No, Krico, you have it right.
The page that is confusing everyone is "Invisibility Special Ability" in Appendix 1 of the Core Rulebook.
All that page is doing is restating what was already explained under Perception and Stealth, such as, Notice a visible creature is DC 0 and invisibility adds +20. Or Notice a Stealthy creature is an opposed Stealth check and invisibility adds +20. The special ability page is just simply restating what is already known.
Some people seem to think it's adding a whole slew of new modifiers, including using an opposed check (Stealth) as a modifier, which never happens.
I don't see how anyone can think this is realistic or mechanically balanced. A simple 2nd level spell cannot ever be overcome by anyone far short of epic levels or using magic of their own. Simple monsters with really low CRs have an ability that no PCs can ever overcome unless they have the right spell at the right time - there is NO alternative.
Furthermore, every skill, every opposed skill check, has some way to beat it with skills. If you add a magical enhancement to a skill, there is always an equivalent magical enhancement to the opposed skill. Those who wish to double-dip the +20 bonus for Invisibility are creating a mandatory +40 skill bonus without even considering why Paizo decided to count the bonus twice or why they even include Perception as a chance to overcome invisibility as it's a guaranteed failure.
And it breaks the stacking rules too.
It's ludicrous, but there seems to be no convincing them. I hope they get the FAQ they're looking for so they can finally "see" the invisible light.
Meanwhile, rest assured, you're doing it right.
The +20 I applied for Invisibility IS a bonus. It's in the second half of the table, bottom line, in the table marked modifiers and it has a + in front of it, can't see how that's NOT a bonus.
To start with, you should familiarize yourself with what a bonus is.
Bonus: "Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores."
The perception DC being modified by the bottom half of that table is not a check, nor is it a statistical score.
A bonus to perception means you're better at perceiving things when you make a perception check.
When the Detail you're trying to notice is invisible, that makes it harder to notice it.
At look at the top, do you see anywhere a DC to notice an Invisible person?
No, which makes it odd that you're using that section instead of the section that is specifically about noticing invisible creatures.
It's because it's DC 0 to notice a person, +20 for being Invisible.
DC 0 to notice a visible person. And the +20 modifier is not a bonus, and it doesn't have anything to do with stealth, so it's clearly not a stealth bonus.
Then again, would noticing an invisible creature be the base dc if the creature was invisible? I confused myself again...note that I'm looking at the table under the perception skill atm.
Using only the less-specific (and therefore less accurate) perception and stealth skill sections (lets say you lost your glossary)
DC 0 to notice a visible creature
+20 modifier if creature or object is invisible
+Stealth check if creature is using stealth
That stealth check includes any and all relevant bonuses or penalties to stealth. Dex, armor check, cloak of elvenkind, small size, and most importantly: invisibility.
That gets you exactly the same final DC numbers as just using the invisibility section, which already incorporates the stealth bonus into the table.
A simple 2nd level spell cannot ever be overcome by anyone far short of epic levels or using magic of their own.
Powder, 1 cp.
Simple monsters with really low CRs have an ability that no PCs can ever overcome unless they have the right spell at the right time - there is NO alternative.Glitterdust
See Invisibility
Invisibility Purge
Scent
Blindsight and Blindsense
If you add a magical enhancement to a skill, there is always an equivalent magical enhancement to the opposed skill.
Citation needed.
Those who wish to double-dip the +20 bonus for Invisibility are creating a mandatory +40 skill bonus without even considering why Paizo decided to count the bonus twice or why they even include Perception as a chance to overcome invisibility as it's a guaranteed failure.
It's almost like they said it's practically impossible, even before the creature uses stealth.
And it breaks the stacking rules too.
What bonus type is being applied twice?
There's only one bonus, it's only being applied once, and it has no type.
So we're back to Perception DC = Stealth Check[+20 for being invisible] +20 for being invisible
Sure looks like applying the same bonus twice to me.
So we're back to Perception DC = Stealth Check[+20 for being invisible] +20 for being invisible
Sure looks like applying the same bonus twice to me.
