Stealth, hiding, invisibility and miniatures

[DracoSuave]

How does one do that?

Thundarr: "He's over there."
Princess Ariel: "Where?"
Thundarr: "Over there."
Princess Ariel: "Where over there?"
Thundarr: "Over there by the crate."
Princess Ariel: "Which crate? There's five crates over there."

The point is, if you are going to allow the PCs to use free actions to talk and tell allies which exact square an NPC is hidden in, you might as well just leave the miniature on the board and assume the super accurate conversation occurs, and have the PCs auto-know what other PCs know.

In the game Stooges and Stirges, this conversation would be correct.

But it's safe to assume you're also dealing with people who, if they've gotten past second level, have learned some form of teamwork and communication. Otherwise, they would be corpses.

Ranger hand signalled - 'He's ten grolines forward and three grolines right, behind the cover'
Wizard's response - A reasonably sized fwoosh of flame.
Enemy's response - 'It burrrrns it burrrrrrns!'
Fighter's response - 'Oh, I see where he is. CHAAARRRRGE!'

 

[MrMyth]

They may not also be able to accurately obtain information either. I remember one time we had a TPK - 1. The barbarian survived. In the middle of nowhere. With road signs pointing him in the right direction. And he couldn't read. Good times.

Yeah. I mean, its the sort of thing I'd leave to the player. Does he feel his character is capable of sharing this information with the group? Even a savage barbarian has likely learned enough about fighting alongside others to fight tactically in combat.

If a character feels they are impaired or have a decent reason they can't describe where the enemy is - that's fine. But I don't think a DM should be making that call for them, because otherwise you open up a really large can of worms on what the DM can 'declare' your PC capable of, and what he can decide is simply beyond your level of intelligence/wisdom/etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

In the game Stooges and Stirges, this conversation would be correct.

But it's safe to assume you're also dealing with people who, if they've gotten past second level, have learned some form of teamwork and communication. Otherwise, they would be corpses.

Ranger hand signalled - 'He's ten grolines forward and three grolines right, behind the cover'
Wizard's response - A reasonably sized fwoosh of flame.
Enemy's response - 'It burrrrns it burrrrrrns!'
Fighter's response - 'Oh, I see where he is. CHAAARRRRGE!'

So, the game is "Stooges and Stirges" if one doesn't play it via spoonfeeding the players?

Got it.

On the other hand, having the PC that actually made the Stealth roll gain a benefit for it as opposed to the entire team being omnipotent, that's out of the question?

Got it.

And here I thought that one of the reasons for taking burst and blast attacks is so that players could avoid the problem of enemy concealment without having to metagame character knowledge.


The fun rationale for player entitlement wins again.


Btw, I have no problem with the PC who spots the NPC attacking that square and showing everyone else where it is, it's just the "he's 50 foot down and 15 feet to the right on this imaginary grid" type of thing which is bogus.

 

[MrMyth]

I think it goes a bit far to say that the desire to not have the DM micromanage what character are tacticaly capable of is equivalent to spoonfeeding and entirely rooted in player entitlement.

I understand where you are coming from - where do you draw the line, after all? If there are easy landmarks, it should be relatively easy to give out that information. If you are on an open field, how easy is it?

And, unfortunately, that's something that is really, really hard to know. These are usually a group of adventurers who have long fought alongside each other, fighting via a strange simulation where time is distorted into piecemeal perspective. If a DM wanted to, they could claim that in the 'true' thick of combat, any tactical information might be lost - or they could let the players have lengthy discussions during each round to plan out elaborate tactics that actually happen in the space of a few seconds.

Neither solution is really an ideal one - the best approach is somewhere in the middle.

But, again - exactly where?

As I said, I think this is an area where the call is best left to the player, since otherwise the DM is starting to make judgement calls about an area that blurs the line between player and character skill. If you want to disagree, that is fair, and like I said, I can understand the reasons why. But I will run it differently in my own games, and out of reasons that I really hope can't simply be dismissed as 'player entitlement.'

 

[DracoSuave]

So, the game is "Stooges and Stirges" if one doesn't play it via spoonfeeding the players?

I have trouble with characters that are obstensibly a mercenary company that face dragons and demigods and armies of undead together to have no ability to communicate effectively in ways that simple non-speaking tribesman in human's past have been able to do since humanity first existed.

It doesn't have to be sophisticated to be precise.

On the other hand, having the PC that actually made the Stealth roll gain a benefit for it as opposed to the entire team being omnipotent, that's out of the question?

If the PC made his stealth roll, the opposition would not be omniscient. They would be unable to see him. No one would be making hand gestures except of the 'I think he's over there' variety.

We're not talking about someone who made their Stealth check. We're talking about someone who did not. Huge world of difference.

And here I thought that one of the reasons for taking burst and blast attacks is so that players could avoid the problem of enemy concealment without having to metagame character knowledge.

