Hide and Mv Silently skills are no more!

[DrSpunj]

Having one roll for everything remove a lot of outcomes to different actions. Being seen and being heard while sneaking will have two completly different outcome. The guard might hear the rogue, but he doesn't where the sound comes from and will have to investigate, the rogue can then uses an illusion or another ability to fool the guard into beleiving that it is something else. and I don't think yours maths can take that into account.

But having two detector skills keeps those distinctions, DM! If the guard can detect the Rogue through Sense or Spot he must choose which skill to use, but because both are effectively being used he gets a +2 circumstance bonus on whichever one he uses.

To continue your example, if he chooses to roll a Sense check and beats the Rogue's Sneak check then he's heard the Rogue. As you say, the guard will then know the direction and approximate distance (as outlined in Nail's first post) of where the sound originated. The Rogue will still get his chance to use Illusion magic (though it better be a Silenced spell (& perhaps Stilled as well if the Rogue can be seen making Somatic gestures) or he gives the guard another reactive Sense check) or another ability to fool the guard.

If the guard chose to roll Spot and succeeded then he's spotted the Rogue. Depending on the situation he may not be able to charge the Rogue (if he's up on the balcony, across the chasm, etc.) but he's definitely Spotted him and can react appropriately.

If the situation means that there is no chance to Spot the Rogue, only hear him, then the DM needs to give the guard a Sense check only (he can't choose to roll a Spot check, even if he has a lot more ranks in that skill), same as it is in the RAW for Listen & Spot.

The DM still has control over which of the detector skills are appropriate to use in any situation. Sense is essentially "Listen plus other stuff", so the vast majority of the RAW are kept intact. That's very important to us as it keeps the ripple effect at manageable level, IMO.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

Didn't have to, for the basic anylsis above...I just looked at the difference between the final check numbers.

Ah, right. Fair enough. Please keep it in mind, though, for any specific scenarios you create. The distance penalty will likely mitigate its effect, as you say, but keeping it in there effectively means everything is 20' closer. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer in there next to the bonus: "Objects detected with this skill are actually 20' farther away than you think they are."

Another question (an excellent one!) brought up by Al: Does being able to buy Sneak so cheaply (cross-class; one skill as opposed to 2 skills), along with the "uber-ness" of sneaking, mean that soon everyone will want to have a great Sneak skill?

Given your tables up above I'd say it's a losing proposition beyond the first few ranks for anyone who is only occasionally going to put the Sneak skill to any real use.

Consider that with our House Rules your table says a difference of +0 is ~50% chance of either the Sneaker or the Detector succeeding (which is what it SHOULD be given two characters of equal ability; it really disturbs me that under the RAW the Detector has a 25% head start right off!). By paying for 5 ranks of Sneak (on a d20 that should be a flat +25%) that only drops the Detectors chances of success to 30%. So you've paid for 25% with 5 ranks but that only really nets you 20% more success (equivalent to 4 ranks). The payoff is worse going from 5 ranks to 10 ranks (another +25%) where you only drop the Detectors success from 30% down to ~15% meaning you paid 5 ranks to get the benefits of 3 ranks.

For those PCs who are going to be trying to regularly Sneak past better and better Detectors, the payoff is worth it, IMO, but to anyone else I regularly game with I believe the opportunity cost would be too high.

All this is, of course, paying cross-class cost for Sneak ranks. While AI brings up a good point with the fact that multiclassing/dipping into Bard, Monk, Ranger or Rogue looks better with a combined Sneak skill, IMO it isn't enough to get all that many people into doing it that weren't going to do it in the first place under the RAW because doing so fit their character concept.

How many spellcasters want to push off higher level spells for a whole level of adventuring to get a few more ranks of Sneak at half price and the opportunity to buy them in future levels at cross-class cost because the maximum rank limit has been raised? Not too many, IMO, with Silence & Invisibility being such low level spells. YMMV.

