anthonydido wrote: Why are you doubling up the stealth bonuses? It's either stealth+20 for moving or stealth+40 for not moving. If you go straight by the invisibility modifier table you come to the same conclusion for someone who is stealthing and immobile because it has a +20 modifer for someone not moving.
So, using only the invisibility section, someone stealthing and immobile = DC20 + (stealth + 20) + 20 for being immobile.
If you use the stealth section you get DC20 + (stealth + 40).
They match.
All right. Running through this from the top.
From , we have a DC20 Perception check to notice and active invisible creature.
Quote: A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. From the table there is a Perception DC Modifier of Stealth Check +20 if the invisible creature is using stealth.
Quote: Invisible creature is... Perception DC Modifier
Using Stealth Stealth check +20
That puts us at "DC20 + Stealth Check +20".
So we go to the [url=http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/stealth]Stealth rules to figure out what the Stealth Check is. Among all the other rules we find Quote: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.[/url]
Since we're moving we only add +20.
The first 20 is the Base DC. The second is part of the DC modifier. The last is the stealth check bonus. All should stack, right?
This is why I don't apply this kind of approach to rules analysis. The rules weren't written to support it.
Edit: Ninja'd by several people.
This isn’t in response to any post in particular. But just the overall direction of where this thread is.
Any time we make a statement like “XxXx is RAW”, unless XxXx is actual quoted text from the rules vs. restating what we THINK the rules means, it is a false statement. RAW is just that, literally what is written.
Sure, when it’s clear to the overwhelming majority of the Pathfinder community what something means, then we say BLANK is RAW, really meaning BLANK is what RAW means, and it’s not really a big problem. But when the interpretation of what RAW means is in dispute (which this clearly is here), we should recognize that we are all arguing what we think RAW means not what it is. And then there is the problem of even if RAW is clear it may not match with RAI (which we also don’t know).
I think everyone involved here is an intelligent individual. But we are all human therefore letting our egos are get involved and probably bruised in some cases.
For this to be productive we need to move away from arguing who is “right” to trying to understand why others who we disagree with, believe what they do, even if we don’t’ see it that way.
Also I think it would help to get some more clues to RAI, either from comments the Pathfinder devs may have made or by looking at 3.5 rules, since some of this I suspect comes from the combining of five skills into two and having to rewrite all the other relevant rules, like invisibility.
Ninja in the Rye wrote: anthonydido wrote: Why are you doubling up the stealth bonuses? It's either stealth+20 for moving or stealth+40 for not moving. If you go straight by the invisibility modifier table you come to the same conclusion for someone who is stealthing and immobile because it has a +20 modifer for someone not moving.
So, using only the invisibility section, someone stealthing and immobile = DC20 + (stealth + 20) + 20 for being immobile.
If you use the stealth section you get DC20 + (stealth + 40).
They match.
The invisibility modifier table does not state that its bonuses do not stack with the one listed in the stealth section or the perception section. If you're arguing pure strict RAW then they must all be applied separately. OK, I'm confused as to what your stance is and what you are in this discussion for. First you were arguing for "replacing" modifiers resulting in a lower DC and now you want to stack things that are obviously the same from different sections resulting in a higher DC. You claimed we were stacking "identical" modifiers earlier and now you want to do the same. It seems as though you are just trolling at this point and have no real stance on the subject.
anthonydido wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: anthonydido wrote: Why are you doubling up the stealth bonuses? It's either stealth+20 for moving or stealth+40 for not moving. If you go straight by the invisibility modifier table you come to the same conclusion for someone who is stealthing and immobile because it has a +20 modifer for someone not moving.
So, using only the invisibility section, someone stealthing and immobile = DC20 + (stealth + 20) + 20 for being immobile.
If you use the stealth section you get DC20 + (stealth + 40).
They match.
The invisibility modifier table does not state that its bonuses do not stack with the one listed in the stealth section or the perception section. If you're arguing pure strict RAW then they must all be applied separately. OK, I'm confused as to what your stance is and what you are in this discussion for. First you were arguing for "replacing" modifiers resulting in a lower DC and now you want to stack things that are obviously the same from different sections resulting in a higher DC. You claimed we were stacking "identical" modifiers earlier and now you want to do the same. It seems as though you are just trolling at this point and have no real stance on the subject. I think he's doing the same thing I am. Examining the consequences of taking the legalistic approach to the RAW.
I still maintain that there is one +20 modification to the chance of an invisible creature being detected. That it is referred to in several places in the text and in several different ways and that this has led to confusion.
I can support the DC20 + Stealth check + 20 approach, where Stealth = (Stealth ranks + roll + modifiers, including +20 for invisibility, if I do take that legalistic approach. I can't see why you should stop at including the invisibility bonus in the Stealth check or drop any one of the other modifiers from invisibility if you're following the strict legalistic approach to RAW that's been claimed. Can you support that?
A question. I have gone through much but not all of this thread, and I am brought to wonder the following.
How does invisibility make you invisible? Seemingly a simple question but for one simple fact: MAGIC.
Many people have been bring up the idea of darkness vs invisibility, but the question to my mind becomes what does an invisibility spell do to MAKE you invisible.
If it is as simple as bending light around you great then there is no difference. However if the magic allows it to block visual perception of you to any one else that becomes different no?
You may notice the footprints I am leaving behind but not the ones I am standing in. You don't notice that I am blocking the wind because since there is nothing there you don't perceive an issue. You notice the light coming OFF my body (farie fire) but not the light that is reflecting off of me.
With this mindset. To perceive me is a DC 20 just to feel like something is off, much like those little squiggles you get in the corner of your eyes they are always there just not in our perception. Then even though you see it you can't focus on it because it stays just out of your sight +20 to know where it is. and if it is actively trying to avoid you using stealth its then +20 bonus to stealth +the actual stealth roll.
Main points of contention/questions I see:
Are the bonuses (+20 and +40 for moving and being immobile respectively) to Stealth listed in the Invisibility spell and the Stealth skill supposed to be in addition to the +20 and +40 modifiers to the perception DC (or DC 20 from Invisibility special ability). Or are these supposed to represent the the modifiers.
From the Invisibility Special ability.
Does the sentence "There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity." refer to "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check." or could it be the DC for the perception check from the following sentence?
"It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check."
Related - is the above sentence supposed to be used as the starting point to all invisibility checks or is it just for the initial "notice" (in which case it would revert to Perception skill
From the table under to above text the line
"Using Stealth" / "Stealth check +20"
Is this supposed to add to the DC 20 from above or is this using "Stealth +20" as the starting DC? Put another way - is this a modifier or starting DC?
Where does the +20 above come from? This answer depends a lot on how you answer the above questions, but a few possible answers: +20 bonus to stealth from Invisibility spell & Stealth skill; + 20 to perception DC for being invisible as listed in Perception skill, something else.
Regardless of what RAW is supposed to mean or RAI is, SHOULD using stealth while invisibility grant +20 and +40 for moving and being immobile respectively, on top of listed Perception DC modifiers?
thejeff wrote: I can support the DC20 + Stealth check + 20 approach, where Stealth = (Stealth ranks + roll + modifiers, including +20 for invisibility, if I do take that legalistic approach. I can't see why you should stop at including the invisibility bonus in the Stealth check or drop any one of the other modifiers from invisibility if you're following the strict legalistic approach to RAW that's been claimed. Can you support... Why aren't you adding in the +20 from the Perception Skill section table as well? It looks to me like you're taking the Glossary, Invisibility table at face value, and the Stealth section at face Value -- so what happened to taking the Perception section at face value as well?
PRD, Perception, Perception Modifiers wrote: Creature or object is invisible +20 This bonus is not explicitly referenced in the Glossary, Invisibility section. Why aren't you applying it? If we're really going to be "legalistic" about it, I think your DC is still shy by 20 points.
