D&D 3E/3.5 Give unto me your "Power Gamer's 3.5 Guide to Rogues"

[buzz]

And you would not be missed.

Easy now.

A situation like that would best covered by rogue taking 10 and the listener getting one listen each round modified by distace you are at.

It's a DM call. Doing it your way, that's 10 checks for a medium-sized PC. Assuming that the DM lets the listener Take 10 as well (to save time otherwise spent rolling 10 Listen checks), you could just compare the listener's unmodified check (i.e., the point where the mover is close enough that distance penalties don't matter) to the mover's and see who wins.

...which is effectively the same as the single opposed check I suggested originally. You could use the distance penalties to get a rough idea the distance at which the mover was heard (i.e., for every +1 the Listener's check succeeded, that's 10-ft of distance), if that info is important.

Outside of combat, I don't see a need to get more complicated than this. Game time is too precious.

DM hatred nothing, when playing I would be expecting NPC rogues with drawn weapons that give over 3 times thier height in reach to suffer circumstance penalties to avoiding notice.

You play with a rougher crowd than I do then.

If you're going to penalize for tinkling chain lnks, then you should be penalizing for moving in anything other than bare skin. IMO, doing so is overcompensating for modifiers already handled by encumbrance and ACP, and getting into a realm open to endless debates (that waste game time).

What if the small guy with the big weapon is holding it or moving relative to the other guy in such a way that it doens't make him effectively any bigger (e.g., head-on, behind a tall tree, etc.)? What if I say I'm holding the spiked chain taut so that it doesn't tinkle (I had to blow a bloody feat slot, I should be proficient enough pull that off)? Does the listener get a penalty for wearing a helmet that provides ear coverage or has narrow eye slits? What if the sneaker coats his weapon in black soot?

Sorry, but that is not a game in which I want to be.

Anyway, suffice it to say that my DM does not run this game this way, be that good or bad.

 

[buzz]

My experience is that this method makes stealth more fun because there is a good deal of tension in the choice to sneak up closer or to back off each time instead of just making a single roll and saying "I'm there, let's open up with the combat."

I can see what you're saying, and if the situation were of critical import to the game, or in combat, I would probably err on the side of running it the way you suggest. Otherwise, I'd do as I describe above: assuming both opponents Take 10 on the respective skills (i.e., who's got the better bonus?), is there any chance the PC will be detected? No? Then let's move on.

(Which is the likely outcome. A "yes" answer is a cue that we're in a situation of import, as we're obviously not dealing with Joe Guard here.)

 

[LordVyreth]

Are feats from sources pre-3.5 ed considered forbidden? I remember a feat in Song and Silence called, I believe, Combat Tactician. If I recall, it gave the user an extra action whenever the target would be denied its dexterity. At high level, a player in my game was able to combine it with a ring of blinking very effectively.

On that note, the deep gnome's another decent rogue race, but I'm not sure what its LA looks like these days.

 

[Mistwell]

... don't want to purchase RoD for the whisper gnome.

Whisper Gnome:
+2 Dex, +2 Con, -2 Str, -2 Chr.
Size: Small (standard bonuses and penalties from being small)
Base Speed: 30 Ft. (they are fast for small size)
Low-Light Vision & Darkvision
Weapon Familiarity: Gnome Hooked Hammer
+1 vs. kobolds and gonlinoids
+4 dodge vs. Giants
+4 racial (in addition to the size bonus) to Hide and Move Silent
+2 Racial to Listen and Spot
Spell-like abilities 1x day: silence (center on you), ghost sound, mage hand, message.
Favored Class: Rogue
Racial Feats available: Extra Silence (lets you use it 3x more a day), and Silencing Strike (makes some of your sneak attacks cast silence on the victim as well with no save). Ask if you have questions about those feats.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I can see what you're saying, and if the situation were of critical import to the game, or in combat, I would probably err on the side of running it the way you suggest. Otherwise, I'd do as I describe above: assuming both opponents Take 10 on the respective skills (i.e., who's got the better bonus?), is there any chance the PC will be detected? No? Then let's move on.

