The ONE time the scouting rogue is spotted is the time it dies, since it is the weakest class in the game when it comes to holding it's own.People keep making this claim as if its a fact.
I wonder if their experience is that the scout, when found, tries to fight rather than to disengage and lead the enemy into a trap of the party's making.
As to rogue's constantly getting found, all I'll say is not in a normal expected game. Sure if you alter the availability of magic then you can skew things. Heck you can make it so that wizards only get their spells in spell books from their leveling free spells and never any other. But it's not what's expected and a skewed campaign as a result.
A halfling rogue at 10th level (when you'd first see an advanced talent) could easily sport a +31 (10 ranks+3class+6feat+4size+6DEX+2racial) stealth check without any magic involved and only one feat spent. Add in a little cast magic and that number can reasonably achieve a +41 without magic items for 10-20minutes. With magic items that number is achievable without issue. Add in distance modifiers to perception and this is going to be a success a majority of the time. If the rogue is also pushing Perception (which only makes sense) then they should reasonably see things before they are seen.
-James
See my bold.
"How many failed scoutings does it take to get to the center of a dragon's belly? Just one."
Sure, you can make a halfling that is good at stealth. Heck, I played one; "Crimson" Cade Hardilock, who had somewhere around +20 on lv6. Not a problem.
The problem for a rogue arises when the scouting character rolls that 1, and the GM doesn't. Most monsters have double digits to perception even at CR4+, and if the GM rolls well, you're spotted. Cade didn't have much of a problem, because he was a Daggerspell Mage, and could hold his own. But a rogue? Better have a potion of invisibility ready.
I think the essential problem with stealth arises when you are at low to mid-level and are confronted with a big mob of humanoids supported by scent using high perception monsters.
In my personal games, I tend to use a high level of classed humanoids such as goblins, orcs, gnolls, etc. They often have close relationships with wolves, worgs, hyenas,etc and often set up defensive guardposts surrounding their lairs with multiple humanoids supported by the scent creatures.
When you have multiple creatures rolling perception, especially with scent creatures backing them up, then scouting a humanoid lair becomes particularly precarious because the sheer number of dice rolled by the guards often lowers your scout's chances of success to "unsatisfactory".
Once one creature "detects" the rogue then it's generally just a matter of Aid Another actions to perception checks until the rogue is "observed" at which time his ability to stealth is severely constrained.
The rogue generally has a few options at this point in time, he can full speed flee, which basically means giving up stealth and opening up himself to ranged shots in the back (humanoids should have javelins, slings, etc) and hope that the rest of the party is close by to kick butt or he can try to hold his own until the rest of the party runs up.
Honestly neither alternative is particularly appealing.
Later on the sheer number of bonuses to stealth tend to make the actual random element (d20) less meaningful and thus the chances of a really nice perception check from low perception guards less of a factor but early on (which is when scouting is most useful to the party) the swinginess of skill checks really makes a fragile squishy rogue somewhat suspect.
The ONE time the scouting rogue is spotted is the time it dies, since it is the weakest class in the game when it comes to holding it's own.People keep making this claim as if its a fact.
I wonder if their experience is that the scout, when found, tries to fight rather than to disengage and lead the enemy into a trap of the party's making.
As to rogue's constantly getting found, all I'll say is not in a normal expected game. Sure if you alter the availability of magic then you can skew things. Heck you can make it so that wizards only get their spells in spell books from their leveling free spells and never any other. But it's not what's expected and a skewed campaign as a result.
A halfling rogue at 10th level (when you'd first see an advanced talent) could easily sport a +31 (10 ranks+3class+6feat+4size+6DEX+2racial) stealth check without any magic involved and only one feat spent. Add in a little cast magic and that number can reasonably achieve a +41 without magic items for 10-20minutes. With magic items that number is achievable without issue. Add in distance modifiers to perception and this is going to be a success a majority of the time. If the rogue is also pushing Perception (which only makes sense) then they should reasonably see things before they are seen.
-James
See my bold.
"How many failed scoutings does it take to get to the center of a dragon's belly? Just one."
Sure, you can make a halfling that is good at stealth. Heck, I played one; "Crimson" Cade Hardilock, who had somewhere around +20 on lv6. Not a problem.
The problem for a rogue arises when the scouting character rolls that 1, and the GM doesn't. Most monsters have double digits to perception even at CR4+, and if the GM rolls well, you're spotted. Cade didn't have much of a problem, because he was a Daggerspell Mage, and could hold his own. But a rogue? Better have a potion of invisibility ready.
