Imagine the following:
GM: Since you've made your Spellcraft check, you know the arcane trickster has turned invisible. You heard all him scuttling across the dusty floors so you know he isn't in his original position, but you don't know what direction he went. PC A, it's your turn.
PC A: Alright, I look for his footprints in the dusty floor so as to determine his exact "new" location. I then launch a crossbow bolt in that direction.
GM: Alright, make a spot check against his Stealth check + 20.
PC A: What? Why? That's to find him normally. I'm looking for his footprints, that should be pretty automatic, or at least have a hefty circumstance bonus.
GM: If it were automatic, then invisibility wouldn't really be invisibility, and would be greatly weakened.
PC A: The only thing weakening invisibility is this NPC's poor tactics, casting invisibility in a dusty room. *chortles*
GM: Just the same, please roll to see if your character thinks to look for footprints.
PC A: "Thinks to look?" I JUST TOLD YOU HE IS LOOKING FOR FOOTPRINTS!
GM: *Not appreciating the challenge to his authority* Roll. Anyways.
PC A: *grumbles* *rolls* 24.
GM: Your character looks around for the invisible trickster, but doesn't think to look for footprints in the dust.
PC A: *facepalm groan*
Who is "in the right" in the above theoretical scenario? Is Player A simply being a poor sport? Or does the GM have too much control over a PC's actions?
I personally side with Player A (if he says he's doing something, than he is doing it), but I've seen a LOT of people on these forums who would take the side of the GM (who thinks that the Perception check determines how and if you find an invisibly stealthed character). Which side would you be on and why?
The problem in your timeline is that Perception has nothing to do with ´realizing´ a weakness of Invisiblity... That would pertain to a Spellcraft (or Know: Arcana, the two overlapping skills that somehow didn´t get combined in PRPG) check, WHICH WAS ALREADY PASSED.
Knowing that Invisible creatures are revealed by dust, etc, is such an obvious aspect of Invisibility (even non-RPG gamers likely know that) and in fact, another spell Glitterdust (does the character know Glitterdust?) is BASED on that fact (that Glitterdust is permanently sticky dust is just extra magic, Invisible characters are revealed by footprints, or by being in water, and potentially thick clouds of dust).
The Invisible character of course still has Full Concealment even with footprints leading up to their exact location.
You´re welcome. ;-)
Somewhere in the middle. I would still call for a roll albeit with a bonus depending upon "dustines" of the floor. The Perception check to be made is not to think about looking for footprints but about noticing them and extrapolate position of the opponent within timeframe allowing for successful attack in the same round.
In the example above PC A repeats common mistake done by players and GMs alike forgetting that human perception is limited, especially in stressful situation like combat when you have to notice something in a blink of an eye instead of deliberate and timely manner.
So the player knows what what to look for good for him.
Even better the character knows what to look for.
However that doesn't mean that those are the only footprints in the area or that he's sure where the footprints stop. Remember the arcane trickster is technically moving while the character is looking for him -- all in the same six seconds that everyone else in the room is doing what they are doing as well. It very well could be that you lost track of what set of prints you needed to follow (not like everyone is wearing individual footwear with distinct tread).
I would have flavored it different as a GM but at the same time cut the guy some slack -- he's running a world -- you are running a character. I imagine you have trouble with just doing that sometimes so give the guy running a world a bit of a break too.
Drejk makes a good point. I believe I'd go with that. Perception roll but with a bonus.
Also, the banter above really does paint the GM in a terrible light. I could relate to the GM's decision and I would doubt every GM that does that decision would "hate their authority to be challenge". Too one-sided in my opinion. I feel like I would have to side with Player A or be labelled a draconic GM (I wonder what the CR bonus for that template would be ;) ) I also can't help but imagine Player A as whining instead of presenting it in a more reasonable fashion. Maybe it's just me. If only I could go with Player B. He sounds like a cool guy ;)
|
Who is "in the right" in the above theoretical scenario? Is Player A simply being a poor sport? Or does the GM have too much control over a PC's actions?
Neither is right.
The player is attempting to gain what is effectively an infinite circumstance modifier for the dust; he wants automatic success based upon the dust and his experience as a player.
