They could walk around your barricade.
... and right through the threatened areas of my entire team. And have to melee me. So Tuttle the sneaky technomancer turtle negated an entire range of combat options (ranged combat, single target spells) or forced the enemy to get themselves surrounded and left their usually favorable positions.
Safer in the back or not any armor that did that would be banhammered.
Your question: Easy stealth is the most common stealth ruling, why aren't people abusing it?
My answer: It's not the most common stealth ruling, especially when players try to do things that way.
Having an enemy hiding from the entire PC party for multiple rounds at a time: not so cool.
(And with Starfinder math and probabilities, this is a strong indicator that the GM is fudging rolls)
With NPC skill scores it's not that unlikely.
|
Here's one thing that I think is actually problematic with stealth rules.
You need cover/concealment (or maybe full cover/concealment) to initiate stealth. If you end your turn without it, your stealth fails.
What happens if an enemy walks around during their turns and you don't have cover/concealment anymore? Does your stealth fail immediately?
The book doesn't quite say, as far as I can make out. But if someone is hiding behind a wall and you walk around the wall, you would expect to see them.
Heh. I think I just found the answer to this.
A creature that fails the opposed skill check treats you as if you had total concealment as long as you continue to have actual cover or concealment.So if an enemy moves to a place where you no longer have cover or concealment against them, then you automatically become Observed again.
Not sure why it took me so long to see that. Apparently that line of text has a pretty good Stealth score.
Good find, I was sure it was somewhere I just couldn't find it either.
It confirms what we've always done: if you move around so that someone has nothing to hide behind, then you can see them.
--
Or if you spend half your full attack to destroy the barricade they just built and hid behind as their whole turn's worth of actions.
Your question: Easy stealth is the most common stealth ruling, why aren't people abusing it?
My answer: It's not the most common stealth ruling, especially when players try to do things that way.
Unfortunately I don't think either of us have valid data about the rulings that are used at gaming tables generally. And since our respective answers to the abusableness(?) of Stealth depends on that data, then we really aren't going to get much farther here.
With NPC skill scores it's not that unlikely.Having an enemy hiding from the entire PC party for multiple rounds at a time: not so cool.
(And with Starfinder math and probabilities, this is a strong indicator that the GM is fudging rolls)
Now this one I am interested in.
Because I am a math masochist, let me try this calculation again. Because you are right, the last time I tried this I didn't have it set up right. (which actually is why I post my setup and calculations instead of just my results - so people can bring up any mistakes I make)
Hmm... How about 4 level 9 PCs vs a CR 9 NPC. About mid level play, and one level before the next skill boost. This should be a low point in PC skill rolls if my thinking is correct, and one that many tables are likely to see.
Building a stealth combatant, I am likely to use the Expert array. So at CR 9 I am seeing master skills at +22.
PC skill ranks are going to vary a bit. I'm assuming that none of the players are dumping Perception, but I'm also not going to assume that they are deliberately building for it either (I'm not assuming that Stealth is overpowered and needs a ton of character investment to defeat it).
So, how about WIS bonuses of +1, +2, +3, and +4 for the four players. Of the classes, only Soldier and Technomancer don't have Perception as a class skill naturally. But those are common classes used. And neither of those classes value WIS very much in general. So how about the +1 and +2 characters being one of those two classes, and the +3 and +4 characters having class skill bonus.
And add no feats or other such things to Perception checks.
Sound realistic for actual play?
So I am seeing our heroes having Perception skill bonuses of +10, +11, +15 and +16. Compared to the +22 to Stealth that the NPC has.
I am actually not sure how to calculate this in its entirety. I can do it for any one roll though. So let's start there.
Let's say that the NPC rolls a 7. That gives a Stealth check of 29. The players need rolls of 19, 18, 14, and 13 respectively. We are wanting to calculate the probability that all four fail their Perception checks. So we have probabilities of failure of .90, .85, .65, and .60, yes? Gives me a .298 probability that all will fail.
Another interesting roll of our NPC would be ... 14. The point where none of the players are able to succeed. With a roll of 14, the Stealth check would be 36. No, at a 20, our +13 Perception player could do it. So 15. That is the roll where the NPC automatically succeeds against all of the players.
So a 30% chance of guaranteed hiding. And only down to a ~30% of any player finding him when the NPC is rolling as low as 7.
I'm still not sure how to calculate the entire overall probability, but this is already lower than I expected for the heroes to be able to compete.
So
With NPC skill scores it's not that unlikely.Having an enemy hiding from the entire PC party for multiple rounds at a time: not so cool.
(And with Starfinder math and probabilities, this is a strong indicator that the GM is fudging rolls)
Yeah, that is a fair critique.
Although this is starting to look more like the problem with NPC scaling of skill DCs rather than something specific to Stealth vs. Perception.
And easy stealthing may not be the problem as much as difficulty in seeking. That is what is causing multiple rounds of players not able to do anything - that none of them can roll high enough to beat the Stealth check of the NPC. Not the difference of allowing the NPC to start stealthing again when only having cover instead of having to find total cover.
Now try it again with a cr +3 encounter.
Re sample size et all
I've run 160+ starfinder games, in three states, plus with people all over the US and all over the planet via online play. I think i've played about another 80
I spend i can stop any time i want to a fair bit of time in multiple venues talking about the game.
With the easy stealth rule, using your move action to hide should be an incredibly common tactic for anyone not immediately in melee. ANd it's not. It's not because people don't have the movement to spare, it's because stealth is an ikeas chain worth of table variation on how it works.
