im here! busy week. :P
I don't think you gain the bonus as the section on consealment specifies that Invsibility grants the bonus, not consealment itself. Consealment itself only provides a miss chance.
That's what my thought was but that's not how they are playing it. They are playing that total concealment equates to invisibility and therefore you get the +40/+20 bonus to Stealth. I don't agree otherwise they wouldn't need to specify invisibility as getting it, they would just say "if you have total concealment you get +40 to stealth if not moving and +20 if you move less than half your speed." and invisibility wouldn't even mention the bonuses it would just say "you gain total concealment" and the rules would already be set to apply.
Also here is another thread where they talk about it and not a single person in 80 posts thinks that you get the +40/+20 from total concealment. That is only from spells and effects that cause ACTUAL invisibility.
To be clear, I'm not asking for any previous wins to be removed. I do want this to be taken care of going forward though and this is one instance where I think there is a legitimate case for question.
You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Stealth checks when not moving (even though opponents can't see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual or auditory clues).
I actually tend to agree with imimrtl on this one (I realize it came up in my arena combat against Skitter, but I was on the fence on the issue at the time and moreover didn't want to challenge the ruling based on the information i had). Invisibility and Total Concealment are two different mechanical things (even if they practically can seem the same). And their effects are spelled out individually.
Full concealment doesn't grant the +20, Invisibility does. Full concealment simply means you're afforded Stealth checks (which I'd suggest you have to proactively make or you're not considered Stealthing) and that your opponent (barring means of ignoring the total concealment) can't target you for an attack.
So I'm not aware that Morskitter should be given that +20 at all (unless he has access to Invisibility). Which brings us to...
So by my reading, if Morskitter begins a round stealthed (by making a stealth attempt the previous round) or begins his round by using Stealth (by whatever means – I'm assuming by being in total concealment and making the roll), and he makes an attack, he's need to abide by the Sniping rules.
So right after he makes his attack roll, he'd need to make a Stealth roll, with the -20 penalty from sniping. At this point, I'd suggest his opponent is allowed a Perception check vs. his sniping Stealth DC… which is going to be much more attainable. Considering he'd (likely) still have Total Concealment vs. that opponent, the opponent (assuming he succeeds on his Perception check) still can't target Morskitter directly, but can target his square (with the 50% miss chance).
Now, I would suggest that Morskitter can – if he opened his round with his snipe attempt, and assuming he still has a move action remaining – make a second Stealth attempt as he skitters to a new location in the mist. I don't see that this second Stealth attempt would be subject to the sniping penalty.
Sorry but I can not get behind that.If something can't be seen then its by definition invisible.Obscuring Mist specifically states that " the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target.
So unless Elik is a Bat or some kind of Half-Dolphin I don't see how you come to the conclusion that he can pinpoint using only his ears at no penalty at all.
What sound is he even using,the *swoosh* the bomb makes as it flies through the air?
Well, if we're talking game terms (which should be pretty important in an arena like this one), they are two separate and distinct game terms that have different mechanical benefits. Though I guess Invisibility grants Total Concealment while Total Concealment doesn't grant Invisibility... it just grants a miss chance if the opponent can find you.
Here's a good discussion on the subject, with people providing good examples. It reinforces what I believe, though I don't believe an unanimous agreement was found.
Correct, and I agree with you on a realism standpoint, but this isn't a question of realism it's a question of RAW. Nowhere in the rules as written does it state that total concealment grants +20 or 40 to stealth. The only time that is ever mentioned is in reference to the spell Invisibility.
Eben that's the same one I posted above and I looked through it and couldnt find a single person who said that you should get +20 or 40 to your stealth like you do with invisibility so at least insofar as that, it seemed the consensus was relatively clear as there were multiple people that categorically said no to that.
then I guess we're in agreement... sorry for not realizing you had linked it before. :)
I predict we won't find an agreement here either. I don't even see how the game terms are different, Invisibility the spell is not the only thing that grants invisibility.And if an effect says "can't be located by sight" that means invisible.At least to me.