The GM is attempting to justify the skill system in a way that just leads to arguments and makes the player feel like he has no control over the character. He could have come up with something else that might have made more sense. However, that he came up with something that doesn't ring true doesn't then make the player's argument valid.
Give the player a GM's Little Helper +2 circumstance modifer, make the check and move on. If you want to scale it more for the conditions, make it a bigger number.
The entire purpose of the skill system is that it is the game mechanic to represent the PC's interaction with the world rather than the Player's accumulated bag of tricks. It works both ways: both the PC able to do something and the player doesn't know why, and the PC not succeeding on something even though the Player can explain exactly why it works.
Hmmm... in my experience, too many people in ALL online gaming forums side on the "fun" of the players, more-often-than-not at the expense of any fun on the part of the GM, and sometimes even to his great and awful pain. But that's probably another topic.
I think in most cases, when a player thinks a thing up that is totally within the reasonable limits of his character to think up, the GM should take it for granted. Looking for footprints in dust is something characters in a fantasy world do all the time, being that they often have to hunt for their dinner, or track their foes.
Perhaps your GM was thinking in this case, that the player got the idea from watching many movies where the footprints of invisible creatures show up, and considered this metagaming, and thus asked for the roll to think the thing up. I think most of us would disagree with him. (Personally, I reserve Intelligence checks for "thinking things up" for when the known cheater in my group is heavily metagaming his own modern ideas into the small brain of his barbarian. Most of the time, though, I just allow that a smarter character in the group can "think it up" without the roll, and usually everybody is fine with that.)
To my mind, though these characters could see footprints in the dust, that doesn't mean they automatically knew the true position of the NPC. Think of it this way: lots of dust means lots of dust kicked up from the movement, obscuring the situation. I would have allowed for the normal concealment from invisibility, but given the player a bonus of +2 to +4 on the roll to hit.
So the player knows what what to look for good for him.
Even better the character knows what to look for.
However that doesn't mean that those are the only footprints in the area or that he's sure where the footprints stop. Remember the arcane trickster is technically moving while the character is looking for him -- all in the same six seconds that everyone else in the room is doing what they are doing as well. It very well could be that you lost track of what set of prints you needed to follow (not like everyone is wearing individual footwear with distinct tread).
So shouldn't it then be a Perception/Survival check to notice tracks, rather than a Perception check against an invisible stealthed target? It's a difference of DC = stealth roll + 20 VS DC = 20 + circumstance. Giving a +2, +5, or +10 circumstance bonus to the DC is worthless if the DC is so high as to make it impossible.
So far I think I agree with Howie the most, with neither being right.
Likewise I'd go with a circumstance modifier.
Invisibility grants a circumstance modifier itself, right? That's where that +20 comes from? Well, in this case it's partially negated by the dust. Dusty room sounds like a circumstance perception bonus not just to spot footprints, but even to spot the dust eddies of a moving invisible creature. I'd go as high as +10 circumstance bonus to the footprints aiding in locating the square the creature occupies, but if he's not moving, there's no bonus to seeing him in that square. For the dust eddies itself, that's more of a +2 circumstance modifier situation.
If the footprints are used to follow him to the square he occupies, he should still be treated as invisible when attacking that squire, even if the attacker fires at the footprints in that squire because he could be standing on one leg or something.
This room is dusty. Is it well-lit or poorly lit? That would affect the visibility of dust in the air.
"I look for.." dust, footprints, heavy breathing, blood dropping, means... I want to roll a perception check to see if I can find him.
It doesn't mean "I get to automatically find them". Its like when the PC's are searching for a secret door and say they are searching for a secret door. It doesn't change the DC. The search is still just a perception check.
If the DM wants to grant a circumstance bonus due to the dust on the floor then so be it- but that happens *regardless* of any given PC talking about looking for the dust.
-S
Just my 2 cents, but invisibility is an illusion, not actually bending the light. And because Illusion is specifically mind effecting, wouldn't that cause the person to "Ignore" the footprints as much they are "Ignoring" them?
The illusion makes you ignore the person itself, not the effects they create. Enchantment would have a case; "Ignore me and everything I do" etc.
