Clearly we need a FAQ, as I see at least three different interpretations of rules that I thought were cut & dry.
Using Roanark's example, this is how I understand it to work (different from Roanark):
Assuming a character has a -1 stealth check and rolls a natural 1 (with no other modifiers this leads to 0)..
1. DC to "notice" that an invisible creature is within 30' (DC 20)
2. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're moving at half speed)(DC 35)
3. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're not moving (DC 60)Now let's assume that they have a +9 to stealth and roll a natural 1 (thus giving us a +10 stealth check)..
1. DC to "notice" that an invisible creature is within 30' (DC 20)
2. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're moving at half speed)(DC 45)
3. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're not moving (DC 70)The word "this" in the statement "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." applies to "pinpoint", and not "notice". Although I suspect the modifiers were intended to apply to both "notice" and "pinpoint" DCs.
After re-reading, this is how I now interpret it. (Boy was I being nice on my group before)
Now I see where your logic is coming from.. damn... Well in the table for Invisibility, it says to modify the DC by your Stealth + 20. If you look up Stealth, it says to modify your stealth by +40(+20) if you're invisible. Is this a double dip? Now my head hurts from decoding all the dipping that comes from putting modifiers in multiple locations.I believe the Table under Invisibility in the Glossary is a reproduction of the modifiers listed in the Invisibility spell. If not, this would make magical invisibility superior to natural invisibility by +20/+40. I cannot fathom why a naturally invisible (e.g. ethereal) creature would be easier to pinpoint than a magically invisible one.
And subsequently, the +20/+40 under stealth for being invisible is just a duplication of the bonuses from the spell (but includes non-magical as well).
The glossary clearly identifies two actions.
Why would they say "(+20 DC)" instead of DC 40 if they were intended to be two separate actions?
There are two DCs, and the word "this" is clearly referring to the Pinpoint DC.
Yet that would mean there are no modifiers to notice, only to pinpoint, which means a DC 18 perception check would be unable to notice an invisible creature which is walking around speaking, but would be able to pinpoint his square.
I see your point -- the table should include this modifier (pinpoint, +20) to make it clearer how it works.
If it was in the table, then it would only apply when the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Then the DCs in my example turn to:
Assuming a character has a -1 stealth check and rolls a natural 1 (with no other modifiers this leads to 0)..
2. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're moving at half speed)(DC 35)
This is correct if he's not using stealth.
DC 20
+20 pinpoint
-5 moving half speed
If he is using stealth, then you need to further modify that DC with "Stealth +20"
So either you left off the +20 bonus to stealth checks while moving (Resulting in DC 55) or the guy normally has a -21 stealth modifier when not invisible.
|
I see your point -- the table should include this modifier (pinpoint, +20) to make it clearer how it works.If it was in the table, then it would only apply when the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
Then the DCs in my example turn to:
Assuming a character has a -1 stealth check and rolls a natural 1 (with no other modifiers this leads to 0)..
2. DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're moving at half speed)(DC 35)
This is correct if he's not using stealth.
DC 20
+20 pinpoint
-5 moving half speedIf he is using stealth, then you need to further modify that DC with "Stealth +20"
So either you left off the +20 bonus to stealth checks while moving (Resulting in DC 55) or the guy normally has a -21 stealth modifier when not invisible.
Or, he believes that "Stealth check + 20" isn't a modifier, and is instead a DC replacement.
The modifiers should affect the DCs: - 5 moving half speed + 20 to pinpoint. This ends up with a DC Stealth + 35.
Oh, so you do still use the table of modifiers?
That means that according to the Replacement HouseRules:
Invisible creature standing still and speaking: DC 40 to pinpoint
Invisible creature standing still, speaking, and using stealth: DC Stealth+20 -20 +20
If your stealth check, before bonus, is less than 20, then using stealth made you easier to pinpoint using those house rules.
I'm guessing you need a bit more fine tuning of the replacement method.
Maybe you replace the listed DC with the Stealth +20 modifier, and then remove the stealth entry from the table, and also remove the not moving modifier from the table, apply everything else from the table, but then you apply separately the bonus to stealth checks listed elsewhere?
And, just to be perfectly clear, this is what you think the rules actually say? Or it's just how you think the designers wanted the rules to function and they just wrote it wrong?
How do you apply "+1 per 10 feet"?
If the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity, and the Invisible creature is... Some distance away, you modify the DC by +1 per 10 feet.
