Stealth, hiding, invisibility and miniatures

[KarinsDad]

You mean... like... adventurer?

That's my point, this sort of thing IS their job!

4th edition sort of takes the assumption that player characters eventually get good at adventuring. How is that so hard to understand?

Key word "eventually".

PCs also have Perception rolls. But, it take many levels and two tiers before most of them are capable of even making the Perception roll to spot an invisible target.

It might be their job, but like all jobs, it takes years of practice to get really good at it.

The concept of "auto-good" at your all aspects of your job right out of the shute breaks my sense of versimiliatude.

Accurate enough to drop an area effect with imprecise directions? Sure.

Accurate enough to know the exact square if someone who does know where the target is does an attack into that square? Sure.

Accurate enough to know the exact square from some vague directions that another player supplies? It depends on the directions. It's an aspect of roleplaying. Rough idea? Sure. Exact square? Typically not. One of four squares, yeah maybe.

You idea isn't hard to understand. It's just not very plausible until the PCs have been adventuring for months if not years. It takes a long time to get to that level of communication precision. And the concept that every group of adventurers practices this type of stuff in their spare time is ludicrous as well. Adventurers typically are not Navy Seals. Some adventurers never practice. They just go drink in the bar and have a good time.

Additionally, it's not that hard to search. One can do it with movement. The Fighter moves over and into each square. The square he is denied entry into? That's the square.

We're not talking something that is an impossible puzzle to solve here. It just takes effort and shouldn't be auto-share of precise knowledge unless there is an obvious and easily precise description like "he's right next to the pillar I am pointing to, along the path I am pointing". But if the foe is in the middle of the room with nothing specific right next to him, it should be a bit of a crap shoot, mostly because language is imprecise.

And, invisibility is neutered enough in 4E without making it even more neutered. If you neuter it like this for PCs, you should do the same for NPCs when the PCs go invisible.


Note: Hiding in general in 4E has been neutered as well. It's fairly rare to get superior cover or total concealment in the game system in an encounter area without a power. There are very few squares where two of the four corners cannot be spotted in many encounter locations.

 

[DracoSuave]

Key word "eventually".

PCs also have Perception rolls. But, it take many levels and two tiers before most of them are capable of even making the Perception roll to spot an invisible target.

And at no point do they ever get the Perception needed to negate total concealment.

It might be their job, but like all jobs, it takes years of practice to get really good at it.

True. Some of those years are called 'character background'.

The concept of "auto-good" at your all aspects of your job right out of the shute breaks my sense of versimiliatude.

We're not talking about 'auto-good'. We're talking about 'bare minimum to succeed.' You're talking elite special forces, I'm talking boot camp.

Accurate enough to drop an area effect with imprecise directions? Sure.

No one debates that, area effects don't need a spotter if you have a general idea of the 15 foot by 15 foot area an enemy might be in.

Accurate enough to know the exact square if someone who does know where the target is does an attack into that square? Sure.

Indeed

Accurate enough to know the exact square from some vague directions that another player supplies? It depends on the directions. It's an aspect of roleplaying. Rough idea? Sure. Exact square? Typically not. One of four squares, yeah maybe.

'Exact' square is a misnomer. You're making it sound like 'square' is an exact location, but it is not. You have to be a super fattie in order for a 5 foot by 5 foot area be your 'exact location'.

Like, that's pretty wide, dude.

You idea isn't hard to understand. It's just not very plausible until the PCs have been adventuring for months if not years. It takes a long time to get to that level of communication precision. And the concept that every group of adventurers practices this type of stuff in their spare time is ludicrous as well. Adventurers typically are not Navy Seals. Some adventurers never practice. They just go drink in the bar and have a good time.

We call those people 'dragon food.' Dude, these guys kill dragons and armies of kobolds for a living. It's not realistic to assume that they manage to execute military tactics without practice, or even a modicum of discussion.

Hell, if your party has a warlord, I'm not buying any argument starting with 'they don't do tactics'. That's like a party with a wizard going 'We never cast spells.'

