Post/Author/DateTime	Post
katman 11-14-07, 01:02 AM	There's something that's been bothering me, and it finally bothered me enough to break out Excel and do the math (wish I could attach that...). Doing it explained a couple of things - like why Cloaks of Elvenkind went from interesting and moderately cool in 2ED to "I'll wear it if there's nothing else" in 3ED. It has to do with the nature of opposing skill checks. They aren't broken all of the time - but they are broken some of the time, and those times are important tactical moments. I'm not exactly sure how skills are going in 4ED, but I do know this - the 4ED designers need to take note and consider some fixes, because one of the big things they're touting (scaling up the number of opponents) is going to hit this problem, and hit it hard. I've left this on the 4ED boards so they have a heads-up, but there are some real implications for 3ED campaigns as well so I'm putting it out here. That's because the real problem arises when you calculate the odds of success against multiple opposed checks - something true for skills like Hide and Move silently in particular. To begin, let's ennumerate the odds involved in the basic opposed skill check, based on the difference between the attempted skill (A) and the opposed check (B). The interesting thing about the math involved is that the difference bites harder the higher it goes, because that difference also reaches into all tied checks which must be re-rolled. You end up with this table: Table 1: Opposed Skill Check Odds Difference | % Odds 0 50.00 1 45.24 2 40.71 3 36.43 4 32.38 5 28.57 6 25.00 7 21.67 8 18.57 9 15.71 10 13.10 11 10.71 12 8.57 13 6.67 14 5.00 15 3.57 16 2.38 17 1.43 18 0.71 19 0 20 0 This makes intuitive sense, when you think about it. When the modifiers cancel, each side has exactly even odds of winning. If the difference is 19 or higher, the disadvantaged party can never win because the best they can do is tie (Roll 20, other rolls 1+19=20), which means re-rolls, and eventually they must lose. Give one side a listen of +0 and the other a Move Silently of +10, and the listener cannot win on any roll of 11 or below, or on any roll of 10 or higher by the mover, and is still going to lose a lot in between. Table 1 just tells you the exact odds, which are around 13% in this case (difference =10). Which is pretty handy all by itself when designing encounters with key points like listen/move silently, hide/spot, diplomacy/sense motive checks, and what have you. The Problem of Multiple Checks The thing is, these odds change quite a bit when you throw multiple opposed checks into the mix. Those frequent interludes of "everyone in the party rolls a spot check" make life incredibly difficult for opposing monsters - but if sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and 4ED is about to push monster numbers back up to more historically standard D&D figures, the designers are about to break the stealth skills. The lack of formatting here makes it hard to reproduce all of the tables, but I can reproduce a couple results & scenarios to show you the effect. Let's say the elves have an agent names James. He's not normally an adventurer, though, and has no hide modifier. For some reason he needs to sneak past a series of orc patrols to deliver a message. Fortunately, this orc tribe follows Urush "the unobservant," a Favored Soul of Grummsh who preaches lack of observation skills as a virtue in homage to their Power's one eye. All orcs in this tribe have Spot +0. To make the odds even more ridiculous, the elves gave James 2 items: a ring that confers complete silence and odorlessness on the wearer, and a Cloak of Elvenkind. Should be a piece of cake, right? Not so fast. The math works as follows: Take an orc's odds of failure on one Spot check. If the orc doesn't fail, curtains for James. That percentage of "curtains for James" is taken off the table. If the orc does fail, on to the next orc, at which point the odds of failure are x% of x% (whatever the failure odds were). Let's see that in action: Listen checks, which would normally complicate matters, are off the table. The cloak gives James a +5 to Hide. This gives him only a 71.43% chance of making it past ONE orc with a +0 Spot check (you begin to see why 2ED non-thief adventurers who had these cloaks felt very ripped off). The chance of making it past 2 orcs who might see him is 71.43% of 71.43% (51.02%). Etc., etc. as you add postential instances, or potential observers to any one encounter. So, let's say James has to make it past either 5 sentry posts, or one sentry post where 5 orcs have a chance to see him. His odds of avoiding the dinner rotisserie spit? Just 18.6%, with all of his items, and these are orcs with +0 Spot skills. Increase that now to 10 orcs. Just 4.84% - less than 1 in 20. 20 iterations? 