If the invisible creature is more than 30' away, I don't see anything allowing you to attempt to notice his presence.
The glossary clearly identifies two actions.Why would they say "(+20 DC)" instead of DC 40 if they were intended to be two separate actions?
There are two DCs, and the word "this" is clearly referring to the Pinpoint DC.Yet that would mean there are no modifiers to notice, only to pinpoint, which means a DC 18 perception check would be unable to notice an invisible creature which is walking around speaking, but would be able to pinpoint his square.
Where do you get that?
What part of the rule says those modifiers only apply to pinpointing? Just because the last sentence of the paragraph says "There are modifiers..." doesn't mean this must only apply to the previous sentence - it can and does very well apply to the whole paragraph, the first sentence of which is about noticing an invisible creature.
The table of modifiers applies to noticing and to pinpointing.
|
|
The modifiers should affect the DCs: - 5 moving half speed + 20 to pinpoint. This ends up with a DC Stealth + 35.Oh, so you do still use the table of modifiers?
That means that according to the Replacement HouseRules:
Invisible creature standing still and speaking: DC 40 to pinpoint
Invisible creature standing still, speaking, and using stealth: DC Stealth+20 -20 +20
In the second example, you've either neglected to include the +20 for pinpointing or the +20 for standing still. Why? It should be DC: stealth + 20 (to notice) + 20 (to pinpoint) + 20 (standing still) - 20 (talking), which is: DC stealth + 40.
I'm not sure you are allowed to be talking and stealth at the same time, though. It also seems odd that it's a DC 20 to even notice that a creature (which is invisible) is talking while standing still.
And, just to be perfectly clear, this is what you think the rules actually say? Or it's just how you think the designers wanted the rules to function and they just wrote it wrong?
I'm not sure. I do think my way is what they intended to say, and it's definitely possible that "stealth + 20", even if not actually a modifier, is in the modifier table for space or other reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grick, after all this, I gotta ask. Are you a poe or are you for real?
You're the only one objecting to what everyone else understands clearly, and you're defending it tooth and claw, and even making wild assertions out of the blue, such as "If the invisible creature is more than 30' away, I don't see anything allowing you to attempt to notice his presence."
With all that, I'm really seriously wondering if I'm actually having a debate with someone misunderstanding the rules, or if I'm just being strung along with someone who really does understand the same rules everyone else does but just seems to want to see how far he can drag on a useless argument.
Is your position just a ruse to try to convince Paizo that this needs a FAQ?
Or is it somehow possible that despite all these explanations in this thread and the others, somehow you still really honestly don't get how it works?
Where do you get that?There are two DCs, and the word "this" is clearly referring to the Pinpoint DC.Yet that would mean there are no modifiers to notice, only to pinpoint, which means a DC 18 perception check would be unable to notice an invisible creature which is walking around speaking, but would be able to pinpoint his square.
From his post.
He said notice and pinpoint are two separate actions, and when it says "this DC" it's specifically talking about the DC to pinpoint, not the DC to notice.
The logical result of this is that the modifiers only apply to the DC to pinpoint, not notice. And the results of that are ridiculous, which is fairly good evidence that "this DC" is referring to the only DC listed in the section, which can be modified by pinpointing (and the things in the table)
That poster then saw my point, and as far as I know, no longer feels that "this DC" refers to pinpointing.
All of which is written in the thread here, and even included as quotes in your own post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is scenario #3 (DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're not moving (stealth)) in the examples even possible?
Can you gain the benefit of "Not Moving" and "Stealth"? I would think "Stealth" is mutually exclusive with "engaged in a noisy activity". So an unmoving character is easier to detect than one stealthing at half speed?
Yes, you can get both benefits.
A not moving person might be just standing there, daydreaming, breathing normally, lost in his own thoughts. A stealthy person who is also not moving might be holding his breath or breathing shallowly, maybe even crouching down to minimize his invisible profile in case really perceptive observers might notice a little distortion or funny echoes in the room or whatever.
OK, that's just fluff, but the rulebook also says:
"Since some creatures can detect or even see invisible creatures, it is helpful to be able to hide even when invisible."
Actually, anyone can detect ("notice") an invisible creature if they have enough Perception and roll high enough which means it is always helpful to be able to hide (use Stealth) even when invisible.
Grick, after all this, I gotta ask. Are you a poe or are you for real?
What is a "poe"?