I'm not sure why you use the term "legalistic", however -- a huge component of our (US) legal system is discerning intent, and what you're doing right now is ignoring intent entirely, and just applying whatever modifiers you find in the RAW. At least I think you're ignoring intent -- otherwise I believe you are the very first person in this entire thread to think that this result is actually the intent of the authors.
Shinma the Lost wrote: If it is as simple as bending light around you great then there is no difference. However if the magic allows it to block visual perception of you to any one else that becomes different no? If the later was the case then invisibility should be a mind affecting illusion such as a Pattern or Phantasm, but its a Glamer which isn't mind affecting. Also there can be monsters with non-magical invisibility.
Velkyn wrote: thejeff wrote: I can support the DC20 + Stealth check + 20 approach, where Stealth = (Stealth ranks + roll + modifiers, including +20 for invisibility, if I do take that legalistic approach. I can't see why you should stop at including the invisibility bonus in the Stealth check or drop any one of the other modifiers from invisibility if you're following the strict legalistic approach to RAW that's been claimed. Can you support... Why aren't you adding in the +20 from the Perception Skill section table as well? It looks to me like you're taking the Glossary, Invisibility table at face value, and the Stealth section at face Value -- so what happened to taking the Perception section at face value as well?
PRD, Perception, Perception Modifiers wrote: Creature or object is invisible +20 This bonus is not explicitly referenced in the Glossary, Invisibility section. Why aren't you applying it? If we're really going to be "legalistic" about it, I think your DC is still shy by 20 points.
I'm not sure why you use the term "legalistic", however -- a huge component of our (US) legal system is discerning intent, and what you're doing right now is ignoring intent entirely, and just applying whatever modifiers you find in the RAW. At least I think you're ignoring intent -- otherwise I believe you are the very first person in this entire thread to think that this result is actually the intent of the authors. Because I missed it. :) I'd have to look closer to see if there's a reason to leave it out.
And yes, I'm ignoring intent in this example.
As I said, this isn't my actual take on the subject. I just don't see why this is wrong and the one being called RAW isn't.
And I'm using legalistic in the common, nitpicky pejorative sense. So sue me. :)
GreenMandar wrote: Shinma the Lost wrote: If it is as simple as bending light around you great then there is no difference. However if the magic allows it to block visual perception of you to any one else that becomes different no? If the later was the case then invisibility should be a mind affecting illusion such as a Pattern or Phantasm, but its a Glamer which isn't mind affecting. Also there can be monsters with non-magical invisibility. PRD, Magic, Illusion, Figment wrote: Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. PRD, Magic, Illusion wrote: Glamer: A glamer spell changes a subject's sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear. I do wonder if supernatural invisibility differs from this. I can't find any rules to suggest it does.
If all forms of invisibility are glamers, I also must wonder why you wouldn't be able to immediately notice an invisible creature in a pool of water, soft earth, and other similar situations. Glamers are "unreal" and "cannot produce real effects", indicating that all things external to the subject (except worn items, I guess) are unaltered.
With respect to invisibility being like a bending of light, I think the rules are unclear. Thinking about this more, I have no idea what "sensory qualities" are... googling that phrase does not produce any meaningful results. I'm not sure how altering a subject's "sensory qualities" would not be a "real effect".
The chart in the invisibility special ability section for 3.5 hints that the "Using Stealth" / "Stealth check +20" line from Pathfinder invisibility could be a new DC, not a modifier.
Velkyn wrote: If all forms of invisibility are glamers, I also must wonder why you wouldn't be able to immediately notice an invisible creature in a pool of water, soft earth, and other similar situations. Glamers are "unreal" and "cannot produce real effects", indicating that all things external to the subject (except worn items, I guess) are unaltered. While maybe not "immediately notice", the rules indicate that yes you indeed can see this.
From Invisibility special ability.
PRD Glossary wrote: 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.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
The Stealth skill and Invisibility spell text both mention invisible creatures gaining a bonus on stealth checks.
Question 1: Are these bonuses the same, or do they stack?
My Answer: They are the same. The invisibility spell is not directly granting that bonus, it's merely making the creature invisible, then stating that invisible creatures have a bonus on stealth checks. ("If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks." It says "invisible creature" not "creature under the effects of invisibility".)
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to this as "The stealth bonus." The stealth bonus is referring only to this bonus, and not to any other bonuses that might apply to stealth checks (Dex, cloak of elvenkind, small size, etc.).
The Perception skill lists a perception DC modifier when a "Creature or object is invisible".
Question 2: Is this DC modifier actually the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. A DC modifier is not a bonus.
Question 3: Fine, but does this DC modifier represent the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. The DC modifier applies even when the invisible creature is not using stealth.
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to this as "The perception Detail modifier." The perception detail modifier is referring only to the line in the perception section table which says "Creature or object is invisible".
The Invisibility section in the glossary says "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
Question 4: Is this perception check actually the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. It's a DC. A DC is not a bonus.
Question 5: Does this perception check represent the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. The DC is used even when the invisible creature is not using stealth.
Question 6: Is this perception check actually the perception detail modifier?
My Answer: No. It's a DC. A DC is not a modifier.
Question 7: Does this perception check reflect the same basic thing as the perception detail modifier once it's been applied to the perception detail "Notice a visible creature"?
My Answer: Yes. The perception detail "Notice a visible creature" modified by the perception detail modifier "Creature or object is invisible" results in a DC 20 perception check. This reflects the difficulty of noticing an invisible creature. This is the same thing as the invisibility section's listed DC 20 perception check to notice an invisible creature.
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to this as "The invisible notice DC." The invisible notice DC is referring to how difficult it is to notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet.
The Invisibility section in the glossary also says "It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check."
Question 8: Is this increase in DC a bonus?
My Answer: No. A DC increase is not a numerical value that is added to a check or statistical score.
Question 9: Does this increase in DC represent the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. This increase in DC is a result of attempting a more difficult act, pinpointing a square rather than just noticing a nearby creature. It has applies even when a creature is not using stealth.
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to this as "The pinpoint modifier." The pinpoint modifier is referring only to the increase applied to the invisible notice DC in order to pinpoint a square.
The Invisibility section in the glossary also says there are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Question 10: Are these bonuses?
My Answer: No. A DC modifier is not a numerical value that is added to a check or statistical score.
Question 11: What DC do they modify?
My Answer: They modify the invisible notice DC, because that is the only DC listed in the invisibility section.
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to these as "The notice DC modifiers." The notice DC modifiers are referring only to the modifiers listed in the invisibility table in the glossary, which only apply to the invisible notice DC.
One of the modifiers listed is for when an "Invisible creature is... Using Stealth" and the modifier itself is "Stealth check +20".
Question 12: Does that one specific modifier represent the stealth bonus?
My Answer: No. That modifier is "Stealth check +20" and that includes the stealth check as part of itself. If that were to be applied to the bonus itself, it would become recursive, that is, adding itself to itself endlessly.
Question 13: Does the "+20" written directly after "Stealth check " in that modifier represent the stealth bonus?
My Answer: It might. If it did, then one could use the invisibility section by itself to work out all the DCs needed. This would also cause the "Not moving" modifier to represent the increase to the stealth bonus when not moving. However, the table does not explicitly state that the +20 bonus listed after Stealth check is the stealth bonus.
So, for the rest of this discussion, lets refer to this as "The using stealth notice DC modifier." The using stealth notice DC modifier is referring only to the notice DC modifier applied to the invisible notice DC when the Invisible creature is Using Stealth.
So to sum things up, we have six things defined here:
* The stealth bonus
* The perception detail modifier
* The invisible notice DC
* The pinpoint modifier
* The notice DC modifiers
* The using stealth notice DC modifier
All of these contain the number twenty. None of them represent exactly the same thing.
Question 13 is a sticky wicket. To determine if the "+20" listed in the using stealth notice DC modifier should represent the stealth bonus, answer the following question.
How much harder should it be 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, assuming 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 twenty higher than the result of his stealth check, including any bonuses or penalties to that stealth check.
