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).
Not sure what you are trying to get at when you say that the GM has done nothing at all to help the situation. And why do you appear to be upset, as you are the one who designed the scenario/interaction?
As for the caster vs footprints, there are a lot of variables that can come into play. Is the caster kicking up dust, throwing dust, using presdigitation to raise dust, gone behind something, using an unseen servant to start cleaning, etc... The GM should determine what the DC to see the footprints is - and in my games, I do not usually tell the players what the DC is, just ask them to make the appropriate skill check.
In this case, likely a perception check, perhaps two, if the player has different modifyers for audio vs visual - as the sound of footsteps running away was also mentioned and could help find the footsteps.
I mean no disrespect, but with how vehement you are arguing and how upset you are getting I am beginning to wonder if this is less of a fictional scenario and more of an actual event that happened...
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.In Jame Blish's "Earthman Come Home", a Cities in Flight volume, the central character John Amalfi has tampered with the flight controls of a rival city. Problem was that city having been grounded for so long that the controls were all covered in thick dust, leaving him with a problem on how to conceal his tampering. So what he did was beat on all of the panels filling the entire room with choking dust. The sorcerer in that situation if he had been smart would have stirred up the dust into a full blown cloud (A use for Gust of Wind!) instead of trying to hide his footprints.
Smart idea :)
Here is how it should be handled, IMHO:
GM: Since you've made your Spellcraft check, you know the arcane trickster has turned invisible. You heard 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 Perception check.
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: The dust will give you a circumstance modifier, now make your roll.
PC A: But this NPC's chosen poor tactics, casting invisibility in a dusty room. I should be able to autodetect him. *chortles*
GM: That's not how it works. Since he's cassting and you want to shoot, we are in combat, which mean you have six seconds to look for the tracks, guess where he's at, and shoot. Not an auto-detect in my book. You're smart to think of the dust and that will give you a significant circumstance modifier.
PC A: But I still don't think I should have to roll. I think it should be automatic.
PCs B, C and D (in chorus): For the love of God, stop arguing with the DM and just roll already, you're wasting everyone's time.
|
There's something I said a few time in "RD has a rules problem" threads - don't feel shackled by the rules. They are not, and never were meant to be, a full simulation of realism. There's abstraction, and there's the GM's call, and there's the old rule that if you don't agree with the GM's call you shut up and wait until after the game to propose an alternative solution.
If you a) expect the rules to cover every conceivable situation and b) believe that rules and only rules count, then you will sooner or later run into a situation where you won't be able to resolve a situation, because either an abstract rule or a player action that goes outside the rules catches you flat-footed. A good GM knows when to throw the math out of the window and just swing it the way he feels it will be fair. That's one of the more challenging and rewarding points of being a GM, IMHO.
I feel some clarifications are in order:A) 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.
B) The sorcerer is obviously kinda dumb, thinking that invisibility will allow him to get away even while going through such a dusty room.
C) There is no fight, merely someone using magic to run away while others attempt to capture him. Therefore distraction is relatively minimal.
D) 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).
I think that the player needs to stop being a player and start being a DM, because the player obviously cannot cope
A & B - Dust isn't some constant cosmic force, and generally the sorts of things that keep a room "lifeless" are the sort that will prevent a quarter inch of dust forming. But let's skip this: it falls into a "realism of magic" argument, and we can't experiment with a 300 year room or an invisibility spell.
However, to reiterate, you seem to think it's necessarily cut and dry, and the player has the only reasonable belief in the matter. I think that other's having reasonable disagreements suggests that it's open for discussion.
C - I quote from your original post: "*makes an attack and kills trickster*", which implies there was a fight. Second, "capture" involves combat, unless the PCs were ready to talk him into submission. Third, it's not so much 'distraction' as it is 'environment.' Is this not a hot pursuit? If there's so much dust as to leave obvious and discernible tracks, should there not be enough dust kicked up by his running to impair visibility? Is it as bright as day?
D - First off, it's clearly a move action, as it is "intentionally searching for stimulus." Second, the passage is also clear: "you can't use Perception to follow tracks." In other words, a Perception check will allow you to see the scuffs that are footprints, but you don't necessarily have the skills to interpret them outside of highly gross information. Otherwise, you could bootstrap any tracking check using Perception of "now I look for one track. Now I look for another track."