The problem with assuming take ten on the listen is that it makes stealth almost automatic. If the DM assumes that PCs take ten on their listen/spot, then any bad guy with a hide/move silently even one point better than the PCs will automatically sneak up right next to them and get a surprise round. (And it seems easier to get high hide/move silently than spot/listen. Without any spells, there's shadow and silent armor as well as cloaks and boots of elvenkind. For spot/listen there's only the eyes of the eagle in the core rules--when you add non-core rules, you get hawkeye and eyes of the avoral, but you have to deal with forestfold, etc which are much more effective at making you hidden than the spot buffs are for helping you spot). If I'm in a hurry, I'll just roll four or five checks vs. the PC's hide/move silently at once and see if any of them are 18, 19, 20, etc. Alternately, I'll roll one check for each of the bad guys and judge what distance they'll spot the PC based on that roll. "Ahh, he rolled an 18, so he'll be able to spot you when you make it to thirty feet away."

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hmm... I think you're right when you say it adds more tension. Making more than one check can give you more tension that just rolling one.

It seems that, in my experience, it's painfully hard to sneak up on a group of people. This would make it nearly impossible.

Also, it seems that being able to sneak up on someone becomes a switch, rather than an opposed roll. If you have to make a number of checks, the Listener has a better chance to hear you (although I'm not sure about the probabilities). So it's not worth attempting unless your skill is 11 higher than theirs, at which case you can Take 10 and make it all the time.

However... with the penalties for distance, it might work out. Being crap at math, I'd like to see some cases worked out by someone else.

It depends upon the circumstances. For instance, you're scouting ahead in a dungeon corridor. The enemy is not taking care to be particularly silent--in fact, they're talking normally (DC 0) but there's fifty feet between you and them and a corner that the DM decided adds a -2 ad hoc penalty to listen checks. So, if you make a DC 7 listen check (which is pretty darn easy since you maxed listen and you're a wood elf so with you're 12 wisdom, you have a +8 listen check), you'll hear them. Now, you're a second level ranger wearing masterwork studded leather and a masterwork buckler (no armor check penalty), you have an 18 dexterity and 5 ranks each of hide and move silently for a hide/move silently bonus of +9. If you're taking ten, your enemies need a 26 to hear you.

Now, it's a mixed group of orcs up ahead. There are two warriors with alertness and a shaman with a 16 wisdom as well as two barbarians with 4 ranks of listen each. So, their bonuses are +2, +2, +3, +4, and +4. If you're taking ten they have no chance of detecting you.

Of course, you're curious. You can hear voices up ahead but can't understand them (you don't speak orc--just common and elven). So, you creep forward to the corner and peer around it. The corner is only 30 feet away from them and the DM rules that the -2 penalty no longer applies. Fortunately, you get a +10 bonus to hide for just peeking around the corner. So, again, there's no chance that they'll spot you. If you take ten, there's about a 60% chance that none of them will hear you either. (Two need to roll a 20, one a 19, and two an 18--so the chances that none of them will roll what they need are 95%x95%x90%x85%x85%=58.69%). Unless, of course, they're distracted. Maybe they're playing a game of cards and all have -2 on their spot/listen checks. Now, only the two barbarians can possibly hear you and they need to roll a 20 to do so. That gives you about a 90% chance of being able to move up to the corner and see what's there without being spotted.

In either case, you do so and you move back and tell your party about them. Now, you need to decide what to do. You can almost certainly get to within 30 feet of them before being spotted, but if you want to sneak up right next to them and stab them in the back, you'll need to be better than you are.

Change the circumstances. Now, you're a 5th level ranger with a cloak and boots of elvenkind and the same stats, but you have three more ranks. Now your bonus is at +17 each and, as long as the orcs haven't gone up in level, you can sneak up behind them and gank them with your longsword if you want. And they won't be able to spot you... unless there is no concealment for you to hide behind in that last 30' of hallway between the corner and their table.

So, the net result is this: if you take ten, you're guaranteed to be able to sneak up to the difference between their spot/listen and your hide/move silently score x 10 feet of your enemies. If you have +9 and they have +4, you can get to within 50 feet without having to roll. If you have +12 and they have +4, you can get to within 20 feet without having to roll.
You can get another twenty feet pretty easily if the bad guys are distracted, and you have a fair chance of getting ten or twenty feet beyond that. In short, the math doesn't work out to sneaking being a switch. Instead, it works out to be very distance dependent. Sneaking up to forty or fifty feet away is generally easy. However, sneaking up right next to a group of people is hard.

