| 28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many people believe the intent of the developers is that invisibility should not grant a bonus to stealth checks. The purpose of this thread is to find out what the intent of the rule is (and possibly get the rule changed if it needs to be in order to reflect the intent).
If you would like to see this officially addressed, please click the FAQ button on the upper right corner of this post.
Please do not use this thread to argue whether or not invisibility does grant a bonus to stealth checks. What the rules currently state is not the point. Please keep discussion as to whether, ideally, being invisible should grant a bonus to stealth checks.
Discussion on how the rules currently work (or don't work, depending on your persective) can be found here:
Invisibility fun.
Invisibility Questions
Locating an invisible creature
Relevant sections of the rules:
Stealth
The Invisible condition.
Invisibility (Glossary)
Perception
The Invisibility spell
Natural Invisibility (Ex or Su) (UMR)
Invisible Stalker (Example creature with Natural Invisibility (Ex))
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not "many". It is the few that can't read the rule book. It granted a bonus in 3.5, and it grants one now. If they disagree they can create a thread, and I will be happy to show it to them, but to disagree is like saying weapon focus does not grant a +1 bonus when you attack with a certain weapon.
Yeah I am typing this so one of them does create the thread, but I doubt they will do it.
Before they get all happy about the situation and try to make that thread.
The book also says it increases the DC to perception. Effectively it is the same thing however. A +20 to the stealth roll is equal to a +20 to the perception DC modifier.
The books says.
"Creature or object is invisible +20"
Final result: No matter how you slice it, you have to deal with the +20
Case closed.
I really want the opposing faction to create a thread, and let them describe it, instead of derailing this one. My first post contains all the arguments I will make on the subject here. Now I am just waiting for one of them to make that thread, but I will not hold my breath.
Yeah, I must admit I am not seeing the argument either. According to the PRD Invisibility specifically states that it gives a +40 bonus to stealth when stationary and a +20 to stealth while moving and gives specific examples of how one may lose the effect of the spell. Seemed like a cut and dry case to me.
Edit: Re-reading the opening post, I would say that yes invisibility should grant a bonus to stealth checks. However, I do feel the bonus from the spell is a little too high for my taste and have since reduced the bonus to +10 while stationary and +5 while moving. Now, yes, that is homebrew and your mileage may vary depending on DM, but that was the consensus me and my group came to on the ability.
Edit 2:Also, this seems less like a rules question and more like homebrew as you are not actually debating what the spell itself does, but what you would prefer that the spell did. That, in my mind, is not actually a rules question.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think it's not so much "Is invisibility intended to grant a bonus to stealth checks?" as "is there as +20 bonus to Stealth from being invisible AND a +20 bonus to the Perception DC for being Invisible or are those the same bonus being restated in different ways?"
and
Under the Table in the Invisibility section, is the listing for "Using Stealth" / Stealth Check +20 supposed to substitute for the DC 20 perception check to notice with another + 20 to pinpoint? Or is it supposed to add to it?
Obviously there are two different camps who will completely disagree with each other and we already have 121+ post thread of going back and forth about it. As Grick (the originator of this thread) stated above: "Please do not use this thread to argue whether or not invisibility does grant a bonus to stealth checks.".."Please keep discussion as to whether, ideally, being invisible should grant a bonus to stealth checks". We don't need more of the "My interpretation IS the right interpretation RAW" being slung back and forth. Especially when we let condescension creep into it.
Well to start the - "Should being invisible should grant a bonus to stealth checks in addition to the bonus to the perception DC?" - discussion.
I'll say no, based on the comparison made to hiding from a blind person or in complete darkness. The invisible person will have the DC to find them be 20 higher unless I'm missing something.
This was the most compelling argument made by the "no they shouldn't stack" camp IMO.
BTW if you want resolution to this click FAQ. Hey Jiggy can you come pitch for Grick? Or are you going to wait till your FAQs get answered? :)
With respect, I believe the question is not whether invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks. It grants +20, or +40 if the creature does not move.
