I swore the 3.5 DMG recommends following RAW and not using houserules.
This is an example of why I'm Leary of anecdote. Memory is just a bastard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Not any more than it already was. The GM's job for the most part is to taylor your game to fit the style and type of players you have in your group. You don't seem to be doing that. Your player has changed the way he plays with his new supplements, so you must adapt. Set limits. I have had more problems with min maxing than anything else, so limit how high or how low an ability score can go at character creation for starters. Ban stuff that isn't making it fun for you as well as them. Just because you are the GM, doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun to. After all you put more work into a campaign than any of the players do. I like to see my players succeed, but I want it to be because they were clever or lucky, not because they had overwhelming numbers on their side. Your players will talk about the close victories for years because they outsmarted the bad guyway before they ever talk about the quick victories they achieved because of broken builds. YMMV though.
Agreed 100%. After a series of unsatisfying gaming sessions, I spent a lot of time on message boards, reading through rules, and so on only to realize that I wasn't putting out a varied game experience for the players. If the game looks tired and predictable, the first place to look is at the person running it.
The hallmark of good design is the GM not having to say no all the time.
The hallmark of a good GM is knowing when to say no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would rather say yes, but. I will say no if needed, but I would rather negotiable a solution. Provided, of course, that it does not bog things down.
|
Reading through it the DMg is much more player focused. Things like "don't change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that players don't rebel", "use the core rulebook over published adventure rules", "If someone corrects your recollection... thank the player for help", etc. are all over the first few pages of the DM's role. It's written in a way that the DM should be pleasing the player's whims and use the rulebooks without edits as much as possible.
I don't read it that way. I've seen some house-rules people have put on games which they have played only 1-2 sessions (or even 0 sessions), and they invariably lead to a hot mess. I think it's mostly just telling you to know what you're doing before instituting rules changes.
And why wouldn't you thank a player who calls out a mistake you made? That isn't saying that you can't use houserules - it's saying that the players should help you to remember all of the rules. (either RAW or houserule)
It's sadly better than to send undead to a positive energy plane as a negative one doesn't do ANYTHING for them. Don't forget constructs too. They can both get an infinite amount of temp hp in positive energy planes.
Plus, occasionally you get hit with new surprises from old rules. For example, did anyone realize the plane of positive energy is a source of arbitrarily large numbers of risk-free temp hp for undead?
One resourceful necromancer sure did.
Wait wait wait.
Link for elaboration? Not saying you're wrong, just want to understand it better. Or elaborate here if you're so inclined. Thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After having some particularly bad DMs who decided that my character didn't work the way the rules said they did (before someone says it was some cheese build, it was a Fighter built for Trip and disarm) I believe the rules exist to protect the players.
Class features and feats exist to say "this is what you can do" not "if the GM feels like it you have no class features."
When I DM I never change a rule, feature, or feat during the session. I always wait until after the session to discuss stuff like that and give them the option of a partial rebuild if necessary.
AlaskaRPGer, just go to the PRD and type in Positive-Dominant or Negative-Dominant. You'll see that Negative-Dominant do nothing for an undead while Positive-Dominant gives them 5 temp hp every round with NO limit... That means a smart lich could start a fight with a few trillion temp hp for the first 1d20 rounds but taking a vacation on a Positive-Dominant plane.
AlaskaRPGer, just go to the PRD and type in Positive-Dominant or Negative-Dominant. You'll see that Negative-Dominant do nothing for an undead while Positive-Dominant gives them 5 temp hp every round with NO limit... That means a smart lich could start a fight with a few trillion temp hp for the first 1d20 rounds but taking a vacation on a Positive-Dominant plane.
Huh.....
"However, a creature must make a DC 20 Fortitude save each round..."
And it doesn't apply to objects. Well how about that. Learn something new every day.
Personally I'd rule that for those that are healed by negative energy and undead in general the affects for +/- dominant planes are effectively swapped, with undead being treated as creatures for the purposes of the Fort save, and the fort save be DC 20 + added HP, but that's just me. Constructs would not be affected one way or the other, on either plane.
But I'd also have that as "common knowledge", not a surprise to anyone.
