|
If I were king of the world, or a dev in charge, I would change the wording to something like. "Invisibilty causes you to be unable to be detected visabily by normal means. As a result, you gain a +40 bonus to stealth when standing still and a +20 to perception checks which moving against creatures whom have perception hindered by your lack of visabilty. You are always considered to have cover from such creatures.
And I would add a bunch of rogue abilities that made them able to use stealth more effectively, offensively.
And I would buy a pony. Well...maybe not the pony, but probably the other stuff. Or something.
I don't know, when are we getting an FAQ? And has anyone else noticed the last two FAQs posted were really wishy washy?
Yeah stealth helps when you don't move, but is not your buddy when you do move, and it is strange, but only within 30 feetWait, what do you mean "only within 30 feet"?
What do think the DC to pinpoint an invisible creature 40' away would be?
Continue assuming moving less than half speed and 10 Stealth result, to keep things simple.
Both sneaking and not sneaking?
I was saying the DC to notice is limited to 30 feet per the rules.
Outside of 30 feet it is not even a factor since you can't notice anything outside of 30 feet.
+20 for moving+4(distance modifier)+10 stealth roll=34
no stealth roll-->+20 for moving +4 distance=24
You can't really add the +20 for pinpointing outside of 30 feet if they don't apply outside of 30 feet..
I think this nonsense is why they will be giving us something official soon.
Now if they intend for it to always apply they should say , but the +20 for pinpointing always applies, but it is not written that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, are there wonky cases where the DC to notice is higher than the DC to pinpoint?
Yes.
This is based on the activity of the invisible creature. If he's moving around, making no effort to be stealthy, then maybe this even makes sense. A chance for the observer to get a reactive "hunch" that something's out there, within 30 feet, but he can't tell what or where, and a slightly better chance to locate that creature using an active effort to hear, sense, smell, or even see tracks/displaced objects/etc.
Remember, in these wonky cases, the creature is not trying to conceal itself (other than using Invisibility).
Replace that with a creature actively using Stealth, even badly, with a Take-10 to eliminate bad luck, and already he starts at a 30 (20 for invis and 10 for Take-10) so he has to have a -11 penalty on Stealth or other modifiers to be easier to notice than he is to pinpoint). And if he has that big a penalty, then he has it for a reason - it means he's especially BAD at Stealth. Something that is especially BAD at a skill probably should not be trying to use it. I'm especially BAD at flying airplanes. I don't know how. So you know what? I don't fly them. Ever.
So, can it be wonky?
Yes.
But that's inherent in the system.
I'm not even arguing that the rules all make sense. I'm only explaining the RAW and trying to help everyone understand what the rulebook says. We can discuss all day long how to fix these problems, say, over in the Houserules forum.
Yeah stealth helps when you don't move, but is not your buddy when you do move, and it is strange, but only within 30 feetWait, what do you mean "only within 30 feet"?
What do think the DC to pinpoint an invisible creature 40' away would be?
Continue assuming moving less than half speed and 10 Stealth result, to keep things simple.
Both sneaking and not sneaking?I was saying the DC to notice is limited to 30 feet per the rules.
Outside of 30 feet it is not even a factor since you can't notice anything outside of 30 feet.
+20 for moving+4(distance modifier)+10 stealth roll=34
no stealth roll-->+20 for moving +4 distance=24
You can't really add the +20 for pinpointing outside of 30 feet if they don't apply outside of 30 feet..
I think this nonsense is why they will be giving us something official soon.
Now if they intend for it to always apply they should say , but the +20 for pinpointing always applies, but it is not written that way.
So you actually do think the RAW makes it easier to Pinpoint people farther than 30' than closer? At least if they're not sneaking.
Agreed that it's nonsense.
Yeah I do and we both agree that it is nonsense. Removing that "notice" rule takes care of that, but it also makes invisibility more powerful since you don't even get a hint that someone might be there. I am 99% sure keeping invis in check is the only reason for the notice rule.
I'm not even arguing that the rules all make sense. I'm only explaining the RAW and trying to help everyone understand what the rulebook says. We can discuss all day long how to fix these problems, say, over in the Houserules forum.
I remember a few weeks ago, when I first pointed out the "notice" rule to someone. They were not a happy person. I think the topic was that detect magic trumps invis, so I pointed out how a simple perception check has a similar affect.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of those crazy, "I am going to twist RAW and ignore common sense to get my way" things, isn't it?
