Invis adds 20 to your check, but Barney the family pet uses Scent. So even Capt. Invis may still be sprung.
So no, it's going to take more than just that spell.
The sorceror you mention would also end up a pretty one-trick pony.
Once again though, its apples and oranges, he is relying on magic etc, and wouldn't it suck that Sorc would be beaten at what he does (magic) by a skill just about any Joe Blow can learn? (according to PFRPG)
Exactly how are the rules stopping you sneaking up on someone?
The 20th level rogue is PRACTICALLY invisible on just about any count you'd care to mention, frankly I can't see (pardon the pun) how you could think any other way?
Your example in the other thread didn't stand up, when will you let it go?
Then the seeker should move to a different part of the room so he can see into all parts of it from a different angle--like an angle that lets him see the hider's hiding place.Have I mentioned lately how dumb "no concealment = no stealth" is? RAW hiding is damn near impossible.
Not only RAW, but reality. You stand in an empty room, I'll spot you easily EVERY time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try a different scenario. Guard is at the gate, taking 10 on Perception checks, maybe he's the PC, maybe he's the NPC. He has one rank and a class skill bonus for a 14. A Rogue, also may be the PC or the NPC, is trying to sneak past, taking 10 on his Disguise skill, with 1 rank and a class skill bonus for a 14 on Disguise skill checks. Since they are both putting equal effort and have equal skill, then the odds of either one succeeding should be 50/50. But if the guard sets the dc, then the Rogue succeeds 100% of the time. If the Rogue sets the dc, then the guard succeeds 100% of the time.
And that's why take 10 is a convenience for the player, but shouldn't be the default or even the optimal scenario. If you only have a +4 bonus, you probably shouldn't be taking 10 because in a typical scenario (like this one, where your target's bonus is probably similar to yours) you're going to fail half the time. Take 10 is for things like "can I just take 10 on my jump check? I only fail on a 4 or less, let's save the time rolling and not risk me failing to jump a 2' gap because of a bad roll," and "can I just take 10 on my Disguise check? I have a +4 modifier, I don't want to roll a 1 and give the guy a crappy disguise just because of a bad roll."
If you're worried about failing because your opponent may be better than you, don't take 10, make the roll. It takes the same amount of time in game whether you roll or take 10.
It's really no different than being a lazy player with a +9 Stealth rogue who thinks he can take 10 on a Stealth check past a guard because he thinks the guard is just some +2 Spot loser... except he doesn't know the guard is actually an important NPC with a +10 Spot. You take 10 when you believe an average roll will succeed; if it turns out that belief is wrong, you'll suffer the consequences.
It works the same way if both are allowed to take 20, the Rogue preparing his disguise well in advance, and the guard stopping everyone for 2 minutes for a thorough examination. With the same exact skill, one will always succeed, and the other one will always fail.
There's nothing wrong with that. You're proposing a new tiebreaker rule for something that will almost never come up:
1) rogue and guard have to have exactly the same skill bonuses, AND2) rogue has to take 20 on Disguise, AND
3) guard has to take 20 on Perception.
Really, how often is that going to happen? Do you need to spend words on such a rule, or is there something else you could be doing with your GM/design time?
Situations like these are why I only allow one side or the other to take 10, and also why I always have the NPC set the dc (since doing so gives the PCs a slight edge).
The individual skill tells you which one sets the DC; Disguise sets the DC for Perception, not the other way around, regardless of circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know that part of Batman Begins, where Ducard is training Bruce? The two of them are walking through a well-lit room, talking about the power of stealth or something, then Ducard gives a signal and a bunch of ninjas that Bruce completely overlooked dropped from the rafters. Those ninjas would have been in plain sight, except that they were skilled enough to be somewhere that nobody would think to look.
Batman MOVIE !== reality.
And even if it were, weren't the rafters... in shadow? That's concealment, thus, Stealth is possible.
It's Christmas time, and I spend last weekend spending some time visiting my brother-in-law's family. My five-year-old nephew was happily playing with a toy car, so I crept up on him through the living room, quietly and slowly. Then, I pounced on him shouting something about a ticklemonster, earning me many giggles and a dirty look from my wife.
Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that in the game. If an NPC was specifically only looking in one direction, the GM could rule that sneaking up behind them is technically concealment, thus you can use Stealth. But the game assumes that people at risk of being killed at any moment tend to look in ALL directions instead of just focusing on one.
Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that in the game. If an NPC was specifically only looking in one direction, the GM could rule that sneaking up behind them is technically concealment, thus you can use Stealth. But the game assumes that people at risk of being killed at any moment tend to look in ALL directions instead of just focusing on one.
Indeed, the main complaint I have about Stealth is that the rules don't work very well outside of combat (which is where most sneaking around is done, in my experience).
Stealth does not convey the ability to refract and bend light around you.
If you were a real ninja you would not beleive that ;)
|
It's Christmas time, and I spend last weekend spending some time visiting my brother-in-law's family. My five-year-old nephew was happily playing with a toy car, so I crept up on him through the living room, quietly and slowly. Then, I pounced on him shouting something about a ticklemonster, earning me many giggles and a dirty look from my wife.Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that in the game. If an NPC was specifically only looking in one direction, the GM could rule that sneaking up behind them is technically concealment, thus you can use Stealth. But the game assumes that people at risk of being killed at any moment tend to look in ALL directions instead of just focusing on one.
Have you ever actually tried to look everywhere at once? From experience, I can assure you you will get a headache a sore neck and absolutely no knowledge of your surroundings. Of course, if you refer to a general awareness of your surroundings where you are not looking any given direction for long, then you leave the opportunity for someone to stay in your blind spot. I'm not saying its easy, but it should be possible. I would even accept the combat would be a different scenario, and that without special circumstances, a Feat perhaps, RAW would apply.
Just my two cents.
Graywulfe
{No, it was just up, in a fairly well-lit room. If you look at the scene on a movie screen or a nice TV, you can actually see them. Is every character in PF meant to be more perceptive than Batman? (...okay, that's not a serious question.)}
So are you or are you not trying to use (fictional) BATMAN to prove a point about reality?
{As for reality, aren't we talking about a game with dragons, wizards, guys who can shatter solid rock walls with a single sword stroke, etc.?}
Irrelevant. The mundane aspects of the game have to try model mundane reality, otherwise the player has no frame of reference to understand what they can do without magic. Using the "it's magic" (aka "a wizard did it") is a cheesy excuse to cover weak game design.
{I mentioned above that the sorcerer can just cast invisibility and be the stealthiest class in the game.}
And can only do it a limited number of times per day, with a limited duration, that ends when you start combat. Compared to the rogue, who can Stealth all day if she wants, and can go right back into Stealth after a battle. Invisibility is an expendable resource, Stealth is not.
{Why don't the rules say anything about the house rule you just suggested?}
Because the GM is not a robot. The game says that creatures are aware in all directions, but that doesn't mean that a GM has to be a slave to that (or any rule) if circumstances deem it appropriate.
Have you ever actually tried to look everywhere at once? From experience, I can assure you you will get a headache a sore neck and absolutely no knowledge of your surroundings. Of course, if you refer to a general awareness of your surroundings where you are not looking any given direction for long, then you leave the opportunity for someone to stay in your blind spot. I'm not saying its easy, but it should be possible. I would even accept the combat would be a different scenario, and that without special circumstances, a Feat perhaps, RAW would apply.
Have fun indicating at all times which direction every single monster and PC in play is looking on a round-to-round basis.
(Hint: The game simplifies some things so a round of combat doesn't take an hour.)
You know, I haven't seen Batman Begins, but it seems we have Batman before he's really Batman entering a room with someone named Ducard. Now, following my expectations from the comics, Batman is quite tall, meaning he should be looking down at about anyone else he's talking to, and thus not looking up at the ceiling, but checking the IMDB, I see that instead it's 6' Christian Bale talking to 6'4" Liam Neeson, so the heights are reversed. But even so, with him looking up at Neeson (unless they did tricks with apple crates and camera angles) there's a good bit of Liam Neeson head for the ninjas to hide behind, and I expect Bale is staring intently at Neeson's pupils anyway.
Paying attention to your surroundings and making polite eye contact with revered mentor figure are two tasks that cannot be done at the same time unless you're a creature like a medusa with eyes in the back of your head or some other variant on all-around vision.