It's not believable.

Additionally, it's not that hard to search. One can do it with movement. The Fighter moves over and into each square. The square he is denied entry into? That's the square.

That is one way to find a hidden creature. But we are not talking about a hidden creature. We are talking about a creature that failed its stealth check, not one that made its stealth check/

We're not talking something that is an impossible puzzle to solve here. It just takes effort and shouldn't be auto-share of precise knowledge unless there is an obvious and easily precise description like "he's right next to the pillar I am pointing to, along the path I am pointing". But if the foe is in the middle of the room with nothing specific right next to him, it should be a bit of a crap shoot, mostly because language is imprecise.

The elven ranger pulled back his arrow... and let fly his shaft into the chest of the invisible assailent. Red blood started to pour from the arrow that was hiding in mid-air. The elf then turned to the fighter and said 'There.'

And, invisibility is neutered enough in 4E without making it even more neutered. If you neuter it like this for PCs, you should do the same for NPCs when the PCs go invisible.

Invisibility should never have been 'you are automatically unfindable by anything ever.' It should never have required spells or magic to even -begin- to pierce. The rule is very simple... if you're invisible, you can try to sneak around and cover your tracks. But if you fail, they can still hear you or see your foot prints or what have you.

Note: Hiding in general in 4E has been neutered as well. It's fairly rare to get superior cover or total concealment in the game system in an encounter area without a power. There are very few squares where two of the four corners cannot be spotted in many encounter locations.

The previous rule was 'You really can't do it in combat unless you have one class feature... but don't bother cause the class not based on hiding can do it better automatically' Now its 'If you can get out of their sight, you can certainly try to start your sneaking around.'

To neuter something means to make it less potent. Making something usable in combat is not a neuter... it's a buff. If it's rare to get such cover or concealment, perhaps you should design your encounters closer to the guidelines given in the Fourth Edition Dungeon Masters Guide. It suggests that you should have more opportunities for cover, and concealment, for both players and monsters. Any problems attaining this are solely encounter design problems, and it is not reasonable to claim the edition is the problem.

Not every encounter will have it, but it certainly should not be uncommon.

 

[KarinsDad]

We call those people 'dragon food.' Dude, these guys kill dragons and armies of kobolds for a living. It's not realistic to assume that they manage to execute military tactics without practice, or even a modicum of discussion.

Hell, if your party has a warlord, I'm not buying any argument starting with 'they don't do tactics'. That's like a party with a wizard going 'We never cast spells.'

It's not believable.

Conan. Lord of the Rings. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

These characters rarely practiced in the novels.

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"They spend a lot of time drinking, feasting, wenching, brawling, stealing, and gambling, and are seldom fussy about who hires their swords."

The history of the genre doesn't match your "Navy Seals" POV.

Tanis mostly just shouted out orders and everyone was expected to follow them if they wanted to live. They didn't practice too much if at all in the novels either. At least not together. Caramon worked out by himself, but they didn't do it as a group.

The elven ranger pulled back his arrow... and let fly his shaft into the chest of the invisible assailent. Red blood started to pour from the arrow that was hiding in mid-air. The elf then turned to the fighter and said 'There.'

Yup. I already said multiple times that if someone who knows the square targets it with an attack, everyone should know. You appear to be arguing just to argue, either that or not reading what I write.

Invisibility should never have been 'you are automatically unfindable by anything ever.' It should never have required spells or magic to even -begin- to pierce. The rule is very simple... if you're invisible, you can try to sneak around and cover your tracks. But if you fail, they can still hear you or see your foot prints or what have you.

In a big noisy fight, not so much. In a quiet church, sure. It's a matter of plausibility. I prefer to have a DM make sensible decisions and not be a rules robot if it doesn't make sense. Even an invisible peasant should be able to fairly quietly and slowly move past a big combat as long as he keeps his mouth shut.

If it's rare to get such cover or concealment, perhaps you should design your encounters closer to the guidelines given in the Fourth Edition Dungeon Masters Guide. It suggests that you should have more opportunities for cover, and concealment, for both players and monsters.

