|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking, and I've built myself a complicated situation. I think I know what happens, but it's questionable enough that I would like some feedback from the forums.
Party includes a Rogue, a Ranger, a Wizard, and whatever else. Party is in generic first level dungeon. Party sees light coming from a room down the dark hall.
Rogue decides to investigate, rolls stealth (8 + 7 mod = 15). Wizard player promptly chastises Rogue for rolling instead of taking 10, Rogue player says "I like to roll". Rogue jots down "15" on the battle mat, as everyone knows you need to keep track of your stealth check result.
Rogue heads down the hall, sticks his head in the room, sees two goblin warriors on sentry duty - to keep the math simple, the DM rules that, since the rogue has his head in the door, he is "9.99 feet away" (no penalty on the goblin's perception checks). Wizard Player questions why the goblins have a fire going, party tells him to "shut up already".
(I swear, this is not from an actual gaming session. I'm trying to describe something that might actually come up, instead of just poking random holes in the rules. Also, I think the details are funny.)
The DM is aware that the players have a somewhat stealth-heavy party, so is using custom built first level NPC Goblin warriors; these ones have a rank in perception and the Skill Focus feat. The DM rolls (8,9 + 5 = 13, 14) - the goblins do not see the Rogue! The Wizard Player mumbles something about "no one ever takes 10 but me", Players ignore him.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: At this point, everyone promptly forgets what the goblins got on their perception check. No one but the DM knew in the first place, and he doesn't think he'll need the information - all that matters is they didn't see the Rogue. Or so they think.)
Rogue, knowing the Goblin language, understand what the Goblins are saying, and spends several minutes listening to their conversation. The party "grows concerned" (other Players are getting bored), and sends the Ranger forward. The Ranger is a half-orc with the Two-Handed option, and doesn't have very good stealth. He rolls (7 + 5 = 12), writes it down on the battlemat, and heads forward.
(you can see where I'm going at this point.)
Ranger moves up to the doorway, waves at the Rogue. Goblins make perception checks to see if they spot the Ranger. Goblins roll (14,15 + 5 = 19, 20). (To refresh your memories, the Rogue got a 15 on his Stealth check).
Table erupts into chaos.
Rogue says "they don't see me, they failed to see me before and nothing changed". Ranger says "I'm not getting shanked alone!" Wizard blames everyone for not taking 10. Remaining party members, shocked awake by the yelling, knock over the dice towers they built, which go clattering to the floor and are chased by the cat.
20 minutes of debate later, DM declares Session over, everyone goes home.
***
The question I'm trying to ask is - what is supposed to happen in this situation? Is the GM supposed to keep and re-use the Goblin's perception checks? In my 11 years of 3.0/3.5/star wars/d20modern/pathfinder gaming experience, no one ever bothers to keep track of their old spot/listen/perception checks.
Since the DM didn't keep track, regardless of whether or not he was supposed to, what's the correct or most fair ruling here?
I think the right thing to do is: 1) don't bother keeping old perception checks, and 2) Goblins fail to see the Rogue (since they didn't see him earlier, and he hasn't changed), but see the Ranger.
But, like I said at the top, I'm looking for feedback/comments on this.
P.S. I swear, this is not from an actual gaming session. No feelings will be hurt. It's just something that could come up in the future, and I'd like to know what the right and proper way to handle it is.
P.P.S. Another Thought! What's the social protocol for when you accidentally knock down another Player's dice tower, and the cat belonging to a third Player swallows one of the dice and has to go to the vet's? Again, did not happen, but I'm curious.
|
Too funny! You're a player in my game...aren't you? <shakes fist>
I would rule that the goblins get another perception check since the ranger is clanking down the hall, and may blow the rogues cover.
Since the rogue is already hidden, and most likely aware (perception check vs. the rangers stealth) of the incoming ranger, I would rule that he gets another stealth check (at a +4 since he was already hidden) to account for all of the new activity.
