Does this argument apply to Stealth?
No.
Yes. If you're sneaking up on a pack of wolves you certainly are in immediate danger. If a failed roll is going to get you ripped to shreds I want to see a polyhedral object bouncing across the table. Avoiding the fickle hand of fate is a 10th level rogue ability. It shouldn't be handed out for free.
I open the skylight and I roll for Stealth, I poke my head out the skylight and scan the roof and roll for Stealth--awk! There is a guard on the roof! All those Stealth rolls and only the last one was a confrontation
That's solved through the DM trusting his players not to metagame and only asking for the roll that matters.
"Immediate danger" means "you are in danger NOW". Not "Might you be in danger in a moment?".
I agree. Jumping over a pit is dangerous, but you are not IN danger.
I made a spinoff thread for the Take 10 W/ Stealth discussion.
I think it is worthy of discussion, but I'd rather not see it clutter up the playtest thread. If you really want the devs to make a ruling on it, go there, FAQ the thread, and state your case.
"Immediate danger" means "you are in danger NOW". Not "Might you be in danger in a moment?".
You are in danger now. You're just not in combat now. They're not synonomous.
And immediate doesn't mean NOW it means "very soon". "I'll get to work on that immediately" means you're going to walk to your desk, open MS word and start typing, it doesn't necessarily mean you have ms word open and your fingers on the keyboard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Immediate danger" means "you are in danger NOW". Not "Might you be in danger in a moment?".
I'm also in favor of allowing the take 10 option for Stealth. Wording often includes "distracted, rushed or threatened conditions", which I think is less misleading than 'immediate danger'.
There are many activities that are dangerous in nature and yet we perform in a relaxed enough way to 'take 10': driving for example.
With a minimum training, we can get relaxed enough about driving not to consciously make a 'skill check' every time there is oncoming traffic, or gauging an upcoming car's speed before pulling off the driveway. Irregular mistakes start happening when we are distracted (talking on the cell phone), rushed (can't be late for work!) or somehow threatened (oh my god, my mom is watching my every move and criticizing everything I don't do perfectly!).
Getting better or more relaxed about a task doesn't make the task less dangerous, it only diminishes the risks of facing danger. Taking 10 shouldn't be solely based on the dangerous consequences of a failed check, but on whether or not we can performed the task relaxed enough to 'take 10'.
I don't have problem with someone being experienced and confident enough to 'casually' sneak by opponents, the same way that I don't think sentries are doing a perception check every 6 seconds: they are taking 10 until a situation warrants closer attention. There's a point to be said about once the sentries suspect a presence, both sneakers and observers should make a roll, by mechanic of how the opposed rolls work. But unless either sneaker or observer feel that their usual isn't good enough, there shouldn't be a need for skill checks per say.
'findel
Another thing that I'd like to see addressed/taken into account is some kind of rules regarding gaining stealth in combat.
Example, a character attacks from stealth then moves to a position of cover (behind a building, into a fog cloud, etc).
Next turn (under the playtest) they attempt a stealth check. Are there any negative modifiers (as is the case with sniping) or is it considered an unmodified stealth check?
I'm trying to get at the topic of using stealth multiple times during combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly,
I'd kind of like to simplify the dice rolling. Similar to how CMB/CMD simplified combat manuevers down to a single roll, I'd honestly like to see perception/stealth handled the same way. Give someone a Combined Stealth Value (CSV) and a Combined Perception Value (CPV) and let it work like the CMB/CMD. Want to stealth? Meet the conditions? Fine, you're CSV is 10 + your Stealth Modifier for your skill. The CPV of the opposing character (Roll + Perception + Modifier's for extra unusual senses - penalties (target invisible, target has partial cover, distance to target)) is rolled against the stealthing character's CSV. Then it's down to one roll, with a fixed DC by stealthing character. Yes, it means that the stealthy character can't benefit from a 'natural 20' check, but he also can't suck at a natural 1 failure check. I think it evens out, and it simplifies things.
We'd have to work out what, if anything, would give bonuses to the CSV, as opposed to penalties to the observer's perception check (I really would rather it be penalties and bonuses on the perception, not to the CSV. Makes it easier if you keep everything on one side instead of both sides. That's part of the current headache that is perception/stealth, remembering all the penalties and bonuses, and some apply to both sides (IE: Stealth bonus and perception penalty).
