Ninja in the Rye wrote: There is very little, outside of putting on/taking off magic items, changing size, or becoming invisible that can change the modifiers to a stealth check.
Perception modifiers can change pretty easily, but that's not on the person using stealth to make a new check, that's on the would be observer.
But the Perception check is opposed by the Stealth check. It's one check for each participant. Why does it make sense that one of those skills gets to use every condition that makes it favorable for just that one skill and the other one must ignore all of the conditions that would be favorable to it?
Ninja in the Rye wrote: If I have to constantly "use" stealth over the entire movement then, by the rules I should have to constantly be making stealth checks to determine my success. I am not saying that at all.
Ninja in the Rye wrote: If I'm able to cover my entire movement with a single check (as you seem to agree is RAW and RAI) then I should only need to meet the conditions for using that skill at the time of the check. I would agree, but where we differ is this:
A rogue declares that he is going to move from point A (lots of cover, behind a wall, tons of positive modifiers that help with Stealth) to point B (not nearly as many positive Stealth modifiers). He intends to use Stealth during this move. One check that will set the DC for the observer's one Perception check. One opposed roll.
Your method is to use the first set of conditions, make the opposed checks, and then apply that result to the whole movement. My method is to find weed out the modifiers that don't apply for the whole action and only use the ones that do apply for the whole thing.
Consider an analogy.
A juggler can juggle 3 balls. It's quite easy so when juggling balls he has a very easy DC, let's say DC 10. He could also juggle feral cats. This is much harder as they scratch and claw and squirm and try to get away. The DC is much higher, let's say 25. What if he says he wants to juggle balls and feral cats at the same time? Would you let him simply roll the DC 10 since some of the things he is juggling are balls?
I think we'd probably agree that the fact that he is also juggling cats should be applied to the juggle check and that the DC 10 is too low because it doesn't represent the entire situation. Note that this would be true if he started juggling balls and made the DC 10 check and then had someone toss a feral cat into the middle of his check - the changing situation means that that the check he has already made no longer represents the situation, The juggler cannot simply say "well, I already made that DC 10 check so I guess this cat is docile, or sleeping, or paralyze, or whatever" - he can't alter the reality that what he is doing right now is harder than the original circumstances accommodated.
I would likewise say that rolling a Stealth vs. Perception check under one set of circumstances (behind a wall) and then changing those circumstances (moving out from behind the wall) definitely means that the benefits of being behind the wall do not represent the entire situation. The sneaker cannot simply say "well, I already made that check so I guess this observer is distracted, or sleeping, or paralyzed, or whatever" - he can't alter the reality that what is doing right now is harder than the original circumstances accommodated.
I would say that both the juggler and the sneaker in these scenarios violated verisimilitude and violated RAI - in no case is it the rules intent that you can make a simple check with an easy DC because of situational modifiers and then remove those modifiers and expect that previous check with all those removed modifiers still in force.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: Once again, using a skill is making a skill check. The rules call for a stealth check as part of movement. Are you suggesting that every time a character is moving stealthily he makes a new stealth check every 5 feet? No I am saying you have to remain qualified for stealth to gain the benefits. You don't get to make the check, and then be able to do anything you want after that and gain pseudo-invisibility or super silence.
If you yell as loud as you can while moving guess what? New perception check, even if you still have cover or concealment.
The noise counts as observable stimuli.
Now Big Dogg might try to argue that since you made your check before you yelled that nobody will notice you yelling, but you yelling has changed the situation.
By the same logic that the yelling changes the situation, you no longer being behind cover/concealment has changed the situation.
Yelling is a new action that receives a new perception check to detect the yelling.
You are always an observable stimuli. Observation is more than just sight. Hearing, smelling, touch, taste, these are all covered by perception. One roll per action, since the game works off of actions. Your way of looking at it means a new stealth check every 10 feet, since the modifier changes every 10 feet. This interpretation does not work with the "a stealth check as part of movement". It contradicts it entirely, and is therefore invalid.
Now, with your above point, a new perception check can be given from the yelling action, or the bagpipe action as was already discussed above. Did you not see my post on scent? That also applies, and is not a new action. I write before I wrote the post you replied to.
Ninja in the Rye also did not respond to it.
DM_Blake wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: Your swim check covers all swimming for the entire move action.
Your climb check covers all climbing for the entire move action.
Your stealth check covers all stealth movement for the entire move action.
See the trend? Guess what the DC for stealth is? The single perception check of each character trying to observe you.
