|
Flanking is CRAP for representing the out-right HUMAN LIMITATIONS we have in splitting attention
[...]
so a flat +2 ONLY on a cross section space of map is nuts.
Fair enough, its not perfect and otehr systems like Shadowrun etc do have penalties for multiple foes that accumulate, so a houserule could be +2 bonus per extra foe (or better -2 AC to the target but extra foe being faced). However the current rule is sufficient enough for me, as I recognise it is a game and has its limitations (besides Aid Another can sort of represent ganging up).
It's a purely gamist-rule to disallow such a thing, and for *me* it breaks my suspension of disbelief big time (mostly on account of my real wold experiences in big combats).
I think if the flanking rules are enough to break your suspension of disbelief and spoil the game for you then maybe PF is not the best game for you as there are plenty other worse things that can break that SoD, e.g. escalating HP.
Ok, so I'm pretty sure this is going to get me some flames my way but,
1. To everyone saying how it's broken: Have you developed a table top system without any flaws that requires no interpretation and can be play by using the book word for word?
2. House rules exist for a reason, the Devs know they can't make a system that's going to make everyone happy, it's actually pretty difficult to make a system realistic and still keep it balanced overall. So they allow for some custom rulings. I don't see how this is really a problem.
3. With my SCA experience, I've been in 3-1 fights in melee, sure its hard but I sure as hell know where my opponents are.
4. Line of sight can't always beat stealth. If something is too far away to see, then you don't even need to be stealthing.
5. This is a fantasy game. The characters are expected to be able to do things that there's no feasible way for us to do. If you want realism go play a system like HackMaster. Sure you can hide on the ceiling and such, but you're going to be dead long before you hit 0 hp too.
There was more, but that's enough for now. I'm not saying the rules are perfect. I don't expect them to be, I enjoy the game because it's fun and something different from the day to day grind.
I'm pretty sure you will NOT find any sort of references saying that is an OK way to apply cover ... but it's TOTALLY within your power and rights as GM to let it happen, despite it being odd and strange as "up high in the corner" is hardly what I'd call "cover" or "concealment" at all ... BUT it's an artifact of the GAME RULES and so I can see why you, as a GM operating in these rules would look to make that ruling. On the other hand, while not "cover" or "concealment" as I'd envision them, I do think that "up in the corner" is a pretty good hiding place, depending on ceiling height, etc.
So, for *me* I look at the rules, I call "BS" and just say let's have an opposed Stealth check regardless - the PC has a decent spot eked out (high ceiling corner and he probably needs to make a good DC climb check to get there and stay put).
For *you* you look at the rules, see the situation, and MAKE A CALL (Rule 0) that you're going to tell the PC to use the rafter as "cover" (which will fail as SOON as the NPC's get far enough into the room that the cover of the rafter is defeated by their positioning w/the whole "auto 360" nonsense), or "concealment" (probably better since it won't just "go away" suddenly on the 360 junk) due to the "dark corners" of a (presumably) high enough ceiling.
The "Rule 0" part is where you, as GM need to step in and make a judgment call decision in order to make the action possible. I'd rather just have a more general set of rules that let's me do this all the time w/out having to deal with people saying "It's not fair!" or "You cheated!!! It says right here on page XXX that ..."
There is NOTHING AT ALL wrong w/what you did, nor do I mean to imply such a thing. I'm just saying that, since it relies on GM adjudication (ie: you making the corner "dim light" or whatever) to even be possible, it's a use of Rule 0.
It's a good use, mind you, but what I see is you making calls based around purely gamist garbage because THE SYSTEM makes you do it.
To me, that's a flaw in the system. (most notably cover and concealment in that case.)
All of this discussion is focused on the rules making it hard for the player's PC to engage in stealthy activities. Let's turn this around. The rules for stealth and perception, the ones that make stealth hard to deploy without a friendly DM ruling, are designed to protect the PC from facing stealth attacks. From the standpoint of fending off the rulings of arbitrary DMs you may not trust, the player can point to the rules and say "That drow assassin couldn't have sneaked up on me like that by the rules. He has no cover or concealment and my PC wasn't distracted." While on the flip side, a good DM can always allow the PC to ask if the conditions are reasonable for attempting stealth and he can use Rule 0 to enable it in the interests of helping the players develop a good story.
Keep in mind that rules that make it hard to be stealthy make it harder to suffer the effects of stealth.
Keep in mind that rules that make it hard to be stealthy make it harder to suffer the effects of stealth.
Well and good, but how does simplifying the stealth rules and/or generalize them harm?
It also, bear in mind, makes it VERY hard for 2 character classes to essentially "do their thing" (the rogue and the ranger - although anyone *can* take the skill).
This is NOT a good idea either. However, generalizing stealth out a bit so that is can be used/attempted more often than not actually WILL favor the PC's as in 90% of most games they are the active agents of the game (ie: THEY are doing the adventuring and exploring while others, typically, are reacting and/or defending against PC actions).
Sure - it's not 100% true in all cases, and there WILL be times when PC's will be on the receiving end ... and they'll have an *as ready* ability to defend against it. Remember, it's just a perception vs. stealth check at the heart if you remove the "can't do it EVER" options from the rules.
If someone is twinked out in stealth ... LET 'EM BE STEALTHY! Clearly, such a PC is designed to use the skill. It sucks as a player if you have to fight THE RULES outright, and then a GM on top of it (not to mention a rules-lawyer looking over your shoulder all the time to boot at the table).
Cover and Concealment can work out fine as MODIFIERS to the skill, IMO, vs. "must haves" honestly. As must haves, the skill is shut down out of hand. As modifiers - they're a good idea to put to use (ie: look for it if/when you can manage it).
ANY suggested change, however, is shot down by "omnidirectional senses" that are put up by default.
Edit: I forgot to hit Digital Mage's response.
@DigitalMage: As you mentioned, other games did it just fine. I'll point to AD&D 2e as one of those games. It's of particular note in that fighting more than 1 person in 2e was troublesome FAST! If you had a shield, the size mattered in how many offenders you could apply the bonus against, and WHO you could use it against mattered regarding facing (you could even go Captain America and strap it to your back to get a shield bonus on your back). This was where I first encountered multiple opponent stacking bonus rules ... made sense for swarms of little guys running up and hitting, etc. (more than "Aid Another" I might add.)
Why was it dropped? No idea ... push the envelope of nonsense? Punish/limit SA-types (since now they didn't have to be in the "back" space anymore)? I have no idea. The one is thematic (maybe trying to hit "high fantasy" more?) the other is gamist (ie: so called balance issues). Neither, though, do I find fit my aesthetics, and so I prefer the older method as that made sense.
For Suspension of Disbelief - nah. I'm fine on inflating HP's (when you read them for what they *actually* represent), and there's also the fact of increasing damage with level being pretty steady, so it's a give and take sort of thing [weird that you can kill yourself maybe 2 times over in 1 round w/all strikes landing in terms of just DPR vs. HP totals - but whatever ;-) ]
Why does a sleeping chicken get to take any actions at all?Perception is a non-action.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
How do you respond to an observable action if your alseep? The observable action would first have to wake you up then you react.