The people who refuse to use the more specific and thus more accurate invisibility section:
DC 0 to notice a visible creature
+20 modifier if creature or object is invisible
+Stealth check if creature is using stealth
That stealth check gains a +20 bonus (or +40 if not moving).
How many bonuses did I list?
One. One bonus. Ah. Ah. Ah.
The DC is not a bonus.
The DC modifier is not a bonus.
The stealth check itself is not a bonus.
The stealth check does, however, gain a bonus.
Which of the following is true?
The parts in blue are different.
I'm hoping for a reply from Jamz, Serum, DM_Blake, and Ninja in the Rye.
Statement A) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, .
Statement B) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, .
Stealth gains a +20 or +40 bonus for being invisible, depending on circumstances (moving, not moving).
Perception DC receives a +20 modifier if the creature or object is invisible.
I certainly understand the argument being presented that one of these two modifiers was not intended, but is anyone actually claiming that RAW defends this argument?
I am claiming that the RAW says those are the same modifier.
When you use Perception vs. Stealth it is an opposed skill check. This is defined, by RAW, in the Perception skill:
"Notice a creature using Stealth: Opposed by Stealth"
This means that the stealthy guy's skill check IS the DC for your Perception check.
So what you're doing is:
Roll the Stealth and add 20 to the result because of invisibility, this becomes the Perception DC, and now add 20 to the DC because of invisibility. You're stacking the same +20 modifier from invisibility twice by adding it to the DC of the Perception check twice.
|
The people who refuse to use the more specific and thus more accurate invisibility section:Are you referring to the Glossary? If so, I disagree that it is "more accurate". I think the Glossary just confuses the matter. I'd argue the Stealth & Perception skill sections describe it most clearly:
Stealth gains a +20 or +40 bonus for being invisible, depending on circumstances (moving, not moving).
Perception DC receives a +20 modifier if the creature or object is invisible.
There are two modifiers being applied to two separate skills. One modifier is being applied to Stealth as a bonus to the skill check. The other is applied to the Perception DC (not check). Both are due to the same condition (invisibility). The Perception DC is equal to the opponent's Stealth Check, and both the Perception DC and Stealth Check are subject to modifiers.
I certainly understand the argument being presented that one of these two modifiers was not intended, but is anyone actually claiming that RAW defends this argument? I don't see text anywhere stating that the modifiers to Stealth and modifiers to Perception DC are duplications or reproductions.
The problem is some of us are strictly going off of the numbers and such from the invisibility section that are pretty strightforward and some are trying to mix numbers from different sections to get their desired result. I think you state things quite well using those 2 sections. I think there are 2 ways to calculate the correct DC and that is our (Grick, myself and others agreeing) way using just the invisibility section and the way Velkyn just did using the stealth and perception sections with the understanding that they are 2 different things being used in conjunction with each other. Some people are trying to "replace" modifiers for some reason or just completely ignore modifiers or applying modifiers to the wrong thing.
I'm quite certain that the table of Invisibility modifiers in the Appendix is restating the modifiers in the Stealth and Perception skills. I'm certain of this because they're all the same modifiers for the same thing.
The idea that it's two separate sets of modifiers for the same thing (invisibility), both sets have the same value, both sets stack, and it pushes invisibility to levels that no Perception skill will ever manage to achieve is logically and mechanically unsound. It also breaks the stacking rule by applying the same modifier to the same roll twice from the same source.
I'm sure if you look through the books hard enough, you can find other examples where the same rule is stated twice, please make sure to double up any modifiers you find in every one of those cases. It will be even more entertaining if you can find the same rule stated a half dozen times; applying the same modifier 6x to one roll should make for some fun game mechanics.
But I am not going to look for such things, it's just not that important to me. It's obvious that I won't convince you. I hope someone from Paizo comes in here and straightens you guys out, I think your games will be better for it.
|
|
I don't understand why you think it should be relatively easy to locate an invisible person. THEY'RE INVISIBLE! It should be pretty dern hard to notice them. Most of the examples we give don't include the huge negative modifiers that usually apply when fighting an invisible person such as -20 for being in combat or speaking which brings the DC down to pretty achievable levels. There are also many easy ways to make them visible such as powder and numerous spells. Heck, even someone detecting evil on an evil invisible person can help as they can pinpoint them by concentrating and tell everyone else in the party where they are.