I mean, if the tracks are that obvious, and that easy to follow that they could be followed by anyone, then why roll at all? It needs to be obvious, otherwise its like rolling to open a door. But that puts the discussion back to A & B.
Last, we're still in the "how do you grab an invisible man?" problem. An invisible person standing in the corner is slightly easier to capture than an invisible person somewhere in the room, but it's not a cakewalk by any means to grab something that looks like it isn't there, even if there's a rough idea of where /there/ is. For all you know he walked to the corner, drank a potion of spider climb, and doubled back behind you on the ceiling.
But can we all put all this aside and agree that, while Player A & the DM's tussle for authority is to be expected, Player B is a colossal jerk?
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.
+1
There's something I said a few time in "RD has a rules problem" threads - don't feel shackled by the rules. They are not, and never were meant to be, a full simulation of realism. There's abstraction, and there's the GM's call, and there's the old rule that if you don't agree with the GM's call you shut up and wait until after the game to propose an alternative solution.
If you a) expect the rules to cover every conceivable situation and b) believe that rules and only rules count, then you will sooner or later run into a situation where you won't be able to resolve a situation, because either an abstract rule or a player action that goes outside the rules catches you flat-footed. A good GM knows when to throw the math out of the window and just swing it the way he feels it will be fair. That's one of the more challenging and rewarding points of being a GM, IMHO.
Bolded for emphasis. Whether or not a GM's decision seems unfair, the GM is the ultimate law in the game. GMs are human, they make mistakes, have their own slant on how things work and their own problems. At the table, group discussion is always good, but ultimately a GM must have the final say on rulings.
I've seen too many 'rookie' tables fall apart because of similar situations where a Player strikes on a novel idea for a Skill or a Feat or an Item during a situation, and the GM doesn't agree with this interpretation, the Player then turns around and demands their idea be accepted.
In regards to RavingDork's original post, he did leave out some crucial details, but if we follow the Rules as Written, Survival is a poor choice for this situation. However, if we follow the Rules as Intended, abd the GM feels it warranted, a High Survival check could add a further +2 to the PCs' checks, but Invisibility is intended to be one of the most potent stealth-based spells within the game and nothing other than magic designed to counter or neutralise the spell, or some heavy duty McGuyver Action from the Players, is going to negate that +20 bonus.
Were I the Caster (or Player A), I would have tried to raise as much dust as I could to fill the air with a light cloud of Dust, making it possible for everyone in the room to have to make Fortitude Saves to avoid coughing and hopefully make the Arcane Trickster partially visible, trusting in my Melee companion(s) to be able to not only make their saves but then be able to move up and start flanking the Trickster.
Alternatively, the Caster (or Player A) could have dropped a Area of Effect Dispel Magic or blanketed the area with another form of Multiple Square effects, damaging or not, to try and flush out the Arcane Trickster. If the other Players are watching, their Perception checks could benefit immensely from this action, again helping them corner the Arcane Trickster and making the Invisibility Spell far less effective for the NPC.
In either situation, after the NPC makes a hostile move the spell ends and the Arcane Trickster is now down a fairly potent spell for giving the PCs a scare for a round or three with little to no damage being done to them.
Original post...I think you are way over complicating the situation. Try this:
GM: You no longer see the arcane trickster that was hear a moment ago. PC A, it's your turn.
PC A: Alright, I think he's still in the room so I look and listen for him. Any sounds, footprints, anything?.
GM: Maybe, make a Perception check.
PC A: OK. *rolls* I got a 25. Probably not great.
GM: You don't see or hear anything that helps you find him. Maybe he's gone, maybe not. Haha!
PC A: OK. I tell the group I think he's still here but I can't find him. I move next to the door to finish my turn.
GM: OK. PC B you are up.
PC B: I'll try to find him as well. *rolls* Whoa! a 43, that's gotta find him!
GM: You see some footprints that end next to the table in the corner and you hear what sounds like clothing rustling from the same area.