Feel free to post good sample images of this out of WotC material cause I have to tell you, the PHB2 rules make it seem like this is often out of the question. I have yet to see a lot of encounter areas out of WotC material, hand made encounter material by other DMs whose group I am playing in, or in hand made encounter material that I make for my groups that allow for stealth. The stealth rules are just too stringent any more. It used to be concealment or cover to get into stealth. Now, it's total concealment or superior cover.

Although that seems more reasonable, it's a lot more difficult to achieve in actual game practice because of how the grid cover system works. Yeah, if you have a 15x15 pillar in the room, the Rogue might be able to hide behind it. But, even something as big as a 10x10 pillar is hard to get superior cover behind from many angles.

As the attachment illustrates, it's easy for the two orcs to see the two squares behind the pillar because the two corners of those squares are visible. If the Rogue is at the left square behind the pillar, she has cover from Orc 1 and superior cover from Orc 2 and vice versa if she is at the right square.

It's not impossible to get superior cover, but in many circumstances, it's extremely difficult.

 

[DracoSuave]

Conan. Lord of the Rings. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

These characters rarely practiced in the novels.

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"They spend a lot of time drinking, feasting, wenching, brawling, stealing, and gambling, and are seldom fussy about who hires their swords."

The history of the genre doesn't match your "Navy Seals" POV.

Tanis mostly just shouted out orders and everyone was expected to follow them if they wanted to live. They didn't practice too much if at all in the novels either. At least not together. Caramon worked out by himself, but they didn't do it as a group.

I am aware that the fantasy that informed a game that is 20 years old had different precepts behind it.

However, the modern incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons is informed by different mentalities, it is plain to see.

It's called 'heroic' tier, and not 'apprentice' tier or even 'journeyman' tier for a reason. You're not on your way to 'learning this adventuring for profit thing.' You're working your way up to being able to save kingdoms... in ten levels you're starting to look at threats to entire nations, and are expected to be able to vanquish them.

Yeah, elite IS what they are going for in every nook and cranny of detail.

Yup. I already said multiple times that if someone who knows the square targets it with an attack, everyone should know. You appear to be arguing just to argue, either that or not reading what I write.

Interesting, and here this whole time I thought you were arguing that if one person knew, they might not be able to communicate it to others.

What are we arguing about... oh... yeah:

In a big noisy fight, not so much. In a quiet church, sure. It's a matter of plausibility. I prefer to have a DM make sensible decisions and not be a rules robot if it doesn't make sense. Even an invisible peasant should be able to fairly quietly and slowly move past a big combat as long as he keeps his mouth shut.

Amid other peasants, sure. And with a loud combat, I'm certain that qualifies as a penalty to Perception checks to notice them because it makes sense. This does not mean 'you get to automatically sneak past the superheroic ubermenschen' that the power fantasy of Dungeons and Dragons is meant to articulate.

You speak of mortals in a game that is meant to present the story of those that literally rise to immortality.

Feel free to post good sample images of this out of WotC material cause I have to tell you, the PHB2 rules make it seem like this is often out of the question.

The PHB2 isn't where encounter design is mentioned. Also, there are no listings for monsters in the Aventurers Guide, and the DMG has no advice for me on how to make a goliath warlock.

In other words, your example is ludicrous.

Might I suggest looking in the book I suggested? The DMG has many tips and tricks on how to design encounters.

I have yet to see a lot of encounter areas out of WotC material, hand made encounter material by other DMs whose group I am playing in, or in hand made encounter material that I make for my groups that allow for stealth. The stealth rules are just too stringent any more. It used to be concealment or cover to get into stealth. Now, it's total concealment or superior cover.

And it -really- isn't hard to get that if you're designing your terrain right. And most characters that rely on stealth have ways to use it.

And if they don't have ways to use it... guess what? They aren't a specialist in sneaking around much.

