|
You have two players that relied almost entirely on environmental conditions such as light and sound in order to do what they did effectively. You may not like much minutia but your PCs need it, especially the rogue to be effective.
And, yes, I do GM so I do know where you're coming from. However, weigh your game preferences against the characters your players want to play. This very much matters.
Not all the players in the group want this minutia. I do not use such minutia against the players, and this has never been an issue before. What burns my balls is that suddenly it is a big deal. it would be like a GM never caring about weight limits, then suddenly, when a character who is high level and has been playing one way for years, begins using the weight system in the middle of a combat situation. Would the players like that? Hell no they wouldn't.
|
|
Or at the very least be clear to the players what's going on.
If you wanted to rule that the area is bright enough for "normal light", so you don't have to deal with 20% miss chances and stealth, great. Make that clear to the players. Maybe it's a really bright moon with clear skies. Maybe there are torches along the road. Whatever.If you want the bad guys to carry torches so you don't have to deal with dim light, great. Let the players know. Then they can sneak up to the edge of the light and charge in next round.
Hell, rule that dim light doesn't let you stealth. Or have 20% miss chance. As long as everyone knows.
Letting the player think they've got dim light they can take advantage of and then just having them be seen without explanation is problematic.
Even on this thread your argument has changed. First it was low light, but you can't sneak up to someone in low light. Then it was torches, and the PCs just snuck into the light. Now it's "We usually just ignore dim light, since it's a pain"
This doesn't sound good to me.
I have not changed my argument. I already stated our group doesn't bother with declaring if torches are held. It's usually just assumed. Just like you don't take time out of the game to detail what a character eats, or going to the bathroom. Consistency matters; however, it seems when some players find issues with one thing, they conveniently ignore issues that would benefit them.
I think you are also missing the point here. I agreed monk could have moved closer using stealth. I thought my original ruling was done fairly and made sense. However, I ruled the monk could not advance 75tf in one turn using stealth to the middle of the road as he would then be observed. I just don't see how this is unreasonable.
You also say GMs can change the rules, but they can't change the rules midgame, or midcombat for that matter. This would be ridiculous. The game works on a set of core assumptions that are generally held. In our group it is usually that we don't deal with lighting conditions. In fact, if I took a vote, I bet my players would vote to keep it that way, as environmental conditions usually work to their disadvantage. Ina perfect world where I had more time, i would love to describe the lighting, the floor, the walls, but when we only have a certain amount time, we operate on a certain set of notions. Changing these during a combat situation, and arguing about it, especially when what you are doing is completely useless anyways to the end goal, is dumb, especially also in light of the fact that i thought I was at least being reasonable in order to move the game on.
Sometimes players remind me of a scenario like the one below. GMs are constantly modifying in game things and giving PCs benefit of the doubt rolls, checks, etc. Some players forget this and bite the hand that feeds them. Like in football, everything evens out in the end. You get things that go your way and sometimes you don't, players. Don't whine and complain when when a ruling is made by an unbiased GM that doesn't make you happy. Try and remember all the good stuff that same GM did for your character. The GM doesn't spend hours reading an adventure, preparing before game time for an epic quest, just to kill your hard-earned PC or screw you using rules. I, and I'm sure most other GMs, take pride in our ability to adjudicate the rules and come up with reasonable compromises on the fly. We also take pride when our players successfully level their characters.
The player with the monk, they also have a level 20 character. i take pride in the fact that I also helped him get that high. I put obstacles in his way to deter him, I tried to kill him within the bounds of the game as scenarios depicted, but when he succeeded, I was happy. When they make a great roll I cheer. I feel bad when one dies. I help them try and figure out why something happened, how to better their characters. The level 20, I've saved him more times than i can count. He has died so many times in the past and I pulled things out of my ass to save him that he perhaps forgets. Player would do well to remember things like this.
Lighting and other environmental factors AREN'T minutiae. They are a big part of the game, and an expected one at that. There are TWO whole chapters on them in the Core Rulebook alone and nearly every single module published by Paizo tells the GM to inform the players of the prevalent lighting conditions as well as any other environmental factors and/or obstacles that might be pertinent to the scene or encounter.