Ok, so I'm pretty sure this is going to get me some flames my way but,
Nah - no flames from me - I promise. ;-)
1. To everyone saying how it's broken: Have you developed a table top system without any flaws that requires no interpretation and can be play by using the book word for word?
"Broken" what's broken? I don't think anyone's said that. I've said the rules need clarification (as well as MiB). I think the only accusation of "broken" was from the counter side and at THAT more a fear that Stealth will immediately become an "I win" move and/or tactic and that was called "broken" as in over-powered.
Otherwise, I'm pretty sure no one is claiming "broken" (as in overpowered) status anywhere. We just want a rule revision/clarification/something to address the odd situations that arise by RAW which we know to be false and fully plausible IRL.
2. House rules exist for a reason, the Devs know they can't make a system that's going to make everyone happy, it's actually pretty difficult to make a system realistic and still keep it balanced overall. So they allow for some custom rulings. I don't see how this is really a problem.
It's not - the problem is in unclear rules. In particular a paradigm of absolutes (ie: most rules w/mini's re: positioning, etc; here it's the cover/concealment requirements) that will allow or disallow a particular action to be attempted. However, it's put side by side with the other paradigm of GM adjudication of the circumstances (Shadowlord's scenario calling the high-ceiling corner either cover or concealment in his opinion using Rule 0).
I'd rather have it printed in either/or format in that EITHER it's a fully polarized on/off sort of situation and circumstances (with a detailed and extensive list of exactly what counts for what kind of condition/whatever), OR a more generalized format that lets 90% of it ride on GM adjudication (again, with maybe a smaller chart [vs. extensive ones] and list of typical MODIFIERS or something to the skill depending on conditions, etc).
3. With my SCA experience, I've been in 3-1 fights in melee, sure its hard but I sure as hell know where my opponents are.
I knew perfectly well where they were ... when it was just 3 on 1, and they are ALL kept, by me and MY maneuvering, in my "front facing hexes" (going back to 2e there).
As soon as there were enough to approach on my flanks (ie: right or left side) it was pretty much a slaughter.
Compare this to, say, having a flurry of exchanges with one person - I mean really pressing (ie: like trying to KILL in combat), and some other random person came behind me and swatted me ... not because it was an open field and I couldn't see behind the non-existent tree there ... but because all of my attention was focused upon that one guy, pressing hard, so I lost track of some other one (ie: pointedly NOT having 360 degree awareness) who came up to my "back" hex and swatted me down - virtually like a free shot (ie: Sneak Attack-like).
3:1 isn't even *close* to what I'm talking about - the fact that you're engaged in combat w/3 = "distraction" is what I'm getting at. Yet for gamist reasons, it's disallowed out of hand by the RAW and made impossible.
4. Line of sight can't always beat stealth. If something is too far away to see, then you don't even need to be stealthing.
Sure - IF it's too far away ... but then, why are you *trying* to stealth if that's the case? [I don't see a point made here at all ... line of sight, within ranges where stealth matters = stealth is always defeated. Add to it the lack of facing and constant 360 degree awareness ==> you can NEVER stealth on anyone even if you're coming from behind them and they are pointedly NOT looking at you.]
5. This is a fantasy game. The characters are expected to be able to do things that there's no feasible way for us to do. If you want realism go play a system like HackMaster. Sure you can hide on the ceiling and such, but you're going to be dead long before you hit 0 hp too.
Ok ... so if the bolded part is true - why the hate-on for Stealth? It's *already* a skill and mundane, it's trumped by magic, and it's defeatable by ANYONE that puts decent attention towards developing a Perception skill ... there is *already* a check and balance simply by the interplay of skills and the way they interact. Why cloud and muddy those waters with additional outside nonsense that just muddies the waters of a straight contest of skills?
I mean, truly, *is* there a more simple resolution mechanic than a straight contest in this case? If so - please enlighten me?
When I game, I want to check abilities and get on w/the story. A contest of skills is quick, and easy to handle in-game. Why slow that all down with cover/concealment *at all* in the first place? What is gained through this, other than highly limiting the Stealth skill?
There was more, but that's enough for now. I'm not saying the rules are perfect. I don't expect them to be, I enjoy the game because it's fun and something different from the day to day grind.
I don't want the rules to be perfect either, but I don't want them to tell me point blank I can't do something I KNOW is possible just because it's "game balance" based.
|
|
Ok, so I'm pretty sure this is going to get me some flames my way
Well, I'm not going to flame you, but I sure don't agree with your points.
1. To everyone saying how it's broken: Have you developed a table top system without any flaws that requires no interpretation and can be play by using the book word for word?
No. With two kids and a day job, that's something I rely upon (and pay) others to do.
2. House rules exist for a reason, the Devs know they can't make a system that's going to make everyone happy, it's actually pretty difficult to make a system realistic and still keep it balanced overall. So they allow for some custom rulings. I don't see how this is really a problem.
It's not a problem. What is a problem is that the Stealth entry does not look like this:
STEALTH
Do whatever you feel like with this skill to make it fit into your game.
Instead, there are a lot of rules presented (and not all of them in the Stealth section - which complicates matters). These rules, as presented, have gaps in them. They do not always agree with other elements of the game, at least not in any intuitive way. They are confusing - and I don't consider that a matter of personal opinion, it's evidenced by the large amount of people who have posted to the various Stealth threads over the last year or so that are confused. The PFRPG Rules are great, no doubt about it. In this one area, though, they lack clarity - and as I've said upthread, this isn't good for the Core Class (rogue) for whom this is essentially a Class-defining ability. Are fighters asked to be confused about the mechanics behind swinging a sword, or to formulate house rules for it? That's why there's a problem.
3. With my SCA experience, I've been in 3-1 fights in melee, sure its hard but I sure as hell know where my opponents are.
I don't know what SCA is, but I'm certain you'd agree that there's a difference between having battlefield awareness once battle lines have been drawn and being able to see everywhere all at once at all times (particularly when you're not expecting immenent danger). Or am I wrong?
4. Line of sight can't always beat stealth. If something is too far away to see, then you don't even need to be stealthing.
I don't understand what you're getting at here, do you think you could explain a little more?
5. This is a fantasy game. The characters are expected to be able to do things that there's no feasible way for us to do.
In my humble opinion, this statement makes the case for a problem with the stealth rules more than it makes the case against a problem with the stealth rules.
If you want realism go play a system like HackMaster. Sure you can hide on the ceiling and such, but you're going to be dead long before you hit 0 hp too.
Speaking for myself only, I don't care if Stealth is realistic. I merely want it to be comprehensive and moderately effective. What game should I play to achieve that?
There was more, but that's enough for now. I'm not saying the rules are perfect. I don't expect them to be, I enjoy the game because it's fun and something different from the day to day grind.
I do too, I love playing Pathfinder (except as a sneak-thief Rogue). I don't expect the rules to be perfect either. However, when they're somewhat less than perfect (as in this case), there are mechanisms for improving them - errata, FAQ's, etc. Paizo has always shown a healthy attitude toward receiving constructive criticism and improving their products based on it. For whatever reason - and I'm sure there is one - they're not doing that with the Stealth rules. Threads like this will keep happening until they do. If everyone's OK with that, then great! But saying that there's no problem because our expectations don't include perfection is sort of "meh" as arguements go, with all respect.