Actually, the DC of the Perception check is the Stealth Check. Sure, it's quibbling over semantics, but it matters if the final results are a tie.
The_Big_Dog wrote: If you succeed at that check, you can go wherever you please, just like you can climb wherever you please if you beat the DC. Climb calls out an individual DC for each obstacle as well, stealth does not. Just the one. Great.
Climb calls for one check and you can climb wherever you please.
Stealth calls for one check and you can go wherever you please.
I want to apply this logic to the Perception check: Perception calls for one check and I can perceive wherever I please. In this case, it pleases me to apply my check to the guy AFTER he leaves cover and concealment and enters my unobstructed field of view.
You don't like that?
Why is one skill more decisive than the other? Why does Stealth have the almost mystical power to force the observer to make the check at the worst possible moment and then can abuse all the existing game rules about Perception, Line of Sight, Lighting, etc., but Perception is not given the same ability to force the sneaker to make his Stealth check at the worst possible moment?
Turn about is fair play - if you want only one check to rule the entire action, even if the action includes changing circumstances (e.g. leaving cover that only applied to part of the action), then shouldn't that one check be subjected to having to succeed at the least common denominator (only gaining the advantages that apply to the entire action rather than getting all of the advantages that apply only to the best optimal portion of the action)? Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
DM_Blake wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: There is very little, outside of putting on/taking off magic items, changing size, or becoming invisible that can change the modifiers to a stealth check.
Perception modifiers can change pretty easily, but that's not on the person using stealth to make a new check, that's on the would be observer.
But the Perception check is opposed by the Stealth check. It's one check for each participant. Why does it make sense that one of those skills gets to use every condition that makes it favorable for just that one skill and the other one must ignore all of the conditions that would be favorable to it?
Ninja in the Rye wrote: If I have to constantly "use" stealth over the entire movement then, by the rules I should have to constantly be making stealth checks to determine my success. I am not saying that at all.
Ninja in the Rye wrote: If I'm able to cover my entire movement with a single check (as you seem to agree is RAW and RAI) then I should only need to meet the conditions for using that skill at the time of the check. I would agree, but where we differ is this:
A rogue declares that he is going to move from point A (lots of cover, behind a wall, tons of positive modifiers that help with Stealth) to point B (not nearly as many positive Stealth modifiers). He intends to use Stealth during this move. One check that will set the DC for the observer's one Perception check. One opposed roll.
Your method is to use the first set of conditions, make the opposed checks, and then apply that result to the whole movement. My method is to find weed out the modifiers that don't apply for the whole action and only use the ones that do apply for the whole thing.
Consider an analogy.
A juggler can juggle 3 balls. It's quite easy so when juggling balls he has a very easy DC, let's say DC 10. He could also juggle feral cats. This is much harder as they scratch and claw and squirm and try to get away. The DC is much higher, let's say 25. What if he... The same benefit is given to the observer if he is the active one. He can walk behind the wall and roll an active perception check and the rogue gets no bonuses. If he is carrying a light source and moves behind the wall, the stealth character has no defense without cover or concealment. The active participant has the upper hand in stealth interactions, just like the attacking participant has the upper hand when attacking (he can choose where to attack from, with what weapon). The defender is static.
No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. This is only relevant to the stealth discussion if we are talking about multiple observers, however. It is still one stealth check against multiple DCs (set by perception checks). And the check still occurs at the beginning of the action.
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: Once again, using a skill is making a skill check. The rules call for a stealth check as part of movement. Are you suggesting that every time a character is moving stealthily he makes a new stealth check every 5 feet? No I am saying you have to remain qualified for stealth to gain the benefits. You don't get to make the check, and then be able to do anything you want after that and gain pseudo-invisibility or super silence.
If you yell as loud as you can while moving guess what? New perception check, even if you still have cover or concealment.
The noise counts as observable stimuli.
Now Big Dogg might try to argue that since you made your check before you yelled that nobody will notice you yelling, but you yelling has changed the situation.
By the same logic that the yelling changes the situation, you no longer being behind cover/concealment has changed the situation.
Yelling is a new action that receives a new perception check to detect the yelling.
You are always an observable stimuli. Observation is more than just sight. Hearing, smelling, touch, taste, these are all covered by perception. One roll per action, since the game works off of actions. Your way of looking at it means a new stealth check every 10 feet, since the modifier changes every 10 feet. This interpretation does not work with the "a stealth check as part of movement". It contradicts it entirely, and is therefore invalid.