PC B: Fireball.
This is more or less what I said, but in practice. +1
that's how the survival skill works.
You aren't using survival. You are using Perception. Plus Survival is for following tracks for an extended period of time. 30' of tracks, at most, is not 1 mile
i've bolded the really relevant sections, but basically you can use perception to find footprints, but not follow them.
Of course you aren't going to use Perception - a spot check - to find a mile of footprints. You are just looking for a series of them in a room.
And you don't have to follow anything to know which way a person went. He moved - at most - 30 feet and unless he is a peg legged man, his feet are going to point in a specific direction. A DC 0 check would be needed to realize which way a person went tentatively.
Not sure what you are trying to get at when you say that the GM has done nothing at all to help the situation. And why do you appear to be upset, as you are the one who designed the scenario/interaction?
Apologies. I was merely trying to add emphasis, not sound upset or as though I were yelling.
What I was trying to get across was that a +2, +5, or +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check when the DC might as well be 100 is not a solution. It's a GM cop out.
And no, this did not happen in an actual game. Only in my very imaginative brain. Nevertheless, I wanted to see how you all would deal with such a scenario so I could determine if I were alone or "perfectly normal" in my thinking. It appears evenly split in this community.
Thank you much for the help. Continue the discussion as you please. Also, sorry for not being more clear in the OP.
|
Imagine the following:
<snip>
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?
Its not spelled out but, to find the invisible character, you'd have to be looking for SOMETHING. Footprints are probably high on the list. The scent of the invisible character's aftershave likely is as well. Pointing out the usual suspects isn't worthy of any sort of bonus. That's already what your character would do without the player needing to spell it out beyond saying that's what he's trying to do. Would you give a bonus to someone's roll to leap across a chasm because he says, "I try to jump far"?
If you go out of your way to create a way to find the invisible character, that's a different story. Its a lot harder to find the invisible character's footprints on a clean floor than one where you've strewn flour or paint, for example. If you can change the conditions (or they just happen to exist) to your advantage, you deserve a bonus. Otherwise, he's already doing what's logical... or what he can think of (reflected in his Perception bonus).
Its not spelled out but, to find the invisible character, you'd have to be looking for SOMETHING.Imagine the following:
<snip>
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?
Not really. That's why they get a +20 to their stealth - because they themselves aren't visible. If you are looking for something else, you are looking for something else. You are just arbitrarily declaring a different DC for a search because it is now attached to an invisible character. Finding a footprint in a really dusty room is maybe a 20 but because it is the footprint of an invisible creature it is now 20+x? Hearing a creature walking is a DC 10 check, but because the creature is invisible, it's now a DC 20+ check? That's asinine.
Footprints are probably high on the list. The scent of the invisible character's aftershave likely is as well. Pointing out the usual suspects isn't worthy of any sort of bonus. That's already what your character would do without the player needing to spell it out beyond saying that's what he's trying to do. Would you give a bonus to someone's roll to leap across a chasm because he says, "I try to jump far"?
Are you going to say "Oh sorry, you didn't hear the key being turned in the lock because the key is being held by some one invisible."?
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?
Illusion is not mind affecting. The glamer specifically affects the individual not the enemy. It does not make you appear to be invisible. You actually are invisible.
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).
Using mundane means to get around magic completely is what we are against. A circumstance bonus yes, but ingore the stealth bonus completely, no.
Invisibility does`t apply to object you drop.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to the hole you just busted charging thru that wooden wall.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to foot-steps you make. It applies to YOU and objects CARRIED by you.
Meepo`s QUITE on-topic quote of the Invisibility spell seems like it needs to be quoted AGAIN:
...and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
Some situations migth make noticing footprints auto-pass. Some it might be more difficult, or impossible (i.e. it`s Dark and you don`t have DV). The rules don`t really give a clear-cut single DC reference for this, but you can make do based on normal Perception rules, not much different than noticing many other things in the game. GMs can be dicks about this, GMs can be munchkin-feeders about this, and all variations in between. What else is there to say? Not much...
|
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.
This part right here bothers me far more than the discussion of whether or not the character should auto-succeed when looking for footprints. I'm not a big fan of "Good idea! Now randomly determine if your character has the same idea you did!" Some things should be ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying.