Not only do i not see it being done or tried, I don't see it as a recommended tactic. And it's not because the math on it doesn't work out.
|
|
Now try it again with a cr +3 encounter.
Fine, but I don't really agree with Breithauptclan's initial rating of ability scores, I think it's unreasonably low.
Let's take a level 9 party vs. a level 12 enemy. Our party will be:
Shirren Mystic 9 [Wis 22 due to Personal Upgrade II, +1 from retinal reflector implant] +18
Ysoki Operative 9 [Wis 12, +1 from retinal reflector implant, +3 from operative's edge] +15
Lashunta Technomancer 9 [Wis 14, +2 perception racial, +3 from skill focus, retinal reflector implant +1] +20
Vesk Soldier 9 [Wis 12] +13
These characters have made modest investments in Perception, because it's still one of the best skills. The lashunta's player thought Perception was worth spending a Skill Focus on to push his racial skill bonus to competitive levels.
Using the same code I used earlier to run some trials, we get the following results:
"Good" stealth CR 12:
PCs [0.660128, 0.737499, 0.835092, 0.887711]
0.508327 chance of hiding.
"Master"
PCs [0.834668, 0.8872, 0.94738, 0.974585]
0.745077 chance of hiding.
So an enemy with Good stealth has a 50% chance of hiding from a moderately but not obscenely optimized Perception party. An enemy with Master stealth has a 75% chance. Odds are though that a Master stealth enemy doesn't just have Master stealth in a vacuum, it probably has that because it's got some other ability that already uses that stealth score.
Note that this isn't by far the most optimized for perception party there is; add a Wisdom driven operative or give the mystic skill focus in Perception for another big bump.
And that is N V T S nuts of an advantage to get for a SKILL.
Weird, PF2 has a chart on p. 477 of the CRB stating that you can Hide using the stealth skill if you have Standard or Greater cover, but not Lesser (a character is between you and your observer). Someone needs to tell them to errata this at once, I've been informed that Paizo can't possibly intent for cover to allow stealth in their games no matter how many times they print it.
Alright this thread seems a place to post this I have an Bad Guy in an AP I don’t know how to run due to stealth mechanics and description of the encounter. BG “hides behind the pile of wreckage... [uses Stealth checks to remain unseen]. As the PCs approach the pile, he surreptitiously casts [mind affecting spell] on one PC and then ducks back into hiding. He continues to use this ploy until confronted or he runs out of daily uses of that spell.”
First part easy. Roll his stealth, hopefully higher than the PC’ perception. He sneaks out and casts spell on one PC.
From there I’m unsure how mechanical to proceed. Once he casts the spell he breaks stealth and is seen by the PCs I would think. But the encounter says he then steps behind cover to hide again. How do I play this? If after spell just reroll stealth, ask the players to re roll their perceptions (or do a hidden perception check for them)? treat it as sniper rules and after the spell is cast re roll stealth at -20 until he can duck behind the wreckage and then roll stealth a 3rd time without negatives?
|
|
Long story short: if outside your turn you lose the thing that allows you to hide, you are revealed.
A creature that
fails the opposed skill check treats you as if you had total
concealment as long as you continue to have actual cover or
concealment. A creature that succeeds at the opposed skill
check either sees you or pinpoints you (see page 260) in
situations when you have total concealment. If you lose actual
cover or concealment during your turn, you can attempt to
stay hidden, but only if you end your turn within cover
or concealment.
And the kasatha is not good enough to hide behind for anyone, not a shobhad and not a ysoki:
Soft Cover
Creatures, even enemies, between you and the source of an effect
provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4
bonus to AC. However, soft cover provides no bonus to Reflex
saves, nor does soft cover allow you to attempt a Stealth check.
Ok interesting story here.
I will second Ascalaphus and back up your DM on the stealth issue. Per the rules you cannot hide behind another creature.
The reason you had any stealth at all was that their was no line of sight. He can only detect you with imprecise senses (hearing, smell).
The second he came around the corner he has LOS to you as you were in the middle of the hallway. Now at my table, had you been flat up against the wall or behind a sizeable potted plant I would the bad guy make a perception check of some sort as there would have been a slight chance he would have not seen you.
Now as far as not given you the +4 to AC for soft cover, he is in the wrong. You are entitled to that bonus to AC.
|
|
Now as far as not given you the +4 to AC for soft cover, he is in the wrong. You are entitled to that bonus to AC.
Not necessarily: remember this PC was large and the PCs in front of him weren't.
Low Obstacles and Cover
A low obstacle (i.e., a wall half your height) provides cover, but only
to creatures within 30 feet (six squares). The attacker ignores the
cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target is.
Partial Cover
If more than half of you is visible, your bonuses from cover are
reduced to +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex saving throws.
Being large gives you more reach, but you pay for it by being a big target.
at the gencon rules panel the people running it seemed skeptical of the idea of hiding behind a table while people were looking at you but i'm not sure if it was the underlying issues or just the specific example of a table.
Now as far as not given you the +4 to AC for soft cover, he is in the wrong. You are entitled to that bonus to AC.Not necessarily: remember this PC was large and the PCs in front of him weren't.
Low Obstacles and Cover
A low obstacle (i.e., a wall half your height) provides cover, but only
to creatures within 30 feet (six squares). The attacker ignores the
cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target is.Being large gives you more reach, but you pay for it by being a big target.Partial Cover
If more than half of you is visible, your bonuses from cover are
reduced to +2 to AC and +1 to Reflex saving throws.
I stand corrected. A +2 AC would have been in order then.