The rules are OK, you just have to make sure they aren't applied in an overly anal-retentive manner. I like Wolf Munroe's solution. If you think the excessive dust would negate some of the high bonus invisibility gets on a Stealth check, by all means reduce the effective bonus.
This is, after all, why D&D and all RPGs work best as refereed games - so a referee can adjudicate specific situations fairly, keeping in mind all factors rather than just the necessarily limited set included in published rules.
Just my 2 cents, but invisibility is an illusion, not actually bending the light. And because Illusion is specifically mind effecting, wouldn't that cause the person to "Ignore" the footprints as much they are "Ignoring" them?
Bending light is illusion (well except when you bend laser beam to redirect it against another target) - illusions are not mind-affecting effects with exception of patterns and phantasms. They are perceived by mindless beings (but in many cases their mindlessness causes them to ignore illusions, depending upon circumstances) and may triger spells based upon sensory triggers. The whole Will disbelief save might be the source of misconception that illusions affect mind.
i would have put it more like this
PC A: *grumbles* *rolls* 24.
GM Me: You look examining the floor (As well as you could, with it not taking an action i'm assuming) and cannot quite pick the trickster's prints from other prints and marks in the area.
Although i WOULD have given him a bonus for the idea (+2, maybe 5 if i'm feeling generous), and NOT given this to the rest of the players because I dont think they would have thought of this on their own with out PC A bringing this up
but even then isn't there a miss chance for attacking a target that is invisible even if you DO know their exact location because they just see it coming
One thing's clear: Player B is asking for an acid-filled portable hole the next time his character hits the commode.
GM: Just the same, please roll to see if your character thinks to look for footprints.
Skipping past the whole fascinating discussion of syncretic levels of gaming, if you want to call one party here "right," it's the DM. Despite that, the above sentence is really off the mark. Even if the player is being a total #$&*#(*(#, even if you do take away player agency, you don't come out and say it like that.
A better response is "Yes, but Forbidden Planet it ain't." Okay, nix that, it's just me being a jerk. But you see what I mean.
Using the dust is a good call. You don't want to discourage the players from listening to detail. So the character is looking for footprints. However, just because the floor is dusty doesn't mean that there's a perfect track of Size 12s that lead to exactly where the NPC is standing. Dusty means 'unswept' or 'dirty.' Unless, for instance, someone's been sandblasting, there's going to be a bunch of smudgy areas. Furthermore, most floors are made to hide dirt to one degree or another. If we're talking a common hardwood floor or your typical dungeon gray flagstone, that might prove hard to find even if you know what you're looking for - and this doesn't even begin to cover lighting.
More to the point, this is a combat situation where all of this is taking place over the course of a few seconds. To hit a moving target. And, unless the arcane trickster is, in fact, a 2X2X8 block of stone, there's a lot of empty space of where the arcane trickster is standing. And even assuming that you got it all right as to where he was, how you manage to give a proper lead to an attack on an invisible target is its own question.
That's why, instead of trying to map out all of those possible variables, we tend to use rolls.
Personally, I wouldn't have even given the circ bonus (or would have depending more on the player in question), and said something like "yes, that's part of what your character's doing," or "Correct. And the spot check is, in large part, actually finding the footprints in the dust."
Of course, to be completely contrary, I might also just give it to him because it's a neat idea. But that's expressly situational, based on who the players were and how the pacing was going...if the PCs hadn't had a break that whole night, or had repeatedly failed to get the upper hand on the trickster.
TL;DR - it's not about a DM taking control of a PC, it's about using the dice to model something that's too complex to narrate.
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
|
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
You CAN follow tracks to a square, then make a normal attack vs an invis opponent
In combat its easier than out of combat. OOC they could have teleported or done something else.
Its like if you watch an opponent move then invis, you know he couldn't move to a different square. You know where they're at, but have a miss chance since you can't see them
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
Not with "combat mode on", so to speak. I would say that attempted tracking would be allowing opponent to flee.
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
I agree with you, I would have allowed a track roll to notice the footprints, but if he want to do it in a hurry then I would have applied a malus on it... Don't know how much but I would have figured it out on the spot... :p
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
It's hardly a bypass.
Breaking out the rulebook, a Survival check to track is going to be at DC 15 for firm ground ("very dirty or dusty floors") and a full-round action ("at least"), which very well likely opens you up for an Attack of Opportunity ("usually").