When you use Perception vs. Stealth it is an opposed skill check. This is defined, by RAW, in the Perception skill:
"Notice a creature using Stealth: Opposed by Stealth"
That's the base Perception DC.
What happened to the Modifiers section of that same Table? If I'm sleeping, is the Perception DC to detect a stealthing creature the same as when I'm awake? If not, why are you ignoring the "Creature or object is invisible +20" entry in the table, but not the "Creature making the check is asleep +10" entry?
Who said anything about ignoring other modifiers? I thought this thread was about invisibility, not about sleeping. If the guy trying to perceive an invisible creature is sleeping, the sleeping modifier applies to the roll AS ALWAYS. True for all other modifiers.
The difference between you and me is that I stop at adding any particular modifier just once, where you are perfectly fine with adding the Invisibility modifier twice.
If the designer's intent was that the +20 bonus to Stealth Check and +20 Perception DC modifier were the same, the solution is relatively simple: errata out the line of the table that you are ignoring. Or reduce the Stealth Check bonus due to invisibility from +20/40 to +0/+20. Without either errata, RAW does not support your argument.
You do know that someone could be Invisible and not stealthy, right? So putting the +20 modifier for Invisibility on the Perception skill is necessary, because it always applies when you make a Perception check to perceive an invisible creature regardless of whether that creature is being stealthy or not.
According to Perception, the DC to perceive a non-stealthy creature is 0, +20 if it's invisible, + whatever other modifiers for distance, sleeping, favorable conditions, unfavorable conditions, whatever. The DC to perceive a stealthy creature is that creature's Stealth Check, +20 if it's invisible, + whatever other modifiers apply.
As for putting the same information on the Stealth rules, so now it's in two places, it makes sense to list it there so someone using Stealth and Invisibility can look at just one page to figure out what their modified roll should be. This does not mean he gets the bonus twice.
According to Stealth, your Stealth check is whatever you roll, +20 if you're invisible or +40 if you're invisible and not moving.
This is not different information than we learned from the Perception skill, and invisibility gives the same +20 modifier that is explained in two places, not two different +20 modifiers.
Although RAW still would conflict, as the Glossary, Invisibility section backs up these statements as well. I think it's a bit more convoluted in that section, but I think the rules described in all these sections align.
The Appendix information on Invisible says exactly the same thing as the two skills:
The DC to "notice the presence" of an invisible creature is 20 (0 + 20 for being invisible, just like the Perception skill says). Other modifiers may apply, like distance, sleeping, favorable conditions, etc.
The DC to perceive a stealthy invisible creature is that creature's Stealth check +20, just like we learned from both the Perception skill and the Stealth skill.
None of these +20 modifiers for being invisible stack with the other +20 modifiers for being invisible. Stacking just simply doesn't work that way.
I'm quite certain that the table of Invisibility modifiers in the Appendix is restating the modifiers in the Stealth and Perception skills. I'm certain of this because they're all the same modifiers for the same thing.I don't think anyone said they're not. Both distinct sets of rules (Stealth + Perception vs. Glossary, Invisibility) are aligned. They state the same things in different ways. No one is taking modifiers from Stealth/Perception and Glossary, Invisibility and adding them together.
The idea that it's two separate sets of modifiers for the same thing (invisibility), both sets have the same value, both sets stack, and it pushes invisibility to levels that no Perception skill will ever manage to achieve is logically and mechanically unsound.Right, I understand why you believe RAW and RAI conflict. I'm not certain I agree, but I get where you're coming from.
It also breaks the stacking rule by applying the same modifier to the same roll twice from the same source.How?
I'm invisible, standing still, and roll a 10 on Stealth with 10 Ranks and 0 Dex. This results in a Stealth Check of 60. Modifiers applied to one roll (10 + 10 + 40).
You are attempting to perceive me from within 30'. Your base Perception DC is my Stealth Check, or 60. Now the Perception DC (not roll!) is modified by the things listed in the table under the Modifiers section, such as "Creature making the check is asleep +10 " or "Creature or object is invisible +20". These modifiers don't effect any roll.