I have to agree with the statements about turning stealth bonuses into perception penalties. It's just weird when someone can make up for being loud by being invisible. What if it's a deaf person trying to locate them? Suddenly you have this odd case where a deaf person can't hear people because they're invisible. Instead invisibility should make it -20 to vision based perception.
I also there should be some more clarification between noticing the presence of something and locating and identifying something. For example a guard hears something rustling in the woods, is it an unusual sound? If not then maybe he'll just leave it alone if he loses track of it. Or if a dog smells a human walk by, if the smell isn't unusual (such as in a human settlement) the dog might not bother to check it out, but if it's strange such as in an abandoned mansion the dog would be on high alert and much more privy to track it.
Honestly,
I'd kind of like to simplify the dice rolling. Similar to how CMB/CMD simplified combat manuevers down to a single roll, I'd honestly like to see perception/stealth handled the same way. Give someone a Combined Stealth Value (CSV) and a Combined Perception Value (CPV) and let it work like the CMB/CMD. Want to stealth? Meet the conditions? Fine, you're CSV is 10 + your Stealth Modifier for your skill. The CPV of the opposing character (Roll + Perception + Modifier's for extra unusual senses - penalties (target invisible, target has partial cover, distance to target)) is rolled against the stealthing character's CSV. Then it's down to one roll, with a fixed DC by stealthing character. Yes, it means that the stealthy character can't benefit from a 'natural 20' check, but he also can't suck at a natural 1 failure check. I think it evens out, and it simplifies things.We'd have to work out what, if anything, would give bonuses to the CSV, as opposed to penalties to the observer's perception check (I really would rather it be penalties and bonuses on the perception, not to the CSV. Makes it easier if you keep everything on one side instead of both sides. That's part of the current headache that is perception/stealth, remembering all the penalties and bonuses, and some apply to both sides (IE: Stealth bonus and perception penalty).
Agreed in spirit, but PLEASE. No more TLAs.
TLAs are confusing. If you can choose a single word that captures the mechanic, do that.
To this day people are still emphasizing the last letter in CMB/CMD and people still mishear it. Also, the words are meaningless to new players, where at least "maneuver" and "maneuver class" would be familiar if they knew how AC worked.
The recent switch from TPA and CPA (or whatever, I've already forgotten) to Prestige and Fame in the campaign setting books was most welcome. No new systems should add TLAs, IMO. :)
To this day people are still emphasizing the last letter in CMB/CMD and people still mishear it. Also, the words are meaningless to new players, where at least "maneuver" and "maneuver class" would be familiar if they knew how AC worked.
That made me shed a tear for the still-born ´Maneuver AC´.
At least if they ever fix the Untyped AC bonus>CMD thing, we can say they cloned it´s remains and just gave it a confusing name.
When you make your Stealth check, those creatures that didn't succeed at the opposed roll treat you as invisible until the start of your next action or until the end of your turn if you do not end your turn with cover or concealment
-and-
Sniping: If you already are invisible to a target and you are 10 feet from that target, as a standard action, you can make one ranged attack against that target and immediately make an opposed Stealth check to stay invisible. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check when attempting to snipe.
Questions and comments concerning Stealth and Sniping.
In my current game I portray a level 4 Goblin Ranger with +20 Stealth (+17 at 1st level). As a result, since I only get 1 attack a round at this level anyway, Sniping has been a favorite and moderately effective tactic for me.
With the proposed ruleset here, I think this is how it would work if I attempted Sniping:
1.) I Stealth behind cover of a wall, out of view of our enemies.
2.) I take a Move Action to see a Human Guard. He cannot see me because the Stealth check rendered me effectively "invisible".
3.) Let loose an arrow, catching the guard Flat-Footed.
4.) I make a Sniping check [1d20+20-20]. If failure, I'm visible to the subject I attacked (but "invisible" to all others). If successful, I remain "invisible" for now.
5.) Since I used my Move Action and my Standard Action to Snipe, at the end of my Turn my "invisible" status no longer applies and I am now in full view, no longer stealthed.
