Stealth Conundrum


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

And I read that as only applicable when sight is basis of the Perception check as Inviso explicitly states it applies to vision.


Chess Pwn said wrote:
The thing is the check is a DC 20, and then is modified by the modifiers listed under "Perception DC Modifier".

Again, I read it as the DC 20 is to notice them, why else would you say "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check." If that check is then modified, you would never use a DC 20 check as it would either be DC 40 for not moving, or modified for whatever they're doing. I'd think that statement would be a lot more like "It's a DC 20, modified by the table below, to notice a creature."

Also, the modifiers aren't even mentioned until the rule gets into Pinpointing, which is what I read it as applying to.

Plus the one thing we should be absolutely sure of game mechanics-wise, is that to pinpoint an invisible creature using stealth is an opposed Perception/Stealth roll with the Stealthed creature getting +20 (or +40 if not moving) for being invisible. This is clearly written in the Stealth rules.

The DC 20 to notice an invisible creature is particular to the invisible ability and separate from Stealth, which is why I see it as a separate roll. You can't notice a creature that is only stealthed with a DC 20 check, it only applies to creatures that are invisible.

Therefore, if an invisible creature is also stealthed, it would be one roll of DC 20 to notice an invisible creature with a "hunch." Then a second, opposed Perception and (Stealth +20) roll (or +40 if not moving).

Again this is just how I read it. If you want to go with it being the other way, I won't fault you. I doubt the developers will jump in any time soon on this, seeing as how many posts I've seen on these issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The DC to notice a visible creature is 0. This is on the chart on CRB 102.
The penalty for invisibility is 20. This is also on the chart on CRB 102.
The DC for noticing an invisible creature is 20. This is an aside shoved in somewhere other than the skills chapter.

I'm not sure why anyone would take the random aside as a base DC when it matches the penalty applied to the base DC 0 as given in the skills chapter.


Because it specifically says you get it. It's not a random aside, it's stated in the invisible section:

"A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack."

There's no corresponding rule to noticing a stealthed creature within 30 feet.


The corresponding rule is that Stealth + 20 is listed as a modifier in the chart.


Ninja, I was referring to a non-invisible stealthed creature. There is no DC XX to notice a stealthed (non-invisible) creature within 30 feet. Noticing the DC 20 "hunch" is a specific rule for invisible creatures, hence why I read it as a separate roll from the opposed perception/stealth (+invisibility) roll.


I'm not sure that I understand, the DC to notice a non-stealthed creature is 0.


Take invisibility out of the equation and you have the following:

Creature Z is using stealth to move through trees and undergrowth at night in the area of a dwarf on guard. Once Creature Z is within the dwarf's 60' darkvision, Creature Z rolls stealth. Dwarf rolls perception. If dwarf's perception roll is higher than Creature Z's roll (after distance modifiers per perception rules), he completely ignores any stealth of the creature and is fully aware of Creature Z and can act without penalty.

Now if you add invisibility to that equation and say Creature Z is invisible and using stealth you have the following:

Creature Z is invisible and using stealth to move through trees and undergrowth at night in the area of a dwarf on guard. Once Creature Z is within the dwarf's 60' darkvision, Creature Z rolls stealth and adds 20 to the roll. Dwarf rolls perception. If the dwarf's perception roll is higher than Creature Z's roll (after distance modifiers per perception rules), he knows what 5' square Creature Z is in but still can't see Creature Z. However, if the dwarf's perception roll does not beat Creature Z's stealth + 20 roll, he'd still get a DC 20 roll to get the "hunch" that something is in the area once Creature Z is within 30 feet of the dwarf (per the rules of invisibility).

Just pointing out that the DC 20 hunch roll doesn't apply to stealth and there is no corresponding roll to notice a stealthed creature within 30 feet. The 30 feet rule only applies to invisible creatures, hence why I think it is a separate roll from the opposed perception/stealth roll.

I apologize for ignoring hearing in this (you can hear further than 60') but wanted to keep it simple to emphasis the DC 20 hunch roll.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
IMO, with the door closed, the DC is going to be 15+NPC's to simply hear someone in the hallway. Inviso provides no benefit. With the door open and using your eyes, Inviso gets us to 30. If the players were to close their eyes and indicate focus on sound, it's only a DC Stealth vs Perception to hear something. But that just tells you something is in the hall...you won't know where, and I'd say the PC is blind for the round.

