I think my GM takes "immediate danger" too far. I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat. I don't consider "falling" to be immediately dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end that is dangerous.You could take 10 to disable a lock, search a room as a move action, check for traps.
Bluff, stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate? No I don't see situations where they qualify.
???
If falling isn't immediately dangerous (it's the stop at the end), then why is bluff or stealth immediately dangerous? It isn't failing that's immediately dangerous, it's the creature's reaction to the failure - which is considerably more variable than the end result of falling (and landing hard).
I just don't understand the logic of your position.
Those other two come with distractions.
I'm not too sure about climb and acrobatics. I know that taking 10 on bluff is wrong. Having both sides of an opposed check take 10 is also wrong.
I can get a level 1 char to make the DC 20 (never failing by 5 or more), I have a theory that the upper limits of realistic feats should be doable at level one. I am undecided if the DC 25 is something people can do without fail.
So if a player invested enough in a skill to have +15 at level one, you would not like them to succeed automatically, but if the same player was level ten and had a +15, that would be okay?
|
@Marthkus I meant to add that the social skills seemed a dubious area to allow taking 10, not just bluff. I am not sure how I feel about taking 10 on social checks.
Stealth and invisibility are two different things, entirely. It would be nice if invisibility gave less of a bonus to stealth checks but that's the way it goes with magic. Stealth by itself is still very good and has its place within the prsence or absence of magic. Stealth is just harder to use (and a lot more fun).
So if a player invested enough in a skill to have +15 at level one, you would not like them to succeed automatically, but if the same player was level ten and had a +15, that would be okay?
I think my GM takes "immediate danger" too far. I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat. I don't consider "falling" to be immediately dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the end that is dangerous.You could take 10 to disable a lock, search a room as a move action, check for traps.
Bluff, stealth, diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate? No I don't see situations where they qualify.
???
If falling isn't immediately dangerous (it's the stop at the end), then why is bluff or stealth immediately dangerous? It isn't failing that's immediately dangerous, it's the creature's reaction to the failure - which is considerably more variable than the end result of falling (and landing hard).
I just don't understand the logic of your position.
Those other two come with distractions.
I'm not too sure about climb and acrobatics. I know that taking 10 on bluff is wrong. Having both sides of an opposed check take 10 is also wrong.
I can get a level 1 char to make the DC 20 (never failing by 5 or more), I have a theory that the upper limits of realistic feats should be doable at level one. I am undecided if the DC 25 is something people can do without fail.
Depends could actual people do what the DC 25 climb check describes? I consider actual people to be level 1. Levels after that rapidly become less real (lvl 1 normal people and Olympic athletes, lvl 2 special forces, lvl 3 the greatest heroes of all time, lvl 4 is not realistic in any sense)
Being level 10 wouldn't change how the mechanics work.
@Marthkus I meant to add that the social skills seemed a dubious area to allow taking 10, not just bluff. I am not sure how I feel about taking 10 on social checks.
Stealth and invisibility are two different things, entirely. It would be nice if invisibility gave less of a bonus to stealth checks but that's the way it goes with magic. Stealth by itself is still very good and has its place within the prsence or absence of magic. Stealth is just harder to use (and a lot more fun).
It relates to stealth because being able to take 10 on it means you should be able to take 10 on bluff and vice versa.
They relate because they are both opposed checks, and taking 10 on opposed checks seems stupid.
That is almost certainly the intention, but the two do not give the same bonus. There is a fundamental difference between an increased skill and a DC penalty. Did you even read the rest of my post?
You've also miscalculated the DC from the wizard below even following your logic: if he does use stealth, he gets an additional 20 + the check, so the DC is on average 50. Still basically unachievable: assuming WIS of 20 and perception as a class skill, a PC stands no chance of even knowing the wizard is there until he reaches level 20 (although more realistically, whenever he gets see invisibility at will).
I wasnt directing the reply at you at all, i was just grabbing part of the conversation that seemed off to me. So dont take it as an attack.
Anyway, the table does make it look like stealth would give you another +20, but the skill description clarifies that when it says:
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.
Thus, it doesnt double stack either. You get +20 for being invisible, and another +20 for being immobile, that added on top of your stealth check.
So the base DC 20 remains the same, it doesnt up to 50 or 60 when adding stealth.