- If instead I was able to make my attack from behind a Low Obstacle (Core Rulebook p.195), I would end my turn behind Cover, and so remain "invisible" if I made my Sniping check.
Is my understanding correct?
Additional question regarding a Minor Cloak of Displacement (Core Rulebook p. 507). Defined as follows: This item appears to be a normal cloak, but when worn by a character, its magical properties distort and warp light waves. This displacement works similar to the blur spell, granting a 20% miss chance on attacks against the wearer. It functions continually.
According to the blur spell (Core Rulebook p. 251): This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance).
Does this mean that if my Goblin Ranger is wearing a Minor Cloak of Displacement -or- is under the effects of a Blur spell, since it grants concealment I am able to make a Stealth check at any time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That made me shed a tear for the still-born ´Maneuver AC´.
*performs the secret beta-era design thread handshake*
Does this mean that if my Goblin Ranger is wearing a Minor Cloak of Displacement -or- is under the effects of a Blur spell, since it grants concealment I am able to make a Stealth check at any time?
What a can of worms, this is a highly debated issue... I have heard both sides of this argument before.
I hope the stealth re-write will address this issue and also the usage of Stealth with other forms of concealment like Lightning Stance.
Yes, that is what it means. This is to simulate the sneaky part of stealth, I was hidden, I come out sneak up on you, and then when I make the attack, you know that I am there. Remember Stealth isn't just about hiding, it is also about moving silently.
We used the invisible condition because it gets the job done, and it was a condition already in the game.
Stealth is basically invisible until seen.
When I stalk someone in real life, I crouch and approach from behind. Making sure to stay out of their line of sight and move with them as they move. If done successfully, you really are invisible.
Isn't it time for an update? :)
I know im excited for one :P
With our summer hiatus winding down, its back to weekly games again very soon! :)
|
Soft cover never allowed you to use Stealth (Core Rulebook page 196) and we are not going to change that.
Without changing the intent (which is a medium guy hiding behind another medium guy), perhaps it would be the opportunity to consider adding a part about size difference here (i.e. a fine flea should be able to hide in a medium dog's fur, for example). A halfling or pixie hitching a ride on the back of a brontosaurus wouldn't be far fetched either...
Bottom line, maybe suggest a three-size difference provides cover instead of soft cover? (the Core rules already use a 3-size difference as a trigger to being able to walk through or over a creature's squares...) In real life we know that very small bugs do get cover from bigger animals, at least for the purposes of hiding. There's no way you can tell how many flies a cow or a horse has on the side facing away from you...
Edit: also perhaps suggest that creatures with the Keen Senses ability (such as dragons) cannot be used to provide rides to things smaller than a 3-size difference... (they have an extraordinary sense of touch!! :) )
F5...F5...F5...:D
You *do* know that there's a new thread for discussion of round 2.. so there are likely to be no more updates on this thread. :)
|
|
Does this mean that if my Goblin Ranger is wearing a Minor Cloak of Displacement -or- is under the effects of a Blur spell, since it grants concealment I am able to make a Stealth check at any time?What a can of worms, this is a highly debated issue... I have heard both sides of this argument before.
I hope the stealth re-write will address this issue and also the usage of Stealth with other forms of concealment like Lightning Stance.
There's a huge difference in spells that distort your image from effects that block line of sight. If you're blurred or displaced I can still see you without having to make a Perception check its just I can't focus on you well enough to hit reliably. This is a no brainer that a GM should make a call on. I'd never let a player try to hide because they're blurred or displaced unless they had someway to interrupt line of sight in some other way or could make a distraction. A Miss Chance in and of itself shouldn't allow a Stealth check.
--School of Vrock
I can summarize this variant of Stealth rules in two words: Stealth fails.
The second biggest problem with the existing Stealth skill (after the fact than it is just so insanely restrictive that in most environments you auto-fail; but before the fact that there are like four abilities that negate Stealth near completely) is the fact that the hiding party's disadvantage grows every time another being is added to either the hiding party or an observing party. A situation of one thief trying to sneak past a single guard might be theoretically fair, but if you have a party of five adventurers trying to ambush a five-men patrol, then each adventurer has to beat five opposed rolls, or the whole attempt fails.