Or you take 10 on that stealth roll, don't risk the 1, and easily beat the majority of CR4 monsters, who average arround a +10 to perception. Even rolling the 1, you still have arround a 50/50 to beat many of the CR4s, and better for some. A level 5 NPC will be looking at arround a 10 perception as well, unless they take a feat and specialize in it. If you want to scout out some CR6s, you will still easily beat many of them. A couple are serious threats, like the wyvern or Babau with a +18 and +19, but most still have in the +12 range. A PC with a +20 at that point taking 10 will beat out most monsters and NPCs of his CR over 75% of the time, sometimes over 90%. In fact, taking an average CR8 NPC, maxing perception, you are looking at a +12-14.
Edit: Throw in perception modifiers for distance, distraction, ect. and those numbers come out even more in your favor.
With all this complaining about scouting rogues being spotted, how exactly does hiding in plain sight work into fixing that problem? Hiding in plain sight just increases the places you get to make your skill check, not make it higher. If those guys you're scouting have a high enough Perception check to spot the rogue, they're going to spot him whether he's hiding plain sight or not.
1: Not so much about HiPS on the scouting argument, though it would help to cross areas where there is insufficient concealment and to get away when spotted. The last posts are more about stealth on it's own.
2: Barring Skill Mastery or similar, you can't take 10 on opposed checks. Stealth is opposed to perception. You WILL eventually roll low.
3: Multiple opponents increases the GM's chance to get a 20 by several hundred percent.
4: Spotting monsters that are hiding is next to impossible if they are at all good at it. Every other DC in Serpent Skull is 30+ at lv6, meaning the ranger has less than a 50/50 chance to spot his favored enemy. (6rank + 3trained + 2wis + 2race + 2 terrain +4 main favored enemy)
Meaning the scout would pass the monster, as the monster can't spot the scout either. And the party is surprised at -1 member.
At least this is how we have experienced it. Makes me wonder how the enemy constantly sneaking up on us learns of our presence so it can hide unopposed in the first place...
5: All the examples expecting a character to be of a favorable race, have magical items AND skill focus in order to prevail seems to indicate more or a problem than a solution. Just maxing a skill and having a decent base stat should make the use of said skill at least relevant, if not reliable, in my mind.
This thread now seems like it is trying to go into the backdoor of
Can anyone show me how Rogues are not the worst class in Pathfinder?
I got bored with that thread long ago. It just gets circular after awhile.
As to the original post, rogues do not automatically get HiPS because it doesn't fit. However, I actually think the OPTION should exist. Just nowhere before someone going shadowdancer or assassin would get it. Also, it should be comprable to the ranger's HiPS. So, if you want to endorse an advanced rogue talent somewhere near 17th level that offers the option, I do not think that it is gamebreaking NOR uncalled for. My rogues would probably skip it, but it seems reasonable.
Greg
2: Barring Skill Mastery or similar, you can't take 10 on opposed checks. Stealth is opposed to perception. You WILL eventually roll low.
Why not? Where in the rules does it state that? It just says that you can't Take 10 when distracted or in immediate danger. I would say that you can't Take 10 with Hide in Plain Sight if the enemy is watching you (you are in immediate danger) but taking 10 normally with Stealth is just fine.
3: Multiple opponents increases the GM's chance to get a 20 by several hundred percent.
Rolling a 20 is not automatic success. If the character's Stealth check is +25 and the perceiver's Perception check is +4, the perceiver will never see the hiding character. Even if the hiding character rolls a 1 and the perceiver rolls a 20. 26 > 24 so the Stealthy character wins.
If we assume that there are 4 monsters with +10 to their perception checks, they have a 25% chance each of knowing that the stealthy character is there. That means that it is likely that at least one of them will make their perception check if the both roll the same number. The problem is they are probably not going to roll the same number. The stealthy character still has the upper hand and it gets better the higher he rolls.
4: Spotting monsters that are hiding is next to impossible if they are at all good at it. Every other DC in Serpent Skull is 30+ at lv6, meaning the ranger has less than a 50/50 chance to spot his favored enemy. (6rank + 3trained + 2wis + 2race + 2 terrain +4 main favored enemy)
Meaning the scout would pass the monster, as the monster can't spot the scout either. And the party is surprised at -1 member.
This directly contradicts your Stealth experiences. If this statement is true, then the other must be false because they should be using the same rules. If the DCs are too high, you should find out why. Are you just rolling better than the players? Are you accounting for distance with the NPCs but forgetting to give the same thing to the players?
I don't have access to the adventure but with a +19 to the check, I don't see how the ranger is having all those problems. Even if the DC is 30, that still gives him a 50% chance of success before distance. At level 6, you shouldn't have that many DCs in the 30s. Something seems to be off somewhere.
5: All the examples expecting a character to be of a favorable race, have magical items AND skill focus in order to prevail seems to indicate more or a problem than a solution. Just maxing a skill and having a decent base stat should make the use of said skill at least relevant, if not reliable, in my mind.
