Well that's weird.
Then why, exactly, would it be DC 20 + Stealth to figure out where a sound is coming from if emitted from an invisible person?
The +20 DC penalty for invisibility is only for perception checks involving vision.
Because you are asking the wrong question.
Which is easier?
A. Figuring out where a person is hiding.
B. Figuring out where an invisible person is hiding.
No matter how you slice it finding a person location via sight and sound will always be easier than finding them by sound alone.
Well that's weird.
If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.
Well that's weird.If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.
I think you missed something in the "blinded" description:
All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.
Well that's weird.If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.
I never noticed that. That is silly.
Well that's weird.If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.I think you missed something in the "blinded" description:
All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't quite know how to apply it.
Either that restriction only applies to perception checks involving sight alone or a blind person cannot ever find the location of an enemy hiding because sight is involved.
So to be a little more clear. Either
Finding a stealthed rogue
Perception vs Stealth
Finding an invisible stealthed rogue
Perception vs stealth +20
Blind person finding a stealthed rogue
Perception -4 vs stealth
OR
Finding a stealthed rogue
Perception vs Stealth
Finding an invisible stealthed rogue
Perception vs stealth +20
Blind person finding a stealthed rogue
Autofail.
Either way you look at it, being blind has completely different effects from invisibility.
Which is easier?A. Figuring out where a person is hiding.
B. Figuring out where an invisible person is hiding.
Exactly the same if "figuring out where they are hiding" is simply "figuring out which 5' foot square they are located in."
Well that's weird.If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.I think you missed something in the "blinded" description:
All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.
So being blind gives you a -4 to hear a stealthing character. Excellent.
It's like every time I learn about a new penalty to perception, I gain a +2 circumstance bonus to hating the combination of Spot and Listen.
Exactly the same if "figuring out where they are hiding" is simply "figuring out which 5' foot square they are located in."
Which is easier?A. Figuring out where a person is hiding.
B. Figuring out where an invisible person is hiding.
Not according to the RAW. If you don't like it, change it.
Stealth vs Perception opposed roll assumes you are trying to spot them using all of your senses. The +20 is because you are trying to spot him without being able to see him.I don't believe that to be true at all in a great many cases. Pathfinder grants all kinds of bonuses/penalties that only apply when certain senses are being used.
Why would they do that if it always incorporated all the senses? Answer: It doesn't. Not always.
I agree, not always. In many cases you are to perceive something specific that can only use one sense(hear a bow shot).
In others, you are using multiple senses. Searching for a hidden door might involve looking, feeling the surface, knocking on the surface and listening to the sound it makes.
I was refering to the specific case of stealth vs perception, Pathfinder combined Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Spot and Listen into perception, thus stealth and perception are meant to incorporate seeing AND hearing in that specific case. If you are unable to see or hear, then you should have a penalty to perception vs stealth opposed rolls.
I agree.
However, I still don't think mere footprints should get a +20 DC regardless of whether those who made them are invisible or not. They are not themselves, invisible.
I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.
Not according to the RAW. If you don't like it, change it.Exactly the same if "figuring out where they are hiding" is simply "figuring out which 5' foot square they are located in."
Which is easier?A. Figuring out where a person is hiding.
B. Figuring out where an invisible person is hiding.
A character behind a pillar is, effectively, invisible.
The RAW is stupid. The way people are applying RAW is stupider.
Well that's weird.If you want to focus on absurdities, ponder why being blinded is a -4 penalty to perception, and being invisible is a +20 bonus to stealth checks.I think you missed something in the "blinded" description:
All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character.So being blind gives you a -4 to hear a stealthing character. Excellent.
It's like every time I learn about a new penalty to perception, I gain a +2 circumstance bonus to hating the combination of Spot and Listen.
If you want to be really absurd, technically, the bonuses stack.
So, a blind person trying to find an invisible rogue is
perception -4 vs stealth +20
But we are well past the point of invoking rule zero.
I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.
The combination of Hide and Move Silently makes sense. The combination of Search and Spot made sense. The combination of the latter with the disparate sense skill Listen doesn't.
I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.
For the most part, I treat the skills just like I did in v3.5.
If a person in my Pathfinder game puts ranks in Perception, I just go on like they had equal ranks in both Spot and Listen. Same with Stealth, and Hide and Move Silently, respectively. It makes things easy for us old fogies coming from older editions.
A character behind a pillar is, effectively, invisible.The RAW is stupid. The way people are applying RAW is stupider.