[/quote]Although that seems more reasonable, it's a lot more difficult to achieve in actual game practice because of how the grid cover system works. Yeah, if you have a 15x15 pillar in the room, the Rogue might be able to hide behind it. But, even something as big as a 10x10 pillar is hard to get superior cover behind from many angles.

You don't have one piller. You have five, or six, and you have side passages, raised platforms, and other assorted things that provide blocking and obscuring terrain, when you wish to feature concealment and cover.

As the attachment illustrates, it's easy for the two orcs to see the two squares behind the pillar because the two corners of those squares are visible. If the Rogue is at the left square behind the pillar, she has cover from Orc 1 and superior cover from Orc 2 and vice versa if she is at the right square.

If that is how you design encounters, then therein lies a lot of your problem. You're relying on a single 10X10 post and going 'See it doesn't work!'

Of course not! Because you're designing an encounter that you know doesn't work for what you want it to do!

I can design broken stuff too!

I choose not to.

First off, you need a lot more space, and relying on a single square of obscuring terrain isn't likely to work... really tho, is that a realistic expectation that it would work, that you could hide while two orcs come around from either side?

Now, make it bigger... and put in trenches that act as cover to anyone inside it. Add in the feature that if they are prone in those trenches, that one who is more than 10 feet away is treats them as tho they are in superior cover. Throw in some tunnels underkneath the map... and... oh... populate the thing with some angry kobolds.

OR....

Make it a villiage, with buildings you can enter or leave, with walls, windows, and all sorts of possible ways to see, and not be seen.

OR....

Make it a series of connected rooms, with multiple ways back and forth, and torches creating areas of light, with areas of shadow acting as obscured terrain to most of the visitors to this drow temple...

Wow. That's not even hard... and those places sound like awesome places to go kill monsters.

Much better than 'The Field of the Single Pillar.'

It's not impossible to get superior cover, but in many circumstances, it's extremely difficult.

Yes, in many circumstances it is difficult. And in many circumstances it SHOULD be difficult. I don't see, for example, The Temple of the Sun and Light having a lot of places where people could skulk and hide, except maybe where walls stand or where things have fallen from disuse.

But that's okay, not every encounter should completely feature that element either...

...and it's not like this is a new idea either. You couldn't 'Hide in Shadows' where there were no shadows to hide in 2nd edition either.

 

[Jhaelen]

'Fellows, the churlish imp is about 5 elf-lengths over there, wherein I hear his fiendish wingflap.'

Umm, 'over there' is not a very accurate vector, I should think

I'm not insulting your point of view. I'm insulting the dunderheads in such a party who cannot manage a system of communication and expect to slay dragons.

It breaks my versimiliatude to think they cannot.

And it breaks mine that in order to be able to slay dragons they have to talk about 'direction and magnitude' and work with the military precision of an elite squad team.

Adventurers can slay dragons because they're the heroes and they're awesome! That's why they survive fighting against impossible odds.

 

[KarinsDad]

Adventurers can slay dragons because they're the heroes and they're awesome! That's why they survive fighting against impossible odds.

This.

And awesome doesn't mean perfect, without mistakes, even without comedies of errors. We play the game to have fun and fun comes in many forms, not just shared knowledge because we share a table to play around.

 

[KarinsDad]

If that is how you design encounters, then therein lies a lot of your problem. You're relying on a single 10X10 post and going 'See it doesn't work!'

Of course not! Because you're designing an encounter that you know doesn't work for what you want it to do!

I can design broken stuff too!

I choose not to.

First off, you need a lot more space, and relying on a single square of obscuring terrain isn't likely to work... really tho, is that a realistic expectation that it would work, that you could hide while two orcs come around from either side?

Now, make it bigger... and put in trenches that act as cover to anyone inside it. Add in the feature that if they are prone in those trenches, that one who is more than 10 feet away is treats them as tho they are in superior cover. Throw in some tunnels underkneath the map... and... oh... populate the thing with some angry kobolds.

That was just an illustration of the problem. Show your own example.

Which mad dungeon designer designs rooms that aren't, rooms?

