I made a 3D model of the SM. It eschews the long trailing fins at the back, because they would be too flimsy. Also, the upright fins are there, but you might have difficulty printing them correctly, as they're so thin. The model is about space-map scale, as is. Just scale it up in your slicer to make a display model. 400% is fine. You should be able to view and download the STL here:
You know those threads...
But nothing has changed. RAW still makes it so that an invisible rogue behind a wall gets +20 Stealth to... move silently. That's the "ghost steps bug". Also, rules lack consolidation between the invisibility SA and Perception rules. There are modifiers that differ, which is annoying. This whole affair is very obviously caused by the merging of Listen/Spot. 3.5 Invisibility was very clear. PF made it muddy because handling multi-modality Perception seems hard. It need not be so, because we've got the conceal/cover mechanics... Suggested easy fix/clarification
A) "Plain Sight". Creature has no conceal/cover.
B) "Hiding". Creature has partial conceal/cover.
C) "Hidden/Invisible". Creature has total conceal/cover (behind a wall, or invisible).
Lengthy balance, rationale and comments in the spoiler below..
Spoiler: Balance No +20 from invisibility seems unfair? It's crucial to remember that an invisible creature has a huge advantage on being able to always hide in plain sight. Also, if your opponent beats your Stealth by less than 20, he's still only "aware of something". But if you're not invisible, he knows you're somewhere behind cover, which is close to a pinpoint. If you're invisible, you could be anywhere! So, it's almost like having +20 already. Rationale
Corner cases
The "visual cues" argument
(This is about Aid Another when used for a skill, not an attack)
*** PROBLEMS WITH AID ANOTHER *** P1) Anybody can help an inspired expert and push him further. Good points have been made elsewhere about the notion that a journeyman can help an expert at times. Sure, when he underperforms. But what if the expert excels? P2) It's risk-free. Shouldn't totally clumsy PCs hamper the expert? P3) It destroys the balance of hard DCs in those specific skills where you can use it (e.g. diplomacy) relative to the others (e.g. knowledge). Example 1: the half-elf bard does a brillant speech, rolling 30... and not only can the rude dwarf barbarian actually improve that result, also there's no way he can make any misplaced comment or rude noise. Example 2: nobody's good at Intimidation in the party, but don't fret: even the skinny wizard and the bland cleric can help push the bard into Difficult DC territory, risk-free. Result= seasoned players always ask for Aid and the "everybody roll for Aid!" drill becomes dull and involves no planning nor reflection whatsoever. Also, tasks where Aid is possible become a joke. Simple maths shows you that Aid adds on average at least 5 to the check result for a 5-PC party, which is a very large bonus. The average level 2 party can succeed on "difficult" DC20 at least 80% of the time. Worse is the fact that it is independent of the DC. So that the obtuse fighter can actually help see through elaborate lies, for example. *** SUGGESTIONS ***
Fixes that don't involve rule change: F1) Put drastic limitations on the number of aiders. Flaw: doesn't address P1 nor P2. F2) Forbid Aid and use Group Checks (take the best result) instead. Prevents P1 and is easy to apply. Flaw: doesn't fully prevents P3. Doesn't address P2. Fixes that involve rules change: F3) D&D4 style. Failing the Aid gives -2 to the expert. Advantage: minor change, simple to use, self-regulating. Flaw: requires some GM oversight. Doesn't really address P1. F4) Group Checks with Hamper. Make a group check for all active participants, but substract 2 to the best result for each result under 10 (min=worst result). Good for e.g. Diplomacy checks. For e.g. stealth checks, use Weakest Link with Help: take the worst result, but add 2 for results above 10 (max= best result). Self-regulating, still allows constant usefulness from decently-skilled PCs, but does not imbalance the challenges, while allowing risk-taking ("I'll try and help anyways!"). Flaw: longer to explain and resolve What do you think? What's your experience with aid? |