’s see...that’s a base invisibility sense/pinpoint DC of 20/40, plus a full Stealth check, plus another 20, plus another 20 if he’s not moving...hmm. Sure, it’s supposed to be ‘practically impossible’ to pinpoint an invisible dude, but does the DC need to be this high? Assume Wally is no expert: he’s a level 3 spellcaster, with Stealth+5. He gets 15 on his Stealth check. It’s a DC75 Perception check to pinpoint him moving at half speed. If he stands still, it’s a DC95. At third level.
Here’s what I reckon: at some point, back in the mists, invisibility was only defined by the spell, and the spell only made reference to Stealth (Hide in Shadows), giving a +20/+40 modifier to that skill. Unfortunately, this ignored the fact that some dudes wouldn’t be at all stealthy while invisible. So as the game progressed, a separate and more sophisticated detection system was added for invisibility, which covered both the stealthy and the non-stealthy dude. This system used the old spell modifiers as its vanilla base DCs: 20 for sensing, 40 for pinpointing. But the rules weren’t rewritten elsewhere. The +20/+40 to Stealth while invisible is still there in the skill, in the spell, and scattered elsewhere throughout the core rulebook, and has even been added back in to invisibility on p563 - even though combining base invisibility DCs with these extra mods creates Perception DCs which are not just ‘practically impossible’, but pointlessly high.
What happens if we ditch the +20/+40 bonus mentioned in Stealth (and elsewhere) for invisibility? Well, it’s now a DC55 Perception check to pinpoint Wally. Does that still sound ‘practically impossible’? Definitely. In fact, the only other skill use described as ‘practically impossible’ is catching yourself while falling (Climb), which is a DC30-55: so DC55 is good.
What if Wally doesn’t move? Is that really another +20? If we’re going to make the Stealth and invisibility systems work together, the modifiers should match up for a Stealth-user in both situations. +20 for not moving on all Stealth checks? By gods no; it’s way too high. It makes good sense as a modifier, though. So...+5 when not moving, for both Stealth and invisibility? That makes sense, and is a nice little situational bonus for rogue-types, and a little love does them no harm - they need it.
Or you could try to make the two systems work together without matching all the modifiers.
You could have two separate modifier tables for invisibility on p563, for Stealth and non-Stealth. That’s messy, though, and it doesn’t really make sense. So, better to take the bull by the horns, assess the base DCs and modifiers, and produce a single invisibility DC modifer table that matches and includes the relevant mods for Stealth and Perception.
By now, one way and another, you’re rewriting not only invisibility, but Stealth and Perception. To do that properly, you need to start looking at the other rules that affect Stealth too, like darkness. The issue of mundane invisibility is cropping up.
* Issue 2: The Middle Ground - Darkness and Closed Doors
It will have become apparent that there is a slightly insanely vast gulf between Stealth DCs and invisibility DCs. Invisibility needs vanilla, Stealth-free base DCs for unstealthy dudes - that 20/40 is part of the gulf. But the Stealth system has a rider on invisibility - the +20/+40 - that doubles the difference. If Wally moves at half speed, invisibility gives him an effective +60 to Stealth versus pinpoint, +80 if he doesn’t move.
But what if our lowly Wally is effectively invisible in darkness, or behind a closed door? Well, by the book, those seeking him in darkness use the Stealth detection system, not the invisibility system (see darkness, p442). There’s a pinpoint check, but it’s not a proper invisibility one - it’s straight Perception-Stealth. No base DCs, no +20/+40 for being stealthy and invisible. Result? The Perception pinpoint DC to find Wally is DC75-95 when he’s Invisible, while the Perception pinpoint DC to find him invisible in complete darkness is just 15, his Stealth roll. Meanwhile the closed door gives all viewers X-ray vision. The door (total cover) doesn’t block line of sight at all - the rules don’t allow it, because total cover doesn’t block sight. The door would need to give total concealment for that, and total concealment blocks line of sight but specifically not line of effect, so can’t provide total cover. Hmm...
I think there’s only one reasonable way to deal with this middle ground. Invisibility is invisibility. Darkness and the closed door need to be using the same detection system as magical invisibility. Sense and pinpoint levels are useful, make sense, and we have a system for them. Concealment and cover need to be rewritten, and invisibility extended.
Having extended the applicability of invisibility to total cover and total concealment, it’s even more urgent that the Perception DCs be pitched right. DC95 to pinpoint Wally behind a closed door makes that door ridiculously powerful - or rather, it highlights how wrong that DC95 is.
So the Stealth skill rider - the +20/+40 - is out. That leaves the invisibility base DCs. Do they really need to be 20/40? Remove the Stealth riders and Wally the 3rd level non-rogue-type is still a DC55 pinpoint, which is at the very upper of Climb’s ‘practically impossible’ catching-yourself DCs. Those go down to DC30. And for most characters and monsters, a DC30 check is still practically impossible - DCs of 75 and 95 are so extreme that the difficulty of a DC30 is easy to forget.