That is almost certainly the intention, but the two do not give the same bonus. There is a fundamental difference between an increased skill and a DC penalty. Did you even read the rest of my post?
You've also miscalculated the DC from the wizard below even following your logic: if he does use stealth, he gets an additional 20 + the check, so the DC is on average 50. Still basically unachievable: assuming WIS of 20 and perception as a class skill, a PC stands no chance of even knowing the wizard is there until he reaches level 20 (although more realistically, whenever he gets see invisibility at will).
I wasnt directing the reply at you at all, i was just grabbing part of the conversation that seemed off to me. So dont take it as an attack.
Anyway, the table does make it look like stealth would give you another +20, but the skill description clarifies that when it says:
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Stealth checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Stealth checks if you're moving.Thus, it doesnt double stack either. You get +20 for being invisible, and another +20 for being immobile, that added on top of your stealth check.
So the base DC 20 remains the same, it doesnt up to 50 or 60 when adding stealth.
The issue is, the base DC is not dependent on your being in stealth or not. The base DC is purely off of perception and is to notice you regardless of your actions or to pinpoint your location. You're conflating that with being in 'stealth' which is an entirely separate beast.
Also, assuming the text in invisibility is a reminder text and just very poorly worded which is a perfectly reasonable assumption I agree, The DC still adds up to 50, or 70 if immobile. Remember, the BASE DC to notice someone is 20 even if they aren't using stealth. As soon as they use 'stealth', the perception DC is modified by 20 + the check as the table clearly notes - average 50 for 0 ranks. You seem to be assuming that the check is set to 20 + stealth instead of modified, but there's absolutely no precedent for that.
Why there is no precedent if the skill says so?
Its Base 20 + stealth (+20 if immobile). It does go up pretty high, but not ridiculous high as you guys are making it out to be. The "stealth" bonus can bring it that high, but a mage rarely put many ranks in stealth.
But someone casting invisible would result in a -20 modifier, and if he moves, he loses that +20 for being immobile.
Someone running around casting spells would be as easily visible as DC 10, due to all the noise and flickering lights around him.
You are assuming DC 50 if he is taking 10 on his stealth check?
Remember that he cant take 10 if he is in a stressing situation (ie: people might find him out, or he is trying to sneak past someone).
Otherwise you cant add another +20 just because, that bonus is already calculated on both invisibility text and stealth text.
I would allow taking 10 to jump over a pit and taking 10 to climb surfaces outside of combat.
Wait, he would die (or take massive damage) for failing the jump? Then its dangerous.
There is a world of difference between jumping over a chair or table and jumping a cliff that could lead to certain death if you make a mistake.
Wait, he would die (or take massive damage) for failing the jump? Then its dangerous.There is a world of difference between jumping over a chair or table and jumping a cliff that could lead to certain death if you make a mistake.
There is - but wouldn't it suck to be the player of the PC who can normally make pretty good jumps only to be on the unfortunate end of a low roll and have the PC plummet to his death on a jump he can make 80-90% of the time?
There is - but wouldn't it suck to be the player of the PC who can normally make pretty good jumps only to be on the unfortunate end of a low roll and have the PC plummet to his death on a jump he can make 80-90% of the time?
Welcome to the very first door of the Sunless Citadel. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that he came across as fairly abrasive at times on the message boards...much more so than you would expect from the employee of a company that's trying to sell you stuff.
Sean is one of the nicest people you can ever meet. Always a smile on his face and always willing to take time and answer questions. Not sure how many times I bugged him at GenCon for rules clarifications.
But for the messageboard, he probably suffered the same issues as many on written communication, misunderstanding on how someone comes across.
Also, I think, like any human being, he had his moments of frustration when someone made a silly or inane comment.
Also, I think, like any human being, he had his moments of frustration when someone made a silly or inane comment.
Nice part being Troll. Not need to reroll Charisma each morning with adjustments for sleep, food, stress, etc.. Always minimal.
It's important to not only notice that invisibility may increase your stealth check, but that you can ignore that modifier in situations where other senses may be particularly important. If the observer doesn't actually have direct line of sight on the invisible sneaker, just roll against his normal check to hear him - he can't see him anyway.This leads to situations where an invisible guy walking behind a curtain is much, much easier to notice than an invisible guy walking right next to you.