Invisibility does not grant any benefits beyond "can't be located by sight",it does not silence your movement or anything,so how are those two not the same?
Anyway I suggest you arbiters stick your heads together and figure that one out between yourselves.
Think of it this way, Sleet Storm. Invisible is a condition in Pathfinder. Now, if you have total concealment you are invisible as in not-visible, but you are not "invisible" as in the Pathfinder condition.
If I am standing in the end zone of a football field and a Minotaur wanders into the other end zone, I would no doubt be surprised. It would be the most surprising thing I've ever seen. But would I be "surprised" as in Pathfinder? I don't know my perception bonus, but I'd assume not.
lol No problem. Like I said it's not really a question of realism (not something I really want to get into in a game with magic and house cats that can kill people) but of the rules as they are written.
Well, technically, myself and mbauers have both weighed in. He ruled in your favor (at least initially), I'm falling on the RAW side of things and saying I think a stricter RAW interpretation should be up-held (for the reasons I gave a few posts up).
All that's left is for Jehova to weigh in, really. Unless Mbauers has changed his mind... though even if he did – and Jehova disagreed with both of us – I'd be inclined to stand by Jehova's ruling. This is his gig, after all.
Exactly mbauers. Also, Sleet Storm, I hope you understand we aren't trying to pick on you in particular or anything like that. We just have a very different take on the rules regarding this and as such it needs to be worked out in an arena like this. As you so perfectly put it the arbiters should probably get together and figure it out although I would hope they would take ours, and most definitely yours, opinions into account when making said decision.
So that means the whole can't be located by sight gives me no bonus at all?
He should at least count as blinded or get a penalty for terrible conditions(that would be -5) or both really.
Its all good. I don't feel picked on, I just don't follow your rationale.
Well the person isn't blind, again as the condition, but I think terrible conditions is reasonable.
If ruled this way, it would still get you a few very handy bonuses.
If an opponent can't see Morskitter, they can't target you. They can only target squares, so there's a blanket 50% miss chance. Moreover, you don't have to put out any additional effort (when you're in the cloud) to make Stealth checks.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone would locate your specific square by sound alone. Any time you make a snipe – even if your opponent beats your Sniping Stealth – I don't see in the rules that they know which specific sqaure you're in.
.. still looking, though.
It falls under notice a creature using stealth because perception doesn't differentiate between sensory types except by raising or lowering difficulty in terms of conditions. For example, it says you cannot detect creature by sight, but there are four other senses to the perception skill. For instance it gives the example of trying to hear something while a dragon is roaring or see something in dim light (both +2 to the difficulty btw)
It's fairly vague, though.
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 you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly.
To me that just says you know its there and avoid being surprised. It doesn't give us any specifics on what that means. We're clearly talking about a situation that is dependant on non-visual senses, and the only non-visual senses that are handled in the rules are Scent, Blindsense, and Blindsight... all of which have specific rules to govern how it works.
(oh, and let's not forget the sense of touch... an opponent still has the ability to grope into two adjacent squares as a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunities)
Well there are 4 other senses, yeah, but I'd say that if you don't have the scent ability that you can't locate someone by sense of smell. Youre not going to use "taste" or "touch" (at least at range), and per the spell sight is out. So most people are essentially trying to locate someone by hearing alone, not easy to do when said person is throwing bombs at you.
It'd make sense to me that someone would get a penalty to perception when locating just by hearing, but I'll have to look it up later when I'm on my computer and not my phone
Oh I think there should definitely be a penalty, however I do not think it should be the same as Invisibility when it isn't. I think it should fit into the already proscribed rules regarding conditions relating to perception. For instance I have done blind combat training myself doing Jiu Jitsu and while it is difficult to do, if someone throws something at you, you can pretty much always tell which direction it came from based upon the noise it makes flying through the air (hearing) and which side of your body you get hit on (touch) and quite often I could tell pretty much where the person was when they did that. That was while completely blindfolded. Obscuring mist has a five foot radius where you can actually see where the object comes from so that makes it even easier to tell. I would say it is terrible conditions which makes -5 to the roll with the addition of the -1 per 10ft distance but thats just my suggestion.