Answer C) exactly equal to the result of his stealth check, but without any bonus to that stealth check as a result of invisibility.
If your answer is A, then you should treat the answer to Question 13 as a yes.
If your answer is B, you should treat the answer to Question 13 as a no.
If your answer is C, then your answer to Question 13 is a yes, but you've also changed one of the other answers, which is effectively removing the stealth bonus.
anthonydido wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: anthonydido wrote: Why are you doubling up the stealth bonuses? It's either stealth+20 for moving or stealth+40 for not moving. If you go straight by the invisibility modifier table you come to the same conclusion for someone who is stealthing and immobile because it has a +20 modifer for someone not moving.
So, using only the invisibility section, someone stealthing and immobile = DC20 + (stealth + 20) + 20 for being immobile.
If you use the stealth section you get DC20 + (stealth + 40).
They match.
The invisibility modifier table does not state that its bonuses do not stack with the one listed in the stealth section or the perception section. If you're arguing pure strict RAW then they must all be applied separately. OK, I'm confused as to what your stance is and what you are in this discussion for. First you were arguing for "replacing" modifiers resulting in a lower DC and now you want to stack things that are obviously the same from different sections resulting in a higher DC. You claimed we were stacking "identical" modifiers earlier and now you want to do the same. It seems as though you are just trolling at this point and have no real stance on the subject. I should think it clear, I'm pointing out what happens when you apply pure RAW to this without stopping to consider intent at all.
You have seemingly inferred that the RAI is to only apply the modifiers listed in the Invisibility Section and not the similar bonuses listed under Stealth/Perception, this is a sensible interpretation even if I don't actually agree with the results you have, but this is not actually RAW.
RAW would apply all bonuses listed in all sections unless there is something actually written in the rules that says otherwise, which by my last count basically creates DC20 +20 +[(Stealth Check+20)+20] (+20 to pinpoint) as the perception DC for a character using stealth while invisible..
Right, I read the two relevant parts (finally)
Here are some DC's as I work them out.
I'm invisible but talking/ running/ charging: DC 0 to notice (n) DC20 to pin point (pp)
I'm invisible but moving at normal speed: DC 10n 30pp
I'm invisible but moving half speed: DC 15n 35pp
I'm invisible and stationary: DC 40n DC60pp
Now the controversial ones.
I'm invisible but using stealth as written in the book assuming Grick's original +8 stealth bonus and a roll of 6 and moving half speed.
Moving normal speed: DC 39n 59pp
Moving Half speed: DC 49n 69pp
Stationary: DC 74n 94pp if you apply the +40 to stealth for being stationary and the extra +20 for being invisible and stationary.
I believe that this is felt to exploit the invisibility glossary because if I have no steal bonus at all and move at normal speed but say I'm stealthing the table would give me DC 25n and 50pp. I haven't actually done anything different other than say I'm using stealth and my DC has gone up by 15 plus a D20. As I read it however the rules appear to be written that way.
I would imagine they were meant to offer the opportunity to add your stealth check to the DC's from the first selection which would come up with the following numbers:
I'm invisible but talking/ running/ charging: DC 0 to notice (n) DC20 to pin point (pp)as I can't use stealth
I'm invisible but moving at normal speed: DC 19n 39pp
I'm invisible but moving half speed: DC 29n 49pp
I'm invisible and stationary: DC 54n DC 74pp
That way if my person with no stealth skill attempts to gain a bonus without actually trying to be stealthy, ie moving at normal speed, they will have to roll above 5 to gain any bonus. If they have a penalty due to armour or they roll poorly then they may even make things worse.
thejeff wrote: Velkyn wrote: thejeff wrote: I can support the DC20 + Stealth check + 20 approach, where Stealth = (Stealth ranks + roll + modifiers, including +20 for invisibility, if I do take that legalistic approach. I can't see why you should stop at including the invisibility bonus in the Stealth check or drop any one of the other modifiers from invisibility if you're following the strict legalistic approach to RAW that's been claimed. Can you support... Why aren't you adding in the +20 from the Perception Skill section table as well? It looks to me like you're taking the Glossary, Invisibility table at face value, and the Stealth section at face Value -- so what happened to taking the Perception section at face value as well?
PRD, Perception, Perception Modifiers wrote: Creature or object is invisible +20 This bonus is not explicitly referenced in the Glossary, Invisibility section. Why aren't you applying it? If we're really going to be "legalistic" about it, I think your DC is still shy by 20 points.
I'm not sure why you use the term "legalistic", however -- a huge component of our (US) legal system is discerning intent, and what you're doing right now is ignoring intent entirely, and just applying whatever modifiers you find in the RAW. At least I think you're ignoring intent -- otherwise I believe you are the very first person in this entire thread to think that this result is actually the intent of the authors. Because I missed it. :) I'd have to look closer to see if there's a reason to leave it out.
And yes, I'm ignoring intent in this example.
As I said, this isn't my actual take on the subject. I just don't see why this is wrong and the one being called RAW isn't.
And I'm using legalistic in the common, nitpicky pejorative sense. So sue me. :) Replying to myself: Looking at this even more closely and interpreting RAW as strictly as possible.
It's a 20DC to notice there is an invisible creature in the area. (If it's "active", whatever that means). This is not modified by any of the modifiers in the table, including stealth. Oddly, this may make an invisible Stealthy creature more noticeable than a visible stealthy one.
Source: Quote: A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. followed by Quote: It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. ... There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity. Therefore those modifiers only apply to pinpointing the invisible creature, not noticing it.Apparently even distance modifiers don't apply, since those are listed in the table that doesn't apply to noticing. It's not clear what "in the area" means then.
It is a Base 20DC +20DC = 40DC to pinpoint an invisible creature. This is apparently always modified by one of the movement modifiers from the table.
So : Not moving: DC 60
Half Speed: DC 35
Full Speed: DC 30
Running/Charging: DC 20
Looking at the Perception rule, there is a flat +20 DC modifier if the creature is invisible. The Perception rules go into less depth, so it's impossible to say what that applies to and whether it stacks with or is the same as any of the already mentioned numbers. I'm not even sure how to make a strict RAW ruling on that. DC modifiers are not typed bonuses, so they should stack and since it doesn't exactly match any of the others, it has to be a different modifier. Add +20DC to all the previous DCs.
And then the stealth question: I've already been over this so in brief: The table says Stealth Check +20. Stealth Check includes ranks, roll and any modifiers, including the +20 for being invisible.
So, to sum up, for a creature with no ranks in Stealth or other modifiers, Taking 10 and moving at half speed, the final DC would be (Base 20) + (20 to pinpoint) -5 (half speed) +20 (invisible Perception) + 10 (Take 10 on Stealth) + 20 (Stealth invisibility bonus) + 20 (Table using stealth) = DC 105.
If he stays still, the -5 is replaced by a +20 and the stealth invisibility bonus goes to 40, so DC 150.
TL/DR: The closer you look at the rules and the more strictly you try to apply them, the wackier they are.
thejeff wrote: Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Yes there is a bonus to stealth checks, just like that section says. It's the same thing as the one you add to the Perception DC. When you're invisible you're harder to detect. So you're claiming the bonus to stealth checks applies even when no stealth check is being made? If you want to phrase it that way.
When trying to detect a moving invisible creature it's 20 points harder than if he wasn't invisible. That's what I'm claiming.
If you call those points a bonus to stealth checks and add them to the creature's stealth roll, that works. If you just add those points to the Perception DC, that works too. Not really. If you go by this then a Ninja 20 with 25 Dex (+7 Mod) and maxed stealth (+3 class skill) has a DC 30 to be noticed standing naked less then 10 ft. away from you. You know since he has a +30 stealth bonus. Also wouldn't the DC to even notice an invisible creature be stealth bonuses +20 since your stealth bonus sets the perception DC to begin with by this interpretation?
