Allow a spot check? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Allow a spot check? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Im_hiding
08-05-07, 06:42 PM In the future, my party will go up against a small Duergar patrol. It will contain five fighter5, one Cleric7 and one Sorcerer7.

What I would like to do is have the fighters enlarge and then have the Sorcerer and Cleric go invisible behind the size large wedge of fighters. But I want to do sleigh of hand when I replace the miniatures - where 7 medium creatures once were, there are now 5 size L.

Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish?
StevenO
08-05-07, 07:31 PM The characters would get an initial spot check to see all seven opponents. If they haven't been noticed the two may not be seen behind the five large dwarves but if they can't be seen they also can't see the party.

If they party originally sees them they still have a good idea where they are.
You may allow the casters to use the fighters as cover to attempt to hide but that is opposed by the PC's Spot checks.
If you rule the fighters provide full cover for the casters then they can't be seen but also can't see the PCs.

Maybe I'm not answering the actual question. I would say a spot check is not required to notice the casters "disappear" after they've been seen once.
Mock26
08-05-07, 08:43 PM In the future, my party will go up against a small Duergar patrol. It will contain five fighter5, one Cleric7 and one Sorcerer7.

What I would like to do is have the fighters enlarge and then have the Sorcerer and Cleric go invisible behind the size large wedge of fighters. But I want to do sleigh of hand when I replace the miniatures - where 7 medium creatures once were, there are now 5 size L.

Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish?

I think that this would be a great time to let the players be responsible for something, and not the characters. So, I'd say that you put down the 7 miniatures and once they enlarge themselves that you simply remove all 7 miniatures at the same time (by just enveloping them in both hands and pulling them off the board) and then replace them with the 5 enlarged miniatures. And, when you do it, talk up a storm to the players and describe in vivid detail the enlargement process. Then, let the players worry about. I'm pretty sure one of them will notice that you have replaced 7 miniatures with 5 miniatures and mention something. Then let them make spot checks or simply tell them that they now only see 5 duergar instead of the 7. In my opinion sometimes the game should be more than simply rolling the dice for every conceivable possibility and that sometimes it is better for the players to work something out for themselves, even if it is clearly a situation where a skill roll would do a better job than the player would.
DrMorganes
08-05-07, 09:12 PM Will there be a possibility of a surprise round? If so, it's possible that the casters would go invisible before the PCs even notice their enemies.

If there is no surprise, initiative will dictate whether the PCs would need a spot check or not. If the duergar go first, allow the Spot Check before you describe their actions. If the PCs go first, they'll have seen their enemies.

While I like the idea of Mock's suggestion, such things may be perceived as "cheating" on your part unless your DMing style would lead your players to be on guard for such "tricks". If you think you can get away with it without your players crying foul, go for it! Otherwise, stick with something a bit more within the rules. After all, the entire point of a Spot Check is to allow the characters the opportunity to see something you don't necessarily want the players to know about immediately.
Mock26
08-05-07, 09:20 PM While I like the idea of Mock's suggestion, such things may be perceived as "cheating" on your part unless your DMing style would lead your players to be on guard for such "tricks". If you think you can get away with it without your players crying foul, go for it! Otherwise, stick with something a bit more within the rules. After all, the entire point of a Spot Check is to allow the characters the opportunity to see something you don't necessarily want the players to know about immediately.
I agree with your statements, which is why I said that sometimes it is OK to make the players responsible and not the characters.
Marcus Majarra
08-06-07, 01:44 AM Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish?
You're not looking at this exactly. Creatures never provide enough cover to hide behind them (see PHB151). As such, unless the cleric and the sorcerer had some cover to begin with, they would always be in plain sight of the party. Thus, they can't hide conventionally behind the frontliners (without some other form of cover), and will thus be seen as magically vanishing if they resort to magical invisibility.

Alternatively, both the cleric and the sorcerer could use Bluff to create a diversion to hide (PHB68) before going into magical invisibility. I would certainly grant them a +2 circumstance bonus for using the frontliners' sudden change of size as a way to get the PCs to think they're hiding behind the large dwarves, but this will entitle PCs to both a Sense Motive check to recognize the Bluff, and a subsequent Spot check to discern the Hiding spellcasters.
Nom
08-06-07, 08:02 AM I agree with Marcus on rules, and Mock on gamesmanship. What I would do is make all the various Spot and Sense Motive rolls (and possibly Spellcraft rolls) for the party before the encounter begins. That way you already know which PCs will see what. Then do as Mock suggests: sweep up all 7, blather a bit, and drop 5 back down. If someone calls you on it and no-one made their checks, shrug your shoulders and admit you made a mistake; there are only 5. If someone made their check, say "Well, there might have been 7, but there are definitely only 5 there now".

There are times when deliberately blurring the player/PC abstraction can make for a more interesting game and help the players to empathise with their PCs; this is one of those times.
Mock26
08-06-07, 01:28 PM I agree with Marcus on rules, and Mock on gamesmanship. What I would do is make all the various Spot and Sense Motive rolls (and possibly Spellcraft rolls) for the party before the encounter begins. That way you already know which PCs will see what. Then do as Mock suggests: sweep up all 7, blather a bit, and drop 5 back down. If someone calls you on it and no-one made their checks, shrug your shoulders and admit you made a mistake; there are only 5. If someone made their check, say "Well, there might have been 7, but there are definitely only 5 there now".

There are times when deliberately blurring the player/PC abstraction can make for a more interesting game and help the players to empathise with their PCs; this is one of those times.