"IMO" you can stop right there. Everything after this is not RAW. Invisibility explicitly states " If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving." Anything outside of this is simply not the rules. If we had hide and move silently then yes, this would matter. But you're trying to overrationalize why the rules they way they are and that's only going to give you a bigger headache than its worth. Yes, there are other examples of where there are specific sight/sound -based perceptions. Those are specific examples. If this were a sight/sound -based stealth, it would say so. But it doesn't. So you have to go with the rules as written. At home you can do whatever you want, but on the rules forum we go with what's written.


claudekennilol wrote:
But it doesn't. So you have to go with the rules as written. At home you can do whatever you want, but on the rules forum we go with what's written.

The rules as written explicitly state that Invisibility only applies to vision/sight. RAW explicitly states that it does not affect sound or smell. Insisting that it applies to sound/smell/touch based Perception checks is just laziness or simple-mindedness..

You're welcomed to your opinion, but that's all you've got...an opinion.


Krith wrote:
Again, I read it as the DC 20 is to notice them, why else would you say "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check." If that check is then modified, you would never use a DC 20 check as it would either be DC 40 for not moving, or modified for whatever they're doing. I'd think that statement would be a lot more like "It's a DC 20, modified by the table below, to notice a creature."

What do you mean you'd never use a DC 20 because it'd be modified? Base DCs are always modified by appropriate modifiers. What's the DC for an average concealed door? 15, plus modifiers. If you're 20 feet away that's a +2 to the DC. But oh no, now it's not a DC 15 for the door, I should remove the modifier, why else would they set the DC as 15 if it was never going to be 15. And Krith, there is no separate DC to pinpoint, The DC is 20 + modifiers. They just used words to say there is a +20 modifier to pinpoint. The modifiers apply as applicable to the base 20 DC to notice that you have a hunch something is there.


@N N 959
RAW says that you are not magically silenced. So if you started yelling invisibility doesn't cover you there. But it does say it boosts your stealth check. If this was one of those specific sight/sound based perceptions you'd have something. But it doesn't. The only time sight/sound based checks would be different is if one of the specific things were a part of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
The only time sight/sound based checks would be different is if one of the specific things were a part of it.

Not sure I understand what you're saying, but it's unequivocal that Invisibility, and thus its modifier, is only applicable to visual perception. I understand that people often have trouble connecting dots in Pathfinder when the rules don't hold their hand or remove all doubt. But the designers have routinely said the rules require the use of common sense.

It's common sense that if I can't see down a hallway/through a door, that any Perception checks are not affected by modifiers that apply to sight. The Perception skill explicitly states that it is used for all five senses. Nowhere does it mandate that a creature is limited to using the most penalized sense.

What is entirely within the rules is to allow one roll and apply the modifiers to the appropriate sense. i.e. You hear something, but you see nothing. I realize this may be too complex a notion for some people. So be it.

But please stop trying to tell me that Invisibility is blanket +20 to all manners of Perception when it explicitly states that Inviso covers vision/sight only.

EDIT:
Let me clarify something that may be lost in my response. In the case with the door open, hearing the NPC would not be sufficient to avoid being surprised. You would still need to beat the +20 inviso bonus if the PC were moving. So this is where terminology comes into play. The PC perceives something, but does not avoid being surprised per the mechanics.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact is you're just making up rules because they make more sense to you. Read the entry for invisibility. Yes, it does say that "Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision".

Taking that into consideration, it also goes on to say that "It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check." It specificallly calls that out and doesn't exclude anything like 'unless you close your eyes and try and hear them'. Yes they're invisible. Yes, they're harder and you have other sense. Yes that was pointed out and it was pointed out that they're harder to perceive. Period.

Have you considered that when you normally use perception you're already using all of your senses to spot something and it's mostly made up of sight and only slightly the rest? That's why blindsense/scent get bonuses. But normally you rely on vision and secondary on the rest. That's why it's simply harder to find invisible things. That's one explanation for it.

The simplest and best explanation is "because the rules say so."


@N N 959 where does it say that Inviso only covers vision/sight only?