Edit: Wow, ninja'd almost word for word by speaker.
Holy cow! I'm a ninja!!!
Saaaawwweeeeet!
:-D
Note: my first "ninja" post.
*happy dances - a secret ninja happy dance*
Perception, by combining the 5 senses into a single roll, needs GM fiat every time...
Abstract rules rules require abstract rulings...
Facing was removed, thus players think they can SEE 360 degrees around them all the time...
Just because WotC removed rules based on their Miniatures game doesn't mean it's going to affect my ROLE-PLAY encounters...
@ The Speaker in Dreams
I think you misunderstand me. Allow me to explain: Virgil wrote a scenario where he suggested distraction could not be used becuase that function is not sufficient to use Stealth in the scenario. He said an individual might be proped up in a corner or stuck to the roof.
Well firstly, propping ones self up in that corner or holding on to something and sticking flat to the ceiling would require a substantial Climb check, after that Stealth would only be possible if some other element allowed it. Those elements, however, could easily be present in those situations by RAW:
1) If you are in a crowded bar then you can use the crowd itself, which grants cover and the ability to use Stealth by RAW, to avoid detection by the guard.
2) Most times, if you are up to no good and running into a crowded bar, it is going to be evening time or possibly night. So chances are the default lighting conditions inside the bar would be dim light or darkness which allow you to use Stealth. That being said there will be a fire place and candles or small torches in various places through the bar to provide some light. But I doubt the entire bar is lit up to normal lighting conditions. So you can find a dark corner (dim light) and use Stealth to remain undetected by the guard and you don't even need to use Climb to get proped up in a high corner, just kick back in the shadows and watch him pass.
3) Some old style buildings had rafters, which might provide some cover if you maneuver properly. But that wasn't my point. My point was those rafters will be above any windows, candles, chandeliers, torches, or any other source of light. That area would most likely (except in the middle of the day time with light flooding in from windows) be in either dark or dim light conditions, which both allow Stealth. So between the limited cover available from the rafters, and the concealment granted by the dim light you should have no trouble avoiding detection.
None of these are house-rules, not that there is anything wrong with using house-rules, but these are all RAW elements that would be perfectly acceptable to find in any given bar. My point was that just because the rules for distraction don't allow you to use Stealth in a given scenario, doesn't mean Stealth is impossible to use. It means you need to look for other avenues of achieving Stealth, and these particular avenues are all available by RAW and reasonable to the scenario.
First allow me to clarify my use of the word broken. When I think something is "broken" is when it does not work correctly, be it due to complexity, over/under powered, or any other reason. Secondly, the comment about line of sight and range was in response to a few posts that said "But if there's line of sight, then stealth is impossible. Not to be flippant or rude, but that's the RAW." in response to a comment about distance.
So on the omni-vision issue: My group has questioned this at great length before and we figured the reason you are "aware" of everything around you in combat is due to allies calling out warnings, turning to look for new problems, etc. I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but creating a rule that would deal with all possible situations would be very difficult from a Dev stand point. If you can do better (not an insult/challenge, but an invitation for how to make it work) then by all means suggest it. Edit: We have never found any rules in any form for facing, just going off what we learned from others.
On the flanking/moving issue: I can agree that it would be difficult to defend against multiple foes, but if the bonus stacked think about how easy it would be for goblins or kobold to kill 1st level PCs, or on the other end, how easy it would be to hit/damage the BBEG just cause everyone focuses on him.
I can agree that the stealth rules COULD be more specific, however I also understand how tedious and hard that can be from the Dev side, although admittedly I'm still new to that side of things. Also compare the number of people on the board who ask for this to be changed against the total number of people on the boards. If it really is a small minority then I can understand why Paizo hasn't changed them.
I'm not right about this, neither is anyone else. We each have our own ideas and opinions on how to make things work and so we have variation. Makes life more interesting. Also thank you both for your polite arguments, sorry if I ever came off as attacking or hostile.
Flanking is CRAP for representing the out-right HUMAN LIMITATIONS we have in splitting attention
[...]
so a flat +2 ONLY on a cross section space of map is nuts.Fair enough, its not perfect and otehr systems like Shadowrun etc do have penalties for multiple foes that accumulate, so a houserule could be +2 bonus per extra foe (or better -2 AC to the target but extra foe being faced). However the current rule is sufficient enough for me, as I recognise it is a game and has its limitations (besides Aid Another can sort of represent ganging up).
I think if the flanking rules are enough to break your suspension of disbelief and spoil the game for you then maybe PF is not the best game for you as there are plenty other worse things that can break that SoD, e.g. escalating HP.It's a purely gamist-rule to disallow such a thing, and for *me* it breaks my suspension of disbelief big time (mostly on account of my real wold experiences in big combats).
+2 for the first flank, gang-up bonus of +1 each additional, yes, kobolds and goblins can swarm you at first level...but then again, with extra bonuses, they're still a threat beyond 2nd level.
|
|
[...]I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, but creating a rule that would deal with all possible situations would be very difficult from a Dev stand point. If you can do better (not an insult/challenge, but an invitation for how to make it work) then by all means suggest it. [...]
A few things: 1) Posters have tried to do so, for example see DM_Blake's "Let's Talk About Stealth/perception" thread for his (very excellent) take on an attempt to re-write some of the more problematic rules. 2) As I mentioned in my post, I simply lack the time to tackle re-writing rules on my own. I'm worried that there's a perception that I'm saying, "I lack trust in J. Bulmahn's ability to write good Stealth rules" - that's not it at all. I trust him (or SKR, for that matter) as much or more than any other game designer to be able to fix the few bits that are confusing. And heck, I'm not saying I could do better. I'm just pointing out the problems.
I can agree that the stealth rules COULD be more specific, however I also understand how tedious and hard that can be from the Dev side, although admittedly I'm still new to that side of things. Also compare the number of people on the board who ask for this to be changed against the total number of people on the boards. If it really is a small minority then I can understand why Paizo hasn't changed them.
I see where you're coming from, here, but the amount of people who requested FAQ clarification on my "Consolidated Stealth Threads" thread (59 people) is greater than any number that I've personally seen on any other thread that I monitor. So, basically, what I'm saying is that the number of people who have asked for clarification on any given issue (waffles or pancakes?) is always way, waaay smaller than the total number of people on the board as a whole. When compared to the number of people who have asked for and received guidance on other issues (sometimes 5 or 6 people clicking together get an answer), the requests for Stealth clarification are quite high (which, coincidentally, is the only reason I don't feel like I'm an insane, raving lunatic living on my own little island of frustration).
Anyway, I'm back into radio silence on this matter, as I'm convinced the Golems are either going to address it or they're not - and they're probably not. And I respect that, because I respect them.
None of these are house-rules, not that there is anything wrong with using house-rules, but these are all RAW elements that would be perfectly acceptable to find in any given bar. My point was that just because the rules for distraction don't allow you to use Stealth in a given scenario, doesn't mean Stealth is impossible to use. [b]It means you need to look for other avenues of achieving Stealth, and these particular avenues are all available by RAW and reasonable to the scenario.[b]
No, but they *did* require your GM hat to be put into practice.
