Talk:MBSI Revised Stealth Rules
From Shadowfell Geographic Society
Continued discusion on Stealth rules can go here.
Contents |
Guessing
I understand that we have to actually guess when firing at hidden monsters. What's the system for monsters to guess our position? Do they guess it unless there's a reason they shouldn't? Or do they fail to guess unless it's obvious? Or do they attack whatever's in front of them?
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) I think PHB.281 gives the rules for this, with specific rolls to make. I'd further say teh "Remaining Hidden" clauses apply to when you keep your Stealth roll and when you're forced to make a new one.
- The relevant phrase on p.281 is "Choose a square to attack, using whatever information you've gleaned so far about the target's location." We're not going to enjoy the DM using all the information he's gleaned so far, and that's what I'm asking about. When a monster doesn't get extra information from his Perception roll as described on 281, what happens?
- --Kurgan 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Then the DM does his best to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. I'm pretty good at that, and will generally err on the side of the monsters getting it wrong or deciding not to attack if I'm uncertain.
etc. Outside encounters
Outside encounters, Stealth applies to a dramatic action, using the rules above as guidelines for applicable penalties, required cover, etc.
Does "etc" include the Failure rules too? That is, should we assume that hiding takes only a few seconds with access to cover, so we may give away our presence but have time to hide our location from anyone who didn't have line of sight when we revealed our presence?
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) "Etc." includes everything, but "guidelines" means the rules don't necessarily apply verbatim. But yes, I do think that trying to hide again doesn't take long, if you can meet the cover requirements.
Take 10 with a restriction
Outside an Encounter, you may choose to Take 10, unless you're being rushed, threatened, or distracted. Not being rushed equates to moving at half speed, being careful not to step on loose twigs, etc. That is, you move at half the speed implied by the Stealth penalty you're willing to take from moving.
Please don't do this. Say we can't take 10 on opposed checks, including passively opposed checks, if that's what you want. Or say that you can't take 10 if you're moving at a run (-10) or a walk (-5), but only if you're moving slowly (2 squares/move action, so 4/turn). But please don't introduce a system where penalties change depending on whether you're rolling the die left-handed or right-handed. That'll break in all sorts of ways at the edges.
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) I was iffy about this when I wrote it. I'm attempting ot put something specific behind "not being rushed" since it's the first question I'd expect if I didn't. I'm further trying to address it by pointing at an existing rule rather than writing a new one. I'd also like to give players explicit choices, where they can trade off speed vs. penalties, while still getting the benefit of a predictable result. Maybe I didn't do any or all of them well. Here's two more possible attempts:
- "Not being rushed" means accomplishing things at a pace equivalent to taking only a single Action per Round. This has an effect on rates of movement, speed of progress on Skill tasks, etc. (I think this is a different, and more general way of stating the same mechanical effect as my original.)
- "Not being rushed" means meeting all the requirements for "Remaining Hidden" above. Specifically, it means moving no more than the equivalent of 4 squares per round (2 Move actions of 2 Squares each.). (Compared to my original, this allows a higher speed with no penalty, but a lower maximum speed for people willing to accept a penalty.)
- Brian: The one Action/round is less broken than the original---at least it doesn't break atomicity for otherwise-atomic mechanics. I think the latter is even less broken. One of my concerns is Vlad's (and various Lurkers') powers for penalty negation while sneaking. May I suggest that you just can't take 10 on opposed rolls, and that Passive Perception and Passive Insight are special-case exceptions? That'll solve the vast majority of these problems without special cases for movement, actions, penalties, etc.
- Kurgan 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think actions outside of Combat are really atomic regardless. Part of my general philosophy here is that the "specific enough to be done by a computer" mechanics cease to apply outside of combat, but that we humans mine them for guidance. I'm not sure exactly what your concern beyond the atomicity comment may be, though. Either way, I think the new wording is a clearer form of the intent I was getting at.
- Kurgan 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Will you (on behalf of Vlad) really be happy with having no ability to take 10 on Stealth rolls ever? I was trying to maintain that ability, since I felt like it was the best representation of "being careful with extra time" in the system. If I were to disallow taking 10 here, I'd instead need to figure out whether there's any bonus associated with "being careful", and the outcome would be less predictable. I'm not sure whether I think predictability is good or bad, but it's certainly different.
Hiding before combat
Once Combat begins, every character who was attempting to hide makes a Stealth roll, just as if he had finished a move action using the in-combat rules above (with possible penalties based on his pre-combat movement speed). If they meet all the requirements for Remaining Hidden above, they may instead choose to use their group's roll result used when determining Surprise (as if that roll were their own from a previous Move action in combat).
This says that you can make a roll to hide, then decide whether to use the group's roll result from the group's Surprise roll.
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) No, "instead" means you get to either do that or make the roll. I'll clarify the wording.
Grouped hiding
A group of monsters may share a single roll at the DM's option, as with Initiative.
Can a group of PCs do the same, using the lowest modifier of the group? It's a much better deal under certain circumstances. Consider Vlad and Helena hiding up a tree, ell ewe arr kay eye enn gee. If either of them goofs, the presence of PCs is revealed to monsters. We fail if either of us rolls low, instead of the usual case where we succeed partially if either of us rolls high.
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) In general, PCs don't get to share rolls, no. That's a DM privilege to reduce bookkeeping for multiple monsters. I promise I'll use it to simplify things, not for tactical advantage.
That being said, I think the rules I wrote already give you what you want here. Vlad and Helena make a single roll to determine Surprise. Then Combat starts, and each of them may choose to either use that single Surprise roll as their Hiding roll, or to make another one.
- That's part of what I want if we're at least 10 away, I guess. Then the paladin reveals that there are *some* enemies and we get to stab them in the back. BrianSniffen 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kurgan 20:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Right. I think the "10 squares away" is a bit of a weird distinction, but it's what's in the book. The intent behind it might be "distinct groups", which is of course hard to define. But I feel like if Vlad and Helena got into position before the Paladin started clanking, they probably deserve their own separate roll, even if the Paladin comes within 10 squares. I may well be able to simply hand-wave such cases, since it's unclear who's within 10 squares of each other before combat starts. As you suggested last week, the map doesn't really exist (at least not in specific detail) until Combat starts.
Mutual accidental surprise
Neither side in an Encounter gains surprise unless they try - by laying an ambush, sneaking up, or springing an attack after opening a door.
Two groups are fumbling in a dark room, each unaware that the other is there. One walks into another. This isn't mutual accidental surprise, but a normal combat round. Right?
--Kurgan 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) If neither side is trying to be sneaky, then yes. Also, unless it's also a sound-dampened room, it's likely the encounter starts before anyone gets close enough to bump into each other.
If both sides are trying to be sneaky, then either only one of them succeeds, or they all do in which case either there's no encounter, or there's no Surprise round by application of the "everyone means noone" degenerate case I included.
- Right, right, I keep forgetting the hearing/presence rules. Those are a good thing to have. BrianSniffen 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
