|
I'd like to see a Stealth Skill roll dictate Concealment's miss chance. Even something as simple as 20% + Stealth Roll as % would be a nice way of scaling concealment miss chance with skill. Heck have Perception bypass it and you've got a flexible system.
So what obvious, or subtle, thing am I missing?
|
|
I think I mixed up Cover and Concealment in my head while writing this. Nevertheless Lets try running with it.
So Twidly the Goblin is a very intelligent fellow for a goblin, having PC class levels and all that jazz. He sees that ugly human roguish fellow dart behind a pillar, and then he's gone. No wait a goblin is sentient, he knows that even things he doesn't directly see are likely still in existance. So Twiddly is gonna throw a flask of alchemist's fire at where he thinks it'll splash and catch that pesky rogue.
Ugly human Roguish fellow rolls Stealth to indicate exactly how unseeable he is, on wither or not there is a toe sticking out.
He Rolls a 13, adds his Stealth score of 7, and 20 (Though I think 10 might be better), and now has a 40% miss chance.
I like stealth as much as the next guy, but it's not invisibility (until it is). Let some common sense apply on the battlefield, without making Stealth useless.
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.. interesting thoughts here.. but I am concerned about adding another roll to an already complicated problem. Generally speaking, a creature that is hiding in a room will already have concealment or cover, unless it has hide in plain sight. In that general situation, I would prefer not to add on to what is already a sizable advantage...
But... I am always open to new ideas, and am more than willing to see where this discussion heads.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Actually, this suggestion seems to work very analogous to Spell Resistance, except there's many more possible bonuses to Perception and Stealth than there are to Caster Level. It doesn't sound SUPER unbalanced, but it does seem like it's adding an extra level of detail to something thats VERY simple. Having two simple numbers (20% and 50%) for ANY situation involving Concealment seems like it keeps things quick & simple, since nobody ever has to look up a number.
The base idea, that Stealthy characters would be better "hidden" in a shadowy area, for example, makes sense, but I don't know if it's worth changing from easy, fixed chances, to something that varies for EVERY character. Also, I'm not sure if it should apply to Full Concealment, since if someone is Invisible, but I happen to know (or guess) what square they're in, their Stealth wouldn't seem to affect my chances of hitting them much (since I'm supposed to NOT be able to see them AT ALL in the first place) Even though Invisibility IS now integrated with Stealth/Perception, I don't think it's worth it to complicate this - High Perception means you have a chance of seeing thru Invisibility/Stealth & negating the Concealment anyways.
The percentile chance sub-systems (miss chance, armor's arcane spell failure) always seemed like a sore thumb to me, not really connecting to the other mechanics at all (though that's really the point), but I'd prefer any change to SIMPLIFY things rather than "build up" this wonky sub-system.
For instance, Arcane Spell Failure could be SIMPLIFIED based on Armor (Skill Check) Penalty & Encumbrance,
i.e. the ASF% could BE the same as the Skill Check Penalty, and be resolved with d20.
(-1 = 5%, OR base 5%(1) for ANY armor +5%(1)/penalty, i.e. -1 Skill Penalty = 10% ASF (fail on 2))
(OR instead of a penalty to Skill Checks, there is DISTINCT failure rate% (same as ASF%))
I don't know if Miss Chance has the same "easy opportunity" to be SIMPLIFIED - Making it opposed Perception vs. Stealth just seems an un-necessary way to penalize Fighters for whom maxing out Perception is a big deal.
(Given Fighters' 2 skill ranks apparently isn't changing, I'd prefer not to make it suck more for them)
Having two simple numbers (20% and 50%) for ANY situation involving Concealment does seem like it quickens things, since nobody ever has to look up a number, much less resolve how buffs might affect that number.
|
How would stealth give concealment in combat? I mean if you are an assassin or ranger with hide in plain sight I could see it, maybe, but you would be taking the -20 to the check to try to hide while in combat (see sniper rule, in 3.5 you could "snipe" in melee). I mean the basics without hide in plain sight is you duck down behind crates, stick to shadows, or peak around corners. When you get into combat you are an obvious combatant, not hiding anymore.
|
|
Personally, I think it'd work out well if this was streamlined even more. Something like...
Whenever a character wishes to stealth in a battle, they must make a Stealth check opposed by any enemy's Perception checks. If a Perception check wins, that enemy can see and attack the Stealthed character with no penalty. If the Perception check fails, then the Stealthed character has Concealment against the enemy equal to 20 + stealth roll %.
---
There would be modifiers (bonuses) to the Perception roll based off things like...did the enemy have line of sight to the Stealther? Did the stealther just attack? Etc.
Even if we assume the best scenario for a stealther and a guy focused in it...let's go with 10th level.
22 Dex (+6) with 10 ranks (+10) with a class bonus (+3) with skill focus Stealth (+6) would be +25. I know you can get it much higher, but it seems to work.
Let's assume he rolls a 20, then he'd have 65% concealment (assuming he beats the various Perceptions). On average, he'd have 55%.