Now, with your above point, a new perception check can be given from the yelling action, or the bagpipe action as was already discussed above. Did you not see my post on scent? That also applies, and is not a new action. I write before I wrote the post you replied to.
Ninja in the Rye also did not respond to it.
Scent is an outlying case, but lets take a look at the special rules. They do not break anything I have said before.
Scent wrote:
This special quality allows a creature to detect approaching enemies, sniff out hidden foes, and track by sense of smell. Creatures with the scent ability can identify familiar odors just as humans do familiar sights.
Right here we have some interesting wording we do not have in the stealth or perception entries. With scent, you can detect approaching enemies. No mention of any perception checks granted.
Scent wrote:
The creature can detect opponents within 30 feet by sense of smell. If the opponent is upwind, the range increases to 60 feet; if downwind, it drops to 15 feet. Strong scents, such as smoke or rotting garbage, can be detected at twice the ranges noted above. Overpowering scents, such as skunk musk or troglodyte stench, can be detected at triple normal range.
The next section describes the range at which this detection works. Still no mention of any perception checks granted.
Scent wrote:
When a creature detects a scent, the exact location of the source is not revealed—only its presence somewhere within range. The creature can take a move action to note the direction of the scent. When the creature is within 5 feet of the source, it pinpoints the source’s location.
Here is the heart of it. You are aware of a scent, and that there is a source somewhere, but you can't pinpoint it. You can take a move action to determine the direction of the scent. Hmm, still not a perception check, but this would give you reason to make a perception check on your turn (active perception).
Scent wrote:
A creature with the scent ability can follow tracks by smell, making a Wisdom (or Survival) check to find or follow a track. The typical DC for a fresh trail is 10 (no matter what kind of surface holds the scent). This DC increases or decreases depending on how strong the quarry’s odor is, the number of creatures, and the age of the trail. For each hour that the trail is cold, the DC increases by 2. The ability otherwise follows the rules for the Survival skill. Creatures tracking by scent ignore the effects of surface conditions and poor visibility.
This section covers tracking. Not relevant to our discussion. And still no mention of any perception checks granted.
So, if you have scent, what it says is that you can detect the presence of something within 30 feet (no pinpointing until within 5 feet). No additional perception checks are granted by this.
It allows you to take a move action on your turn to get the direction of the source. Based on the wording of this, you would not be observing the source until you had pinpointed it. You could act on your turn (not before) with the knowledge gained from scent, but you by no means automatically break the stealth or any other auto-success perception rolls. You just get a hint that something is in the area. You may even know what it is, if you have smelled it before.
The_Big_Dog wrote: Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn. Except I'm seeing it stated here that the Stealth check applies to the entire move action, so why is it that the Perception check is not applicable to the entire action.
What I am seeing is "My Stealth check covers everything I'm doing for the whole action and gets every conditional modifier even if those modifiers do not apply for the whole action, but your Perception check is not given the same consideration, it must be made immediately and does not apply to the whole action but only to the part of the action where it is subject to whatever conditions apply to just that part of the action."
This makes no sense. Why is Stealth all-powerful, capable of ignoring unfavorable conditions that apply to the stealthy action, but Perception is the wicked stepchild, unable to include modifiers that are clearly applicable to the stealthy action, completely at the mercy of the all-powerful Stealth skill?
I say the two skills should be given equal consideration. If one Stealth check covers everything you do for that action, then one Perception check should oppose that Stealth check for everything you do for that action, not just the beginning of it.
The RAW doesn't explicitly state this Stealth-biased approach. Common sense English definition of the word "use" doesn't support this Stealth-biased approach. Game balance doesn't support the idea of biasing one skill to the exclusion of another opposing skill.
Heck, the only reason I can find to justify the Stealth-bias is if the people justifying are biased in favor of Stealth. If someone wants to create Super Deadly Stealth Ninjas (TM) running around with skill-based invisibility then sure, that person would argue to have Stealth triumph over Perception in a non-RAW, non-grammatical, and non-mechanically balanced way.
For everyone else, there's RAW, grammar, and game balance.
The_Big_Dog wrote: No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. I agree.
I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.
In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.
(I know I reversed the roles - the observer must beat the sneaker's DC, not the other way around; I was just being consistent with the previously used wording I quoted.)
DM_Blake wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn. Except I'm seeing it stated here that the Stealth check applies to the entire move action, so why is it that the Perception check is not applicable to the entire action.