Now, I'd MUCH rather just go 'contest of skill' as a GM rather than nit-pick minutia that is, largely, irrelevant (ie: spending time justifying stuff w/game-rules and terms for NO gain what-so-ever story wise).
I never said you used house rules (at least I don't think I did) only that you used your GM adjudication privileges, which are yours by right as the GM.
That's my only point - that you have to use your "judgment" more or less on ALL things, but then force that judgment to function within the tiny little operational box they've given that is a polarized "yes/no" to stealth.
It's an added layer of detail that serves the purpose of ONLY adding game-based nonsense for the sake of the "game" (and not the fun role-playing game I'm there for either, mind you - it's the ROLL-play that's forcibly inserting itself in this circumstance).
@Garreth: go check out Unearthed Arcana as I believe it has facing rules in it if I'm not mistaken. Failing that, use it (or the srd honestly) to get a look at hex-based over square based combat, and then go look at purpleworm.org for the facing rules of 2e.
They're actually very good, and sensible and (coincidentally) will fully "fix" stealth in a few areas by re-creating back and side spots as being poor, and/or impossible vision fields (ie: you can stealth if you're in these locations and areas relative to the stealth target).
Perception, by combining the 5 senses into a single roll, needs GM fiat every time...
Abstract rules rules require abstract rulings...
Facing was removed, thus players think they can SEE 360 degrees around them all the time...
Just because WotC removed rules based on their Miniatures game doesn't mean it's going to affect my ROLE-PLAY encounters...
So ... you're still playing w/2e's facing then?
;-)
No, but they *did* require your GM hat to be put into practice.
Not really. The DM should be building a complete and realistic world. So a bar with that much detail is not an unreasonable request if part of your story is going into that bar. And I would not be putting anything into practice; those things are already part of the game. All I would have to do as a DM is draw out the map, unless I chose to verbally describe the scene, and allow the player to choose his avenue of escaping the guard. I don't see a hassle in that. You are asking for a contest of skill, well there is, you must find a suitable place and method in which to escape notice, you must win the die roll, and you may have to move from time to time if the guard gets too close for comfort. It is far more involved than just doing a die roll contest alone. [i](Now, if you meant that a die roll contest should decide the fate, and then once decided the players and DM role play the details, that is different but you said a strict contest of die, which is rather plain.)[i]
[i](Now, if you meant that a die roll contest should decide the fate, and then once decided the players and DM role play the details, that is different but you said a strict contest of die, which is rather plain.)[i]
Yes - that's EXACTLY what I mean, plain or not, it's simple and solves the whole "find cover" nonsense that stymies the skill in play.
It's also an "invisible" factor in play in that, neither the GM nor the player need to get all involved in a mini-game of looking for the RIGHT position to play itself out.
Instead - the resolution is fast, furious, and lets you move right along. Make the check - success or failure is determined, and then it's on the GM and/or PC to describe how things go down (ie: the die roll is determining factor - NOT some garbage rules put in play to pointedly STOP use of that one skill).
It may be bland, but it's (1) very clear, (2) very direct, and (3) fast to deal with in-play.
I greatly prefer this to the cover/concealment headache. Hell, if you just go so far as to alter that, you can also not have to worry about facing since the SKILL CHECK is now the determining factor, and not the other things (which can just be fluff description or circumstantial modifiers to the explaining the results of the check).
For *me* there's nothing remotely interesting, entertaining, or fun about what you described in finding the "perfect" hiding spot by RAW on either end of the equation, so - in either capacity, I'd feel completely irate (annoyed as a GM in having to break my game to get with nitty-gritty nonsense points that can easily just be hand-waved in the abstraction of a check anyway; as a player - that I'm *yet again* forced into all kinds of justification only to have my heavy skill investment rendered a non-factor on account of the positioning of targets, and 360 awareness, etc, etc).
It seems to me like you're a map-heavy guy w/lots of details and that's your fun. (yuck!!!)
I'm the other end of the spectrum - give me the bare bones and I'll fill in as needed.
Now, here's the thing: my rule preference, would *absolutely* still work, and probably even benefit from your approach (ie: generalized stealth check as a contest with modifiers - likely to be heavy if you're detailing things out precisely). All my option does, with YOUR style, is simplify/allow stealth checks to happen more often.
Your rule preference: the RAW as they exist works ONLY for your style of play and does NOT function with the lighter/more abstract approach on account of REQUIRED extra crunch that ... is just crunch.
So, what does that illustrate? It illustrates that the existing rule is a more highly specific rule and less generally usable overall. Thus, it leads to the many threads like this one regarding stealth and all the problems it causes.
It also illustrates that opening up the uses of the skill, with small changes (ie: minimal revision really) is all that's needed to make the skill both more viable AND functional as an option and mechanic resolution.
It finally illustrates that the more generalized approach is a lot more forgiving and can actually be fine-tuned to suit multiple degrees of "crunch" in the game according to both GM and player preferences. The existing rule set ... ? Not so much.
But if there's line of sight, then stealth is impossible. Not to be flippant or rude, but that's the RAW.Not to be flippant or rude, but that is incorrect.
-James
Sorry troll, not today.
Now I remember what was bothering me with this rule : You can't sneak in a castle...
Assuming a small square castle, walls are 80 feet long, theres torch every 20 feet at night.
You just need two guard at diagonal corner and no one can sneak-in, days or night...
And if a guard is walking around the wall you can just forget to walk behind him and kill him quickly and silently... Shouting is a free action you can take on others turn...
And for me it has always be one of the most used tactics, to climb the wall, kill silently the guards and open the castle doors for the army to get in...
Now you can't...
Sorry troll, not today.
But if there's line of sight, then stealth is impossible. Not to be flippant or rude, but that's the RAW.Not to be flippant or rude, but that is incorrect.
-James
I don't think he is Trolling. You can use Stealth even when someone has LOS on you. You just have to distract them first with Bluff, then run to cover/concealment and use Stealth.
Now I remember what was bothering me with this rule : You can't sneak in a castle...
Assuming a small square castle, walls are 80 feet long, theres torch every 20 feet at night.
You just need two guard at diagonal corner and no one can sneak-in, days or night...
And if a guard is walking around the wall you can just forget to walk behind him and kill him quickly and silently... Shouting is a free action you can take on others turn...
And for me it has always be one of the most used tactics, to climb the wall, kill silently the guards and open the castle doors for the army to get in...
Now you can't...
Yes - bingo on that!
;-)
Current RAW disallows things like this OUT OF HAND presently, and that's where my problem lies with existing things like cover/concealment requirements when paired with the 360 degree awareness. If there *is* no back space, then you can never sneak up on anyone ever ... nonsense.
Ha! Let's be silly for a minute and turn the RAW on it's head.
[Tongue in Cheek] "Technically" eyes are on the front of your head (ie: forward facing), so any time ANYONE moves, they are "technically" providing full cover to ANYTHING that is behind them (nature of forward facing eyes, no?). So, in that sense, the RAW is fine for allowing stealth to walk behind someone ... oh, wait.
I forgot the part about everyone having multiple eye-stalks coming off of their heads. Never mind ...
*cue rim-shot* [/Tongue in Cheek]
Yes - that's EXACTLY what I mean, plain or not, it's simple and solves the whole "find cover" nonsense that stymies the skill in play.