A lot of balance complaints between classes stem from a position of the party being in competition with one another.Might want to fact-check that claim. In my experience, the only time the subject of competitiveness even comes up (whether explicitly or implicitly) is when the anti-balance crowd tries to retroactively pin that motive onto the balance crowd.
I'm sure there's somebody somewhere whose balance complaints truly are rooted in a sense of competition, but ANY opinion has at least a few people who believe it; competitiveness is not this common, driving force that the anti-balance crowd tries to convince people it is.
Indeed. For me, the issue arises when I have something that I feel my character should be able to do, but can't, and I have enough system mastery to know that if I had played a caster I certainly would be able to. I feel like I let the group down by not fulfilling my role properly, even if the other players don't really care as much about it as I do.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
but the second you suggest the GM should have some control over his game, this forum goes into an uproar.You seem to have missed what everyone disagrees on with Shadowlords. It's not that we don't want our DMs to have controll. It's that we don't want to HAVE to controll every single bit of the system to be able to enjoy the system.
Jodokai has already stated that he doesn't need to listen because his current understanding is completely accurate, so I'm not sure what you hope to gain by talking to him.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deny it all you want, and maybe you specifically don't feel that way, but the general feel on the boards is that anything that requires a lot of GM input is frowned upon.
People don't like badly written rules that require tons of GM adjudication to make work properly.
As a GM, I don't like it when the system requires me to make buckets of house rules and on the fly decisions not to make the game more interesting, but merely to keep one player from accidentally making another player irrelevant.
That's not even in the same ballpark as what you're claiming people are saying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As my good friend Boromir once said, "One cannot simply walk into a balance conversation without understanding a home group's playstyle..."
One half of my play has been home game, campaign style play, where the groups tend to repeat the circuit of 1st level through 5th to 8th level over and over again. Some of these have been campaigns where PCs are different levels (aka the wizard is 5th level when the thief is 8th level, because they have different XP tables).
These games typically involve quite long adventuring days. 17 different combats for a total of 50+ rounds of combat in a single day.
The bias towards seeing only 1st-6th level play and A LOT of rounds of combat per day, means the members of that group rightfully believe that martials are more powerful (and got more powerful relative to their caster counterparts) when 3.5 and PF arrived.
Take on this adventuring day with your "fighter 1" or "wizard 1" in 1e/2e, then 3.5e, then PF:
4 giant frogs + 2 average frogs
1 huge spider
8 brigands and leader
1 giant snake
13 giant rats
1 giant tick
1 giant lizard
2 green slimes
12 zombies
1 ogre
6 bugbears
9 gnolls
1 giant crayfish
4 ghouls
6 guardsmen + 1 sergeant
1 lieutenant + ass't guards
Lareth the Beautiful
A 1st level martial taking on the 3.5/PF Moathouse with a 20 Strength appears much more powerful compared to the poor wizard who got off a sleep and color spray and only affected a couple of the combatants in some of the bigger fights (9 targets? 13 targets? yikes!). 3.5e and PF layer on even more power for martials in these kinds of campaigns with feats like Power Attack and Cleave.
These campaigns usually take the party from level 1 to completion in the span of a week or two - so little or no crafting/scribing. There's minimal shopping, and the only magic obtained was what was found. I think many of these campaigns never saw the likes of a single metamagic rod. In this case, balancing casters is very much a GM-led thing based on the campaign. GMs may not even be aware they are affecting the game balance, they just thought up a certain narrative, and it creates a certain balance as they tell their campaign's story - no house rules required.
**
Then there's the near opposite side of the spectrum of play, which is represented by more recent APs (i.e. Kingmaker's bias towards single-fight-per-day) or organized play where you adventure for a day and see 3-5 encounters and 6-12 rounds of combat total.
Clearly these favor PCs with limited resource abilities (which are more powerful in nature). However, in short-day style play, the full casters of 1e-2e were also quite tasty since spells like fireball haven't changed much. 3.5/PF both made casters appear more powerful in this type of play, too. On one hand, they made what they were already powerful at even more powerful (admixture, metamagic, better ways to counter SR). On the second hand, typical PF play also shores up historical wizard weaknesses - take "Seeker" as a campaign trait and boost up their Perception. In 3.5e, no +3 ranks the moment you decorated a skill along with needing to invest in Spot + Listen meant a tough decision between useable Knowledge and being attentive (alongside with being able to maintain concentration). Toss magic lineage on top as a cherry.
