| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or at least a penalty to perception, now that move silently and stealth have been combined? This of course, if the silenced stealther is smart enough to stay at a distance where an opponent won't be affected by the spell and notice something is wrong.
You no longer make sound but you can still be seen, smelled, sensed as you move along the ground, etc.
I'd say it is up to the GM, as always, to determine which senses are being employed with the perception check. Just like a creature with scent can perceive something completely obscured from view and making no sound, silence won't help you stealth across an open field in broad daylight towards guards staring directly at you.
Assuming normal human guards with no special senses (e.g. tremorsense) it would depend on line of sight. If there's a giant wall in between you and them, or they are completely distracted and facing the wrong way, that should result in an impossibility to spot you.
That said, they should immediately notice when the silence bubble hits them and they can't hear anything any more. But most likely that'll be right before you stab or thump them dead.
No, there is no bonus. I always thought there should be since in 3.5 you would only have to make the hide check and not the move silent check.
No, there is no bonus. I always thought there should be since in 3.5 you would only have to make the hide check and not the move silent check.
Agreed. But by RAW, you get no bonus.
Was there ever a ruling on this? It seems like silence should help stealth, but I can't find any sort of ruling on it.
|
Or at least a penalty to perception, now that move silently and stealth have been combined? This of course, if the silenced stealther is smart enough to stay at a distance where an opponent won't be affected by the spell and notice something is wrong.
By RAW there is no bonus.
However, I think it'd be Fair and Sensible if the GM ruled a general +2 for being Silent, since we have 5 senses and one of those obviously wouldn't help anymore, or a +8/+10 if an enemy were specifically trying to find you by Sound alone.
DM/GM applied circumstance bonus is currently the extent of any bonus from Silence to Stealth.
No, there is no bonus by RAW. As a GM, any attempt to percieve you based on sound would fail, but most creatures rely primarily on sight not sound. If I were feeling generous I might give you a +2 to a situation depending on the specifics of it.
I think Rory nailed it. Apply the deafened penalties for perception to the perceiving character. That's a -4.
Now, if the creature had its eyes closed, for example, sleeping, unless it had the scent quality, it wouldn't get a perception check to notice you.
I've always felt a bit uneasy about how this worked in Pathfinder, due to the combining of Spot & Listen.
A big portion of why I dislike how this ends up affecting things is when reading the effect of invisibility. RAW, an invisible character on the other side of an opaque barrier from an astute guard receives +20 to stealth rolls made against that guard. Why? Invisibility specifically says that it doesnt stop sound, but the rules for invisibility apply a large bonus to stealth, in large swaths to this situation. The same would happen, by RAW, to an invisible character using stealth to creep by 3000 blind monks.
However, silence in that situation doesnt apply that same huge (+40 if still, +20 if moving) bonus to stealth checks that invisiblity does if used in the same situation.
Keep in mind im talking only RAW here, most GMs would feel that same unease I mentioned earlier and probably wing some off-the-cuff modifiers in that situation. Its just a technical abnormality due to rules for invisibility, but it does come up with so much frequency that it sticks out in my head.
I've always felt a bit uneasy about how this worked in Pathfinder, due to the combining of Spot & Listen.
A big portion of why I dislike how this ends up affecting things is when reading the effect of invisibility. RAW, an invisible character on the other side of an opaque barrier from an astute guard receives +20 to stealth rolls made against that guard. Why? Invisibility specifically says that it doesnt stop sound, but the rules for invisibility apply a large bonus to stealth, in large swaths to this situation. The same would happen, by RAW, to an invisible character using stealth to creep by 3000 blind monks.
However, silence in that situation doesnt apply that same huge (+40 if still, +20 if moving) bonus to stealth checks that invisiblity does if used in the same situation.Keep in mind im talking only RAW here, most GMs would feel that same unease I mentioned earlier and probably wing some off-the-cuff modifiers in that situation. Its just a technical abnormality due to rules for invisibility, but it does come up with so much frequency that it sticks out in my head.
If nothing else, this underscores the pointlessness of being a slave to the RAW. Yes, invisibility gives a bonus, but that invisibility is actually irrelevant since the PC is in a position in which he can't be seen anyway.
There are ways to write the stealth/perception rules better to handle the situation but, as they are, they outline some general principles - you just need a referee willing to go with the principles embodied by the rules rather than the RAW.
Ultimately, I think combining hide and move silently into stealth and listen/spot into perception was a good idea - one that streamlined the game and brought it more into alignment with other games (like Champions with its stealth skill and PER rolls). It just requires a more nuanced approach from the GM.
|
The spell "forced quiet" from UM covers the stealth aspect of silence.
Given that silence is an AoE spell, it would depend if those observing the stealthed character were also in the AoE. The unnaturally quiet area would likely arise additional suspicion from guards in the AoE. If the AoE does not include guards, and also doesn't include any re-occuring noises that would be missed if silent, you should treat it like "forced quiet."
Anyway, nothing in the spell says this, just my understanding. I do think the silenced area would very possibly generate hyper-alert guards, as all the crickets stop chirping at the same moment that the PC attempts to sneak by them.
In a related idea, I've always thought it a humorous scenario where an invisible character that is trying to be silent at the same time walks into a room that has broken glass all over the floor. Sure he gets the +20 from being invisible, but he makes one hell of a racket as he is crunching through broken glass on the floor. Even worse if he slips and falls knocking a bunch of stuff over making a clattering of noise. This is why there must be a rules made for what silence does. After all, if you can't muffle the sounds of your footfalls, who cares how invisible you are. The writers have to make a faq for this because if not, they've failed in a reality check. To hammer the point home, using the rules as is, there's nothing stopping a player from carrying on a conversation while invisible and saying "woohoo, I'm invisible, so no matter what I still have this huge bonus and no negative for not being silent."
If nothing else, this underscores the pointlessness of being a slave to the RAW. Yes, invisibility gives a bonus, but that invisibility is actually irrelevant since the PC is in a position in which he can't be seen anyway.
There are ways to write the stealth/perception rules better to handle the situation but, as they are, they outline some general principles - you just need a referee willing to go with the principles embodied by the rules rather than the RAW.
Ultimately, I think combining hide and move silently into stealth and listen/spot into perception was a good idea - one that streamlined the game and brought it more into alignment with other games (like Champions with its stealth skill and PER rolls). It just requires a more nuanced approach from the GM.
I completely agree with you, and most people would say a more nuanced approach here is more rational than straight RAW gameplay. But as a player and a DM, I feel that players should be able to somewhat predict effects that they generate since their characters would know how their abilities/spells/etc work, which is what the game rules basically supply.
In a number of areas the RAW just make little sense, and even though a character would know that using silence would be better to sneak by 3000 blind monks than being invisible, the rules don't support it without fiat and players might not even think of it. Alternatively they might have one DM do it one way and in another game have a different DM do it another.
I agree combining the checks was good, however I feel they could have been much more thorough in checking for areas where the merging left ambiguity and done more work to iron out those "edge" cases, many of which are extremely common in game.
Yes, but the questions was, was this ever resolved/is there an answer to this. If you are to raise a thread this is the better way to do it.