Instead - the resolution is fast, furious, and lets you move right along. Make the check - success or failure is determined, and then it's on the GM and/or PC to describe how things go down (ie: the die roll is determining factor - NOT some garbage rules put in play to pointedly STOP use of that one skill).
It may be bland, but it's (1) very clear, (2) very direct, and (3) fast to deal with in-play.
I greatly prefer this to the cover/concealment headache.
For *me* there's nothing remotely interesting, entertaining, or fun about what you described in finding the "perfect" hiding spot by RAW on either end of the equation, so - in either capacity, I'd feel completely irate (annoyed as a GM in having to break my game to get with nitty-gritty nonsense points that can easily just be hand-waved in the abstraction of a check anyway; as a player - that I'm *yet again* forced into all kinds of justification only to have my heavy skill investment rendered a non-factor on account of the positioning of targets, and 360 awareness, etc, etc).
It seems to me like you're a map-heavy guy w/lots of details and that's your fun. (yuck!!!)
I'm the other end of the spectrum - give me the bare bones and I'll fill in as needed.
I see. None of this indicates to me that there is a problem with the rules. It indicates to me that you just don't like the rules because they don't reflect your preferred style of play. That is not a failing on the rule's part. If you want simple die contests, which can later be storied out by players and DMs, then you are welcome to use the house-rules you are talking about. But that isn't the way it works in PF.
Now, that is not to say I think the rules are perfect. There are a great many areas where they could be clearer. But you are not talking about that. You aren't talking about smoothing out the existing rules, you are talking about reducing the existing rules to a single die role, the results of which, to be RPd out by players and DM. There is nothing wrong with a game like that, it fits a certain style of play, but PF is not that game. My understanding is that 4E might be. If you haven't tried 4E you might want to, it may suit your style of bare bones crunch. Alternately, you could run PF and simply house-rule your home games to use those simpler rules. But you really can't expect PF to be completely rewritten to emphasise a style of play it wasn't meant for. It is not a simple game, there are a lot of rules and rolling involved.
Assuming a small square castle, walls are 80 feet long, theres torch every 20 feet at night.
You can't sneak in with the concealment of dim light, because it has been eliminated with torches. Nothing says you can't use distractions to provide an opportunity to use Stealth. Maybe wait until guard change, or create distractions of your own.
You just need two guard at diagonal corner and no one can sneak-in, days or night...
Yes you can, you just have to be more familiar with the Stealth rules and rely on things other than dim light to provide Stealth.
And if a guard is walking around the wall you can just forget to walk behind him and kill him quickly and silently... Shouting is a free action you can take on others turn...
Yes a "free action" not an immediate action. Meaning yelling is not an interrupt action. If you sneak up on the guard without his noticing you, which you can do, and Sneak Attack him, if that attack kills him it would be before he has the chance to take his free action to yell. Sure he can take his free action after the attack, but he can't yell with a slit throat (assuming you kill the guard in one attack, which is likely as low ranking NPCs).
And for me it has always be one of the most used tactics, to climb the wall, kill silently the guards and open the castle doors for the army to get in...
Now you can't...
Yes you can, it just requires a little more familiarity with the rules.
Current RAW disallows things like this OUT OF HAND presently, and that's where my problem lies with existing things like cover/concealment requirements when paired with the 360 degree awareness. If there *is* no back space, then you can never sneak up on anyone ever ... nonsense.
Again yes you can, you just have to do it differently. Utilize distraction rather than concealment. Or come out of concealment and reach them with your attack before they can react. There were rules for that in the 3.5 Complete Adventurer, but many incorporate it into the basic Stealth rules.
"Technically" eyes are on the front of your head (ie: forward facing), so any time ANYONE moves, they are "technically" providing full cover to ANYTHING that is behind them (nature of forward facing eyes, no?).
This would be Total Concealment, not full cover. Become more familiar with the rules and you will see that all this stuff is in fact quite possible. Again, it's not a short falling of the rules, it is the fact that the rules simply aren't to your liking or preferred style of play.
No you can't kill sealthily a guard this way 'cause the other will immediatly see you... Even if you kill the first guard silently your doomed... The other can use his free action shout...
I see. None of this indicates to me that there is a problem with the rules. It indicates to me that you just don't like the rules because they don't reflect your preferred style of play. That is not a failing on the rule's part. If you want simple die contests, which can later be storied out by players and DMs, then you are welcome to use the house-rules you are talking about. But that isn't the way it works in PF.
But does it work that way in PF? I think it’s pretty obvious the rules allow for people to have 360 degree view in combat. But does PF specify it works that way outside of combat (initiative), as well?
Sure, someone could say, “No, it doesn’t specify there is no facing outside of combat, but it also doesn’t say there is, either. And since it works that way in combat, it must work they same way outside of it, as well.” Maybe so, but maybe not. I guess it really depends on how strictly the DM wants to adhere to RAW. But I feel in initiative and out of initiative could be different, at least in regards to stealth.
Where in the example of the castle, if the rogue pops out ‘behind’ one of the guards, as long as he makes his stealth check to not alert him, he would be able to get a sneak attack on him.
Yes, you could make the argument of “First, there is no 'behind, and also, the rogue has no concealment or cover because of the torches, so he cannot hide and therefore do a sneak attack.” What I am getting at is since the stealth is being done outside of combat, the DM could rule there is facing.
Yes, some could consider this a houserule, but it would allow for situations like this, which I feel should be able to exist. As Loengrin indicated, they would be pretty common and make sense.
No you can't kill sealthily a guard this way 'cause the other will immediatly see you... Even if you kill the first guard silently your doomed... The other can use his free action shout...
Well, if you are simply sneaking into the castle you don't have to kill the guards at all. You can simply sneak past them with relative ease.
On the other hand, your observation is not automatically true. There are 80' between you and the other guard which is a Perception check DC 8 to notice anything happen right off the bat. Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC. Now you are sitting at a DC 13 Perception check to notice anything happening at the other guard tower. Also, since the other guards are distracted in relation to you, you are able to use Stealth against them, which raises the DC of the Perception check accordingly. When you actually make your attack you come out of Stealth, and for that moment the DC to see you is a flat 13. Another consideration is that you will likely be working with a whole party rather than by yourself. Now those other party members can possibly help distract or even kill the other guards. Also, there are conditions to think about, is it a foggy night, or a windy night. If so the torches might blow out, or even with the light there might be enough concealment with the fog. Conditions raise the DC of the base Perception check between +2 and +5 more. However, if you are stupid enough to try to sneak over the walls of a castle, with the defenses described, and kill the guards on a perfectly clear and calm night, you deserve to be caught and tortured, just like Jack did in the OPs original post.
However, if you are stupid enough to try to sneak over the walls of a castle, with the defenses described, and kill the guards on a perfectly clear and calm night, you deserve to be caught and tortured, just like Jack did in the OPs original post.
Well, that was completely different. The OP was talking about doing it under high noon (bright light category) right in front of the farmer sitting on his porch.
I could realistically see a very stealthy character (rogue/assassin/etc.) in the middle of the night going out ahead and climbing the wall, stealthing over to the guard and slitting his throat (sneak attack). The problem with this most likely is you wouldn't be able to do the quick kill with the sneak attack like you would with the slit throat in real life. But you still should at least be able to have the opportunity to sneak up to the guard (without other party members using distractions) if he is not looking.
