I've never been a fan of rolling Hide and Move Silently into one, as it brings up way too many issues. I can see the benefit of ease, but that is it.
Prime example, being invisible. Unless invisibility mutes your movements, I don't understand why it should give a +20 to Stealth. If someone uses Perception to just listen for the enemy, that should negate the +20 bonus since that bonus is only applies to not being able to see, but smell and hearing shouldn't be affected at all. I think it should've been clear for invisibility to work only when a character is trying to hide.
I think the Stealth skill should've separated into two different uses, a Hide roll and a Move Silently roll but keep it as one skill. I think that's what I will be doing with it.
I think the Stealth skill should've separated into two different uses, a Hide roll and a Move Silently roll but keep it as one skill. I think that's what I will be doing with it.
In before 400+ argument about how the rules don't say what they do!
In before "the DM says 'The guard glances in your direction, as if he heard something. Seeing nothing suspicious after a moment of careful scrutiny, he resumes his normal patrol."
In before the inevitable exploding can of worms decimates us all...
|
To me it makes more sense for it to be one skill...when you're trying to hide, you're obviously trying to keep from making noise and when you're moving silently, you're trying to keep from being seen, are you not? The way I look at invisibility and stealth is similar to knowledge rolls. Let's say you have a stealth modifier of +10 and you're invisible (+20 mod). You get a roll of 5 for a modified stealth value of 35 (15 for audible). Just like with a knowledge roll, the results of an opposed perception roll would give you different information depending on how high it was. Just meeting the 15 they might here something then dismiss it; as they get closer to 35 they would be more inclined to investigate further. At a perception roll of 35 they obviously see you and you're hosed.
BLUF: hiding and moving silently are both aspects of stealth, and any sensible critter is not going to attempt to do one without the other. Two rolls is cumbersome...a flat bonus (such as invisi) that affects one but not the other is one situation where it might make more sense to have two rolls, but that's not enough for the extra book keeping.
The spell specifically says "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced".
This means the spell should only give the bonus towards sight-based stealth checks.
A lot of the consolidated skills are worded in a way that you use the skill for specific tasks. Like an Acrobatic tumble check vs an Acrobatic balance check, etc.
So a person with invisibility will have a +20 (or +40 if not moving) towards sight-based stealth checks.
This is why when I had an encounter with creatures going invisible mid-combat, I let the players roll Listen checks to try and locate their square.
There is a lot to this Invisibility stuff. I'll post the general info below.
It is absolutely correct that invisibility does not cause you to be silenced. It is absolutely correct that if you're sneaking around invisibly, you might still be heard, smelled, felt, or even in some weird cases, tasted (pet guard-snakes anyone?)
However, it is important to note that we humans, and almost everything else in the Bestriary, use our eyes very differently than we use our ears.
Our eyes tell us what we see, but more importantly (for combat anyway), they tell us exactly where it is. Exactly. Our ears, on the other hand, may tell us that we hear something, and might even tell us which direction, and maybe, just maybe, how far. But they certainly don't tell us WHAT we hear nor do they tell us exactly where it is.
So, yes, please do allow the guards a chance to hear the rogue sneaking around invisibly. You're supposed to give them that roll.
Note that according to RAW, the invisibility does, in fact, help defeat this perception check. Maybe because when we hear something, especially some faint noise that we can't really identify, we immediately turn and look for the source of the sound. If we don't see a source, we might still investigate, but when we do, we're investigating with our eyes. Sure, we think we heard something. We might even sound an alarm. But we're certain to doubt ourselves (unless maybe we had a strong warning to be specifically on the lookout for invisible enemies - even in D&D that kind of thing must be really rare) and we're certainly not sure what we heard or where we heard it, or maybe even if we heard anything at all.
We're just not wired that way.
This is why I believe the +20 DC is fair, even when we're listening for invisible enemies.
You'll note that the explanation of invisibility, which I've buried in this spoiler, says much the same thing.
Invisibility
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger's favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.
If an invisible creature strikes a character, the character struck knows the location of the creature that struck him (until, of course, the invisible creature moves). The only exception is if the invisible creature has a reach greater than 5 feet. In this case, the struck character knows the general location of the creature but has not pinpointed the exact location.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has pinpointed, he attacks normally, but the invisible creature still benefits from full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). A particularly large and slow invisible creature might get a smaller miss chance.
If a character tries to attack an invisible creature whose location he has not pinpointed, have the player choose the space where the character will direct the attack. If the invisible creature is there, conduct the attack normally. If the enemy's not there, roll the miss chance as if it were there and tell him that the character has missed, regardless of the result. That way the player doesn't know whether the attack missed because the enemy's not there or because you successfully rolled the miss chance.
