The more I think about it, the more I want to just use the differential between (modified) Stealth and (modified) Perception.
If the differential is a positive number: multiply by 10 to get the distance where the perceiver normally becomes aware of the hider. The hider may approach even closer, but can no longer take 10 on his Stealth check. If hider and perceiver are both aware when combat begins, use normal initiative. If either party is unaware, use a surprise round.
If the differential is a negative number: the hider can "sneak up behind" the perceiver. This means the hider does not need concealment or cover to hide in for one round.
This probably isn't information the characters should have.
How i usually run it is that one group declares "i'm going to try to get within x feet (usually charge/sneak attack range), or "we're going to ambush them when they reach X distance away" and that gives them their stealth bonus,
Clarification: "(modified) Stealth and (modified) Perception" was intended to mean the bonuses not the rolls. So there's no d20 roll at all here, it is just a means of choosing the distance at which a stealth roll becomes necessary.
Under this system, a high base-speed is the hider's best friend if they want to "sneak up behind" someone.
@BigNorseWolf: There would be no rolling at all until the awareness threshold was crossed. Players would not know anything at all. It gives the GM vastly simple numbers to work with.
It does eliminate the possibility of someone getting lucky and noticing someone they shouldn't usually notice, but otherwise it's a wonderful time saver.
The more I think about it, the more I want to just use the differential between (modified) Stealth and (modified) Perception. (snip)
Interesting concept.
Would you skill impose a check on both sides in distracted/rushed/threatened conditions? Would you considers these a mere penalty (or bonus on the other's skill?
Alternatively would you impose a check only on the side that is distracted/rushed/threatened?
If skill checks are involved at one point or an other, the amplitude of the negative differential number (i.e. in advantage of the sneaker) could set the number of rounds/minutes/miles of hiding/sneaking/trailing before the target gets an actual check.
'findel
How is this any different than assuming that the stealther and spotter are both taking 10s?
I personally don't like the huge swing you get on opposed rolls in general. It means that a master rogue with a +20 stealth can't sneak past a group of commoners with wisdom 12 because one of them rolled a 20, and he rolled a 1. Meanwhile, the party can't spot the commoner with a 12 dex because they rolled a 20 and the party can't roll above a 5.
Having a 38 point swing means that being succesful at sneaking is more lucky that skill. I am definately in favor of something that removes some of the luck involved, but removing both rolls seems a little extreme.
How is this any different than assuming that the stealther and spotter are both taking 10s?
It's not.
I find that stealth is a lot easier to GM if you think about it as a radius. I introduced a "sneak behind" option to fill a perceived needs, right now, I'm messing around with different possible versions.
If you don't like the swing on opposed rolls, you're in good company here. However, I still think an opposed roll is fine for certain types of behavior — but not setting the base awareness range. If the PC wants to be directly behind the NPC and within striking distance, that should still require a roll, I think.
This is awfully close to the rule I use for how far apart groups are when they notice each other in encounters (although I only multiply by 10 in dark, dank dungeon settings, everywhere else has a higher multiplier than a mere 10 feet). Normally I use the best perception of each group opposed by the worst stealth of the other, and I also apply a stealth penalty based on the size of the group (normally the square root of the group size minus one or thereabouts, so that bona-fide armies are detectable even if not actually targetable miles away).
Can you tell me more about this?
The more I think about it, the more I want to just use the differential between (modified) Stealth and (modified) Perception.
If the differential is a positive number: multiply by 10 to get the distance where the perceiver normally becomes aware of the hider. The hider may approach even closer, but can no longer take 10 on his Stealth check. If hider and perceiver are both aware when combat begins, use normal initiative. If either party is unaware, use a surprise round.
If the differential is a negative number: the hider can "sneak up behind" the perceiver. This means the hider does not need concealment or cover to hide in for one round.
Request For Clarification:
Differential = {Perception modifier} - {Stealth modifier}?
(Note, from your phrasing, while this seems implied by the results indicated, the mathematician in me is stuck thinking "but the difference *between* two integers is always positive!" ( |a - b| ))
Or were you using the word "differential" in its more formal mathematical mode (in which case I'm totally lost as to your meaning and intention).
Having a 38 point swing means that being succesful at sneaking is more lucky that skill. I am definately in favor of something that removes some of the luck involved, but removing both rolls seems a little extreme.
In a number of cases, I've given modifiers (sometimes substantial modifiers) to characters who manage to observe the creatures they're trying to Stealth past or up to. Obviously, that's only situationally appropriate, and only if players are willing to be patient. Also, usually I only give large modifiers for this if the creature(s) that might spot the sneaking character are not particularly vigilant.
Stealth is frustratingly situational.
I am no mathematician. When I said differential, I meant Perception modifier - Stealth modifier.
More later!
I learned all that in french, but I was under the impressions that difference is the result of a subtraction, which can be negative.
3 minus 4 wields a difference of -1. The same way that -3 multiplied by 2 wields a product of -6.
I don't know if there's a word in English for absolute difference, which is always positive...
|
I learned all that in french, but I was under the impressions that difference is the result of a subtraction, which can be negative.
3 minus 4 wields a difference of -1. The same way that -3 multiplied by 2 wields a product of -6.
I don't know if there's a word in English for absolute difference, which is always positive...
This is the correct meaning of difference. It can be negative. The difference of 3 and 4 is -1. The difference of 4 and 3 is 1.
There is a term for |a-b|, and Laurefindel has inadvertently identified it. It is called Absolute Difference. You might also say Distance, or Distance on the Number Line if you really want to stress that these are abstract numbers.
Some cool mathy things
+1 to any rule involving square root. This seems pretty intuitive to me. You must be subtracting 1 so that an individual would have a penalty of 0 (sqrt(1) -1). Again, Kudos.
Forget the math.
Just make the rolls when people are as far apart as your dinner table allows.