Now, of course, that does not take into account any other guards keeping watch in the area. If you try to pull that maneuver I described with another guard present, I agree, you deserve what you get.
|
|
Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC.
Can you explain more about how a guard who is 'guarding' is distracted by his 'guarding'? I don't follow that.
Aaah I've forrgotten the distance things !!!
Even if the guard is not distracted, pythagore tell me that if the walls are 80 feet long then the other guard is about 113 feet away... so a detect of 11... plus maybe other bonus due to various things DM judging... ;)
And is the guard is not moving you can ask your DM for a helpless guard... try a "pretty please"... :p
I still think it's a bit complicated, it's too easy to forget some parts of the rules and become utterly screwed for it...
Well, I think I have to read it and read it again until I am totally sure of it ;)
At last reading for the clarification on the forum has helped me having a better grasp of the RAI... :)
Thanks all for that :)
Can you explain more about how a guard who is 'guarding' is distracted by his 'guarding'? I don't follow that.
Are you referring to my post?
My “(without party members using distractions)” was in response to Shadowlord’s comment on other party members helping out and distracting the guard so you can sneak up on him. I am just saying, the stealthy rogue/assassin/etc. should at least be able to still attempt sneaking up on the guard without him having to be distracted by others.
My apologies, Hobbun - no, I wasn't. I've edited my original post with a quote attributed to Shadowlord. I was just being lazy :-)
Oh, not a problem at all. :)
And to Shadowlord, not to sound like I am ganging up on you at all, just was making a point that a stealthy character ‘should’ be able to attempt a stealth check on a guard (or whomever) without having to distract them, as long as that person is not looking your way. And again, that goes back to my point of maybe the PF rules doesn't necessarily mean the 360 view is there all the time (i.e. out of initiatve).
Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC.Can you explain more about how a guard who is 'guarding' is distracted by his 'guarding'? I don't follow that.
Because he is guarding his area, not an area at least 50 feet away from where he is guarding and up. He is looking down at the base of the castle walls, allong the paths, maybe at the area between the guard towers, but not at the other guard tower. He is actively looking at other areas, but not in the area that the action is taking place.
Well, that was completely different. The OP was talking about doing it under high noon (bright light category) right in front of the farmer sitting on his porch.
Yes, which was mind bogglingly stupid.
I could realistically see a very stealthy character (rogue/assassin/etc.) in the middle of the night going out ahead and climbing the wall, stealthing over to the guard and slitting his throat (sneak attack). The problem with this most likely is you wouldn't be able to do the quick kill with the sneak attack like you would with the slit throat in real life. But you still should at least be able to have the opportunity to sneak up to the guard (without other party members using distractions) if he is not looking.
Yes, it is possible. But it depends on the skill of the Rogue vs. the skill of the Guard. If you are truely going for Stealth, you would wait until circumstances favor you, adding to your skill and detracting from the Guard's skill.
A one shot kill with Sneak Attack is entirely possible and realistic in this scenario. Chances are the night guards posted to keep watch are not going to be above 1-3 level NPCs. Now, if there were elite guardsmen of some kind then all of this might be much harder.
|
Now I remember what was bothering me with this rule : You can't sneak in a castle...
Assuming a small square castle, walls are 80 feet long, theres torch every 20 feet at night.
You just need two guard at diagonal corner and no one can sneak-in, days or night...
And if a guard is walking around the wall you can just forget to walk behind him and kill him quickly and silently... Shouting is a free action you can take on others turn...
And for me it has always be one of the most used tactics, to climb the wall, kill silently the guards and open the castle doors for the army to get in...
Now you can't...
This is a pretty ridiculous example. If one were to use an ACTUAL castle design (with cover, buildings inside of the curtain wall, catwalks which overhang the wall, etc), it is pretty easy to sneak into a castle.
I see. None of this indicates to me that there is a problem with the rules. It indicates to me that you just don't like the rules because they don't reflect your preferred style of play. That is not a failing on the rule's part. If you want simple die contests, which can later be storied out by players and DMs, then you are welcome to use the house-rules you are talking about. But that isn't the way it works in PF.
Now, that is not to say I think the rules are perfect. There are a great many areas where they could be clearer. But you are not talking about that. You aren't talking about smoothing out the existing rules, you are talking about reducing the existing rules to a single die role, the results of which, to be RPd out by players and DM. There is nothing wrong with a game like that, it fits a certain style of play, but PF is not that game. My understanding is that 4E might be. If you haven't tried 4E you might want to, it may suit your style of bare bones crunch. Alternately, you could run PF and simply house-rule your home games to use those simpler rules. But you really can't expect PF to be completely rewritten to emphasise a style of play it wasn't meant for. It is not a simple game, there are a lot of rules and rolling involved.
Well now, you're just losing sight of all else that's been covered by me to try and take what I posted out of context.
*shakes head*
I went with a simple suggestion of an alternative rule to show that it can be JUST AS effective without becoming needlessly/pointlessly complicated (as evidence I submit the multiple stealth-based threads requesting at the least - clarifications).
Truly - there is the way that exists, and that *can* be forced to explain *most* situations, but it is a far from clear, or elegant solution or mechanic in play.
Do you *really* expect me to go back and cover ALL the stuff that was covered by myself and other at this point because I just put forth an alternative mechanic for comparative purposes? Really???
If that's the case ... I'm not even sure I *want* to continue responding to you.
I'll simply say, "go back and read ALL of the previous posts made by myself and others on the particular rule-failings of the existing mechanics."
I'm not inclined to repeat myself - on matter already posted up and identified.
Now - to make my point more clearly about THAT reference: How or in what way does reduction of the extra garbage (cover/concealment/etc) to a single skill contest detract from play experience?
Keep in mind cover and concealment, by my suggestion is also capable of applying - likely as some sort of "modifier" however rather than being an absolute requirement as they currently are.
Answer: current RAW does NOTHING to enhance or improve game play BECAUSE the rules are excessively gamist in nature, poorly laid out, and often contradictory. [again - not going back over points already made, but that's where my post was coming from.]
Edit and warning: Never speak to me of this 4e nonsense! I do not like it, find it inferior, and it offends my aesthetics. j/k
On the serious side, though - I do NOT like the system. Remotely, so no go on suggesting that I go that way instead. ;-)
This is a pretty ridiculous example. If one were to use an ACTUAL castle design (with cover, buildings inside of the curtain wall, catwalks which overhang the wall, etc), it is pretty easy to sneak into a castle.
Well, in fact, if it's easier to guard a castle designed like this what would be ridiculous is if they design their castle in this world like the actual castle in our world...
Since it is easier to defend a castle designed like this with the sneak rules beign what they are... :)
No you can't kill sealthily a guard this way 'cause the other will immediatly see you... Even if you kill the first guard silently your doomed... The other can use his free action shout...Well, if you are simply sneaking into the castle you don't have to kill the guards at all. You can simply sneak past them with relative ease.