But I digress. I'd vote a Perception check with a -10 penalty to spot the footprints, further modified for the degree of dustiness, lighting conditions, etc. Success means that you've narrowed it down to a single square and can attack with the miss chance. Failure means you don't know where he is.
|
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?
IMHO both are wrong. For one it depends on how dusty it is and how much light etc. Assuming it has decent lighting and it is so so dusty then i would have given the PC a bonus to his roll. Something in the 5-10 bonus depending on how dusty and how good the lighting. So I would reward the player for being clever but not make it a sure thing.
|
|
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?
Not during combat. Combat is suppose to be fast, furious and hectic. Now if the PC want to take a full round out to get a closer look then sure. Of course by then the NPC has likely still moving and or blasting people.
Invisibility does`t apply to object you drop.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to the hole you just busted charging thru that wooden wall.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to foot-steps you make. It applies to YOU and objects CARRIED by you.
Meepo`s QUITE on-topic quote of the Invisibility spell seems like it needs to be quoted AGAIN:...and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
Some situations might make noticing footprints auto-pass. Some it might be more difficult, or impossible (i.e. it`s Dark and you don`t have DV). The rules don`t really give a clear-cut single DC reference for this, but you can make do based on normal Perception rules, not much different than noticing many other things in the game. GMs can be dicks about this, GMs can be munchkin-feeders about this, and all variations in between. What else is there to say? Not much...
This has been my take as well. The GM should have determined if the dust was "thick" enough in the 1st place to even warrant a check. If footprints or a dust trail are obviously being made and Player A's vision isn't impaired in any way, I'm not see why there is even a roll to be made. If there wasn't enough dust to make such determinations... or if the room was dark... then the GM simply should have told Player A so and the argument over requiring the Perception check likely wouldn't occur.
What I was trying to get across was that a +2, +5, or +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check when the DC might as well be 100 is not a solution. It's a GM cop out.
Somethings in the game may not be possible to do. Part of the GM's job is to determine what the DCs for different tasks are. It's not a cop out, it is the GM doing their job.
In your example you didn't say that player A's perception was extremely low or anything of the kind. Some people have good perception skill modifiers and that bonus of +2 / +5 / +10 can change the test from not likely, to fairly easy to auto-pass even when a 1 is rolled.
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.
Couple of things here. When I first read this, I was seeing the GM do a face palm, because his attempt at making the encounter more interesting/memorable than "the trickster cast invisibility. PC A, it's your turn" and having it come back and bite them.
2nd thing, PC A is doing more than coming up with something good outside of the box, they are attempting to take what looks like several actions in one initiative pass. Seeing a footprint can be a perception check -fine, no question, but to follow those tracks to where they end is tracking -the survival skill - which is a full round action. Then they want to fire a bolt into the "square" where they think the target is.
If this happened at my table, based on what you have described and added in other posts, I would likely say tell PC A that they may visually follow the tracks with the appropriate perception check (probably a pretty low one), but it will take their full action, and if they so choose, they can give a general yell as to where the they think the trickster is -say, the north end of the table.
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.
There is a mechanic for a mostly assured automatic success. They could take 20 on their Perception check and spend a couple minutes discerning where the tracks lead and came from.
Being able to do everything the player wants and could calculate in 6 seconds is a bit much.
Besides, in a dusty room, ANY movement causes dust to move, so trying to follow the "negative" dust footprints would be suspect at best.
However, that just gave me an idea for an encounter...the party enters a dusty room and as they look around it they notice a pair of footprints in the center, however, they see no tracks leading to or from it. Turns out it is a greater invisibled .... thing (golem or construct guardian of somekind).
This part right here bothers me far more than the discussion of whether or not the character should auto-succeed when looking for footprints. I'm not a big fan of "Good idea! Now randomly determine if your character has the same idea you did!" Some things should be ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying.