So, you can either run in, stop to look around the room (possibly creating an opportunity for attack), find the tracks on the roll, shout out "he's by the fireplace!" and wait for his companions to make the attacks...which still run into the 'visible invisible space' problem (EDIT: unless it's an Area attack). They're still going to have either concealment bonuses or the attacker's going to need to make a Perception check. If he moves, then it's the same routine.
Even assuming that it all works, I don't think that you come out that much ahead.
To add to my prev. comment, not every ´dusty room´ will have enough to dush (and lighting conditions) to clearly reveal footprints, especially to mid-combat free Perception checks. (Survival/Tracking is going to be an action... I have no idea if that is RAW, so ignore at will)
So I would say depending on the setting, there would be different modifiers for noticing footprints... Not just dust, you could be in a butcher shop covered with entrails and blood, which might also show footprints. But re: RavingDork´s question, these modifiers are not connected to Invisiblity, but to the DC to notice the footprints themselves (which are just easy or hard to notice depending on conditions). So there is no base 20, no stealth, but just noticing the footprints per se... which is going to be based on giving them an object size and the distance, or some give-or-take between the two (since it´s also a LINE of footprints), along with lighting conditions and other factors. (if the invisible person is making noise by moving, that would also draw attention to the area where footprints are potentially being made)
Taken from that perspective, it´s not some wacko meta-gaming for a character to use that special knowledge, but simply a perception check that ANY character can make (and the GM should call for, depending on conditions), which IF they notice the moving line of footprints is just about the perfect rationale to make the connection ´ah-ha, THE INVISIBLE GUY is making those footprints...´. In an out-of-combat time-scale (like after Mr. Invisible just escaped), Survival/Tracking does seem relevant to find/follow the tracks... A very dusty surface would NOT count as a hard surface in my game, because dust is very soft and impressionable, and the dust is the surface tracks are being left in... Packed earth is a hard surface.
|
I don't agree that tracking applies here, but even if it did:
Action: Varies. A single Survival check may represent activity over the course of hours or a full day. A Survival check made to find tracks is at least a full-round action, and it may take even longer.
Congratulations. You spent a full round to find his tracks. As long as he keeps moving, you're going to have to keep doing that for your information to remain relevant.
And I agree with Quandry about the dust. It would take a crazy amount of dust to leave clearly discernible footprints. We're talking the kind of dust in a mansion that has been sealed up for 30 years, not the dungeon where foot traffic actually happens.
So shouldn't it then be a Perception/Survival check to notice tracks, rather than a Perception check against an invisible stealthed target? It's a difference of DC = stealth roll + 20 VS DC = 20 + circumstance. Giving a +2, +5, or +10 circumstance bonus to the DC is worthless if the DC is so high as to make it impossible.So far I think I agree with Howie the most, with neither being right.
I think perception vs stealth is fine, because if he's good at stealthing when invisible, he's aware of the issues with footprints and will put his feet in places where they make the least prints. If he's bad at stealthing, he'll probably just think "well now I'm invisible, cool!" and walk away.
So skill in stealth should affect the chances of detecting his position.
|
|
Again- not advocating tracking rules for this situation, but if you wanted to apply them:
Tracked party hides trail and moves at half speed: +5 DC.
As long as it is indoors we're talking
Hard Ground DC 20Hiding trail DC 25
Circumstance mod based on distraction, degree of dust or lack thereof, lighting, etc: +/- whatever DC the DM wants.
Who is "in the right" in the above theoretical scenario? Is Player A simply being a poor sport? Or does the GM have too much control over a PC's actions?Neither is right.
The player is right. The GM made the point of noting it was a dusty floor. The opponent is still invisible. If you find the footprints, you know what square it is in but you still take the 50% miss chance for attacking unseen foes. Sure, this is an advantage - only in that you already overcame the "find the invisible foe's square" by searching for the footprints.
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?It's hardly a bypass.
Breaking out the rulebook, a Survival check to track is going to be at DC 15 for firm ground ("very dirty or dusty floors") and a full-round action ("at least"), which very well likely opens you up for an Attack of Opportunity ("usually").
