Playing a scenario today and our rogue stealths to the other side of a room so he is behind some guards. He then throws a pebble to the side of the room he just came from to cause a noise down the corridor in the hopes of distracting one or both of the guards to go investigate.
The DM ruled that throwing the pebble (not /at/ anyone, just down a corridor) counted as an attack action which gave him a -20 to his stealth check and caused both guards to immediately look directly at him.
Obviously I disagree. Can anyone explain this interpretation to me in a way that makes sense?
I don't know if I'd apply the full penalty for an attack, just because he didn't have to use sufficient force to injure an adult human. Otherwise to a large extent I agree with your GM.
I probably harp on this too much, but I dislike the use of "stealth" as a verb. You can deceive yourself very easily if you focus on what dice you rolled, rather than what your character physically did. He moved silently and then he hid.
First, it doesn't matter if he was "behind some guards" as there's no facing in Pathfinder. Was he behind some cover? If the guards could see him, he certainly should have had a problem and needed an immediate new Stealth check if he made a sudden movement.
If he was hidden from their view, that's a little bit better. He just had to control the noise of picking up the pebble, then possible noises from his gear, shifts of his feet, expelled breath and so on when making the afore-mentioned sharp hand movement.
He didn't remain still and quiet. He threw something. He needed exceptional skill to complete that physical effort without giving himself away, which apparently he failed to do.
This is about Bluff and/or Sleight of Hand, because you're trying to create a diversion. I'd probably handle it this way: if the room is brigtly lit, the guards get a Perception check to see the stone flying (if they succeed, they can estimate your location). If not, it's an attack roll to see how well you hit the square you intended, and you'd use Sleight of Hand in combination with Bluff vs. Sense Motive (as per the rules for creating a diversion; the attack roll would not be that relevant). Then it would be a Stealth check vs. the guards' Perception, and I'd give you a +2 circumstance/synergy bonus on this for luring the guards away (on top of any penalties they'd get on Perception for distance).
I need more coffee (just woke up), but I think that's more or less how I'd adjudicate this sort of situation.
Sleight of Hand vs. Sense Motive is probably right to decide whether the noise down the corridor was convincing enough to draw the guards to investigate, if they failed to notice the rogue making the throw.
Starglim wrote: I don't know if I'd apply the full penalty for an attack, just because he didn't have to use sufficient force to injure an adult human. Otherwise to a large extent I agree with your GM.
I probably harp on this too much, but I dislike the use of "stealth" as a verb. You can deceive yourself very easily if you focus on what dice you rolled, rather than what your character physically did. He moved silently and then he hid.
First, it doesn't matter if he was "behind some guards" as there's no facing in Pathfinder. Was he behind some cover? If the guards could see him, he certainly should have had a problem and needed an immediate new Stealth check if he made a sudden movement.
If he was hidden from their view, that's a little bit better. He just had to control the noise of picking up the pebble, then possible noises from his gear, shifts of his feet, expelled breath and so on when making the afore-mentioned sharp hand movement.
He didn't remain still and quiet. He threw something. He needed exceptional skill to complete that physical effort without giving himself away, which apparently he failed to do.
I say "behind" only as an indication that he passed by the other side of them, not as a reference to facing. The whole stealth thing is abstract, of course - the same as facing is abstract. The idea being that if you "stealth" then you are making all efforts to be out of the sight and hearing of any potential observers, whether you do so by avoiding the way they are facing or whatever. While I agree that doing an action would cause a new perception check for any potential observers (because, as you say, he had to prevent his equipment making sound and his sudden movement being noticed), I still don't see why it would attract a -20 stealth penalty. I'm pretty sure the spirit of that penalty is meant to be when you are attacking someone (or sniping, as specifically mentioned in the stealth rules).
"Throw a pebble to cause a distraction while stealthed" is a fairly cliched move. Still not convinced that ruling a -20 penalty on it is realistic.
Ballig, I fully agree with you. It is cause for a Bluff roll and if this one fails (ie, the guards get suspicious) for a new Stealth vs Perception contest. That is how I would rule it anyway.