So, let’s try lowering the invisibility base DCs and see what happens. DC10 to sense, DC20 to pinpoint. While we’re at it, let’s insert a DC15 to gauge direction in the middle, because that’s very useful. We’ll have to adjust the modifiers accordingly, to fit these lower base DCs: so combat and speaking go from minus 20 to minus 10, full speed from minus 10 to minus 5, half speed from minus 5 to zero - which brings invisible movement mods into line with Stealth movement mods. Synchronicity - excellent!
How hard is it to sense and pinpoint Wally now? To sense him moving at half speed is a Perception DC25 - base 10, plus 15 on his Stealth check. To gauge his direction is a DC30. To pinpoint his square is a DC35. This is for a not-so-wily 3rd level dude. And if Wally stays nice and still, he’s getting +5: DC30/35/40 to sense/gauge direction/pinpoint. He could stand invisible in the corner of a room, and there’s a good chance no one would even sense him. You never know, though - Wally’s not a Stealth expert, and there might be a grizzled old ranger in the room, whose neck-hair starts rising. Is this working better than DC75-95? I think so. Is it still ‘practically impossible’? Yeah, for a level 3 game.
Now, what if Wally casts Summon Monster? He has to speak in a strong voice to spellcast (p213), but he can stand still. By the book, his speaking lowers the Perception DC by 20, but we’ve halved that to minus 10, to fit broader and more moderate invisibility applications.
Can Wally still add his Stealth to the DC? Surely not, though again, Stealth isn’t well-written enough to be sure. You can’t use Stealth while being ‘observed’ by a perceptor with any of its senses, though - and that’s a good rule, badly worded. If we clean that up, it means Wally can’t add his Stealth to the DC while speaking.
So if Wally starts casting Summon Monster in the room, in a strong voice, the Perception DC to sense him is now paltry (base 10, +5 for not moving, minus 10 for speaking: DC5). To gauge his direction is easy (DC10), and to pinpoint his square hard (DC15), but possible. By the book, the last of those DCs would be 40 with the errata: base DC40, +20 for not moving, -20 for speaking.
All this can all be reasonably applied to mundane invisibility, without making doors and darkness crazy powerful. They’re still slightly more significant, but then perhaps they should be - until the torch is lit, or the door opened. Applying all this takes some work on redefining invisibility - we now need at least two types (mundane and magical), which react differently to spells, supersenses and so on, but that’s not hard to do.
* Issue 3 - Stealth
Having spent a bit of time on Stealth, its inherent weaknesses will have become noticeable. When can you use it? When can’t you use it? Can you speak? Can you hide behind a rubber plant you carry around? Sure, the GM can just rule on the fly, but that doesn’t help players who want to know how their characters are going to play. The core rules are for players as well as GMs, and new players as well as old hands. The Stealth rules should be clear.
Clarifying the use of Stealth isn’t that difficult - the rules already point towards what they could be - but it is extensive and fiddly. It means rewriting the many other parts of the rules that relate to the skill. Perception is one part, naturally, but you’re also looking at cover and concealment, light and darkness, lots of spells, several conditions and supersenses, some gear, some other skills, and some racial and class abilities - hide in plain sight amongst them. Light and darkness are particularly awful, and once you’ve rewitten them, you’re also rewriting entries for all light sources. It’s big and messy, but it all looks immeasurably better when you’ve done it.
And that’s it! Easy, eh?
:)
I get the thread and your post... but didn't you already post a solution to all of this in that other thread o yours? I am confused.
|
This seems like the explanation of that solution.
Thanks for the explanation, this is very useful. In 2nd edition, invisibility was nice (-4 to incoming melee attacks, can't be targeted by missile attacks, bonus to hide in shadows), but not overwhelmingly so. I think it was a mistake to depart so completely from that.
This seems like the explanation of that solution.
Thanks for the explanation, this is very useful. In 2nd edition, invisibility was nice (-4 to incoming melee attacks, can't be targeted by missile attacks, bonus to hide in shadows), but not overwhelmingly so. I think it was a mistake to depart so completely from that.
Exactly. This is the explanation I should have written, to introduce the mass of clarifications. Hope it helps :)
So to sum all of this up;
Invisible: Cannot be seen but other senses can be used to locate it.
Perception DC 15 (+stealth check) to Sense an invisible character
Perception DC 20 (+stealth check) to determine the direction of an invisible character
Perception DC 25 (+stealth check) to pinpoint an invisible character
If the invisible character moves then the perception DC to detect him decreases by -5.
If the invisible character speaks loudly (i.e. casts a spell with a verbal component) then the perception DC to detect him decreases by -10.
You could rule by that logic that speaking quietly (whispering) would decrease the perception DC to detect him by -5.
There is a 50% miss chance to hit an unseen (invisible) creature since their opponent is effectively blind against them. Unseen creatures get a +2 attack against creatures that cannot see them. Creatures who cannot see their attacker also lose their Dexterity bonus to AC.
So what exactly would gauging the direction of an attacker allow you to do? This seems a bit nebulous to those a bit obsessed with mechanics like myself.
So, if one believes an invisible attacker to be adjacent to them and 'gauges their direction,' have they effectively pinpointed the position of the attacker already or do they need to make the third check still?
