| Shinigaze |
So a situation came up where enemies were sneaking up on us from a distance. One player at the table suggested that whenever a creature makes a stealth check that everyone gets an opposed perception check to notice the creature. I agree with this what he said but we disagreed when it came to distance. He was saying that you should get an opposed check regardless of distance, so for example rogue is coming up to a guard, starts stealth 200 feet away he says that the guard should automatically get an opposed roll to perceive him. I realize there are conditional modifiers to perception that would reduce his chance to see the rogue but discounting that and assuming he could see regardless of any negative modifiers is this true?
| Shinigaze |
I realize that there is no point if you can't beat it, I'm just asking when you should be allowed to roll an opposed perception check against an enemy's stealth.
Example:
Bill the Paladin with no ranks in stealth is 200 feet away from Hank the guard. Against all reason Bill decides to try and stealth up to the guard knowing full well that he is bad at stealthing and a paladin. He rolls a 1 on his stealth and with no modifiers gets a grand total of 1 to his stealth roll. According to my friend, Hank the guard should immediately get an opposed perception roll against the stealth. Now Hank took some time adventuring before he decided to retire and to his life as a humble city guard so Hank has 3 levels in Fighter, he put 3 skill points into his perception skill and has a pretty average wisdom of 12 so with synergy and ranks and ability modifiers his perception has a grand total of 7. Lets say he rolls and gets a 15 so his perception is a 22, with negative modifiers for distance he takes a -20 to his perception check but still succeeds with a 2 and see Bill who had a 1 stealth.
This situation seems kind of incredulous to me because I keep seeing his image of Hank standing around and then going "SHHHH!!!....... I hear someone stealthing........ there he is!!!"
| hgsolo |
I'd say it depends on the terrain. If it is an open area 200ft away is very easy to see someone, but not necessarily hear them. In a heavily wooded area the guy is much harder to see but easier to hear. The example you gave would basically have Bill (at a grand total of 1) bumping into just about everything possible and cursing audibly at himself for stepping on every twig. While there may not be critical successes or failures, that's about as close as you can get. Basically, I see no problem with that range increment.
I don't quite no where I'd cap the distance, but I wouldn't have someone roll stealth unless they could conceivably be perceived. So your friend's interpretation is fair enough.
| Lightbulb |
| Lightbulb |
I suppose you could also say:
Distracted -10 to all Perception rolls or something. Are two guards talking for example.
If someone is actively 'on guard' as in they are guarding a camp and night and being alert - no penalty.
'On guard' but in a sleepy town where nothing happens -5
'On guard' but in a sleepy town where nothing happens, late at night -10+
There can always be conditional modifiers for circumstances.
High wind -5 (or more) to 'listen' based checks.
Fog -20 to vision based checks out to 100ft
That kind of thing.
This is why RPG's need a GM. Much as some people play it like a board game its NOT. The rules cannot cover everything. Break the rules is wrong. Supplementing them is not only good, its vital.
Diego Rossi
|
The rules for wilderness (about halfway in that page) give the encounter distances for different terrains. Unless there are special circumstances those are the suggested distances at which you should start to make stealth and perception checks.
I say suggested as, AFAIK, there are no iron clad rules about that.
| Shinigaze |
The rules for wilderness (about halfway in that page) give the encounter distances for different terrains. Unless there are special circumstances those are the suggested distances at which you should start to make stealth and perception checks.
I say suggested as, AFAIK, there are no iron clad rules about that.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
| Shifty |
200 feet is really not very far.
A Paladin with no skill at sneaking about bumbling along bumping into things (rolling a 1) is pretty obvious to all but the blind and deaf cripple with a cup hoping for coppers.
Assuming your no skill Paladin managed to have an average roll (ie didn't completely bungle) he'd have ended up a fair bit closer, and be able to close the distance very quickly once 'discovered'.
I agree that there should be opposed checks used, but with the caveat that they take all their modifiers too.
What I find cheezy is the minute you ask for checks the players magically become more alert and tactical...
Maybe have them throw down a couple of rolls each to represent their alertness on that guard shift or whatever.
| Talonhawke |
200 feet is really not very far.
A Paladin with no skill at sneaking about bumbling along bumping into things (rolling a 1) is pretty obvious to all but the blind and deaf cripple with a cup hoping for coppers.
Assuming your no skill Paladin managed to have an average roll (ie didn't completely bungle) he'd have ended up a fair bit closer, and be able to close the distance very quickly once 'discovered'.
I agree that there should be opposed checks used, but with the caveat that they take all their modifiers too.
What I find cheezy is the minute you ask for checks the players magically become more alert and tactical...Maybe have them throw down a couple of rolls each to represent their alertness on that guard shift or whatever.
I agree on both points here first off seeing the paladin can't be that hard he is harder to see than a football and kicks and passes go around 200 ft quite often in games.
Second I would tell the players that if they aren't asking for checks you will apply stealth as if they are taking 10 and only call for a roll if its reasonably close IE a player when taking 10 has a 22 the goblin is stealthing ona 25 its roll time if the goblin had a 45 no point in rolling.
| Buri |
Keep in mind that just because someone succeeds in rolling a greater perception vs stealth, it doesn't mean they know the intent or "what is actually going on" when they notice the person. All it means is that they become aware of the other person. It's not like the guard would instantly shout "I see you trying to be stealthy! Attack!!!! gaaaa!!!" That's unrealistic. For all he knows, you're just some shmuck out in the woods, if you're out in the woods that is. The GM can say you stepped on a twig or whatever but in the end all it means is that the guard now knows where you are. Unless conditions change, the guard knows where you are and until they do, you can't make another stealth roll.
| MurphysParadox |
Unless you are dressed in a ninja costume and make a diving roll every time you have to cross open space wider than 1 meter. Also constantly assuming martial arts stances would also be suspicious. ^^
Wider than a meter? Why the limitation? Ninja rolls are to be made for ALL sneaky movement. If the roll distance is further than what you needed, you have to keep rolling until you end behind cover.
There is probably a way to construct a maze such that a ninja can never stop rolling. Heh. That's a good mental picture: a few dozen ninjas rolling around forever.
karkon
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally have guards take 10. If their perception beats your stealth (plus or minus other modifiers not including distance) then any points that exceed your roll go to distance.
For example: if you roll 20 on stealth and the guard rolls 23 then he sees you 30 feet away. If the guard rolls a 20 then he sees you at less than 10 feet.