What I am seeing is "My Stealth check covers everything I'm doing for the whole action and gets every conditional modifier even if those modifiers do not apply for the whole action, but your Perception check is not given the same consideration, it must be made immediately and does not apply to the whole action but only to the part of the action where it is subject to whatever conditions apply to just that part of the action."
This makes no sense. Why is Stealth all-powerful, capable of ignoring unfavorable conditions that apply to the stealthy action, but Perception is the wicked stepchild, unable to include modifiers that are clearly applicable to the stealthy action, completely at the mercy of the all-powerful Stealth skill?
I say the two skills should be given equal consideration. If one Stealth check covers everything you do for that action, then one Perception check should oppose that Stealth check for everything you do for that action, not just the beginning of it.
The RAW doesn't explicitly state this Stealth-biased approach. Common sense English definition of the word "use" doesn't support this Stealth-biased approach. Game balance doesn't support the idea of biasing one skill to the exclusion of another opposing skill.
Heck, the only reason I can find to justify the Stealth-bias is if the people justifying are biased in favor of Stealth. If someone wants to create Super Deadly Stealth Ninjas (TM) running around with skill-based invisibility then sure, that person would argue to have Stealth triumph over Perception in a non-RAW,... The language fits fine. The two skills are given equal consideration. The perception roll is the same for the entire movement, as is the stealth check. Nothing changes. That is why they are equal. The conditions are met when the check is made, and only one check is made for the move action. If you want an area too big for someone to cross using stealth, make it big enough that they can't cross it in one move action. This makes sense.
If you have it the other way, there is no way to ever sneak up on someone guarding a camp, because he automatically sees you (DC 0) when you come into range of the campfire.
And, by the way, this is RAW. As written. This use of perception where you get a check every 5-10 feet of movement is not RAW. The game, by RAW, uses actions. Perception is a reaction to actions. You do not get a free check when someone comes into range of your senses, because he was already in range of your senses when you made the first perception check!
To do it your way means the stealth skill is useless in many situations where we see it working in the source material this game is based off of. People are not flawless, they do not always spot everything in their surroundings.
The only reason I can see for your justification is that you do not want stealth users to be useful without magical help. Period. That is what you are arguing for, and making perception a more powerful ability than it is. This game has already strengthened perception enough by removing cross-class skills, there is no need to give extra chances on top of that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
DM_Blake wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. I agree.
I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.
In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.
And therefore, once he's left the cover of the wall, he not only loses the modifier for being behind the wall, but if nothing else grants the ability to use stealth, he can't use it.
DM_Blake wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. I agree.
I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.
In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.
(I know I reversed the roles - the observer must beat the sneaker's DC, not the other way around; I was just being consistent with the previously used wording I quoted.) It is relevant, but not in the way you suggest. See my comments above about multiple guards. The check is only once, and the success and failure occurs when the check is made, not halfway through the movement. You do not track the rolls and modifiers throughout the process. Nowhere else is this done. You have the opposing check, the result means you can do the following:
Perception wrote:
If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
It really is that simple. All the fiddly modifiers only apply to the location where the check is made, based on the factors present when the check is made. The result is above.
The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other?
thejeff wrote: DM_Blake wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: No, I would make him roll for the DC of the cats and the balls with one check. If he beats the DC for balls, he juggles the balls but drops the cats. If he beats the DC for both, he juggles both fine. I agree.
I also believe this is exactly relevant to Stealth vs. Perception. They sneaker and the observer each make one check for the entire action. There are conditions such as cover and being behind a wall that might apply at the beginning of the check, but if the sneaker moves to a place where those conditions don't apply, the same two checks earlier are still in play, but the modifiers are removed.
In other words, if the sneaker beats the DC while having cover and a wall then he is stealthy behind the wall's cover but not in front of it. If he beats the DC for both, then he can be stealthy behind the wall and in front of it.
And therefore, once he's left the cover of the wall, he not only loses the modifier for being behind the wall, but if nothing else grants the ability to use stealth, he can't use it. Except that is not the way it is written. There is no following of modifiers, there is only one check when stealth is attempted. Failure means detection, success means no detection.
Bah. It's not RAW. Or at least it's not the only RAW. It's probably compatible with RAW. As is DM_Blake's.
RAW is vague. Except for when it's clear and contradictory. It simply doesn't say how many of these common situations are handled. It's left for us to try to interpret from clues in the text.
