Possible abuse of Stealth rules making a character OP - What to do?

[Zog of Deadwood]

Honestly, they could be clearer. As it is, they are not unambiguous. However, this is my take on them:

d20pfsrd on Stealth wrote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

As to the second part of that, we see that a successful Stealth check grants you concealment. Now, Invisibility also grants concealment, but the +2 bonus to hit and the ability to deprive defenders of Dex is listed under the Invisibility condition, not the concealment description. So the truly relevant part for the purposes of this discussion is the first part: "are not aware of you". That's fine, for the very first attack, if said Stealth check is made before a combat starts and the defender(s) has no reason to suspect the stealthy PCs presence (i.e., is completely oblivious). In that case, the PC is going to automatically get to treat the defender(s) as flat-footed. However, after that, Stealth or no, the defender is going to be "aware" of the PC's presence. Now, if the PC snipes and then successfully stealths to a completely different location, I believe they could manage to deprive the defender(s) of DEX again in a future round of combat, as the defender(s) would have their defenses up vs. attacks from the wrong direction. However, the PC would be giving up iterative attacks in doing so, as he'd be taking an attack and a move action.

[thejeff]

MrMagpie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It was explicitly stated by Jason Bulmahn in discussion of the recent Stealth Errata that successful stealth does deny Dex and thus make sneak attack possible.

Um, maybe I'm not reading things correctly but he then goes on to say:

"This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation."

Which seems to indicate that once you make your attack vs an enemy from Stealth, you are no longer Stealthed regardless of whether you hit or miss, unless you kill the target outright - subject to GM decision. So you can't attack the same enemy from Stealth over and over again and get Sneak Attacks every time, unless you are flanking them - but regardless, after that first attack, Stealth is broken.

Note that in that first post he also said "It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow". One could certainly argue that once you have an arrow lodged in your back, you are, shall we say... aware of the threat of arrows flying at your back lol.

But Sniping allows you to remain hidden, with a penalty on the Stealth roll.

You couldn't do it in melee, without GM permission and odd circumstances, since you can't easily restealth once you attacked.

[Volkspanzer]

MrMagpie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It was explicitly stated by Jason Bulmahn in discussion of the recent Stealth Errata that successful stealth does deny Dex and thus make sneak attack possible.

Um, maybe I'm not reading things correctly but he then goes on to say:

"This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation."

Which seems to indicate that once you make your attack vs an enemy from Stealth, you are no longer Stealthed regardless of whether you hit or miss, unless you kill the target outright - subject to GM decision. So you can't attack the same enemy from Stealth over and over again and get Sneak Attacks every time, unless you are flanking them - but regardless, after that first attack, Stealth is broken.

Note that in that first post he also said "It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow". One could certainly argue that once you have an arrow lodged in your back, you are, shall we say... aware of the threat of arrows flying at your back lol.

As a foreword, sorry for the double-post.

According to the PRD:

PRD's uses of the Stealth skill wrote:

Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

This use of the stealth skill was explicitly meant to fire at a target without them becoming aware of the sniper's exact location, given they cannot ferret out the sniper from each shot.

Assuming that the sniper is able to attack several times without being actually found, you may as well treat the sniper as if under the effects of invisibility (sans the +2 bonus to hit for attacking an opponent who can't see you). So long as they cannot find the rogue, they will be prevented from receiving a dex bonus to their AC from the rogues ranged attacks.

[thejeff]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Honestly, they could be clearer. As it is, they are not unambiguous. However, this is my take on them:

d20pfsrd on Stealth wrote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

As to the second part of that, we see that a successful Stealth check grants you concealment. Now, Invisibility also grants concealment, but the +2 bonus to hit and the ability to deprive defenders of Dex is listed under the Invisibility condition, not the concealment description. So the truly relevant part for the purposes of this discussion is the first part: "are not aware of you". That's fine, for the very first attack, if said Stealth check is made before a combat starts and the defender(s) has no reason to suspect the stealthy PCs presence (i.e., is completely oblivious). In that case, the PC is going to automatically get to treat the defender(s) as flat-footed. However, after that, Stealth or no, the defender is going to be "aware" of the PC's presence. Now, if the PC snipes and then successfully stealths to a completely different location, I believe they could manage to deprive the defender(s) of DEX again in a future round of combat, as the defender(s) would have their defenses up vs. attacks from the wrong direction. However, the PC would be giving up iterative attacks in doing so, as he'd be taking an attack and a move action.

Sniping allows you to make a stealth check after your attack. That means they are not aware of you, which means they're denied Dex, per Jason's clarification.

They'll be aware someone's around shooting at them, but they don't know where you are, which is sufficient.

Sniping already only lets you make a single attack, so no iteratives.

[thejeff]

MrMagpie wrote:

MrMagpie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It was explicitly stated by Jason Bulmahn in discussion of the recent Stealth Errata that successful stealth does deny Dex and thus make sneak attack possible.

Um, maybe I'm not reading things correctly but he then goes on to say:

"This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome. Now, if you slay that target with one hit, and still could maintain Stealth from all other foes in the area (if say, it is dark and they cannot see you), a GM might reasonably interpret that you could maintain Stealth from other foes, but that requires GM interpretation and is not really the point of this particular situation."

Which seems to indicate that once you make your attack vs an enemy from Stealth, you are no longer Stealthed regardless of whether you hit or miss, unless you kill the target outright - subject to GM decision. So you can't attack the same enemy from Stealth over and over again and get Sneak Attacks every time, unless you are flanking them - but regardless, after that first attack, Stealth is broken.

Note that in that first post he also said "It was our intent that if you are unaware of a threat, you cannot react to a blow". One could certainly argue that once you have an arrow lodged in your back, you are, shall we say... aware of the threat of arrows flying at your back lol.

Now I'm just quoting myself, but it occurred to me that the purpose of sniping is to *maintain* Stealth following a ranged attack... Jason Bulmahn apparently referred to melee attacks. So I'm still not sure how it's supposed to work!

The point of linking that was simply to confirm that the intent is that a successful Stealth roll does deny Dex and allow you to sneak attack.

The rest of the melee part is largely irrelevant.

[MrMagpie]

Kolokotroni wrote:

So what constitutes failure, or the threat there of? Does he often go off alone, and thus the rest of his party is not getting beat on while he does his stealth shoot once, stealth trick? I would think given you say they arent optimized, the lack of the rogue being a target as well as the relatively low damage he's capable of with one shot per round would mean the party would take a real licking in difficult encounters. Do you not consider party members going down to be an adequate chance of failure? Does it have to be a threat personal to the rogue?

Yes, ideally each player should feel as though his character is at risk, not only because of a personal sense of danger, but so the other players don't feel like this one character is always "invincible" simply due to his Stealth tricks, while they're risking their neck in every encounter. It might eventually make them feel... somewhat resentful.