I generally agree with this sentiment. However, to play devil's advocate, I can see one not-too-uncommon situation in which the GM might be justified in asking for an Intelligence check to see if a character (as opposed to a player) actually thought up the great idea. That would be the case in which a very smart player has created a very dumb character with an Int score of 7 or less. In that case, I'd probably let it go a few times, since even the dullest intellect can have a good idea now and then, but if they consistently play their dullard character as a genius, I'd start making them do Int checks. Or I'd just forbid them from creating characters with below average intelligence since they've proved themselves incapable of roleplaying that intelligence accurately.
The opposite also holds true, when the player of average intelligence creates a brilliant wizard character with and 18 or 20 Int. In those cases I sometimes grant that character an Int check when they are about to do something stupid their character would simply not do. For example, when the player, who has fought zombies before, nonetheless attempts to use a sleep spell on them because the player has forgotten it didn't work the last time.
Invisibility does`t apply to object you drop.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to the hole you just busted charging thru that wooden wall.
Invisibility doesn`t apply to foot-steps you make. It applies to YOU and objects CARRIED by you.
Meepo`s QUITE on-topic quote of the Invisibility spell seems like it needs to be quoted AGAIN:...and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
Some situations migth make noticing footprints auto-pass. Some it might be more difficult, or impossible (i.e. it`s Dark and you don`t have DV). The rules don`t really give a clear-cut single DC reference for this, but you can make do based on normal Perception rules, not much different than noticing many other things in the game. GMs can be dicks about this, GMs can be munchkin-feeders about this, and all variations in between. What else is there to say? Not much...
This approximately where I stand on the matter as well. It doesn't have to be auto-win. Just fair. Forcing someone to make Perception VS Stealth +20 isn't fair when they're looking for the last known foot print and not the trickster himself.
Whether something is magical or mundane is completely BESIDES THE POINT.
This part right here bothers me far more than the discussion of whether or not the character should auto-succeed when looking for footprints. I'm not a big fan of "Good idea! Now randomly determine if your character has the same idea you did!" Some things should be ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying.
I deliberately planted multiple problems in the opening scenario in order to promote discussion.
PC A is doing more than coming up with something good outside of the box, they are attempting to take what looks like several actions in one initiative pass. Seeing a footprint can be a perception check -fine, no question, but to follow those tracks to where they end is tracking -the survival skill - which is a full round action. Then they want to fire a bolt into the "square" where they think the target is.
I would be perfectly fine with a GM telling a player that they could look but "not leap" due to limited actions. That is fair. The player can still feel useful by helping his party out. Alternatively, he could take the risk and attack a random square with fingers crossed. Giving the player the DC for fly when he's looking for the elephant, however, isn't at all fair.
Before you get too hot under the collar, remember that RD by his own admission, made up the entire exchange. This is not a quote from experience, it's another one of those game sessions that take place entirely in his imagination. In fact unless there is reason otherwise, it's a safe assumption that ALL of RavingDork's gaming scenarios take place entirely inside his own head and have a significant disconnect from reality.
Though this is a scenario, rather than actual events, I'd like it known that only about a 3rd of my posts make up scenarios from my imagination. In any event, I am ALWAYS crystal clear in my posts about whether or not something actually happened (though I'm not sure why it should matter in the slightest for the purposes of discussion as the answers should end up being the same).
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?As a [i]reactive[\i] check? Definitely not.
If they want to attempt to track a currently moving target.. that's something else.... but it's not a reactive check, it's an active use of a skill.
-James
I personally believe it should have been given as a reactive check by the GM the moment the trickster made a Stealth check in the first place (against the near impossible Stealth +20 DC).
However, the player requesting to make a Perception check for footprints probably should be a move action since it clearly isn't reactionary (against the footprint's track DC). Note, however, that this would still leave a standard action for an attack.
In my personal opinion, this would not warrant the full round+ time that true tracking would, though if a GM ruled that it would take a full round action to find it, I would likely abide by the ruling.
Though this is a scenario, rather than actual events, I'd like it known that only about a 3rd of my posts make up scenarios from my imagination. In any event, I am ALWAYS crystal clear in my posts about whether or not something actually happened (though I'm not sure why it should matter in the slightest for the purposes of discussion as the answers should end up being the same).
I think there are three reasons it makes a difference for some of us.