Invisibility contradicts it's own text by giving a flat bonus to stealth checks which as written apply to moving silently and unseen.


@Claude

No, I'm not making up rules. I'm applying my brain to what the rules state. You're also misrepresenting my posts/position.

In order to "pinpoint" someone, you'll need to beat the Inviso with scent or a high enough perception check. But if you start walking around I don't need to beat Inviso to know someone is walking around in the room. The stealth rules for inviso are/must be the same as they would for someone moving around in total darkness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Invisibility contradicts it's own text by giving a flat bonus to stealth checks which as written apply to moving silently and unseen.

LOL, yup! Invisibility by RAW doesn't make you quieter. That being said, it adds +20 to stealth while moving. Stealth vs Perception already assumes all the senses, so while by RAW it doesn't make you quieter, also by RAW it does make you quieter. Got it?

The part where it talks about hearing/feeling, etc is probably in there for other senses, blindsense and scent reasoning.

Stealth has a hard enough time without people explicitly trying to get around the rules.

There is no spot/listen stat anymore, they are rolled into one skill, perception. Perception opposes stealth, invisibility gives a bonus to stealth. Special senses are unaffected by it (though the target usually still has concealment as pointed out in the different sense entries.)


Chess Pwn wrote:
@N N 959 where does it say that Inviso only covers vision/sight only?
PRD wrote:

Invisibility

The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's not the spell Invisibility. And it the spell Invisibility, which is what I was talking about, gives you a +20 to moving stealth checks. All moving stealth checks. And what you quoted doesn't say that the spell Invisibility's bonus to stealth checks gets cancelled for being heard, smelled or felt. It's still possible to do so, just harder because of the bonus.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
But it doesn't. So you have to go with the rules as written. At home you can do whatever you want, but on the rules forum we go with what's written.

The rules as written explicitly state that Invisibility only applies to vision/sight. RAW explicitly states that it does not affect sound or smell. Insisting that it applies to sound/smell/touch based Perception checks is just laziness or simple-mindedness..

You're welcomed to your opinion, but that's all you've got...an opinion.

If you look at the deafened condition, you will find an example of how the rules refer to a conditional bonus/penalty to a skill check. Invisibity's stealth bonus is not written as a condition bonus, it applies to all instances of the skill being used.

The bonus to stealth is completely seperate from the other aspects of the spell. It says you get the bonus, so you get the bonus. It doesn't limit the bonus to versus sight based perception checks. It doesn't matter if the person making the perception check doesn't have line of sight to the square you are in. The why doesn't really matter.

That's the RAW.

It's perfectly reasonable to rule that it doesn't apply to hearing based checks, though.

RAW often leads to situations that defy logic.


Chess Pwn wrote:
That's not the spell Invisibility. And it the spell Invisibility, which is what I was talking about, gives you a +20 to moving stealth checks. All moving stealth checks. And what you quoted doesn't say that the spell Invisibility's bonus to stealth checks gets cancelled for being heard, smelled or felt. It's still possible to do so, just harder because of the bonus.

In the PRD, the spell links to the glossary term, which references the Special Ability. It's all the same.

Look. As others have noted and as should be obvious by the posts in this thread, there's a fair bit of confusion about which modifiers apply under which circumstances. Does the chart on Invisible person modifiers to Perception telling me that using Stealth I get another +20, so I'm getting +40 + Stealth? But I'm getting only +20 while moving. Do I subtract another -10 if I'm moving at Full Speed, so my total DC is 10? I can't say I am certain on any of these.

What I do know is that a blind person is not going to take a penalty because you drank a potion of Invisibility. That is clear from the text. Any interpretation which conflicts with this suggests a problem with how one is interpreting the rules or a systemic problem with the entire body of Inviso rules themselves. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Bottom line, I don't expect any consensus on this topic given the rules.


Victor Zajic wrote:
It says you get the bonus, so you get the bonus.

We know that's not how it works or Shield Master would mean you don't take any penalties to using your shield, no matter the source.

The rules are explicitly meant to be interpreted in the larger context of the game. Not in a vacuum.

Quote:
It doesn't limit the bonus to versus sight based perception checks. It doesn't matter if the person making the perception check doesn't have line of sight to the square you are in. The why doesn't really matter.