If the NPC fair and square had see invisibility up, then sensibly, the target is not invisible to him and he would just be trying to notice him with a normal Perception check against his Stealth roll. He rolled 20 and presumably had a minimum +3 to his Perception modifier. Sucks to be the guy sneaking. End of story.
If I had a player being this pedantic about the rules, they would no longer be welcome in my gaming group.
Yes, I am sure this means I am a terrible person. I can live with that.
|
|
This is one of those crazy, "I am going to twist RAW and ignore common sense to get my way" things, isn't it?
If the NPC fair and square had see invisibility up, then sensibly, the target is not invisible to him and he would just be trying to notice him with a normal Perception check against his Stealth roll. He rolled 20 and presumably had a minimum +3 to his Perception modifier. Sucks to be the guy sneaking. End of story.
If I had a player being this pedantic about the rules, they would no longer be welcome in my gaming group.
Yes, I am sure this means I am a terrible person. I can live with that.
I like you.
Well, in the, I approve of the internet persona I believe you to be! :)
This is one of those crazy, "I am going to twist RAW and ignore common sense to get my way" things, isn't it?
If the NPC fair and square had see invisibility up, then sensibly, the target is not invisible to him and he would just be trying to notice him with a normal Perception check against his Stealth roll. He rolled 20 and presumably had a minimum +3 to his Perception modifier. Sucks to be the guy sneaking. End of story.
If I had a player being this pedantic about the rules, they would no longer be welcome in my gaming group.
Yes, I am sure this means I am a terrible person. I can live with that.
Since you brought up common sense, I'll add that I don't play invisibility this way at my game table. For example, I apply the usual perception modifiers to the "notice" roll, as well as Stealth if the invisible creature was already trying to be stealthy.
And nobody I know (none of my players anyway) sits and argues about this at the table because we all understand how it should work and we all agree on how to use it during a game.
The "Rules Questions" forum is a place to be as pedantic as necessary to hash out what the RAW actually says so everyone has a clear understanding of the written rules - then, naturally, everybody starts houseruling from there. For me, I much prefer houseruling when I completely understand the rule I'm trying to improve, rather than just shooting in the dark with no understanding of game mechanics, and I think most other DMs feel the same way - at least, all the ones I know certainly do, and it seems most of the people in this forum feel similarly or nobody would squabble so much about the RAW; they'd all be in the Houserules forum writing up their own rules.
So, nobody is twisting RAW to get their own way here. At first I thought maybe the OP was, or maybe he started out that way, but his recent posts make it look like he's just trying to understand the RAW and/or RAI and make sense of it all too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to rewrite the rules ...
Just treat any creature attempting to perceive an invisible creature as "blind" against them, remove the rest of the Invisibility rules as they're unneeded.
The blindness/darkness rules are basically 95% of what you would need, just apply a few minor changes to certain things (like the non-blind character not rolling randomly to determine which square they attack, no penalty to STR/DEX based checks, and negate the opposed perception penalty if the invisible creature is foolish enough to stand in water or in mud or the like).
Things would actually work as they should and you'd free up a ton of space in the book.
All opponents have total concealment from a blinded creature, so the blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat. A blinded creature must first pinpoint the location of an opponent in order to attack the right square; if the blinded creature launches an attack without pinpointing its foe, it attacks a random square within its reach. For ranged attacks or spells against a foe whose location is not pinpointed, roll to determine which adjacent square the blinded creature is facing; its attack is directed at the closest target that lies in that direction.
A blinded creature loses its Dexterity modifier to AC (if positive) and takes a –2 penalty to AC.
A blinded creature takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks, including any with an armor check penalty. A creature blinded by darkness automatically fails any skill check relying on vision.
Creatures blinded by darkness cannot use gaze attacks and are immune to gaze attacks.
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature “over there somewhere.” It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).
A blinded creature can grope about to find unseen creatures. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action. If an unseen target is in the designated square, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has pinpointed the unseen creature's current location. If the unseen creature moves, its location is once again unknown.
If a blinded creature is struck by an unseen foe, the blinded character pinpoints the location of the creature that struck him (until the unseen creature moves, of course). The only exception is if the unseen creature has a reach greater than 5 feet (in which case the blinded character knows the location of the unseen opponent, but has not pinpointed him) or uses a ranged attack (in which case the blinded character knows the general direction of the foe, but not his location).
A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.
Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.
As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"
Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:
I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.
|
|
A creature blinded by darkness can make a Perception check as a free action each round in order to locate foes (DC equal to opponents' Stealth checks). A successful check lets a blinded character hear an unseen creature over there somewhere. It's almost impossible to pinpoint the location of an unseen creature. A Perception check that beats the DC by 20 reveals the unseen creature's square (but the unseen creature still has total concealment from the blinded creature).That's interesting. It needs a little work: How does it interact with creatures who can't make Stealth checks, for example.