Adding A LOT MORE opposed rolls to a contest where Party 1 needs to succeed on every single roll, and Party 2 needs to succeed only once just means that the designer uses a roundabout way to deny Party 1 any possibility of success.
I don't know about others, but I do like having "hiding from people" as an option in the game (not that it is a good option at the moment, but at least its low usefulness is somewhat balanced by low investment, so while you absolutely do not want Stealth to be your character-defining trick, you might take it just in case), so I'm competely baffled that anyone could possibly, theoretically consider these rules working, like, at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can summarize this variant of Stealth rules in two words: Stealth fails.
The second biggest problem with the existing Stealth skill (after the fact than it is just so insanely restrictive that in most environments you auto-fail; but before the fact that there are like four abilities that negate Stealth near completely) is the fact that the hiding party's disadvantage grows every time another being is added to either the hiding party or an observing party. A situation of one thief trying to sneak past a single guard might be theoretically fair, but if you have a party of five adventurers trying to ambush a five-men patrol, then each adventurer has to beat five opposed rolls, or the whole attempt fails.
Adding A LOT MORE opposed rolls to a contest where Party 1 needs to succeed on every single roll, and Party 2 needs to succeed only once just means that the designer uses a roundabout way to deny Party 1 any possibility of success.
I don't know about others, but I do like having "hiding from people" as an option in the game (not that it is a good option at the moment, but at least its low usefulness is somewhat balanced by low investment, so while you absolutely do not want Stealth to be your character-defining trick, you might take it just in case), so I'm competely baffled that anyone could possibly, theoretically consider these rules working, like, at all.
Also, you're wrong.
Is the preference for someone to create a new thread on an existing subject that already has lots of discussion?
Gr.
Two hours later, and it's confirmed that my post no longer exists. Right. Second try.
*shakes fist at shoddy internet service, especially over the weekend*
*despairs at that moment when, after two hours of waiting, your post vanishes in a #newPost*
The short version is that the answer is variable - in general, but also on the internet as a whole. Certain communities have certain principles or guidelines that they prefer ("keep all similar discussions under the same place" v. "if it's faded leave the old discussion and start a new one") which are created for specific reasons local to that community, and Paizo Forum's, from what I can tell, varies based on the actual quality of the response and the nature of the topic.
In short, if you have something to add that's worthwhile to the previous conversation, you can probably necro the previous conversation and get away with it. If, on the other hand, your comment is inane, misleading, angry, or incorrect, you're much more likely to receive ridicule. Other reasons to let dead threads lie is that sometimes you'd like to talk about a subject, but the conversation of the previous thread really doesn't cover and isn't related to the one you're interested in, and it just doesn't match tonally; or perhaps the other thread was one with high tensions, or is just too large for new readers to reliably catch up on. In those cases (subject to your judgement) it may well be better to create a new thread... or maybe not.
The ultimate risk or gamble, of course, is you can't know whether or not what you consider worthwhile will be considered worthwhile by the community you're posting to. If the community doesn't consider it worthwhile, you're more likely to receive ridicule or scorn. Hence the risk. Though a similar risk is run with making a new thread, it's less - especially since dead threads are sometimes more difficult to find than the search warrants. Ultimately, it's up to you.
One way of coming off as arrogant or oblivious is failure to realize (or apparent failure to realize) that the thread is dead, and just resuming (or presuming) the conversation as if it had never ended. Acknowledging the fact that the thread is dead, but mentioning that you may have something new to add is one way to possibly defray any ire - you're acknowledging the fact that this ground was tread before, but perhaps what you want to add (or simply a statement of what you got out of it) is enough to warrant your mention! Of course... even that, too, can come off as a tad arrogant, but the upshot is that you're not oblivious. It also helps if you qualify your resurrecting post with "I wasn't able to read the whole thing..." or "I couldn't find anything about this..." or "Although this was in the earlier pages alone, I thought it was worthwhile to add..." or things like that, depending on what the situation is. Quoting specific posts you wanted to respond to helps clue new readers into what you're talking about and why as well.
Hope that helps!
QUASI-EDIT: Okay, make that three hours. At least I'd saved this one into a word document first.
Also: maaaaaaaaaaan. My earlier post was so much nicer than this one. Lame, man. Lame. Ah, well. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion if you use Firefox or Chrome then get the Lazarus extension/plugin. IMO it works better in Firefox. Even if the browser crashes you can get the info back.