It absolutely matters whether sight is involved or the text wouldn't bother to mention it. If Inviso applies to all senses and all Perception checks, there would be no need to even discuss vision.

The Perception modifiers have to be considered in the context of what Invisibility applies to.

Quote:
RAW often leads to situations that defy logic.

This isn't about logic, it's about RAW contradicting itself or not making the context clear.


@Chess Pwn

Actually a creature that is speaking has a -20 to perception.<---An indicator that making noise matters.

That rule is under the invisibility condition.

And the invisibility spell makes you invisible meaning you have the invisibility condition.

The rules are not going to say "condition" after every condition. If a spell says you are helpless but does not say "helpless condition" don't expect for that argument to work with your GM.

RAI(how the game is intended to play are the rules), and what we try to figure out in the rules area. A lot of rules can be argued by RAW if you want to be pedantic enough about it.


The thing is, if the rules had a spell that said, "By making loud noises and flailing about you get a +10 to stealth checks and perception check." Doesn't matter that to us it doesn't make sense, it'd give you those bonuses cause it says it does. And people would probably house-rule it to not give you the bonuses cause it didn't make sense to them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:
It says you get the bonus, so you get the bonus.

We know that's not how it works or Shield Master would mean you don't take any penalties to using your shield, no matter the source.

Shield Master absolutely does that. Saying otherwise is basically saying you're okay with shoddy and vague rules.

I know for certain how Shield Master should be played but that has absolutely no merit in a discussion on the rules. My personal take on the rules is meaningless as the devs have said time and again that effects do what they say they do and nothing more or less.

So while I can run it properly in my own games, it is without doubt what the text says.

Discard any preconceived notion of logic for the game generates its own. Elementals catch fevers and a battleaxe is more dextrous than a dagger.


Scavion wrote:


I know for certain how Shield Master should be played but that has absolutely no merit in a discussion on the rules. My personal take on the rules is meaningless as the devs have said time and again that effects do what they say they do and nothing more or less.

The problem in many of these cases is we're not sure what it is they mean to say. I'm sure I'm the very first person to point this out since Paizo created the message boards, but ambiguity in the writing is a big reason why many of us visit the Rules Forum.

Grand Lodge

N N 959 wrote:

@Claude

No, I'm not making up rules. I'm applying my brain to what the rules state. You're also misrepresenting my posts/position.

In order to "pinpoint" someone, you'll need to beat the Inviso with scent or a high enough perception check. But if you start walking around I don't need to beat Inviso to know someone is walking around in the room. The stealth rules for inviso are/must be the same as they would for someone moving around in total darkness.

Someone isn't "walking" around the room. They're "stealthing" around the room for which invisibility gives them a +20.


Chess Pwn wrote:
The thing is, if the rules had a spell that said, "By making loud noises and flailing about you get a +10 to stealth checks and perception check." Doesn't matter that to us it doesn't make sense, it'd give you those bonuses cause it says it does. And people would probably house-rule it to not give you the bonuses cause it didn't make sense to them.

True, but the spell also gives you a condition, and it does nothing to say you get to ignore certain aspects of it.

As an example if there was a stunning spell that say you are stunned, but you don't have to drop you weapon then you would have a way to avoid part of that condition.

The invisibility spell gives you part of the invis condition, but not a full reprint, but still has no language saying you get to ignore the other rules for it with regard to perception checks. It even says that you are not magically silenced so there is no reason why making noise would not make someone be able to find you.

Would you allow someone to scream and yell while invisible and not be noticed?

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:


Would you allow someone to scream and yell while invisible and not be noticed?

At this point you're no longer stealthing so it's a moot point.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Scavion wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:
It says you get the bonus, so you get the bonus.

We know that's not how it works or Shield Master would mean you don't take any penalties to using your shield, no matter the source.

Shield Master absolutely does that. Saying otherwise is basically saying you're okay with shoddy and vague rules.

I know for certain how Shield Master should be played but that has absolutely no merit in a discussion on the rules. My personal take on the rules is meaningless as the devs have said time and again that effects do what they say they do and nothing more or less.

So while I can run it properly in my own games, it is without doubt what the text says.

Discard any preconceived notion of logic for the game generates its own. Elementals catch fevers and a battleaxe is more dextrous than a dagger.