Kolokotroni wrote:

Also, have you tried talking to the player? Like as a person, explaining that his optimization of stealth while not 'broken' is disruptive and making things difficult for you? Explain that because of the extremes his stealth has reached, you would be forced to either deliberately counter it with encounters or simply ignore his character entirely and attack the other party members, then have monsters leave when the rest of the party was dead or incapacitated. A stealthing halfing isnt going to keep up with the walking pace of most other creatures. In fact a simple tactic you could employ consistently, is when enemies cant find him, they withdraw from the battle to a new location, having been frightened by the attacks from unseen enemies.

Oh, I do intend to discuss this with him, and the others (if necessary). The purpose of asking for advice on this forum was to have as much factual information available when I reach my final decision, so I'm not simply getting up in his grill and crippling his character (or forcing him to make alterations) with no better explanation than "I don't like it".

[Uncertainty Lich]

Would it have killed them to have spared a line for "concealment denies DEX to AC for target" somewhere official, preferably with concealment rules or stealth rules? That's kind of a big deal.

In any case, MrMagpie, good luck tracking down Rambo Frodo. I recommend a Watcher in the Water and a half dozen Ring Wraiths.

[Kolokotroni]

MrMagpie wrote:

Oh, I do intend to discuss this with him, and the others (if necessary). The purpose of asking for advice on this forum was to have as much factual information available when I reach my final decision, so I'm not simply getting up in his grill and crippling his character (or forcing him to make alterations) with no better explanation than "I don't like it".

Just remember a couple things, first among them, 'because it will make my life as the dm more difficult when I already put in alot of time making this game happen' is an acceptable explanation. Something as simple as rolling back the clock and removing the elven cloak (which was way too expensive for him to have at 3rd level) will probably solve alot of the problems and bring him back into the realm of spotable with cr appropriate enemies.

Even if you allow him to get one at higher levels (which you dont have to allow, remember you control what magic items are available), things at mid to high levels tend to have very good perception scores. It should be much less of an issue there. And by that level he might not want to be always making one attack a round which will eventually become insignificant comprared to the amount of hit points the enemy has.

[MrMagpie]

Uncertainty Lich wrote:

Would it have killed them to have spared a line for "concealment denies DEX to AC for target" somewhere offical, preferably with concealment rules or stealth rules? That's kind of a big deal.

In any case, MrMagpie, good luck tracking down Rambo Frodo. I recommend a Watcher in the Water and a half dozen Ring Wraiths.

Yep, now I know what Gollum meant when he kept going on about "sneaky little hobbitses" and "those filthy hobbitses"! (I'm feeling a lot of sympathy for him right now lol)

This player is also causing me to develop racist prejudice against Halflings in general, because that's his favorite race and he's always up to something with them!

Stealth and Sneak Attack rules could use some more clearing up as well. This much confusion is an indicator of that, at least.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

MrMagpie wrote:

And yes, he spends most of his time stealthed, usually in trees, especially while the party is camping at night (probably because his Wizard character died during a random night encounter... which was partially his fault because he assumed Rope Trick works the same way in Pathfinder as it did in 3.5 - most of his experience is with 3.5).

I think there is a story behind this which explains a lot about why this player is acting the way he is. From what you've told us, it sounds like the death of his character may not have been the most fair resolution of the random encounter. It sounds like he made his new character specifically to avoid the same circumstances.

The main difference in Rope Trick from 3.5 versus Pathfinder is that Pathfinder doesn't let you pull the rope into the extradimensional space:

Texts of Rope Trick spell from Pathfinder/3.5:

Rope Trick, Pathfinder wrote:

When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the usual multiverse of extradimensional spaces. Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes. The space holds as many as eight creatures (of any size). The rope cannot be removed or hidden. The rope can support up to 16,000 pounds. A weight greater than that can pull the rope free.

Rope Trick, 3.5 wrote:

When this spell is cast upon a piece of rope from 5 to 30 feet long, one end of the rope rises into the air until the whole rope hangs perpendicular to the ground, as if affixed at the upper end. The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space that is outside the multiverse of extradimensional spaces (“planes”). Creatures in the extradimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes. The space holds as many as eight creatures (of any size). Creatures in the space can pull the rope up into the space, making the rope “disappear.” In that case, the rope counts as one of the eight creatures that can fit in the space. The rope can support up to 16,000 pounds. A weight greater than that can pull the rope free.

Regarding random encounters in the first module of Kingmaker:

Really minor Kingmaker spoiler:

It's been about half a year since I played in a Kingmaker campaign, but I can only remember a few NPCs in the first module who would be able to recognize a Rope Trick spell. The random encounters I remember were animals or bandits, neither of which are likely to recognize second level wizard spells. However, I could easily be forgetting something. Monsters don't just know that floating ropes lead to tasty sleeping adventurers.

When this random encounter happened and this player's wizard died, how did it happen? In particular, when did it become apparent there was a disconnect between how this player thought rope trick works and how it actually works? If this player feels that his previous character was killed because he thought a spell worked the same as in 3.5, his frustration seems very legitimate. The player may not have known that the rope couldn't be pulled into the extradimensional space, but his character obviously would know that.

If this started because your player feels that you made an unfair ruling which led to his character dying you probably shouldn't punish him for building his new character to avoid dying---and he probably will see it as punishment. That's just going to be bad for everyone.

[MrMagpie]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Honestly, they could be clearer. As it is, they are not unambiguous. However, this is my take on them:

d20pfsrd on Stealth wrote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

As to the second part of that, we see that a successful Stealth check grants you concealment. Now, Invisibility also grants concealment, but the +2 bonus to hit and the ability to deprive defenders of Dex is listed under the Invisibility condition, not the concealment description. So the truly relevant part for the purposes of this discussion is the first part: "are not aware of you". That's fine, for the very first attack, if said Stealth check is made before a combat starts and the defender(s) has no reason to suspect the stealthy PCs presence (i.e., is completely oblivious). In that case, the PC is going to automatically get to treat the defender(s) as flat-footed. However, after that, Stealth or no, the defender is going to be "aware" of the PC's presence. Now, if the PC snipes and then successfully stealths to a completely different location, I believe they could manage to deprive the defender(s) of DEX again in a future round of combat, as the defender(s) would have their defenses up vs. attacks from the wrong direction. However, the PC would be giving up iterative attacks in doing so, as he'd be taking an attack and a move action.

Your interpretation of Sneak Attacks does look sensible, but the "you have to move to continue depriving your targets of DEX" ruling, while certainly reminiscent of tactics used by real snipers, would have to be a house rule... as there's nothing in the RAW that indicates such a thing is necessary. D&D doesn't always play by real life rules.

[thejeff]

Uncertainty Lich wrote:

Would it have killed them to have spared a line for "concealment denies DEX to AC for target" somewhere official, preferably with concealment rules or stealth rules? That's kind of a big deal.

Got to be careful: Concealment absolutely does not deny DEX to AC.

A successful Stealth check does.

I'd like to see it spelled out clearer as well. Do remember though that for errata they're dealing with strict space limits. They'll want to correct new printings without changing layout.

[MrMagpie]

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

I think there is a story behind this which explains a lot about why this player is acting the way he is. From what you've told us, it sounds like the death of his character may not have been the most fair resolution of the random encounter. It sounds like he made his new character specifically to avoid the same circumstances.

