Pinpointing an actively stealthing invisible creature is nigh impossible because modifiers alone. R
Against magical invisibility, it usually doesn't matter how much perception a creature has; the penalties to pinpointing are usually too high if the invisible creature actively stealths, so chances are 99% of the time the creature attempting the pinpoint will fail miserably. Against other means of invisibility pinpoint chances are better, but still dificult.Well, I have had PC's spot invisible characters and in the case of the original thread the PC spotted the Invisible character.
Quite often spellcasters have no ranks in stealth.
Again, my PCs have done it many times and in the case of the OP in the other thread it was done.
Players do the impossible every day.
|
Against magical invisibility, it usually doesn't matter how much perception a creature has; the penalties to pinpointing are usually too high if the invisible creature actively stealths, so chances are 99% of the time the creature attempting the pinpoint will fail miserably. Against other means of invisibility pinpoint chances are better, but still dificult.Well, I have had PC's spot invisible characters and in the case of the original thread the PC spotted the Invisible character.
Quite often spellcasters have no ranks in stealth.
Pinpointing an actively stealthing invisible creature is nigh impossible because modifiers alone. Remember that skills don't auto succeed with a 20. If you're using the invisibility spell, static modifiers andd specially the spell bonus to stealth usually skyrocket the pinpoint check to DC100+. For creatures granted invisibility through other means, DC may be a DC50+ or so...
The best moment to catch an invisible foe is when it's busy doing other actions so can't afford a stealth check and thus, the dificulty drops somewhere around a flat DC30+, depending on the particular action.
It sounds like you're adding some of the same modifiers multiple times. An invisible creature, using stealth, and moving rolls their stealth and adds +20. For a wizard with no ranks in stealth, and maybe a +1 from DEX, they are going to max out at 41 on that roll. My Investigator's take 10 will spot them.
The Wizard could just as easily roll a 1 + 1 DEX +20 Invisibility = DC22. There are first level characters that can make that.
Total Cover doesn't necessarily mean you can't see them.
Not being able to see 90% of the is sufficient. Ie., your arrowslits example.
That's actually exactly the definition of Total Cover. If an enemy is behind the wall, you can't see them. Therefore, you're flat-footed to them, even if you're aware they exist behind that wall.
@ John Murdock: Okay, let's go with the illusion of a wall that a spellcaster put up that you've failed the saving throw on.
I think you're missing my point. *Sight* is immaterial to the question of total cover, in many cases.
If a wall of force blocks the corridor, those on the other side have total cover, even if you can see them, because you have no line of effect.
Its line of effect that determines
It appears we agree that a separate check could detect the movement./cevah
Sure. But Jacobs made reactive checks limited to one per round at the time most advantageous to the player.
But I like the comment by the guy that solves this debate entirely.
Absent metagaming - how is a player going to know an invisible player took a 5 foot step. He isn't.
You have no way to know as a player, no way to know as a character either.
It appears we agree that a separate check could detect the movement./cevah
Sure. But Jacobs made reactive checks limited to one per round at the time most advantageous to the player.
But I like the comment by the guy that solves this debate entirely.
Absent metagaming - how is a player going to know an invisible player took a 5 foot step. He isn't.
You have no way to know as a player, no way to know as a character either.
That reactive check is normally the following one, unless the GM agrees to grant extra information at the cost of a higher DC check.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.
This is basically a "sixth sense" all creatures get when a nearby invisible creature gets close. This normally means, if a pinpointed creature moves, you usually get at least this check for free to notice is the creature is still in your vicinity, but not where. This check is normally "flat" (DC20, that's it), unless the creature moves around stealthily. In that scenario an opposed check is required.
Still, your GM may perfectly declare your reactive roll may be a better one, although normally pinpointing requires some concentration (and thus, a move action that must be done in your turn).
That doesn't solve much. It presumes, erroneously, that a character only knows what a player knows.
It sounds like you're adding some of the same modifiers multiple times. An invisible creature, using stealth, and moving rolls their stealth and adds +20. For a wizard with no ranks in stealth, and maybe a +1 from DEX, they are going to max out at 41 on that roll. My Investigator's take 10 will spot them.