What the rules say and what the rules do, are not always in line. Shield Master does not eliminate all penalties. It just says it does if you don't read it in context.

The devs also say to read rules in context. Basically the correct way to run a game is not black and white, which is a problem because of how different people will interpret things and/or communicate them to someone else.

An example of this was when a poster wanted to say that heighten spells caused other metamagic spells to increase their actual level. I see his PoV, but he was incorrect.

Dark Archive

N N 959 wrote:
Scavion wrote:


I know for certain how Shield Master should be played but that has absolutely no merit in a discussion on the rules. My personal take on the rules is meaningless as the devs have said time and again that effects do what they say they do and nothing more or less.
The problem in many of these cases is we're not sure what it is they mean to say. I'm sure I'm the very first person to point this out since Paizo created the message boards, but ambiguity in the writing is a big reason why many of us visit the Rules Forum.

That's where you get the divide between RAW and RAI.

RAW you do have to look at the text in a vacumn.
RAI you can broaden you scope.

Sometimes RAW is a really dumb way to look at the rules. But that fact doesn't change what the rules actually say.


wraithstrike wrote:
Would you allow someone to scream and yell while invisible and not be noticed?

No, I even said so in one of my earlier posts. But if you're screaming you're not using stealth, the spell says it doesn't magically make you silent. BUT it does say you get a +20 to moving stealth checks. In no sense am I trying to say that being invisible makes it so you can't be heard, touched, smelled. But I do say that the rules say that while moving and using stealth that it's a +20 to your stealth check to perceive them. It's on the table for special ability invisible. It's in the description of the spell Invisibility. It's on the perception skill description table. All of them say that if ANYBODY is using stealth a perception to notice them is DC their stealth check. And that invisibility gives them a +20 to their bonus/ raises the DC by 20. Perception covers every sense, the table tells you the bonus. You want a reason this works? Figure one out that matches with the rules. maybe our smell and hearing is so low that we take a "penalty" when needing to rely on those.

You people who disagree, tell my why you ignore all the tables that say this. Also, back it up with rules/text from pathfinder. Not just saying that it doesn't make sense, or that it can't mean that. I agree that it doesn't make logical sense other then it's what the rules say.


claudekennilol wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Would you allow someone to scream and yell while invisible and not be noticed?

At this point you're no longer stealthing so it's a moot point.

No, it's not. You're trying to put forth the idea that trying to be stealthy suddenly makes Invisibility apply to senses it explicitly doesn't cover. As wraith is pointing out, you're reading it out of context.


Victor Zajic wrote:


That's where you get the divide between RAW and RAI.

RAW you do have to look at the text in a vacumn.
RAI you can broaden you scope.

Sometimes RAW is a really dumb way to look at the rules. But that fact doesn't change what the rules actually say.

That's not accurate. The designers tell us to apply common sense (which includes context) when reading the rules. As several posters have tried to point out among many threads, RAW must be interpreted. Words only have the meaning that the reader is able to assign them. The meaning of words is dependent upon the context in which we find them, that is the nature of the English language and the paradigm in which the rules are written.

How words influence one another is sometimes as much art as it is science. By their own admission, authors try to incorporate a sense of art when writing the rules. How we interpret art is subjective.


Chess Pwn said wrote:
What do you mean you'd never use a DC 20 because it'd be modified? Base DCs are always modified by appropriate modifiers. What's the DC for an average concealed door? 15, plus modifiers. If you're 20 feet away that's a +2 to the DC. But oh no, now it's not a DC 15 for the door, I should remove the modifier, why else would they set the DC as 15 if it was never going to be 15. And Krith, there is no separate DC to pinpoint, The DC is 20 + modifiers. They just used words to say there is a +20 modifier to pinpoint. The modifiers apply as applicable to the base 20 DC to notice that you have a hunch something is there.

The rules under Invisibility in the Glossary specifically says you can generally sense a creature with a DC 20 check. It then clarifies what happens if you pass that check. Then it starts talking about pinpointing a creature and at that point is when it brings up modifiers; only after it's talking about pinpointing and after it's already discussed what happens if you pass your "hunch" check.