Something that might or might not help my case here is this:
Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.
You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.
If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.
If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.
Creating a Diversion to Hide
You can use Bluff to help you hide. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you.
See also: epic usages of Hide.
Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
Special
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.
If you have the Stealthy feat, you get a +2 bonus on Hide checks.
Now as you can obviously see those are the 3.5 Hide rules (back from when Stealth was two skills Hide and Move Silently), but the rules are essentialy the same in Pathfinder its just the two skills combined.
Granted you can only use Spot to oppose Hide while Listen opposes move Silently, but the Listen skill only allowed you to notice the presence of a creature not its exact location,Invisibility had no effect on Listen Checks.
Just food for thought.
EDIT: Who would have thought I would wish for the old,convoluted 3.5 skill system to come back.:)
I probably shouldn't but I'll just try to explain how I see the situation...again.I will accept whatever ruling you guys come up with (although chances are I won't like it), this is just to make clear where I'm coming from.I actually think the Listen/Spot Hide/Move Silently Skills are better suited to describe this particular situation than the combined skills in Pathfinder.And unless Pathfinder Characters have magically enhanced senses they are the same as in 3.5.
-Pathfinder still differentiates between Hearing-Based(Listen) and Sight-Based(Spot) perception checks.
-Listen could not even be used to Pinpoint or Locate,only to notice presence and direction.
-Locating a creature with Total Concealment using the Spot Skill was not just hard,it was flat out impossible(same as in Pathfinder,see Obscuring Mist).As a result Characters didn't even need to make a check.That was how I played it against Ritti.
-Locating an Invisible creature using the Spot Skill was possible albeit at the known penalties(same as in Pathfinder).
Oddly quiet...:(.
I hope that has nothing to do with our rules dispute.
So, we have a few things that we need to rule on. Let me know if I'm missing anything.
1) mbauers proposal #1: If someone was ready for, but was left out of, randomizations, they are allowed to have two consecutive challenge matches to compensate. I don't believe this was ever ruled on, but I think there was another possible solution offered (not having to have everyone available for a randomization, maybe?).
2) mbauers proposal #2: VP rules--3 for a win, 2 for a tie, 1 for a loss, 0 (or even negative points) for a forfeit loss.
Obviously, I'm in favor of both of the above. ;-)
3) Total concealment/invisibility ruling. It's really tough, honestly. My leaning is to do the -5 perception to locate the person due to bad conditions (unless you're using scent, blindsense, etc).
Sounds OK with me.Looks like Elik won that last match then.
With that ruling in place I would like to give Morskitter yet another overhaul ,I don't want to be complicated its just that I have to get a lot better Stealth now.
One question before I start:
When I snipe and then take a move in that same turn, can I make another stealth check without the -20?
I'm beginning to think that having a fixed day for randomizations was not a good idea.
I'm still following, FWIW
This looks like a case of STD(Spontaneus Thread Death).
Still think we could get this going again if some new players would join.Its pretty much all set up after all.
Yah, sorry for vanishing, guys.
Just to be honest, I'm simply struggling to be motivated to put the time that helping run this requires. I feel like a chump, but I hate to just disappear on you guys.
I just had my third son last saturday so I have an excuse ;-) I'm back now though so I'm good to continue.
I'll give it a go to run/help run this, but if I do I would want to enact my proposed changes. People haven't really responded to my posts about them, but my goal would be to reward participation/loyalty and try to keep people interested and motivated. Here they are again:
1) mbauers proposal #1: If someone was ready for, but was left out of, randomizations, they are allowed to have two consecutive challenge matches to compensate.
2) mbauers proposal #2: VP rules--3 for a win, 2 for a tie, 1 for a loss, 0 (or even negative points) for a forfeit loss.
Can everyone who is still interested post here saying so, and weigh in if they're ok with these changes? If we have enough interest and people are ok with the changes, I'll go back to the recruitment thread and try to get more people to join. Again, if we get a steady influx of people and we make it so that character advancement is readily attainable (and I believe, in the current incarnation of the rules, it is not), I think the thread will thrive, at least for awhile.