The question is whether or not this bonus, along with the creature's Stealth check, is added to a base DC of 20, or taken by itself.
My opinion: Strict RAW says the Stealth +20 is added to the Perception DC of 20. I do not believe that is intended.
I think this total need to be. Cleared up. Just for the fact that it only +10 to perceive something through 1 foot of wall and it only a DC 10 to hear smeone walking. I can't believe the intent of invisibility is to make one quite as well.
Invisibility doesn't make you quiet. It makes you invisible. The reason it is easier to detect someone through a wall is because that scenario isn't messing with your world view. If someone were invisible, behind a wall, the DC should be the same as if they were not visible. But when you turn the corner and look in the room, seeing nothing, you'll begin to doubt yourself, and actually detecting the invisible creature becomes more difficult.
At least that is my interpretation/justification of the RAW.
I know invisibility does not make you quitter I was being sarcastic. I just don't think it was the intent of the spell to make the DC to perception harder to detect someone( where there is no barrier) then it is to perceive someone behind 2 feet of brick. and if that was the case about turning the corner there should be an automatic will save that could make invisibility useless.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Grick is, most likely unintentionally, misrepresenting the argument.
No one is arguing that the stealth skill grants a bonus to stealth checks, the question is whether this bonus to stealth checks is intended to stack with all the other +20 bonuses for being invisible that are listed in various places in the rules in slightly different ways.
My postion is as follows:
Being invisible is covered in 3 (or 4 if you count the spell) places in the CRB. Under the Invisibility entry in Special Abilities, under the Perception skill, and under the stealth skill.
These charts all list various 20s being applied to locating the characters. I do not dispute that strictly by RAW these would stack, but I seriously question that this is the intent.
IE. Under Invisibility it says that becoming aware of an Invisible creature is DC 20. It also list "Stealth +20" as the modifier when a creature is using the Stealth skill (however, I think we should note the lack of a '+' sign before the word stealth).
Under the perception skill it lists the DC for an invisible Creature as 0, under the modifiers section it list "+20" if the creature is invisible. It is also clear under the Perception skill that a Stealth check replaces the base DC 0 for a perception check with the result of the Stealth Check.
Under the Stealth skill it lists a +40 (or 20 if moving) bonus from being invisible.
One way to read this is that these are all different bonuses and are all intended to stack: So you get Base DC 20 + 20 (from the Perception chart) + Stealth +20. This, effectively makes it a DC 60 to become aware of an invisible creature before you even add in your normal stealth result. To pinpoint their square is an extra DC 20.
Trying to decipher intent, however, I believe that these +20s are basically the same bonus being repeated in each section.
In this case the "base" DC 20 under Invisibility is actually meant to represent the normal base DC of 0 +20 for being invisible that is listed under Perception.
Stealth +20 would replace the "base" perception DC, while the +20 listed under Perception and the +20 listed under Stealth are intended to be the same bonus, just being listed in both places.
Thus the DC to become aware of an invisible creature using Stealth would be [Stealth Check + 20 (+20 to pinpoint their square)].
This is more in line with DCs that exited in 3.5.
3.5
To compare in 3.5 Perception was instead split into Spot/Listen (and Search, but that's irrelevant here), while Stealth was split into Hide/Move Silently. Spot/Hide represented detecting a creature by vision while Listen/Move Silently covered hearing
To become aware of an invisible creature in 3.5 was simply an opposed Listen Vs Move Silently check with no bonuses. The listener had to beat the Move Silently Check be 20 to pinpoint which square the creature was in.
Even spotting an invisible creature in 3.5 was possible, using purely visual skills. This was represented by DC 20 OR Stealth + 20 Vs a Spot check, pinpointing was an additional +20.