So to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you are saying that you can detect me, while sleeping, with a DC 60 Perception Check? And also DC 60 if you were awake? I think RAW is quite clear that the DC is 90 in the former scenario, and 80 in the latter.
Note, I'm ignoring the "Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet" entry in the Perception DC Modifiers section for simplicity.
I don't know why you insist on throwing sleeping in here, since it has nothing to do with invisibility and you're only muddying the waters, but since you did, I'll leave it there.
Your invisible Stealth check is correct at a 60. 10 for your roll, 10 for your ranks, 20 for invisible and 20 for not moving.
Now I try to perceive you with Perception. Perception says that my DC is your Stealth Check. So my DC is 60. It also says that being invisible gives a +20 modifier to the DC of my Perception check. But you'll notice that this modifier is already included in that DC because we have already added +20 for invisibility.
Now you want to add it again, getting it twice.
I say it doesn't stack, so my DC remains at 60. Since you want me to be sleeping, that adds another +10 bringing my DC up to 70. I never said anything about ignoring the sleeping modifier, or any other modifier, so I have no idea why you thought the DC would be the same sleeping or awake, or why you assumed I would think that. I don't.
All I said and I'm saying again is that including a sleeping modifier in a discussion about invisibility is unnecessary - If the perceiver is asleep, apply the modifier, if not, don't apply it, but it applies to all perception checks, not just ones related to invisibility, so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I still have no idea why on Earth or Golarion you want to give the +20 modifier for being invisible twice to the same DC. As you pointed out, it's the Perception DC (not roll) that gets the +20 modifier twice. That doesn't seem odd to you?
...Perception DC = DC20 + Stealth Check[+20 for being invisible]There, fixed that for you. You're not doubling up anything.
The base perception DC is 0, you add 20 to that if the subject is invisible. This is what the Invisibility section is referencing when it says, "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
A Stealth check replaces the base perception DC, this is pretty much the only thing stealth actually does.
So, yes, what you're saying is that the Perception DC is [Stealth Check +20 for being invisible] +20 for being invisible.
The people who refuse to use the more specific and thus more accurate invisibility section:Are you referring to the Glossary? If so, I disagree that it is "more accurate".
The glossary entry contains modifiers not listed under perception.
If the invisible creature is Moving at half speed, how do you modify the perception DC?
If you look at the invisibility entry, you'll know that you modify the DC by -5.
If you only look at perception, you won't know what the modifier is.
The invisibility section contains information that the perception section does not.
The invisibility section is more specific than the perception section.
So if someone looks only at perception, and doesn't apply the modifier for moving at half speed, and someone else looks at invisibility and does apply the modifier for moving at half speed, you have two different DCs.
The one from the invisibility section is more specific, and thus correct.
Nobody is using stealth, so stealth is irrelevant here.
A Stealth check replaces the base perception DC, this is pretty much the only thing stealth actually does.
So, yes, what you're saying is that the Perception DC is [Stealth Check +20 for being invisible] +20 for being invisible.
No, see, we're explaining what the rules actually say.
When you try to contradict this, you're saying the rules actually say what you're talking about.
But we've established that the rules do not agree with your theory, that you're arguing RAI or house rules.
So what you need to do is post something like:
"Yes, you're actually completely correct. However, I think the rules are wrong, and if the rules were changed to reflect how I wish them to be, then a stealth check would replace the base perception DC and bonuses would be removed and invisible creatures would be easier to find."
Then nobody could argue with that. I mean, they could tell you that you're still posting that in the wrong forum, but you wouldn't be factually incorrect.
I'm still hoping for an answer to my question.
|
|
still have no idea why on Earth or Golarion you want to give the +20 modifier for being invisible twice to the same DC. As you pointed out, it's the Perception DC (not roll) that gets the +20 modifier twice. That doesn't seem odd to you?
You're not applying the same modifier twice. You add +20 to the perception DC to notice an invisible creature. This has nothing to do with stealth and applies whether or not stealth is used.
If you're invisible and using stealth you get a +20 to your stealth roll because it is much easier to stealth while invisible (not having to worry about being noticed visually).