Alternatively, you can use the Perception skill to find a footprint or similar sign of a creature's passage using the same DCs, but you can't use Perception to follow tracks, even if someone else has already found them.
At worst, it's two checks - a 10 to figure out where he went by sound, 15 to find what square the footprint is in.
I had stuff written up, but read Cartigans reply. He is indeed correct.
Using perception in this way would let you determine what square the opponent is in, but not let you get an automatic hit, even if you hit his ac.
I'd have to agree with the Lazar here (fails his reflex save!) that while the dusty floor can help the PCs detect their man here, it's not foolproof. How many other tracks are in the room, how much dust is being raised by the Arcane Trickster, the PCs, other creatures or other effects?
1) Does the Arcane Trickster have high stealth abilities, either via skills, items or traits?
2) How much dust are we talking about?
a) Wow it's dusty in here
b) Will take several hours and numerous Prestidigitation spells to get this place cleared up
c) Dust my ass, somebody teleported a desert in here!
d) I'm sinking!
3) Survival is a poor skill to use in this situation. Yes 'dusty' ground can give you a Survival DC of 5 to find the tracks ... but the Arcane Trickster is still invisible and could be levitating as we speak and then drinking a potion of Gaseous Form to sneak away for help or getting ready to toss an entire necklace of fireballs at the furthest PC, while one person at least has spent an entire round trying to pick out which tracks belong to the Arcane Trickster and now has to figure out why they've stopped dead five feet from where the guy last was.
4) PC A sounds like he's a Caster of some sort with a good amount of Spellcraft Skill, while PC B sounds like he's a more physical Character with access to the Perception Class Skill. While PC A is more likely to realise what's going on, and thereby be able to alert the others as to potential methods to defeat the Invisibility Spell, PC B is more likely to be the one to figure out where the Arcane Trickster is hiding. Again, this is a team game and being able to rely upon the other adventurers to make up for your own short-comings is a part of the game.
A very Strawman-ish example, but it does raise some valid points. The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rules. The Arcane Trickster is Invisible and moving, which adds +20 to his Stealth check, plus whatever other bonuses he has from his Class Skills, Magical Items, Trait Bonuses etc, plus distance modifiers, minus the effects of the Dust, which depending upon the amount in the room and how much has been stirred up, could go anywhere from the -2 as 'Favorable Conditions' to a full -5 if the GM believes the Arcane Trickster is going to have small patches of dust stick to sweaty/bloodstained/etc portions of his clothing/body.
I would certainly say that it is a perception not a survival check. You are not trying to track the invisible foe, you are trying to spot him in the midst of a fight. The dusty floor would definately cut into the +20 invisibility gives, but it wouldn't negate it entirely, nor would it be an automatic success at my table.
I think using Survival to track can apply (you are, after all, tracking the character's footprints), but that takes a full round action as ithuriel pointed out.
Otherwise, with the Perception issue...
The invisible character gets a circumstance bonus to Stealth, we know this.
By all means, the other characters can get a circumstance bonus to Perception if they are in favorable conditions (e.g., the Invisible character is hiding in a very dusty room). If you absolutely must have a rule from the book on this, then the Perception skill description in fact lists a "favorable condition" lowers Perception DCs by 2. A GM as ultimate rules arbitrator and adjuster has the power to lower this DC further if he finds it makes sense, that is what GMs do.
(If the party still failed their check because of the invisible character's bonus, the challenge isn't the rules, but coming up with a reasonable explanation: "You had a very good idea, but somebody's cloak wiped away discernible footprints in the area," or "You realize you all have been walking enough in the area to leave a large number of footprints, and cannot manage to discern which are the trickster's.")
If a GM chooses to stymie the game by rules-lawyering himself into uselessness, my personal opinion is this is not the rules' fault.
And if the rules stated every possible permutation of every rule and every system and accounted for every circumstance that might ever occur in an RPG, it would be thousands of pages long and just about impossible to consult on a moment's notice. It doesn't mean the rules are silly or strange. Personally, I find the guidelines provided more than adequate to make a call when a situation is not explicitly outlined in the game mechanics.