In another example, if an archer has successfully gauged the direction of an invisible target, but did not succeed at pinpointing them, could they try to take a shot at a location anyway, or would they be unable to do anything but watch? Would they receive some sort of benefit in any way from having guessed a direction, or is it simply acting as another chance for failure in their Perception checks?
Changing the scenario again, instead of an archer, if it is a spellcaster with a cone spell ready to cast. They have still succeeded at gauging the direction of the enemy but have not pinpointed them. Could they fire the cone spell and potentially hit the target (should the target be in range)? What if it were a line spell instead of a cone?
I'm wondering if instead of making two separate checks to determine direction and location, one check should be made, and if it succeeds, direction is known, if it succeeds by more than X, location is pinpointed.
So what exactly would gauging the direction of an attacker allow you to do? This seems a bit nebulous to those a bit obsessed with mechanics like myself.
So, if one believes an invisible attacker to be adjacent to them and 'gauges their direction,' have they effectively pinpointed the position of the attacker already or do they need to make the third check still?
In another example, if an archer has successfully gauged the direction of an invisible target, but did not succeed at pinpointing them, could they try to take a shot at a location anyway, or would they be unable to do anything but watch? Would they receive some sort of benefit in any way from having guessed a direction, or is it simply acting as another chance for failure in their Perception checks?
Changing the scenario again, instead of an archer, if it is a spellcaster with a cone spell ready to cast. They have still succeeded at gauging the direction of the enemy but have not pinpointed them. Could they fire the cone spell and potentially hit the target (should the target be in range)? What if it were a line spell instead of a cone?
I'm wondering if instead of making two separate checks to determine direction and location, one check should be made, and if it succeeds, direction is known, if it succeeds by more than X, location is pinpointed.
That is what the DC is. You make one roll to perceive. If you reach a DC of 15 (+ check) you know they are around somewhere. If you reach a DC of 20 (+ check) you know what direction they are from you but not necessarily how far away. If you reach a DC of 25 (+ check) then you know what square they are in.
If you know what direction your enemy is in then you can use area attacks against them. If you can pinpoint what square they are in then you can use targeted attacks (with a 50% miss chance). Area attacks do not suffer a miss chance. If you are in the area, you are affected. Personally, to define direction I would use 1-8. Or compass directions. 1 is straight ahead, 5 is directly behind.
So if the invisible creature is in front of and to the right of the character, the DM would say that you sense a creature in direction 2. You are unsure of how far away it is though.
The character could then guess at a logical location based on surroundings and use a radius effect or use an area spell such as a cone or line spell.
That is what the DC is. You make one roll to perceive. If you reach a DC of 15 (+ check) you know they are around somewhere. If you reach a DC of 20 (+ check) you know what direction they are from you but not necessarily how far away. If you reach a DC of 25 (+ check) then you know what square they are in.
Ah, okay. As I was reading it sounded like these were separate checks, which needed to be made one after the other... therein lies my confusion.
The "area attacks" still suffer a problem with Line spells though. They seem to be area attacks (affecting anything in their squares), but still require sufficient targeting as to potentially require the "ability to target" caveat. I suppose I could try to wing it with a ruling in-game, but thinking ahead almost always pays off...
That is what the DC is. You make one roll to perceive. If you reach a DC of 15 (+ check) you know they are around somewhere. If you reach a DC of 20 (+ check) you know what direction they are from you but not necessarily how far away. If you reach a DC of 25 (+ check) then you know what square they are in.
Ah, okay. As I was reading it sounded like these were separate checks, which needed to be made one after the other... therein lies my confusion.
The "area attacks" still suffer a problem with Line spells though. They seem to be area attacks (affecting anything in their squares), but still require sufficient targeting as to potentially require the "ability to target" caveat. I suppose I could try to wing it with a ruling in-game, but thinking ahead almost always pays off...
Well if your Sorcerer senses that an unseen enemy is in direction 3, he could cast his lightning bolt in that direction and it will affect his unseen opponent because the creature is in that line of effect if he is in that direction.
DC30/35/40 to sense/gauge direction/pinpoint.
Might I recommend a wording like this?
"The DC to sense the presence of an invisible enemy is (X). If the Perception check beats the DC by 5 or more, the successful character can additionally gauge the direction of the invisible creature. If the DC is beaten by 10 or more, the exact location of the invisible creature is determined."
In my experience, conditional descriptions like this are more intuitive than establishing three categories of DC, even when both methods are describing the same exact calculations.
In any case, I like what I'm seeing.
|
I don't see the doubling of the invisibility for Stealth rolls. It is a basic Perception +20/+40 (moving invisibly and standing still). So an invisible person is a 20 to see invisible. A 40 if they stand still. If they hide behind something while doing that they add their Stealth roll result. So it is Stealth + 20 while moving invisibly, and Stealth +40 sitting still. Not 40/80, 20/40.
The reason for the "not just impossible" to see someone is that "blur" effect you get with magic. When it moves it is not perfect (obviously, or it would be 40 either way).