Using the probable RAW in PF it is now more difficult to use Perception (a skill that is intended to include all senses) to become aware of an invisible creature than it was to use only your eyes to become aware of their presence in 3.5
I do not believe they intended such a drastic increase in difficulty between the 3.5/PF conversion and basically made some slight errors in combining the skills and trying to codify things that were mentioned as references to other skills in the 3.5 SRD into charts in each section, that have produced an incredible increase in the difficulty to become aware of an Invisible creature in PF under the likely RAW.
Also, I'm hesitant to hit FAQ on this as I believe that the way the title/opening post represent the argument it will cause whoever from Paizo looks at it to say, "Of course Stealth adds a bonus, duh." and not look at the actual issue. Which is how the bonuses listed under Perception, Stealth, and Invisibility are intended to interact/stack with each other.
|
Well, from the invisibility spell, "If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus to its stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
I'm not sure what the issue is, mechanically. It's pretty clear that it provides a bonus to stealth. If you're looking for a rationalization, that's different.
The best one I can come up with is, when you don't have to worry about being seen, you can put a lot more attention into moving quietly.
If you're talking about the extra +20 from perception to the dc, mechanically they would stack.
As far as the whole perception thing, I'm going to note that it is possible for something to be effectively invisible without use of the invisibility spell. In that case, the invisible creature who didn't cast invisibility would net only a +20 bonus instead of the whole number.
For example, the pixie is invisible, but not as per the spell. So is the shadow demon, and the spores of the basidirond. Short list, true, but still present.
Most of you seem to have missed the point.
This thread is not about whether invisibility does or does not grant a bonus to stealth checks.
It's about whether it should.
what's the argument against Invisibility granting a bonus to stealth checks?
They feel the DC to notice an invisible creature using stealth is too high if the stealth check gets a bonus from being invisible.
Also, this seems less like a rules question and more like homebrew as you are not actually debating what the spell itself does, but what you would prefer that the spell did. That, in my mind, is not actually a rules question.
Yes, but the actual rule threads keep getting clogged up and derailed by people who post how they think it should work. Since they're so certain the rules are wrong, they feel it's actually correct to run it however they say, and anyone else reading the thread to find out the actual rules can get confused. So those people can use this thread to talk about how they know what the intent is, and if they're right it'll get a FAQ entry.
With respect, I believe the question is not whether invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks.
Yeah, I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.
The question is whether or not this bonus, along with the creature's Stealth check, is added to a base DC of 20, or taken by itself.
Actually, no, that's not the question either.
The rules are pretty clear on the matter. This isn't about truth, it's about feelings. People feel it should work a certain way, regardless of whether it does actually work that way or not. This thread is for those people to find out it if really should work the way they think.
"Should", not "does".
No one is arguing that the stealth skill grants a bonus to stealth checks
They shouldn't be, since that's not what this thread is about.
the question is whether this bonus to stealth checks is intended to stack with all the other +20 bonuses for being invisible that are listed in various places in the rules in slightly different ways.
That's still not the question. There aren't any other bonuses. It's not about stacking, it's whether a particular bonus to a particular skill should be granted by a particular condition. Full stop.
Also, I'm hesitant to hit FAQ on this as I believe that the way the title/opening post represent the argument it will cause whoever from Paizo looks at it to say, "Of course Stealth adds a bonus, duh."
Only if they don't actually read the question. Which, given the responses so far, seems fairly likely.
The question is not whether stealth gets a bonus.
The question is if it should.
Well Grick invite them hear and tell them to open up a thread saying invis does not add to stealth. I will be more than happy to educate them.
I mean who really says "the rule that is written 3 or 4 times was really not meant to be written 3 or 4 times"?
Like I said. It makes about as much sense as saying the +1 from weapon focus is also an accident.
IIRC the blog created when they were about to redo the stealth rules probably mentions it, and that is from the dev team.
If I were to put in the effort I could probably find a quote from SKR, or Jason. I did find one from 3.5, and the rules have not changed.
TLDR:This does NOT require an FAQ. People just have to realize rules don't always work the way they like, and in that case they can houserule it.