Not much better than some spells, and actually worse than just 'can't see the guy'.
Personally, I like it better than just having the rogue go 'poof'. The 'Hide in Plain Sight' skill could even give a bonus to this, like have it negate the penalty for stealthing when a guy has Line of Sight, or just give a +10 bonus to the concealment %.
I would much rather have this then the current rules, which, frankly, aren't the easiest to roll with in combat.
|
|
Actually, this suggestion would seem to work very analogous to Spell Resistance, except that there's many more possible bonuses to Perception and Stealth than there are to Caster Level.
It doesn't sound SUPER unbalanced, but it does seem like it's adding an extra level of detail to something thats VERY simple.The percentile chance sub-systems (miss chance, armor's arcane spell failure) always seemed like a sore thumb to me, not really connecting to the other mechanics at all (though that's really the point), but I'd prefer any change to SIMPLIFY things rather than "build up" this wonky sub-system.
I don't know if Miss Chance has the same "easy opportunity" to be SIMPLIFIED - Making it opposed Perception vs. Stealth just seems an un-necessary way to penalize Fighters for whom maxing out Perception is a big deal.
(Given Fighters' 2 skill ranks apparently isn't changing, I'd prefer not to make it suck more for them)
Ok, taking things and running with them, rather then letting this thread get hijacked. Lets try for a passive no additional rolling version.
[u]Passive Stealth Use[/u]
So all concealment and cover provides a bonus to AC, Stealth passively boosts it from +4 to Stealth Skill (Then it's not a roll, just ranks, attribute mod, and bonuses). Swift action with Knowledge: Architecture Engineering (when artificial cover/concealment), Knowledge: Nature (when natural cover/concealment), or Perception (Anytime), to turn their cover against them, adding your Appropriate skill (not roll just skill)
Twidly the Goblin, knows that while those pillars look like solid stone they are infact just plaster over paper-machie, and hurls his javelin right though the pillar into that ugly roguish fellow.
However miss chance is a part of the system I don't think is going away.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I thought that if you're not hiding, and are being watched, then you can't hide as long as the watcher has line of sight to you. I guess if it was a very large column, you could be completely out of sight and then try hiding.
It's actually quite a different situation than if you're sneaking around and then encounter an emeny and are already hiding.
|
|
Personally, I like it better than just having the rogue go 'poof'.
I would much rather have this then the current rules, which, frankly, aren't the easiest to roll with in combat.
Rogue go poof irritates me also.
As a logical extension of your idea I'd suggest that Stealth and Perception be rolled once for the combat, and then people can take an action to re-roll.
I like the idea of hide in plain sight giving a +10 Concealment Conus of it's own, which replaces actually having cover or concealment, but doesn't stack. Then smart Rogues still want to pay attention to their environment at all levels.
[u]Passive Stealth Use[/u]
So all concealment and cover provides a bonus to AC, Stealth passively boosts it from +4 to Stealth Skill (Then it's not a roll, just ranks, attribute mod, and bonuses). Swift action with Knowledge: Architecture Engineering (when artificial cover/concealment), Knowledge: Nature (when natural cover/concealment), or Perception (Anytime), to turn their cover against them, adding your Appropriate skill (not roll just skill)
Honestly, I could see something like Acrobatics' Fighting Defensively Bonus:
If you have 5 Ranks in Stealth, instead of X AC bonus from (Partial/Full) Cover, you have X+1/4 AC bonus.
|
The more I think about this the more I like it.
I honestly don't care what mechanics you guys decide is better, as long as they simply replace the current in-elegant rules with this more elegant concept.
We seldom use concealment and cover in our games now because we dislike the rules so much.
This one I like.
Ugly human Roguish fellow rolls Stealth to indicate exactly how unseeable he is, on wither or not there is a toe sticking out.
He Rolls a 13, adds his Stealth score of 7, and 20 (Though I think 10 might be better), and now has a 40% miss chance.I like stealth as much as the next guy, but it's not invisibility (until it is). Let some common sense apply on the battlefield, without making Stealth useless.
To simplify this concept, you could take out the roll. Just add your stealth skill bonus to the miss chance. In your example above, it would be 7 + 20 for a 27% miss chance.
I think you'd need to factor in the perception of the opponent as well to make it a bit fair. Let's assume the goblin has a perception bonus of +2...
7+20-2=25% miss chance.
BTW, Does anybody know of any time d100% chances are NOT multiples of 5%?
I've never come across it, and once the novelty of A 100 SIDED DIE wore off, I've always used d20 to resolve these rolls.
(I just thought of this when I noticed that this would create non-5% chances)
Cool.
I've never rolled those as a DM (Reincarnation is fun as a Player!)
so I never discovered non-5% usages...
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
BTW, Does anybody know of any time d100% chances are NOT multiples of 5%?
I've never come across it, and once the novelty of A 100 SIDED DIE wore off, I've always used d20 to resolve these rolls.(I just thought of this when I noticed that this would create non-5% chances)
Augury and Divination spells are base chance plus caster level % of working.