You're the only one objecting to what everyone else understands clearly
I'm objecting to people stating things that are clearly incorrect and claiming it's what the rules say.
making wild assertions out of the blue, such as "If the invisible creature is more than 30' away, I don't see anything allowing you to attempt to notice his presence."
That's rather disparaging.
The rules tell you that you can notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet.
The rules don't tell you that you can notice the presence of an active invisible creature beyond 30 feet.
Since it's a "wild assertion out of the blue" (despite being a response to someone who asked that specific question) I assume you have a rule you can quote to show how you can attempt to notice an invisible creature beyond 30' away. Please post it.
With all that, I'm really seriously wondering if I'm actually having a debate with someone misunderstanding the rules
You're not. I understand the rules.
Look at the FAQ question you're asking for: "Is the modifier for a creature using stealth that is listed in the invisibility modifiers table actually a modifier like it says, or is it instead a replacement DC?"
That's clearly asking if the rules mean what they say.
That means the rules don't say what you think they might mean.
The rules state the Stealth check +20 is used as a modifier.
In the second example, you've either neglected to include the +20 for pinpointing or the +20 for standing still.That means that according to the Replacement HouseRules:
Invisible creature standing still and speaking: DC 40 to pinpoint
Invisible creature standing still, speaking, and using stealth: DC Stealth+20 -20 +20
Yep, I left out a +20 by mistake.
Grick, after all this, I gotta ask. Are you a poe or are you for real?What is a "poe"?
I'm assuming that he's co-opting a term from Internet discussions on religion, wherein "Poe's Law" is a 'law' stating that a true religious fundamentalist\extremist will be indistinguishable from someone trolling a a religious fundamentalist\extremist.
Actually, anyone can detect ("notice") an invisible creature if they have enough Perception and roll high enough which means it is always helpful to be able to hide (use Stealth) even when invisible.Only if they're within 30', according to the rules. And supernaturally invisible creatures can only gain the benefits of stealth if they are "moving or engaged in a noisy activity". Creatures under the effects of the Invisibility spell might be able to, since the spell confers +20 to stealth checks irrespective of "moving or engaged in a noisy activity".
And
making wild assertions out of the blue, such as "If the invisible creature is more than 30' away, I don't see anything allowing you to attempt to notice his presence.The rules tell you that you can notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet.
The rules don't tell you that you can notice the presence of an active invisible creature beyond 30 feet.
Since it's a "wild assertion out of the blue" (despite being a response to someone who asked that specific question) I assume you have a rule you can quote to show how you can attempt to notice an invisible creature beyond 30' away. Please post it.
First, to be fair, your phrase "attempt to notice an invisible creature" is different than the Core rulebook that says "generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature". Because of the different wording, I took yours to be more strict and to rule out any chance of being aware of the presence of an invisible creature beyond 30 feet.
If that's not how you meant it, then I apologize for reading you wrong.
So, let's clear this up:
Are we forgetting that Perception is not limited to vision? It encompasses every one of our senses. Are you suggesting that the Rules as Written would prevent me from noticing the presence of an invisible guy 40 feet away playing the bagpipes? Are you assuming that I would need to make a Perception check to hear the piper or to even "get a hunch" he's there?
Of course not.
"Notice" says nothing about "notice with your eyes" nor does it say anything about "notice a silent or stealthy individual". It just says "notice", or more specifically, "notice the presence". In fact, there is no identifiable specific game term for "notice". In that case, all the default rules come into play, such as being automatically able to hear a bagpipe player 35 feet away, even if he's invisible.
Notice that I said "hear a bagpipe player" not "see a bagpipe player" nor "pinpoint the location of a bagpipe player". (Also notice that I used "notice" in a sentence. Twice.)
What if that invisible bagpipe player is 100 feet away, still very very much in audible range? Yes, I will still automatically "notice" his presence, unless something is very wrong with my ears.
So what is the point of the "Notice the Presence" rule (for simplicity I'll just call it that) with regards to Invisibility?
Well, let's ask this question. What if you walk into a large empty room, let's say 50' x 50', and there is an orc standing there on the other side of the room, about 40' away. He's visible, just quietly standing there, no cover or concealment, and with good lighting.
Would you "notice the presence" of the orc?
Of course. No DM in the world would make you roll for that. Why? The DC is 0 + 3 for distance, for a total DC of 3. You can (and should) "Take 10" so you need a net of -8 in penalties to fail to "notice the presence" of the orc automatically.