If short days + highly available magic or crafting time = your table/campaign style, then each incremental edition change from 1e/2e->3.5e->PF meant you saw power creep of this sort and an erosion of balance favoring casters.
TLDR, depending on your table style, you saw power creep with each iteration in game rules that reinforced the power of the powerful relative to the underpowered.
|
but the second you suggest the GM should have some control over his game, this forum goes into an uproar.You seem to have missed what everyone disagrees on with Shadowlords. It's not that we don't want our DMs to have controll. It's that we don't want to HAVE to controll every single bit of the system to be able to enjoy the system.
I just don't agree that the system is as broken as you claim it to be.
I fully enjoy the system as is, so do all of my players. and there have been a few people on here that have agreed with me on this so i feel like me and my players are not alone in the world on this.
"...don't want to HAVE to controll every single bit of the system to be able to enjoy the system."
again this makes it sound like you do not enjoy the system at all and that you have to house rule everything to have fun. and that leads me to "if you do not enjoy the system why play it?" but this NOT me saying oh the devs are gods they made a perfect system or if you dont agree with me leave... again not saying that.
Is the system perfect? no.
Is it functional and fun to play right out the box? yes
Do I have to change every aspect of the system to enjoy it? no
Are there things that i have houseruled? yes
Are casters stronger then martial? i believe so but i do not have an issue with this.
Pathfinder has provided you with alot of tools to play the game the way you want. they built a system that can be tailored to many different play styles.
do you want a high level magic galore epic fantasy were you fight gods? play lvl 20 casters and go nuts, the system supports you.
do you want to play a low magic game were martial characters are top dog, get rid of full casters or only go to a certain level, the system supports you.
take out or put in what ever you want to enjoy the game. but too many people have too many different play style for paizo or anyone to develop a system that suites all their needs.
My sweet spot is lvl 7-13 for building my stories and campaigns, its my favorite zone for almost every character class in the game. so my games usually end at lvl 13 and that gives full casters access to a single 7th level spell, i do not feel like has broken any my games.
I also occasionally like the 20th level game, casters are near gods and we had a monk and fighter who still were able to contribute heavily and they had fun with it, after all that is the entire point is to have fun.
It is up to the DM and the group to decide what type of game they want to play and plan acordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After having some particularly bad DMs who decided that my character didn't work the way the rules said they did (before someone says it was some cheese build, it was a Fighter built for Trip and disarm) I believe the rules exist to protect the players.
Class features and feats exist to say "this is what you can do" not "if the GM feels like it you have no class features."
When I DM I never change a rule, feature, or feat during the session. I always wait until after the session to discuss stuff like that and give them the option of a partial rebuild if necessary.
The main purpose of the rules is to keep things consistent. I've found that most GMs who make lots of on-the-fly house rules tend to create a system that's full of contradictions and unexpected knock-on effects, and often can't even remember half of their own rulings later on. Which results in a game where the players have no idea what their characters can and can't do, since the rules are changing all the time.
That's the main reason I like the base game to be as balanced as possible; the more houserules it needs, the messier things get. Even if the GM does a good job writing all the house rules down and thinking everything through, that means every player in the group needs to read through and remember another set of rules. And that can lead to all kinds of confusion if you change groups/are in multiple games. I'm sure we all have stories about mixing house-rules and official rules up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.
It's actually possible for both parties to get what they want, but we still fight like cats and dogs about if it's even an issue with levels one party doesn't even like.
That's weird.
|
|
The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.
Yes - the balance is mostly pretty good (at least in combat) until level 11ish. It's primarily the 6th-9th level spells which do it, though there are a few 5th level spells which are lesser offenders.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.Yes - the balance is mostly pretty good (at least in combat) until level 11ish. It's primarily the 6th-9th level spells which do it, though there are a few 5th level spells which are lesser offenders.