Further, what's the DC to notice a creature that is both invisible and using stealth? It's stealth + 20. This roll has nothing to do with the DC 20 check. "Stealth + 20" isn't a modifier, it's a DC in and of itself. If it was a modifier, it would be + (Stealth + 20). It's not. So you have two separate DC's. If you want to combine them into one check, go right ahead, but that's not what the rules say.

And as for what you think is "never use a DC 20 because it'd be modified," that's not at all what I wrote. Go back and read what I wrote and then you'll see I said noticing a creature within 30 feet would never be a DC 20 check, because it would either be adding +20 for not moving, or subtracting from it for moving, either -5, -10, or -20. So for the rule to state "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check," would be flat out false.

Moreover, read my example about Creature Z and the dwarf. Just because a creature is within your ability to sense it, doesn't mean it's within 30 feet. The rule specifically states the DC 20 "hunch" roll is for within 30 feet. Therefore, you would get a normal opposed perception/stealth check to notice an invisible creature as it starts it's move while being further than 30 feet from you (but within your ability to notice), but if it moves closer and within 30 feet, you would immediately get another DC 20 check to see if you get the "hunch." No where in the rules does it say you would get a second perception check to pinpoint it: you already passed or failed that at the beginning of it's move. Nor does it say you can make your "hunch" check at a further distance than 30 feet.

If you want to play that you make your hunch check whenever you make a perception check, even if greater than 30 feet, go ahead, but it's not in the rules. Likewise, if you want to allow pinpointing on the DC 20 hunch check, go a head, but again, it's not in the rules.


Krith if you notice the quote, "never use a DC 20 because it'd be modified," was from wraithstikes post that I was quoting in that post, I'm sorry that you thought that was directed to you and hence misquoting you. Even though I disagree with your view I don't want this to become ugly.

Now I am sorry, but I'm not understanding your position when you went to clarify what you meant when you thought I was misquoting you.

Krith wrote:
And as for what you think is "never use a DC 20 because it'd be modified," that's not at all what I wrote. Go back and read what I wrote and then you'll see I said noticing a creature within 30 feet would never be a DC 20 check, because it would either be adding +20 for not moving, or subtracting from it for moving, either -5, -10, or -20. So for the rule to state "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check," would be flat out false.

I agree with your example of Creature Z and the dwarf. Just to clarify though, I feel that the DC 20 would be replaced by stealth +20 and I'll explain why in a second for that. I also agree that no hunches unless it's in 30ft.

I feel the DC 20 for hunch is for someone who is not using stealth. If you stealth you follow the stealth and perception and Invisibility tables that say to notice a stealthed person is an opposed perception check. I feel that this is consistent and doesn't break any other rule. The DC 20 sets the base for someone not using stealth but invisible. Also you could read in that an active invisible creature is not using stealth, hence active instead of sneaky or whatnot, thus the DC for someone using stealth is replaced instead of modifying the DC for the hunch to notice.

Also if you rearrange the lines about he check you'll see that the modifiers are not only to pinpoint, but are for the hunch. My quote is rearranged but not changed.

Quote:

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. 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. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance).

I feel this is valid because it's not giving a new DC to pinpoint them for the modifiers to be added on to. It's saying what the modifier to pinpoint them would be. I feel this is the same meaning as in the original words. Because think about it, according to what I understand you to be saying it's a DC 20 to get a hunch that something is there if they are speaking. It would also be a DC to to pinpoint a creature speaking. To me that doesn't make any sense, it'd be a DC 0 to know something was there if you heard speaking and didn't see anything. This example illustrates why I feel the modifiers are to both cases, because the pinpointing is just a modifier itself.


Not to get chippy, but I thought it was me because you actually started your post by quoting me (looks like Aug 7 @ 4:19pm was the post) so I'm not sure on the wraithstrike claim...

As I said before, I'm not going to argue with people who read this rule differently; it's not a clear rule. I don't, however, agree with rearranging rules to try and make an argument on a rules forum. I'd keep them as the developers wrote them.

I feel I've stated what I feel the rules are and haven't been swayed by any other posts I've seen here (as I'm sure you haven't). I don't feel too motivated to go back and forth on what's generally agreed is a poorly written rule; way too much room for interpretation.