My issues with RAW in this matter are
The bonus for invisible is too much. It should be +10 at most. If you look at it +20 to a skill is way way out of line. That is before you factor in that it is an unnamed bonus and stacks with everything.
Total concealment should be effectively identical to being invisible.
The penalties for being blind should be more clearly written and of similar magnitude.
Being blind grants total concealment to all foes with no other penalties to perception.
I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.The combination of Hide and Move Silently makes sense. The combination of Search and Spot made sense. The combination of the latter with the disparate sense skill Listen doesn't.
What about the invisible guy that steps on a stick(insert other noise as needed)? People in a high magic world know invisibility is possible so they would not just ignore like we would if we looked up and there was nobody there.
I know the sound might not give away exact location, but at least you would know that you were not alone.
I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.The combination of Hide and Move Silently makes sense. The combination of Search and Spot made sense. The combination of the latter with the disparate sense skill Listen doesn't.
The problem is that at that point, NOT combining listen and spot makes stealthing a lot more difficult.
One of the big problems with stealth in 3.5 was that everyone got to make 2 rolls(spot and listen) to know you were there. Sneaking up on a camp of 5 commoners meant 10 rolls. Someone was bound to roll a 19 or 20. A level 3 rogue would be doing good to have a +10 stealth, and they would have to roll above average to avoid detection.
If you combine stealth into a single roll you pretty much have to combine spot and listen into a single roll for the sake of balance.
People in a high magic world know invisibility is possible
Even on a high magic world it is quite the assumption that EVERYONE knows such things. People can be ignorant of the most basic/common things on any world. I've listed just a few examples:
- Hick farmers that know everything about their land and about being a farmer, but nothing about the outside world.
- Antisocial cults that keep members away from the rest of the world.
- Isolationist tribal cultures.
etc.
My brother, a professional chef for YEARS, almost burnt his house down because he attempted to "boil" oil. There's a reason stupid warning labels are everywhere. People often miss the basics growing up. The invention of the internet makes this more readily apparent then it used to be.
The problem is that at that point, NOT combining listen and spot makes stealthing a lot more difficult.I think I am going to split perception back into listen and spot, while making search a part of spot. Hide and move silently will also be brought back into the game.The combination of Hide and Move Silently makes sense. The combination of Search and Spot made sense. The combination of the latter with the disparate sense skill Listen doesn't.
Not really. You can listen to find some one or try to spot some one. It's the same opposed DC.
One of the big problems with stealth in 3.5 was that everyone got to make 2 rolls(spot and listen) to know you were there.
So? You also had two rolls - one against each roll being made to find you.
If you combine stealth into a single roll you pretty much have to combine spot and listen into a single roll for the sake of balance.
How so? Two skills are harder to improve than a single one. They get two rolls to find you, but the chance that both of them are maxed out? Slim. They would likely get a good chance and a bad chance or two mediocre chances.
People in a high magic world know invisibility is possibleEven on a high magic world it is quite the assumption that EVERYONE knows such things. People can be ignorant of the most basic/common things on any world. I've listed just a few examples:
- Hick farmers that know everything about their land and about being a farmer, but nothing about the outside world.
- Antisocial cults that keep members away from the rest of the world.
- Isolationist tribal cultures.
etc.
My brother, a professional chef for YEARS, almost burnt his house down because he attempted to "boil" oil. There's a reason stupid warning labels are everywhere. People often miss the basics growing up. The invention of the internet makes this more readily apparent then it used to be.
Hick or adventurer, if a stick snaps and you assume you are alone, you are going to check it out. You don't have to be invisible to be sneaking up on some one.
People in a high magic world know invisibility is possibleEven on a high magic world it is quite the assumption that EVERYONE knows such things. People can be ignorant of the most basic/common things on any world. I've listed just a few examples:
- Hick farmers that know everything about their land and about being a farmer, but nothing about the outside world.
- Antisocial cults that keep members away from the rest of the world.
- Isolationist tribal cultures.
etc.
My brother, a professional chef for YEARS, almost burnt his house down because he attempted to "boil" oil. There's a reason stupid warning labels are everywhere. People often miss the basics growing up. The invention of the internet makes this more readily apparent then it used to be.
Most games have you sneaking up on the dangerous people, not commoners. I do realize I did not specify that.
So? You also had two rolls - one against each roll being made to find you.
That actually made it worse for the sneaky character. With separate hide and move silent rolls, you have 2 chances to screw up. IE if you rolled bad on either roll you will give away your position.