If said ninja then uses vanishing trick is the DC 50 to notice him then (DC 70 to pin point)? What if he has a cloak of elven kind (+5 to stealth) does that also make him harder to notice just by wearing it? Even if he isn't using stealth? I'm pretty confused how a stealth bonus is being used when stealth is not.
How about an example if the above ninja has skill focus (stealth), stealthy, and the cloak of elven kind and then uses vanishing trick what is the DC to notice/pin point him while he is standing still not using stealth? I get a DC 20 to notice and DC 40 to pin point. Or should it be +20 (invisibility) +20 (standing still) +23 (stealth ranks plus class skill) +6 (skill focus) +4 (stealthy) +5 (cloak of elven kind) = DC 78 because a stealth bonus applies whether you used stealth or not?
Vaelkas wrote: thejeff wrote: Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Yes there is a bonus to stealth checks, just like that section says. It's the same thing as the one you add to the Perception DC. When you're invisible you're harder to detect. So you're claiming the bonus to stealth checks applies even when no stealth check is being made? If you want to phrase it that way.
When trying to detect a moving invisible creature it's 20 points harder than if he wasn't invisible. That's what I'm claiming.
If you call those points a bonus to stealth checks and add them to the creature's stealth roll, that works. If you just add those points to the Perception DC, that works too. Not really. If you go by this then a Ninja 20 with 25 Dex (+7 Mod) and maxed stealth (+3 class skill) has a DC 30 to be noticed standing naked less then 10 ft. away from you. You know since he has a +30 stealth bonus. Also wouldn't the DC to even notice an invisible creature be stealth bonuses +20 since your stealth bonus sets the perception DC to begin with by this interpretation?
If said ninja then uses vanishing trick is the DC 50 to notice him then (DC 70 to pin point)? What if he has a cloak of elven kind (+5 to stealth) does that also make him harder to notice just by wearing it? Even if he isn't using stealth? I'm pretty confused how a stealth bonus is being used when stealth is not.
How about an example if the above ninja has skill focus (stealth), stealthy, and the cloak of elven kind and then uses vanishing trick what is the DC to notice/pin point him while he is standing still not using stealth? I get a DC 20 to notice and DC 40 to pin point. Or should it be +20 (invisibility) +20 (standing still) +23 (stealth ranks plus class skill) +6 (skill focus) +4 (stealthy) +5 (cloak of elven kind) = DC 78 because a stealth bonus applies whether you used stealth or not? Not what I'm saying and I'm not going to analyze all the examples.
I'm saying you get a +20 to not be detected when you're invisible. It doesn't matter what you call it. If you're using stealth call it a stealth bonus because you add it to your stealth roll. If you're not call a Perception DC modifier. It's still the same +20. It still has the same effect.
You're just using different words to talk about it.
Or extend the letter of the rules all the way and add 3 or 4 +20s and always have a DC in the 80s.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OK, I got it this time. Lets see you argue out of this one lol
From the PRD regarding Skill Checks, and I quote, "If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."
Emphasis mine
Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/usingSkills.html
Ok, so give this, you only have a "DC" when making a "Skill Check". Stealth clearing states, "Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.." which makes it an Opposed Skill Check.
I contend that RAW says these are two different ways to resolve skills.
Therefore, you do NOT start with a DC20, you simply roll your Stealth (+20 if invisible) vs opponents Perception. There are no "starting" DC's for opposed checks, simply modifiers.
Not sure why I'm still arguing this, but it intrigues me lol
One big problem with that is then all the modifiers for Perception DC stop effecting the DC if the opponent is stealthing. So sleeping stops to matter... It is just as easy to detect a stealthing character while asleep as it is when awake.
Apply hard and fast rules of using modifiers with a large dose of common sense. It avoids problems like that. Or like invisible people being much harder to locate on the other side of a wall than visible people.
Velkn wrote: One big problem with that is then all the modifiers for Perception DC stop effecting the DC if the opponent is stealthing. So sleeping stops to matter... It is just as easy to detect a stealthing character while asleep as it is when awake. What are you basing this on?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Velkyn wrote: One big problem with that is then all the modifiers for Perception DC stop effecting the DC if the opponent is stealthing. So sleeping stops to matter... It is just as easy to detect a stealthing character while asleep as it is when awake. You would still use "modifiers" just the base dc is each others skill check. Another way to think about it it's this, where does it say that stealth sets the dc, it is just as much the other way. Eg a guard rolls his perception, the ninja has to beat his perception roll to sneak past him. Why does the guard have to beat the ninja's roll?
Jamz wrote: OK, I got it this time. Lets see you argue out of this one lol
From the PRD regarding Skill Checks, and I quote, "If the result of your skill check is equal to or greater than the difficulty class (or DC) of the task you are attempting to accomplish, you succeed. If it is less than the DC, you fail. Some tasks have varying levels of success and failure depending on how much your check is above or below the required DC. Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."
Ok, so give this, you only have a "DC" when making a "Skill Check". Stealth clearing states, "Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.." which makes it an Opposed Skill Check.
Yep, I agree, opposed skill checks supersede DCs.
DCs only apply in cases where there is no opposed skill in action.
So in situations of Perception vs Stealth skills, its an opposed skill check.
If its Perception vs nothing (the invisible person is plodding around and not trying to be stealthy), then a DC is used.
Same goes with skills like Bluff and Sense Motive. If the opponent is not trying to sense your motive, then it is a DC, if they are trying to sense motive then it is an opposed skill check instead.
For Invisibility bonuses with stealth, the Invisible Stalker entry in the Bestiary spells it out quite well. Effectively the Stalker in stealth mode gets d20+13+20 (or +40 if stationary).
If the Stalker is not using stealth though you only would need a DC20 or DC40 to detect it as its not trying to defeat your senses - so it might be plonking heavy-footed around the room, or breathing heavily, or swishing up dust and making candles flicker as it moves, etc.
The DCs for detecting an invisible/visible creature not using stealth behind a wall DCs should be identical. The actual rules don't make sense here.
The problem here is that Listen and Spot skills were combined into Perception which creates some odd results.
Jamz wrote: Velkyn wrote: One big problem with that is then all the modifiers for Perception DC stop effecting the DC if the opponent is stealthing. So sleeping stops to matter... It is just as easy to detect a stealthing character while asleep as it is when awake. You would still use "modifiers" just the base dc is each others skill check. Another way to think about it it's this, where does it say that stealth sets the dc, it is just as much the other way. Eg a guard rolls his perception, the ninja has to beat his perception roll to sneak past him. Why does the guard have to beat the ninja's roll? If you're going to include the modifier "Creature making the check is asleep +10", why are you not also including "Creature or object is invisible +20"?
I actually know the answer why -- you believe the Stealth bonus includes the Perception DC modifier. What everyone on the other side of the argument is telling you is that there is no basis for that claim, aside from a (IMO) specious "the DC is too high!" argument.
Velkyn wrote:
If you're going to include the modifier "Creature making the check is asleep +10", why are you not also including "Creature or object is invisible +20"?
I actually know the answer why -- you believe the Stealth bonus includes the Perception DC modifier. What everyone on the other side of the argument is telling you is that there is no basis for that claim, aside from a (IMO) specious "the DC is too high!" argument.
And the basis for your interpretation is that the RAW must be taken literally and interpreted completely strictly, paying careful attention to distinguishing the type of a particular modifier. Except when it's inconvenient.
My contention is that the rules really aren't written to withstand that level of scrutiny. As I said above "Apply hard and fast rules of using modifiers with a large dose of common sense."
It's not "The DC is too high!". It's "If you're saying these two particular modifiers must combine, why don't you extend that argument to all the other +20s from invisibility, because I can't see the difference." And along the way to point out other little absurdities, like invisible creatures being harder to spot on the other side of a wall when you couldn't see them anyway.