If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible. One could coat an invisible object with flour to at least keep track of its position (until the flour falls off or blows away).
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
A creature with the Blind-Fight feat has a better chance to hit an invisible creature. Roll the miss chance twice, and he misses only if both rolls indicate a miss. (Alternatively, make one 25% miss chance roll rather than two 50% miss chance rolls.)
A creature with blindsight can attack (and otherwise interact with) creatures regardless of invisibility.
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Perception checks, scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Perception checks can help.
Invisible creatures cannot use gaze attacks.
Invisibility does not thwart divination spells.
Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible.
This is why when I had an encounter with creatures going invisible mid-combat, I let the players roll Listen checks to try and locate their square.
This is exactly what you're supposed to do.
Note the table on page 563. There are modifiers to this roll. When all is said and done, the observers should make a Perception check, based on sound (probably, though wolves - for example - might base it on smell) to find the invisible enemy.
This check should be at -20 because we can't see the invisible guy. If the invisible guy is running, moving, fighting, talking, etc. (all the stuff on that table), then the check gets easier.
Once we "locate their square" we can attack into that square, suffering the usual 50% miss chance for total concealment.
Now, to the people who have posted on this thread stating that they intend to use houserules to allow a "listener" to make a perception check that ignores the -20 for being invisible, I pose this scenario, with a question at the end:
Imagine that you are a rogue with a Stealth score of 15. You wish to sneak past me and my Perception modifier is +12. You have the following options:
1. Walk right past me. No Stealth at all. My DC to spot you is 0. I roll 1d20 + 12 and will always beat that DC. You have no chance to succeed with this option.
2. Sneak past me, using Stealth. You roll 1d20+15, I roll 1d20+12. You will most likely succeed, but there is still a good chance I will perceive you.
3. Drink an invisibility potion and then use Stealth. You roll 1d20+35, I roll 1d20+12. There is no chance that I can perceive you.
Those are your RAW options. But some have proposed this option:
4. Drink an invisibility potion and then use Stealth. But due to the suggested houserule, I will try to listen for you. You roll 1d20+15, I roll 1d20+12.
Note that according to the suggested houserule, if you use option 4, you are wasting your potion. You get no benefit. You could have just gone with option 2 and saved your potion because using Stealth without invisibility to trick my eyes is, under this hourserule, exactly the same as using stealth with invisibility to trick my ears.
So the question is, for those DMs who wish to houserule that the +20 DC from invisibility doesn't apply because enemies can "Listen" for the invisible guy, why even bother to ever, ever, use invisibility at all?
|
|
Now, to the people who have posted on this thread stating that they intend to use houserules to allow a "listener" to make a perception check that ignores the -20 for being invisible, I pose this scenario, with a question at the end:
Imagine that you are a rogue with a Stealth score of 15. You wish to sneak past me and my Perception modifier is +12. You have the following options:
1. Walk right past me. No Stealth at all. My DC to spot you is 0. I roll 1d20 + 12 and will always beat that DC. You have no chance to succeed with this option.
2. Sneak past me, using Stealth. You roll 1d20+15, I roll 1d20+12. You will most likely succeed, but there is still a good chance I will perceive you.
3. Drink an invisibility potion and then use Stealth. You roll 1d20+35, I roll 1d20+12. There is no chance that I can perceive you.Those are your RAW options. But some have proposed this option:
4. Drink an invisibility potion and then use Stealth. But due to the suggested houserule, I will try to listen for you. You roll 1d20+15, I roll 1d20+12.
Note that according to the suggested houserule, if you use option 4, you are wasting your potion. You get no benefit. You could have just gone with option 2 and saved your potion because using Stealth without invisibility to trick my eyes is, under this hourserule, exactly the same as using stealth with invisibility to trick my ears.
So the question is, for those DMs who wish to housrule that the +20 DC from invisibility doesn't apply because enemies can "Listen" for the invisible guy, why even bother to ever, ever, use invisibility at all?
That's not what I said at all. Perception, like stealth, is now an amalgamation of several "old" skills (spot, listen, search). Since perception allows the perceiver to get both audible and visual components with that one roll, then it stands to reason that they would still be able to hear the target. The best way to do this is to have the audible version of the "DC" be the stealther's normal stealth mod and the visual be the stealther's stealth mod + 20 for invisibility. Merely meeting the audible portion of the stealth roll would allow the perceiver to hear a phantom noise which would probably be shrugged off. As they get closer to the invisible stealth roll, however, they are going to be less likely to simply shrug off what they thought they heard.