0.012% - just slightly more than 1 in 1,000. That's your base odds of sneaking past 20 orcs wearing a cloak of elvenkind in D&D. Not exactly Frodo and Sam in Mordor now, is it? Now, we could give James some skills. Make him James Bard and give him +5 skill/ability bonus on Hide checks. Or, we could start to kick up Cloaks of Elvenkind properly and make them +10. Either way, his odds now look like: * 1 orc = 86.9% (still not exactly overwhelming, given all his items etc.) * 5 orcs = 49.56%. That's right, less than even odds. *10 orcs = 24.56%, just under 25% * 20 orcs = 6.03%. And remember, they all have Spot +0 and James has all those advantages. The question begins to be: of what use are stealth attempts at all? As you can see, however, the drop off is slower, the bigger the difference is between the attempter and the opposers. Makes sense, 50% of 50% is only 25%, but 90% of 90% is 81% because you take less of a chunk out in each iteration. So let's kick James up one more time. His Cloak is the Lady Galadriel Versace Special, which confers +15 on Hide checks. He has the ring of complete inaudibility and odorlessness. The message must get through, and the orcs all have +0 Spot. Ridiculous overmatch. * 1 orc = 96.43% (basically, like a save where you fail on a 1) * 5 orcs = 83.38% (failure about 1 in 6) *10 orcs = 69.52%. Close to 1 in 3. With just 10 orcs, +0 spot, and all those advanatges. * 20 orcs = 48.33%. under even odds. For 4 orc sentry points of 5 orcs each. By the way, at an opposing check difference of 17 points, the 20 orc odds are 74.97%, and at 18 delta it's 86.72% Beyond that difference, success is guaranteed. Conclusions & Take-Aways A few conclusions drop out of this. One is that the mechanics for stealth in particular need an overhaul in 4ED. If you use the multiple checks approach, stealth becomes nearly useless once you up monster numbers. One solution is use the combining skill attempts rules instead for stealth. If so, however they must be used on both sides of the table - which means it's a lot less useful for anyone but the party's best listener/ spotter to invest in the skill. This may not be what you want, but it is likely to be what you'll get. Some way around that would be good, but I don't see one other than the standard "understudy approach" where you have a secondary skill player at a lesser level in case your #1 dies (vid. special forces cross-training). Maybe that's OK. If you do buy into the "combined skill check" idea, each additional individual adds +1 on average (mathematical average of +2, requires roll of 10 or better). That's better than the "everyone rolls" option because it doesn't chew the odds of success down as fast - but it can make stealth irrelevant as numbers spiral up high enough (20 orc patrols are hardly inconceivable). If the game goes with this approach, it's better to say that no more than 10 individuals can be engaged in spot or listen at any one time within a check. That "combined skill check" rule set would change James' odds against the 4 orc sentry points of 5 orcs each (each set on average +4 due to combined checks, so difference of 1/6/11): +5 Elf-Mart Cloak of Elvenkind = 8.99%. Much better than 1 in 1,000, but still sucks to be James. +10 Elf Lauren Cloak of Elvenkind = 31.64%. Remeber, was 6% under "everyone roll." Still seems kind of tough, really. +15 Galadriel Versace Cloak = 63.56%. You still wonder a bit how come the elves are still around, but beats 48.33%. Or, let's take a second scenario. James has to get by one warband of 40 orcs, who are looking for a spy. That's 4 groups of 10 followers of the unobservant one, average bonus +9 each because we're using combined skills rules: +5 Elf-Mart Cloak of Elvenkind = 1.1%. Nice knowing you, James. +10 Elf Lauren Cloak of Elvenkind = 8.99%. Still seems kind of tough, really, but "everyone rolls" would almost guarantee James' failure, and if you let them work in groups of 20 that's +19 average on the spot check and he's hosed again. If you limited skill checks to sets of 5 instead of 10, that's 8 groups of 5 at +4/6 difference = 10% odds. +15 Galadriel Versace Cloak = 31.64%. You definitely wonder how come the elves are still around. If you limited skill checks to sets of 5 instead of 10, that's 8 groups of 5 at +4/11 difference = 40% odds. Again, the improvement is there but marginal - and it's better than "everyone rolls" in either case. As you can see, this is an imperfect solution - but it does serve to illustrate the problem. Other take-aways... Cloaks of Elvenkind and Boots of Elvenkind need to be kicked up seriously in order to put them back to where they were - really, just to make them worth the bother of a slot, or more than a throw-away, low level item. The original boots were 95% silence in normal conditions, no opposed checks, dropping somewhat in penalty situations like squeaky floors etc. That's probably a +17 or +18 item, but with skills rules you could lower it to +15 and not break it. Rogues, rangers, assassins et. al. will