Not all the players in the group want this minutia. I do not use such minutia against the players, and this has never been an issue before. What burns my balls is that suddenly it is a big deal. it would be like a GM never caring about weight limits, then suddenly, when a character who is high level and has been playing one way for years, begins using the weight system in the middle of a combat situation. Would the players like that? Hell no they wouldn't.
I know you're just using that as an example but speaking to your example weight can confer nasty in-combat penalties and should never be ignored. The only people who "ignore" it in my experience are super strong combat types or casters with bags of holding, handy haversacks or muleback cords.
Tying this to the thread, just like weight, lighting shouldn't be ignored. Echoing Ravingdork's post, there are certain assumptions the rules make based on them and since you have a rogue in the party it could be an essential part of that character's tactics depending on the character and campaign.
Lighting and other environmental factors AREN'T minutiae. They are a big part of the game, and an expected one at that. There are TWO whole chapters on them in the Core Rulebook alone and nearly every single module published by Paizo tells the GM to inform the players of the prevalent lighting conditions as well as any other environmental factors and/or obstacles that might be pertinent to the scene or encounter.
This.
Unfortunately, they're an oft overlooked one by GMs in homebrew encounters unless the PCs ask about the conditions explicitly. Seems to be part of the problem here.
|
|
My issue is this: how can a character "stealth" right next to an enemy in the middle of the road in the middle of combat without being seen (forget about why the character wants to-it doesn't do anything special, he just wanted to do it). Even if the conditions were low-light, it just doesn't make sense that a character, starting 75ft. away, with absolutely no cover or invisibility, can walk right up next to the enemy without being observed. On top of this, the enemies aren't dumb, they saw 6 allies, 4 moved forward while 2 moved around behind the corner. Anyone with brains could know they were going around for flanking. Of course they would be looking behind them to make sure someone wasn't coming up.
Characters cannot use stealth if they are observed. The word "observed" is ambiguous-does this mean "observing" is an action that must be done by the enemy? Or does this mean merely that a character who wants to use stealth is "observed" by walking into the eye sight, hear sight, etc. of the enemy. I believe it is the latter- that, along with the facing rules in combat, merely entering the combat space allows observance. For example, my group posted a forum question pertaining to the fascinate condition. A character had become fascinate by a Candle Corpse, who used his ability to create a shimmering area. The character was fascinated and walk to stand staring at the area. All the while, the Candle Corpse walked around and behind the character to attempt an attack by coup or regular attack in flat-footed condition. I determined that due to no facing rules, and the player agreed, that fascinate does not mean helpless, nor does it mean (despite explicitly saying so in summary description)the character only has eyes on the object of fascination. Therefore, the character was allowed an immediate attempt to break the condition per the interpretation of the rules of the condition. This interpretation hinged on facing. Therefore, I deem that observation is not something based on an act of will, or one that takes an action of some sort. Stepping into the sensory areas of a creature makes them observable under stealth rules, unless circumstances such as invisibility or hiding behind a crate apply.
Thinking on invisibility...if the monk were invisible, a perception check would still need to be rolled, as invisibility is a stealth check. I think this might be the strongest language in favor of the stealth argument. I then ask myself- what if the enemy had piss-poor eyesight, or had a terrible penalty to stealth. What if they had bad senses all around? Certainly this enemy would have less of a chance to "observe" than another enemy of better quality senses. This lends credence to a stealth roll whatever the lighting conditions may be then it would seem.
However, I still do not see how a character can move 75ft, even in low-light conditions, during a combat, while being "observed," with no cover whatsoever, can move right next to an enemy. The important features of this particular scenarios contain important information: IT IS COMBAT, the enemies would likely know they were trying be flanked, and there was NO COVER at all.
It would seem some agree with me and some do not. The Stealth rule: "cannot use stealth when observed" is the key here I think. If this was clarified by devs then we wouldn't need GM interpretation.