If you combine stealth into a single roll you pretty much have to combine spot and listen into a single roll for the sake of balance.How so? Two skills are harder to improve than a single one. They get two rolls to find you, but the chance that both of them are maxed out? Slim. They would likely get a good chance and a bad chance or two mediocre chances.
I am talking about them using the skill untrained with a 10 wisdom.
If you are taking a 10 on stealth, you have to have a +11 stealth to avoid being detected by a group of 10 commoners with a 0 wisdom. 10 people, 2 rolls each is 20 rolls. 20 rolls means someone is very likely to roll a 20.
FYI +11 stealth requires you to be level 4 with maxed ranks in stealth and an 18 dexterity.
So a level 4 rogue who roll a 9 or less(45% chance) for his stealth roll is very likely to be caught by a group of 10 level 1 commoners with no ranks in spot or listen.
TLDR - Rolling 2 d20 and taking the highest give you an average roll of 14, thus giving everyone 2 perception rolls vs stealth is roughly the same effect as giving everyone around a +2 to +4 to their perception skill.
Yes, statistically a bunch of people are likely to eventually win an opposed roll against one person. I don't see how that proves your point.
TLDR - Rolling 2 d20 and taking the highest give you an average roll of 14,
What?
Yes, statistically a bunch of people are likely to eventually win an opposed roll against one person. I don't see how that proves your point.
My point is that by giving everyone a spot AND a listen check against stealth you are effectively doubling the number of rolls they get, and thus doubling their chances of finding the hidden character.
With pathfinder perception rules, it would require 20 commoners to find the rogue instead of 10.
Nevermind the fact that the PF rules speed things up a lot by halving the number of rolls you have to make in these situations.
TLDR - Rolling 2 d20 and taking the highest give you an average roll of 14,What?
Roll 1d20, your average 10.5 will be.
Rolling 2 d20s and take the highest, your average result will be 13.9.
Rolling 3 d20 and take the highest, your average result will be 15.5.
By splitting spot and listen, you are effectively giving everyone 2 rolls to find a stealthed character. That is roughly the same as giving all stealthed characters a -3 to stealth.
Nevermind the fact that the PF rules speed things up a lot by halving the number of rolls you have to make in these situations.
"A lot?" What were you guys doing at the table?
Roll 1d20, your average 10.5 will be.Rolling 2 d20s and take the highest, your average result will be 13.9.
Rolling 3 d20 and take the highest, your average result will be 15.5.
By splitting spot and listen, you are effectively giving everyone 2 rolls to find a stealthed character. That is roughly the same as giving all stealthed characters a -3 to stealth.
But there are already 5 people in a party. It's a wonder stealth ever works.
Nevermind the fact that the PF rules speed things up a lot by halving the number of rolls you have to make in these situations."A lot?" What were you guys doing at the table?
Having to roll 2 rolls for every NPC can take a while if there are a lot of them.
But there are already 5 people in a party. It's a wonder stealth ever works.
Roll 1d20, your average 10.5 will be.Rolling 2 d20s and take the highest, your average result will be 13.9.
Rolling 3 d20 and take the highest, your average result will be 15.5.
By splitting spot and listen, you are effectively giving everyone 2 rolls to find a stealthed character. That is roughly the same as giving all stealthed characters a -3 to stealth.
5 d20 take highest gives an average of 17.
10 d20 take highest gives an average of 19.So you just gave a party of 5 an effective +2 to finding stealthers.
I completely agreed, stealth against a group is already hard enough without giving everyone 2 perception rolls.
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.
I would let the players know this 2 ways. 1) would be by spellcraft (he just cast invisibility) and 2) Perception check to hear him moving away. Adventurers without spellcraft don't know what words= invisibility, but I'm sure they're aware its a possibility and if you can't see someone but you still hear them
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.
This would technically be a survival roll, since you are tracking. Given the dusty floor I would set the dc at 10 for general direction and 20 for exact square.
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?
Probably the GM having a little more control than i'm comfortable with... unless PC A is a half orc with an int of 8 and a wisdom to match, or an awakened porcupine or something.
The dm should counter by having the invisble mage cast unseen servant to make footprints next time the situation comes up.
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.
I would let the players know this 2 ways. 1) would be by spellcraft (he just cast invisibility) and 2) Perception check to hear him moving away. Adventurers without spellcraft don't know what words= invisibility, but I'm sure they're aware its a possibility and if you can't see someone but you still hear them
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.