pretty much take listen checks off the table with these things, unless they're up against a class or monster with some solid skillz of their own or very large numbers (but I'd penalize listen checks for lagre numbers, as someone is always making some noise after you reach certain thresholds). Other classes will get a decently useful item, as long as they don't have big armor penalties, but it's one they'd be wise not to rely on too much. If you want to tone them down a bit, well, ever worn shoes that don't really fit? Hit the boots with a -4 to -8 penalty for poor fit until they are adjusted - and this requires an elf who can make them, since fixing boots mean taking the boot apart and redoing it. Without that fix, the boots are +11 in the best case/ most lenient DMs, +7 in the worst. Kind of useful, not exactly world-beaters. But it's good to be an elf friend, and good/neutral types who find these boots will now be motivated to become one if they weren't already, in order to improve their footwear. That would suit the elves just fine. It would be very like them to make stuff like that. The 2ED cloaks gave 100% cover when motionless in wilderness, dropping in other situation that involved things like just shadows, or slow movement by the wearer. To put them back up to real usefulness, they need to be +10 to +15 items. An elf wearing a +15 cloak could easily end up with +20 Hide - but really, that isn't broken, that's what the cloak is supposed to do. Frankly, in a hostile world, the elves will need something that useful if they intend to live out their life spans with any frequency. If you want to introduce some graduation, say that the cloak's fit gives them a -4 penalty unless properly tailored to the wearer, and give the basic cloaks a bonus of +10 and the Greater Cloaks of Elvenkind +15. Now it matters to be an elf-friend and have a tailored cloak. if you're not, or when you first find them on adventure, they're useful but hardly better than the current item (10-4= +6) for the regular version, and only so-so useful (+11) for the greater cloak. The difference in efficacy incents people to sell them to elves and known elf-friends, or become a friend - which is exactly what the elves would want. Bingo! A useful, balanced, and game-world credible item. Comments, thoughts, etc. welcome....
runestar 11-14-07, 02:40 AM	First and foremost, a cookie for taking the effort to type coherently, making your point crystal clear and intuitive for people to understand, adding a little humour to make reading a long post that little more bearable, and keeping your tone polite and civil.:) You are aware that unlike saves, skill checks do not auto-fail on a natural 1, right? Your stance on this seems to see-saw back and forth constantly, so I cannot determine if you actually realize this or not. Likewise, I reckon that unless the orcs have a reason to be on the alert for anyone who might sneak past them, I think it would more efficient to just assume that they are taking 10 on all relevant skill checks (I believe some modules, such as CoTSQ advocate this to speed up the game). So in this case, a skill check of +11 or higher would be an auto-success every time. I find that I am inclined to agree with you that the sheer odds against you tend to make your exploits (or rather, your attempts at them) less cinematic, since the chances of success is so much lower. For example, I believe that when the Star Wars d20 system was first released, someone did the math and realized that under the then existing rules, Luke Skywalker (or was it Han Solo? I dunno - I am not a Star Wars fan) would only have a 45% chance of making it past that asteroid field, which would have cut short his career.:embarrass I acknowledge the problem, but I admit that I am unsure of how to resolve this issue, or whether it is a problem that should even be addressed in the first place or not. People want their PCs to be cinematic in that they can readily succeed at tasks which make them look cool, but how easily should they be allowed to succeed at this? Should every rogue be able to do a running vault, leap for the ceiling chandelier, swing across the hall, somersault a few times in the air and come to a tumbling halt before the BBEG with relative ease? By dnd rules, he will likely break his neck. For example, I am leery of the proposal to combine certain skill checks, as it looks like it may run into certain oddities, like an eagle with good eyesight/poor hearing being able to "spot" an invis rogue with decent move silently checks, as its bonus to spot helps to subsidize its deficiencies in listen. I am rambling, aren't I...:P
SolenVlos 11-14-07, 08:34 AM	In games I DM, I use the 3 grades items as you posted (but not with this names), being regular elf boots and cloaks(+5) the one elves gives and sells to other races, normal (+10) the one elves uses and superiors (+15) to important elves. I belive it's a fair solution.