My next question is this: what if a character was standing in combat and used invisibility. Could he then begin to use stealth?
It appears that lighting conditions are important. I must say that even at my GenCon games as a player, lighting was not focused on, so saying it is vital is one thing- practical application is another. In a perfect world all this would be considered. I will, however, try to do a better job in this. I know from experience, however, that this will be harmful to the players overall, as they are most often in enemy territory and don't bother using lighting equipment anyway. Another thing I will try to do is add cover items. We have gotten used to battle maps drawn by us with empty rooms, despite descriptions saying they contain beds, chairs, etc. We have usually not messed with such items as they are usually irrelevant in combat because the players never use them. It has been our style of play for years, just as we have usually not used terrain and movement, i.e. rocky areas on the combat map- we usually just consider this wash and don't bother to mark it. Obviously we are losing an important dynamic to combat, but it is just how we have played. i will indeed try to put in more cover opportunities for the rogue and monk, though. Of course, I expect them to realize it goes both ways- monsters will use the same tactics, too!
My issue is this: how can a character "stealth" right next to an enemy in the middle of the road in the middle of combat without being seen (forget about why the character wants to-it doesn't do anything special, he just wanted to do it).
It does. If an enemy doesn't notice you and therefore can't anticipate your attack they're flat-footed against your attack and you get sneak attack.
Even if the conditions were low-light, it just doesn't make sense that a character, starting 75ft. away, with absolutely no cover or invisibility, can walk right up next to the enemy without being observed. On top of this, the enemies aren't dumb, they saw 6 allies, 4 moved forward while 2 moved around behind the corner. Anyone with brains could know they were going around for flanking. Of course they would be looking behind them to make sure someone wasn't coming up.
This is why the whole opposed check thing exists. As long as the PCs can keep rolling stealth and beating the opposed roll move at half speed or taking negs to go faster then they're effectively invisible.
Characters cannot use stealth if they are observed.
They're not observed if the NPCs never noticed them with opposed checks.
The word "observed" is ambiguous-does this mean "observing" is an action that must be done by the enemy? Or does this mean merely that a character who wants to use stealth is "observed" by walking into the eye sight, hear sight, etc. of the enemy. I believe it is the latter- that, along with the facing rules in combat, merely entering the combat space allows observance.
Not if they fail their perception check. Just because something is next to you in Pathfinder doesn't mean you automatically know it's there.
For example, my group posted a forum question pertaining to the fascinate condition. A character had become fascinate by a Candle Corpse, who used his ability to create a shimmering area. The character was fascinated and walk to stand staring at the area. All the while, the Candle Corpse walked around and behind the character to attempt an attack by coup or regular attack in flat-footed condition. I determined that due to no facing rules, and the player agreed, that fascinate does not mean helpless, nor does it mean (despite explicitly saying so in summary description)the character only has eyes on the object of fascination. Therefore, the character was allowed an immediate attempt to break the condition per the interpretation of the rules of the condition. This interpretation hinged on facing. Therefore, I deem that observation is not something based on an act of will, or one that takes an action of some sort. Stepping into the sensory areas of a creature makes them observable under stealth rules, unless circumstances such as invisibility or hiding behind a crate apply.
Only if they can actually perceive them which is why the perception skill exists. To notice a creature is a DC of 0. Anything that modifies that DC should require a perception check to notice. If the NPCs are engaged in a fight in one direction you can't claim they're giving anywhere near their full attention to what could be coming behind them.
Thinking on invisibility...if the monk were invisible, a perception check would still need to be rolled, as invisibility is a stealth check.
Wrong. They do make a perception check but invisibility is a condition that happens to give a buff to stealth checks as it's just what makes sense. Enemies you hit while invisible are denied their dex bonus to AC as well as giving you total cover which carries a 50% miss chance. It's not *just* stealth.
I think this might be the strongest language in favor of the stealth argument. I then ask myself- what if the enemy had piss-poor eyesight, or had a terrible penalty to stealth. What if they had bad senses all around? Certainly this enemy would have less of a chance to "observe" than another enemy of better quality senses. This lends credence to a stealth roll whatever the lighting conditions may be then it would seem.