On the other hand, your observation is not automatically true. There are 80' between you and the other guard which is a Perception check DC 8 to notice anything happen right off the bat. [Here]Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC. Now you are sitting at a DC 13 Perception check to notice anything happening at the other guard tower. [Here]Also, since the other guards are distracted in relation to you, you are able to use Stealth against them, which raises the DC of the Perception check accordingly. When you actually make your attack you come out of Stealth, and for that moment the DC to see you is a flat 13. Another consideration is that you will likely be working with a whole party rather than by yourself. Now those other party members can possibly help distract or even kill the other guards. [Here]Also, there are conditions to think about, is it a foggy night, or a windy night. [Here]If so the torches might blow out, or even with the light there might be enough concealment with the fog. Conditions raise the DC of the base Perception check between +2 and +5 more. However, if you are stupid enough to try to sneak over the walls of a castle, with the defenses described, and kill the guards on a perfectly clear and calm night, you deserve to be caught and tortured, just like Jack did in the OPs original post.
RAW - it all works out just fine.
However, let me elucidate the GM Calls/Fiat/Rule 0 instances by simply inserting a "[Here]" bolded in your text. It will come just BEFORE what I see as such a case/example.
Is it really that difficult to understand what I'm saying in that YOU (GM) are fully controlling that situation and making MANY calls, AND that the required conditions becomes just more nonsense to mitigate and/or keep track of - effectively adding nothing to the game play at the table? Point being ... if GM's call is *already* by RAW so important, why not leave it all there instead and do away with the competing paradigm of on/off (concealment/cover) altogether?
RAW requires both the absolute paradigms of on/off (concealment/cover/whatever) AND GM adjudication (particulars of the scenario). So, with two virtually diametrically opposed approaches in play - this is, from it's design inception a "poor" mechanic (because of competing paradigms - follow?).
Aaah I've forrgotten the distance things !!!
Even if the guard is not distracted, pythagore tell me that if the walls are 80 feet long then the other guard is about 113 feet away... so a detect of 11... plus maybe other bonus due to various things DM judging... ;)
Now the distance + conditions and the possibility of using Stealth based on things other than cover/concealment make the scenario very possible. Most common guard forces are little more than 1-3 level NPCs. So hitting a base Perception DC of 13-18 isn't that easy for them.
Why would such low level guards be guarding? Well because not everyone is a 10 Level Fighter. NPCs are usually run of the mill types. The scenario did not specify Elite guardsmen or training so I am assuming a very general scenario. No one wants the night watch, so it will be left to the junior guards or the POS trouble makers, almost a form of hazing. Now, if you are trying to break into some elite base camp then it might be a little more difficult.
Anyway, the scenario was designed with the intent of exploiting Stealth's weaknesses. It is harder to sneak in torch light than it is in dim light. So if we set up a scenario where there is no dim light because there are so many torches Stealth will fail. Well yeah, it will certainly be much harder, but if you set out to design an encounter specifically to defeat a particular thing, chances are you will be able to do it relatively easy. Hmm, let's make an encounter that renders all magic users worthless, ok, let’s put the castle in a big dead magic field. See, it's as easy as that, and 50% of the classes in the game are worthless in that encounter.
But does it work that way in PF? I think it’s pretty obvious the rules allow for people to have 360 degree view in combat. But does PF specify it works that way outside of combat (initiative), as well?
Sure, someone could say, “No, it doesn’t specify there is no facing outside of combat, but it also doesn’t say there is, either. And since it works that way in combat, it must work they same way outside of it, as well.” Maybe so, but maybe not. I guess it really depends on how strictly the DM wants to adhere to RAW. But I feel in initiative and out of initiative could be different, at least in regards to stealth.
Where in the example of the castle, if the rogue pops out ‘behind’ one of the guards, as long as he makes his stealth check to not alert him, he would be able to get a sneak attack on him.
Yes, you could make the argument of “First, there is no 'behind, and also, the rogue has no concealment or cover because of the torches, so he cannot hide and therefore do a sneak attack.” What I am getting at is since the stealth is being done outside of combat, the DM could rule there is facing.
Yes, some could consider this a houserule, but it would allow for situations like this, which I feel should be able to exist. As Loengrin indicated, they would be pretty common and make sense.
This is an unanswerable question. RAW doesn't explicitly state either way.
There are those who believe one way, and those who believe the other, and compelling arguments can be made for either side. I have never seen a definitive win for either camp though.
I must say, I tend not to bring Facing rules into the game. Nowhere in the game is Facing mentioned in any way. If you want to allow your player to sneak up on someone, well they must start in cover/concealment, if they have successfully used Stealth to hide; they may approach the target using Stealth and hopefully get to him without being seen. There are rules for it in the Complete Adventurer. You can also use the distraction rules to allow it. There really is no need for facings.
Anyway, the scenario was designed with the intent of exploiting Stealth's weaknesses. It is harder to sneak in torch light than it is in dim light. So if we set up a scenario where there is no dim light because there are so many torches Stealth will fail. Well yeah, it will certainly be much harder, but if you set out to design an encounter specifically to defeat a particular thing, chances are you will be able to do it relatively easy. Hmm, let's make an encounter that renders all magic users worthless, ok, let’s put the castle in a big dead magic field. See, it's as easy as that, and 50% of the classes in the game are worthless in that encounter.
On that I don't agree... In a high magic environment if lights and two guards is enough to guard an entire fortress why try to have more ?
Everburning torch are cheap... It's easy to have some everywhere around your castle... And so you can make economy on men... If four young recruit, one at each corner, are sufficient to guard efficiently the castle from intruder why make things more complicated ?People will always do the simpler and cheaper things... So you will have castle designed like that, walls higher than any other buildings with corner tower roof on the same level of the wall and a lot of everburning torch... Hell it provide line of sight cover on the main dungeon... so no spell directly on the noble house... Why building a high dungeon ?!?!
When you build something you have to think about magic, not black powder... ;)
Because he is guarding his area, not an area at least 50 feet away from where he is guarding and up. He is looking down at the base of the castle walls, allong the paths, maybe at the area between the guard towers, but not at the other guard tower. He is actively looking at other areas, but not in the area that the action is taking place.Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC.Can you explain more about how a guard who is 'guarding' is distracted by his 'guarding'? I don't follow that.
Exactly my point: Let's put this very small citadel in a realistic environment. How about in a town, let's say it is a military barracks inside a small city, which is reasonable considering its small size. Now, guarding something every single night and never seeing much in the way of excitement leads to complacently and boredom, which leads to distraction. Add on top of that the fact that the city is not utterly devoid of life and you have all kinds of distractions as local merchants bustle by the walls, and the drunkards come out at night hollering, and also guard patrols on the street may stop to have a short word with the guards stuck on the tower, guards do such things to break up the monotony of a long boring night. Some guards will strike up long conversations with total strangers on the street just to pass a little bit of time. Within the ranks of regular military, distraction is the rule not the exception. Even if he is the exceptional guard who is vigilant all night, what is it he is looking at? He is looking "out" toward the streets and base of the wall. He is certainly not fixated on his fellow guard at the opposite guard tower all night. Even the exceptional guard is fixated elsewhere, allowing you to exploit the areas outside his focus, all of which I equate to being "distracted in relation to you."