Jamz wrote: Ok, so give this, you only have a "DC" when making a "Skill Check". Stealth clearing states, "Your Stealth check is opposed by the Perception check of anyone who might notice you.." which makes it an Opposed Skill Check. It would be an opposed check if that's all you were doing, just using stealth to be stealthy. But we're doing something more specific, trying to find an invisible creature who is using stealth. There's more specific rules in the invisibility section which tell you to use a DC, and to modify that DC under certain circumstances. Therefore, the specific rules override the general rules and you modify the DC with the stealth check just like the rules say.
Jeven wrote: The DCs for detecting an invisible/visible creature not using stealth behind a wall DCs should be identical. For that to be the case, invisibility would need to not grant a bonus to stealth checks. There's a FAQ Request thread here to determine if it's intended for invisibility to grant a bonus to stealth checks. (The actual discussion in that thread is almost entirely off-topic, but a FAQ response would clear a lot of this up)
thejeff wrote: It's a 20DC to notice there is an invisible creature in the area. (If it's "active", whatever that means). This is not modified by any of the modifiers in the table, including stealth. Oddly, this may make an invisible Stealthy creature more noticeable than a visible stealthy one. Stealth either does nothing to the DC (if it's not moving or making noise) or it modifies the DC. The only way for it to be easier to find the invisible creature when it uses stealth is if it gets a negative stealth check, and given the stealth bonuses for being invisible, that's unlikely.
thejeff wrote: Quote: It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. ... There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity. Therefore those modifiers only apply to pinpointing the invisible creature, not noticing it.
Pinpointing is a modifier to the DC. If the creature is moving or making noise, there are other modifiers to the DC. There's only one DC listed.
thejeff wrote: It is a Base 20DC +20DC = 40DC to pinpoint an invisible creature. This is apparently always modified by one of the movement modifiers from the table. The modifiers in the table only apply if the creature is moving or making noise.
thejeff wrote: Looking at the Perception rule, there is a flat +20 DC modifier if the creature is invisible. Yes, that's the perception detail modifier that is applied to a perception check to notice one of the details in the perception table. Since you're not attempting to notice a detail from that table, the detail notice modifiers do not apply.
thejeff wrote: So, to sum up, for a creature with no ranks in Stealth or other modifiers, Taking 10 and moving at half speed, the final DC would be (Base 20) + (20 to pinpoint) -5 (half speed) +20 (invisible Perception) + 10 (Take 10 on Stealth) + 20 (Stealth invisibility bonus) + 20 (Table using stealth) = DC 105. Your 'invisible perception' does not apply because you're not using the perception detail, you're using the DC 20 check listed in invisibility.
DC 20 to notice
+20 to pinpoint
-5 half speed
+10 (unbonused-stealth check)
+20 (bonus to stealth checks)
DC 65
If, for some reason, you've decided the +20 to stealth checks is not the stealth bonus, then that DC would be 85. (See Question 13, above)
thejeff wrote: TL/DR: The closer you look at the rules and the more strictly you try to apply them, the wackier they are. They could certainly seem wacky when you do not apply them correctly.
thejeff wrote: And the basis for your interpretation is that the RAW must be taken literally and interpreted completely strictly, paying careful attention to distinguishing the type of a particular modifier. You misunderstand the purpose here.
This is the rules section of the forums. People here want to find out what the rules say. So, when answering a question about what the rules say, you need to take them seriously, and use words in the way they're defined in the rules, and distinguish types of modifiers.
That doesn't mean people have to play by those rules. The rules even say you can change them if your table likes it better that way. Nobody is telling you what to do at your table. We're just telling you what the rules say, since that's the entire purpose of this section of the forums.
Don't be offended if the rules don't match how you want to play. Just change them and have fun.
thejeff wrote: If you're saying these two particular modifiers must combine, why don't you extend that argument to all the other +20s from invisibility, because I can't see the difference. It's fairly long, but this post explains why.
thejeff wrote: And along the way to point out other little absurdities, like invisible creatures being harder to spot on the other side of a wall when you couldn't see them anyway. Most people don't really find it absurd for someone with a massive bonus to stealth checks to be better at using stealth than if they didn't have that massive bonus to stealth checks.
Which, once again, makes it seem like your problem boils down to whether invisibility should grant a bonus to stealth checks.
Velkyn wrote: If you're going to include the modifier "Creature making the check is asleep +10", why are you not also including "Creature or object is invisible +20"?
I actually know the answer why -- you believe the Stealth bonus includes the Perception DC modifier. What everyone on the other side of the argument is telling you is that there is no basis for that claim, aside from a (IMO) specious "the DC is too high!" argument.
I can't speak for the others, but for me this had nothing to do with seeing the final DC and thinking "that's too high!". It was reading back and forth in these threads about the invisibility rules and trying to figure out what all these modifiers and bonuses represent in non-game mechanics terms. These explanations of why using stealth when invisible would give another +20 or +40 on top of the +20 Perception DC for being invisible and +20 Perception DC if also "Not Moving" (from the chart) seem very unbelievable. That being invisible makes you more skillful at using stealth or somehow "more invisible" doesn't seem to be supported anywhere else.
Second, while I make no claim to be a 3.5 expert (I did play but not DM), from the looking at the rules out there I'm not seeing where that would have come from in the conversion.
GreenMandar wrote: That being invisible makes you more skillful at using stealth or somehow "more invisible" doesn't seem to be supported anywhere else. Anywhere else, aside from the invisibility spell, the stealth section, and the invisibility table?
As to whether that's intended to be the case or not, there's that FAQ request thread that seemed to offend a bunch of people.
GreenMandar wrote: Second, while I make no claim to be a 3.5 expert (I did play but not DM), from the looking at the rules out there I'm not seeing where that would have come from in the conversion. This was covered a bit back, in spoilers, but basically:
In 3.5, to notice a creature was either a spot check vs a variable DC, or a listen check vs move silently.
In 3.5, invisibility granted a bonus to hide checks.
This means, in 3.5, the only time that bonus to hide checks would be used is against someone who can see invisible. ("Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible.")
So 3.5 having invisibility granting a bonus that only applies against creatures that can see invisible makes less sense than PFRPG having invisibility granting a bonus that applies against everyone, even when it has nothing to do with sight.
If you're looking for fluff to justify how that works, someone mentioned upthread a while that if you don't have to worry about being seen, it's easier to concentrate on not being heard, not disturbing the environment, etc.
thejeff wrote: And the basis for your interpretation is that the RAW must be taken literally and interpreted completely strictly, paying careful attention to distinguishing the type of a particular modifier. Except when it's inconvenient. And your interpretation is a loose reading of the RAW, requiring even more exceptions than my "strict reading".
Note: You say "common sense", but there is no such thing as "common sense" -- if this were "common sense", everyone would be in agreement. We are not. To argue otherwise is to claim that everyone on the other side of the argument is without "common sense". That is incredibly offensive, and I do not think that is your intent.
thejeff wrote: It's not "The DC is too high!". It's "If you're saying these two particular modifiers must combine, why don't you extend that argument to all the other +20s from invisibility, because I can't see the difference." And along the way to point out other little absurdities, like invisible creatures being harder to spot on the other side of a wall when you couldn't see them anyway. I could just say I'm applying "common sense", but as noted, that's offensive and disingenuous. This is not "common sense".
I hold to my interpretation because I believe the Perception & Stealth sections are consistent and correct. And I agree that an invisible creature should not be harder to hear when on the other side of a solid object than a visible one. I suspect we agree on everything except this one point:
"Creature or object is invisible +20" is not a duplication of "Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving." or "Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). 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".
As I said, I acknowledge "the subject is not magically silenced" statement, and do not claim that Perception DC modifiers that are clearly related to sound would apply to invisible creatures differently than visible ones. What statement can you point to that would support the authors mistakenly granted a Stealth Bonus of +20/+40 twice, and never noted, in either the Perception Skill description, or Glossary, Invisibility section, that this bonus is reflected in these sections as Perception DC modifier?