So given that, why would you "replace" the +20 for being invisible (which, under the invisibility section is just a base DC20) just because stealthing is easier?
This is how the equation should look:
DC to notice an invisible stealthed creature moving half speed less than 10' away = DC20 (base DC to notice an invisible creature specifically stated in the invisibility section) - 5 (moving half speed) + [stealth result (let's assume a 10 here) +20] (straight from the modifiers table for invisibility) = DC45
I don't understand why you think it should be relatively easy to locate an invisible person. THEY'RE INVISIBLE! It should be pretty dern hard to notice them. Most of the examples we give don't include the huge negative modifiers that usually apply when fighting an invisible person such as -20 for being in combat or speaking which brings the DC down to pretty achievable levels. There are also many easy ways to make them visible such as powder and numerous spells. Heck, even someone detecting evil on an evil invisible person can help as they can pinpoint them by concentrating and tell everyone else in the party where they are.
The DC to be aware of an invisible person who is standing still next to you speaking is a DC 20 perception check.
It is already substantially more difficult in PF to become aware of an invisible creature than it was in 3.5 thanks to their completely ignoring the listen/move silently aspects in the conversion, and doubling up on +20s for being invisible while using stealth makes it absurdly more difficult.
|
|
I don't understand why you think it should be relatively easy to locate an invisible person. THEY'RE INVISIBLE! It should be pretty dern hard to notice them. Most of the examples we give don't include the huge negative modifiers that usually apply when fighting an invisible person such as -20 for being in combat or speaking which brings the DC down to pretty achievable levels. There are also many easy ways to make them visible such as powder and numerous spells. Heck, even someone detecting evil on an evil invisible person can help as they can pinpoint them by concentrating and tell everyone else in the party where they are.The DC to be aware of an invisible person who is standing still next to you speaking is a DC 20 perception check.
It is already substantially more difficult in PF to become aware of an invisible creature than it was in 3.5 thanks to their completely ignoring the listen/move silently aspects in the conversion, and doubling up on +20s for being invisible while using stealth makes it absurdly more difficult.
Firstly, that DC is correct and very achievable for a first level character that could easily have a +7 perception thus only needing to roll a 13+ (40%).
Secondly, why are we even bringing 3.5 into this discussion? This is the rules forum for Pathfinder so we should be discussing what the Pathfinder rules say and not 3.5 (even though Pathfinder is mostly based off of 3.5).
It sounds like you are arguing YOUR interpretation as opposed to RAW. We are simply stating what is written clearly in the text. Houserule it however you want but the rules seem to be pretty clear.
You will never get anywhere in this argument if you continue to ignore the section they are referencing.
I will never get anywhere as long as people keep disregarding what I'm actually saying.
For example, I mentioned how the invisibility section is more accurate. You disagreed, so I showed you how the invisibility section is more accurate (It's more specific, and it contains information not listed in perception).
Now you're trying to disagree with that by bringing in something that had nothing to do with my point, your disagreement with that point, nor my explanation of that point.
If you want to argue that the invisibility section is not more accurate than the perception section, then you need to show how the DC that is not modified by moving at half speed from perception is more correct than the DC that is modified by moving at half speed from invisibility.
That STILL has nothing to do with stealth. The creature isn't using stealth. Stealth has nothing to do with it. Just an invisible creature moving at half speed.
No one is arguing that an invisible creature moving at half speed should not be easier to detect than one moving at full speed. Or any other aspect of the rules that exists only in the Glossary, Invisibility section.
There are multiple people here claiming that the stealth check replaces the DC.
This is directly contradictory to what the invisibility section says.
So if the perception section (less specific, less accurate) says the DC = Stealth check, and the invisibility section (more specific, more accurate) says the DC is 20 modified by the Stealth check, it's pretty clear which one you should be using. You should be using the one that is more specific, and more accurate, and doesn't result in effectively removing entire other sections of the rules.
I think Grick has the most correct interpretation of the rules in this matter. However, can one of the designers give their take?
The DC to be aware of an invisible person who is standing still next to you speaking is a DC 20 perception check.