The main difference in Rope Trick from 3.5 versus Pathfinder is that Pathfinder doesn't let you pull the rope into the extradimensional space:

He's always been partial to Stealth, even with his Wizard character, this Rogue character is merely taking that tendency to extremes. Anyway, his Wizard was killed when his party was surprised by a (randomly rolled) Will 'O Wisp at night. This is a pretty fierce opponent even for their level (they were around level 5 at that time) so I fully intended to let them all escape if they so chose and have the Wisp go after their horses instead. The other players did make a run for it, but he decided he'd cast Rope Trick and retreat into it for a more "graceful" escape option. Knowing about his tendency to assume that spells and such work in Pathfinder exactly the same way as they worked in 3.5, I notified him that this will probably not be helpful since he can't pull the rope up and the Wisp could just follow him up anyway as he climbed up that rope while the thing was looking at him. But for some reason he decided to climb up the rope anyway, instead of booking it. He made a great Knowledge (Dungeoneering) roll so he knew exactly what the Wisp was capable of. At this point I felt like it would be cheap to just have the Wisp float up there to murder him, so I had it go after the "easier" targets, the horses, hinting that he should probably flee while he has the chance. He didn't. Then I rolled some dice to randomly determine whether the Wisp would stick around till dawn or just leave. It's an intelligent monster (Int 15, if I'm not mistaken) and it knew there was a tasty Halfling snack up there in that extradimensional space, as it saw him climb up into it (but I didn't have the Wisp follow him inside). So the spell expired and he was forced out, and since the Wisp decided to stick around after all, I decided to give him some head start hoping that he'd just flee for his life (he used Expeditious Retreat). But instead he decided to try and hide from the Wisp, and I rolled a 20 on the Perception check... and the rest is history... I'm not very proud of that particular encounter.

[Uncertainty Lich]

thejeff wrote:

Got to be careful: Concealment absolutely does not deny DEX to AC.

A successful Stealth check does.

Opps. Yeah. That's what I meant. There's no Hidden condition, is there?

I understand the space limitations, but damn that's no small piece of information to overlook.

I still get the impression that this build should shortly fall behind some of the other archers, but I'll have to spend some more time comparing them now. Except for those open fields in broad daylight without cover, this build could be pretty nasty.

[john smith 38]

well at least you didn't let him play a goblin. +4 to dex and +4 to stealth as a race ability.

[Zog of Deadwood]

MrMagpie wrote:

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Honestly, they could be clearer. As it is, they are not unambiguous. However, this is my take on them:

d20pfsrd on Stealth wrote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment.

As to the second part of that, we see that a successful Stealth check grants you concealment. Now, Invisibility also grants concealment, but the +2 bonus to hit and the ability to deprive defenders of Dex is listed under the Invisibility condition, not the concealment description. So the truly relevant part for the purposes of this discussion is the first part: "are not aware of you". That's fine, for the very first attack, if said Stealth check is made before a combat starts and the defender(s) has no reason to suspect the stealthy PCs presence (i.e., is completely oblivious). In that case, the PC is going to automatically get to treat the defender(s) as flat-footed. However, after that, Stealth or no, the defender is going to be "aware" of the PC's presence. Now, if the PC snipes and then successfully stealths to a completely different location, I believe they could manage to deprive the defender(s) of DEX again in a future round of combat, as the defender(s) would have their defenses up vs. attacks from the wrong direction. However, the PC would be giving up iterative attacks in doing so, as he'd be taking an attack and a move action.

Your interpretation of Sneak Attacks does look sensible, but the "you have to move to continue depriving your targets of DEX" ruling, while certainly reminiscent of tactics used by real snipers, would have to be a house rule... as there's nothing in the RAW that indicates such a thing is necessary. D&D doesn't always play by real life rules.

Well, here's the thing. I think we could all easily imagine the scene with a halfling popping out from behind a bush or up from some grass, getting off a shot, and popping right back. There is no question that the halfling would still have the defensive benefits of concealment in this circumstance (assuming successful Stealth checks), no matter how many times he popped up. Opponents would probably get a +2 circumstance bonus to their opposed Perception checks to see him because they know where they should be looking, but a well hidden PC is a well hidden PC.

Quote:

I know the little !%*&er is there, but I can't see him to hit him!

So enemies would still have miss chances to hit with ranged attacks vs. the halfling in this circumstance from his concealment. However, if the halfling did attack from the same exact spot throughout a battle, without moving from it, how strained would credibility have to be that defenders wouldn't get Dexterity bonuses? You dodge sword blows, but not arrows (except for monks, maybe). You dodge the archer or gunman instead, by trying to make yourself hard to hit when he draws back the bow or levels the gun at you. Taking a deliberate Perception check in a battle is a move action, but the GM is always able to hand out free Perception checks. It rather strains credulity that some corner of a fighter's mind isn't going to be watching the same spot that he just got attacked from, which negates any benefit of popping up from the same spot twice. Incidentally, if someone wants to argue the point of how people can totally, in real life, dodge arrows, keep in mind any gamerule-friendly argument they make would have to apply vs. bullets too, now that the game has gunslingers and black powder.

[Uncertainty Lich]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

I think we could all easily imagine the scene with a halfling popping out from behind a bush or up from some grass, getting off a shot, and popping right back.

Trouble is there's no popping with sniping. The concealment doesn't break if he makes the stealth check with the penalty.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

So enemies would still have miss chances to hit with ranged attacks vs. the halfling in this circumstance from his concealment.

I could be wrong, but I think that these checks count towards total concealment. I don't think he can even be targeted. :/

PRD:

Quote:

Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).

[The Ghost Knight]

To the OP, I'm not particularly experienced with Pathfinder but I have learned a few things in my course of D&D and some of the problems you've mentioned. Here are my observations and some comments on your problem.

ONE: read Insufferable Smartypants lengthy post, he is spot on.

TWO: "abstract mechanic that it's hard to determine when it does or does not apply, common sense doesn't necessarily cut it." Mr Magpie

-As the DM, "CUT IT" you parse the rule, be reasonable and stick to it. That is the role of DM, you control the world and how it ultimately works. (again be reasonable)

THREE: "The easiest way to combat rules lawyer players is to remind them of Rule 0 and Rule 1. Rule 0 is that all rules are optional if you say so. Rule 1 is that you, and only you, are the final rulebook interpretation authority for your campaign." Barry Armstrong (very Gygax'ian of you)

-This goes hand in hand with the above advice. Be reasonable but YOU make the decisions. Hash the rules out with the players but you are the JUDGE.

OP, most of your responses seem to be defending his tactics then complaining that there is no "fixing" the "problem". Plenty of posters have posted well reasoned and reasonable counters/rules interpretations.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

MrMagpie wrote:

He's always been partial to Stealth, even with his Wizard character, this Rogue character is merely taking that tendency to extremes. Anyway, his Wizard was killed when his party was surprised by a (randomly rolled) Will 'O Wisp at night...