IOW: Most rogues won't be able to sneak past mook guards, regardless of relative skills.....without magic, of course.

Then become a Shadowdancer!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Nail]

Perhaps we should put a disclaimer in there next to the bonus: "Objects detected with this skill are actually 20' farther away than you think they are."

Overall, I'd say that +2 synergy bonus makes sense, works well, and emulates what we'd like it to. It's all good.

For those PCs who are going to be trying to regularly Sneak past better and better Detectors, the payoff is worth it, IMO, but to anyone else I regularly game with I believe the opportunity cost would be too high.

Me too.

Jotting down some scenarios, there aren't any that are too surprising. Unless Sneak is a class skill, I just don't see it being worth it. I especially don't see picking up one level in a multiclass as being worth it, for the Sneak skill alone....but that's personal opinion, I guess.

The Spot skill, OTOH, is probably a good investment as a cc-skill; something I had never concidered, actually. There's an oversight, if I ever saw one.

 

[Nail]

Being seen and being heard while sneaking will have two completly different outcome.

Exactly!

Look at what you just wrote.....

You used "being seen", "being heard", and "sneaking". Three potential actions. Note which of those depend on the observer, and which of those depend on the rogue..... See? The rogue doesn't do the "seeing" or the "hearing", does he? Nor does he first be hidden, then be silent; he does both of these things at once, with the same action!

IOW:

• "seeing": the Spot skill, done by the observer.
• "hearing": part of the Sense skill, done by the observer.
• "sneaking": the Sneak skill, done by the rogue.

It's really quite simple.

 

[Aaron2]

You used "being seen", "being heard", and "sneaking". Three potential actions. Note which of those depend on the observer, and which of those depend on the rogue..... See? The rogue doesn't do the "seeing" or the "hearing", does he? Nor does he first be hidden, then be silent; he does both of these things at once, with the same action!

Except trying not to be seen and trying not to be heard are two entirely seperate things. I can very well tiptoe around with no concern as to whether I am seen, likewise I can hide (such as an ambush) without moving at all. My campaign lasted for over two years and I can count on one hand the number of times the party rogue rolled Move Silently at the same time as rolling Hide. To do so requires that cover extends, in an unbroken line, right up to the target, which seldom happens.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument that there is a situation where you'll use both skills at once. An orc is guarding a door and nearby the orc is a generic pile of trash and boxes. Our intreped rogue must silently creap, trying his best to use garbage as cover. Now, if our rogue is wearing Hobnail Boots of Loudly Stomping, it will be harder for him to move silently. Do you address this as a penalty to the rogue's "sneak" skill? If so that will make it easier for the orc to Spot him. Likewise, if our rogue is wearing a Helm of Shiny Brightness (penalty to Hide) then a penalty to his "sneak" skill will make it easier for the orc to make his Listen check. The same is true for situational bonuses such as the +10 to Hide for improved cover.

I just don't see the two skills as so similar that they -need- to be combined. The only time I could see it as an advantage is if you are playing a more free-form game without detailed maps or minis.


Aaron

 

[Nail]

Except trying not to be seen and trying not to be heard are two entirely seperate things. I can very well tiptoe around with no concern as to whether I am seen, likewise I can hide (such as an ambush) without moving at all.

True enough, but then the obvious question is: How often do you do the one without the other? I doubt that, as you try to sneak up on someone, you stamp your feet loudly as you try to remain unseen (unlike your example below). ...or that you move without sound while in plain view of the guard.

Face it: You've been duped by the legacy of the D&D system.

Now, I'm not saying that you *can't* do one without the other. I'm just saying that *most* of the time you do both at the same time....and it's a hassle to keep them separate skills and rolls.

Moreover (here's an important point, I'll wager), most people forget to use them together, as you demonstrate below:

My campaign lasted for over two years and I can count on one hand the number of times the party rogue rolled Move Silently at the same time as rolling Hide.