On the other hand, lots of the "I've got an app for that" spells (the ones which so easily outclass skills for non-combat adventuring) are very low level.
Need to send someone across a desert or glacier on an errand, facing extreme heat or cold on a multi-day journey? Don't send the tough fighter, send the mage with endure elements.
Need to sneak past somebody? Don't send the nimble rogue (especially if there's more than one potential observer, or if there's at any point a gap of more than 15ft with no cover, or if your GM doesn't like Take 10), send the guy who can just turn invisible.
Need to decipher the writing on some ancient ruins? Don't bring in the linguist and just hope he knows the right language, bring in the mage with comprehend languages.
The list goes on. Oh, and don't worry about spell slots on those; past about 2nd level, the cost of scrolls for them is trivial, their availability is fairly reliable in all but the smallest of settlements, and wizards (or any other caster who spends a feat) can always just make their own at half price.
And then anything used frequently enough can just be a wand instead...
|
|
I just don't agree that the system is as broken as you claim it to be.Never claimed it to be broken. You, however, said that you would be okay with a broken system and that it's a DM's job to fix it, not the developers. "There's no need for balance" is your words. We never said "There is no balance".
I just don't agree that the system is as unbalanced and needs to be as"controlled" as you claim it to be. Is that better?
The majority of this has been claiming the game is unblanced to the point that its "broken" for a good number of classes unless you fix / house rule half the materiel to make it "enjoyable".
I do not need to fix (house rule or remove) half the materials from the game for me and my group to have a fun and enjoyable time.
What i and other people in my group who DM do is design encounters around the party and their classes. If there truly is an issue that comes up we talk it out as a group of adult and figure out a solution that suites our needs and wants. This is what i am referring to when i say DMs job to "fix" or balance problem.
I would not be ok with a truly broken system, i stated i do not think pathfinder is broken and i am ok with the martial caster disparity that many claim to be unbalanced and broken that make the game unenjoyable or unplayable
My statement "Theres no need for balance" is aimed at what we currently have and my view that the system is workable as is and doesn't need to be RE-balanced to make casters and non casters completely balanced.
The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.Yes - the balance is mostly pretty good (at least in combat) until level 11ish. It's primarily the 6th-9th level spells which do it, though there are a few 5th level spells which are lesser offenders.On the other hand, lots of the "I've got an app for that" spells (the ones which so easily outclass skills for non-combat adventuring) are very low level.
Need to send someone across a desert or glacier on an errand, facing extreme heat or cold on a multi-day journey? Don't send the tough fighter, send the mage with endure elements.
Need to sneak past somebody? Don't send the nimble rogue (especially if there's more than one potential observer, or if there's at any point a gap of more than 15ft with no cover, or if your GM doesn't like Take 10), send the guy who can just turn invisible.
Need to decipher the writing on some ancient ruins? Don't bring in the linguist and just hope he knows the right language, bring in the mage with comprehend languages.
The list goes on. Oh, and don't worry about spell slots on those; past about 2nd level, the cost of scrolls for them is trivial, their availability is fairly reliable in all but the smallest of settlements, and wizards (or any other caster who spends a feat) can always just make their own at half price.
And then anything used frequently enough can just be a wand instead...
That´s a pretty good observation. You might want to add the spell "monkeyfish" to the list of level 1 OP spells. A swim and climb speed are real problem solvers.
I disagree with the invisibility/stealth thing though. In recent books, a little different picture about stealth was painted, like in Unchained when i remember right. Stealth also only becomes very bad when people play overly RAW. The main problem there is the line of sight thing and as a GM, i tend to overrule that, making it a simple perception vs stealth check (maybe combined with a sense motive or perception for the person making the stealth check) or let players get a bit creative with bluff checks etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That´s a pretty good observation. You might want to add the spell "monkeyfish" to the list of level 1 OP spells. A swim and climb speed are real problem solvers.The thing that really messes me up about the anti balance crowd is that, more often than not, they play in the E8 threshold of the game. When people talk about adding features to martial characters, they tend to be talking about the 10-20 level bracket.Yes - the balance is mostly pretty good (at least in combat) until level 11ish. It's primarily the 6th-9th level spells which do it, though there are a few 5th level spells which are lesser offenders.On the other hand, lots of the "I've got an app for that" spells (the ones which so easily outclass skills for non-combat adventuring) are very low level.