For your interpretation to be correct, the authors would've had to make this mistake not once, but twice: once in the Stealth Skill description, and then again in the Invisibility spell description. The authors almost never admit they have made a mistake -- they go to (IMO) great lengths to justify the things written in the rule books. I don't think we'll ever know their intent -- I think we might get a FAQ explaining how the Stealth +20/+40 bonus is not a duplication of "Creature or object is invisible +20".
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Grick wrote:
Jeven wrote: The DCs for detecting an invisible/visible creature not using stealth behind a wall DCs should be identical. For that to be the case, invisibility would need to not grant a bonus to stealth checks. There's a FAQ Request thread here to determine if it's intended for invisibility to grant a bonus to stealth checks. (The actual discussion in that thread is almost entirely off-topic, but a FAQ response would clear a lot of this up)
The Stealth skill says that is so:
"Special: If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving."
I would take "invisible", which is not italicized, to mean "effectively invisible" rather than just "magically invisible".
So anyone behind a wall, i.e. in another room, is effectively invisible and that bonus would apply to their Stealth checks as well.
It makes sense, because not only can you not see them, but they are also moving silently (using stealth) and the wall is further muffling any sounds, so the modifier seems reasonable.
Anyone behind a wall is effectively invisible from the perspective of someone on the other side, simply because you can't detect them using sight (which is the meaning of the English word "invisible", e.g. an "invisible seam").
Jeven wrote: I would take "invisible", which is not italicized, to mean "effectively invisible" rather than just "magically invisible". Why not take it to mean the Invisible condition?
Italics would mean the spell, but there are magical and non-magical invisible creatures. (Ex and Su)
Unless you're saying you apply the invisible condition to all creatures which cannot be seen (relative to creature which cannot see them)?
Given the rules differences between darkness and invisibility, I suspect that's not the intent. Is a creature that is blinded by darkness still considered 'sighted' for the +2 bonus to hit?
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Quote: It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. ... There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity. Therefore those modifiers only apply to pinpointing the invisible creature, not noticing it.
Pinpointing is a modifier to the DC. If the creature is moving or making noise, there are other modifiers to the DC. There's only one DC listed.
Yeah. That seems to make sense. So the modifiers can apply to the notice as well. Quote:
thejeff wrote: It is a Base 20DC +20DC = 40DC to pinpoint an invisible creature. This is apparently always modified by one of the movement modifiers from the table. The modifiers in the table only apply if the creature is moving or making noise.
That makes no sense. The "Not moving" doesn't apply if the creature isn't moving or making noise?
My only real point in that bit was that one of those movement modifiers always applies. You're always either +20 (not moving) -5 (half speed) -10(full speed) or -20 (running). Unless there's an implicit moving, but less than half speed category? It's mostly irrelevant to the question at hand.
Quote:
thejeff wrote: Looking at the Perception rule, there is a flat +20 DC modifier if the creature is invisible. Yes, that's the perception detail modifier that is applied to a perception check to notice one of the details in the perception table. Since you're not attempting to notice a detail from that table, the detail notice modifiers do not apply.
No. That's in the regular Perception Modifiers section of that table, not the details section. Unless you're also going to argue that distance, walls, closed doors, distraction and sleep only apply when trying to notice details.
Quote: thejeff wrote:
So, to sum up, for a creature with no ranks in Stealth or other modifiers, Taking 10 and moving at half speed, the final DC would be (Base 20) + (20 to pinpoint) -5 (half speed) +20 (invisible Perception) + 10 (Take 10 on Stealth) + 20 (Stealth invisibility bonus) + 20 (Table using stealth) = DC 105. Your 'invisible perception' does not apply because you're not using the perception detail, you're using the DC 20 check listed in invisibility.
DC 20 to notice
+20 to pinpoint
-5 half speed
+10 (unbonused-stealth check)
+20 (bonus to stealth checks)
DC 65
If, for some reason, you've decided the +20 to stealth checks is not the stealth bonus, then that DC would be 85. (See Question 13, above)
And I can't see how the "Stealth Check + 20" could be the stealth bonus, when that is only +20 if you're moving. It's +40 if you're not. And the +20 Perception DC modifier for not moving can't cover that for the same reason the +20 Perception DC modifier for being invisible can't be the same as the stealth bonus while moving: Because one is a bonus and the other a DC modifier.
At least in your style of interpretation.
So the Perception bonus applies, because it's not in the detail section. And the +20 gets added because it's not the same as the stealth bonus.
Quote:
thejeff wrote:
TL/DR: The closer you look at the rules and the more strictly you try to apply them, the wackier they are. They could certainly seem wacky when you do not apply them correctly.
The rules are wacky if you apply them correctly and as literally as you want to. We can't even agree on what the strict interpretation would be, much less intent. I hope we can at least agree the "invisible creatures behind walls" thing is wacky?
Quote: Which, once again, makes it seem like your problem boils down to whether invisibility should grant a bonus to stealth checks.
My problem with that phrasing is that my initial reaction is "Of course it should. It would be much easier to hide if you're invisible."
The question is more "Should invisibility add a bonus to stealth checks on top of it just being harder to perceive invisible things"
Grick wrote: Jeven wrote: I would take "invisible", which is not italicized, to mean "effectively invisible" rather than just "magically invisible". Why not take it to mean the Invisible condition?
Italics would mean the spell, but there are magical and non-magical invisible creatures. (Ex and Su)
Unless you're saying you apply the invisible condition to all creatures which cannot be seen (relative to creature which cannot see them)?
Given the rules differences between darkness and invisibility, I suspect that's not the intent. Is a creature that is blinded by darkness still considered 'sighted' for the +2 bonus to hit?
Yes, by "magically invisible" I meant the "invisible condition".
So, for detecting someone using stealth in another room (i.e. out of sight behind a solid wall), they should be treated as if they had the invisible condition, because they are not visible.
I'm not sure about darkness, thick fog, blindness, etc.
Logically speaking, if you can't use your vision to see something its invisible to you.
thejeff wrote: Quote: The modifiers in the table only apply if the creature is moving or making noise. The "Not moving" doesn't apply if the creature isn't moving or making noise? Correct.
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
If the Invisible creature is speaking but standing still, you apply the modifiers for In combat or speaking and Not moving.
thejeff wrote: My only real point in that bit was that one of those movement modifiers always applies. Only if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Looking at the Perception rule, there is a flat +20 DC modifier if the creature is invisible. Yes, that's the perception detail modifier that is applied to a perception check to notice one of the details in the perception table. Since you're not attempting to notice a detail from that table, the detail notice modifiers do not apply.
No. That's in the regular Perception Modifiers section of that table, not the details section. "Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."
The top part of that table lists the Detail and the Perception DC to notice that detail.
The bottom part of that table lists the Perception Modifiers and the associated DC Modifier for each one.
Those modifiers are applied to the Perception DC listed for the Detail you're trying to notice.
thejeff wrote: So the Perception bonus applies, because it's not in the detail section. What perception bonus?
thejeff wrote: I hope we can at least agree the "invisible creatures behind walls" thing is wacky? Only if you think invisibility doesn't/shouldn't grant a bonus to stealth checks.
thejeff wrote: Grick wrote: Which, once again, makes it seem like your problem boils down to whether invisibility should grant a bonus to stealth checks. My problem with that phrasing is that my initial reaction is "Of course it should. It would be much easier to hide if you're invisible."
It would be much easier to not be noticed. That's different from hiding.
thejeff wrote: The question is more "Should invisibility add a bonus to stealth checks on top of it just being harder to perceive invisible things" Being harder to perceive invisible things has nothing to do with stealth. It's harder to notice even if the creature is not using stealth.
Visible creature: DC 0
Invisible creature: DC 20
Clearly more difficult to notice the invisible guy.
Invisible creature moving half speed: DC 15
Invisible creature moving half speed using stealth: DC 15+SNEAKY
If invisibility grants a bonus to stealth checks, it'll be included in 'SNEAKY'. If not, it wont be.
