Unaware
When you are unaware of another creature, you don’t even know it is present. Generally this occurs because the creature is hidden, you failed your Perception check to notice it, and the creature hasn’t yet performed any actions that would alert you to its presence. You cannot directly attack a creature you are unaware of, but it is subject to area effects.
If you are unaware of a creature, aware of a creature’s presence, or aware of a creature’s location, that creature is considered to be “unseen” for you. A stationary unseen creature has a +40 bonus to Stealth checks, but this bonus is reduced to +20 if the unseen creature moves (and these bonuses are negated for potential observers with blindsense). An unseen creature benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance) against attacks. In addition, you are considered flat-footed against an unseen creature’s attacks.
Oh wow. It does say that and that is...bonkers.
I wouldn't apply that unless the creature was invisible or hiding around a wall or through brush so thick it blocked all vision.
One of the aforementioned players (most frequent group DM (PF/3.x) and resident rules-smith).
I had to read the SF rules a couple of times myself, because it seems riduculous. It appears to be saying that, unless you are actively looking at something, it's invisible, basically. I can SORT of maybe see what they were trying to say there, but the logic is faulty.
I spoke to my Dad about it, who is a wargames author of a set of particularly simulationst set of rules that is all abotu spotting and visibility, and he pointed out what appears to be a major problem - that by these rules don't consider the issue both ways.
There is a difference between, say, hiding behind the wall of a house (i.e. total cover in SF terms) completely blocking line of sight and hiding; in the former case, the hider should ALSO not be able to spot anyone, for obvious reasons. Which is I think maybe what the writers of that part of SF were thinking about and got muddled with.
But that's a big difference between hiding behind a wall totally out of sight (where you cannot be visible) and my goblin hiding in a bush (in ambush) being classified as invisible. He would, course, be looking out, and thus he ought to be able to be spotted, because he isn't invisible, just hidden.
Those bonuses, though? With a bit of time my first-level operative can hide in the shsdows or a bush or something and require a perception check of 74. (Take 20+40+skill.) If it means I have to root though my Deities and Demigods or Epic Level handbook for something that has a spot check high enough to stand a chance of finding him, I think there is a bit of a major problem. Skrath should not be able to easily hide from an actual deity at level 1!
Heck, that's really unnecessary, since just +40 effectively makes a creature more or less undetectable at an approprioate CR, just by ducking, hyperbolically, behind a tree when a dude isn't literally watching them do that.
It is just a bit bonkers, because it means, effectively, once you become hidden, you will NEVER be found. Ambushes cannot fail (without destroying terrain or conditions that grant cover or concealment), because the ambushees can never spot anyone, while the ambushers enjoy the typical 360 degrees vision granted by the abstraction of the system.
(Two groups sneaking about will never find each other...)
Taking 20 is usually sufficient for any creature to successfully hide from an opponent of their CR (which is what I tend to do when ambushing the PCs), but at least gives the ambushed creature some chance of making the roll. The +40 bonus (even the +20) on top takes it out of the range of the dice (especially if you don't use - like I do in my games - 20 on a skill check is 30) and is effectively a hard cap for all intents and purposes.
The problem is compounded by the fact that, unlike in PF (or 3.x), the SF rules do NOT specify anyway to easily pinpoint an invisible creature like PF does (nor does unseen = invisible in strict RAW, so even if it did it wouldn't help this).
This all ignores that the stealth bonus for Inivisibily SF has swiped from PF and that from 3.5 - where, critically, hide and move silent were different skills, where you could use listen to detect a very high hide creature much more easily[1]. Having precise and imprecise senses is all well and good, but aside from having blindsight (etc), they make the rolls on the same skill, which is still going to be verses a +20 or +40 DC.
(Edit: And, looking at the perception modifiers and the wording of the Steath skill (which is all based around "hide"), you could make a plausible (if silly) RAW-based arguement that Skrath could be hiding and singing the goblin national anthem at the top of his voice and STILL get that +40 "unseen" bonuses for the poor saps trying to locate him (since it applies to aware of presence and even aware of location)...)
So I'm not sure whether this is a mistake that needs errata, because notably, the Stealth rules only talk about the +20/+40 for invisible creatures, and neither the stealth, perception nor the invisibulty rules mentioned the "unseen" thing talked about in the senses rules. Or whether the intention was to make hiding creatures essentially immune to be spotted[2] until they attack (and if so, why?)
At the very least, it needs a good 3.5ing in that the stealth, invisibility, perception and states of awareness need a darn good cross-referencing.
Anyway, my first gut instinct on reading that was to suggest that Kaies ignores that bit of "unseen" rules entirely and play it like PF/3.5 and only give creatures that are actually invisible those bonuses.