My answer to the original post is this:

In scenario A
DC to hear the NPC is: 15
DC to pinpoint location with hearing is: 35
DC to see the NPC: impossible
DC to smell the NPC (with scent) is: 7
DC to pinpoint with scent is: 27 *

In scenario B
DC to hear the NPC is: 10
DC to pinpoint location with hearing is: 30
DC to see the NPC is: 30 (by indirect evidence e.g. footprints)
DC to smell the NPC (with scent) is: 7
DC to pinpoint with scent is: 27 *

* Unless the NPC is within 5 feet, in which case the DC is 7.

The PC rolls once and the GM gives whatever information is applicable. For example in scenario A the PC has scent and rolls a total of 12. The PC can smell that something is in the corridor somewhere, but can't hear anything. The PC opens the door and now they can hear something but they still can't see anything, by now they will probably realise that there is definitely something in the corridor and that it is invisible, but they will not know exactly where it is until it gets within 5 feet.


people are apparently VERY opinionated and loud about there opinions on this very "GM can handle this how he wants" skill.

stealth constantly makes references to non-mechanic things like "being sensed by any of the senses" in other words the GM get's to say what ever he thinks is most appropriate and the player can go die as he tried to HIPS without HIPS, or run up behind a character because he is invisible. if you're clearly hearable, you are clearly sensed.

GMs can do what they want, because it's purposefully left open to interpretation.


Chess Pwn wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Would you allow someone to scream and yell while invisible and not be noticed?

No, I even said so in one of my earlier posts. But if you're screaming you're not using stealth, the spell says it doesn't magically make you silent. BUT it does say you get a +20 to moving stealth checks. In no sense am I trying to say that being invisible makes it so you can't be heard, touched, smelled. But I do say that the rules say that while moving and using stealth that it's a +20 to your stealth check to perceive them. It's on the table for special ability invisible. It's in the description of the spell Invisibility. It's on the perception skill description table. All of them say that if ANYBODY is using stealth a perception to notice them is DC their stealth check. And that invisibility gives them a +20 to their bonus/ raises the DC by 20. Perception covers every sense, the table tells you the bonus. You want a reason this works? Figure one out that matches with the rules. maybe our smell and hearing is so low that we take a "penalty" when needing to rely on those.

You people who disagree, tell my why you ignore all the tables that say this. Also, back it up with rules/text from pathfinder. Not just saying that it doesn't make sense, or that it can't mean that. I agree that it doesn't make logical sense other then it's what the rules say.

There are no rules saying I can scream and use stealth, but with that aside lets say I am talking at a normal hearing level to remove the extremeness from the situation. I saw your earlier post so I will rephrase my question since it was not worded too well. Do you think it is RAI to be able to make noise and not have it apply a penalty to the perception DC?

The rules also say that making noise matters. It is under the invisibility condition, and the spell says noise matters. <---That is why I am questioning your stance. I can't speak for everyone else.


Bandw2 wrote:

people are apparently VERY opinionated and loud about there opinions on this very "GM can handle this how he wants" skill.

stealth constantly makes references to non-mechanic things like "being sensed by any of the senses" in other words the GM get's to say what ever he thinks is most appropriate and the player can go die as he tried to HIPS without HIPS, or run up behind a character because he is invisible. if you're clearly hearable, you are clearly sensed.

GMs can do what they want, because it's purposefully left open to interpretation.

It is not left open to interpretation. It is just written badly. 3.5 actually wrote a article explaining it, but it has been taken down. And also hide and move silent have been combined into stealth, but the wording was basically the same in the rules. Until the article was written it was not all that easy to understand.

However PF is its own game so you can't use a 3.5 ruling to prove how PF works, so that is another problem.

Basically the mechanics are what they are, but the GM can flavor it however he likes.<--Assumes no house rules are in play.

I asked for a breakdown of the invis rules over a year ago, but so far it has not happened. The PF blog on stealth does not cover invis.


Krith, first off, you're right I was quoting you, but I think I had missed the point you were trying to make? For some reason when I looked back I thought it said I was quoting wraithstrike.

Now my "rearranging" the rules was to show that the order of the sentences wouldn't change what they were meaning. Not saying if the rules were written a different way it'd mean something different. Example of this, an apple is a fruit. one type of fruit is an apple. rearranging only shows that they are saying the same thing.

I feel the rules are clear and I'm not seeing why you have the point of view you do. Be it because of a lack of my understanding of what you're trying to say, or you not being clear. I don't understand why you have the view you do.