Then you've used the skills incorrectly, I'm afraid. Any time the rogue tried to "sneak around", he would have had to roll both Hide and Move Silently, as he can be detected with either. I'm sorry, but the reason you rolled both so infrequently is probably because you were in error.

Either that, or your Rogue never tried to sneak around. Which, although a poor example to Thieves everywhere, is possible, I suppose.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument that there is a situation where you'll use both skills at once. An orc is guarding a door and nearby the orc is a generic pile of trash and boxes. Our intrepid rogue must silently creep, trying his best to use garbage as cover.

An excellent example! Your example being: the rogue is trying to sneak up on the orc. Surely that's not a rare occurence?

Now, if our rogue is wearing Hobnail Boots of Loudly Stomping, it will be harder for him to move silently. Do you address this as a penalty to the rogue's "sneak" skill?

You've put the shoe on the wrong foot, I'm afraid. Once again, you're being lead astray by the legacy of the system, and missing the larger point.

When sneaking, it's the rogue's job to do whatever possible to pull it off. Presumably, if he had such boots surgically attached to his feat (that is: unremovable), he would do his best to not use his feet while sneaking --- I'm being serious! Stop laughing! So he'd crawl, wiggle, etc.....and really, it's not necessary to go into details of how it's done. The point is, this makes it more difficult to sneak, so the DM would apply some penalty to the poor Rogue's Sneak check. Simple enough.

I just don't see the two skills as so similar that they -need- to be combined.

And the current designers of the RAW would agree with you. (Shrug) Personally, a combined Sneak skill makes more sense, so we've used it. It's simple, it stream-lines the system, it makes high-level rogue sneaking more viable, it allows Rogues a bit more skill point flexibility....what's not to like?

 

[Aaron2]

Then you've used the skills incorrectly, I'm afraid. Any time the rogue tried to "sneak around", he would have had to roll both Hide and Move Silently, as he can be detected with either. I'm sorry, but the reason you rolled both so infrequently is probably because you were in error.

There was no error. Hiding requires cover. If you have total cover, then you don't need to roll Hide as you can't be seen anyway. If you have no cover then you can't hide.

For example, if you are trying to enter a house or castle undetected, you use Move Silently most of the time as you are often around a corner or on the other side of a closed door. Since you have total cover you don't need to make a Hide check. If you stop at a corner to peak around it, that is a Hide check but not a Move Silently (as you aren't moving).

Likewise, when outdoors, the cover comes in patches, a bush here, a tree there, a rock over there. Since you can't Hide without cover you are pretty much limited to skooching up as close as cover allows. Since most intelligent creatures make sure their observation points are not blocked by bushes, its generally not close enough to where Move Silently makes a difference.

I'm sorry, I still cannot think of a -common- situation where you have a continuous stream of unbroken non-total cover approaching a bad guy.

And the current designers of the RAW would agree with you. (Shrug) Personally, a combined Sneak skill makes more sense, so we've used it. It's simple, it stream-lines the system, it makes high-level rogue sneaking more viable, it allows Rogues a bit more skill point flexibility....what's not to like?

As I've said before, the question of high-level rogue's skills can be solved independently of creating a Sneak skill, as can the skill point "flexibility".

Monte, in AU, combines the two skills but keeps the use of the skills exactly the same. You use Sneak to move silently -or- you use Sneak to hide. There are different sets of modifiers for both actions (such as size affecting Hide only) and the rolls are opposed by both Listen and Spot. Just like in the normal rules. He treats doing both at the same time as a exception rather than the general rule.


Aaron

 

[Al]

Point: You see that the Rog is substantially better at passing unnoticed under the "Sneak" skill system.

Now (assuming my numbers are right): is that a good thing? I say: yes.

Agreed. Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of opinion, of course. In my (high-level) game, it seems that the stealth-focused characters are very rarely detected, though of course at lower levels stealth-focused characters will be detected more often as the class/cross-class divide has not diverged as much. Personally, I feel that Hide and Move Silently aren't "underpowered" insofar as characters are keen to take them, and don't suffer from being detected often. Sneak strengthens stealth substantially both by halving the number of skill points and greatly reducing the chances of detection. To my mind, that's "overpowering" an already balanced set of rules, but I guess it's an agree to disagree thing.