I can see that actually. Most curtains are a real b**** to hide behind since they tend to get a bulge where the person's hiding, which negates the advantage of being invisible. just saying, hiding behind a curtain takes invisibility out of play for everything except the feet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why there is no precedent if the skill says so?
You're reading the wrong text. I've already been over this earlier in the thread but I'll break it down one more time for you. Here is the relevant text I'm pulling:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Invisibility
"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check"
So you need to get at least 20 on your perception check straight up. Fair enough.
"There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity."
Ok, let's have a look.
"Invisible creature is... Perception DC Modifier
In combat or speaking: –20
Moving at half speed: –5
Moving at full speed: –10
Running or charging: –20
Not moving: +20
Using Stealth: Stealth check +20
Some distance away: +1 per 10 feet
Behind an obstacle (door): +5
Behind an obstacle (stone wall): +15"
Go down the list. Let's say our wizard is not moving and using stealth, like we discussed.
"Not moving: +20"
So the perception check is modified by +20. DC 20 + 20 = DC 40.
"Using Stealth: Stealth check +20"
Ok, so the perception check is modified by stealth check +20. DC 40 + 20 + stealth check = DC 60 plus stealth check.
Without any ranks we can assume he will on average get 10 for his check (10.5 to be precise). I'm not saying he is taking 10, just simplifying the math.
DC 60 + average stealth check of 10 = DC 70.
There we go. Not difficult to understand, surely. If the wizard was casting a spell, we would count that as "in combat or speaking: -20" and drop the DC to 50. If he took a 5ft step also, the DC would be down to 30. If he was running around shouting, and not trying to be stealthy at all, the DC would actually be negative: 20 base - 20 (speaking) - 20 (running) = DC -20 perception to detect.
You're reading the wrong text.
Nope, im reading whats written on the book and SRD, and until it gets an errata, its RAW.
Nope, im reading whats written on the book and SRD, and until it gets an errata, its RAW.
The specific text of the invisibility condition trumps the general text of the stealth condition. If you want to find the rules for invisibility, you look up invisibility, not stealth.
Or are you somehow trying to argue that what i've referenced isn't written in the book and SRD, and not RAW?
There is no RAW for stealth. There are only conflicting interpretations.
Yeah, I do agree with you thejeff. As I stated above the rules for stealth and invisibility are an absolute mess, which paizo ackowledges but won't/can't do anything about.
Then you cant force your interpretation of the rules on me.
I wont let a spell trump a skill rule. Skills > specific spells.
The text on stealth clearly shows that you dont stack the +20 with the base DC 20 for being invisible. The table was just poorly written.
Or are you somehow trying to argue that what i've referenced isn't written in the book and SRD, and not RAW?
Yeah, I do agree with you thejeff. As I stated above the rules for stealth and invisibility are an absolute mess, which paizo ackowledges but won't/can't do anything about.
Just because you've referenced the rules in the book, that doesn't mean you're using them right. Consulting around with stealth and perception as well as the invisibility special ability will put you on the right track.
An invisible wizard who isn't moving isn't getting his stealth check + 60 in setting the perception DC. That is made utterly clear looking at the stealth skill rules which include that very case (immobile + invisible = Stealth check +40). The mistake you are making is adding the invisibility bonus twice. You need to make a DC 20 to simply notice an invisible character near you. That's assuming they aren't using stealth or aren't really standing still. This DC 20 comes from the normal DC 0 + 20 for the invisibility bonus. That's the exact same +20 for the using stealth line (stealth +20). If you're using your example of DC 20 for invisible, +20 for standing still, + stealth+20 for using stealth... that final +20 is a duplicate of the very first DC 20.
I wont let a spell trump a skill rule. Skills > specific spells.
It's a condition, not a spell. That's like saying if you have a climb speed you still have to take climb checks.
The mistake you are making is adding the invisibility bonus twice
Invisibility works independently from stealth. Let's put it this way. What is the perception DC to notice an invisible, mobile wizard who isn't trying to stealth? By your interpretation that's DC 0.
It is a fair assumption to make that the +20 mentioned in the stealth rules takes into account the 'stealth +20' part of the table. That's still an explicit modifier to the base DC 20 perception. You're reading it as setting the DC to 20 + stealth... which makes no sense given the broader context of the table.
So you are telling us to ignore the texts on Stealth and Perception regarding invisibility, and consider only the text on invisible special condition?