As for the situation described--if it made sense for a character to think to look in the dust for the invisible character's footprints--by all means, let them do so. It makes sense to do so without requiring an Intelligence check, but of course that is the individual GMs' call. And no offense to RD, but I can't help but think in the OP's description, the GM just wanted the arcane trickster to try to get away and didn't like that the players were being clever enough to find a way to track him--and was upset about it enough that the GM forgot that even if the characters knew exactly where the arcane trickster was, he still was protected by 50% concealment and a number of other benefits (they lose their Dex bonus to AC to him--a character with sneak attack--etc. etc.).
Were I the GM in the situation, I would have allowed them to track the trickster and look for footprints--these things are by all means reasonable things to do. But I also probably would have asked them to go into Initiative mode---so that people take turns in order--to determine how far the trickster got before they figured out where he was, what they were going to do to him, and how he would have responded in kind. After all, if the trickster's next action was "I cast fly" the whole footprint issue might have been moot---but at the same time, the party should have a fair chance of trying to find him before he cast another spell.
|
Contributor
|
I'd probably use half of the invisibility bonus- so stealth+10. The Arcane Trickster probably knows how to sneak around, minimizing his footprints and kicking up enough dust to conceal his exact path.
If the room was very dusty, like half an inch or more of dust, then I would probably make it a fairly easy Perception check to find the square- DC 10 or 15 or so.
So the player knows what what to look for good for him.
Even better the character knows what to look for.
However that doesn't mean that those are the only footprints in the area or that he's sure where the footprints stop. Remember the arcane trickster is technically moving while the character is looking for him -- all in the same six seconds that everyone else in the room is doing what they are doing as well. It very well could be that you lost track of what set of prints you needed to follow (not like everyone is wearing individual footwear with distinct tread).
So shouldn't it then be a Perception/Survival check to notice tracks, rather than a Perception check against an invisible stealthed target? It's a difference of DC = stealth roll + 20 VS DC = 20 + circumstance. Giving a +2, +5, or +10 circumstance bonus to the DC is worthless if the DC is so high as to make it impossible.
So far I think I agree with Howie the most, with neither being right.
That sounds reasonable as well.
As a player always try to remember that the GM has a stake in this too -- don't argue for automatic success, instead look for the smaller bonus you know the GM is more likely to agree too.
Your example here is great, and could go something like this:
Player A: "Well since I know he's making tracks could I use my survival skill to track his movement instead of perception, as I have higher ranks in it and I'm tracking which is a survival skill check instead of perception?"
As a GM I'm much more likely to say, "Yes that's a great idea" to this than "But I know he's making tracks in the dust! Why can't I just swing at him based on the dust?"
The GM has 3+ people he's trying to track in addition to the world -- he doesn't feel he has time to go in depth finding a solution to each minor little hiccup. If the player presents a reasonable method for solving the issue that doesn't turn the situation into an "auto-win" the GM is much more likely to go for it, and will be grateful the player didn't cause issues at the table.
Similar to several others, I would want to know how dusty are we talking about? How many other sets of tracks are there?
There is a huge difference between "flour" covering the floor, revealing a nice set of new prints as the Arcane Trickster leaves them and a dusty, smudged actic floor with multiple sets of foot prints on the floor.
Perception check vs the modified stealth of the arcane trickster for "free action" look. Modified by the state of the floor, invisibility spell and the stealth skill of the arcane trickster. After all, he does know how his spell works and it's likely weaknesses.
Full round action for tracking, sure. DC is based on floor, dust coverage, other tracks, etc.. I would even say that they would have a fair chance of being able to point out where the arcane tricker's tracks stop, if they had the movement to get near there.
I did find distasteful the bit where the GM told the player to roll to see if their character would think of it. Setting up the a high DC for the task, sure, but to think of something fairly straight forward like this, based on the GM's description, not cool.
Imagine the following:
GM: Since you've made your Spellcraft check, you know the arcane trickster has turned invisible. You heard all him scuttling across the dusty floors so you know he isn't in his original position, but you don't know what direction he went. PC A, it's your turn.
PC A: Alright, I look for his footprints in the dusty floor so as to determine his exact "new" location. I then launch a crossbow bolt in that direction.
GM: Alright, make a spot check against his Stealth check + 20.