This would technically be a survival roll, since you are tracking. Given the dusty floor I would set the dc at 10 for general direction and 20 for exact square.
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?
Probably the GM having a little more control than i'm comfortable with... unless PC A is a half orc with an int of 8 and a wisdom to match, or an awakened porcupine or something.
The dm should counter by having the invisble mage cast unseen servant to make footprints next time the situation comes up.
+1 to this. GM in the scenario posted by RagingDork gave the Impression that Player A was fishing for either a complete negation of the Invisibility or was being very clever but was constrained by the RAW. The GM, however, definitely did push a little too far in 'control' of the Character, which is never a good thing.
As has been mentioned several times now, such a situation falls squarely on the GM's shoulders. Valid points have been raised about Survival being used here, and I agree with the theory, but right now, RAW does not allow this Skill to be used as a Full Round Action at least, let alone the negative modifiers if you try to move at full speed or more.
A complete smack to the chops is also warranted for Player B, but I'll get to that later.
As a GM, I NEVER allow myself to 'your character doesn't think to ....' if the PCs have mentioned that they were going to. It's god-modding their characters and ruins their sense of ownership and immersion of their Player Characters.
The other thing I've noticed here is that Player A, despite knowing that Invisibility is going to grant a heft "eff you" negative modifier to Perception Checks in regard to visual clues, they didn't try to listen for the Trickster or again try tactics that either negate or bypass the nature of the spell the Trickster used.
The closest example of this level of derrrrrrrr would be a Fighter trying to slash away at a powerful Skeleton with a Slashing Weapon, or a Sorcerer throwing fireballs at an Ethereal opponent. Such actions have happened to all of us, fatigue, thinking about other things while at the table, so on and so forth, etc etc etc, but in such a case Player A was asking the GM to nerf his NPC Trickster by using a Skill in a way it was not supported by the rules.
While the GM is out of line for man-handling the PC, the Player was 'wrong' for trying to slip such an action past the GM. Player B deserves the aforementioned smack to the chops for cheese, although given the example we don't know, he may have rolled a natural 20 with maximum ranks for his level in Perception, with the GM already giving a bonus to the roll for the dust and movement of the Trickster. The example doesn't give us a lot of information to work with, which is a pity as I do agree that having the ranks in Survival should have given the player a small bonus to his Perception roll, either as yet another stack of the GM's Friend (+2) or maybe a higher bonus again (+10 is going a bit too far, unless we are talking 'dust' thick enough and damp enough to hold a firm imprint without just going 'poof' around the offending appendages and then flying up into the air.).
Again, GM was wrong in the description of the character's roll. Rather than 'Your character doesn't think to look for tracks' a better description would have been 'Your character looks for fresh tracks in the dust to narrow down the location of the enemy, but the constant movement has stirred up the dust too much and covered most of the area in that room. Eddies of wind swirl through the dust, and several large clouds of dust appear to be moving in different directions."
The above description gives the player the information that 1) His perception check has failed, but his idea was sound. 2) he knows [once the GM points out which squares are now filled with dust-clouds] that the Trickster is likely not in, due to the Dust sticking to and making his Invisibility Spell much less effective. 3) The GM has pointed out several likely targets with the thicker sections of the dust swirling around, likely in the wake of the Trickster. 4) And most importantly, the Character is still being moved solely by the Player.
Bah, should not be posting this late at night. Spelling Errors = Cat-like Typing! *flings cats over his shoulders* Nobody ever mentioned that five cats can bring a very persuasive argument to go to bed when they sit on your hands at 2 in the morning. Bah.
well your DM and you were kind of off on this one, your right your looking for foot prints to locate him, so that would be a search check to locate where he could be at not really spot. Search is an active function spot is more " oh whats that" out of the corner of your eye. That said here is the problem with your idea.
You look for foot prints and you see several dozen foot prints, yours, your partys and his(gonna assume fight was going on since you didnt really say) and possibly others have been here. So now you have half a dozen foot prints in the room so which one was it? only some one with tracking could probably discern for sure.
Essentially speaking he was kind of right in why you couldn't just shoot him, but partially wrong as to the reason why. Its not about rules but common sense here, you knew what he was doing and you know what he did so your trying to " locate " the enemy but using foot prints? not best tactic since are probably dozens of foot prints in the area. Now if you have tracking and time to use it yes i think you could locate him.
just my opinion at least thats how i'd handle it as a DM.
Thread Title Answered: Both.