Who puts 15x15 columns in and makes all of the rooms 100x100, just so that a PC Rogue can hide?

You can claim that it's easy all you want, why don't you show in a 50x50 room (which many of the Wotc adventures have on average) all of these wonderful places that a Rogue can hide?

 

[MrMyth]

Accurate enough to know the exact square from some vague directions that another player supplies? It depends on the directions. It's an aspect of roleplaying. Rough idea? Sure. Exact square? Typically not. One of four squares, yeah maybe.

I think part of what people are objecting to is that you seem to be comparing 'exact square' and 'exact location'. Even if the PCs are able to help each other figure out the exact square, there is still the penalty for total concealment, which already represents how hard it is to swing at an invisible foe.

A square in combat is a significant area - why does it feel realistic to you that someone can indicate a location within a 10-15' area, but not a 5' area? Does that area change based on how close the enemy is? How distinct the landmarks are?

The problem is, once you step into the role of making those decisions, you are having to make a lot of judgement calls on how effective the PCs might be, based on a lot of personal information. Do you start factoring in the Intelligence of the person pointing it out? The Wisdom of the person receiving the directions?

Now, I'm not saying that isn't your right as a DM. But I do think it is taking on a bit of control over the PCs capabilities, and potentially putting yourself in the position of hindering the players based not on the game rules, but on personal feelings. That's a dangerous road to go down.

QUOTE=KarinsDad;5249586]Additionally, it's not that hard to search. One can do it with movement. The Fighter moves over and into each square. The square he is denied entry into? That's the square.[/quote]

Here's another bit of the problem. Once the Fighter is next to the enemy, is it really that hard to imagine his companion - who sees the invisible guy - can call out, "Swing directly to your left!"

Or lets step beyond that. Why can't the invisible guy step aside and let the fighter walk past? Isn't that just as reasonable to believe? The rules don't really allow for it - but if we're focusing more on what seems reasonable, we're again opening up a tricky can of worms.

Similarly, what if no one knows where the invisible guy is? How do you handle him making an attack on the party while remaining invisible? Do you allow them to figure out where he is based on where the attack came from? Or do you say they still don't know - after all, suddenly an arrow just flew through the air, or suddenly the fighter got stabbed in the back, and it could have been from any number of squares, right? That can be just as realistic an approach - but it also makes the invisibility really frustrating to deal with.

And, invisibility is neutered enough in 4E without making it even more neutered. If you neuter it like this for PCs, you should do the same for NPCs when the PCs go invisible.

I assume that any group that lets PCs share knowledge of invisible enemy locations does the same for NPCs. I can't imagine why one wouldn't.

And remember - attacks still take the big penalty of total concealment.

Beyond that, also remember this is only for situations where someone is able to see through the invisibility in some fashion. More often, that invisible guy can easily go to ground and avoid targeting at all.

Note: Hiding in general in 4E has been neutered as well. It's fairly rare to get superior cover or total concealment in the game system in an encounter area without a power. There are very few squares where two of the four corners cannot be spotted in many encounter locations.

This really hasn't been my experience. At least, playing a ranged Rogue in LFR, I regularly am able to duck out of sight. Any building has doors, dungeons often have branching hallways, and even in the outdoors there are often a few big terrain features. Definitely not in every fight, but I don't think it is 'rare' by any means.

 

[MrMyth]

As the attachment illustrates, it's easy for the two orcs to see the two squares behind the pillar because the two corners of those squares are visible. If the Rogue is at the left square behind the pillar, she has cover from Orc 1 and superior cover from Orc 2 and vice versa if she is at the right square.

It's not impossible to get superior cover, but in many circumstances, it's extremely difficult.

Wait - even in that picture, the rogue can absolutely hide. She ducks behind the pillar where she has superior cover from Orc 2, and hides from them. She's hidden! She can duck back over and shoot Orc 2 next round, or with Deft Strike, or whatever. Or she can instead take another move to the other square, and hide from Orc 1, while maintaining regular cover to hide from Orc 2. Now she's hidden from both!