What do the Invisibility rules do if the orc in the same example is invisible? For one, you can't automatically "notice" his presence. You have to actually look for him. If you do, the DC is 0 (he's not being stealthy and he's just standing there) +20 (invisible) + 20 (not moving) + 3 (distance) for a net DC of 43. Now the DM will require a Perception check, but not to "notice" him, but rather, to actively look for him.
So what good is the "Notice the Presence" rule? Suppose the invisible orc is 20 feet away rather than 40. That falls within the Notice the Presence rule's range of 30 feet. Now when you walk into the room, the DM immediately has you make a Perception check (or rolls it secretly) as a chance that you might "notice the presence" of the invisible orc. If you succeed on that roll, he will tell you something like "You get a hunch that something's there, but you can't see anything".
You don't get the automatic "Notice the Presence" roll if he's more than 30 feet away, but you do get it if he's within 30 feet. It is the exact same "Notice the Presence" roll that you get if the orc is not invisible, but without invisibility the DC is so ridiculously low that nobody ever rolls it - the Invisibility Special Ability just clears up how to use it, and at what distance, when Invisibility is in use.
Is all this RAW? Most of it, but there is some interpretation of what they mean by "notice the presence". However, every bit I cited as to how I arrive at the interpretation is explicitly in the core rulebook.
To summarize, there are 3 basic considerations:
1. "notice the presence" is an automatic chance (Perception check DC 20) to get a hunch that someone or something is invisible and nearby, within 30 feet, much like it's automatic (Perception check DC 0) to notice the presence of every non-invisible creature (assuming no other cover or concealment, etc.). I'm fairly sure we both agree on this one.
2. Other conditions, such as when the invisible guy is playing the bagpipe, make it automatic to "notice his presence" at much greater range because the default rules for non-visual senses still apply - invisibility only affects vision. I took your quoted text above to mean that you disagree with this.
3. It's always possible to actively search for invisible creatures even if they're farther than 30 feet away, because the "notice the presence" rule is not applicable to any active efforts to find invisible creature at any distance. I took your quoted text above to mean you also disagree with this.
Again, if I mistook your intent, I apologize.
What do the Invisibility rules do if the orc in the same example is invisible? For one, you can't automatically "notice" his presence. You have to actually look for him. If you do, the DC is 0 (he's not being stealthy and he's just standing there) +20 (invisible) + 20 (not moving) + 3 (distance) for a net DC of 43. Now the DM will require a Perception check, but not to "notice" him, but rather, to actively look for himAn unmoving, invisible orc standing 40' away is a DC impossible to detect. An unmoving, invisible orc standing 30' away is a DC 20 to detect. That's what RAW states. The orc does not get distance or "not moving" modifiers unless he is either "moving or engaged in a noisy activity". The orc is doing neither -- modifiers do not apply.
I disagree wholeheartedly.
What if he used Stealth to conceal himself? A stealthy orc without invisibility must make a Stealth check and add various modifiers as appropriate to the situation. Distance is a modifier. That orc could be 5 feet away, 40 feet away, or 400 feet away, but you still get to declare that you're searching for him and you get to attempt a Perception check to find him.
The Stealth rules specifically say that invisibility is a modifier to the Stealth check. Invisibility while standing still is a bigger modifier. Nowhere, not anywhere, in the Stealth rules of Perception rules does it say "Well, if the guy is invisible and more than 30 feet away, you cannot attempt a Perception check to find him."
However, under the Invisibility special ability, it says you cannot "notice the presence" of an invisible creature more than 30 feet away. Actually, it says you can within 30 feet so the converse must also be applied.
What it doesn't say, anywhere in the Invisibility special ability, is that at 31 feet you lose all normal perception and cannot even attempt to find an invisible creature at that distance.
"Notice the presence" is vastly different than actively looking for a creature. You can only do the first one within 30 feet, the other is unrestricted by invisibility but definitely made more difficult..
Getting back to the essence of your argument:
Are we forgetting that Perception is not limited to vision? It encompasses every one of our senses. Are you suggesting that the Rules as Written would prevent me from noticing the presence of an invisible guy 40 feet away playing the bagpipes? Are you assuming that I would need to make a Perception check to hear the piper or to even "get a hunch" he's there?Sounds like meta-gaming to me. Remember, we're in a world of magic and divinity. Why would a creature assume the sound is coming from some invisible, corporeal creature, when there is a veritable host of other possibilities, including:
- Ghost Sound
- Incorporeal Creature
- Ethereal Creature
- Some other magical explanation
- Some other divine explanation
It is not reasonable to assume that origination of some sound you hear from 31'+ away is the result of some invisible corporeal being (I'm not sure it makes sense at 30'-!).