That's not what I said at all.
No, I wasn't calling you out specifically.
I would note, however, that in your first post your example said "At a perception roll of 35 they obviously see you and you're hosed". However, this is not the way the RAW says it. At 35 (per your example, they still have not seen you, but have pinpointed your location using other senses. They can attack your square, but you still have total concealment (50% miss chance) because you are still invisible to your observer. And you could still Sneak Attack them too, because they still have no DEX against your unseen attack.
And, in your original post, I would also be cautious with "Just meeting the 15 they might here something then dismiss it" [sic]. If this is the case, then "detecting" the invisible guy is exactly the same difficulty as detecting him without invisibility.
Saying they might "dismiss it" implies that they also might not. If you meant to say "they will dismiss it" then there is no reason for a 15 to give them any information - either they have info and can and should use it, or they have no info (having info that there is danger nearby and choosing not to act on that info would be suicidal).
All I am saying is that allowing observers to detect invisible foes on exactly the same rolls they need to detect non-invisible foes really throws a big old nasty stink bomb on the benefits of being invisible.
|
|
That's not what I said at all.No, I wasn't calling you out specifically.
I would note, however, that in your first post your example said "At a perception roll of 35 they obviously see you and you're hosed". However, this is not the way the RAW says it. At 35 (per your example, they still have not seen you, but have pinpointed your location using other senses. They can attack your square, but you still have total concealment (50% miss chance) because you are still invisible to your observer. And you could still Sneak Attack them too, because they still have no DEX against your unseen attack.
And, in your original post, I would also be cautious with "Just meeting the 15 they might here something then dismiss it" [sic]. If this is the case, then "detecting" the invisible guy is exactly the same difficulty as detecting him without invisibility.
Saying they might "dismiss it" implies that they also might not. If you meant to say "they will dismiss it" then there is no reason for a 15 to give them any information - either they have info and can and should use it, or they have no info (having info that there is danger nearby and choosing not to act on that info would be suicidal).
All I am saying is that allowing observers to detect invisible foes on exactly the same rolls they need to detect non-invisible foes really throws a big old nasty stink bomb on the benefits of being invisible.
Maybe I misunderstand Invisibility. What's the point in a +20 to stealth if, even if an observer wins on the opposed check, they're still not going to be able to see you and will still have the concealment penalty on attacks?
So the question is, for those DMs who wish to houserule that the +20 DC from invisibility doesn't apply because enemies can "Listen" for the invisible guy, why even bother to ever, ever, use invisibility at all?
OLD OUTDATED INFO ()
Beating a listen check only lets you know something is there. Unless you specifically try and roll a Listen check to pinpoint a square, you are just told "you heard something".
So you roll a 1d20+15 to beat his 1d20+12 against letting him know that there's a footstep.
Whether the guard investigates or not after he fails to see anything (1d20+35 vs 1d20+12), is up to the DM to roleplay. Perhaps the guard was told to watch out for magic using thieves that might be invisible.... then he might roll a Listen check, with appropriate DCs and modifiers, to pinpoint a location and grab at an invisible person (this is all in the rules as far as I understand it).
However.. .if it's just some guard standing at a gate, he'll be like "Whut?" and look around wondering what that noise was while you slip away.
.
Basically, different results for succeeding a Listen check vs a Vision check is a huge reason to have invisibility. You get very little for hearing the subject... barely enough to even warrant going on "alert". It's worse than what you can get from scent, which is still miles away from what vision will give you.
And if you are standing still, you aren't making any noise, and have a +40 to vision-based stealth checks. Personally, I don't roll to see if someone can hear you breathing, so in such a case you wouldn't even provoke a check.
Edit:
Haha! The "appropriate modifiers" for the listen check IS the +20 to the DC. So basically I agree with you DM_Blake.
I was trying to remember what I did for this when I ran that recent encounter, and looked up my old notes, and the +20 is right in there.
If someone is invisible and NOT trying to hide his sounds with stealth, it's a DC 20 Perception check to try and pinpoint the location. It's assumed you are using your hearing and what little visual queues might be left behind (tracks, things moving from being touched, etc).
If the person is trying to hide their movements, the DC is increased from the normal 0+20, to Stealth roll + 20.
So yeah, it's still a +20 to try and pinpoint with Perception.. you just aren't "seeing" them, but "knowing" where they are so you can swing your sword at them and hope you hit something.