The difficulty to Notice is lower, only the -4 to Perception, but that's not a bad thing really. Sneaking by someone without alerting them would rely on Stealth even if you're invisible.The interesting thing from the POV of this discussion is that almost the same language is used as the invisibility section we're talking about: "locate" instead of "notice", "over there somewhere", "almost impossible to pinpoint" and the same +20 DC modifier to pinpoint, but here they make it clear that the Pinpoint is +20 to the Locate Perception check.
I think it is kind of a brilliant way to approach the issue. I want a "Flag this as a good idea" button.
You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.
The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.
3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.
I think it's safe to say that the rules allow for pinpointing beyond 30 ft, but not just noticing. So no, that is not safe to say.Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.
As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"
Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:
I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.
My point is that noticing is subsumed into pinpoint. If you pinpoint someone, you've obviously noticed them. If you didn't pinpoint them, there's a chance you can notice them (within 30').
However, the rules seem to say that beyond 30 ft, you cannot notice someone but you can pinpoint them.My point is that noticing is subsumed into pinpoint. If you pinpoint someone, you've obviously noticed them. If you didn't pinpoint them, there's a chance you can notice them (within 30').I think it's safe to say that the rules allow for pinpointing beyond 30 ft, but not just noticing. So no, that is not safe to say.Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.
As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"
Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:
I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.
Right. You don't get a passive perception check to notice them, but if you take a move action to make an active perception check, you might just happen to pinpoint them.
However, the rules seem to say that beyond 30 ft, you cannot notice someone but you can pinpoint them.My point is that noticing is subsumed into pinpoint. If you pinpoint someone, you've obviously noticed them. If you didn't pinpoint them, there's a chance you can notice them (within 30').I think it's safe to say that the rules allow for pinpointing beyond 30 ft, but not just noticing. So no, that is not safe to say.Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.
As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"
Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:
I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.
Again, If you've pinpointed them, you by definition have noticed them. If you have not pinpointed them, there is still a chance to notice them (within 30')
Notice is a subset of pinpoint in this scenario.
They are not mutually exclusive conditions.
Right. You don't get a passive perception check to notice them, but if you take a move action to make an active perception check, you might just happen to pinpoint them.
Except that's not the distinction between Notice and Pinpoint.
It's not that one is passive and the other active. It's that one is harder than the other.
Or at least that's the subject currently under contention.
It's certainly true that the RAW does not say you get a Notice check free and you must take a move action to have a chance of Pinpointing.
From the perception skill:
"Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."From the invisibility section:
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check."
I read this that when an active invisible creature is within 30 feet, you get a reactive perception DC 20 check to notice it.
If you want to make any perception check beyond the reactive one, it is a move action.
I'd say if you make the notice check by 20 points, you've already pinpointed. No need for another check. You could also make a Notice roll as an active check. Perhaps you'd noticed someone earlier, but are trying to see if he's left the area.
Not that it's really a Notice check. You roll a Perception and if you beat the Notice DC for an invisible creature within 30' you know "something's there". You beat it by 20 and you know where.
I agree with this. However, I believe a PC gets a reactive perception check to notice when an active invis creature is <30'. They can certainly make an active perception check at anytime to see if they think the creature is still there and might even pinpoint him 50' away if the result is high enough.
So if I rolled a 20 on my reactive Perception check and got a total 45, beating the DC 20 to Notice and the DC 40 to Pinpoint, you would just tell me there was something around?
No, I would say you pinpointed them based off the result of your roll. If you only got a 39, you would get a hunch, and if you got a 19, you wouldn't get anything.
If you got a 39, you could then choose to use a move action and make another perception check, hoping to pinpoint the thing you have a hunch about.
So if I rolled a 20 on my reactive Perception check and got a total 45, beating the DC 20 to Notice and the DC 40 to Pinpoint, you would just tell me there was something around?
And I would have to use a move action to have any chance of pinpointing it?I would say: You get a reactive Perception check to the stimulus of an active invisible creature. Depending on your roll you can Pinpoint, Notice or fail entirely.
If you Notice (or fail and have some reason too), you can take a move action tointentionally searhc and make another check.That seems to match the RAW just as well, considering the Invisibility text says nothing about active or reactive.
What "DC 40 to Pinpoint" are we talking about? Are we still discussing a stealthy rogue who gets a 20 on Stealth + 20 for invisibility?