Also, if you're into taking risks--sneaking by people who are good enough that you can't take ten and autosucceed at the distance you're going for, you will sometimes have a better chance of success by rolling than by taking ten. (For instance, if you have +12 hide but your foes have +6 listen and there are six of them, you only have about an 18% chance of making it past all of them by taking ten. But, if you roll and get a 15 or higher, none of them can possibly detect you, so you have a 30% chance of succeeding on your die roll alone and if you don't, there's always a chance they could all roll poorly.

 

[buzz]

The problem with assuming take ten on the listen is that it makes stealth almost automatic. If the DM assumes that PCs take ten on their listen/spot, then any bad guy with a hide/move silently even one point better than the PCs will automatically sneak up right next to them and get a surprise round.

This is not the same, though. IMO, the situation you describe here (the NPC is the aggressor) isn't what I would consider inconsequential (a PC's life is in danger), so I would not be assuming Take 10 (unless that NPC has Skill Mastery or something). I would also not be assuming anything for the PCs; that's the player's job.

The original moors example is about when to bother rolling 10 or more checks for some cannon-fodder NPCs. In a non-critical situation (e.g., an inconsequential scene that, if played out, would add nothing to the enjoyment of main adventure), I am simply not going to get technical. By-the-book, your position makes sense. I simply don't feel a need to run every single second of the game by-the-book. There are only so many hours in a day.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is not the same, though. IMO, the situation you describe here (the NPC is the aggressor) isn't what I would consider inconsequential (a PC's life is in danger), so I would not be assuming Take 10 (unless that NPC has Skill Mastery or something). I would also not be assuming anything for the PCs; that's the player's job.

The original moors example is about when to bother rolling 10 or more checks for some cannon-fodder NPCs. In a non-critical situation (e.g., an inconsequential scene that, if played out, would add nothing to the enjoyment of main adventure), I am simply not going to get technical. By-the-book, your position makes sense. I simply don't feel a need to run every single second of the game by-the-book. There are only so many hours in a day.

True, but at least when I run, the cannon-fodder NPCs on the wall or at the edge of camp are there to provide warning to the real NPCs who can then come out afterwards. If I let the PCs autogank the cannon-fodder NPCs, first I've established a mechanic that players will want to use for real NPCs and, more importantly, the real NPCs don't have any warning that the PCs are coming for them and are likely to end up surprise round ganked as well. I don't mind that if the PCs are actually stealthy enough to do it, but I'm not going to handwave the part where the PCs can actually get into trouble.

Maybe you're thinking of a different situation than I am, but IME, the most dangerous bit for the PCs is that initial approach. If the cannon-fodder spots the PCs, they face the whole camp at once in an organized and cohesive manner. If PCs sneak up on the cannon fodder, they face the camp piecemeal and in a disorganized manner. Mechanically, that's frequently the difference between the EL being APL +2 (with a long enough combat that it's really two fights) and the EL being APL +6 (when all the NPCs are together and organized with the advantage of the wall or whatever defenses they've constructed. Even if the bad guys are "just cannon-fodder" I'm not going to make that automatic unless the PCs are good enough that it's really automatic.

If it's really an inconsequential scene, I won't just hand-wave the stealth; I'll handwave the whole encounter. "There's a small encampment of orcs on that hill; you quickly roll them up, taking insignificant damage and move on." But I try to avoid having inconsequential scenes. Maybe the orcs have a horn or a signal fire that they could light and alert the orc army to the presence of intruders. Or maybe they have swift riders on wargs who will attempt to escape and warn the rest of the army. Then neither the stealth nor the encounter is inconsequential.

 

[Cabral]

Just a quick comment about the Whisper gnomes, I inputed the stats from WotC into RaceCalc using Rock Gnome to fill in most stats. Whisper Gnomes are, according to RaceCalc, LA +0.6, unless the +4 racial hide bonus is supposed to be a +4 from being small, in which case, they are LA +0.4

 

[Tellerve]

I don't have the book, but I'd guess the +4 to hide is from being small.

On another note to the above examples of moving up on creatures. The Complete Adventurer mentions in their skill section some more options with the Hide skill. Examples of Tailing someone as well as moving from cover to cover. So that you can move across and area of no cover or concealment without being seen. By the same mechanic you can move up to attack someone from hiding when the enemy isn't right next to someplace with cover/concealment if you have enough ranks/skill.

Tellerve