Invisibility works independently from stealth. Let's put it this way. What is the perception DC to notice an invisible, mobile wizard who isn't trying to stealth? By your interpretation that's DC 0.
Is he casting? No?
Then 20 (base from invisibility) - 5 (if half speed) or -10 (full speed).Total 15 or 10 depending on his speed.
If he is casting vocal spells and moving, he is pretty easy to find.
You will know he is there, but to pinpoint his exact square requires a check with +20 on the DC.
So lets find the DC of a moving at full speed casting wizard and localize his exact square:
Base 20, moving at full speed -10, casting -20, exact location +20
DC 10 to pinpoint his square, he isnt even trying to stay invisible.
Using stealth would improve this DC by whatever he rolled on his stealth, even on an natural 1. If he rolled 12, +12 to the DC (DC 22), if he rolled a 25, +25 to the DC (DC 35).
These bonuses are already pretty high, you dont need to double stack the stealth bonus.
So whatever you do, you're always distracted by what you're doing and you can't take 10 to do it. Why does that rule exist in the first place ?I'm going to loosely apply the distracted condition.
Like in lying to someone. You are distracted by the conversation and so is the target.
For stealth you are distracted by your surrounding if you ever make a perception check. The guards aren't focusing on you so they can't take 10 either.
I didn't say (conversation and lying are two different things, surroundings are not walking stealth-like).
I've also answered this question already.
Hmm, let me see if I understand you. Your argument is that a modifier to the DC of a perception check is very much not the same thing as a bonus on a stealth check. Thus invisibility grants an effective +40/60 since the stealth rules apply +20/40 to the check and the perception rules apply a separate +20 modifier to the DC when trying to look at invisible creatures or objects. Is that about what you mean.
Yes, exactly. A perception check applies in different circumstances to a stealth check. A stealth check is an active process that precludes some forms of activity (melee combat, for example). Invisibility is a passive condition that obviously does not preclude these activities, although it comes with its own caveats. Invisibility and stealth are fundamentally different things, although they of course interact.
The tables (not very clearly) spell this out: I'll grant that the +20 in 'stealth +20' is almost certaintly meant to be the +20 to stealth checks mentioned in the spell and stealth text. However, shadowkras is conflating this with the DC 20 perception check which the 'stealth check +20' is explicitly modifying. There's absolutely no precedent for this RAW, although it's a decent houserule.
is almost certaintly meant
"almost certaintly"
Except, the exact ruling on stealth text.
I think the problem is that they are assuming the wizard has invested in Stealth, and that the wizard is not making any noise.
To note first, the Wizard does NOT have stealth as a class skill. Hence they have no talent. I have no problem with the Wizard taking 10 on stealth...but as an untrained guy in it...that's going to be a -10 modifier in any situation that could be stressful as in this one as a minimum (DM caveat...rule 0).
We'll say he's moving at half speed or full speed, with a -5 or -10 respectfully, so the wizard is going to have a -15 to -20 on their stealth check.
So that would be a 20 to perception +20 for Invis, +10 to take 10, -10 due to being totally untrained for a stressed situation (rule 0, DM caveat in regards to untrained non-class skills), and another -10 for trying to get through the room to get a 30 DC. If the Wizard actually engages in combat or talks, I'd rule that they are automatically detected, but to determine where the caster actually is would be a 20 DC (as that is -20).
NOW...if the wizard has actually invested in Stealth as a skill (even though it's not a class skill), I'd give the Wizard the full 70 DC, though if they are moving you still take a -5 or -10 to give them a 65 or 60 DC.
I have NO problem with that.
Let them shine for the moment. Unlike some who have 15 minute adventuring days, mine are until you clear the dungeon. If that takes 15 minutes...great...unlikely...but great. If that takes 3 days...hopefully you're prepared for a slog...cause the monsters will hunt you down if they discover their dead and you are trying to sleep/hang out in the dungeon. At low levels with the right spells, may not be a problem...but at higher levels...1/3 of your spells may be devoted to protecting yourself when you rest in the dungeon cause the baddies definitely will have the spells to hunt you down.
That said...Invisibility lasts 1 min/lvl. The Wizard gets 4 Inv spells per day if they only have Inv. as their 2nd level spell. If they are a very smart wizard they may have 5 or 6 Inv spells memorized for 2nd level. IF they are 20th level, and only use Inv. in those slots...that gives them 2 hours of stealth...far less than an 8 hour adventuring day...much less a 24 hour day.