(see, that's why it's a bad idea to include a stealth result of 20 with all the other +20 modifiers flying around this discussion, it's hard to tell them apart, we should use a Stealth roll of 19 instead, it's much clearer that way).
I would agree, one check is all you need.
If there is an invisible critter within 30' (let's say 25 feet away), using stealth, with no bonuses or penalties for moving (so he's slowly moving at less than half his speed), let's say his final result on his Stealth check is 19:
DC to Notice: 20
DC to Pinpoint: Stealth +20 (invisibility) + 2 (distance) = 41
If your one Perception check is
0-19: You perceive nothing
20-40: You get a hunch something might be out there
41 or higher: You know something is invisible and you know what square it is in.
Edit: forgot the distance modifier.
Just to be clear, I'm talking what RAW says, not what I do (I count distance and Stealth on 'notice' checks too, but that's a houserule, not RAW).
Also, I don't think it's really ever going to happen that someone would use invisibility and NOT use stealth. Ever. Well, maybe something that is naturally invisible, like an invisible stalker - maybe at times it's just wandering around not trying to sneak.
For everything else, Invisibility is a tool to go somewhere or do something unseen. If you're all alone on a desert island, you won't use invisibility to do anything, even if you can cast it at will. Why bother? You only need invisibility to avoid detection when you think you might be detected. Which means, you will also use Stealth to avoid detection, even when you're invisible.
In other words, Invisibility and Stealth both do exactly one thing: avoid detection when you think you might be detected. So if you have invisibility and you have a reason to use it, you will always use stealth too since everybody has unlimited access to Stealth.
So the possibility of someone deliberately using Invisibility and then not using Stealth seems so remote that it's not really worth discussing.
The only realistic exception I can think of is when you're invisible and running, charging, or attacking, all of which prohibit using Stealth as per the Stealth rules, but none of which is germane to the discussion we're having here.
So you used the numbers that supported your argument but ignore the ones that didn't?
You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.
3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.
It is not about "my" argument. I use the numbers that translated across editions of the game. I don't care what RAW is. If RAW does not make sense I will just houserule it, so I have no real need to be right.
However, the rules seem to say that beyond 30 ft, you cannot notice someone but you can pinpoint them.My point is that noticing is subsumed into pinpoint. If you pinpoint someone, you've obviously noticed them. If you didn't pinpoint them, there's a chance you can notice them (within 30').I think it's safe to say that the rules allow for pinpointing beyond 30 ft, but not just noticing. So no, that is not safe to say.Then my argument would be no noticing, no pinpointing. The +20 for pinpointing is obviously added onto the notice DC. So if there is no notice DC, there is no pinpoint DC. You shouldn't be able to pinpoint something you can't notice.
As somebody said upthread, "I have no idea if anything is nearby, but whatever it is is RIGHT THERE!!!"
Just skimmed this thread and it may have been mentioned, but here is my response to the bold above:
I think it's safe to say. If you've pinpointed someone, you notice them.
We are not using the dictionary version of "notice", and I don't think you have to be able to notice them to pinpoint them. BigDaddyjug is looking at it as if one is needed for the other, but the rules don't see it that way.
I did provide him with a rules quote so I think he agrees. He just does not like the idea.
You can't just look at the Hide rules, because Stealth is a combination of Hide and Move Silently.The wording in the invis(PF) matches the spot checks, since PF does not have them seperated we have to go by what we have.
3.5 gave you the option of the spot or listen chick so even meeting the lower DC would work. That lower DC is what you should expect to see in PF.
PS:I did not check the listen section since the numbers dont match up between 3.5 and PF like spot does.Actually the Spot check section doesn't match your version of the PF rules.
The Notice/Locate goes up for holding still, which you have said doesn't happen.
The Pinpoint tracks directly as +20 to Locate.You can't ignore the listen section. The skills were merged together. When you use Stealth while Invisible in PF, it's much more like Move Silently than Hiding. You don't need something to hide behind, like you did in 3.5, for example.
The Listen section does match the PF rules, just without any bonus for being invisible, since that doesn't matter to listening. There is a +20DC to Pinpoint someone using Listen. The DC to notice is just the Move Silently check with movement/noise modifiers.When they rolled them together they made it one check, with a base 20 to notice, like the Spot check and kept the further +20 to pinpoint.
How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.
We are not using the dictionary version of "notice", and I don't think you have to be able to notice them to pinpoint them. BigDaddyjug is looking at it as if one is needed for the other, but the rules don't see it that way.