The Wizard could just as easily roll a 1 + 1 DEX +20 Invisibility = DC22. There are first level characters that can make that.
From both your scenarios, it's you who's missing several modifiers.
First of all, you're not applying the most critical modifier you should always have in mind, since is the most used. A perception-based pinpoint attempt immediately adds +20 the the check DC. Since you're rolling an opposed perception vs stealth check, this modifier applies
It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check
Second, expecting that the wizard uses the invisibility spell and considering the wizard is moving, he gets a +20 bonus to his stealth roll.
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
Suddenly, your character's perception checks to pinpoint the wizard have become +40 DC harder, and still there are more modifiers you should apply (in fact, while the spell grants him a +20 to stealth, since the wizard is moving he also gets a penalty to the perception DC based on the speed he moves - and the opposite, if the wizard stands still he'd get +20 bonus to the perception DC -)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.
Anyway, there are other 100s of post long threads to argue that point. It never got an FAQ, but it's the only thing that makes sense without the DCs quickly becoming ridiculous as you describe and basically making it impossible to ever spot an invisible creature.
I don't want to derail this thread with that discussion, so feel free to look
Or HERE if you want some lengthy reading on the topic.
It appears we agree that a separate check could detect the movement./cevah
Sure. But Jacobs made reactive checks limited to one per round at the time most advantageous to the player.
But I like the comment by the guy that solves this debate entirely.
Absent metagaming - how is a player going to know an invisible player took a 5 foot step. He isn't.
You have no way to know as a player, no way to know as a character either.
That reactive check is normally the following one, unless the GM agrees to grant extra information at the cost of a higher DC check.
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check.This is basically a "sixth sense" all creatures get when a nearby invisible creature gets close. This normally means, if a pinpointed creature moves, you usually get at least this check for free to notice is the creature is still in your vicinity, but not where. This check is normally "flat" (DC20, that's it), unless the creature moves around stealthily. In that scenario an opposed check is required.
Still, your GM may perfectly declare your reactive roll may be a better one, although normally pinpointing requires some concentration (and thus, a move action that must be done in your turn).
No. You get one reactive perception check per round, always excepting of course that gms's can give you more.
The only bonus that stacks with itself is dodge (typically). Invisibility cannot grant multiple +20 bonuses. You cannot add +20 and +40, because only the largest bonus applies. If you want to add more numbers, it has to be from a different source and a different type.
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.
There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose. Stealth and invisibility spell have the same wording, as several people stated. They're listed in separate locations since you normally make opposed checks and the opposed check is stealth based, so you may re-read the stealth skill to refresh your info and forget the bonus granted by the spell. That's totally correct, but I've only applied the bonus once.
But, the specific rules to detect invisible creatures and the bonus granted by the invisible spell/stealth abilities have not the same wording:
The table under invisibility (glossary) states directly they are Perception DC Modifier(s). They add to the DC of the Perception roll that has to be made by a creature attempting to notice or pinpoint. And since these are not bonuses, but modifiers, you add all modifiers that apply in a particular scenario.
The bonus written under both the invisibility spell and the stealth skill states directly it's a bonus to Stealth checks. It adds to any stealth roll the invisible creature has to make.
As far as i'm concerned about english wording, Perception DC Modifier ≠ bonus to Stealth checks. I never double-dipped into the same bonus; they are different, but in the end the stealth roll (and the spell bonus) is added to the Perception DC as yet another modifier.
No. You get one reactive perception check per round, always excepting of course that gms's can give you more.
Source?
I'm pretty sure 'prerequisites' for feats mean prerequisites for taking feats, not for using them...
...The opponent must be adjacent, taking a 5-foot step, and moving away from you.
Not "and you are aware of these things". Of course common sense will tell us that you obviously should be aware of your opponent to use your feat. My common sense also tells me you can't be flanked by an invisible enemy that you're unaware of, but that's not RAW either.But, looking at it another way, Step Up isn't automatic - you'd have to declare you want to step up. And you couldn't (or at least wouldn't) do that if you weren't aware that you your opponent had stepped away. So I guess that's a way to justify ruling this sensibly.
Since your character must make a choice, they must do so in reaction to something. If they don't perceive the invisible movement, they cannot use the feat.