Concerning the -20 penalty for sniping (which is a very specific case and not what the Rogue was attempting IMO), did the GM asked for an attack roll ? If not, then it was not an attack and that's it.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Since he didn´t attack anyone, there was no need for an attack roll. That should have been clearly a bluff check, its specified in the bluff description. Perhaps if the player rolled a 1 something could have happened, but otherwise not. If he fails the bluff DC, the guards simply are not going into the other room, nothing else. If he near the guards, he has to make a stalth check every round normally, no penalty but opposed by their perception checks.
The only thing doubtable here is how you play stealth and thats always walking a line like playing so many skills. You want to play it out, check where you hide when, how is the light, blablabla, or you just make checks with modifiers as written and play it abstract.
Personally i came to like the second more, because most DM dont give that detailed information on terrain and whatever and it takes real long time slowing down the game. Same with playing out Diplomacy too much. Thats all the stuff skillrolls are made for.
I would say in this case it was wrong ruling from DM or perhaps intended to keep the player from something, but badly made. Secret perception check with + modifier for not wanting the player to go there is much more easy and diplomatic solution. Throwing a stone in a direction, even through an open door is no attack action. Ask your DM to read skill descriptions again.
Yeah, there was no attack roll made. One of the other players suggested it should be a bluff roll, but the DM insisted that the rules clearly state an attack action causes a -20 to your stealth and that is why the guards were looking directly at the rogue.
Honestly, it was because he knew the guards were a low CR (he even said it afterwards) and he just wanted us to kill them and get on with it. He doesn't really like it when we're cautious because he feels it slows down the game. Of course, we don't really like it when we all get killed, and we're not privy to the CR of an encounter ahead of time. If he had just pushed us to continue on instead of trying to pull out some crazy rules interpretation (and then tell me that *I* was misinterpreting the rules when I suggest a distraction like this shouldn't cause a penalty) I would probably have been fine with it.
He has a bit of a history of crazy "by the wording of the book" interpretations that end up with people having some kind of magical penalty or disadvantage bestowed on them for no real reason. He's also a rules lawyer when he plays, so it's not entirely surprising. Sometimes it ends up feeling a bit more like a computer game than a tabletop RPG, with far too much rigidity in the rulings and not enough DM discretion.
Thanks for your input, guys. At least I know I'm not completely crazy with my interpretation if a few others agree, and the one guy who was leaning on the side of my DM probably wouldn't have gone with a gung-ho -20 penalty.
In future I'd suggest just saying "I use Bluff to create a distraction", instead of describing a specific action. That way he can't use odd interpretations to pervert what you were actually trying to accomplish.
Uhh,I'm the rogue in question, and the DM didn't rule that. He ruled that they just got to re-roll their perception check.
Judge for yourself.
IRC Log wrote: [4:49:17 PM] <+Rogue> I chuck the pebble
[4:49:38 PM] <@DM> they look at you
[4:49:38 PM] <+Ballig> "Caution does not mean a lack of confidence."
[4:49:57 PM] <@DM> and ready their quarterstaves
[4:50:02 PM] <+Cleric> they look at him?
[4:50:25 PM] <@DM> yes
[4:50:43 PM] * +Rogue swears under his breath
[4:51:10 PM] <+Ballig> is he within their torchlight?
[4:51:24 PM] <@DM> have you seen the modifiers to hide after attacking
[4:51:27 PM] <@DM> it's a -20
[4:51:31 PM] <+Ballig> er
[4:51:32 PM] <@DM> and yes
[4:51:35 PM] <+Ballig> who did he attack
[4:51:41 PM] <+Rogue> Is chucking a pebble counted as attacking?
[4:51:48 PM] <+Ballig> he didn't throw anything at them
[4:52:02 PM] <+Ballig> it's a misdirection
[4:53:24 PM] <@DM> yes
[4:53:30 PM] <+Ballig> er
[4:53:32 PM] <+Ballig> that makes no sense
[4:53:39 PM] <+Ballig> you can't just interpret "throwing a pebble" as an attack action
[4:53:45 PM] <+Ballig> and then insist he gets a magic -20 to his stealth because of it
[4:53:47 PM] <@DM> sure I can
[4:53:50 PM] <@DM> and I just did
The names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