It sounds like he made some pretty bad decisions. I mean, his decisions were so bad and it seems he was so was incapable of dealing with the Will O' Wisp (did he not have something like Web or Fog Cloud memorized?) that he doesn't sound very munchkiny. I'd expect a munchkin to build a better prepared character than that. He certainly appears to lack system mastery.

That said, I still think that punishing him for reacting to this isn't a good decision. His character died due to a combination of bad player decisions, unfortunate dice rolls (including the roll on the random encounter table), and questionable monster behavior. It's understandable why he would build his new character to not die if a random Will O' Wisp rolls a 20 on perception. The chest-thumping, show-him-who's-boss approach that some people in this thread have recommended won't solve the problem. I've been involved in DM/player "power struggles" from all three positions (DM, player in conflict with the DM, and spectator player) and it's never been a productive thing.

[thejeff]

You don't know where you got attacked from. You know you got hit. Maybe roughly the direction, but that's all. You're in melee, you're ducking and turning and suddenly in the middle of one of those turns an arrow bruises you through your chain shirt. You throw a quick glance over your shoulder, but you don't see anyone.
If you make the Perception check, you see him duck back down and can keep an eye on it.

[Zog of Deadwood]

Uncertainty Lich wrote:

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

I think we could all easily imagine the scene with a halfling popping out from behind a bush or up from some grass, getting off a shot, and popping right back.

Trouble is there's no popping with sniping. The concealment doesn't break if he makes the stealth check with the penalty.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

So enemies would still have miss chances to hit with ranged attacks vs. the halfling in this circumstance from his concealment.

I could be wrong, but I think that these checks count towards total concealment. I don't think he can even be targeted. :/

I could be wrong, but I don't believe it says anything about the concealment not breaking. Here's the text from pfd20srd:

Quote:

Breaking Stealth

When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

The first sentence says when you leave cover you can remain unobserved if you succeed at Stealth and end up concealed, but that does not apply if you make an attack, because the second sentence says your Stealth immediately ends as soon as you attack. Now, if you use sniping tactics, you can RE-ENTER Stealth with a successful roll at -20 (or -10 if you have the appropriate abilities), but that doesn't mean you didn't break concealment to start with.

[MrMagpie]

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

It sounds like he made some pretty bad decisions. I mean, his decisions were so bad and it seems he was so was incapable of dealing with the Will O' Wisp (did he not have something like Web or Fog Cloud memorized?) that he doesn't sound very munchkiny. I'd expect a munchkin to build a better prepared character than that. He certainly appears to lack system mastery.

That said, I still think that punishing him for reacting to this isn't a good decision. His character died due to a combination of bad player decisions, unfortunate dice rolls (including the roll on the random encounter table), and questionable monster behavior. It's understandable why he would build his new character to not die if a random Will O' Wisp rolls a 20 on perception. The chest-thumping, show-him-who's-boss approach that some people in this thread have recommended won't solve the problem. I've been involved in DM/player "power struggles" from all three positions (DM, player in conflict with the DM, and spectator player) and it's never been a productive thing.

Yes, I'm not really sure why he decided to climb into that Rope Trick but he did, even after he was warned that it probably won't protect him. He didn't have a lot of utility spells memorized because he was decked out for war, they intended to clear out some bandits when they were waylaid by that Will 'O Wisp, so most of his spells were offensive (the Wisp is immune to most magic, though).

As for "questionable monster behavior", that's a matter of opinion. The Will 'O Wisp is an intelligent creature and certainly capable of puzzling some things out, if anything I went as easy on him as I could manage without it seeming totally contrived... maybe I made some bad calls but I'm not very experienced, what can I say. A less lenient GM would have just had the Wisp float up into his little hidey-hole and eat him then and there... in fact I know some GMs that would find that totally hilarious.

You may not believe this, but this guy actually didn't mind dying much because it let him roll up a new character. By his own admission, he has no less than 15 character concepts at the ready at any time... Although I'm sure that after his Wizard died, he decided that it just got real, so he pulled out this "invisible halfling" build he had stewing for a while!

[DonDuckie]

I admit: I didn't read the whole thing. So it's probably been mentioned.

I suggest you talk to the player, if his playstyle interupts the game.

How about baddies with scent, blindsense, lifesense, and the bigger one; blindsight. Hit him with glitterdust. Foes with concealment. Multiple baddies each get a perception-check. Target the characters that are easy to spot. Create an abjuration/illusion/evocation spell that makes all movement leave a shining trail in the air.

Personal experience:(but that's a PC-plan, not a GM-plan)
We fought a druid once that the GM made impossible to find in the forest. It took about a month in-game to set up and execute: We burned the forest to the ground - he didn't show his face again.

[MrMagpie]

The Ghost Knight wrote:

OP, most of your responses seem to be defending his tactics then complaining that there is no "fixing" the "problem". Plenty of posters have posted well reasoned and reasonable counters/rules interpretations.

I'm not defending his tactics, I'm trying to determine A) whether or not they're legitimate (opinions differ) and B) if so, how best to deal with them. I'm not really satisfied with "counters" that require me to engage in what Vivianne calls "a DM/player power struggle", which is what I've been implicitly advised to do by several people on this board. It's not something that either myself or my players signed up for. I'm sure many people are used to playing like that - in fact, I know several gaming groups in which the DM and the players are constantly trying to "one up" each another (complete with "revenge characters" and such), and that's fine if they enjoy such gameplay - but I'm not running such a game at the moment. If I do at some point in the future, it will be after I have more experience and with due warning to my players.

[Vivianne Laflamme]

MrMagpie wrote:

As for "questionable monster behavior", that's a matter of opinion. The Will 'O Wisp is an intelligent creature and certainly capable of puzzling some things out,

Intelligence doesn't imply it knew there was an extradimensional space at the top of the rope. Will O' Wisps don't have spellcraft or knowledge (arcana). It would have seen the wizard touch a rope and cast an unknown spell causing the rope to rise and hang from the air. Then the wizard climbed the rope and disappeared and the rope kept hanging there. It could have felt around and noticed the invisible window leading to the extradimensional space, but unless it entered, how did it know what it was? It then waited around at least about 5 hours until the spell wore off, when it had no way to know how long the spell would last.

I'm not trying to say you were wrong for metagamey thinking. It's hard as a DM to not metagame and it's sometimes a very good thing to do so (like when you had the Will O' Wisp not enter the rope trick and murderhobo the halfling for metagamey reasons). However, it was part of several things which led to the death of a PC in a random encounter. Even having multiple other character ideas at hand, that's still a really ignoble way to have your character die.

[Lincoln Hills]

I sympathize, MrMagpie: the brinkmanship gets to me too. Unfortunately, the only alternative I know of is to approach the player out-of-character, explain that you don't want to do a bunch of rewriting and building of new strategies just to accommodate his new PC's play style, and offer him a chance to re-optimize his rogue around something other than sniping. He's not going to give up on a combo that's keeping him alive and winning battles for him unless you A) exploit the flaws in his tactics or B) let him know face-to-face that it's causing you problems.