It appears we agree that a separate check could detect the movement.
/cevah
Sure. But Jacobs made reactive checks limited to one per round at the time most advantageous to the player.
But I like the comment by the guy that solves this debate entirely.
Absent metagaming - how is a player going to know an invisible player took a 5 foot step. He isn't.
You have no way to know as a player, no way to know as a character either.
The feat triggers on a 5' step. It does not trigger on a 5' move. What's the observable difference? Nothing.
The feat is based off a meta-game concept. As such, I would allow my players to know which it was.
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose.
/cevah
|
|
There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose.
In addition to the link cevah posted, I linked you three threads exploring the issue. One of them is even from May and still currently active. This thread isn't really about what the DC is, and no matter how high the DC is or isn't, it doesn't affect the central question here. So if you want a discussion on the DC, it's best to take it over to that thread.
My apologies to the OP for contributing to this derail.
Those are all the same +20 just listed in different abilities so they don't get missed. It's a single +20 for being invisible while moving. Not multiple +20s.There are "not the same +20's", and If someone thinks they are, please tell me whose.
Great post.
And then I ask again: What +20 stealth bonus from being invisible and moving I've added twice? Please, do not mix it with any of the multiple +20 perception DC modifiers you should add, because that's what I think is happening.
In addition to the link cevah posted, I linked you three threads exploring the issue. One of them is even from May and still currently active. This thread isn't really about what the DC is, and no matter how high the DC is or isn't, it doesn't affect the central question here. So if you want a discussion on the DC, it's best to take it over to that thread. [...]
I agree about that, but the discussion about how high the check is has happened in this post, and keeps getting replies.
My point about the OP's question has already been stated: The player's character (the barbarian, bard, fighter, cleric, whatever...) is the one that must know when the Step Up feat's conditions are met in order to use Step Up.
Against an invisible foe, the character never khows how the foe moves (did he took a 5-foot step, a 5ft. normal move, or something else?), when the foe moves (the initiative turn may be known by the player, not by the character, against a visible oponent character simply "sees" when the foe acts), and where the foe moves (the moment foe leaves the square, character loses track, so he doesn't know if the for moved away, closer, or to the sides). So, character is ineligible to use the feat as long as he does not accurately recognize the conditions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted a lengthy breakdown in the thread I linked. Short version: All of those bonuses are coming from the same source (invisibility), and all of them are modifying the same thing (DC to perceive). They don't stack. I'd appreciate it if you respond over in the other thread if you would like to continue the discussion.
I posted a lengthy breakdown in the thread I linked. Short version: All of those bonuses are coming from the same source (invisibility), and all of them are modifying the same thing (DC to perceive). They don't stack. I'd appreciate it if you respond over in the other thread if you would like to continue the discussion.
A modifier is not a bonus. There's only one "bonus", the +20/+40 to a stealth check. The rest are modifiers to a DC roll.
And, even if you consider them all bonus and penalties... bonuses of the same type do not stack. Penalties do stack.
No. You get one reactive perception check per round, always excepting of course that gms's can give you more.
As many others, I also disagree here. Yu get a reactive check everytime you're eligible to one.
In game terms, let's say an enemy wizard casts Mass Invisibility, affecting the entire enemy party. Once initiative is rolled enemy rogue gets to act first at initiative 23. He closes in preparing for a sneak attack and you get a reactive roll to notice that he's in a 30ft radius. Later on, at initiative 9 the enemy cleric also closes in. You do get another reactive roll to notice the cleric.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you listed in the post I responded to is a positive modifier. Everything you listed after that is a positive modifier. Positive modifiers are bonuses. They are bonuses to the DC necessary to pinpoint the invisible creature. A bonus to a skill DC is not a penalty to the skill roll anymore than a bonus to a creature's AC is a penalty to the attack roll or a bonus to a caster's spell DC is a penalty to the target's saving throw. You are also not counting in any of the penalties to that DC in your examples, like -20 for being in combat or speaking, -10 for moving full speed, etc. Again, there is a much more useful discussion going on in the other thread, and I don't want to type everything twice. Last I'm going to post here on the DCs.