PC A: What? Why? That's to find him normally. I'm looking for his footprints, that should be pretty automatic, or at least have a hefty circumstance bonus.
GM: If it were automatic, then invisibility wouldn't really be invisibility, and would be greatly weakened.
PC A: The only thing weakening invisibility is this NPC's poor tactics, casting invisibility in a dusty room. *chortles*
GM: Just the same, please roll to see if your character thinks to look for footprints.
PC A: "Thinks to look?" I JUST TOLD YOU HE IS LOOKING FOR FOOTPRINTS!
GM: *Not appreciating the challenge to his authority* Roll. Anyways.
PC A: *grumbles* *rolls* 24.
GM: Your character looks around for the invisible trickster, but doesn't think to look for footprints in the dust.
PC A: *facepalm groan*Who is "in the right" in the above theoretical scenario? Is Player A simply being a poor sport? Or does the GM have too much control over a PC's actions?
I personally side with Player A (if he says he's doing something, than he is doing it), but I've seen a LOT of people on these forums who would take the side of the GM (who thinks that the Perception check determines how and if you find an invisibly stealthed character). Which side would you be on and why?
This illustrates the problems with having every situation determined by die rolls. Given the scenario above, if the PC's vision weren't impaired by any means, I wouldn't consider even bothering to make a Perception roll as long as he can see where the footprints stop on his turn.
The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rules
In what manner is the player trying to get an unfair advantage and isn't playing by the rules? I can understand the GM not wanting it to be automatic, but that doesn't come close to what you accuse of the player. On one hand, if the player asks for it automatically, he is asking for far too much. On the other hand, if the GM asks for the player to make a Perception check against Stealth +20, than the GM is essentially asking for automatic failure, making him a hypocrite (especially since the player in question isn't looking for the invisible creature, but for the prints that lead to the creature's location.
It saddens me to think that so many of you would screw a player for coming up with an imaginative (and almost obvious) workaround.
I feel some clarifications are in order:
- I meant dusty, as in the room hasn't seen life in 300 years kind of dusty. Think of a thin layer of snow over a black floor. New prints are going to be pretty obvious.
- The sorcerer is obviously kinda dumb, thinking that invisibility will allow him to get away even while going through such a dusty room.
- There is no fight, merely someone using magic to run away while others attempt to capture him. Therefore distraction is relatively minimal.
- I never said anyone was using the Survival skill, merely looking for tracks (which if you read carefully, you can use Perception for at the same DCs as Survival). As such, it may not take a full round action, but be reactionary. Even if it did take a full round action, that would be fine as the player could then get his allies involved and still feel like he did something useful (rather than get cheated).
PC A: Alright, I look for his footprints in the dusty floor so as to determine his exact "new" location. I then launch a crossbow bolt in that direction.
GM: Alright, make a spot check against his Stealth check + 20.
PC A: What? Why? That's to find him normally. I'm looking for his footprints, that should be pretty automatic, or at least have a hefty circumstance bonus.
This is where things fell apart. A player should not gainsay a GM like this. The GM should not even be declaring a target number, and if he does, he is under no pressure to explain where the number came from. I personally go to a lot of effort to give fair DCs by the rules, but it is trivial to GM the math to get the number you want.
We're all at that table to play the same game, so I make a serious effort to be fair and use the rules from the book. But in the interest of expedience, the players must take the chances they're given without argument. How does the player in this scenario know anything about the DC? A number of factors or abilities could be modifiying the roll. If the player is allowed to deconstruct the DC, he must necessarily receive metagame information — plus it interrupts the flow of the game!
It is best if the player takes the roll without arguing. If he misses, he says "drat, the creature has vanished! What do I do now?" and for a moment he is in-character. If he hits, then hooray and the game moves on. Quickly. Talking through the game math is not role-playing.
So in short, this situation is the player's fault, but it is still the GM's responsibility to handle the DC fairly. Sometimes, "fairly" is explaining away factors so that what you want happens. However, any good GM should have developed an instinct to let things go against them; that's the whole point of dice.
The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rulesIn what manner is the player...
For the record, it was HalfOrcHeavyMetal who said that, not me.
It saddens me to think that so many of you would screw a player for coming up with an imaginative (and almost obvious) workaround.