___________________
[1]Now, I entirely agree that Stealth is better than hide/move silently (I did in fact, house rule that myself, along with Perception into the hybrid 3.5/PF I run) - but those bonus, of course, only apply to invisible creatures not hiding creatures.
[2]And, come to that, make sniping very powerful, since it means you can not move and stay in cover or concealment, make your sniping shot an then "only" have a +20 (+40 -20 for sniping) on your subsequent stealth check. That doesn't seem like that could be abused at all!
Unaware
When you are unaware of another creature, you don’t even know it is present. Generally this occurs because the creature is hidden, you failed your Perception check to notice it, and the creature hasn’t yet performed any actions that would alert you to its presence. You cannot directly attack a creature you are unaware of, but it is subject to area effects.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh wow. It does say that and that is...bonkers.
I wouldn't apply that unless the creature was invisible or hiding around a wall or through brush so thick it blocked all vision.
I am going to go with BNW on this one. It looks like they applied invisibility mods to unaware.
Here is how I rule it at my table.
I only apply these modifiers if the there is no line of sight to the hiding creature and the perceiving creature is unaware of the hiding creature.
The hiding creature also has to be quiet or the hiding creature will make the perceiving creature aware of it's presence even if there is no LOS. "Hey guys I hear a goblin singing the goblin national anthem, somewhere in this warehouse." This now becomes a straight perception check to determine where in the warehouse the singing goblin is with a DC 0 + distance (I use +1 DC per 10 feet indoors).
Additionally I do not allow any PC or creature to take 20 on a stealth roll no matter how much time they have. Keep in mind that taking 20 includes multiple failures. In the case of stealth you have no way to know if you are successfully hiding until someone tries to find you. I would allow you to take 10.
Finally in the ambush scenario above I would not allow the +40 modifier, because the hiding creatures have to expose a part of themselves to see the creatures they wish to ambush. So the creatures walking into the ambush maybe unaware, but they do have line of sight.
Now I do have the ability as a DM to give the hiding creatures a circumstance bonus for time, planning and cleaver use of terrain.
@Pants
That's why I have the last sentence in there. I agree that a clever ambush should be rewarded.
Although it should be clever use of terrain, not cleaver.
Also my player's have created very deadly ambushes with a Technomancer casting explosive blast while every one else hits the button on their detonator attached to a grenade bouquet.
It was indeed a surprise round.
Ah, well, that sounds an awful lot like a new DM hasn't quite dialed in the difficulty needed to challenge the players, as far as building a combat encounter goes. I'd try and have some regular fights happen first, without stealth mucking up the math, to see where the sweet spot is.
As far as the location, sounds like the kind of place where my character would want more compensation than has been offered before he'd set foot on it. Which also means my team won't go, because they can't drive the ship.
I hope you've got a melee heavy party.
It's a SF adventure path, as mentioned, nor did we have any idea of the visibility until we'd landed (nor, for that matter, are we even gettign paid for this!)
We have a melee soldier and a solarion, plus a shooty solider, my oprative, and engineer, technomancer and envoy.
__________________________
We only actually counted the Taking 20 and the other bonuses, not the +20/+40 - that alone just made the characters on +0 Stealth to 24. And that was plenty enough. We were ambusing a patrol from a good position of a known route and time and had several hours of prep time, which I think is a reasonable reason for taking 20. (We had time to string up a trip-wire, just for the seake of tripping them obver, even.)
Not that it mattered, as the NPCs appsrently got, like, a 1 on their perception check anyway. BUT they could have rolled a 20 and (one assumes, if they have any sort of perception skill) and could have spotted the soldier or the solarion. With the unseen modifiers in play? Nothing they could have done to avoid the ambush.
This is sort of the point I'm making - if you can reasonably take 20 you're already largely garenteed to succeed. But with those unseen modifiers, it doesn't matter whether the PCs roll 1, 10 or 20, because you're at base 40 waiting in ambush already; you're beyond the point the dice matter. It has become an entirely binary state and actually straight devalues perception and stealth as skills - the one you can never succeed on one use of, and the other is mostly obviated by by the flat bonuses.
You don't need time (like for taking 20) or any clever or special preparation or setup (or skill), you just need to not be actually being looked at right that second and hide in cover or concealment and boom - you've made the dice irrelevant.
Further, if it is intended to be a case of relying on hard-counters like blindsight, being either you automatically can or you automatically can't, it tacitly assures that everyone (both PCs and any NPCs with any tactical ability) will have to invest in gear (as soon as is possible) that gives you those abilities as it immediately hard-counters something that otherwise cannot be countered. Meaning that it essentially takes ambushes as a functional tactic completely off the table on both sides of the screen as soon as those options are in play. From the position of ambushes being a tactic which cannot possibly fail! Neither of which seems at all right to me.