Just my two coppers...
|
|
This could be a time to borrow from D&D4e and simply say that the goblins take 10 on their Perception checks unless they are given cause to actively go looking for something (i.e. use a Passive Perception).
Actually, I covered that. In this particular gaming group, no one ever bothers taking 10 except the wizard.
Maybe they should because it simplifies things, maybe that's a very good house rule and should be suggested, but they aren't currently required to do so, and they don't.
Please keep trying though.
|
|
I would say that they would notice both the ranger and the Rogue.
The ranger has drawn attention to the area by missing his stealth check causing the goblins to focus on the area of the distrubance rather than continuiing there normal ocnversation. They were alerted so were entitled to a new roll.
The Rogue was hidden well enough to avoid casual glances but not their new alerted state.
Okay. That's a perfectly valid interpretation. Is there anything in the rules you can cite to support that interpretation?
I'm not trying to attack your point of view just because my not-citing-anything-either interpretation is different. It's just, well, I posted in the rules forum, so I'd like some rules please.
***
To clarify: The original idea seed that started all of this nonsense is actually Illusion related. My interpretation of illusions, based on the Pathfinder rules and Skip Williams oft-linked 3.5 article (which is all we have, even though it's not technically pathfinder), is this:
The free perception check to notice the illusion doesn't result in a Will save - an action must be spent. If someone does something near/around the Illusion (like make a stealth check), the perception check to notice the Stealth also does not grant a Will save, since no action was spent - the perception check is to notice a change in the environment/situation, and the illusion is already an accepted part of the environment/situation; just because a perception check was triggered near the illusion, it doesn't count as interacting with it.
But then I got to thinking: I'm assuming that the new perception check "does not relate to" the illusion. But what if <insert very long complicated situation in the Original Post>. Logically, how it works for one should probably be how it works for the other, but this stealth+perception+stealth+perception situation is rather more complicated than my original illusion+perception+stealth+perception idea, and I'm not sure how to interpret it.
Then I realized that the Illusion rules, while the source of my madness and all I could think of, are a bit of a stretch in this situation, which is why I posted. In the rules forum. So could I get a quote or web-link?
I would say that they would notice both the ranger and the Rogue.
The ranger has drawn attention to the area by missing his stealth check causing the goblins to focus on the area of the distrubance rather than continuiing there normal ocnversation. They were alerted so were entitled to a new roll.
The Rogue was hidden well enough to avoid casual glances but not their new alerted state.
I would say the Rogue has to make another Stealth check with the following modifier:
+2 Favorable condition modifier, being already unnoticed(he must have chose something right about his hiding spot)-2 Unfavorable condition modifier, his beefy moron of a friend drew attention to himself and the possible location of the rogue by waving at said rogue.
Rules Support:
#1: Perception is reactionary. They get a second perception check against both because the Ranger drew attention to himself and the Rogue.
#3: I would give the Rogue a second stealth check because they are opposed rolls and he has been listening in for a bit, and his first Stealth roll was only for getting into position (Otherwise, the rest of the group would not be so antsy)
This could be a time to borrow from D&D4e and simply say that the goblins take 10 on their Perception checks unless they are given cause to actively go looking for something (i.e. use a Passive Perception).Actually, I covered that. In this particular gaming group, no one ever bothers taking 10 except the wizard.
I think that DigitalMage was suggesting that the DM have the NPCs (like these goblins) take 10 on their perception checks. This would simplify the DM's job (as he wouldn't need to remember what the check result was).
For your scenario, I would have the goblins take 10 on their perception checks to notice the rogue, and then the ranger.
If the ranger failed their stealth check, then the goblins would roll a new perception check vs a new roll from the rogue, as the goblins are now actively searching.
This could be a time to borrow from D&D4e and simply say that the goblins take 10 on their Perception checks unless they are given cause to actively go looking for something (i.e. use a Passive Perception).Actually, I covered that. In this particular gaming group, no one ever bothers taking 10 except the wizard.I think that DigitalMage was suggesting that the DM have the NPCs (like these goblins) take 10 on their perception checks. This would simplify the DM's job (as he wouldn't need to remember what the check result was).