I did provide him with a rules quote so I think he agrees. He just does not like the idea.
I think you nailed the crux of the confusion. Perhaps it would help to remove the word "notice" and replace it with "hunch". You have the hunch they are there even if you can't pinpoint them within thirty feet. Outside of that, you can still possibly pinpoint them with a high enough perception, but you wont get that "hunch" until they are inside of 30'.
I thought it was clear when I originally read the rules on invisibility that "notice" was the term they were using for people who were previously unaware that an invisible person was in their kitchen.
I have a much easier time imagining this with a bard trying to sneak out of a woman's bedroom when her husband comes home. This bard has no points in stealth and is carrying all his clothes in his arms and is otherwise naked. If he got a few seconds to jump out of bed and gather his things and cast invisibility on himself before the bedroom door flies open to reveal her husband is the corrupt captain of the guard, he will not have left any visible sign of himself in the room.
Naturally the bard freezes. We'll say he's no longer active.
The captain is furious and is looking for a man matching the bard's description all over. Under the bed, behind the curtains and out the window. Since the bard is practically holding his breath and definitely not active, I would rule that the captain doesn't get to make a roll to notice. Although he is definitely on high alert.
If the bard tried to waddle out with his bundle of clothes, or if an unfortunate structural flaw in said bundle allowed a shoe to flop out onto the floor, the captain gets a passive check to "notice". That would be a perception check with a DC of 20.
If he makes his check, then naturally, he will run over to the door and close it. Thus starts his hunt. Active perception rolls from here out to pinpoint. He's already noticed that somebody in the room is invisible. That DC is now irrelevant. It's just his perception checks versus the naked bard's stealth rolls modified by the invisibility bonuses.
The bard has realized he's trapped and has backed up against the bookshelf and begun hyperventilating as quietly as possible. Since he's not moving the DC to find him would be Stealth+40. The captains going to take every turn meticulously searching every space in the room. As he gets close to the bard, the bard panics and bounds over to the other side of the bedroom to put the bed (and lady) between him and the captain who has drawn his sword and is poking the air with it. On the captains action, he gets to make his perception against the bards stealth+20-10(took his full movement. it's a big bedroom. the captain is very corrupt). The captain makes an amazing roll and pinpoints the bard.
The captain then uses his action to try to unknowingly tackle this naked man. There is a 50% miss chance from concealment still even after he gets pinpointed. The bard lucks out and wins the coin toss and on his turn bounds over the bed (provoking an attack of opportunity) and out the door.
That makes the most sense to me.
The bard lucks out and wins the coin toss and on his turn bounds over the bed (provoking an attack of opportunity) and out the door.
Minor nitpick. You can't take an AoO against something that has total concealment to you.
"You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies."
Hey, thanks for clearing that up.
This is exactly why I spelled the whole thing out in a scenario. If I got anything wrong, I wanted it to be super clear where and how.
...And make people picture an invisible naked bard for the rest of the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And make people picture an invisible naked bard for the rest of the discussion.
We can't. He's invisible.
How don't the spot checks match up with PF? If I missed something let me know what it is. Every thing I have quoted with reference to spot has matched up.Again from that same article:
The Table under Spot Check DCs
<Reformatted to hopefully make readable here>
Invisible Thing Notice DC Locate DCActive Creature 20 40
Living Creature 30 50
Holding StillInanimate Object 40 60
Obviously PF only has immobile and active. And doesn't allow notice on non-active, while 3.5 made it harder. Nor does the 30 DC for holding still match the +40 for not moving.
And just above it says explicitlyThe DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.
That is not the entire quote.
Considerable confusion often arises regarding how difficult a Spot check to notice or locate an invisible thing is; the latter is much harder than most people realize. That's because the basic Spot DCs noted in the Dungeon Master's Guide are for merely noticing that there's something unseen somewhere within 30 feet. The DC for actually pinpointing an invisible thing's location so that you know where to aim an attack is 20 points higher.
It is not saying the pinpoint DC is always 20 points higher. It was just explaining the difference between the DMG which only gave the notice DC, and the perception DC due t confusion that was caused.
In short it is 20 points higher to pintpoint than the DMG DC's. That is all it is saying.
With that aside having the notice DC be 10 points lower than the perception DC to be pinpointed seems like a better idea.
Example:
Get rid of the DC 20 to notice rule.
If some guy clunking around in armor requires a DC 21 to be pinpointed, then the DC to notice him would only be an 11.
OR
Get rid of the notice rule altogether.