Hear I thought the purpose of area of effect attacks was to attack in an area of effect, to hit multiple individuals.

What you speak of is a bonus. But if one of your party knows the location, and can point it out with reasonable accuracy (5 feet of error, plus or minus), then being able to know and attack that square is reasonable.

I mean, pointing out a circle of approximation is not that small an area all things considered. I'm damn sure you can do so with reasonable accuracy if you're part of a mercenary company that deals with that sort of thing on a regular basis.

Unless everyone in said company has 8 intellegence and wisdom.

Does everyone in your party have 8 intellegence and 8 wisdom? No? Then it is reasonable to assume someone would go 'Hey guys, we should learn how to communicate battlefield stuff effectively.'

Btw, I have no problem with the PC who spots the NPC attacking that square and showing everyone else where it is, it's just the "he's 50 foot down and 15 feet to the right on this imaginary grid" type of thing which is bogus.

*holds up five fingers, rings them into an o, points forward, holds up one finger, five fingers, palms his hand forward, and pushes it to the right.*

Given that it would be precise in the game world, using the abstraction as the approximation is just fine.

 

[eamon]

Of course, regardless of metagame issues, bursts+blasts have another rather large advantage over melee or ranged attacks - they don't take that -5 penalty vs. completely concealed opponents.

The game has a mechanic for dealing with the fact that an inferred location isn't precise. People I play with don't try to abuse this metagame knowledge intentionally, though sometimes it comes up.

If it's important or dramatic, the DM should by all means take the miniature off the battlegrid. If it's a common (temporary) occurrence, it's probably not worth it...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This whole thing is just the tip of the old 'fog of war' issue. NO game system really has a solution for different players in a game having different information. ALL you can ever do is decide how much information to give people to balance between excessive meta-info and ridiculously convolved and awkward play. After all, you could lock each player in a separate room and have them all use their own battlemats, the solution is just a lot worse than the problem.

As for KD's comments. Combat in D&D is already totally realistic. Unless you have actually experienced the real thing you might not appreciate that, but honestly its nothing like the tactical chess match that is a 4e battle. Nothing like it. Its pointless to even invoke realism of any kind here. The point is to have a fun game. By all means don't let your players get away with murder, but you can still let them have fun. How you do that is largely going to be on a case-by-case basis.

Its like eamon said, if you're all out on a flat plain then maybe its tough to see perfectly accurate directions, but 50' down the hall on the left side is not THAT hard. The toughness of it is what the -5 is about. If you think it should be tougher the DM can always impose a different penalty. He can give inaccurate information or whatever he feels like.

 

[Jhaelen]

Given that it would be precise in the game world, using the abstraction as the approximation is just fine.

Hmh, well, the grid _is_ invisible to the pcs, though. Try playing without a grid and see how accurate the spotters' directions become

[totally random, pointless anecdote]
I remember playing in a game (D&D 2e) with a DM who felt it wasn't realistic that a mage would be able to exactly pick a target point for a fireball. So, the mage player had to roll a d6 and a d8 to determine the distance in squares and the direction from the intended target where the fireball would go off.

It was kind a fun for a while (especially for the DM, I guess) and it also removed fireball as an automatic choice for mages. Eventually, we stopped playing with that DM, though.
[/totally random, pointless anecdote]

 

[DracoSuave]

Hmh, well, the grid _is_ invisible to the pcs, though. Try playing without a grid and see how accurate the spotters' directions become

The grid is an abstraction. It -itself- does not give the precise location of a creature, and is not intended to.

I don't see a problem with players being able to communicate abstractions of imprecise locations and have that to be a fine abstraction of characters giving approximations of imprecise locations.

Can I say 'The creature is exactly twenty feet forward, and fifteen feet left?' No. Of course not. But then, the creature isn't exactly twenty feet forward and fifteen feet left. He's just in that general area. So it is reasonable to say 'Fellows, the churlish imp is about 5 elf-lengths over there, wherein I hear his fiendish wingflap.'

(It's called vectors, baby! I can use cartesian coordinates in player-mode, and direction and magnitude in character-mode, and they both are the same thing!)

 

[Nytmare]

I don't see a problem with players being able to communicate abstractions of imprecise locations and have that to be a fine abstraction of characters giving approximations of imprecise locations.

I'm pretty sure the same core group of us devolve into this argument whenever it comes up, so I'll step in here to give my standard answer.

If one character knows where something is hiding and can give an exact location ("He's behind the couch!") then I let the other party members target the square.

If one character knows where something is hiding and can only give an approximate location ("Over there behind that couch in this factory full of couches!") then I let the other characters get a +2 to their perception checks.

As for sign language and grolines, I've spent the last 15 years playing lots and lots of paintball and have been in innumerable situations where one guy sees a sniper and the only way he can point out where he is to the rest of his team is to dump a couple of buckets of paint into the cover the sniper is buried in.