For your scenario, I would have the goblins take 10 on their perception checks to notice the rogue, and then the ranger.
If the ranger failed their stealth check, then the goblins would roll a new perception check vs a new roll from the rogue, as the goblins are now actively searching.
+1
|
|
Alright, the concensus seems to be "new stealth check from the rogue".
I'm going to argue the opposite point of view, not because I'm disagreeing, but because I want to understand the situation/mechanics involved.
Some people give the rogue bonuses/penalties, which is fine and generous, but not really relevant.
Some people have the rogue make the new check against the same perception check the goblins used to spot the Ranger, others have the Goblins rolling another check; justifications for both seem to be "because the goblins are now actively searching".
If the Goblins are actively searching (meaning "spending an action to make a perception check"), they get another chance to see the Rogue (and to see the Ranger, if they hadn't already).
My question is this: doesn't "actively searching" imply "spending an action to make another check"? If it does, and I'm fairly certain it does, then why does the free, reactionary check they get to notice the Ranger also effect the Rogue (meaning either "notice him" or "force another stealth check"), even though they previously failed to notice him?
Has the Rogue's situation changed enough to reset his stealth, even though he didn't do anything? What I'm getting at is - where does it end? If a Rogue is hiding in an alley from a guard patrol, and the guards startle a cat/rat/etc near the Rogue, does he have to make another stealth check? Why?
There's nothing in the Rogue's actions to suggest that he pops out of hiding; on the other hand, they are standing basically right next to each other; there's definitely a middle ground approach here.
Having the rogue re-roll seems like a reasonable middle ground interpretation; I'm just tugging at the edges because I like knowing the rules, and I think the situation is still rather gray.
I think it is important to note that the perception skill is
"Try Again: Yes. You can try to sense something you missed the first time, so long as the stimulus is still present."
This is why you are allowed to take a 20 to find traps.
There are 2 way to get a perception check.
1. As a free action in reaction to a new contact.
2. Take a move action.
Since the goblins did not have a good reason to take a move action, then they only get a check when a new contact comes into range. The ranger drew their attention to the rogue.
Lets say you repeated the situation with an alert and non-distracted guard. As a DM, you could have to guard make a new perception check every minute since he is very dilligent about doing his job. In that case, the guard would get a check when the rogue came into range, and another one every minute there after.
Weakest Stealth vs Strongest Perception works quite well, and seems like an excellent way to simplify/sped up things as a house rule, as long as everyone is taking 10.
Anyway, it's not really related to the topic at hand.
What's the difference? I personally hate the idea of contested rolls where both sides are taking 10 sense it means a guy with a +1 ALWAYS beats a guy with a +0.
I feel like taking 10 is ok (not great), as long as it is only for one side, like AC, but it doesn't make sense when everyone is doing it.
I think they should have redesigned Stealth vs. Perception to be like Intimidate vs. Sense Motive.
That way the active agent always has a static DC to beat.
I always hated contested rolls. :)
Let's get ready for ruuuuuulles pedantryyyyyyyyyyy
Party includes a Rogue, a Ranger, a Wizard, and whatever else. Party is in generic first level dungeon. Party sees light coming from a room down the dark hall.
...
Rogue heads down the hall, sticks his head in the room, sees two goblin warriors on sentry duty - to keep the math simple, the DM rules that, since the rogue has his head in the door, he is "9.99 feet away" (no penalty on the goblin's perception checks). Wizard Player questions why the goblins have a fire going, party tells him to "shut up already".
Torch: A torch burns for 1 hour, shedding normal light
in a 20-foot radius and increasing the light level by one
step for an additional 20 feet beyond that area (darkness
becomes dim light and dim light becomes normal light).