That's why rewriting the stealth rules became too big for a FAQ. They interact with a bunch of other rules and it's not at all clear how they're supposed to work. Either what the letter allows or what the intent was.
As I said early in this thread, I don't think anyone actually plays RAW stealth rules. I don't think RAW stealth rules exist.
The_Big_Dog wrote:
Right here we have some interesting wording we do not have in the stealth or perception entries. With scent, you can detect approaching enemies. No mention of any perception checks granted.
Quote: Creatures with the scent special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks made to detect a scent. Now they do they suddenly get the bonuses added to the new perception check, or they just have to ignore the new stimuli under your "one roll" rule?
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other? They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action.
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Right here we have some interesting wording we do not have in the stealth or perception entries. With scent, you can detect approaching enemies. No mention of any perception checks granted.
Quote: Creatures with the scent special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks made to detect a scent. Now they do they suddenly get the bonuses added to the new perception check, or they just have to ignore the new stimuli under your "one roll" rule? Certainly, if what they are trying to detect is within their scent range, they would get the bonus when they made a perception check. But, if they already made a perception check when the creature was outside of their scent range, they would not get a free perception check. They have already reacted. They would have to wait for their turn and take active perception (move action).
The_Big_Dog wrote: Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. That is an inference. There is no rule stating that.
It's a reasonable inference, but it's not RAW.
It's your interpretation of the rules. Of the metarules really. The way the rules are structured.
thejeff wrote: Bah. It's not RAW. Or at least it's not the only RAW. It's probably compatible with RAW. As is DM_Blake's.
RAW is vague. Except for when it's clear and contradictory. It simply doesn't say how many of these common situations are handled. It's left for us to try to interpret from clues in the text.
That's why rewriting the stealth rules became too big for a FAQ. They interact with a bunch of other rules and it's not at all clear how they're supposed to work. Either what the letter allows or what the intent was.
As I said early in this thread, I don't think anyone actually plays RAW stealth rules. I don't think RAW stealth rules exist.
Surely there are many ways to interpret anything. I feel this interpretation streamlines everything quite nicely. Blake's interpretation seems to be much more fiddly with tracking of modifiers, and excludes the opportunity for a stealth assassin style attack for anyone standing near a light source, as well as many other missed opportunities. My interpretation seems more true to the source material. I will credit him with it being a seemingly correct interpretation, except nowhere is it stated in RAW that you get to react multiple times to the same action.
thejeff wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. That is an inference. There is no rule stating that.
It's a reasonable inference, but it's not RAW.
It's your interpretation of the rules. Of the metarules really. The way the rules are structured. I am glad you find the interpretation reasonable. I believe it to be both RAW and RAI, and it is how I run things in my home games. I have yet to see it rule out anything that should be considered feasible. Especially when we are talking about characters with very high stealth values.
The_Big_Dog wrote: DM_Blake wrote: Ninja in the Rye wrote: Playing a bagpipe would be a standard action, it's not something you can do stealthily. So that's the only reason my comparison fails?
OK, so alter my example so that instead of playing the bagpipes, the rogue drops a box full of pots and pans and ceramic dishes and jingle bells. While he's moving as a move action (and dropping as a free action).
Does the observer 20' away automatically fail to hear all that clatter because the rogue started with a stealth check at the beginning of his round? The dropping of the pots is also a new action, even if it is a free action. Speaking would also be a free action in addition to the stealth movement. You would get perception checks to notice these. This is covered by the rules. Any separate action receives a new perception check to notice it. Stealth is part of the movement action, so it is only one check, regardless of where you go. Before we go any farther are you sure the rules go by actions instead of acts.
An act is any activity that can be made, and an "action" refers to the game definition of action for the purpose of this question.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other? They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. So lets say rogue 1's stealth check is higher than my perception check.
Let's then say rogue 2 has a readied action that takes place right as rogue 1 no longer has cover, and he just happens to be right beside the rogue whose stealth check I did not see.
Are you really going to say I can't see this person who is not hiding behind anything despite having line of sight?
My last in a string of questions since you need time to answer them.
1. Did you read the two stealth blogs?
2. If the rules already work like the stealth blogs said the new rules would have made stealth work under your interpretation, would exactly was being changed or than being hidden granting a +2 to attack?
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other? They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. So lets say rogue 1's stealth check is higher than my perception check.
Let's then say rogue 2 has a readied action that takes place right as rogue 1 no longer has cover, and he just happens to be right beside the rogue whose stealth check I did not see.