Most people walk through the majority of their day distracted. You are distracted by what you are typing on the computer, or watching on TV. You are distracted by the pretty woman who just walked by. You are distracted by the guy on the bicycle who almost ran over you in the street. You might even be distracted by a bird or other natural device, how about wind blowing through a set of chimes. People are constantly distracted by conversations they are having while walking along. How many car accidents happen because someone was momentarily distracted? See, driving is a serious situation, much like being a guard, you would thing a person would be highly alert at a time like that, but repetition breads complacency. All you have to do is look down at the radio for a split second while someone pulls out in front of you and it’s all over. Same with the guard.
My apologies, Hobbun - no, I wasn't. I've edited my original post with a quote attributed to Shadowlord. I was just being lazy :-)Oh, not a problem at all. :)
And to Shadowlord, not to sound like I am ganging up on you at all, just was making a point that a stealthy character ‘should’ be able to attempt a stealth check on a guard (or whomever) without having to distract them, as long as that person is not looking your way. And again, that goes back to my point of maybe the PF rules doesn't necessarily mean the 360 view is there all the time (i.e. out of initiatve).
You can't sneak around indefinitely without cover/concealment. However if you come from a position of cover/concealment it is possible to sneak up on someone without breaking Stealth. There were rules set for it in Complete Adventurer but most people just roll it into basic Stealth.
Well now, you're just losing sight of all else that's been covered by me to try and take what I posted out of context.
Not really, I was referring to the points you made in that post. None of that was in reference to specific failings of the RAW it was simply that you don't like the way the rules play out.
As far as your other points, I have read most, if not all, and I simply don't agree that the rules have as many short falls as you and others claim. Most people who say something can't be done with the current Stealth rules simply don't know the rules. It is not a short fall of the rules if you don't know them.
Now, I do agree that there are places that the rules should be smoothed out and clarified. There are a few points that desperately need that kind of attention. And I also agree that it is a huge hassle to go searching through the whole book to collect all the rules regarding Stealth and try to consolidate them and make sense of it all. It would be much simpler if all of that was in one place, or at least if there were good references between their separate locations. But I simply do not agree that the rules are complete failures which need to be reduced to a single roll for simplicities sake.
Truly - there is the way that exists, and that *can* be forced to explain *most* situations, but it is a far from clear, or elegant solution or mechanic in play.
I don't feel it must be forced to do anything, it simply requires a bit more study than most people are willing to dedicate.
Do you *really* expect me to go back and cover ALL the stuff that was covered by myself and other at this point because I just put forth an alternative mechanic for comparative purposes? Really???
No.
If that's the case ... I'm not even sure I *want* to continue responding to you.
You are welcome to ignore me if you like.
I'll simply say, "go back and read ALL of the previous posts made by myself and others on the particular rule-failings of the existing mechanics."
I have been reading this thread since its resurrection and have seen very little that I have not already posted about earlier in this thread, when it was first active.
How or in what way does reduction of the extra garbage (cover/concealment/etc) to a single skill contest detract from play experience?
It doesn't. But that still doesn't reflect an inherent problem with the way the Stealth skill is now. Most of the problem is that people don't know the rules. Or know them, and don't like the amount of effort it takes to maintain (which is I think your point).
This is a pretty ridiculous example. If one were to use an ACTUAL castle design (with cover, buildings inside of the curtain wall, catwalks which overhang the wall, etc), it is pretty easy to sneak into a castle.Well, in fact, if it's easier to guard a castle designed like this what would be ridiculous is if they design their castle in this world like the actual castle in our world...
Since it is easier to defend a castle designed like this with the sneak rules beign what they are... :)
Yes but that would be Meta-Gaming. And it is very easy to defend castles from any kind of caster threat based on the Antimagic Field and Dead Magic Zone rules. That doesn't mean the DM should put every castle in one of those areas.
No you can't kill sealthily a guard this way 'cause the other will immediatly see you... Even if you kill the first guard silently your doomed... The other can use his free action shout...Well, if you are simply sneaking into the castle you don't have to kill the guards at all. You can simply sneak past them with relative ease.
On the other hand, your observation is not automatically true. There are 80' between you and the other guard which is a Perception check DC 8 to notice anything happen right off the bat. [Here]Now add in the fact that the Guard is actually focused on "guarding" and not looking directly at his fellow guard the entire night, so he is in effect distracted in relation to you, since his attention is elsewhere, which adds +5 to the DC. Now you are sitting at a DC 13 Perception check to notice anything happening at the other guard tower. [Here]Also, since the other guards are distracted in relation to you, you are able to use Stealth against them, which raises the DC of the Perception check accordingly. When you actually make your attack you come out of Stealth, and for that moment the DC to see you is a flat 13. Another consideration is that you will likely be working with a whole party rather than by yourself. Now those other party members can possibly help distract or even kill the other guards. [Here]Also, there are conditions to think about, is it a foggy night, or a windy night. [Here]If so the torches might blow out, or even with the light there might be enough concealment with the fog. Conditions raise the DC of the base Perception check between +2 and +5 more. However, if you are stupid enough to try to sneak over the walls of a castle, with the defenses described, and kill the guards on a perfectly clear and calm night, you deserve to be caught and tortured, just like Jack did in the OPs original post.
RAW - it all works out just fine.
However, let me elucidate the GM Calls/Fiat/Rule 0...
I do see the point you are making, I understand what you are saying, and I see where you are coming from. But I still think it boils down to a difference in preferred play style. You like the ultimate basis for success or failure to be entirely in the hands of the skilled player vs. the NPC guard. The way RAW stands there is a lot depending on the scenario that the DM has put forth and it requires a lot of knowledge on both the player’s part and the DMs part. In addition it requires a great deal of communication between the DM and the player. In the end it isn't entirely in the hands of the skilled player. If the DM doesn't do a good job in creating the scenario it dooms the player to fail, unless they are using house-rules to make up for it. Again, I don't feel that is a failing of the rules that is a difference of taste with play style.
I must say, I tend not to bring Facing rules into the game. Nowhere in the game is Facing mentioned in any way. If you want to allow your player to sneak up on someone, well they must start in cover/concealment, if they have successfully used Stealth to hide; they may approach the target using Stealth and hopefully get to him without being seen. There are rules for it in the Complete Adventurer. You can also use the...
Well, I wasn’t even talking about incorporating facing completely. Not even use the modifiers to AC/to hit. Just to make distinction in someone is not looking your way.
I don’t know how many times I, me personally, have been able to sneak up on someone because they were not looking in my direction, and did so without causing a distriction someplace else, and my stealth is probably equivalent to a -1.
I am just saying you should have that opportunity to do so in game, as well, at least outside of initiative.
You can't sneak around indefinitely without cover/concealment. However if you come from a position of cover/concealment it is possible to sneak up on someone without breaking Stealth. There were rules set for it in Complete Adventurer but most people just roll it into basic Stealth.
Ok, I see your point, because if you are able to make Stealth checks without the basic rules of cover or concealment, then you are basically able to hide even better than HiPS for Shadowdancer/assassin.
I just don’t like that the very stealthy character loses out if no one is observing him, it is just impossible for him to sneak up on someone in the open, lit area (without causing a distraction). And it is something that can be done, as I said even I can do it, the most unstealthy person in the world.
It just is another nail to show how the Stealth rules are borked.