PS:We know it "should(it is RAI)" because 3.5 quotes support it working that way, and the rules have not changed. If they are not willing to make a thread to argue the point, then it shows they know the truth. They just want to try to argue for no reason...We have a word for that. It rhymes with "rolls".
That's still not the question. There aren't any other bonuses. It's not about stacking, it's whether a particular bonus to a particular skill should be granted by a particular condition. Full stop.
the question is whether this bonus to stealth checks is intended to stack with all the other +20 bonuses for being invisible that are listed in various places in the rules in slightly different ways.
Then I agree with Nina in the Rye on this.
Also, I'm hesitant to hit FAQ on this as I believe that the way the title/opening post represent the argument it will cause whoever from Paizo looks at it to say, "Of course Stealth adds a bonus, duh." and not look at the actual issue. Which is how the bonuses listed under Perception, Stealth, and Invisibility are intended to interact/stack with each other.
And I am sorry I hit FAQ andI wish I could undo that. I fully recommend that people NOT hit FAQ on this. I thought this was a legitimate attempt to explore the RAI concerns that people that didn't agree with your RAW interpretation had. But the way you are presenting this, intentional or not, is is taking things out of context and misrepresenting them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if the real question is how do "all of these" interact a new thread should be made asking that question. The way Grick presented the question made me think someone can't read simple rules. It is not helping that those being misrepresent, if that is the case, are not speaking up.
Wraithstrike, there have been several people "speaking up" that Grick has misrepresented the argument, I said as much in my post and tried to present what the argument actually was.
Most of you seem to have missed the point.
I've not seen anyone in the Invisibility Fun thread actually arguing that Invisibility is not meant to grant a bonus to stealth checks, though I've seen you ask me if that is what I was arguing in that thread once or twice. So, yes, I suppose that I have missed the point.
PS:We know it "should(it is RAI)" because 3.5 quotes support it working that way, and the rules have not changed. If they are not willing to make a thread to argue the point, then it shows they know the truth. They just want to try to argue for no reason...We have a word for that. It rhymes with "rolls".
Actually my argument in the other thread pretty much boils down to the intent being for Stealth Vs Perception while Invisible to work as Hide Vs Spot while invisible worked in 3.5.
In 3.5 by RAW you simply rolled a Hide check and added 20 (40 if not moving) to it against the opponent's Spot check.
In PF, by RAW, Grick's argument is that you have a base DC of 20 to perceive the presence of an Invisible creature/object which you then add Stealth +20 (40 if not moving) to. My argument is that the Stealth +20 check is intended to replace this "base DC" rather than adding to it as happens when you make a Stealth Check Vs a visible creature.
In fact a blind man in PF now has a more difficult time detecting an invisible creature than he does a visible one.
This is of course leaving aside that there was no "Stealth" skill in 3.5, there was Hide/Move Silently, and they seem to have completely ignored the Listen Vs Move Silently aspects of locating an Invisible creature in PF.
I mean who really says "the rule that is written 3 or 4 times was really not meant to be written 3 or 4 times"?
A number of people in nearly every thread on invisibility.
There were also a number of people who insisted that Sunder wasn't supposed to be an attack action, despite being clearly written that way in the rules. It turned out, the rules didn't reflect designer intent, and they were changed.
The people who feel the DC is too high could post rules-legal examples to show why it's too high.
For example, trying to find an invisible creature stealthing in total darkness is significantly harder than trying to find a visible creature stealthing in total darkness. Why? Because invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks. People feel this should not be the case.
Another example, if you're invisible, it's easier to hide from a creature that has see invisibility than if you were not invisible, despite the creature being able to see things that are invisible. Why? Because invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks. People feel this should not be the case.
TLDR:This does NOT require an FAQ.
When someone feels the rules are wrong, then they no longer consider the rules to be evidence of intent. It breaks the default assumption. There's no other way for them to know if the intent matches the rule without being told. And, since it comes up fairly frequently, being addressed in the FAQ (or even a casual post by SKR or JB) would help.