First, if this is an actual scenario that occurred in game play, all we are hearing is one, subjective view of what occurred, and we hesitate to render opinons based on that incomplete information. That's not a problem with an invented scenario, as by definition, there is no other side to consider, as it all came out of your brain, and the only information possible to get about it (even if it is incomplete) is going to come from you.
Second, some of us hesitate to undercut the judgment of another GM, particularly based on second-hand information. I certainly wouldn't want my players to go running to the boards to "appeal" every time they questioned one of my rulings, and wouldn't appreciate the armchair quarterbacking likely to result if they did. Not an issue if it is a fictional scenario.
Finally, and from the opposite viewpoint, some people prefer not to participate in theoretical exercises based on artificial scenarios which might or might not ever occur in actual gameplay, particularly if it appears that those scenarios were drawn up in such a way as to portray extreme player and/or GM behavior. In many case the best and simplest advice possible is the old adage: "Don't game with jerks." It solves a lot of problems.
Well, all this discussion teaches me as a GM is that if I ever have an opponent turn himself invisible in a dusty room, I'll have him move five squares and do an acrobatics check to have him jump back into square four to land in his footprints there. :p
Well, all this discussion teaches me as a GM is that if I ever have an opponent turn himself invisible in a dusty room, I'll have him move five squares and do an acrobatics check to have him jump back into square four to land in his footprints there. :p
VERY CLEVER!
So no one else believes that the tracking DCs should come into play (thereby bypassing the +20 invisibility bonus altogether)?As a [i]reactive[\i] check? Definitely not.
If they want to attempt to track a currently moving target.. that's something else.... but it's not a reactive check, it's an active use of a skill.
-James
I personally believe it should have been given as a reactive check by the GM the moment the trickster made a Stealth check in the first place (against the near impossible Stealth +20 DC).
However, the player requesting to make a Perception check for footprints probably should be a move action since it clearly isn't reactionary (against the footprint's track DC). Note, however, that this would still leave a standard action for an attack.
In my personal opinion, this would not warrant the full round+ time that true tracking would, though if a GM ruled that it would take a full round action to find it, I would likely abide by the ruling.
You missed the point.
Perception check = free or move action.
Tracking with the survival skill = full round action.
He is saying that if you wanted to use your survival skill to find the guy instead of perception, then you would have to take a full round action.
As for the "Player is trying to take unfair advantage" arguement, that is absolutely what the player is doing. There is a big difference between.
Player A: There is dust on the floor I should know where he is.
AND
Player A: It is a dusty room, shouldn't I get a bonus to perception?
In the first case, the player is trying to bypass the perception check entirely. In the second case, the player is asking for a circumstance bonus.
Player A: There is dust on the floor I should know where he is.
AND
Player A: It is a dusty room, shouldn't I get a bonus to perception?
In the first case, the player is trying to bypass the perception check entirely. In the second case, the player is asking for a circumstance bonus.
No. He isn't. He is trying to find something else. Is there something in RAW that says "When in combat, you can ONLY use Perception to find opponents?" Does everything else in the room disappear?
This approximately where I stand on the matter as well. It doesn't have to be auto-win. Just fair. Forcing someone to make Perception VS Stealth +20 isn't fair when they're looking for the last known foot print and not the trickster himself.
Ah, but why are they trying to find the last footprint? So they can infer the pinpoint position of the invisible man. It's an attempt to get around a difficult Perception check with a, theoretically, easier one but which achieves the same end result.
That's why I'd just go with a circumstance bonus, much like I would if the invisible man were standing in a brook or in some other environment that may undermine his invisibility's ability to hide him from visual spotting.
This approximately where I stand on the matter as well. It doesn't have to be auto-win. Just fair. Forcing someone to make Perception VS Stealth +20 isn't fair when they're looking for the last known foot print and not the trickster himself.
Ah, but why are they trying to find the last footprint? So they can infer the pinpoint position of the invisible man. It's an attempt to get around a difficult Perception check with a, theoretically, easier one but which achieves the same end result.
That's why I'd just go with a circumstance bonus, much like I would if the invisible man were standing in a brook or in some other environment that may undermine his invisibility's ability to hide him from visual spotting.