I'm arguing that the only way someone can sneak up on someone in PF is magic, and that that's weak game design. Skills and ability checks (the mundane aspects of the game) are allowed to do pretty ridiculous stuff: monks can routinely jump higher than their head from a standing jump at level 5, characters can shatter forged chain with their bare hands between levels 8 and 16 (depending on starting stats), and by level 20 a male human rogue can disguise himself as a female ogre so well that it fools her husband. I'm not arguing that any of these things are bad; rather, I wonder why stealth as-written is so much weaker.
Personally, from my DM's chair, I see the Stealth rules as working properly whereas the Disguise rules are obviously broken. Unless the rogue has some magic or Mission Impossible spy-tech super-science, disguising himself as the ogre's wife should only work in those circumstances where the ogre isn't looking at her closely enough to notice the pancake makeup or stilts.
Convincing on stage and convincing close up are two different things.
On the other hand, if a 20th level rogue hasn't picked up some Disguise-enhancing magic or super-alchemy by this point, he isn't doing his job right.
Batman MOVIE !== reality.[/QUTOE]
Wow. What an incredible strike against PF.
(Of course, that's utter nonsense. Blurting out that Batman !== reality when talking in the context of D&D/PF is... "odd". Stealth is as mundane in Batman as it is in PF. SKR is wrong.)
Pathfinder doesn't have facing, which is why you can't do that in the game.But I thought you said...
Have fun indicating at all times which direction every single monster and PC in play is looking on a round-to-round basis.
(Hint: The game simplifies some things so a round of combat doesn't take an hour.)Yeah. That's why you roll Stealth vs. Perception. Without the bad rule of "requiring Concealment" (which shouldn't have been written in the first place).
Why don't the rules say anything about the house rule you just suggested? Why isn't "at risk of being killed at any moment" given any treatment in the rules at all? Why does Stealth only work when the GM gives permission for it to work?That seems like a perfectly reasonable way to make the Stealth rules work for a strictly realistic game, but 3e/PF isn't strictly realistic and the rules don't actually say what you just said. Pertaining to realism, I wonder why 3e and PF attempt to hew so close to reality in this one aspect. Pertaining to the rules as written, I wonder about the intent of the rules as they are written.
The rules have to stop somewhere. Abstractions have to be made somewhere. Otherwise, we'd be spending so much time modeling the minutae of reality and the game would be completely and utterly unplayable.
Requiring some kind of concealment under most circumstances is perfectly reasonable - there has to be something preventing you from seeing what would otherwise be utterly obvious and right out in the open. The DM is also perfectly capable of ruling that even unconcealed spaces are not currently being observed - such as when sneaking up on a 5 year old.
Complaining about getting the DM's permission for it to work, as far as I'm concerned, is a non-starter. How many other things in the game are NOT with a DM's permission considering the DM is the player's interface with the world around the PCs. If you're worried about the DM and permission issues, then the game's already a lost cause.
Why are you allowed to keep wasting ranks in skills if there's a hard cap on how effective they can be? If you're going to say to skill-using classes "Sorry guys, you're not allowed to be any cooler than [such], beyond that you need magic" then what's the point of having skills at high levels?
Level 20 characters are legends in their field, and a group of them has the skill and power and wit to take on the lords of Hell. Why do you need a wizard to do it in order for one of them sneak past a kobald guard?
Because magic has its weaknesses and limitations built in. True Seeing and a dozen lesser divinations and even minor wardings and folk charms can hose invisiblity, faerie glamour, and all sorts of magics, at least in my worlds. A chamber maid turning a glove inside-out can be all it takes for a green hag's Disguise Self ability to go *POP*, revealing the hag in her true form. Meanwhile, the cross-dressing rogue is completely unaffected by countermagics and folk charms.
Having the pinnacle of mundane abilities be not only as miraculous and unbelievable as the magical ones but moreover have absolutely no Achille's Heel as part of them other than meeting an utter masters of the counter-skills?
I don't buy it, and moreover, I won't buy it. It breaks the worlds I want to play in and the stories I want to tell.
If you want to be an utter master of disguise in my worlds, you're going to have to go with a belt and suspenders approach, using both mundane skillz and kewl magical powerz. Ditto with masters of sneakiness and so on.