I feel some clarifications are in order:
- I meant dusty, as in the room hasn't seen life in 300 years kind of dusty. Think of a thin layer of snow over a black floor. New prints are going to be pretty obvious.
- The sorcerer is obviously kinda dumb, thinking that invisibility will allow him to get away even while going through such a dusty room.
- There is no fight, merely someone using magic to run away while others attempt to capture him. Therefore distraction is relatively minimal.
This is the type of information that it would have been nice to include in the original explanation.
In this type of situation, I would likely of allowed the players to know where the caster is with a fairly easy Perception test. Depending on how mischievous I am feeling, I may make it a touch harder with the dust cloud or what kind of objects are around that the caster could have ran behind/by.
I don't think that most of us were trying to penalize the player. We were working on a certain set of assumptions -that there was combat, that there was some dust but not white snow/black floor, that the caster was using stealth and knew the limit of his spells, etc.. Those assumptions lead us to our conclusions.
I'm not sure if you were trying to get us to draw those conclusions or not.
The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rulesIn what manner is the player trying to get an unfair advantage and isn't playing by the rules? I can understand the GM not wanting it to be automatic, but that doesn't come close to what you accuse of the player. On one hand, if the player asks for it automatically, he is asking for far too much. On the other hand, if the GM asks for the player to make a Perception check against Stealth +20, than the GM is essentially asking for automatic failure, making him a hypocrite (especially since the player in question isn't looking for the invisible creature, but for the prints that lead to the creature's location.
It saddens me to think that so many of you would screw a player for coming up with an imaginative (and almost obvious) workaround.
I feel some clarifications are in order:
- I meant dusty, as in the room hasn't seen life in 300 years kind of dusty. Think of a thin layer of snow over a black floor. New prints are going to be pretty obvious.
- The sorcerer is obviously kinda dumb, thinking that invisibility will allow him to get away even while going through such a dusty room.
- There is no fight, merely someone using magic to run away while others attempt to capture him. Therefore distraction is relatively minimal.
- I never said anyone was using the Survival skill, merely looking for tracks (which if you read carefully, you can use Perception for at the same DCs as Survival). As such, it may not take a full round action, but be reactionary. Even if it did take a full round action, that would be fine as the player could then get his allies involved and still feel like he did something useful (rather than get cheated).
Take it easy. I dont think anyone here is trying to screw over the player. In fact, alot of people here seem to agree that the player deserves bonuses to his perception for his idea. I don't think that is unreasonable in the slightest.
Also, the clarifications change the scenario entirely and probably would have helped if it was in the first post. Since it's not a fight and there is practically snow on the ground and there are no other environmental concerns (like wind or darkness), I would agree that he doesn't need to make a check to find the footprints. Course, if this sorcerer is fleeing from the PCs, I'd wonder if he'd cover his tracks (Survival or Stealth mayhaps?) or float to try and get away. But yeah, I'd agree. No check.
A very Strawman-ish example, but it does raise some valid points. The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rules.
By trying to use Perception to find footprints? If the person had passed through the room earlier and Player A wanted to use Perception to see where a person walked in the room, would you be jumping down his throat? Hell, would "Finding a track that walks into an apparent wall" not be something to find in the room?
The Arcane Trickster is Invisible and moving, which adds +20 to his Stealth check,
No one is trying to locate the Trickster. They are trying to locate a footprint.
please note this is at least a full round check,
Why?
and as per RAW, the character making the check would have no way to know which way the tracks were going,
Presumably because they are idiots and can't figure out which way the prints point.
For the record, it was HalfOrcHeavyMetal who said that, not me.The GM is perfectly within his rights to demand Player A stop trying to get an unfair advantage and play within the game rulesIn what manner is the player...
Apologies.
Take it easy. I dont think anyone here is trying to screw over the player. In fact, alot of people here seem to agree that the player deserves bonuses to his perception for his idea. I...
The only thing that bothers me about simply granting a circumstance bonus on Perception to spot the trickser is that, unless it also grants a realistic chance of success, the GM HAS DONE NOTHING AT ALL TO HELP THE SITUATION. And that's assuming the player WAS trying to find the trickster to begin with, which he clearly isn't (he's looking for the last footprint in the trail).