You're arguing that it won't be. Meaning there's no bonus to stealth checks.
The first part (Invisible vs visible) has nothing at all to do with stealth. That will not change no matter what you do to the stealth bonus.
The FAQ question does not have anything to do with it being harder to notice an invisible creature vs a visible one. I don't think that's in doubt, for anyone here. Everyone (AFAIK) agrees it should be harder to notice an invisible creature than a visible one.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Quote: The modifiers in the table only apply if the creature is moving or making noise. The "Not moving" doesn't apply if the creature isn't moving or making noise? Correct.
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
If the Invisible creature is speaking but standing still, you apply the modifiers for In combat or speaking and Not moving.
thejeff wrote: My only real point in that bit was that one of those movement modifiers always applies. Only if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
And we're back to wacky again. You only use this table if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity. Let's see how that works out.
Let's assume no stealth for the moment, though I'll get to that in a second:
DC to pinpoint a not speaking, unmoving creature: Base DC20 + 20 for pinpoint = DC 40. No further modifiers, since we don't use the table.
DC to pinpoint a speaking, unmoving creature: Base DC20 + 20 for pinpoint -20 for speaking + 20 for not moving = DC 40.
It's no easier to find a speaking, unmoving invisible creature, than a quiet non-moving invisible creature? Really?
If you don't move, you get no benefit from Stealth, since you don't use the table. (Alternately, you apply the normal Stealth rules and only get the +40 unmoving stealth bonus, not the DC20 + 20 to pinpoint + (other modifiers from the table.)
If you move and use stealth, you're much harder to find.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: Looking at the Perception rule, there is a flat +20 DC modifier if the creature is invisible. Yes, that's the perception detail modifier that is applied to a perception check to notice one of the details in the perception table. Since you're not attempting to notice a detail from that table, the detail notice modifiers do not apply.
No. That's in the regular Perception Modifiers section of that table, not the details section.
"Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines."
The top part of that table lists the Detail and the Perception DC to notice that detail.
The bottom part of that table lists the Perception Modifiers and the associated DC Modifier for each one.
Those modifiers are applied to the Perception DC listed for the Detail you're trying to notice.
So you are contending that distance, doors, walls, distraction and sleep also only apply to noticing details?
I suppose you can justify that by overreading the text, but we're back to wacky again.
Grick wrote:
thejeff wrote: I hope we can at least agree the "invisible creatures behind walls" thing is wacky? Only if you think invisibility doesn't/shouldn't grant a bonus to stealth checks.
So you don't think it's strange that invisibility makes you much harder to perceive even when you are behind a wall and couldn't be seen even if you were visible?
Really? Your answer to that is "The rules say bonus to stealth checks, so it's not weird."?
thejeff wrote: DC to pinpoint a not speaking, unmoving creature: Base DC20 + 20 for pinpoint = DC 40. No further modifiers, since we don't use the table.
DC to pinpoint a speaking, unmoving creature: Base DC20 + 20 for pinpoint -20 for speaking + 20 for not moving = DC 40.
There's a good example of wacky.
Some other ones:
It's more difficult to Hear a bow being drawn when the bow is invisible.
It's more difficult to Detect the smell of smoke when the smoke is invisible.
It's more difficult to Sense a burrowing creature underneath you when the burrowing creature is invisible.
And those come directly from the perception table, nowhere else. Having one skill apply to both visual and audible (and misc) sensory input can create some odd corner cases.
thejeff wrote: So you are contending that distance, doors, walls, distraction and sleep also only apply to noticing details? The Perception Modifiers listed in the table of details apply when you're trying to notice those details. That's what they are: modifiers to the DCs to notice those things.
While it kind of makes sense that if you're making the check while distracted it would be more difficult to appraise the value of an item, or handle an animal, the perception modifiers table isn't really where you would look for that.
thejeff wrote: So you don't think it's strange that invisibility makes you much harder to perceive even when you are behind a wall and couldn't be seen even if you were visible? Yes, because invisibility grants you a significant bonus on stealth checks.
If invisibility did not grant a bonus to stealth checks, but merely made you visually undetectable, then it would not make sense (and, in fact, would not be the case).
Having a bonus to stealth checks means you're better at making stealth checks than if you didn't have that bonus.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: So you are contending that distance, doors, walls, distraction and sleep also only apply to noticing details? The Perception Modifiers listed in the table of details apply when you're trying to notice those details. That's what they are: modifiers to the DCs to notice those things.
While it kind of makes sense that if you're making the check while distracted it would be more difficult to appraise the value of an item, or handle an animal, the perception modifiers table isn't really where you would look for that.
You missed the "only" part of my reply. And I have no idea why you're bring up appraise or handle animal. Yes, they are obviously Perception modifiers. The question is do they only apply to noticing details or do they also apply to other Perception rolls.
The first example given in the text as most common use is Opposed Stealth checks. Then it says "Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment", so I would assume the opposed Stealth checks are not noticing fine details and therefore the modifiers wouldn't apply. So you are saying that distance, walls, doors, distraction and sleep don't apply to opposed Stealth checks?
OTOH, "Notice a creature using Stealth" is one of the things listed in the Details section, so I guess Opposed Stealth checks are both the most common use and and "also used to notice fine details". Is there anything that Perception is used for that doesn't fall into the "Details" category?
Anyway since Opposed Stealth checks were what we were talking about when you said that the +20 from "Creature or object is invisible" wouldn't apply, I'm not sure how this helps.
If it doesn't apply to looking for invisible creatures, whether or not they're stealthed because those aren't listed on the Details table, then when does it apply? Why is there a modifier for noticing invisible things that doesn't apply to invisible things?
And if you maintain that it doesn't apply to the stealthed invisible creature were talking about do you also claim that the distraction, distance and sleep modifiers wouldn't apply?
Grick wrote:
thejeff wrote: So you don't think it's strange that invisibility makes you much harder to perceive even when you are behind a wall and couldn't be seen even if you were visible? Yes, because invisibility grants you a significant bonus on stealth checks.
If invisibility did not grant a bonus to stealth checks, but merely made you visually undetectable, then it would not make sense (and, in fact, would not be the case).
Having a bonus to stealth checks means you're better at making stealth checks than if you didn't have that bonus.
I think this may be the root of our differences.
You seem to be taking the letter of the rule as the explanation. Invisibility grants a stealth bonus, therefore you're harder to perceive even when you wouldn't be able to seen even without it. No worries at all about how that works.
I think you get a stealh bonus because you can't be seen and it doesn't make sense to apply it when you already couldn't be seen.
Question:
See Invisibility wrote: You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures. Does See Invisibility negate the stealth bonus? Or am I still better at making those stealth checks, even though I'm visible?
thejeff wrote: The first example given in the text as most common use is Opposed Stealth checks. Then it says "Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment", so I would assume the opposed Stealth checks are not noticing fine details and therefore the modifiers wouldn't apply. One of the details in the table is to "Notice a creature using Stealth"
So if you're making a perception check for the detail "Notice a creature using Stealth" then your DC is "Opposed by Stealth".
And if you're trying to do so "Through a closed door" then the DC modifier is "+5".
thejeff wrote: Is there anything that Perception is used for that doesn't fall into the "Details" category? To "notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet" is a perception check, and it's not listed as a detail in the perception table.
thejeff wrote: Anyway since Opposed Stealth checks were what we were talking about when you said that the +20 from "Creature or object is invisible" wouldn't apply, I'm not sure how this helps. You were talking about applying the perception detail modifier for "Creature or object is invisible" from the perception detail table to the DC to "notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet" from invisibility.
thejeff wrote: You seem to be taking the letter of the rule as the explanation. Invisibility grants a stealth bonus, therefore you're harder to perceive even when you wouldn't be able to seen even without it. I'm saying that the rules say invisibility grants a stealth bonus. This bonus applies to stealth checks made while invisible.
thejeff wrote: No worries at all about how that works. Once again, if you're looking for fluff to justify the rule, people have presented reasonable examples.
thejeff wrote: I think you get a stealh bonus because you can't be seen and it doesn't make sense to apply it when you already couldn't be seen. Is there any case whatsoever where the stealth bonus would actually be applied?