PS:We know it "should(it is RAI)" because 3.5 quotes support it working that way, and the rules have not changed.
Every involved skill was changed between 3.5 and PFRPG, so it cannot work the same way. The spot DC was not modified by hide, and the listen check was an opposed roll with a different table of modifiers.
I thought this was a legitimate attempt to explore the RAI concerns that people that didn't agree with your RAW interpretation had.
It is. I specifically avoided actually mentioning what the rules say. If I had posted "Clearly, invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks, it's listed three times in the book, but some people think it's a mistake" that would have been leading. It's unfortunate that the people who actually feel the RAI doesn't match the RAW have been unable to post any reasoning whatsoever in this thread which is dedicated to that topic.
But the way you are presenting this, intentional or not, is is taking things out of context and misrepresenting them.
How is it misrepresenting anything?
People think there shouldn't be a bonus to stealth checks. Not that there isn't, but rather than the bonus that is there is not supposed to be.
In 3.5 by RAW you simply rolled a Hide check and added 20 (40 if not moving) to it against the opponent's Spot check.
The spot check was against a set DC. It was not modified by hide.
3.5 Invisibility: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Not only did hide not factor into it, the table of modifiers didn't, either. Those modifiers were for the Listen check, which was opposed by move silently.
My argument is that the Stealth +20 check is intended to replace this "base DC" rather than adding to it as happens when you make a Stealth Check Vs a visible creature.
And, if the creature isn't moving, do you also remove the +20 modifier from the table for "Not moving"? (Functionally identical to removing the increased Stealth bonus)
The sunder rules were poorly written.
Honestly I don't care how they feel. I only care if there is some possible confusion. Now some are saying there point is being misrepresented, and I do think how the bonuses stack is worthy of an FAQ, but as to whether or not the modifier applies, I have yet to see one of them post here. I can't FAQ a post if those people refuse to come here and say that is what they mean. So far everyone that is posting is arguing a different point.
With that aside if we can get an FAQ on how the bonus stack it will solve that question, and answer this one.
I guess I can make an thread for that. I will do it and post a link short.
Now some are saying there point is being misrepresented, and I do think how the bonuses stack is worthy of an FAQ
What bonuses?
There's only one bonus being discussed, the bonus to stealth checks granted by being invisible.
A DC is not a bonus.
A DC modifier is also not a bonus.
A penalty is not a bonus.
A negative DC modifier is not a penalty.
Now some are saying there point is being misrepresented, and I do think how the bonuses stack is worthy of an FAQWhat bonuses?
There's only one bonus being discussed, the bonus to stealth checks granted by being invisible.
A DC is not a bonus.
A DC modifier is also not a bonus.
A penalty is not a bonus.
A negative DC modifier is not a penalty.
True, but you know what I mean, and so will the Paizo staff.
By bonus I meant modifier.:)
Now some are saying there point is being misrepresented, and I do think how the bonuses stack is worthy of an FAQWhat bonuses?
There's only one bonus being discussed, the bonus to stealth checks granted by being invisible.
A DC is not a bonus.
A DC modifier is also not a bonus.
A penalty is not a bonus.
A negative DC modifier is not a penalty.
At the end of the day the question is does invisibilty affect the difficulty to find the target. Whether you apply it to perception or stealth the +20 has to be dealt with, and not wanting to deal with that +20 seems to be the issue.
In 3.5 by RAW you simply rolled a Hide check and added 20 (40 if not moving) to it against the opponent's Spot check.The spot check was against a set DC. It was not modified by hide.
3.5 Invisibility: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. A creature who is holding still is very hard to notice (DC 30). An inanimate object, an unliving creature holding still, or a completely immobile creature is even harder to spot (DC 40). It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Spot check, and even if a character succeeds on such a check, the invisible creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance)."
Not only did hide not factor into it, the table of modifiers didn't, either. Those modifiers were for the Listen check, which was opposed by move silently.
Hide factors in to it once you add in the normal rules for spot and hide.