I won't be able to arbitrate every match on my own, so I'd need a few others to help me adjudicate matches and whatnot.
I like both and vote yes to both proposals.
Don't see a problem with the changes.And I would be willing to help ruling matches too.
The main problem will be recruiting new players.I think one of the problems is that people don't check campaign threads with more than 20 or so posts.Most campaigns don't allow that many players so if a thread is old or has a couple of posts in chances to get accepted are fading.
A fresh Recruitment thread might help.
Ok, well, here's what I'm thinking. I won't be able to devote too much time until about a week and a half from now (my summer school ends and I'm back from my trip). In the interim, maybe we can work on converting to the new VP system and updating characters (since some people will level as a result of this). While some might disagree, I think the easiest way to do it is just change everything retroactively.
So here's how it works: in the new system, every 9 VP you earn gets you a level up. So if you have your character's win/loss total, just convert them to VP and see what level you're in.
Level 3 = 0-8 VP
Level 4 = 9-17 VP
Level 5 = 18-26 VP
ETC
So can everyone post their W/L record for each character and convert it to the new VPs?
For example:
Shigeharu 6-0, new VP total = 18, still level 5
Arian 2-2, new VP total = 8, still level 3.
Once we verify everyone's new VP, people that level can spend time upgrading/submitting their characters to be audited.
In the meantime, would somebody mind maybe sending PMs to people that were good contributors, but dropped out? I'm thinking maybe Vironus, BASHA, etc. If they know that we have new VP parameters, they might come back.
Then maybe sometime this week I can create a new thread with a link to this one and try to recruit some new blood.
Thoughts?
Eben and Choon, are you good with being Arbiters still? Anybody else interested in arbitrating?
BASHA is my character.
I have sent PM's to everyone who has had a character in this arena except Imrtl,Jehova,dbauers,Eben,Choon and mbauers.
I can help arbitrate as well.
Hey, sorry I havent been around much. Jeez, I have 400+ posts to catch up on...
Got the mail from Sleet saying that things are kind of flatlining. I've been a bit too busy to check in as of late, but I am still interested in this and will likely be back sooner or later. I'll also try to catch up on what's been going on since I last saw things.
But yeah, just a note interest, I'm still up for this at some point, there's just a few other things eating up my time for a bit. I'll see about catching up on the thread in my free time though and try to be a bit more vocal when I get the chance.
I'm in the same boat as Darkwolf really. My fight with Alistar is really so, so I've been losing interest a lot, but hopefully things will pick up and when things settle down for me a little, I'll be happy to continue. :)
Jezebel has 12 points.
Elik has either 4 or 6 as I'm not sure whether we were going retroactive for the battles with the stealth question. I'm fine with however we are going though.
A fresh Recruitment thread might help.
Continuing from the 'too many posts = not much chance of getting in so don't bother checking' thing, if a new recruitment thread is made, I would put right in the title that there is no limit on entries, so everyone knows that at a glance.
Secondly, while I don't exactly know the specific incident that prompted the recent (as in about 2 weeks) invisibility question, this may be relevant. Me and Choon ran into something that sounds similar. The link goes to my rationalization and a few posts following has more discussion and a ruling eventually.
I'd be all for the new VP system, even though I never actually messed around with the old one much. But I was originally a little put off that the progression can be very fickle. Of course, if Jehova doesn't like the idea, it's not a deal breaker of any sorts.
Anywho, I read up on the thread, more or less. A quick summary of anything particularly important that transpired may be nice though, if anyone wants do so.
Heads up that I'm out of town and then fairly busy until Wednesday or so, so anyone who leveled as a result of the VP change has approximately a week to update their characters to get in on the next round. Ill setup a new recruitment thread probably on Sunday or Monday
Anywho, I read up on the thread, more or less. A quick summary of anything particularly important that transpired may be nice though, if anyone wants do so.
Well, Jehova is gone.