gotbrain 11-14-07, 11:35 AM	Will these be handled like saving throws will be where we have static skill scores to roll against? I mean who would roll 20 skill checks to see if the PC was noticed? I would handle it like runestar suggested and have the orcs with no skill have a spot check of 10 so if the PC rolls 11 or higher he succeeds. With +5 boots it becomes more likely he will succeed needing only a 6 or higher (75% chance). And just because one of the orcs in the group (say a sentry with a +5 spot check) notices the PC doesn't mean all the other orcs automatically notice as well. Maybe the PC can take him out before he tells anyone else. Maybe he can trick him into following him around that rock to investigate where he can be quietly disposed of; It would give the DM and PC an opportunity to roll play. Remember the numbers are just there to provide a frame work for the story.
solbergb 11-14-07, 11:37 AM	Your analysis ignores the take 10 rules. Spot+0 vs cloak/boots of elvenkind and a racial dex bonus of +2 for an elf means a standard array elf commoner with cloak/boots of elvenkind+10 is immune to being spotted by any number of orcs in a noncombat situation, because his take 10 hide and move silent is 21. Your analysis also ignores the rather rapid degredation of spot/listen with respect to distance. If Joe Commoner stays even 10' away from the orcs, he doesn't even need the +2 dex bump if he's got the magic items.
DM-Scott 11-14-07, 01:44 PM	In my group, most NPCs are assumed to be taking 10 + additional modifiers, which becomes something like DC 15 check to be unnoticed at level 1 by a basic scout (spot/listen 4 ranks, +1 wisdom). Not exactly the true fashion that opposed skills are handled in, I don't believe, but it works pretty well. It can be reversed as well, so that PCs get spot & listen checks based on a DC set by an NPC's hide / move silently modifiers if you want, or make it so that the NPCs roll against a DC set by the party. Either method works fairly well. If you want it to be more difficult to sneak by a group of enemies, perhaps tack on a +1 circumstance bonus to the group's highest perception based skill modifiers for every two spotters in the area (if you have 6 goblins, increase the hide/move silently DC by +3). That way the DC to beat 6 goblins with no ranks in spot or listen (+0 modifier) would be DC 13; and if the goblin party has someone with spot / listen, you would use their modifier +3. This would be a huge advantage for being in greater numbers, but if you remember the -1 penalty to spot & listen for every 10ft of distance between them, it works fairly well (say if you're sneaking around a goblin camp). Generally, NPCs the party faces in my games right now already work like the "enhanced combat" of 4E as far as I understand it. Large groups of weaker enemies, with various roles filled (warrior types, finesse / expert types, spellcaster types, battlefield control, debilitation, buffers, and so forth), and most combat group NPCs I have include at least 1 lookout NPC with decent perception skills (max ranks for level, perhaps skill focus or the alertness feat). On a side note (which I'm not bashin' 4E btw), because of this I don't really see how 4E is retuning combat when 3E does the same thing. Just some ideas. Peace out, Game on.
Blue Paladin 11-14-07, 05:12 PM	...I believe that when the Star Wars d20 system was first released, someone did the math and realized that under the then existing rules, Luke Skywalker (or was it Han Solo? I dunno - I am not a Star Wars fan) would only have a 45% chance of making it past that asteroid field, which would have cut short his career.:embarrass Absolutely ridiculous! Everyone knows the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are approximately 3720 to 1. And the rules couldn't even get that right![/tongue in cheek]
PhaedrusXY 11-14-07, 05:44 PM	Your analysis also ignores the rather rapid degredation of spot/listen with respect to distance. If Joe Commoner stays even 10' away from the orcs, he doesn't even need the +2 dex bump if he's got the magic items.THIS The numbers in the OP are for an elf sneaking right by the orcs, as in getting closer than 10 feet away from them.
katman 11-15-07, 02:38 AM	Runestar, You're welcome. And yes, I'm aware that 1 is not auto-failure. In a no-modifiers situation, it could of course be a tie. If I you was able to post the excel sheet, that would have been clearer, but the fact is figured into all of my odds. N.B. solbergb. As I understand it, an elf with Cloak & Boots as written only gets +5 to hide, not +10, just as he gets only +5 move silently, not +10. Throw in the effect of multiple iterations as described, and even with racial Dex Bonus, Joeth Elf is in big trouble when trying to move past creatures who can spot him (listen AND spot checks = 2 attempts for each participant, by the strict rules). Better hope he has the Galadriel Versace... Overall... The Take 10 idea is a solid one. I'd have to go over it in more depth with the number-crunching to see its balance, but it seems to largely resolve the issue. It also seems to be a popular DM measure mentioned in this and the 4E thread, which speaks well for it. Not 100%, I think, but definitely a 60% or 80% solution and that's a big step forward. The +10' = -1 rule is also important to remember. I had forgotten it. It does help some. DM-Scott, good ideas overall. I'll add that I also like Hebitsuikaza's suggestion in the 4E thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14330666&postcount=5) re: augmenting listen/spot checks depending on the level of skill of the helpers. That makes sense to me. Some combo of that and DM-Scott's idea may be the answer, at least until/unless the entire underlying mechanic gets a fix.