I nominate Nom and his above post as being the winner of this thread!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Im_hiding 08-05-07, 06:42 PM	In the future, my party will go up against a small Duergar patrol. It will contain five fighter5, one Cleric7 and one Sorcerer7. What I would like to do is have the fighters enlarge and then have the Sorcerer and Cleric go invisible behind the size large wedge of fighters. But I want to do sleigh of hand when I replace the miniatures - where 7 medium creatures once were, there are now 5 size L. Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish?
StevenO 08-05-07, 07:31 PM	The characters would get an initial spot check to see all seven opponents. If they haven't been noticed the two may not be seen behind the five large dwarves but if they can't be seen they also can't see the party. If they party originally sees them they still have a good idea where they are. You may allow the casters to use the fighters as cover to attempt to hide but that is opposed by the PC's Spot checks. If you rule the fighters provide full cover for the casters then they can't be seen but also can't see the PCs. Maybe I'm not answering the actual question. I would say a spot check is not required to notice the casters "disappear" after they've been seen once.
Mock26 08-05-07, 08:43 PM	In the future, my party will go up against a small Duergar patrol. It will contain five fighter5, one Cleric7 and one Sorcerer7. What I would like to do is have the fighters enlarge and then have the Sorcerer and Cleric go invisible behind the size large wedge of fighters. But I want to do sleigh of hand when I replace the miniatures - where 7 medium creatures once were, there are now 5 size L. Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish? I think that this would be a great time to let the players be responsible for something, and not the characters. So, I'd say that you put down the 7 miniatures and once they enlarge themselves that you simply remove all 7 miniatures at the same time (by just enveloping them in both hands and pulling them off the board) and then replace them with the 5 enlarged miniatures. And, when you do it, talk up a storm to the players and describe in vivid detail the enlargement process. Then, let the players worry about. I'm pretty sure one of them will notice that you have replaced 7 miniatures with 5 miniatures and mention something. Then let them make spot checks or simply tell them that they now only see 5 duergar instead of the 7. In my opinion sometimes the game should be more than simply rolling the dice for every conceivable possibility and that sometimes it is better for the players to work something out for themselves, even if it is clearly a situation where a skill roll would do a better job than the player would.
DrMorganes 08-05-07, 09:12 PM	Will there be a possibility of a surprise round? If so, it's possible that the casters would go invisible before the PCs even notice their enemies. If there is no surprise, initiative will dictate whether the PCs would need a spot check or not. If the duergar go first, allow the Spot Check before you describe their actions. If the PCs go first, they'll have seen their enemies. While I like the idea of Mock's suggestion, such things may be perceived as "cheating" on your part unless your DMing style would lead your players to be on guard for such "tricks". If you think you can get away with it without your players crying foul, go for it! Otherwise, stick with something a bit more within the rules. After all, the entire point of a Spot Check is to allow the characters the opportunity to see something you don't necessarily want the players to know about immediately.
Mock26 08-05-07, 09:20 PM	While I like the idea of Mock's suggestion, such things may be perceived as "cheating" on your part unless your DMing style would lead your players to be on guard for such "tricks". If you think you can get away with it without your players crying foul, go for it! Otherwise, stick with something a bit more within the rules. After all, the entire point of a Spot Check is to allow the characters the opportunity to see something you don't necessarily want the players to know about immediately. I agree with your statements, which is why I said that sometimes it is OK to make the players responsible and not the characters.
Marcus Majarra 08-06-07, 01:44 AM	Do they get a spot check to notice the two essentially behind cover vanish? You're not looking at this exactly. Creatures never provide enough cover to hide behind them (see PHB151). As such, unless the cleric and the sorcerer had some cover to begin with, they would always be in plain sight of the party. Thus, they can't hide conventionally behind the frontliners (without some other form of cover), and will thus be seen as magically vanishing if they resort to magical invisibility. Alternatively, both the cleric and the sorcerer could use Bluff to create a diversion to hide (PHB68) before going into magical invisibility. I would certainly grant them a +2 circumstance bonus for using the frontliners' sudden change of size as a way to get the PCs to think they're hiding behind the large dwarves, but this will entitle PCs to both a Sense Motive check to recognize the Bluff, and a subsequent Spot check to discern the Hiding spellcasters.
Nom 08-06-07, 08:02 AM	I agree with Marcus on rules, and Mock on gamesmanship. What I would do is make all the various Spot and Sense Motive rolls (and possibly Spellcraft rolls) for the party before the encounter begins. That way you already know which PCs will see what. Then do as Mock suggests: sweep up all 7, blather a bit, and drop 5 back down. If someone calls you on it and no-one made their checks, shrug your shoulders and admit you made a mistake; there are only 5. If someone made their check, say "Well, there might have been 7, but there are definitely only 5 there now". There are times when deliberately blurring the player/PC abstraction can make for a more interesting game and help the players to empathise with their PCs; this is one of those times.
Mock26 08-06-07, 01:28 PM	I agree with Marcus on rules, and Mock on gamesmanship. What I would do is make all the various Spot and Sense Motive rolls (and possibly Spellcraft rolls) for the party before the encounter begins. That way you already know which PCs will see what. Then do as Mock suggests: sweep up all 7, blather a bit, and drop 5 back down. If someone calls you on it and no-one made their checks, shrug your shoulders and admit you made a mistake; there are only 5. If someone made their check, say "Well, there might have been 7, but there are definitely only 5 there now". There are times when deliberately blurring the player/PC abstraction can make for a more interesting game and help the players to empathise with their PCs; this is one of those times. I nominate Nom and his above post as being the winner of this thread!