It is already substantially more difficult in PF to become aware of an invisible creature than it was in 3.5 thanks to their completely ignoring the listen/move silently aspects in the conversion, and doubling up on +20s for being invisible while using stealth makes it absurdly more difficult.
Keep in mind that, with a DC 20 check, you know there is an invisible creature making that sound. It is a DC 0 check to determine that your hear a sound. It is a DC 20 check to determine that the source is an invisible creature, as opposed to, say, Ghost Sound, which would be a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 21 check.
So, Perception DC 20 and you can rule out the possibility that the sound is coming from an invisible creature. And with a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 21 check you can positively identify the sound as being generated from Ghost Sound. Or the reverse, you know the sound is not the result of Ghost Sound with a Knowledge (Arcana) DC 21 check and it is an invisible creature standing next to you with a Perception DC 20 check.
These DCs are in congruence.
Hearing the details of a conversation is listed as a DC 0, it's subject to all the modifiers by RAW so +20 for being invisible, +20 for standing still, -20 for talking while invisible.
So you have to make a DC 20 Perception check just to understand what your friend who is standing next to you is saying. This is one of the true absurdities of RAW.
However, can one of the designers give their take?
They can, however, given how these threads have been going, I have no idea why they would want to.
If they back up the RAW, people will freak out.
If they say the intent is otherwise, rules will need to be changed, and doing so will require a fair amount of time and energy to cover all the consequences of that.
Or, if they do nothing, people can go on like they always have. They can use the rules if they like, or if they don't like that, they can change them to suit the style of play that their gaming group enjoys.
That's not to say I don't want more FAQs answered, or more casual dev posts, or anything like that, just that from their perspective I don't know why they would willingly dip their toes into this piranha pool.
'A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.'
As far as I can see, this line is the biggest point of contention in this argument.
One camp says that this is the base DC to be modified, no if's and's or but's. The other camp says that this is in line with the Perception check made with the +20 modifier for creature being invisible.
Here's the thing: It doesn't matter.
I has absolutely no bearing on the DC.
If someone uses DC 0 with +20 modifier from perception, and someone else uses DC 20 like it says under invisibility, and then they both follow the rules and apply all the relevant modifiers from the rest of the invisibility section, they will both end up with the same DC.
The problem is when some people take the +20 modifier for being invisible listed in the perception section and change the rules to turn that into a typed bonus to stealth checks that applies even when nobody is making a stealth check, and also change the actual bonus to stealth checks into that same type of bonus so they don't stack, and then do some kind of magic to either apply or not apply the increase in that bonus based on standing still (or selectively remove another entry from the table), the end result is that they have effectively removed the bonus to stealth checks, making the DC to notice or pinpoint an invisible creature using stealth about 20 points too low.
I also find it is generally out of the scope for second level spells to provide much more of a bonus to a skill than what would be +20.
Invisibility: "Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 2" ... "If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving."
By arguing that it is a Base DC 20 (for someone being invisible) + Stealth (which includes another +20 for someone being invisible) is choosing to empower something beyond what I believe to be the original scope.
There's a FAQ Request post for exactly this issue here. Be aware that some people feel they were tricked into clicking the FAQ button and have been misrepresented.
If you're actually undecided on the matter, or the differences here are not really clear, there's a test.
Which of the following is true? (The parts in blue are different.)
Statement A) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, .
Statement B) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, .
Your answer to that question will guide you in how you feel the rules should work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which of the following is true? (The parts in blue are different.)
Statement A) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, including any bonuses or penalties to that stealth check.
Statement B) The difference between noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth is exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, but without any bonus to that stealth check as a result of invisibility.
Your test is ill-phrased.
Here, try mine:
Which of the following is true? (side note, this test ignores all other situational modifiers like distance, sleeping, etc., because those modifiers would be equally applied or not applied, as applicable, to both statements)
Statement A: The DC for noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth is exactly equal to Stealth Check + 20 for being invisible.
Statement B: The DC for noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth is exactly equal to Stealth Check + 20 for being invisible + another 20 for being invisible.
Your test is ill-phrased.
If you're having a hard time parsing them, I'll rephrase.