InkBlot 11-15-07, 03:13 AM	Great post Katman! From now on, when I DM I'm going to make sure groups of NPCs/enemies take 10 on their spot and listen checks. The lack of formatting here makes it hard to reproduce all of the tables, but I can reproduce a couple results & scenarios to show you the effect. You can use code tags to create tables. Quote this post to see how it's done. Table 1: Opposed Skill Check Odds Difference % Odds 0 50.00 1 45.24 2 40.71 3 36.43 4 32.38 5 28.57 6 25.00 7 21.67 8 18.57 9 15.71 10 13.10 11 10.71 12 8.57 13 6.67 14 5.00 15 3.57 16 2.38 17 1.43 18 0.71 19 0 20 0
solbergb 11-15-07, 11:43 AM	N.B. solbergb. As I understand it, an elf with Cloak & Boots as written only gets +5 to hide, not +10, just as he gets only +5 move silently, not +10. Throw in the effect of multiple iterations as described, and even with racial Dex Bonus, Joeth Elf is in big trouble when trying to move past creatures who can spot him (listen AND spot checks = 2 attempts for each participant, by the strict rules). Better hope he has the Galadriel Versace... Sorry. I was confusing it with ring of chamelion power. Ok, so he has to stay 50' away from the orcs while scouting them. This is only prudent. I'm of the camp that the hide/move silent folks should take 10, but the guys spotting them should roll. You get the best outcomes in both directions that way generally (spotters get the benefit of numbers, sneakers get the benefit of skill), although if the spotter is HIGH skill that may not be true.
BW0222 11-15-07, 11:03 PM	katman, I also enjoyed the analysis and the topic in general. However, the math does look a lot different when you consider a couple of things -- the take 10 rule and the fact that few monsters actually have high listen and spot checks. A typical commoner has +0 to spot and listen. A 1st-level rogue with 4 ranks, +3 dex, and stealthy, only has a 10% chance of being spotted when taking a ten. Give him an elven cloak and he honestly can't be detected, no matter how many commoners there are. This effect is even better for the rogue if the DM assumes that large groups are also 'taking a 10'. Commoners always get a 10 and the rogue always sneaks past them. By the time a person gets about +15 there are few creatures in monster manual which can detect him once he takes a 10. At 25, few creatures in the monster manual have even +10 spots. Amongst PC classes there are few which have spot as a class skill and fewer builds which max it out. This appears to be played out in my experience of the game. By say 7th or 8th-level rogue and other stealth type characters are rarely actually spotted through checks -- they are more worried about ways of sneaking past scent, blindsight, tremorsense, darkvision, etc.
katman 11-15-07, 11:21 PM	Many thanks for the table help, Inkblot, that was very useful.
katman 11-16-07, 12:01 AM	A typical commoner has +0 to spot and listen. A 1st-level rogue with 4 ranks, +3 dex, and stealthy, only has a 10% chance of being spotted when taking a ten. Give him an elven cloak and he honestly can't be detected, no matter how many commoners there are. This effect is even better for the rogue if the DM assumes that large groups are also 'taking a 10'. Commoners always get a 10 and the rogue always sneaks past them. This is useful to help me think through the "taking 10" thing, but I think I'm missing something. Let's make him a 2nd level rogue with 5 ranks, +3 dex (so +8), and an elven cloak (+5 Elf-Mart). That's +13. Commoners are +0 and taking 10. Check. Scenario 1: There are 10 of them, and they're helping each other. Average bonus is now +9. Taking 10 is 19. Difference is 6, and no longer an opposed roll so odds are just under 30%. Looks like enough commoners can find our friend. Scenario 2: It's a citizen's watch patrol, there are 5 of them, so only +4 average bonus = 14, rogue can't lose. There need to be 6 minimum if you're averaging, in order to find him. Hmm, the Take 10 really changes things. Let's run this with normal orcs to double-check: Orcs are +2 Spot, but all that gets them in a group of 5 is +6 average, and 16 vs. +13 is about a 11.5% chance. Things change to 21.67% if they get to roll d20 as a collective effort (difference 7), which is about double the odds. The biggest difference comes with that single orc, of course, who now has a 10.71% chance to find our friend with opposed d20 rolling, where under Take 10 he has none. I think we can confirm that "Take 10" rules have a pretty major effects on stealth checks, especially given their ability to take multiple check issues off the table a LOT sooner because you reach "can't see me" plateaus 10 points earlier. Using them does put other questions back into play, however, like how many folks can help via skill cooperation bonuses. Will have to think about this some more.