Are you really going to say I can't see this person who is not hiding behind anything despite having line of sight? An interesting question. But, based on the rules, you already failed your check against rogue 1, so yes, you still do not detect rogue 1; rogue 1 can sneak by you and attack you with surprise still. Your perception check only applies to what you are reacting to, which would be rogue 2's readied action. This would be very open to abuse otherwise. One action and one reaction still applies in this case.
wraithstrike wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Based on what rule do you get a second perception check during the movement? Its reactionary, not whenever you want one. You do not get to make a new perception check for each five foot the character using stealth moves. You get one for the entire movement, and it applies when he starts using stealth, in cover/concealment. You do not magically get another perception check at any point during the move. You already failed, and per the perception rules,
You are using stealth then entire time you are moving, and the book does not say the reactive perception check is applied as soon as the stealth check is made.
Even if that were so the fact that you just crossed into my field of vision with no cover makes you observable stimuli. Since you are out in the open the new perception check would not be against your stealth check because you can't use(get the benefit of) your stealth without cover or concealment.
It is again DC 0 + 1/10 feet. Yes I am replying to my own post. I am going to take this a step further since perception is not just about seeing, but perceiving(which uses all the senses).
Let's say you start your stealth check pretty far away, and behind cover. Let's say you move into the range of a creature that has scent. That as an example is another way for someone to count as observable stimuli. I don't know any GM that will say the creature with scent won't get a second check reactive check to notice the sneaking character, even if the character still had cover or concealment.
My point is this: There is no "one reactive check per stealth action". New situations can call for new rolls.
I agree to the extent that I think that new modifiers to the perception DC should trigger new Perception rolls against the original stealth check.
wraithstrike wrote: My last in a string of questions since you need time to answer them.
1. Did you read the two stealth blogs?
2. If the rules already work like the stealth blogs said the new rules would have made stealth work under your interpretation, would exactly was being changed or than being hidden granting a +2 to attack?
Clarification if nothing else. With the new rules we wouldn't have this debate over and over again.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other? They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. So the reaction perception check is instant, but if I spend a move action then I get longer access to the result of my roll?
Really? O.o
The_Big_Dog wrote: thejeff wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. That is an inference. There is no rule stating that.
It's a reasonable inference, but it's not RAW.
It's your interpretation of the rules. Of the metarules really. The way the rules are structured. I am glad you find the interpretation reasonable. I believe it to be both RAW and RAI, and it is how I run things in my home games. I have yet to see it rule out anything that should be considered feasible. Especially when we are talking about characters with very high stealth values. You rule out noticing someone when he leaves his cover, which I find very feasible.
Of course, I also find it feasible to sneak up on people in day light.
My personal preference, which is not RAW (except by stretching the circumstance bonus clause) is to allow the use of stealth without cover or concealment, but only with a large penalty.
wraithstrike wrote: My last in a string of questions since you need time to answer them.
1. Did you read the two stealth blogs?
2. If the rules already work like the stealth blogs said the new rules would have made stealth work under your interpretation, would exactly was being changed or than being hidden granting a +2 to attack?
1. I remember reading through the stealth blogs a while back, yes.
2. They were, I assume, going for clarification. Often times people interpret rulings differently, and clarity is necessary. It is likely the developers wanted to clear up the stealth rules, but realized that people had too many different interpretations and wanted to do a rewrite instead. And then they just gave up with all the worms they opened up when they tried to alter the system. They did try to bring in new modifiers, like hidden, if I remember correctly. If they tried to change the wording, they would have to change the wording everywhere. Perhaps they should have just clarified the wording in perception and stealth, but kept the same flow. Define things better and more clearly. The system works fine as is, however.
I see we look at the RAW and RAI differently. I did not expect to change your mind. I just wanted to see your view on things. Personally I am all for allowing someone to make it to cover or stab someone after leaving cover/concealment, but I don't think RAW supports it.
Jason did say the new announcement would fix a few things. I just hope "soon" is within the next 4 weeks.
Well thanks for all the replies, guys. All the threads just tend to reference the issues, not actually illuminate them for those not in on it from the beginning.
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote:
Except perception is reactive, the others are not. The same rules do not apply to perception, it is only used to oppose the stealth check when the stealth check is made - unless you are using active perception, which is a move action on your turn.