Thanks. I'll look into it!
I do think facing rules would make stealth much better and easier, but it'd make a lot of situations that need heavy testing to balance.
Also, you're wrong.He really isn't, stealth is incredibly difficult to use successfully for most parties. Mostly I find it only works when people handwave away the various reasons it fails such as the lack of cover or concealment or enemies having 360' vision at all times. People want it to work like it does in books and movies but the rules make that virtually impossible.
Actually he is since some of the things he mentions are not true. Him being partially right still makes him wrong, but he presents his wrongs as if they were right.
I really don't see a reason why 5 people are not getting individual perception checks either unless he things the opposed groups should just make one collective perception and stealth check. That is how it is in most media also. It is just that author decides that everyone fails if he wants to.
If he were getting jumped by 5 NPC's he would want his group to all get perception checks.
Yes I do agree that stealth is not easy as a party unless everyone invest in it, but I don't see why that is a problem.
If the black widow and the hulk are in enemy HQ I don't expect for the Hulk to get a free pass on being sneak because he is with the Black Widow.
The same would apply to any heavily armored character and any stealthy one.
It also seems as if he was saying if one member of the party rolled low then the rest of the party was revealed, but stealth does not work like that. I do admit that unless they leave him to fight alone they have to join the fight and that part of being sneaky is over, but PC's tend to be well above NPC's in whatever they optimize in so if the party wants to be sneaky it can be done. There are even feats to avoid blindsight and blindsense.
Also, you're wrong.He really isn't, stealth is incredibly difficult to use successfully for most parties. Mostly I find it only works when people handwave away the various reasons it fails such as the lack of cover or concealment or enemies having 360' vision at all times. People want it to work like it does in books and movies but the rules make that virtually impossible.Actually he is since some of the things he mentions are not true. Him being partially right still makes him wrong, but he presents his wrongs as if they were right.
I really don't see a reason why 5 people are not getting individual perception checks either unless he things the opposed groups should just make one collective perception and stealth check. That is how it is in most media also. It is just that author decides that everyone fails if he wants to.
If he were getting jumped by 5 NPC's he would want his group to all get perception checks.
Yes I do agree that stealth is not easy as a party unless everyone invest in it, but I don't see why that is a problem.
If the black widow and the hulk are in enemy HQ I don't expect for the Hulk to get a free pass on being sneak because he is with the Black Widow.The same would apply to any heavily armored character and any stealthy one.
It also seems as if he was saying if one member of the party rolled low then the rest of the party was revealed, but stealth does not work like that. I do admit that unless they leave him to fight alone they have to join the fight and that part of being sneaky is over, but PC's tend to be well above NPC's in whatever they optimize in so if the party wants to be sneaky it can be done. There are even feats to avoid blindsight and blindsense.
You're technically right that only one character is revealed, but as you admit that's not usually relevant.
I think you're missing the point of the argument though. Stealth is hard as a party even if...
Its not that hard if the entire party invest in it until higher levels. There is even a feat that allows everyone to use the highest roll.
|
Tacticslion,
Though I agree with you about contributing to the conversation, I don't think a special case needs to be made for "dead" vs "live" threads. To me a valid contribution is always welcome, 7 years later or 7 seconds later. Obviously in the extreme tardy case, the audience will likely have changed, but again I don't see this as a problem.
I will point out that the book Rogue Glory does a really nice job with Stealth.
My favorite contribution is having Situational Concealment so as to enable a stealth check. (The book calls it Positional Stealth - I prefer my wording). It does not grant miss chance, it simply creates the conditions for making a check. This includes hiding in the rafters or below eye level. I have expanded it to include Creating a Diversion to Hide ("you gain situational concealment until the end of your turn") or using Disguise or Bluff to pose as a non-threatening person, or Sleight of Hand to slowly draw a dagger without showing it, etc.
I also assume characters are taking 10 with Perception most of the time, setting the task of rolling to the sneaky rogue herself. For large groups, I am considering using the highest person's Perception roll and adding +1 (or +2? max +10?) per additional person to serve as the Stealth DC.
Still deciding that last part.