Pezz 11-16-07, 12:56 AM	How would group size penalties affect the dice rolling %? the larger the group is, the greater a penalty. something along the lines of every 3 people in the group gets a -1 penalty to spot and listen. you know that in any group, unless they are being careful, there will be something to distract you. whether it is a friend/ally talking, or bumping into you, or just interfering with your field of vision. so, that group of 5 orcs would have a -1 penalty to their spots, but that group of 10 would have -3. of course, there would have to be a cap on the limit of the penalty, otherwise larger groups would have spot checks so low that they couldn't see their hand in front of their faces...
Tzzird 11-16-07, 02:12 AM	I think that any intelegent creature that has been or is going to be on watch should be taking a 10 on spot and listen. Anything that isn't on watch should roll, but suffer the -5 penalty for being distracted. And it should be very difficult for a first level carector to sneak past large groups of orcs. To test this try sneaking up on your friends (not to call your friends orcs, even though we've all met people at cons who smell like them) and see if you can do it. I bet that when you walk within 10 of them, ecspecaly if they're looking for you, they will see you. I know that DnD charectors are suposed to be better then you're average person however a lv.1 realy isn't much of an improvement.
Johnny_Angel 11-16-07, 03:00 AM	The math is solid; I have no complaints there. I just want to say that I think it makes sense (to me) that it would be more difficult to sneak by a group of orcs on watch than it would be to sneak by one orc on watch. I do see the reasoning for your analysis though, and it's something which I will give some further thought.
DMDaddy 11-16-07, 01:58 PM	The math looks good. I'll take this into consideration next time I DM. My players are always trying the heroic sneaks. However, how does the math hold up with take 10 and -1 per 10'? My players are always taking distances into account and choosing wise distances for less chance of being spotted. They succeed most of the time. So I'm torn: I see the point and agree with the math, but also, I think it needs to be redone with take 10s and -1 per 10'. It should also be noted that sometimes it is just impossible to sneak within 10' of 100 orcs. While most orcs will be taking 10, others will be actively looking around.
risner 11-16-07, 03:42 PM	I'm not exactly sure how skills are going in 4ED, but I do know this - the 4ED designers need to take note and consider some fixes, because one of the big things they're touting (scaling up the number of opponents) is going to hit this problem, and hit it hard. I think 4E may fix your problem. 4E will almost certainly take the Saga Edition of Skills: Skilled/Trained = +5 Unskilled/Untrained = +0 Skill Focus (Feat) = +5 So you are either +0, +5, or +10 to a skill (not counting stat mod.) The chance to get +19 or more apart is going to be less. You have a limited number of trained skills (the ones you get at 1st level) and you never get more skills as trained.
solbergb 11-16-07, 04:17 PM	You're missing something on the Sega skills, which is all characters get an increase in every skill (half their level? Something like that). So if you are high level, you'll likely sneak past all the minion guards with or without skill trained. It's only for your peers (the enemy elite tracker, or master sergeant or whatever) that you want the skill trained, with perhaps skill focus or item enhancements to get the edge you need.
katman 11-21-07, 02:12 PM	So I'm torn: I see the point and agree with the math, but also, I think it needs to be redone with take 10s and -1 per 10'. The Take 10 has a pretty big impact, especially because it puts sneaks out of detection reach 10 points earlier. If you're using Take 10, my math has a LOT less effect, because you're into the slow drop-off zone very quickly and out of detection range much quicker, too. It should also be noted that sometimes it is just impossible to sneak within 10' of 100 orcs. While most orcs will be taking 10, others will be actively looking around. Remember that it isn't just about sneaking up to them, but about having them march up to/ past you while you're hidden. That can be dealt with in a few ways - one being only a few spot checks because only a very few are looking, another being "aid another" group size limits even if they are all alert, etc. The whole thing isn't done exceptionally well in the rules, and a good DM can compensate (if aware of the issue), but it would be nice to have the rules handle this a bit better, mindful of the math above.
katman 11-21-07, 04:21 PM	FYI, all, this thread has been picked up in Regdar's Reporsitory (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=951002). Some good discussion over there, too.