Question: How much harder is it to notice (or pinpoint) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth, compared to noticing (or pinpointing) that same moving invisible creature if it were not using stealth? This question assumes all other variables are the same.
Answer A) exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, including any bonuses or penalties to that stealth check.
Answer B) exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, but without any bonus to that stealth check as a result of invisibility.
Which of the following is true?
Neither of them.
Statement A: The DC for noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth is exactly equal to Stealth Check + 20 for being invisible.
Statement B: The DC for noticing (or pinpointing) a moving invisible creature that is using stealth is exactly equal to Stealth Check + 20 for being invisible + another 20 for being invisible.
Both of these statements are factually incorrect, because the DC to notice and the DC to pinpoint are not the same.
|
|
I don't really want to get into the finer debate about the +20 and whether its a double dip. The DC's thrown about are very high and you may as well just say you can't pinpoint an invisible opponent using perception if they are stealthing.
However, I think Raving Dorks point about the circumstances is an important one.
Grick linked the "Powder" item.
"Powder: Powdered chalk, flour, and similar materials are popular with adventurers for their utility in pinpointing invisible creatures. Throwing a bag of powder into a square is an attack against AC 5, and momentarily reveals if there is an invisible creature there. A much more effective method is to spread powder on a surface (which takes 1 full round) and look for footprints."
This suggests if there is dust, water or other environmental factors they could reveal the presence of an invisible character. What kind of action is looking for footprints? Could it be a trigger for a readied action? What about moving soil or loose sand or grass even if outside...
Actually, going strictly by "RAW" since we're not allowed to infer that a chart/statement is simply referencing another rule rather than creating an extra modifier
The DC is Base 20 from Invis section +20 from Perception chart + (Stealth+20) from Invis Section +20 from Stealth Skill. There might be an extra +20 from the Invisibility Spell too, but I'll ignore that for now.
So we've got a DC 80 + Stealth check to become aware with a DC 100 to pinpoint. All from a 2nd level spell.
|
|
Actually, going strictly by "RAW" since we're not allowed to infer that a chart/statement is simply referencing another rule rather than creating an extra modifier
The DC is Base 20 from Invis section +20 from Perception chart + (Stealth+20) from Invis Section +20 from Stealth Skill. There might be an extra +20 from the Invisibility Spell too, but I'll ignore that for now.
So we've got a DC 80 + Stealth check to become aware with a DC 100 to pinpoint. All from a 2nd level spell.
Now you're just hand-picking parts from different areas to make it ridiculous. Either you use the invisibility section or you use the perception and stealth sections, not all 3 together. Velkyn already showed how you can come to the same result using the perception/stealth method and Grick and myself have been going straight from the invisibility section the whole time (coming up with the same numbers as Velkyn). You seem to be ignoring good points that have been mentioned earlier and just trying to twist things to work how you want them to and not looking directly at how it's written.
I think people are refusing to read the whole section, because then they will have to admit they are wrong.
Grick linked the "Powder" item.
This suggests if there is dust, water or other environmental factors they could reveal the presence of an invisible character. What kind of action is looking for footprints? Could it be a trigger for a readied action? What about moving soil or loose sand or grass even if outside...
To avoid this getting buried in the DC nonsense, you might want to start a new thread.
If not:
Invisibility: "Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location."
Survival - "Follow Tracks: To find tracks or to follow them for 1 mile requires a successful Survival check. You must make another Survival check every time the tracks become difficult to follow. If you are not trained in this skill, you can make untrained checks to find tracks, but you can follow them only if the DC for the task is 10 or lower. Alternatively, you can use the Perception skill to find a footprint or similar sign of a creature's passage using the same DCs, but you can't use Perception to follow tracks, even if someone else has already found them."
There's a bunch more there, including a table of modifiers that I'm certain someone is going to try to apply to a Stealth check somehow.