I have to agree with Pants here. Seems a bit of GM hand waiving would have been needed here.
Each tripwire you placed would have need an engineering roll to place it effectively and then a survival check (hiding items isn't listed under stealth or survival, but it makes sense to me to have it under survival) to camouflage it.
Items don't get to make a stealth check. Your trip wires would have fallen under trap detection rules not the hidden creature rules.
The DC required to spot your tripwires would have been far less than the PCs hiding DC.
And again you really cannot take 20 on a stealth check (or any opposed check for that matter) as taking 20 includes failing. The amount of time does not matter.
Well, none of us have the time to do anything more than run from the books these days. Not even me - I do the bulk of the DMing and, as a prep-heavy sort of person it requires a lot of hours just going through and basicially ramping up for the larger party and making the conversions necessary from PF APs to the 3.5/PF hybrid (3.Aotrs, for ease of reference) we use. Which in my case is done for about half an AP at a time, in advance, ideally with having to do nothing week-to-week once it starts.
And I wouldn't expect Kaies - or any of the others who DM - to put in that amount of work; I essentially spend one day of my weekend most weeks quest-writing for one of our four annaul day-quests or preparing up for a furture AP campaign.
(None of us is an off-the-cuff DM.)
I haven't written anything more than day quests (granted, when I'm not running for the weekly games, I'm using my own homebrew worlds) for... Oooh, probably a decade now, because the time investment it too high.)
(Hell, it's taken me since about February to write the two-day quest for my 40th in October amd I'm still not done.)
So following where the module takes you is kind of expected in our group, on the basis of if the all players said "no, we don't wanna do that, we want to go and do something completely different," there is a fair likelihood of the DM having to say "well, that's it for the campaign, then; who's running next week?"
(And if it was my DMing, then it would further run the risk of "well, if no-one else is gonna run something, that's it for several months while I prepare the next campaign then...")
And personally? I don't give a toss about being a bit railroaded (or even a fair bit railroaded); if I'm actually playing, it's a nice break from DMing.(I have started more parties than I have generated characters in the last several years.)
I have to agree with Pants here. Seems a bit of GM hand waiving would have been needed here.
Each tripwire you placed would have need an engineering roll to place it effectively and then a survival check (hiding items isn't listed under stealth or survival, but it makes sense to me to have it under survival) to camouflage it.
Items don't get to make a stealth check. Your trip wires would have fallen under trap detection rules not the hidden creature rules.
The DC required to spot your tripwires would have been far less than the PCs hiding DC.
And again you really cannot take 20 on a stealth check (or any opposed check for that matter) as taking 20 includes failing. The amount of time does not matter.
Kaias improvised with the tripwire - we only had the one and were not expecting much out of it - and gave it a spot DC of what my engineering roll was (19).
You can't FAIL a stealth check, though, it's just setting a DC; it's not like failing a climb check where you'd immediately fail or UMD or something. (Or to put it this way, I do not constitute "being spotted" as a penalty if doesn't happen immediately.) I, like, I say, have no particular objections to taking 20 on a stealth check when DMing for either PCs or monsters if I think it feasible (like when laying an ambush with plenty of prepatation time). I think of it this way, with a whole party getting into prepared positions, abstracted 1 is the point where someone says "nope, I can see you, Skrath."
Now, you could argue all day about that, but for my games, that's the way it will be played (and Kaies, of course, will decide which way he wants to play it when he's in the chair.)
But, as I keep noting, the taking 20 is less the issue at hand than the unwareness rules themselves. If we had just rolled the dice but used the RAW with regard to "unseen," it would have made it even more impossible for us to be spotted. (For a kick off, rather than a mere 24 for the check, the soloarin would have been at 40 (not observed) + 4 (circumstance bonus granted by the module for the fence he was hiding behind) +0 skill +1 on the dice = 46. (Skrath, assuming I'd rolled a 1, would have been on 58...)
We're just a bit, oh, we really should come up with a rule which works well, because, well, we're like that.
(Me especially, as you may all have gather from this thread...)
Whilst it would be nice to come to agreement on how best to handle the stealth modifiers, what matters most is that we all, GM and Players, have fun. Which we are. We're just a bit, oh, we really should come up with a rule which works well, because, well, we're like that.
Yes, many people on these boards will not come to an agreement on how to adjudicate many of the rules and they thousands of situations that can arise from the rules. We are just here to give our opinions and experiences to others. Use what you like and ignore what you don't.
At the end of day if you and your table is having fun that's all that matters
Kaias improvised with the tripwire - we only had the one and were not expecting much out of it - and gave it a spot DC of what my engineering roll was (19).
That seems reasonable to me.