 

[DrSpunj]

There was no error. Hiding requires cover. If you have total cover, then you don't need to roll Hide as you can't be seen anyway. If you have no cover then you can't hide.

Agree.

For example, if you are trying to enter a house or castle undetected, you use Move Silently most of the time as you are often around a corner or on the other side of a closed door. Since you have total cover you don't need to make a Hide check. If you stop at a corner to peak around it, that is a Hide check but not a Move Silently (as you aren't moving).

Agree.

Likewise, when outdoors, the cover comes in patches, a bush here, a tree there, a rock over there. Since you can't Hide without cover you are pretty much limited to skooching up as close as cover allows. Since most intelligent creatures make sure their observation points are not blocked by bushes, its generally not close enough to where Move Silently makes a difference.

Disagree. The PHB is very clear about distance playing a factor, -1 per 10' of distance, and we've kept that in our combined Sneak. The difference between the Detector's bonus and the Sneaker's bonus (along with any other modifiers appropriate to the situation) then very specifically dictate the distance at which opposed rolls come into play.

If a Ranger in the forest (some total cover behind larger trees, but cover present everywhere to allow Hiding) is trying to sneak up on an Orc guarding his tribe's encampment the DM should be able to calculate ahead of time how close the Ranger needs to get before opposed checks are necessary, either with Hide/Spot or Listen/MS under the RAW, just by assuming the Ranger rolls 1s and the Orc rolls 20s. The difference is the maximum distance penalty that allows for the Orc to automatically fail and the Ranger to automatically succeed; 10' less than that is when opposed rolls need to start. Depending on their skills relative to each other that could be as little as 30', but it could also be much higher. At night the Orc's Spot would be limited by his 60' Darkvision, but his chance at Listening wouldn't be affected. In the daytime both are limited only by the distance penalty.

How often should the DM ask for opposed rolls? This is probably debatable, but I usually ask once per action. Move Silently & Hide both allow you to move half your speed with no penalty, so it seems to me that you'd ask for an opposed check any time someone used a Move Action. If they use a double Move Action to approach, flitting from one tree to a bush to the next tree a bit closer to their goal, then we roll two opposed checks, one at the end of each Move Action.

I'm sorry, I still cannot think of a -common- situation where you have a continuous stream of unbroken non-total cover approaching a bad guy.

Umm, how about a Ranger trying to sneak up on an Orc camp guard in the forest? Or a Rogue trying to sneak across a large cavern riddled with stalagmites & pillars of various sizes? Or someone sneaking across a graveyard at night using the tombstones & mausoleums as best they can for cover? What about in a tumble or ruins, with large pieces of rock walls in disarray with bits of more than a few still standing upright in places?

I've played in games with each of these scenarios just in the last several months, and while your experience certainly seems to differ, using the two skills together happens quite a bit more often than using them separately in any 3.x games I've been a part of.

It's true that not every situation calls for both under the RAW, but if you're moving at all within hearing distance a Listen/MS rolled is required, and if at any time during your Move Action you have the potential to be seen (because you have less than Total Cover) then a Spot/Hide check is likewise required. That happens an awful lot in the games I've played in. It seems YM-does-V. <shrug>

As I've said before, the question of high-level rogue's skills can be solved independently of creating a Sneak skill, as can the skill point "flexibility".

Monte, in AU, combines the two skills but keeps the use of the skills exactly the same. You use Sneak to move silently -or- you use Sneak to hide. There are different sets of modifiers for both actions (such as size affecting Hide only) and the rolls are opposed by both Listen and Spot. Just like in the normal rules. He treats doing both at the same time as a exception rather than the general rule.