Sure, they can walk up around the column and it's obvious she's there. But with one round of hiding, she can nonetheless hide from them both, which seems to have been the goal of this exercise.

 

[MrMyth]

That was just an illustration of the problem. Show your own example.

Which mad dungeon designer designs rooms that aren't, rooms?

Who puts 15x15 columns in and makes all of the rooms 100x100, just so that a PC Rogue can hide?

You can claim that it's easy all you want, why don't you show in a 50x50 room (which many of the Wotc adventures have on average) all of these wonderful places that a Rogue can hide?

Ok, a quick look at recent adventures in Dungeon. Vague room-based spoilers ahead, I suppose. I'm not really familiar with any of these adventures - I'm literally just scanning through them for the maps to analyze, here.

Pillar of Eyes:
[sblock]
Map 1: A fight in a pretty small area, looks like a 12x12 field with a pillar in the center of it. Nowhere to hide on the map. On the other hand, given the size, one could easily ask the DM for more details of the surrounding environment which might give some options. In fact, the intro to the fight mentions nearby 'natural terrain' the enemies use to sneak up on the PCs - I'm sure a PC could insist on having that portrayed so they can use it as well.

Map 2: Looks like a fight in some caverns. Branching corridors and the entrance leave plenty of places to get out of sight while remaining near the fight.

Map 3: Still in caverns. Tunnel entrance easily allows for hiding out of sight.

Map 4: One large cavern. Based on previous maps, there is room to move back and out of sight, but not necessarily easily. There is a big curtain in the middle of the map, though, that one could take advantage of.

Summary: At least 2 fights you can definitely hide in. One you probably can. One that depends on a DM ruling. [/sblock]
The Hammer Falls:
[sblock]
Map 1: Room with three entrances. Any of these could be used to duck out of the room to go hide. Wooden balcony that could provide superior cover to certain parts of the room from the right angles.

Map 2: Again, a few entrances PCs can use to duck out of sight. Two large cauldrons that won't provide superior cover to everywhere, but could to certain areas at the right angle.

Map 3: Stairs leading into the room provide an easy way to duck back out and get out of sight.

Summary: Every fight involves nearby passages someone can hide within, or corners they can hide behind.[/sblock]
Faarlung's Algorithm:
[sblock]
Map 1: City streets. Several buildings PCs can hide behind.

Map 2: House and ruins. Getting inside the house offers plenty of rooms to duck in and out of. Or fight outside the house and duck around the sides of it, or move in and out of the ruins.

Map 3: Crypt entrance. Moving around the building provides ways to hide. Moving in or out of it can provide places to hide.

Map 4: Crypt. Entrance into the room can provide places to hide. Several sarcophogi in the room can provide superior cover to large portions of the room from the right angles.

Summary: Every fight has places to hide.[/sblock]
The Splintered Spring:
[sblock]
Map 1: Rocky isles in deep water. The water can provide an easy way to hide from things on land, and the isles can easily provide superior cover.

Map 2: Big cavern. Filled with lots of black trees or stone pillars, and some ledges - might be hard to hide from people on the ledges, but the pillars do provide places to duck behind to get out of sight.

Map 3: Fight by a lake with some ledges and web bridges. One outcropping on land provides an easy hiding spot from half the battlefield. Water provides a possible, if unpleasant, option.

Summary: Several hiding options in each fight.[/sblock]
So, hiding is usually available in most of these fights. Typically of use for ranged characters or those who might have movement tricks to emerge from hiding spots and attack. If you are looking for a spot where you can be hidden while standing right next to someone... those are hard to find. Usually will involve dim lighting in the room, so you can hide somewhere and then move through the dim light up to an enemy. I admit, I didn't pay much attention to the lighting in any of the fights.

But if your goal is places where someone can duck out of sight to either hide for a moment, or to set up a shot with sneak attack - the option is there in most situations.

You rarely have a 10 x 10 square room without having entrances someone can duck into or around a corner. Having a single big room or big open field with no features in it is the exception, rather than the rule.