If you maximize and other items/feats...they could extend that to 3 or 4 hours. If they focus and use many higher level slots for it...maybe even up to those 8 hours.
With all those slots which could have been used for things much more useful to the party...I'd let them use it as long as they want...waste of a wizard...and still falling short of being able to disable traps, and other items to fill in for a Rogue...but if they want to waste their spell slots like that...I'd let them.
If a Wizard wants to waste their spells to be a subpar Rogue...I have no problem with letting them shine in their focus. I'm not going to hose a wizard who is a Rogue (or Ninja, or even certain Bard Archetypes) wannabe. If they are going to invest 1/10 to 1/5 of all their spell slots to this (more at lower levels) sure...why not?
I pity them during combat when those spells could have been put to better use...especially since the wizard can't flank when out of spells like the rogue and get sneak attack damage...(though perhaps you multi'd and then perhaps you'd have a good combo Wizard/Rogue...in fact for a stealth option...picking a class which has rogue abilities (such as ninja) and combined with the Wizard may not be a bad way to go).
(of course, at some point I think it would be much easier for the Wizard simply to make a ring of invisibility...but then...a Rogue could just as easily have that ring of invisibility and have a DC that is at least 3 higher...at any point...sooo.....Wizard is effective, but any class that has stealth as a class skill will always be more effective).
PS: You may ask why I didn't use the caster being immobile in the first example...because unless he's in a safe place with guards coming...why in the heck is a wizard going to stand in one place all day?
At some point, depending on how large the area is, he may be run into. If it's a five foot wide corridor, I'm going to give anything passing through a 50%- 75% chance of running into the caster. If it's a larger area (let's say a 5x5 chamber), as they walk around the chamber, I'd be giving them a 25% chance each time they walk around to run into the caster by accident. If it's even larger, lets say a 10x10 chamber, that's going to be a 5% chance. Let's take a larger chamber...20x25 foot chamber....I'd only give them a 1% chance per movment....but how long are you going to remain stationary. If you have someone walking around that chamber...even at 1%...after 8 hours or so till the next shift...I'd say there's a good chance that eventually you're number will be rolled (480 chances to roll that 1% if my math is right).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, let me see if I understand you. Your argument is that a modifier to the DC of a perception check is very much not the same thing as a bonus on a stealth check. Thus invisibility grants an effective +40/60 since the stealth rules apply +20/40 to the check and the perception rules apply a separate +20 modifier to the DC when trying to look at invisible creatures or objects. Is that about what you mean.Yes, exactly. A perception check applies in different circumstances to a stealth check. A stealth check is an active process that precludes some forms of activity (melee combat, for example). Invisibility is a passive condition that obviously does not preclude these activities, although it comes with its own caveats. Invisibility and stealth are fundamentally different things, although they of course interact.
The tables (not very clearly) spell this out: I'll grant that the +20 in 'stealth +20' is almost certaintly meant to be the +20 to stealth checks mentioned in the spell and stealth text. However, shadowkras is conflating this with the DC 20 perception check which the 'stealth check +20' is explicitly modifying. There's absolutely no precedent for this RAW, although it's a decent houserule.
I'm sorry but isn't the stealth check and the perception DC the EXACT SAME THING.
|
Not only is someone doubling the stealth bonus for Invisibility, but the big post that first did this was somehow using it three times.
Taking the table indipendantly from everything else is clearly not what was intended. Think of the table as a summery of what is needed.
I don't know why some would make it so hard, it is already referenced in the spell itself. That doesn't add to anything, it is just stating what is already written elsewhere.
Well, on the bright side, this thread made me memorize the bonuses and penalties of invisibility, no more consulting the book during the game.
I think the problem is that they are assuming the wizard has invested in Stealth, and that the wizard is not making any noise.
To note first, the Wizard does NOT have stealth as a class skill. Hence they have no talent. I have no problem with the Wizard taking 10 on stealth...but as an untrained guy in it...that's going to be a -10 modifier in any situation that could be stressful as in this one as a minimum (DM caveat...rule 0).
We'll say he's moving at half speed or full speed, with a -5 or -10 respectfully, so the wizard is going to have a -15 to -20 on their stealth check.