[Uncertainty Lich]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

The first sentence says when you leave cover you can remain unobserved if you succeed at Stealth and end up concealed, but that does not apply if you make an attack, because the second sentence says your Stealth immediately ends as soon as you attack. Now, if you use sniping tactics, you can RE-ENTER Stealth with a successful roll at -20 (or -10 if you have the appropriate abilities), but that doesn't mean you didn't break concealment to start with.

I just noticed these parts.

Quote:

Breaking Stealth

When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

I interpreted that to mean a sniping attack doesn't break stealth. To me it sounds like they aren't re-entering stealth, if they successfully maintain it then they never left it.

[Marthkus]

Uncertainty Lich wrote:

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

The first sentence says when you leave cover you can remain unobserved if you succeed at Stealth and end up concealed, but that does not apply if you make an attack, because the second sentence says your Stealth immediately ends as soon as you attack. Now, if you use sniping tactics, you can RE-ENTER Stealth with a successful roll at -20 (or -10 if you have the appropriate abilities), but that doesn't mean you didn't break concealment to start with.

I just noticed these parts.

Quote:

Breaking Stealth

When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

I interpreted that to mean a sniping attack doesn't break stealth. To me it sounds like they aren't re-entering stealth, if they successfully maintain it then they never left it.

Yep! But it also means that you never get more than one attack a round since snipping is its own special action.

[Valiant]

Also, take the following rules with the sneak attacks:

You can not do sneak attack damage on something that has concealment, or something you can't see.

He's a halfling: A darkness spell is all that it takes. Also, any fog cloud, natural fog effect, smoke bomb, ash cloud or whatever else that gives concealment works on him not getting sneak attack damage in. (His enemy is under water! Total cover for the enemy, unless he enters the water himself as well.. Ohhh, interesting!:) )

There are 100 ways to counter a sneak attack/stealth specialist, just like there are 100 ways to counter any one character. And of course there are 100 ways to counter those as well!! Just be sure about one thing:

Balance it.

Don't take the fun completely away from a player. Give him a challenge. Give him encounters he can win because of his build....give him challenges so he has to think harder to win...

And give him impossibilities to run from. Very important to let players experience that too.

Those are my tips.

[KainPen]

I been playing D&D for a long time, best advice I give any new DM is start with just the core book allowed at table, master, then add in small chunks from advanced players master it. and keep going. I been playing pathfinder for little over a year now, and I just now added the whole advanced players. I started with just the core rule book, about half way into the game, I allowed a few feats from advanced players, all weapons from ultimate combat. Then I added few feats from ultimate combat and I let my players single class player retrain build there characters to archtypes if they wanted with no peanlty, I also let them retrain feats as I added new feats allowed. This allows for player to enjoy new stuff and master the rules as well as the dm.

[Uncertainty Lich]

Marthkus wrote:

Yep! But it also means that you never get more than one attack a round since snipping is its own special action.

Exactly. While other archers could expect to be getting triple digit DPR at end game, this one probably won't. I'm just trying to pin point where this build falls on that spectrum. It isn't likely to crit as often either. It's got great survivability, but I don't think it'll keep up with a TWF Rouge.

Edit: Rogue; typo.

[Valiant]

Rouge? Can't...resist.....

*blush*

[Zog of Deadwood]

Uncertainty Lich wrote:

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

The first sentence says when you leave cover you can remain unobserved if you succeed at Stealth and end up concealed, but that does not apply if you make an attack, because the second sentence says your Stealth immediately ends as soon as you attack. Now, if you use sniping tactics, you can RE-ENTER Stealth with a successful roll at -20 (or -10 if you have the appropriate abilities), but that doesn't mean you didn't break concealment to start with.

I just noticed these parts.

Quote:

Breaking Stealth

When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

I interpreted that to mean a sniping attack doesn't break stealth. To me it sounds like they aren't re-entering stealth, if they successfully maintain it then they never left it.

I concede you could be right that that is the official RAW and RAI way to run sniping, although I do it differently in my game. But for the purposes of this discussion it's a moot point either way, because it isn't the condition of Concealment per se that allows the rogue to remove Dexterity bonuses. You can have the condition of Concealment, even total Concealment, while singing a merry tune or shouting at the top of your voice. Would anyone argue that in such a case a PC should be able to deprive an enemy of Dexterity modifiers? When a concealed PC attacks from range within distance of 30 feat or less, even if the enemy cannot exactly pinpoint location, direction is certainly given away. The PC figuratively just started singing.

[Uncertainty Lich]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

But for the purposes of this discussion it's a moot point either way, because it isn't the condition of Concealment per se that allows the rogue to remove Dexterity bonuses. You can have the condition of Concealment, even total Concealment, while singing a merry tune or shouting at the top of your voice.

Yeah. It isn't concealment that does it. It's the stealth check. The stealth check just applies the added benefits of concealment on top of denying DEX to AC. At least that's what the lead developer wrote. At the games I've sat in on it's always been ruled more like how you run it. I think the way it's suppose to be is unbalanced at lower levels, but I suspect that route has some diminishing returns later on.

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

Would anyone argue that in such a case a PC should be able to deprive an enemy of Dexterity modifiers?

In such a case as a singing sneak attack? I suppose not?

[MrMagpie]

KainPen wrote:

I been playing D&D for a long time, best advice I give any new DM is start with just the core book allowed at table, master, then add in small chunks from advanced players master it. and keep going. I been playing pathfinder for little over a year now, and I just now added the whole advanced players. I started with just the core rule book, about half way into the game, I allowed a few feats from advanced players, all weapons from ultimate combat. Then I added few feats from ultimate combat and I let my players single class player retrain build there characters to archtypes if they wanted with no peanlty, I also let them retrain feats as I added new feats allowed. This allows for player to enjoy new stuff and master the rules as well as the dm.

Well, I actually tried restricting them to the Core rulebook to begin with... but they whined until I caved and allowed them access to supplemental books (the APG, UC, UM etc.). It does kind of suck when players all have years of D&D experience and the DM is new to the game. I get corrected on the rules all the time, which is somewhat humiliating, but everyone's gotta start somewhere!

[KainPen]

MrMagpie wrote:

KainPen wrote:

I been playing D&D for a long time, best advice I give any new DM is start with just the core book allowed at table, master, then add in small chunks from advanced players master it. and keep going. I been playing pathfinder for little over a year now, and I just now added the whole advanced players. I started with just the core rule book, about half way into the game, I allowed a few feats from advanced players, all weapons from ultimate combat. Then I added few feats from ultimate combat and I let my players single class player retrain build there characters to archtypes if they wanted with no peanlty, I also let them retrain feats as I added new feats allowed. This allows for player to enjoy new stuff and master the rules as well as the dm.

Well, I actually tried restricting them to the Core rulebook to begin with... but they whined until I caved and allowed them access to supplemental books (the APG, UC, UM etc.). It does kind of suck when players all have years of D&D experience and the DM is new to the game. I get corrected on the rules all the time, which is somewhat humiliating, but everyone's gotta start somewhere!

lol yep, next time tell them, if they have a problem with your limits then tell one them to dm instead. shuts them up in my group every time. as all of including my self would end up rather be a player over dm. If one them agree to the swap, enjoy it it will give you time to master rules before over whelming your self.