Now you're just hand-picking parts from different areas to make it ridiculous. Either you use the invisibility section or you use the perception and stealth sections, not all 3 together. Velkyn already showed how you can come to the same result using the perception/stealth method and Grick and myself have been going straight from the invisibility section the whole time (coming up with the same numbers as Velkyn). You seem to be ignoring good points that have been mentioned earlier and just trying to twist things to work how you want them to and not looking directly at how it's written.Actually, going strictly by "RAW" since we're not allowed to infer that a chart/statement is simply referencing another rule rather than creating an extra modifier
The DC is Base 20 from Invis section +20 from Perception chart + (Stealth+20) from Invis Section +20 from Stealth Skill. There might be an extra +20 from the Invisibility Spell too, but I'll ignore that for now.
So we've got a DC 80 + Stealth check to become aware with a DC 100 to pinpoint. All from a 2nd level spell.
Oh, okay, we're not supposed to look at all the rules when determining RAW? That makes perfect sense.
ETA: Let's leave aside that pinpointing is only mentioned in the Invisibility section and that mods like the creature being asleep or favorable/unfavorable conditions are only listed under perception, or that the size rules for Stealth would apply extra penalties.
|
|
Normally items give a bonus to a skill or check, such as antitoxin that grants a +5 bonus or a climbers kit that grants a +2 bonus.
With the bonus from invisibility to Stealth being so high, you would have to look at a different mechanic or such a bonus would be meaningless.
When you approach in-game problems with subjective decisions you often get ill feeling. Powder and Perception are all that non-magical characters are going to possess. I can see a number of arguments raging if a dispute over whether the DC to pinpoint an invisible person is 36 or 56 (or 76 if they aren't moving) and somebody player or gm says its a DC 10 perception check to see where they are standing because they are on soft ground, even if it is a full round action.
The rules must be suitably ambiguous for the level of disagreement. I would come down on the side of Stealth gaining a +20 bonus if a person were invisible. This makes it "virtually impossible" for a normal person to detect them, but not so incredibly high that there is no point even trying. In such circumstances, a +5 bonus to perception to try and detect them is more appropriate for an item such as powder, or the clever use of a spell such as create water or any of the other circumstantial bonuses. Even at high levels a +20 bonus is very good.
Otherwise I would simply refer to the tracking rules in survival. Even on Hard ground, where the surface does not hold footprints at all its a DC 20 check that can be made with either perception or survival. Then its a free action to indicate the spot to your allies until the invisible creature moves.
|
|
Sorry Grick, my slow typing meant I missed your response.
I may well look at the Powder issue and tracking in another thread.
My thoughts on the issue were just that, thoughts. I haven't looked through the rules on the issue regarding the tally of bonuses myself, just read the other posts in the thread...
|
|
Now you're just hand-picking parts from different areas to make it ridiculous. Either you use the invisibility section or you use the perception and stealth sections, not all 3 together. Velkyn already showed how you can come to the same result using the perception/stealth method and Grick and myself have been going straight from the invisibility section the whole time (coming up with the same numbers as Velkyn). You seem to be ignoring good points that have been mentioned earlier and just trying to twist things to work how you want them to and not looking directly at how it's written.Actually, going strictly by "RAW" since we're not allowed to infer that a chart/statement is simply referencing another rule rather than creating an extra modifier
The DC is Base 20 from Invis section +20 from Perception chart + (Stealth+20) from Invis Section +20 from Stealth Skill. There might be an extra +20 from the Invisibility Spell too, but I'll ignore that for now.
So we've got a DC 80 + Stealth check to become aware with a DC 100 to pinpoint. All from a 2nd level spell.
Oh, okay, we're not supposed to look at all the rules when determining RAW? That makes perfect sense.
ETA: Let's leave aside that pinpointing is only mentioned in the Invisibility section and that mods like the creature being asleep or favorable/unfavorable conditions are only listed under perception, or that the movement rules for Stealth would apply extra penalties.
What I meant was you don't take the same modifiers from each section and ambiguously apply them. The stealth section states that it's stealth +20 for an invisible creature, that's not counting any other modifiers. That's the same as what the invisibility section says. You wouldn't apply both of those because they are the same thing mentioned in two different places. At the same time, all of the modifiers on the invisibility table apply to the perception DC so you wouldn't take those same modifiers from the perception seection and also apply them, they are the same. So, the easiest way to get the correct DC is to just use the invisibility section for the modifiers that are specific to invisibility. It is more accurate and more concise.