If the rogue isn't behind cover, he can't stealth because he no longer has concealment because he's standing in the light of the torch. Oh, and the wizard is right-- why light a fire? They have darkvision. They can see in the dark just fine. They plainly can see the rogue no matter what kind of stealth he rolls if he just walks down a hallway and stops ten feet away from them.
Oh. Also the goblins have a -5 for being distracted (they're having a conversation, no?) and don't notice anyone.
This has been your dose of rules pedantry for today. [/end]
To answer the question:
2) Goblins fail to see the Rogue (since they didn't see him earlier, and he hasn't changed), but see the Ranger.
Pretty much this.
If you were in a room looking for a hidden door, failed your perception check versus the hidden door (DC29) but succeeded a perception check to find a quarter between the cushions of the couch (DC5) by rolling a nat 20 and getting a 30 on your check, you don't find the quarter and the hidden door.
If the rogue isn't behind cover, he can't stealth because he no longer has concealment because he's standing in the light of the torch.
I'd say "peaking into a doorway" is at least cover, probably improved cover. Certainly enough for stealth.
|
|
If you were in a room looking for a hidden door, failed your perception check versus the hidden door (DC29) but succeeded a perception check to find a quarter between the cushions of the couch (DC5) by rolling a nat 20 and getting a 30 on your check, you don't find the quarter and the hidden door.When you search, you search a 5' square. If for whatever reason you decided to search that 5' square again and there was a quarter in the cusions and a Secret door, yes you would find both if you made a sufficently high roll.
This is a good point, and I think it illustrates what I'm trying to get at.
Character enters <ROOM> and makes a Perception check, fails to notice the Secret Door (DC 29). Character then chooses to spend an action to Take 20 (so actually lots of actions), and finds the quarter under the couch AND the secret door.
The character gets another chance to find the door because he spent an action.
Likewise, I'm arguing that the goblins get another chance to notice the Rogue if and only if they spend an action to make another check (which they are entitled to do - i like the "re-roll every minute while on watch" idea, since they didn't take 10 for whatever reason), or if the Rogue does something to break stealth (assume he's in a doorway or something and has cover).
I believe that the Goblins do not see the Rogue, even though their Ranger-related perception check is high enough to do so, and even though they are looking in his general direction, because they already failed to notice the Rogue, and the Rogue has done nothing to change the situation.
I just don't know of any rules to confirm or deny my interpretation, which is frustrating. the closest thing I've got is the 3.5 Illusions and Actions document; while it makes sense, and can in theory be applied to this situation, it takes several steps of logical reasoning to get there, and it, well, it feels weak. There should be something better to cite/quote/link to.
I would just give the hobgoblins a roll against the ranger, or have the hobgoblins keep their previous roll of 12. I would NOT however, inform the players of that fact. ... until it was too late. Muhahahaahah.
|
Bad guys probably taking 10, npcs usually do, especially since they are guarding for hours.
Bad guys get new check due to ranger making noise. Their active search means their new check also applies to the rogue. Otherwise, actively searching is pointless: you would never see the person if you didn't see them right away, which doesn't make much sense: if you slowly sweep an area (active search) you eventually will cover every square foot. Someone hiding from a search team knows "it's only a matter of time till they spot us", not "they will never see us, because they didn't see us right away". In game terms this means new rolls.
Ranger waving means they get a circumstance bonus against the rogue (if he has cover/concealment, if not they just auto-see him)
I read a book by a POW in Vietnam who was spotted and captured in exactly this circumstance. After their helicopter crashed and they were hiding from enemy soldiers searching the area, his buddy was noticed, and stood up and said "well i guess they got us" to the author. The author was convinced he would not have been seen otherwise.
Rogue would NOT get a new check unless he said he is trying harder to hide and listen in. Otherwise, he's only trying as hard to hide as he was before (think about it, once hidden, would you move at all? You would make noise moving, and so might not move since that would only draw attention to yourself, hoping you're hidden well enough).