So that would be a 20 to perception +20 for Invis, +10 to take 10, -10 due to being totally untrained for a stressed situation (rule 0, DM caveat in regards to untrained non-class skills), and another -10 for trying to get through the room to get a 30 DC. If the Wizard actually engages in combat or talks, I'd rule that they are automatically detected, but to determine where the caster actually is would be a 20 DC (as that is -20).
NOW...if the wizard has actually invested in Stealth as a skill (even though it's not a class skill), I'd give the Wizard the full 70 DC, though if they are moving you still take a -5 or -10 to give them a 65 or 60 DC.
I have NO problem with that.
Let them shine for the moment. Unlike some who have 15 minute adventuring days, mine are until you clear the dungeon. If that takes 15 minutes...great...unlikely...but great. If that takes 3 days...hopefully you're prepared for a slog...cause the monsters will hunt you down if they discover their dead and you are trying to sleep/hang out in the dungeon. At low levels with the right spells, may not be a problem...but at higher levels...1/3 of your spells may be devoted to protecting yourself when you rest in the dungeon cause the baddies definitely will have the spells to hunt you down.
That said...Invisibility lasts 1 min/lvl. The Wizard gets 4 Inv spells per day if they only have Inv. as their 2nd level spell. If they are a very...
Non-class skill in Pathfinder means almost nothing. Or rather it means the difference between a "skilled" and "non-skilled" character is a whopping.... +3. So really... the Wizard who bothers to put points in Stealth (and they have tons to work with so why not), is only +3 behind the so called "skilled" person who does the same. And of course the Wizard has Invisibility to help him out. And more skill points then most other classes. This is one of many indirect nerfs to the Rogue in Pathfinder. Class skills mean bunk, especially once traits are factored in.
I'm sorry but isn't the stealth check and the perception DC the EXACT SAME THING.
No, they aren't. Did you even read the post you are responding to?
You can be invisible and not take a stealth check. That's why the table specifically has rules for when you are taking a stealth check.
...I think the problem is that they are assuming the wizard has invested in Stealth, and that the wizard is not making any noise.
To note first, the Wizard does NOT have stealth as a class skill. Hence they have no talent. I have no problem with the Wizard taking 10 on stealth...but as an untrained guy in it...that's going to be a -10 modifier in any situation that could be stressful as in this one as a minimum (DM caveat...rule 0).
We'll say he's moving at half speed or full speed, with a -5 or -10 respectfully, so the wizard is going to have a -15 to -20 on their stealth check.
So that would be a 20 to perception +20 for Invis, +10 to take 10, -10 due to being totally untrained for a stressed situation (rule 0, DM caveat in regards to untrained non-class skills), and another -10 for trying to get through the room to get a 30 DC. If the Wizard actually engages in combat or talks, I'd rule that they are automatically detected, but to determine where the caster actually is would be a 20 DC (as that is -20).
NOW...if the wizard has actually invested in Stealth as a skill (even though it's not a class skill), I'd give the Wizard the full 70 DC, though if they are moving you still take a -5 or -10 to give them a 65 or 60 DC.
I have NO problem with that.
Let them shine for the moment. Unlike some who have 15 minute adventuring days, mine are until you clear the dungeon. If that takes 15 minutes...great...unlikely...but great. If that takes 3 days...hopefully you're prepared for a slog...cause the monsters will hunt you down if they discover their dead and you are trying to sleep/hang out in the dungeon. At low levels with the right spells, may not be a problem...but at higher levels...1/3 of your spells may be devoted to protecting yourself when you rest in the dungeon cause the baddies definitely will have the spells to hunt you down.
That said...Invisibility lasts 1 min/lvl. The Wizard gets 4 Inv spells per day if they only have Inv. as their 2nd level
I don't think you actually read my post.
For both a ring of invisibility is actually a better investment, and BOTH can use it. As such, the Rogue ALWAYS is better since it's their class skill (by that +3 you mentioned). I shouldn't HAVE to restate this again as it was already in my post previously.
I don't think you read mine since you missed the point that +3 more doesn't make you that much better and even that benefit can be crushed by the Wizard taking a trait, which would put him +1 higher then the Rogue (who could take the same trait but it would largely be a waste). So no the Rogue isn't "always" better at it. Heck we haven't even touched on the fact that a Wizard can change their Shape with a number of spells and then really blow the Rogue out of the Water. The Wizard is going to beat the Rogue at stealth, just by virtue of their class features.