If you're invisible, you can't be seen. So if you get a bonus against checks related to being seen, those checks will never happen, because you simply can't be seen. When would the bonus actually do anything?
thejeff wrote: Does See Invisibility negate the stealth bonus? Or am I still better at making those stealth checks, even though I'm visible? I don't see anything in that spell that says you lose any bonuses granted by the condition.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: The first example given in the text as most common use is Opposed Stealth checks. Then it says "Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment", so I would assume the opposed Stealth checks are not noticing fine details and therefore the modifiers wouldn't apply. One of the details in the table is to "Notice a creature using Stealth"
So if you're making a perception check for the detail "Notice a creature using Stealth" then your DC is "Opposed by Stealth".
And if you're trying to do so "Through a closed door" then the DC modifier is "+5".
Yes, I noted that later in the post.
So, since that is on the Details table, you agree that the +20 DC modifier for "Creature or object is invisible" applies to noticing an invisible creature using stealth?
Do you get the +5 DC Closed door twice too, since it appears on the Perception Details table and the Invisibility one? Quote:
thejeff wrote: Is there anything that Perception is used for that doesn't fall into the "Details" category? To "notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet" is a perception check, and it's not listed as a detail in the perception table.
So sleep and distraction don't apply to this, I take it. Or distance, 30' could be another -2. Quote:
thejeff wrote: Anyway since Opposed Stealth checks were what we were talking about when you said that the +20 from "Creature or object is invisible" wouldn't apply, I'm not sure how this helps. You were talking about applying the perception detail modifier for "Creature or object is invisible" from the perception detail table to the DC to "notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet" from invisibility.
Actually, at one point at least you objected to me adding it in to the pinpointing a Stealthy invisible creature check. I take it you withdraw that? Quote:
thejeff wrote: You seem to be taking the letter of the rule as the explanation. Invisibility grants a stealth bonus, therefore you're harder to perceive even when you wouldn't be able to seen even without it. I'm saying that the rules say invisibility grants a stealth bonus. This bonus applies to stealth checks made while invisible.
thejeff wrote: No worries at all about how that works. Once again, if you're looking for fluff to justify the rule, people have presented reasonable examples.
thejeff wrote: I think you get a stealh bonus because you can't be seen and it doesn't make sense to apply it when you already couldn't be seen. Is there any case whatsoever where the stealth bonus would actually be applied?
If you're invisible, you can't be seen. So if you get a bonus against checks related to being seen, those checks will never happen, because you simply can't be seen. When would the bonus actually do anything?
thejeff wrote:
Does See Invisibility negate the stealth bonus? Or am I still better at making those stealth checks, even though I'm visible? I don't see anything in that spell that says you lose any bonuses granted by the condition. Silly me. I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply. So the Invisibility spell actually makes me quieter or better at hiding behind things or something?
thejeff wrote: Silly me. I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply. So the Invisibility spell actually makes me quieter or better at hiding behind things or something? The first convincing argument I've seen indicating the +20/+40 bonuses described in the Stealth skill and Invisibility spell sections are erroneous. It still means the authors made a mistake not once, but twice. And possibly three times -- I still think the Glossary entry is far too confusing to know what it states, and in general needs to be rewritten regardless of the outcome of this debate.
thejeff wrote: Actually, at one point at least you objected to me adding it in to the pinpointing a Stealthy invisible creature check. You don't apply a +20 modifier for "Not moving" when you're trying to "Determine if food is spoiled."
Likewise, you don't apply a +20 modifier for "Creature or object is invisible" when you're trying to "notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet."
thejeff wrote: I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply. So you can't come up with a single example in which the bonus would be applied and have any effect on the outcome?
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: I assumed the stealth check bonus had something to do with them not being able to see me. You know, because I'm invisible. And that therefore, if they could see me, like with See invisible, then it shouldn't apply. So you can't come up with a single example in which the bonus would be applied and have any effect on the outcome?
Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question in relation to his statement.
The spell Invisibility grants a +20/+40 Stealth Bonus.
The spell See Invisibility would seem like it should entirely counteract the effects of Invisibility for a single person. However, See Invisibility only allows you to see the target. If they have concealment (say they're in dim light), they would still gain a +20/+40 bonus to a Stealth check for no discernible reason. I would expect an Invisible creature being observed by a creature under the effects of See Invisible, or True Seeing, to gain no benefit from Invisibility.
Don't you think it odd that a Sorc/Wiz 6 spell (True Seeing) does not eliminate the Stealth bonus of a Sorc/Wiz 2 spell (Invisibility)? I would think that the phrase "If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks" ceases to apply if the observer is able to see them.
I think that's a pretty solid argument for the other side.
Velkyn wrote: Grick wrote: So you can't come up with a single example in which the bonus would be applied and have any effect on the outcome? Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question in relation to his statement. TheJeff said "I think you get a stealh bonus because you can't be seen and it doesn't make sense to apply it when you already couldn't be seen."
Since invisibility means you can't be seen, he's saying that it grants a bonus which will never actually affect anything.
Grick wrote: Velkyn wrote: Grick wrote: So you can't come up with a single example in which the bonus would be applied and have any effect on the outcome? Can you rephrase? I don't understand your question in relation to his statement. TheJeff said "I think you get a stealh bonus because you can't be seen and it doesn't make sense to apply it when you already couldn't be seen."
Since invisibility means you can't be seen, he's saying that it grants a bonus which will never actually affect anything. You're reading that very oddly. Remember this bit started with the behind the wall part.
So, you get a stealth bonus because you are invisible (can't be seen), but if you couldn't be seen even if you weren't invisible (Like you're in another room with a 1' stone wall between you) then you shouldn't get any more of a bonus because it's not like you can be seen any less.
Similarly, someone using See Invisible can see you. Being invisible shouldn't help you hide from someone who can see invisible things.
But I think you're arguing at this point that the Stealth bonus granted by invisibility is completely unrelated to actually not being able to see the invisible thing. That it's not related to visual senses at all.
To answer your question directly: The bonus would come into play any time anyone was trying to perceive you and they would have a chance of seeing you if you weren't invisible. Which is most of the normal cases. If you turn invisible and try to sneak by the guard, it would count. Not only might he hear noises you make, but he might see footprints or dust you kick up, etc.
Grick wrote: This was covered a bit back, in spoilers, but basically:
In 3.5, to notice a creature was either a spot check vs a variable DC, or a listen check vs move silently.
In 3.5, invisibility granted a bonus to hide checks.
This means, in 3.5, the only time that bonus to hide checks would be used is against someone who can see invisible. ("Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible.")
So 3.5 having invisibility granting a bonus that only applies against creatures that can see invisible makes less sense than PFRPG having invisibility granting a bonus that applies against everyone, even when it has nothing to do with sight.
This is not how it worked in 3.5. In 3.5 it's all very simple and clear. There's a general DC 20 spot check to notice a creature who is invisible but not attempting to hide. There is nothing in rules about this only being applied with See Invisibility.
If the creature is attempting to Hide then it is simply a Perception check Vs Hide check+20 as outlined under the Hide skill.
On another note: Someone mentioned the Invisible Stalker up tread, I have to say it just complicates matters further.
invsiible stalker wrote: Natural Invisibility (Ex) This ability is constant—an invisible stalker remains invisible at all times, even when attacking. As this ability is inherent, it is not subject to the invisibility purge spell. Against foes that cannot pinpoint it, the invisible stalker gains a +20 bonus on Stealth checks when moving, or +40 when standing still—these bonuses are not included in the statistics above. So you only get the bonus to stealth checks against creatures who have already failed to pinpoint you? What?
|