Where is the rule saying some perception checks last longer than other? They don't. All perception checks are instantaneous, but you only get one per action. They are a reaction to the action taking place. If I decide to say a sentence to my ally, you get one perception check to hear the sentence, regardless of how long it is. If the conversation spans multiple actions, you would get one perception check for each action. You get one perception check for the entire stealth move action. You get another if he attempts to move again. Again, reaction is key. You react to an action. So the reaction perception check is instant, but if I spend a move action then I get longer access to the result of my roll?
Really? O.o Yes. You would make a new roll for every action which requires a perception check to notice. Once you are observing someone, you do not lose that observation unless distracted (see stealth rules).
It would still be instant in the case of active perception, but you are the active character here. Each person who is trying to stealth around you defends with a stealth roll, you attack with a perception roll. It works in just the opposite manner of a stealth check. You could feasibly move before performing your perception check to look behind walls and such as well, and obtain better modifiers for your perception rolls.
Basically:
Active perception lets you see everything. Everyone who wants to use stealth against your perception (and can meet the qualifications - unobserved and cover or concealment) can defend with stealth.
Reactive perception: lets you see what you are reacting to.
Active stealth lets you you do the opposite. This is how the action system works.
Think about it, if I take an active perception check, should everyone else in the area also get a perception check? No.
Ninja in the Rye wrote: New announcement? I tried to get him to answer a question, but he declined, only saying there would be a fix soon. He has his own "Ask Jason" thread, but he says he does not want to use it to answer rules questions.
wraithstrike wrote: I see we look at the RAW and RAI differently. I did not expect to change your mind. I just wanted to see your view on things. Personally I am all for allowing someone to make it to cover or stab someone after leaving cover/concealment, but I don't think RAW supports it.
Jason did say the new announcement would fix a few things. I just hope "soon" is within the next 4 weeks.
Hopefully it is simply a minor clarification in the perception rules. Just clarifying when you actually get a perception check would probably cover most of the issues everyone seems to have.
I think the idea to stick on here is the DC 0 to spot someone in the open is a DC, not an opposed stealth check. Even if someone made his Opposed Stealth check, then moved into the open, his Stealth Check doesn't turn into a DC 0 perception, it stays as a Stealth Check. The modifiers can change dynamically, but the opposed Stealth Check doesn't turn into a Perception DC.
Serum wrote: I think the idea to stick on here is the DC 0 to spot someone in the open is a DC, not an opposed stealth check. Even if someone made his Opposed Stealth check, then moved into the open, his Stealth Check doesn't turn into a DC 0 perception, it stays as a Stealth Check. The modifiers can change dynamically, but the opposed Stealth Check doesn't turn into a Perception DC. Cover does not add modifiers to stealth. It just dictates if you can use stealth or not so there are no modifiers to change. Either you are using stealth in which case no 2nd perception check is needed, or stealth is no longer in play. In that case the DC 0 becomes the base.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: I see we look at the RAW and RAI differently. I did not expect to change your mind. I just wanted to see your view on things. Personally I am all for allowing someone to make it to cover or stab someone after leaving cover/concealment, but I don't think RAW supports it.
Jason did say the new announcement would fix a few things. I just hope "soon" is within the next 4 weeks.
Hopefully it is simply a minor clarification in the perception rules. Just clarifying when you actually get a perception check would probably cover most of the issues everyone seems to have. The question I asked was whether or not you can continue to use stealth even after the starting qualifiers are gone.
That would solve the issue of sneaking across an open across an open area.
If the game only checks for your qualification once then you are good to go. If the game is like a program that is running in a loop then you have to stay qualified.
As an example if I cast enlarge person on someone the spell takes place because it is valid. If they die, they become a corpse and the magic should no longer apply. Now the rules dont come out and say you must stay true to the qualification of the spell, but they should not have too.
wraithstrike wrote: Serum wrote: I think the idea to stick on here is the DC 0 to spot someone in the open is a DC, not an opposed stealth check. Even if someone made his Opposed Stealth check, then moved into the open, his Stealth Check doesn't turn into a DC 0 perception, it stays as a Stealth Check. The modifiers can change dynamically, but the opposed Stealth Check doesn't turn into a Perception DC. Cover does not add modifiers to stealth. It just dictates if you can use stealth or not so there are no modifiers to change. Either you are using stealth in which case no 2nd perception check is needed, or stealth is no longer in play. In that case the DC 0 becomes the base. Sometimes cover/concealment does add modifiers. To the perception check anyway, which is essentially the same thing. Darkness is -4. Being behind a wall is -10 /10'.