If you want to be good at something, then you need to invest. The reason why wizards are good is not because they can cast spells. It's because they invest in Intelligence so they can cast more spells, higher level spells, and improve the DCs of their spells. To be a good two-weapon fighter you need to take the proper feats and therefore need to invest properly in Dex, Str, and weapons.
If you look at the creatures that are good at perception checks, they have racial bonuses, decent wisdom, and some even have Skill Focus. They have invested, just like anyone else who wants to be good at something.
3: Multiple opponents increases the GM's chance to get a 20 by several hundred percent.Rolling a 20 is not automatic success. If the character's Stealth check is +25 and the perceiver's Perception check is +4, the perceiver will never see the hiding character. Even if the hiding character rolls a 1 and the perceiver rolls a 20. 26 > 24 so the Stealthy character wins.
If we assume that there are 4 monsters with +10 to their perception checks, they have a 25% chance each of knowing that the stealthy character is there. That means that it is likely that at least one of them will make their perception check if the both roll the same number. The problem is they are probably not going to roll the same number. The stealthy character still has the upper hand and it gets better the higher he rolls.
This. For sure.
I recently constructed a level ten sniper that was hunting a level eight party. He picked up that stealthy sniper advanced talent, and still managed to have a +20 on his modifier. Unfortunately, he wasn't a halfling. Which would of given him his whole +30 modifier. Even with natural 20s, the party couldn't find him. There was almost the "Which way did the arrow come from, and where is it sticking in someone" arguement. Which was solved with a direction of "Probably north".
Also. A rogue with two daggers, that gets two weapon fighting, as well as just attack modifiers can be one hellish thing to fight. Though. That tends to only work with people to flank with.
In regards to a stealth check eventually failing.
It could also be said that using the exact logic, it will eventually succeed wonderfully.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The "chance to find an item" thing... I can sum it up in four words: "ALL OF MY HATE", because nothing makes me rage more than "Oh, there is a X percent chance that you can't buy something completely trivial well within the city's GP limit even if you multiply it by 50!". To me, that is the equivalent of walking into New York and find that there is not a single store that sells foreign books. Actually, we had this happen in Eleder when we played, and the alchemist that played for two sessions could not find scrolls of "Cure Light Wounds" and "Endure Elements." and yes, Eleder is hotter than sin, and endure elements is considered a must-have in the player guide. It made me go "Wait, wat?"
Sometimes supply can't keep up with high demand. I've generated that in some of the campaigns I've GMed. Sunken treasure is found in an easy-to-access off-shore reef, and suddenly water breathing can't be found for love or money. We called those "Cabbage Patch Spells".
A good Gather Information check will help you find the scalpers, though.
Huh. You can take 10 on opposed checks now? That's great! That alone makes stealth way more reliable. Wow. Thanks, I guess. Not often I am so happy to be proven wrong :P
I know 20 on a skill check is not an automatic success. Never said it was, but it is as good as the creature is gonna get, and likely to be enough to spot the character. Yes, I personally prefer the take 10 option for baddies. Heck, I think that if you made it a rule that monsters MUST take 10 on checks, akin to CMB/CMD, rogues would be far superior to what they are. Now there is something to ponder for a house-rule...
@Bob: Yep, my experience with stealth has some severe continuity errors. Guess I should have a chat with the GM next time. Ask him how everything else spots us and get to make their stealth checks off-screen. There was one time we had an encounter where there was no way we could make the perception check, it was like 40+ due to distance and foliage, yet the enemy saw US coming and snuck up on us to get within range for it's special abilities without a hitch.
Regarding the "wizards are good not because they cast spells": Wizards are a bad example. They need one stat, and can do pretty much anything with it. Fighters that want to fight with shield and sword can take the Shield Fighter archetype and be viable, but not great. I was expecting someone of the right race and with skill focus to be great.
@Chris: I would not have a problem with the item availability issue if he even TRIED to explain it. There is no attempt to put reason or logic behind it, just "Sorry, rolled such-and-such on the d100, so you can't find it." Nevermind that my character is the face, and great at gathering info.
Huh. You can take 10 on opposed checks now? That's great! That alone makes stealth way more reliable. Wow. Thanks, I guess. Not often I am so happy to be proven wrong :P
I know 20 on a skill check is not an automatic success. Never said it was, but it is as good as the creature is gonna get, and likely to be enough to spot the character. Yes, I personally prefer the take 10 option for baddies. Heck, I think that if you made it a rule that monsters MUST take 10 on checks, akin to CMB/CMD, rogues would be far superior to what they are. Now there is something to ponder for a house-rule...