[MrMagpie]

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

I concede you could be right that that is the official RAW and RAI way to run sniping, although I do it differently in my game. But for the purposes of this discussion it's a moot point either way, because it isn't the condition of Concealment per se that allows the rogue to remove Dexterity bonuses. You can have the condition of Concealment, even total Concealment, while singing a merry tune or shouting at the top of your voice. Would anyone argue that in such a case a PC should be able to deprive an enemy of Dexterity modifiers? When a concealed PC attacks from range within distance of 30 feat or less, even if the enemy cannot exactly pinpoint location, direction is certainly...

D&D, even Pathfinder, definitely seems to be a game that takes liberty with realism in general. For example, here is a situation that I believe is completely legitimate (which I came across on a different board):

You mount up on a horse as a Ride 20 free action, have the horse take a double move or even full round run action (free action for you), dismount as a Ride 20 free action, then charge a target whilst simultaneously drawing your weapon and attack at the end of your move... all this somehow takes place in 6 seconds of game time, which is how long a turn lasts in Pathfinder.

So just because something totally makes sense in real life doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the game... I'd REALLY like to have a definitive ruling on how Stealth and Sneak Attacks are supposed to work, though.

[Uncertainty Lich]

MrMagpie wrote:

So just because something totally makes sense in real life doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the game... I'd REALLY like to have a definitive ruling on how Stealth and Sneak Attacks are supposed to work, though.

As written? It isn't clear that a stealth check denies a target their DEX to AC. Without the DEX denied, no sneak attacks. All that the errata adds to mention of the stealth check is:

Errata wrote:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

You can assume "not aware" equates to "denied their DEX to AC", but for something that big I'd imagine they'd just write it themselves.

Every GM I've gamed with has ruled it just grants concealment. That's how I've always thought it was intended to work. Though thejeff's post indicates the developer intend a successful stealth check to deny a target's DEX to AC. Depends on if you want to run it currently as written or as the developer posted they intended it. Think either way is fair so long as it's consistently applied.

[The Ghost Knight]

MrMagpie wrote:

The Ghost Knight wrote:

OP, most of your responses seem to be defending his tactics then complaining that there is no "fixing" the "problem". Plenty of posters have posted well reasoned and reasonable counters/rules interpretations.

I'm not defending his tactics, I'm trying to determine A) whether or not they're legitimate (opinions differ) and B) if so, how best to deal with them. I'm not really satisfied with "counters" that require me to engage in what Vivianne calls "a DM/player power struggle", which is what I've been implicitly advised to do by several people on this board. It's not something that either myself or my players signed up for. I'm sure many people are used to playing like that - in fact, I know several gaming groups in which the DM and the players are constantly trying to "one up" each another (complete with "revenge characters" and such), and that's fine if they enjoy such gameplay - but I'm not running such a game at the moment. If I do at some point in the future, it will be after I have more experience and with due warning to my players.

Sorry I can't get my tablet to delete most of the quoted text.

I agree with not starting an arms race. That isn't good for any game. To your lettered responses
A.I think the tactic is legit if you want it to be. Mushy rules need defining. Work with your players to define the rules/tactics but you have final say as the DM. I really think this will go a long way to solving most to all game rules problems.

B. I don't think "dealing" with it the best term but we can go with it. The best way to deal with it is to have your encounters/villains act according to what the player's tactics dictate. Not all monsters are smart per se but about every bestiary entry makes them all seem cunning. If they get shot from an unknown location they should/would run and hide and wait for an opportunity and or search for the sniper. As you said IIRC this is your first time DMing or inexperienced with it. As a player if your party was being sniper what would you do? The antagonists NPC would likely do the same when you are DMing them. That is the "fairest" DM counter tactic in my opinion. Further your world is a living breathing world. Word WILL get around about an infamous sniping halfling devastating the opposition and logically anyone who wants to compete will start preparing for it.

Lastly take a look with the player at his choices for his character and their source book and if you as the DM are uncomfortable/unsure how to adjudicate the feats traits etc. Explain this to the player and disallow them until you can adjudicate them or if it something you don't want in your campaign explain this and build the character WITH the player so both of you can feel like a win win. Never just let players build their characters without DM input so that you can decide BEFORE problems arise. If you don't players will build characters according to THEIR interpretation of the rules. Where it should be built with YOUR interpretation of the rules.

[Wazat]

Neat discussion.

To the original poster:
Thank you! I'm very pleased at your attitude in this, even though you seem to be taking some flak for it. I like a GM who regards players with respect and doesn't want to just shut them down or mistreat them, but ALSO isn't willing to be walked all over.

I power-game often, and I've GM'd a few times. I've seen abuse (and sadly been an abuser) on both sides in the past, and learned from it. It's important to have a GM who is willing to work with you and treat you right. If you overstep a line or cause problems, some GMs will cause rocks to fall and kill your character outright. On the first infraction. You can guess how fun that is for the player. On the other extreme, some GMs don't lay down fair ground rules, and the game just doesn't work right when the players are not challenged or kept under a basic level of threat.

What I'm hearing from you and other posters is this:
1) Player died, didn't like it, and wants to not die again. Stealth is his new silver bullet against this threat.

2) He has min-maxed his stealth to an insane degree. Nothing is able to beat his stealth roll. He's sneaking and sniping with impunity.

3) He's getting fairly cocky (and maybe condescending to you and/or the campaign?) about how "invincible" he now is. This is not healthy. It's disrupting the storytelling, the other players (?), and you. It feels abusive to the GM, players and rules.

4) You want to resolve the abuse, but without mistreating the player. Rocks falling and killing him is unfair, as is using encounters specifically designed to outright invalidate his build.

5) There's some discussion of how stealth works, but that is being resolved. You have some new tools now, and if you've been too lenient on the rules you can fix that.

6) You can modify encounters to challenge him better, but without invalidating him (or increasing difficulty for the other players). The occasional enemy that can smell him out, see past his stealth, etc will mix it up, but not every enemy will do this.

7) Roleplay your creatures. When he shoots a deer, the rest of the herd flees at high speed (he would be hard-pressed to keep up with them and stay stealthed); shoot a bison, and the herd may charge (and stealth doesn't prevent trampling). Likewise, shooting humans, orcs or other creatures may provoke a variety of responses: running and hiding, charging/attacking, flaming and smoking him out, sending dogs or casting spells to find him, etc. Let some NPCs escape to spread word of the threat, so that some future encounters will be a little more ready for him.
And the BBEG isn't going to just stand there and take pinpricks until he dies of it. Few creatures would. If he doesn't leave or take cover, he may charge into the foliage and start a mass search & burn campaign, or do something else that the rogue can't deal with. He may just leave and retire into his underground den or stone fortress, with a nice shiny series of traps guarding the door and other entrances. This is a double-win: if the rogue doesn't notice the traps, that creates a situation he could be hard-pressed to get out of with stealth alone; if he disables the traps, then he's properly using his rogue for more than stealth, and broadening his horizons (this is a good habit to continue to nurture, until he gradually expands out of being a one-trick pony).