Your intent behind these two paragraphs is a bit confusing to me. In the first it seems like you say we don't need to combine the Sneak skill at all, but in the second you go on to say Monte combined them into a single skill (effectively giving Sneaky characters an extra skill pt per level), so it must be okay to do so, but he kept the mechanics otherwise identical to the RAW and you don't seem to care for how we've combined the mechanics. Can you please clarify your position here?

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Aaron2]

Umm, how about a Ranger trying to sneak up on an Orc camp guard in the forest? Or a Rogue trying to sneak across a large cavern riddled with stalagmites & pillars of various sizes? Or someone sneaking across a graveyard at night using the tombstones & mausoleums as best they can for cover? What about in a tumble or ruins, with large pieces of rock walls in disarray with bits of more than a few still standing upright in places?

I've discussed indoors. At night or in a dungeon, detection is often automatic at 60'. The Orc guard can't be seen until the darkvision-equipped party approaches within 60' and, since the orc isn't moving, the party has no effective way to detect him (short of magic). It's not unreasonable to expect the orc sentry to have cleared the terrain within 60' of his guard post, it would be illogical to assume otherwise. If the party is illuminated by light-source then hiding is irrelevant anyway. Outdoors, in full sunlight, your ability to Hide depends on terrain which greatly limits how close you can get. That pretty much leaves dense forests and moonlit nights. Since my party strives to avoid nighttime encounters (esp. in graveyards!) and uses animal companions/wildshaped druids to scout forested areas, close-in sneaking encounters just don't happen often. Finally, if the orc "guard" consisted of ten orcs, having the rogue creep up and sneak-attack -one- of the orcs was often a career-limiting decision. In those cases, the entire party attacks in mass which avoids any need for Spots and Listens.

In short, IME, Hiding is more of a passive action (for ambushes mostly) while Moving Silently is active. Hiding is more a long range thing (for determining encounter distances) while Move Silently is more up close.

It also depends on party composition. As I said before, a wildshaping druid elminates many of the typical ranger-esque scouting needs and a melee rogue, who relys on flank-induced sneak attacks, won't be traveling far from his fighter/barbarian companions. The party IMC, had a melee rogue, who was later replaced by a monk (no Hiding here), a bard that cast invisibility and a wildshaping-crazy druid.

What the game really needs is some sort of % chance of noticing. The term "casually observing" isn't clear. For example, a group of guards are playing cards in the guardhouse. The door to the room is open. Under the RAW, it is impossible to quickly walk across that opening of the door without being seen. Currently, I've handled that situation by making the rogue make a Bluff check to distract the guards and allowing him to walk by unnoticed; this wasn't a very satisfying solution. How do you handle that situation?

Your intent behind these two paragraphs is a bit confusing to me. In the first it seems like you say we don't need to combine the Sneak skill at all, but in the second you go on to say Monte combined them into a single skill (effectively giving Sneaky characters an extra skill pt per level), so it must be okay to do so, but he kept the mechanics otherwise identical to the RAW and you don't seem to care for how we've combined the mechanics. Can you please clarify your position here?

I'm not so much against combining the skills for the sole purposes of skill point allocation, although I'd rather just give out extra skill points since that directly addresses the problem. What I'm against is combining the two actions (hiding and moving silently) into one action ("sneaking") because it confuses the various circumstantial modifiers (such as the +10 for improved cover) and places the burden on the observer to determine, by choice of skill to use, whether the sneaker failed to perform on one of the two tasks. How does a character determine which sense skill to use. What if the character pick Spot because its +5 better than his Listen but the sneaker is behind improved cover (+10 bonus) or invisible? Likewise, what if he picks Listen but the sneaker is 100' away or Silenced? Does the DM tell the player "an invisible assassin is Sneaking up on you"? If the DM chooses, he would have to compare two sets of numbers before picking the best chance for the target; if so, he'd be doing just as much work as with the RAW where you have to compare four numbers anyway.

For me, it adds more confusion that is solves in reduced die rolling.


Aaron