Nor is it reasonable to assume that some sound you hear from 31'+ away cannot possibly be an invisible creature - unless playing by your presumed rule, the individual hearing the bagpipes realizes that bagpipes played by Ghost Sound, Incorporeals, Ethereals, and other magical and divine sources are able to be noticed but bagpipes played by invisible creatures are not, ergo, the unseen source of the bagpipe music is not an invisible creature or the person who noticed it would have been prevented by an arbitrary and incorrect rule interpretation.
And even if it were reasonable to assume that, you're still just making an assumption. There are a variety of other possible explanations.
Sure it's an assumption, but I wouldn't limit myself to just one. I might assume any or all of those things on your list are possible. But even if I assumed it was any of the other things, I would investigate, beginning with a careful observation of the area in the direction I "noticed" the sound, which would entitle me to a Perception check, by the rules, to "perceive" (not merely "notice" or "have a hunch") the existence of an invisible creature over there. DC as I described it, 43.
Unless the one doing the perceiving is from another planet where invisibility is the only possible explanation of inexplicable sounds. And then there's a good chance they're just wrong.
Really? That's your best strawman?
How would you like it if the GM said -- "YUP! Your perception check tells you there's an invisible orc there!"
I would love it. I invested ranks, probably feats, and probably magic items into getting my Perception skill up to where I can achieve a 43 Perception check, and something tipped me off to actively look in that area (I couldn't auto-notice him at the distance I used in the example you're quoting) so if I had a reason to examine the area and rolled well enough, I'd be nearly ecstatic that my investment had paid off.
I might have hoped he would say something more like "You're able to see the glimmer of of a lensing effect as if light is being bent, somewhere in the general area that you suspected. Something is there, about man-sized and roughly man shaped too. You can't pinpoint the exact location from here, but at least you can now perceive that glimmer."
And then, after you spend however many hours looking for said orc, he says "NAH! Just F'n with you! It was just a Magical Trap that triggered Ghost Sound!"
Now that would be odd. First, I had reason to search, so I did. Second, I made the roll and saw the glimmer. Now the DM is just being a jerk?
I don't know any DM like that. Do you? If so, I'm sorry for you - unless it's you, in which case, I'm sorry for your players.
Now, if the invisible presence left (teleport, for example, or maybe made a great stealth check and I lost it), then I wouldn't expect my DM to be a jerk about it. He'd be more likely to say "That glimmer you spotted seems to have vanished." At which time I might pull out the big guns, like See Invisible or Glitterdust or some such, if I hadn't already (you said "hours", so I imagine I would have done this hours ago).
I think it's rather silly that you can "notice" an invisible creature at all.
Why? Conan did it in numerous books. So did Fafhrd. So did John Carter. So did Snape. It seems to be rather iconic. Was it good hearing, a sixth sense, the stirring of air as the invisible person walked or breathed? Just plain dumb "hero's luck"? Any combination of the above?
Don't get tied up in the idea that your eyes are your only sense or that any 2nd level spell is the be-all-and-end-all of absolutely conquering the bad guys/good guys.
Certainly you can notice the sound. And certainly you can pinpoint its origination. But to identify that it is produced by an invisible creature is ridiculous (IMO) without interacting (e.g. touching) said creature.
Agreed. But to assume that it is not, or to be prevented from using your amazingly high Perception to try to observe, by any senses, what might or might not be there, is equally if not more ridiculous.
|
Is scenario #3 (DC to "pinpoint" that creature if they're not moving (stealth)) in the examples even possible?
Can you gain the benefit of "Not Moving" and "Stealth"? I would think "Stealth" is mutually exclusive with "engaged in a noisy activity". So an unmoving character is easier to detect than one stealthing at half speed?
Yes, you can get both benefits.
A not moving person might be just standing there, daydreaming, breathing normally, lost in his own thoughts. A stealthy person who is also not moving might be holding his breath or breathing shallowly, maybe even crouching down to minimize his invisible profile in case really perceptive observers might notice a little distortion or funny echoes in the room or whatever.
I agree that it should be possible to gain the benefits of stealth while neither "moving or engaged in a noisy activity", but by RAW you cannot.
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.
As you can see, by RAW it is perfectly possible to use stealth while not moving or not doing noisy activity.