If the invisible man is balancing on a visible unicycle, can you not find the invisible man?
If everyone - including the invisible man - is thigh deep in water, can you not find the invisible man by the huge hole in the water?I can go on.
You are just trying to find the square the invisible man is in, if the area happens to be given to perceptible footprints, then a Perception check or two or a Perception check and intelligence check should tell you that.
No. He isn't. He is trying to find something else. Is there something in RAW that says "When in combat, you can ONLY use Perception to find opponents?" Does everything else in the room disappear?Player A: There is dust on the floor I should know where he is.
AND
Player A: It is a dusty room, shouldn't I get a bonus to perception?
In the first case, the player is trying to bypass the perception check entirely. In the second case, the player is asking for a circumstance bonus.
It really doesn't matter what the players is or isn't trying to find. The players is coming from the angle that the footprints in the dust are something that is easily visible, and thus he shouldn't have to make a perception check. I don't give a crap what he is looking for. He is doing it in combat and thus he is under threat of attack and being rushed. The player also has a mental image of a pristine room with a nice even layer of dust and only one set of tracks(IE the ideal situation), the DM has a different idea.
The player's is acting like they have a lot of time to sit there, and figure out exactly where the tracks start and stop with a giant floodlight to illuminate the area nice and evenly, while not having to worry about keeping his guard up against an invisible attacker.
Something that is easy to do when you are not under threat, under good conditions, and have all the time in the world, can become very difficult when you try to do it under pressure and under threat of attack. That is the reason for perception tests and why you can't take a 10 on them in combat.
There is an invisible guy in the room, from his tracks tell me where he is you have 3 seconds. There are 2 other sets of tracks in the room, be sure you get the right ones. Oh BTW, I am going to be trying to slap you in the face constantly while you are doing this exercise. Ready GO!
I hate it when players try to argue that something is easy based on real life while ignoring all the negative factors like being in combat and the fact that torchlight is pretty crappy compared to what we are used to in modern society. Nine times out of ten when a player is making this argument, they are drastically oversimplifying the situation to obtain a mechanics advantage.
If the invisible man is balancing on a visible unicycle, can you not find the invisible man?
If everyone - including the invisible man - is thigh deep in water, can you not find the invisible man by the huge hole in the water?I can go on.
You are just trying to find the square the invisible man is in, if the area happens to be given to perceptible footprints, then a Perception check or two or a Perception check and intelligence check should tell you that.
Depends on the circumstances.
Is the unicycle in motion or motionless as the invisible man is tightly holding onto a nearby pole to balance?Is the thigh deep water flowing rapidly at twilight or still in bright light?
Different circumstances will affect the situation in different ways and it's up to the DM to determine just how much they do. Is the situation in the OP dusty enough to make pinpointing the invisible man a little easier? A lot easier? Are the dusty footprints clear enough that they'd make finding the invisible man a little easier or a lot easier? It's totally a judgment call.
It really doesn't matter what the players is or isn't trying to find. The players is coming from the angle that the footprints in the dust are something that is easily visible, and thus he shouldn't have to make a perception check. I don't give a crap what he is looking for. He is doing it in combat and thus he is under threat of attack and being rushed.
A) Where are you getting that it should be automatic? Everyone is getting their panties in knots over it and I didn't see that assertion made anywhere.
B) Who cares if he is "under attack" and "being rushed?" That means he can't take 10. It doesn't change the check.The player's is acting like they have a lot of time to sit there, and figure out exactly where the tracks start and stop with a giant floodlight to illuminate the area nice and evenly, while not having to worry about keeping his guard up against an invisible attacker.
I don't know how you THINK a basic Perception roll works, but it isn't a close, thorough examination of an area anyway. Unless you take 20. Taking 10 is a basic scan. Rolling is "I get lucky." You could miss a giant table or you could spot a hairline crack in a floor covered in dust and decorated with fake cracks in a move action. If he rolls and make a high enough check, he has spotted what he is looking for if it exists. "I'm looking for a footprint/set of footprints/native dancing circle." and I get a 25 on my perception check in an area where such things could be found. I found it. In a move action.