3.5 Spot
"The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it. "
The DC 20 is the DC to notice an invisible creature who is not trying to hide, once that creature uses the Hide skill this replaces the DC 20/30/40 with the result of the Hide check (which, as indicated under the Hide Skill, grants a +40/+20 if moving to Hide checks).
And, yes, the table modifiers there where meant to apply to Move Silently, I've never said otherwise. It was much easier to become aware of an invisible creature in 3.5 as you were actually allowed to use your ears to hear them and being invisible didn't grant a blanket bonus against all senses.
My argument is that the Stealth +20 check is intended to replace this "base DC" rather than adding to it as happens when you make a Stealth Check Vs a visible creature.And, if the creature isn't moving, do you also remove the +20 modifier from the table for "Not moving"? (Functionally identical to removing the increased Stealth bonus)
Yes, that is my belief of the intent of the rules (and is in line with how Invisibility + Hide Vs Spot worked in 3.5).
I wish move silently and hide had been kept as separate skills.
Being invisible on the other side of a wall, and being invisible on the other side of a wall should not really matter. The DC should be the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, if the creature isn't moving, do you also remove the +20 modifier from the table for "Not moving"? (Functionally identical to removing the increased Stealth bonus)Yes, that is my belief of the intent of the rules
So in what ways is this different from simply removing the bonus to stealth checks and otherwise using the rules as written?
I see what you are saying Grick, just removing any bonuses to Stealth would probably clear some of this up (as long as everything is captured by Perception DC modifiers). And I see now what you're are saying about the +20 to the Perception DC isn't a "bonus", it's a DC modifier. You are probably getting a few of us to review the "Common Terms" in the front of the Rulebook and hopefully clear up our terminology.
My concern (and I think Ninja in the Rye's) is that asking "Is invisibility intended to grant a bonus to stealth checks?", with out mentioning the +20 modifier to the Perception DC at the same time, can lead people to see the question and think "Should a creature be more successful at using stealth if they are invisible (vs. not being invisible). Of course most would say "duh..yeah". I know that's not what you are asking, but I think without the context of the Perception DC modifier it will lead people to not understand what is really being asked or why.
Here is another question of verisimilitude. Lets say you are just using stealth to remain hidden, but do not move for an entire round. Since you are effectively invisible to those around you, and are not moving, should you get that additional +20 to your stealth check?
From my perspective, that extra +20 for not moving is overkill, and should not be included in the rules. Rather, if you are just trying to stay still and not attract attention, that is covered by including your stealth roll, untrained if necessary.
Edit: also making invisibility provide such huge bonuses really detracts from the worth stealth skill and the classes that use it. It makes invisibility sphere more valuable than it should be. Just sayin'
Lets say you are just using stealth to remain hidden, but do not move for an entire round. Since you are effectively invisible to those around you, and are not moving, should you get that additional +20 to your stealth check?
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
"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."
If the creature is not moving or engaged in a noisy activity, those modifiers are not applied to the DC.
Since "Invisible creature is... Using Stealth" is one of those modifiers, that means "Stealth check +20" is not applied to the DC unless the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
The second +20 is there so that people in combat still get something out of the skill, since its a -20 to stealth if they are actively in combat.
Edit: also making invisibility provide such huge bonuses really detracts from the worth stealth skill and the classes that use it.
Just to be fair, you're comparing being completely visually undetectable, usually as a result of some magical effect, to hiding behind a tree.
The same level of magic that makes you effectively immune to mundane archers, or allows you to be set on fire without being harmed, or conjure an ally from another plane, or read peoples' thoughts, or make someone permanently deaf.
Yes, being invisible is, and should be IMO, significantly better than just being sneaky.
The second +20 is there so that people in combat still get something out of the skill, since its a -20 to stealth if they are actively in combat.
Could you be a little more clear about what you're talking about?