Wraithstrike, where does it say that you take a -20 to perception checks if you're talking? I see in the invisibility section that if the invisible person is talking it's a -20 to the DC to notice or get a hunce, and to pinpoint. (Since it's the same base DC, not because it's two different DC's that need to be modified.) Now it's up to question if all the invisibility modifiers would still be applied to the stealth check or only some of them would be, or none of them.

Also I feel you might be missing my point about sound and Invisibility. I'm saying when you use stealth you are trying not to make sounds, so the "sounds" you make from moving are pulled into your stealth check. Now if you're intentionally making some kind of sound, examples but not limited to, talking, screaming, casting a spell, chanting, whispering, running into something, ext. then your stealth doesn't cover that, since there is no rule for using stealth to hide those kind of sounds. This is why you couldn't just use the DC 10 to hear a creature walking to notice any creature using stealth. This is the kind of sound I say stealth does cover. Another reason for this interpretation is that being invisible you are impossible to see, so why would you gain a bonus to stealth, if it didn't apply to you being, heard, smelled, or touched? Because it wouldn't be to being seen since it's impossible to see you.


Boomerang Nebula,
I'm curious as to why you'd rule it as a DC 10 to hear the NPC?
And why it's a DC 30 to pinpoint using sight in example B?


The thing I think is funny is that I and some others have pointed out how all the tables and words between all three sources, Invisibility spell, invisibility description, and perception, all line up to say the same thing. And that people are going against that without providing any real evidence as to why they hold that position.


That -20 is in the chart. It says combat or speaking IIRC. When I get home I will.find it for you.


Chess Pwn wrote:

Boomerang Nebula,

I'm curious as to why you'd rule it as a DC 10 to hear the NPC?
And why it's a DC 30 to pinpoint using sight in example B?

I am not sure I understand the intent of the question, so let me know if I have not addressed the crux of the issue.

In scenario B the door is open so the only effects that come into play are the stealth roll and the invisibility effect (the original post said we can ignore distance). The stealth roll was 10 and invisibility has a +20 modifier where it is applicable. It says in the description of invisibility that it is relevant only to vision hence the two different DCs for hearing and vision.

I don't buy this argument that when invisible it is easier to keep quiet and therefore the DC to hear an invisible should be increased. For starters can invisible characters see themselves? If they can't then that may make it harder to be quiet in some circumstance since you can't see where you are stepping.


It's not impossible to "see" an invisible creature, it's just very difficult. It was the same way in 3.5. Of course 3.5 had the Listen/Move Silently skills separate from the visual ones, which made things dealing with invisibility and silence quite a bit easier.


Chess Pwn said wrote:
I feel the DC 20 for hunch is for someone who is not using stealth. If you stealth you follow the stealth and perception and Invisibility tables that say to notice a stealthed person is an opposed perception check. I feel that this is consistent and doesn't break any other rule. The DC 20 sets the base for someone not using stealth but invisible. Also you could read in that an active invisible creature is not using stealth, hence active instead of sneaky or whatnot, thus the DC for someone using stealth is replaced instead of modifying the DC for the hunch to notice.

I wouldn't exclude the DC 20 hunch just because someone is using stealth. Nowhere in the stealth or perception rules does it say to exclude it, so, as part of the invisible rules, I'd include it.

As for someone not being "active" if they're stealthing, I just don't see that, but again, I don't have any issue with you reading these rules differently.

Chess Pwn said wrote:
Now my "rearranging" the rules was to show that the order of the sentences wouldn't change what they were meaning. Not saying if the rules were written a different way it'd mean something different. Example of this, an apple is a fruit. one type of fruit is an apple. rearranging only shows that they are saying the same thing.

I see these two sentences: 'A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack.' as a complete thought. It's telling you to do a DC 20 check, and how it's resolved.

Then the paragraph continues with: 'It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). 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.'

I see this as a separate thought, that being if you're using a Perception check to pinpoint an invisible creature, add +20 to whatever the DC would be based on the normal Perception rules, with the chart modifiers listed below that paragraph.

If you want to rearrange the sentences you change how the thoughts were intended to be presented, and therefore, what they were supposed to mean.

51 to 100 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth Conundrum All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.