8) Talk to the player. If he's showing a lot of attitude, this needs to be dealt with by you, but maturely. Maintain the moral high ground. In terms of his min/maxing being disruptive to the story, if the additions above are not fixing the problem, talk to him about it. Often players and the GM can talk on grounds of mutual respect, with the shared goal of playing a fun game and telling a good story. If he won't play ball, then you can use the tactics discussed above to increase the pressure on him. It's fair game.

9) He's laughing it up now, but in a few levels this isn't going to work so well anymore. Enemies enjoy higher perception, and have more neat toys that get around even great stealth (even greater invisibility fails vs tremorsense or true seeing). It may be fine to let him have his heyday for another session or two (with some damping from the suggestions and rules clarifications above). After all, snipers are terrifying in real life for a reason... but people don't just stand there and take it. Between the NPCs' efforts to find him and his diminishing returns with growing level, he's eventually going to realize he's min/maxed himself into a corner. You can generously allow him to rebuild his character if you like, but with a gentleman's agreement that he won't be abusive when he does so.

But if he doesn't change his build too much (which I think would be a good thing), it may be a lot of fun for both of you if he's gained a reputation for his actions, which could both aid and haunt the party in the future. Living through long-term repercussions and creating new chapters through player actions can be a lot of fun, and increase the immersion the party enjoys.
Example: He's approached in town by a group who suspects he's the sniper. They have an offer for someone of his... talents. It will be very challenging, but the reward for success is very tempting.
Example: A price is put on the head of the sniper who killed [so and so]. Many adventurers are interested in collecting (and he may soon have many enemies hunting him). But nothing says he couldn't take the job himself and go "hunting" for the culprit (assuming he hasn't been identified as the sniper yet)...

10) I prefer gentleman's agreements over hard lines and hostilities, but sometimes you get that player who's way too busy pelvic-thrusting his way to self-obsession in front of a gem-studded mirror to ever look away and reason with you. Sometimes you have to get tough and lay down the law.

That might mean ruling against him in the rules of stealth or available source books; it might mean introducing encounters that inhibit or disable his abilities (either occasionally or often, until he's willing to play ball); or it might mean having NPCs react in a way that puts him in a lot of danger. There are a lot of ways though to remind him that he's not invincible, and any illusion of being untouchable is just that: an illusion. Even players who are perfectly within the rules with insane power abuse (see the discussions about crazy-powerful spells) have to deal with rule 0 and rule 1, which are in the book specifically to allow the GM to put sane limits on what happens and stop the game from collapsing in on itself. When all else fails, you can still salvage the situation.
But! It usually doesn't come to that.

Good luck, man!

[MrMagpie]

Wazat wrote:

Neat discussion.

To the original poster:
Thank you! I'm very pleased at your attitude in this, even though you seem to be taking some flak for it. I like a GM who regards players with respect and doesn't want to just shut them down or mistreat them, but ALSO isn't willing to be walked all over.

I power-game often, and I've GM'd a few times. I've seen abuse (and sadly been an abuser) on both sides in the past, and learned from it. It's important to have a GM who is willing to work with you and treat you right. If you overstep a line or cause problems, some GMs will cause rocks to fall and kill your character outright. On the first infraction. You can guess how fun that is for the player. On the other extreme, some GMs don't lay down fair ground rules, and the game just doesn't work right when the players are not challenged or kept under a basic level of threat.

What I'm hearing from you and other posters is this:
1) Player died, didn't like it, and wants to not die again. Stealth is his new silver bullet against this threat.

2) He has min-maxed his stealth to an insane degree. Nothing is able to beat his stealth roll. He's sneaking and sniping with impunity.

3) He's getting fairly cocky (and maybe condescending to you and/or the campaign?) about how "invincible" he now is. This is not healthy. It's disrupting the storytelling, the other players (?), and you. It feels abusive to the GM, players and rules.

4) You want to resolve the abuse, but without mistreating the player. Rocks falling and killing him is unfair, as is using encounters specifically designed to outright invalidate his build.

5) There's some discussion of how stealth works, but that is being resolved. You have some new tools now, and if you've been too lenient on the rules you can fix that.

6) You can modify encounters to challenge him better, but without invalidating him (or increasing difficulty for the other players). The occasional enemy that can smell him out, see past his stealth, etc will mix it...

Thank you for being so supportive! I've definitely learned some things in recent days, now that I've been exposed to the various methods through which people deal with these situations. Some of them I don't necessarily think are applicable to the game I'm running, but it's good to have them in mind for any future games. Others have gotten me to reconsider my approach to DM-ing, which really must be tailored to your specific group. Some people may enjoy competing with the DM, others would likely resent such tactics.

I'm honestly still not sure how to go about this Stealth and Sneak Attack issue, as people seem to have radically different opinions as to how it should work. My player created his sniper halfling with the assumption that he'll be getting in sneak attacks virtually every round, and being a new DM, I assumed these rules were much clearer than they actually are. People seem to speak from experience here when they say that this character won't be a problem forever, so I'm going to bank on this, since I really don't want to yank the rug from under my player unless I absolutely have to. I may well need to alter some encounters to challenge him better, because as it stands not much can actually spot him unless he rolls particularly poorly AND the BBEG has a great Perception modifier (or spells etc.)

This guy actually isn't that bad. I've heard some horror stories from my current group about a 3.5 game they recently played in and in which an uber-munchkin essentially bullied his overly submissive GM into letting him take some crazy combination of broken feats (ruled to work precisely how he needed them to work, of course) and such until he could do 700+ damage in a single attack (that's how they told it to me, anyway). Some people just have no shame, apparently. They joked that when his Rogue stabbed people in the back, he literally turned them into fine red mist with his daggers!

Ultimately, what I want to run is a game where there is a definite sense of challenge, but that challenge should be fair and the players should feel like they fought through some difficult battles, overcame adversity and ultimately triumphed. I'm not proud of that Wisp encounter (it went a lot worse than I intended) but the main reason I even had the Wisp go after the group in the first place was to scare them a bit, because up until that point they steamrolled virtually every encounter and slaughtered minor BBEG's in 2 or 3 rounds tops (often by doing something as unceremonious as stabbing a sleeping baddie in the throat, etc.), so they were getting somewhat bored with it. I figured the Wisp might remind them they're not yet the undisputed lords of the forest... it's kinda early for them to feel invincible, after all. But now we all have to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, I'd like to thank everyone for contributing and giving much appreciated advice. I may well return later on with more questions, but for now, I have a campaign to run!

[wakedown]

I'm also running a Kingmaker campaign.

We have a halfling, who like yours, easily had 20+ Stealth, Swift as Shadows, etc at 3rd level, and is now into the 30s.

It's been a brilliant game where everyone has had a great time.

Kingmaker has a lot of rooms where the monsters are doing crazy things, for example...

Stolen Lands Spoiler:

In the mite lair, the mites are actually lobbing caltrops in makeshift catapults at each other, trying to catch them in their mouths.

Without someone sneaking up to look, such brilliance in the written adventure is missed.