My general rule is that everyone is taking 10 on perception checks unless they have a specific reason not to be. The guy scouting, posted guards, and bodyguards would have a reason not to be, but you can't stay on high alert all the time. Also, you get an active perception check in responce to sudden stimulous that would draw your attention (which a stealthed character is not).
Honestly speaking, passive Perception checks, which is what you should be doing when standing on guard should generally be resolved with a Take 10 result.
It minimizes dice rolling and also minimizes the vagaries of bad luck.
With that sort of baseline in effect, you basically just have the rogue consult his stealth modifier (+/- situational modifiers) and compare it to the monster's perception modifier.
That way stealth scouting missions can be resolved with an absolute minimum of dice rolling. Which I feel is critical to avoiding the solo character hogging valuable gaming time problem.
I do think the distance modifiers for perception are completely silly though (they should be contingent on size of feature). Being able to spot a miniscule detail like a secret door in a complex fresco is completely different than spotting a creature skulking about 30 ft away ;) Complex exception based skill use is probably not what Paizo and WotC were going for though ;)
Huh. You can take 10 on opposed checks now? That's great! That alone makes stealth way more reliable. Wow. Thanks, I guess. Not often I am so happy to be proven wrong :P
I'd have to dig out my 3.X books, but I think you always could.
I'd have to dig out my 3.X books, but I think you always could.Huh. You can take 10 on opposed checks now? That's great! That alone makes stealth way more reliable. Wow. Thanks, I guess. Not often I am so happy to be proven wrong :P
Yep, Take 20 was typically the thing disallowed.
Take 10 pretty much only goes out the window when you are heavily distracted.
The way I've usually seen it run, effectively, is that take 10 goes out the window in combat but otherwise is allowed.
(Although I can concieve of distracting enough non-combat situations, in practice I don't think I've ever seen one come up.)
The way I've usually seen it run, effectively, is that take 10 goes out the window in combat but otherwise is allowed.
(Although I can concieve of distracting enough non-combat situations, in practice I don't think I've ever seen one come up.)
Just try taking 10 to zip up with a woman nibbling on your ear. You wish you can take 10, but woe be those who roll 1.
Did we play the same game? I vividly remember the thief table being 2-3 levels ahead even past 10th level. Also, he got XP for gold, and thus got more XP than any other class on top of that.Makes me long for 2e, where they just admitted that the thief was crap, so he needed like half the XP of the other classes. When the fighter was lv5, the thief could easily be 9. And he'd still lose in a fight.But since (for a while) the XP you needed for each succeeding level doubled, that only put the thief at most one level ahead.
No, Theif got Xp for Traps.
Everyone was expected to get XP for gold. This was the main stance against Mounty Haul campaign because it over levels the party.
IMHO: Minor Cloak of Displacement > Hide in Plain Sight any day of the week.
I'd have to dig out my 3.X books, but I think you always could.Huh. You can take 10 on opposed checks now? That's great! That alone makes stealth way more reliable. Wow. Thanks, I guess. Not often I am so happy to be proven wrong :P
Yep, Take 20 was typically the thing disallowed.
Take 10 pretty much only goes out the window when you are heavily distracted.
The only time I can think of that you could Take 20 in 3.5 was with Escape Artist versus Use Rope. It was specifically called out as something you could do.
|
|
I don't want to resurrect that HIPS V Darkvision discussion, but I'm on record for not liking the RAW of HIPS because there is no real 'in game' explanation of why the Shadowdancer is able to hide whilst being observed. It's stealth without concealment, cover, invisibility or camouflage. This, and the 'can't hide in her own shadow' line is the source of the different interpretations.
Reading about the Hellcat Stealth feat for the first time I was struck with the simplicity of the explanation "You are difficult to see in the light". The great thing is that dim light and Darkvision don't enter the discussion. Nice mechanics writing Paizo. Too bad you inherited HIPS as is.
In any case, HIPS in not critical for an effective Rogue. It takes a bit of planning, tactics and cooperation from your fellow party members, that's all.
|
I don't want to resurrect that HIPS V Darkvision discussion, but I'm on record for not liking the RAW of HIPS because there is no real 'in game' explanation of why the Shadowdancer is able to hide whilst being observed. It's stealth without concealment, cover, invisibility or camouflage. This, and the 'can't hide in her own shadow' line is the source of the different interpretations. (snip)
The way I see it is the Shadowdancer's later abilities have to do with manipulating shadows as a force (summon shadow, shadow step et al.) so I imagine their HIPS as being the Shadowdancer somehow drawing the shadows with him.
i.e. When a shadowdancer steps out of the shadowy corner, the light dims locally as he does so because he brings the shadows with him.
So, I don't like the wording of HIPS either. I imagine the shadowdancer as still hiding while unobserved but that they are unobservable 10' away from where they would normally be.