But if you are using the stealth rewrite, you can engage in stealth without moving as a swift action, correct? Which would also be "not moving" and "not engaging in a noisy activity" by definition.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml?Stealth-Playtest-Round-TwoStealth
That's not my point really. My point is the extra +20 for not moving should not exist as it takes the place of a normal stealth check which can be performed while not moving. The two should not coexist, since they represent the same thing.
|
It is not "many". It is the few that can't read the rule book. It granted a bonus in 3.5, and it grants one now. If they disagree they can create a thread, and I will be happy to show it to them, but to disagree is like saying weapon focus does not grant a +1 bonus when you attack with a certain weapon.
Yeah I am typing this so one of them does create the thread, but I doubt they will do it.
Before they get all happy about the situation and try to make that thread.
The book also says it increases the DC to perception. Effectively it is the same thing however. A +20 to the stealth roll is equal to a +20 to the perception DC modifier.
The books says.
"Creature or object is invisible +20"Final result: No matter how you slice it, you have to deal with the +20
Case closed.
I agree the fact it adds a bonus is cut and dry, however some of the other questions surrounding that bonus (and invisibilty in general) are a bit less clear.
I do think it is worth an FAQ for general clarification.
The second +20 is there so that people in combat still get something out of the skill, since its a -20 to stealth if they are actively in combat.Could you be a little more clear about what you're talking about?
You get a +20 for being invisible.
If you are not moving you get another +20
If you are in combat you get a -20
If the 2nd "+20" was not there you fighting in combat would cancel out the bonus bonus to being invisible.
PS:I am in game designer theory mode when explaining why that 2nd +20 is in the book.
The second +20 is there so that people in combat still get something out of the skill, since its a -20 to stealth if they are actively in combat.
this should also not exist. There are too many modifiers here pushing the DC up and down by overly huge margines. Someone's got greater invisibility and if attacking you? DC20, nuff said. At least that's how it should work. There is already enough math in combat rounds to deal with.
Edit: it just occurs to me that the -20 might have been put in there to specify that stabbing someone in the back while invisible reveals that there is an invisible person "in that square". Perhaps that was the intent to bring the "perception DC" to 0 effectively. Probably should have just had language to that effect, if that is the case.
It is not "many". It is the few that can't read the rule book. It granted a bonus in 3.5, and it grants one now. If they disagree they can create a thread, and I will be happy to show it to them, but to disagree is like saying weapon focus does not grant a +1 bonus when you attack with a certain weapon.
Yeah I am typing this so one of them does create the thread, but I doubt they will do it.
Before they get all happy about the situation and try to make that thread.
The book also says it increases the DC to perception. Effectively it is the same thing however. A +20 to the stealth roll is equal to a +20 to the perception DC modifier.
The books says.
"Creature or object is invisible +20"Final result: No matter how you slice it, you have to deal with the +20
Case closed.
I agree the fact it adds a bonus is cut and dry, however some of the other questions surrounding that bonus (and invisibilty in general) are a bit less clear.
I do think it is worth an FAQ for general clarification.
Invis is worth an FAQ. Whether or not the modifier applies to stealth or the perception DC is not. With all of the invis threads up lately I think we will be getting an FAQ on it eventually. If you answer the other questions this one will automatically be answered since it is at the root of the other questions, however answering this one alone will not answer the other questions.
|
|
Also, I'm hesitant to hit FAQ on this as I believe that the way the title/opening post represent the argument it will cause whoever from Paizo looks at it to say, "Of course Stealth adds a bonus, duh." and not look at the actual issue. Which is how the bonuses listed under Perception, Stealth, and Invisibility are intended to interact/stack with each other.
Which is why you should FAQ your post (as I did)
I think the real question being ask is if invisibility "is" functionally a bonus to stealth.
In other words, if you have a 40 stealth, are you "functionally" invisible while using it. Is invisibilty really functionally at it's core a huge stealth bonus.
Even if being invisible gave absolutely no bonus/modifier to Stealth Checks (as was the case with Move Silently in 3.5) it would still give you the benefit of actually being able to attempt to use Stealth in combat, which is a huge boon.