This character had the ability to cruise through a monster lair (as long as no monsters have scent) and perform recon. The entire table is captivated as this happens and they get their intelligence.

Stolen Lands Spoiler Again:

This character in question stealthed through the kobold lair and effectively one-shot Tartuk with drow poison.

At our table, this quick assassination attempt took all of 10-15 minutes of gameplay and the rest of the folks at the table were all very engaged as it transpired.

Kingmaker has a LOT of stuff to do. There's nothing wrong with the party completing a "set" quickly so you can move the campaign forward to other more exciting parts.

Just like a Stealth character can accomplish this, a character with high Diplomacy could talk the party out of what would normally be long, drawn-out fights.

Later on in the AP, as I'm sure most folks know, you start your own kingdom.

These stealth characters make great spymasters.

Our halfling has essentially become the walking embodiment of The Spider from Game of Thrones. He's literally in every room hiding hearing every conversation both on screen and off screen as the months pass.

I say embrace this character with open arms, because he is a brilliant pawn in the chess game that is Kingmaker.

River Runs Red Spoiler:

Trolls also have scent. I included some trollhounds for fun.

Also note, there are a lot of monsters in this AP that have combat tactics to go eat the smallest member of the party.

[Abrisene]

What to do against sniping?

1 - Prone.

2 - Total Defense.

3 - Find cover / concealment.

3 - Use your own stealth.

4a - Ready actions for ranged attacks on the sniper. You may not be unable to pinpoint the sniper directly, but you can target their square.

4b - You most certainly can use Move Actions for active perception checks to know where the arrows are coming from.

5 - Fall back to a more defensible position, such as a choke-point.

6 - Split up the NPC group, with a section stealthing around to flank.

7 - Start a forest fire.

8 - Use social abilities of npcs / gm to convince sniper that the npc group is a diplomatic envoy / medical untit / disguised military unit; attack when sniper is revealed.

9 - Speed x4 Run, turn corners.

10 - Have a single NPC stealth or run, have the rest surrender. The runner reports back.

11 - Have the npcs be an actual diplomatic envoy / medical unit / disguised military unit.

[Wazat]

I wonder, what if the rogue's target played dead (using a bluff check) upon being hit? Then when the rogue comes to loot, he gets a knife/club/etc in the face? :D

[Abrisene]

Wazat wrote:

I wonder, what if the rogue's target played dead (using a bluff check) upon being hit? Then when the rogue comes to loot, he gets a knife/club/etc in the face? :D

^ This.

[wakedown]

Something else to consider - at least in terms of mechanical advantages that this PC may have that justify a first-time GM taking specific actions to try to counter a specific PC.

My guess is the halfling rogue has an amazing Dex (18+?) and an unimpressive Strength (8-12?).

At 3rd level in point blank range, with a small +1 shortbow, he is shooting for 1d4+2d6+2 damage or ~11.5 damage once a round.

Even if he did rapid shot (and not move back into stealth), he doesn't get sneak attack on the second arrow, so it's an additional 1d4+2 for the second arrow or ~4.5 more. This puts a single round at ~16 damage.

And likely, he doesn't have Rapid Shot, since he's going to want Point Blank and Precise with his meager two feats. And he's going to want Skill Focus (Stealth) if he wants that tasty Hellcat feat. Yeah, the poor little bugger is feat starved.

A 3rd level ranger or fighter with a +1 composite longbow (16 Str), is likely using rapid shot to shoot for 1d8+5 twice a round or ~19 damage a round.

The differences magnify much more when you consider a bard inspiring courage since it will benefit the fighter/ranger more than the rogue (i.e. getting +2 twice on damage instead of just once, or three times once the party hits 6th level and the ranger or fighter get iterative attacks).

And of course given how feat starved the poor rogue is, he's barely picking up Rapid Shot by the time the ranger/fighter are grabbing both Deadly Aim and Clustered Shot. Those d6's will never really keep pace.

Technically, this little guy needs every trick he can find just to be comparable to an average-built ranger or fighter with a longbow.

[Abrisene]

At issue is not the damage output, it's the mitigation of retaliation. As long as he is able to do even 1 point of damage, and yet not loose any HP doing this, he will win. He has chosen to use sniping tactics to achieve this, and the OP wanted help on the subject of countering this tactic.

[Storm Sorcerer Arcturus]

Hmm, not sure if it's already been suggested, but try throwing in a powerful dragon? At level 3, I doubt he has arrows strong enough to pierce Dragon scales, or, start using a few ghost enemies..however, if it's nonsensical to include em, sorry man

[james maissen]

MrMagpie wrote:

Greetings, all.

I've been a lurker on this forum for a while, but now I have a situation that I need advice on, and I'd be most grateful if one of your Pathfinder/D&D veterans can supply said advice.

There are a number of D&D players (one might even say a preponderance thereof) that like to extol the great attributes of their characters.

Don't buy into it, or react based upon it. It is mere taunting.

The character in question has a great stealth score. Congratulations. This is his focus and his strength. Do not fight it, but embrace it as the character seeking his place to shine.

Do not hand-wave encounters, but rather have the NPCs react reasonably to these attacks. Items like smokesticks and tower shields exist for a reason, and this is the reason.

If a lone sniper is trying to ambush your group, have them go to ground and try to outmaneuver the sniper or simply have them disengage.

There are plenty of ways to make this character less than effective. Do not seek them out specifically. Rather have the enemy reasonably equipped and reacting as those characters would to that situation.

It's not a war game, but a roleplaying game. Don't seek to 'win', but rather to represent the NPCs.

-James

[MrMagpie]

Abrisene wrote:

At issue is not the damage output, it's the mitigation of retaliation. As long as he is able to do even 1 point of damage, and yet not loose any HP doing this, he will win. He has chosen to use sniping tactics to achieve this, and the OP wanted help on the subject of countering this tactic.

Thank you for elaborating on that. I'm not sure why so many people get so hung up on damage. So many arguments basically boil down to "His damage output is lower than class so and so, therefore everything is kosher". As though damage output is the only facet that can make a character powerful or OP. Check out the God Wizard optimized build suggestions by Treantmonk and you'll find out that you can be extremely effective without ever dealing even 1 point of damage directly! It's just not as simple as "More damage = better/more OP character".

Bear in mind that flanking dual weapon rogues and two-handed weapon barbarians - while indeed powerful and very damaging, are out there in the thick of it with the fighters, and there is no guarantee that the BBEG won't simply turn around and cleave the guy that just excavated his spleen with a pair of rusty knives! D&D isn't WoW and there's no "threat level" that guarantees you won't be attacked unless you pull aggro on yourself. On the other hand, a stealthy sniper Rogue can just keep plinking away at that same BBEG until he either dies or retreats because he can't find the little bugger, his behind now resembling a pin cushion, adding insult to injury.

And that's not even taking into account that the sniper Rogue could take something like the Crippling Strike talent, which lets him do 2 Strength damage with each sneak attack. Most enemies don't have all that much Strength - especially the non-physical types, and even a dragon could be whittled down to nothing in this manner, as long as even 1 point of damage gets through per attack.