Need to send someone across a desert or glacier on an errand, facing extreme heat or cold on a multi-day journey? Don't send the tough fighter, send the mage with endure elements.
Need to sneak past somebody? Don't send the nimble rogue (especially if there's more than one potential observer, or if there's at any point a gap of more than 15ft with no cover, or if your GM doesn't like Take 10), send the guy who can just turn invisible.
Need to decipher the writing on some ancient ruins? Don't bring in the linguist and just hope he knows the right language, bring in the mage with comprehend languages.
The list goes on. Oh, and don't worry about spell slots on those; past about 2nd level, the cost of scrolls for them is trivial, their availability is fairly reliable in all but the smallest of settlements, and wizards (or any other caster who spends a feat) can always just make their own at half price.
And then anything used frequently enough can just be a wand instead...
I like to stick to the CRB with examples, due to many past experiences of "Well that one thing you listed is from a splatbook and everyone knows splats are broken so therefore I don't have to reply to any of your points".
I disagree with the invisibility/stealth thing though. In recent books, a little different picture about stealth was painted, like in Unchained when...
There was an update to CRB Stealth a while back that addressed what I think is the "line of sight" issue you're talking about, saying something like if you start your turn hidden and end your turn hidden, then you don't get noticed in the interim.
But you still have to have access to cover/concealment in the first place (and be able to get from one such spot to another in a single turn), while being invisible carries no such restriction. Plus, only one of the guards has to spot you (and only has to spot you once) to blow everything. When you have to make a Stealth check for every action for however many rounds it takes to get by, and each guard gets to make their own Perception check against each of those Stealth checks, your odds of failure become astronomical.
Even if you only need three rounds, that's 6 Stealth checks. If there are four guards, that's 4 Perceptions per Stealth. That's 30 dice being rolled, and only one of them has to not go in your favor for everything to go to hell.
It gets a little better if your GM isn't afraid of the Take 10 rules, ensuring you don't roll low on your 6 Stealth checks. If your Stealth is a full 10 points higher than the guards' Perception (so they would have to roll a 20 to spot you), then you've got a chance, but rolling 24d20 and hoping none of them is a 20 is still bad odds.
|
|
WIS 7 on a melee DPR-machine?!?
Muhuhaaa!
Tick-tock-TIMEBOMB!
-
Who gets hit with Will-Saves the 1st by any reasonable competent caster? The "stupid brutes"-looking dudes! And who does indeed have a bad-Willsave? Mr. MAX-STR POWER! - dump WIS.
He will run, he will cower, or worst cast do some stupid suggestions or even become charmed into protecting his new ebst friend, or outright dominated.
This is why I would dump charisma before INT or WIS when doing min-max.
This is why I would dump charisma before INT or WIS when doing min-max.WIS 7 on a melee DPR-machine?!?
Muhuhaaa!
Tick-tock-TIMEBOMB!
-
Who gets hit with Will-Saves the 1st by any reasonable competent caster? The "stupid brutes"-looking dudes! And who does indeed have a bad-Willsave? Mr. MAX-STR POWER! - dump WIS.
He will run, he will cower, or worst cast do some stupid suggestions or even become charmed into protecting his new ebst friend, or outright dominated.
Considering the fact that this is a Barbarian that started with 20 STR on a 20 point buy it's very likely that all three mental scores are quite low.
When I've run a spellcaster in the past I've actually used him to cast such spells on my teammates. That way they can do their jobs more efficiently without my squishy little wizard having to run around acting like he's, like, a rogue or fighter or something. Which kind of just makes sense to me, almost as if it's all designed for characters to work together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the invisibility/stealth thing though. In recent books, a little different picture about stealth was painted, like in Unchained when i remember right. Stealth also only becomes very bad when people play overly RAW. The main problem there is the line of sight thing and as a GM, i tend to overrule that, making it a simple perception vs stealth check (maybe combined with a sense motive or perception for the person making the stealth check) or let players get a bit creative with bluff checks etc.