And, if the creature isn't moving, do you also remove the +20 modifier from the table for "Not moving"? (Functionally identical to removing the increased Stealth bonus)Yes, that is my belief of the intent of the rulesSo in what ways is this different from simply removing the bonus to stealth checks and otherwise using the rules as written?
In the terms of the end results being applied to the check? Effectively there is very little if any.
In terms of the intent of the rule and how someone might perceive "Should being invisible add a bonus to stealth checks?" It is, IMO, a small but important distinction.
Edit: also making invisibility provide such huge bonuses really detracts from the worth stealth skill and the classes that use it.Just to be fair, you're comparing being completely visually undetectable, usually as a result of some magical effect, to hiding behind a tree.
The same level of magic that makes you effectively immune to mundane archers, or allows you to be set on fire without being harmed, or conjure an ally from another plane, or read peoples' thoughts, or make someone permanently deaf.
Yes, being invisible is, and should be IMO, significantly better than just being sneaky.
Being behind total cover, such as a tree, also makes you "visually undetectable" and "protects you from mundane archers". The difference between stealth and invisibility is not the mechanical effect but rather the circumstances which allow you to use it.
Also, I'm hesitant to hit FAQ on this as I believe that the way the title/opening post represent the argument it will cause whoever from Paizo looks at it to say, "Of course Stealth adds a bonus, duh." and not look at the actual issue. Which is how the bonuses listed under Perception, Stealth, and Invisibility are intended to interact/stack with each other.Which is why you should FAQ your post (as I did)
I think the real question being ask is if invisibility "is" functionally a bonus to stealth.
In other words, if you have a 40 stealth, are you "functionally" invisible while using it. Is invisibilty really functionally at it's core a huge stealth bonus.
From my perspective you are taking about a +30 stealth check? Yes, functionally invisible (or rather as good or even better than someone with invis sitting twiddling their thumbs) as long as the conditions for remaining hidden still exist i.e. cover/concealment. Can you remain hidden with a +30 stealth check while in the middle of the road with no cover/concealment because you check bonus is the same? no.
You get a +20 for being invisible.
+20 to what?
If you are in combat you get a -20
It seems like you're talking about modifiers to the perception DC to notice an invisible creature that is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Assuming this is the case, there's no +20 for being invisible.
It's a DC 20 perception check.
If the Invisible creature is In combat or speaking you modify that perception check by –20.
If the Invisible creature is Not moving you modify that perception check by +20.
Being invisible is a "stealth check+20" for the perception DC.
Not moving is another +20.
Both of these are in the invis section for the glossary.
edit: The flat 20 is only to notice an invisible creature within 30 feet.
edit: grammar
Being invisible is a "stealth check+20" for the perception DC.
No, it's not. This was all addressed in this post (which, conveniently, was in the thread about how the rules work instead of the thread about the intent of the stealth bonus) but I'll reply to this anyway since this thread is pretty much jacked.
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
That's the perception DC.
"It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check."
That's a modifier to that DC if you want to pinpoint, instead of just notice.
"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."
Sometimes, you modify it the DC further.
"Invisible creature is... Using Stealth"
This is one of the things that can modify it.
"Stealth check +20"
This is what you modify it with.
To me the question can be summed up by the following example/question:
Assume a moving character who is invisible and using stealth who rolls a 0 on his 'normal' stealth check (ie before any modifiers/bonuses for movement speed/being invisible are applied):
What should the DC to become aware of the presence (not Pinpoint which adds an extra +20 to the DC) of this character be?
My opinion, it should simply be 0+20 = 20 as it was to use Hide Vs Spot while invisible in 3.5.
Grick's RAW position (as I understand it), is DC 20 + 0+20 = 40.
Or is it option C, DC 20 + 0+20 +20 (perception chart modifier for being invisible as a separate bonus from the DC20/stealth bonus) = 60?
Or is it something else?
Just to be clear, this is a question of RAI rather than RAW.