Rogues also have a significant leg up on wizards and sorcerers in the Disguise and Stealth departments anyway because they get more skill points and have the relevant skills as class skills for a +3 bonus, plus the fact that anyone can wear a ring of invisibility or a cloak of elvenkind and such magics don't stack. A wizard with a ring of invisibility is a wizard who at best doesn't have to bother preparing that spell. A rogue, on the other hand, is significantly better off.
Why do you need a wizard to do it in order for one of them sneak past a kobald guard?
You don't.
Just about every new scenario you have ventured forth has fallen over too, at what point do you accept it just plain isn't broken?
If you try walk across a brightly lit football field that I am 'observing', you WILL be spotted, regardless of your stealth skill; but we don't live on a snooker table, and in the real world there's no end of cover and concealment.
Working out what way an NPC is facing is easy as pie, and requires all of about a second. All of these things should and do come into play, how is this a problem?
Why do you need a wizard to do it in order for one of them sneak past a kobald guard?You don't.
Just about every new scenario you have ventured forth has fallen over too, at what point do you accept it just plain isn't broken?
If you try walk across a brightly lit football field that I am 'observing', you WILL be spotted, regardless of your stealth skill; but we don't live on a snooker table, and in the real world there's no end of cover and concealment.
Working out what way an NPC is facing is easy as pie, and requires all of about a second. All of these things should and do come into play, how is this a problem?
Here's another scenario. One that should be reasonably common, in that it's been done in cartoon strips forever:
We have a room. There is a door on the far side of the room that is presumably locked. The key to the door is on the keyring of the guard who is fortunately asleep. Unfortunately, the guard is currently asleep in a chair leaning against the locked door.
Now, whether you have stealth or invisibility or something else, this is going to be a problem for you.
Of course, it will probably be mentioned that a wizard with Dimension Door could bypass this. Then again, he could be teleporting into a trapped room.
The point is, there are things even low level people can do to foil even the most high level characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{No. I'm trying to use (fictional) Batman to prove a point about (fictional) D&D.}
Except that the skills system and many other aspects of D&D are designed to create a reasonable yet speedy approximation of reality. So "what can Batman do?" is irrelevant to a discussion of, "what should a D&D character be able to do?" The real question is, "what can a real person do?"
{I'm arguing that the only way someone can sneak up on someone in PF is magic, and that that's weak game design.}
Well, you're wrong.
{Skills and ability checks (the mundane aspects of the game) are allowed to do pretty ridiculous stuff: monks can routinely jump higher than their head from a standing jump at level 5}
And level 5 is where you start to push the boundaries of what a person can do in real life because the characters are superhuman rather than human.
{characters can shatter forged chain with their bare hands between levels 8 and 16 (depending on starting stats)}
Ditto.
{and by level 20 a male human rogue can disguise himself as a female ogre so well that it fools her husband.}
Ditto. I don't think there's ever been a level 20 person on the face of the Earth, so the stuff they can do should *appear* really miraculous.
{Stealth ends when you start combat,}
No, it doesn't.
{and you cannot attack then restealth unless you so completely dominate the opposition that you can succeed on -10 or -20 stealth checks against them, so generally they both end as soon as you attack.}
1) My point is that after the combat, the sorcerer needs to cast again, the rogue just does it without spending any finite resources.
2) Stealth rule says: So it's quite possible to re-stealth in combat. (This also happens to cover being able to sneak up on your nephew, and Ben Kenobi distracting Storm Troopers with a "noise" so he can cross a hallway and get to the tractor beam device.)
{You're right that stealth isn't an expendable resource, but it is a conditional/situational one, and those conditions are very limited in the very circumstances in which you would want to hide. Nobody hangs out in shadowy illumination while conscious, for example, unless they can see in it.}
Everyone can see in shadowy illumination.
{Guards generally don't leave hiding places to sneak past them;}
Yeah, and life is hard for thieves and scoundrels.
{is a rogue or monk meant to be completely incapable of sneaking past an attentive guard, regardless of level difference?}
See the above quote about Bluff.