Invisibility is one of the few things which make me miss Perception being split into Spot & Listen. You couldn't see invisible wizards, but they were really easy to hear.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose what I am asking is does anyone else feel these supplements are beginning to unbalance the CR system?
You can unbalance the CR system with Core only.
A good Druid (Wild Shape and Spells), Wizard (Simulacrum), and Fighter (AC 31 by level 7 when most monsters need a 17 to hit).The supplements are not doing it.
Some words of advice from a long time high level GM, do and know these:
When I've run a spellcaster in the past I've actually used him to cast such spells on my teammates. That way they can do their jobs more efficiently without my squishy little wizard having to run around acting like he's, like, a rogue or fighter or something. Which kind of just makes sense to me, almost as if it's all designed for characters to work together.
That's why wizards have familiars. A few pages back someone detailed exactly how stupidly good the hawk familiar is at scouting.
When I've run a spellcaster in the past I've actually used him to cast such spells on my teammates. That way they can do their jobs more efficiently without my squishy little wizard having to run around acting like he's, like, a rogue or fighter or something. Which kind of just makes sense to me, almost as if it's all designed for characters to work together.That's why wizards have familiars. A few pages back someone detailed exactly how stupidly good the hawk familiar is at scouting.
Unless a door has to be opened or something, I guess.
Unpopular opinion? I think the ACG provided quite a bit of power creep.
care to share what was introduced to cause the power to creep?
Unless a door has to be opened or something, I guess.When I've run a spellcaster in the past I've actually used him to cast such spells on my teammates. That way they can do their jobs more efficiently without my squishy little wizard having to run around acting like he's, like, a rogue or fighter or something. Which kind of just makes sense to me, almost as if it's all designed for characters to work together.That's why wizards have familiars. A few pages back someone detailed exactly how stupidly good the hawk familiar is at scouting.
Hawk pecks at the door. Someone goes to see what's going on and opens the door. Hawk flies in and isn't spotted, guy thinks maybe something is up, or he's going crazy.
If you can't threaten them or make them expend enough resources, then delay the death of monsters until sufficient resources are depleted.
Get ready for some internet rage.
|
|
If you can't threaten them or make them expend enough resources, then delay the death of monsters until sufficient resources are depleted. They won't usually know, and will feel challenged.
I will say - that basically destroys player agency. No matter how effective or ineffective they are they'll always use the same resources? >.<
|
The DC20 check is only if the creature is not using Stealth. Then it's the creature's Stealth check +20.
That's the DC of a check to pinpoint them. There are no modifiers for using Stealth against the basic "get a hunch" Perception check. It's always DC 20.
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.
The remainder of that paragraph, including the modifier table, describes the DC of a Perception check to pinpoint the creature's location. Attempting to just invis your way past a bunch of alert guards, though, is not going to work unless you can manage to stay more than 30 feet away from all of them.
I like to stick to the CRB with examples, due to many past experiences of "Well that one thing you listed is from a...
Somehow that quoting system is getting weird.
I hear you on the splatbooks, but i value them highly. They give a lot of good options to the game and i wish they would get more love and especially errata.
I seem to run stealth pretty differently:
-i always did that end round in cover/concealment thing.
-not afraid of taking 10 (in reasonable situations i even do a houserule of taking 5).
-skills have no autosucceed on a 20, i think the CRB says that, neither do they fail critically on a 1.
-as a houserule, i sometimes ignore that line of sight breaks stealth thing automatically, depending on situations, often demanding for some further checks like perceptiion, sense motive or bluff from player side.
There´s at least 1 PFS scenario that uses similar tactics, it makes for a good ingame tension^^
Hawk pecks at the door. Someone goes to see what's going on and opens the door. Hawk flies in and isn't spotted, guy thinks maybe something is up, or he's going crazy.Not spotting or hearing a hawk fly right by your head is slightly unrealistic but now the hawk is trapped inside.
Its not unrealistic its pretty much impossible as the hawk cant stealth without cover or concealment