There are also distance modifiers, which seem like they should change your chance of detection as you approach, even if you still have cover/concealment.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pinky's Brain wrote: If you're in his field of vision then nothing short of magic will prevent him from seeing you while slipping from shadow to shadow. The alternative where you can always make the check results in stupid side effects as much as never being able to make them.
You need facing/scanning/distraction house rules.
Most of all, you need common sense.
The simple answer here is agency: is he looking at you directly, or is he looking at something else? If he's not looking directly at you or at the spot where you're coming out of the shadows, then you have a chance not to be seen, even if he's facing in your direction. If you're sneaking up on someone who is fighting someone else, you have a good chance of not being seen. If he is poking his head in the place where you are hiding, no amount of stealth will keep you hidden.
Hiding is easy. You don't need a stealth roll to hide behind an obstacle. What's hard is hiding in plain side, taking advantage of shadows, distraction, etc. That's what the stealth skill should do.
In Basic D&D, that's basically how it worked: anyone could hide, but only the Thief could hide in mere shadows. Shine a light in his face and you'll see him, but give him some shadows, and on a successful roll, he might as well be invisible.
The fact that the combat system doesn't have facing rules doesn't mean that people don't have backs. You can still sneak up on people behind their back and then stab them in it. It's not a miniature combat system, it's an RPG.
thejeff wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Serum wrote: I think the idea to stick on here is the DC 0 to spot someone in the open is a DC, not an opposed stealth check. Even if someone made his Opposed Stealth check, then moved into the open, his Stealth Check doesn't turn into a DC 0 perception, it stays as a Stealth Check. The modifiers can change dynamically, but the opposed Stealth Check doesn't turn into a Perception DC. Cover does not add modifiers to stealth. It just dictates if you can use stealth or not so there are no modifiers to change. Either you are using stealth in which case no 2nd perception check is needed, or stealth is no longer in play. In that case the DC 0 becomes the base. Sometimes cover/concealment does add modifiers. To the perception check anyway, which is essentially the same thing. Darkness is -4. Being behind a wall is -10 /10'.
There are also distance modifiers, which seem like they should change your chance of detection as you approach, even if you still have cover/concealment. Fair point. I was speaking of vision based perception checks, but I did no think I had to state that. I will be more exact with my next quote.
Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing.
wraithstrike wrote: Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing. Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing. Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly. Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :)
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing. Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly. Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :) Haha, fair enough. I just worry that they will end up breaking it instead of fixing it.
The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing. Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly. Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :) Haha, fair enough. I just worry that they will end up breaking it instead of fixing it. I don't think it will be as intense as the stealth blog so they won't have to rewrite other parts of the game.
I just want to be able to use the hidden condition listed in the stealth blog.
That alone would be enough for me. :)
wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: The_Big_Dog wrote: wraithstrike wrote: Actually it is a combat based RPG, and according to the devs people don't have a back due to a lack of facing. Luckily, they don't have a front or sides either. They just float in limbo, and we are never really sure where they are looking. Which is why stealth vs perception can work correctly. Yeah but "correctly" wont be defined until the devs reveal their fix. :) Haha, fair enough. I just worry that they will end up breaking it instead of fixing it. I don't think it will be as intense as the stealth blog so they won't have to rewrite other parts of the game.
I just want to be able to use the hidden condition listed in the stealth blog.
That alone would be enough for me. :)
The stealth blog was an over complicated fix. That is why it failed. The hidden state seems like a good idea though.
Good luck.
While a Hidden condition would be awesome, that sounds like it's at the "rewrite" end of the scale rather than the "FAQ" end of clearing up confusion about the existing rules.
As for me, Hidden condition or not, I think FAQ/clarification on whether you can be hidden while in LOS without cover or concealment would be good, as well as clarification about whether Hidden allows running, charging, or attacking (and what that means specifically in game mechanics). Also, when and how often reactive Perception checks can/should be used as your action changes the modifiers could clear up this whole thread too.
I would just be happy with an FAQ also DM Blake because I am about to use the hidden condition in my game away, but since they used the word "fix" instead of clarification I am assuming some changes will be made.
Well then, a fix sounds nice, but I'm not sure everything they've "fixed" before was really a fix. For example, I think the combined Hide/Move Silently "fix" created far more problems than it solved.
So while I would love a fix, I'm cautiously optimistic and, like the Big Dog, I'm hoping they don't break more than they fix.
I also don't like the hide/move silently combination either. I know hiding behind a wall and turning invisible won't make you harder to hear, but I can see someone trying to say "but the book says..."
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