{Nor is the GM psychic. If you as the designer (I honestly don't know how involved you were with rewriting the Stealth/Perception rules, so this may be the specific you or the general you) intend for there to be a difference between attentive and inattentive observers, where is this explained?}
In the section of Stealth that talks about distracted observers.
{Having a class that sneaks up on people and stabs them and no rules for sneaking up on people and stabbing them would be like having a game with wizards and no rules for magic.}
Funny, as a guy who played a rogue/fighter in Monte's game for three years, and played a rogue in JD's game, and ran several games with rogues, I never had a complaint that my rogue was unable to sneak attack, and my players of rogues never complained that they didn't get to sneak attack. Are you really suggesting that the rules make it *impossible* to sneak up to someone and stab them? If so, I guess the million active D&D players have actually been wrong for the past 10 years.
Good answers.
Covers just about every point quite well and I am in complete agreement.
Besides, if a rogue begins combat successfully "stealthed" and within 30' of the target, doesn't that mean that he/she can simply sprint (charge) up to the target and get a sneak attack in? And if he/she wins initiative (not unlikely given the dextrous nature of Rogues), then proceed with a full attack, once again with sneak attack? All before the npc/target gets a chance to react?
As for ninjas in the rafters (ignoring the fact that DMs are supposed to rule on exceptions to the general rules, that is their job after all), doesn't being in the rafters constitute at least limited cover?
And in how many different threads are you (MIB) going to bring this up?
Besides, if a rogue begins combat successfully "stealthed" and within 30' of the target, doesn't that mean that he/she can simply sprint (charge) up to the target and get a sneak attack in?
By the rules the surprise round grants you a move action or a standard action. A charge is a full round action. Now if the rogue waited for someone to pass by him/her he could do that.
If you did not mean that as an actual question then oops. :)
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn,you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up
to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you
cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw
feat. You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to
taking only a standard action on your turn.
I thought this meant that you could charge in a surprise round. No?
I thought this meant that you could charge in a surprise round. No?If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn,you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up
to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you
cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw
feat. You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to
taking only a standard action on your turn.
I did not know about that. Thanks. This will be good for my animal companion.
No problemo. I was worried I was doing it wrong.
OT: What kind of Animal Companion do you have?
No problemo. I was worried I was doing it wrong.
OT: What kind of Animal Companion do you have?
Tiger. I am a 4th level druid right now.
|
|
Have fun indicating at all times which direction every single monster and PC in play is looking on a round-to-round basis.
(Hint: The game simplifies some things so a round of combat doesn't take an hour.)
That wasn't really what I was suggesting at all. I apologize if that was the impression I gave. I am simply saying that unless there is only one direction to approach your 'prey' from, you should have some chance to avoid there notice, however penalized that chance may be.
That said how often in the real world is there actually a situation where their is absolutely nothing anywhere near that would provide concealment and/or cover. I think that is an often forgotten aspect in games. Too many GM's, in my experience, forget that terrain features of some sort are common in the real world. For the most part, unless intelligent beings modify things to be wide open and keep it that way, those spaces don't exist.
Yes its true, your GM is not a robot. However, in my opinion, game designers need to be careful how much intelligence and independence they assume the GM will have. Some people can't escape the box of the RAW.
Wait, you're saying that you're intended to be able to do that from Stealth without giving away your position and presence? I never considered that. While this doesn't cover everything I think you should be able to do with Stealth, it pretty much cuts the heart out of my argument.
I guess Jack does get his chicken, after all.
Indeed, amongst other things.
You can even snipe from stealth without necessarily blowing your cover.
A 5th lvl 'Scout' can make a huge mess of people coming down a road from a distance should he choose to hang out in the treeline and get away without being found for some time.
Don't forget the distance penalties to Perception. If you sniper is a ways off, he's going to have a lot better chance of staying unseen.
So easily forgotten.
Another reason why the chances to be spotted 'appear' to be so good.
Old Mate is not likely sniping from 10 feet away :p
At 100' they will be at -10 on their chance to spot you for example - and will be even worse at night.
And with Shot on the Run he/she can go from total cover to total cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Batman MOVIE !== reality.
Fantasy games != reality. And you got the symbol for "not equal to" wrong. Dumbass.
And you are responding to a post that is over 15 years old and are calling one of the original Pathfinder developers a dumbass.