Sure you can see a visible unicycle(DC 0) that the invisible guy is on, but can you automatically see it 100 feet away(+10 DC) in horrible lighting(+5 DC) while distracted(+5DC) while trying to stop me from slapping you upside the head(under threat)? No.
Please tell me how you are "slapping me upside [my] head" from 100 feet away.
There is an invisible guy in the room, from his tracks tell me where he is you have 3 seconds. Oh BTW, I am going to be trying to slap you in the face constantly while you are doing this exercise. Ready GO!
Ok, you have to tumble between 5 people who are all simultaneously trying to kill you while carrying a backpack and a multitude of knives. Go.
Oh wait, you can't do it? Sorry, your character can't do it either. I decided we were playing "Commoners & Housecats" while you were rolling. You can now only do anything you can do in real life. If you can't demonstrate to me that you can physically do it upon command, your character can't do it either.
Depends on the circumstances.
Is the unicycle in motion or motionless as the invisible man is tightly holding onto a nearby pole to balance?
I don't know if you know this or not, but most unicycles aren't gyroscopically balanced and tend not to point up in the air at rest.
Is the thigh deep water flowing rapidly at twilight or still in bright light?
You would have to make a negative perception check to miss a 2 foot diameter hole in ANY water.
I agree with Cartegan on all points.
You missed the point.
Perception check = free or move action.
Tracking with the survival skill = full round action.
He is saying that if you wanted to use your survival skill to find the guy instead of perception, then you would have to take a full round action.
As for the "Player is trying to take unfair advantage" arguement, that is absolutely what the player is doing. There is a big difference between.
Player A: There is dust on the floor I should know where he is.
AND
Player A: It is a dusty room, shouldn't I get a bonus to perception?
In the first case, the player is trying to bypass the perception check entirely. In the second case, the player is asking for a circumstance bonus.
I can understand circumstances making things harder. Applying a positive or negative circumstance modifier (or raising or lowering the DC) to find the FOOTPRINTS is perfectly justified. Giving the player the DC for something he isn't even looking for, isn't.
It really doesn't matter what the players is or isn't trying to find. The players is coming from the angle that the footprints in the dust are something that is easily visible, and thus he shouldn't have to make a perception check. I don't give a crap what he is looking for. He is doing it in combat and thus he is under threat of attack and being rushed. The player also has a mental image of a pristine room with a nice even layer of dust and only one set of tracks(IE the ideal situation), the DM has a different idea.
You can't have your GM cake and eat it too. If you are having your players make Perception checks to see obvious things just because they are in combat, you need to have them also make checks to find the enemies standing right in front of them because, while in combat, they might miss them. Oh, and you should have them roll to see the weapons swinging at them too. If they fail they should be flat-footed.
Consistency is key in GM rulings.
Or, you know, we could just skip all that absurdity and, like Cartigan said, follow the rules and realize that we can't take 10 on checks in combat but are still perfectly capable of making Perception checks and even noticing obvious things without the need for a check (such as enemies that aren't actively hiding or the sword coming at our necks).
I personally don't believe finding the right footprints would be automatic (though the player in the above scenario clearly does--and is wrong). I would figure it to be DC 20-25, as per the tracking DCs.
However, I also believe that there ARE obvious things that don't require a check at all. The absurd scenario I proposed in this very post (and you seemed to be hinting at) would slow the game down for all and make it no fun for anyone.
A) Where are you getting that it should be automatic? Everyone is getting their panties in knots over it and I didn't see that assertion made anywhere.
Lets see, from the OP.
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.
Oh yeah, how about there.
Please tell me how you are "slapping me upside [my] head" from 100 feet away.
You are looking for the guy on the unicycle, not me. You know where I am because I am standing right beside you(DC 0). Not sure why you are are trying to find him when I am right beside you, but that is really your call.
Oh yeah, how about there.
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.
Automatic compared to an opposed roll with a ridiculous modifier given for not being visible.
You are looking for the guy on the unicycle, not me. You know where I am because I am standing right beside you(DC 0). Not sure why you are are trying to find him when I am right beside you, but that is really your call.
I don't see any tumbling.