You can't FAIL a stealth check, though, it's just setting a DC; it's not like failing a climb check where you'd immediately fail or UMD or something. (Or to put it this way, I do not constitute "being spotted" as a penalty if doesn't happen immediately.) I, like, I say, have no particular objections to taking 20 on a stealth check when DMing for either PCs or monsters if I think it feasible (like when laying an ambush with plenty of prepatation time). I think of it this way, with a whole party getting into prepared positions, abstracted 1 is the point where someone says "nope, I can see you, Skrath."Now, you could argue all day about that, but for my games, that's the way it will be played (and Kaies, of course, will decide which way he wants to play it when he's in the chair.)
The problem with this logic is you have no idea in the take 20 process where the "1" was rolled. It could be right before the enemy shows up and as Skrath aims his weapon and his left butt check gets exposed.
Because a Take 20 involves failure you can't use it on opposed checks.
And no, I am not gonna argue all day about it. I am gonna tell you I believe you are doing incorrectly per the rules. If it works for you then great.
But, as I keep noting, the taking 20 is less the issue at hand than the unwareness rules themselves. If we had just rolled the dice but used the RAW with regard to "unseen," it would have made it even more impossible for us to be spotted. (For a kick off, rather than a mere 24 for the check, the soloarin would have been at 40 (not observed) + 4 (circumstance bonus granted by the module for the fence he was hiding behind) +0 skill +1 on the dice = 46. (Skrath, assuming I'd rolled a 1, would have been on 58...)
As stated earlier the +40 / +20 for being unaware is ludicrous at best and should only be used in limited specific cases.
Anyways do what you like and have fun.
Couple other things to note:
No matter how good (or bad) one character's stealth is, they have to stay behind cover in order to stay hidden. If another player is wandering around aimlessly and happens to move to a location where the hidden character no longer has cover, then the hidden character becomes Observed automatically.
Also, the hidden character can't make any attacks and stay hidden without using the sniping from cover rules.
But yeah. A +20 bonus to stay hidden and move somewhere else is a bit overpowering. I would houserule that to apply only when the state is already Unaware. If the enemies aren't aware of you already, then they aren't making active perception checks to find you. If they do make a perception check unrelated to finding you, then you could be entitled to a huge bonus like that for preventing them from finding you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't take 20 on a stealth check to hide. Leave it out of the equation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indulge me if you will...The good old, “I always find my keys in the last place I looked” is relevant because, well, you don’t keep on looking for your keys once you’ve found them. Likewise, you’re not going to continue trying to unlock a lock once you’ve already unlocked the lock. When you Take 20 it’s going to take, like, well, 20 «units of time». Well, if the characters have the luxury of more than 20 «units of time» that’s a bonus. The main reasons for Taking 20 requiring 20 «units of time» is to a) eliminate the use of Taking 20 during combat and b) to simulate the effort, and of course, it's only possible when the luxury of time exists. Of course, it is somewhat arbitrary. It is an abstract, after all.
When it comes to hiding, well, if you’ve got the luxury of time and someone able to check whether your attempt to hide is effective, then it’s reasonable to presume it will be possible to take 20 on a stealth roll when setting up an ambush. In real life the Section Commander/Plt Sgt/Sgt Major/etc. (depending on the composition of the ambush party) will scout the path the enemy are expected to take and validate if their comrades are indeed hidden. It could be argued that the last person to go into hiding is then key to the stealth roll and in the scenario we've been discussing you’d put the last character behind the wall, where you’re guaranteed to be hidden from (unobservable by) the approaching NPCs.
I guess that doesn't exactly do much for the specifics of the +20/+40 bonus, other than emphasizing that the situation is key and that rules only work part of the time.
Let me reverse the situation for you. For my discussion here I am not using the broken +20 / +40 nonsense.
So you are all in your ambush positions with you taking 20.
No problem, then the enemy NPCs are going to stop 60 feet away from every single possible ambush site, whip out binoculars and take 20 to survey every possible ambush site. They have a +21 to spot you plus an additional +2 very every enemy that aids the primary spotter. So you will find many times you will have wasted a bunch of time hiding.
There is a reason you can't take 20 on opposed checks. Because it includes failure in the equation.
Also in this example it was stated that the PCs had several hours prep time. So I would ask how long exactly was everybody in hiding before the enemy approached? 1 hour?, 2 hours? There is no way you can stay hidden and motionless that long. Most people will shift, squirm, check their ammo, take a drink of water, burp, fart, sigh etc......
Doing any of those things, make you easier to be detected.
Anything much more than 30 minutes in one position and the hiding people are going to slapped with the staggered condition for 1d4 rounds, due to stiffness and cramping.
So again. You can't take 20 on stealth (or opposed checks) because it includes failure.