However, I still do not see how a character can move 75ft, even in low-light conditions, during a combat, while being "observed," with no cover whatsoever, can move right next to an enemy. The important features of this particular scenarios contain important information: IT IS COMBAT, the enemies would likely know they were trying be flanked, and there was NO COVER at all.
Dim lighting gives cover and you can use stealth in cover. You may not like or think it makes sense but those are the rules. But, no, you can't move 75 feet with a single stealth check. You can move half or go faster and take negs but it'd take multiple checks.
It would seem some agree with me and some do not. The Stealth rule: "cannot use stealth when observed" is the key here I think. If this was clarified by devs then we wouldn't need GM interpretation.
In order to be observed someone has to know you're there. Now, once you make that first strike then they automatically know where you are. But until then, tough cookies.
My next question is this: what if a character was standing in combat and used invisibility. Could he then begin to use stealth?
Yes because he then is treated as having total cover which comes with a 50% miss chance AFTER having to take actions to feel around in their space to detect them physically or you beat their perception check with stealth.
It appears that lighting conditions are important. I must say that even at my GenCon games as a player, lighting was not focused on, so saying it is vital is one thing- practical application is another. In a perfect world all this would be considered. I will, however, try to do a better job in this. I know from experience, however, that this will be harmful to the players overall, as they are most often in enemy territory and don't bother using lighting equipment anyway.
And they should suffer for it. The beautiful thing about environmental rules is they're fair. It's mother nature doing her thing.
Another thing I will try to do is add cover items. We have gotten used to battle maps drawn by us with empty rooms, despite descriptions saying they contain beds, chairs, etc. We have usually not messed with such items as they are usually irrelevant in combat because the players never use them. It has been our style of play for years, just as we have usually not used terrain and movement, i.e. rocky areas on the combat map- we usually just consider this wash and don't bother to mark it. Obviously we are losing an important dynamic to combat, but it is just how we have played. i will indeed try to put in more cover opportunities for the rogue and monk, though. Of course, I expect them to realize it goes both ways- monsters will use the same tactics, too!
As they should!
If they fail a perception check they're effectively blind against you. Will that suffice or do I need to dig through the prd?
My issue is this: how can a character "stealth" right next to an enemy in the middle of the road in the middle of combat without being seen (forget about why the character wants to-it doesn't do anything special, he just wanted to do it). Even if the conditions were low-light, it just doesn't make sense that a character, starting 75ft. away, with absolutely no cover or invisibility, can walk right up next to the enemy without being observed. On top of this, the enemies aren't dumb, they saw 6 allies, 4 moved forward while 2 moved around behind the corner. Anyone with brains could know they were going around for flanking. Of course they would be looking behind them to make sure someone wasn't coming up.
I agree that this would be the case. It's common sense. What I believe you are missing is that this check is an opposed one. Their attention to the rear is not absolute, nor is their perception. If a rogue or monk has high enough stealth, they quite simply *can* sneak up on someone as that kind of attention requires actions to be performed (at least move actions). This impacts the number of actions that can be performed against the opponents that can be seen (full attacks are reduced to standard action type attacks).
Characters cannot use stealth if they are observed. The word "observed" is ambiguous-does this mean "observing" is an action that must be done by the enemy? Or does this mean merely that a character who wants to use stealth is "observed" by walking into the eye sight, hear sight, etc. of the enemy. I believe it is the latter- that, along with the facing rules in combat, merely entering the combat space allows observance. For example, my group posted a forum question pertaining to the fascinate condition. A character had become fascinate by a Candle Corpse, who used his ability to create a shimmering area. The character was fascinated and walk to stand staring at the area. All the while, the Candle Corpse walked around and behind the character to attempt an attack by coup or regular attack in flat-footed condition. I determined that due to no facing rules, and the player agreed, that fascinate does not mean helpless, nor does it mean (despite explicitly saying so in summary description)the character only has eyes on the object of fascination. Therefore, the character was allowed an immediate attempt to break the condition per the interpretation of the rules of the condition. This interpretation hinged on facing. Therefore, I deem that observation is not something based on an act of will, or one...
Does this mean "observing" is an action that must be done by the enemy.
The short answer to this question is: Yes. Read thoroughly the Perception skill rules. In order to attempt to see someone that is stealthed (and by moving around the corner, the automatic observation rule is negated -- moreover, in dim light, which were the conditions outside the torchlight -- @ 70 feet, the spotting of the monk and rogue is not automatic), you have to roll a perception check. This is at the very least a move action. Since the enemy group would likely have missed this check, given a -4 (halflings) to -7 (humans) to their perception given the distance, then the rogue and monk would not have been observed. Once they are stealthed, in order to re-spot the rogue and monk, the enemy group would have to perform actions -- which limits their ability to fight the ones that they can see.
In order for the game to not completely nerf rogues or those who rely on stealth to be effective, you *have* to pay attention to the conditions under which combat takes place. Ignoring this in the place of simplicity is giving rogue characters a handicap that makes the use of smart tactics immaterial.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
If you're noticed on a success then you're unnoticed on a failure.
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.
How are you going to react to an attack from someone you don't know is there?
Erm...
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
How are you intentionally searching for something you don't know is there yet?
I dug through anyway. See the above.
The whole reason I wanted the rogue and monk to go around and flank was to surround the enemies, even more so when I knew there were spellcasters. The plan was to have the rogue and monk take flank and the rest come up and engage in battle. If we closed them up, casting spells would have granted AoO and the spellcasting could have been somewhat neutralized. That is not a dumb or flavor only idea in my opinion. But after the conversation and being denied attempting that plan, everone just wanted to do something, so the plan did not ever even start. I didn't communicate my plan to the DM so I could keep him honest. Let's face it, it's difficult to run a game and it's hard not to metagame. I didn't want to give him everything, just started with the monk and rogue getting into position to execute my plan.
I don't even really see what the huge deal is here though. The monk does not gain any real combat advantage from stealthing. It seems like it was more for flavor than anything else. Heck even if he was playing a rogue he wouldn't...
It was a strategy, everyone knows the best way to defeat a spellcaster is either high saves or bottling them up and forcing them to melee. The benefit would've been that combat started when we were in position to strike, not letting them start attacking us first.. that's why when I won initiative the first thing I wanted to do was get into position so we could use our numbers to our advantage, something monsters and enemies almost always do. If it were played all over again, we would see how my plan would have greatly increased our chances of success and of not having 2 party members killed.
If the conditions are right (dim light) then it IS possible to use Stealth to sneak right up to someone, even in combat (though if you are currently being directly observed, then you may need to get behind a wall or feint first).
If an enemy combatant is wary that you may be trying to flank him, he may make active Perception checks (a move action) in addition to his reactive ones to spot potential flankers.
If the enemy combatant is out in the open with a source of light, then it may be impossible to stealth into melee without something like invisibility.
It seems pretty simple to me.
I will caution.. if you are worried about his/her ability to avoid metagaming (which could be very valid) then you might wish to rethink your choice of DM. A DM should have the trust of the players, and it should be earned. If they've failed in achieving this, then the play will suffer as a result.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he would intentionally metagame, but I also don't want to lay everything out and give him ideas either... I don't want to help him stump us, that's his job and I don't want to help out with it. LOL
|
Correct, your DM is an idiot and needs to be a player using the rules before telling you contrary to the RAW.
It is plainly evident that nogoodscallywag is not an idiot. He made a call, and while RAW it was bit off, he was certainly not unjustified or idiotic for it.
Out of session talks should be viewed as a chance to improve for the player, GM, or both, be it in a specific interaction or in simply understanding the way the rules are meant to work. The players and GM should be on the same page on the rules, be it house-rules or RAW. Here, we talk RAW and RAI. At least, that's what we should be talking about. Remember the most important rule here.
Name calling is not wanted here.