Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 12:14 PM	Hello all! I've played 3.x since launch, and one of the primary concerns that most players have is that spot and listen are not class skills for every class. Here is my assumption: The skills spot and listen are class skills for certain classes and cross class for others do to the classes role and the general fact that it is an opposed roll. Spot- On of the primary uses for spot is to oppose hide/slight of hand checks. "But fighters should be town-guard like and need to notice thieves and stuff, don't they need spot?" No. The average thug off street, has MAYBE a 12 dex if they are an exceptionaly agile street urchin. As a commoner, They don't have Class access to hide/s.o.h. so they will have to take it as a cross class skill. The average DC that the town guard will have to beat to notice the rapscallions is 10-12. If the guards all had 4 modifiers on spot, the role of thief would not exist as a viable (unethical, lazy) way of life. Spot is reserved to characters that need to notice hiden traps and enemys, or he and his friends die. Rangers, rogues, scouts and the like. "But what about all the other uses for spot, like noticing things that don't fit in and..." You do not need spot to notice things. That is what search is for. The optional uses for spot are reading lips and judging distance. Listen- Listen is opposed by move silently. Thus, the first instance with the Town Guard apply's here as well. Only the trained thieves last long in the criminal world. That is till they are opposed by a trained detective or tracker. "What if I want to listen to the conversation the monsters are having in the next room?" Listening through a door is DC 5. Thats not hard. To hear what is being said, 15. Still not the most difficult. But it sounds like the wizard should be taking the backseat here anyway, this is a job for an elf or a rogue. One of the things I have noticed is that alot of DM's in my area have just made arbitrary spot/listen checks. Not to oppose Hide/MS, but to notice simple things, or to force characters into points of storylines. It's not that its a bad use of the skill, it just make a useful skill seem like an absolutly nessesary skill for all classes. What do you all think about spot/listen?
Matthew77 02-26-07, 12:30 PM	One of the things I have noticed is that alot of DM's in my area have just made arbitrary spot/listen checks. Not to oppose Hide/MS, but to notice simple things, or to force characters into points of storylines. It's not that its a bad use of the skill, it just make a useful skill seem like an absolutly nessesary skill for all classes. This is very true.. in fact, I do this myself. I'm trying to move away from overuse of Spot/Listen, because usually, if I call for an unopposed spot check its because there is something I want the PCs to notice, so I might as well just tell them about it and not bother with the check. However, I disagree with some of your other arguments. The Town Guard example: I think it depends on the campaign. If all Town Guards are level 1 Warriors and all thieves are level 1 Commoners, then your conclusions are correct. Personally, my campaigns tend to give out class levels to almost everyone. The Guard is likely a level 2-3 Fighter, while the average street thief is at least a level 1 Rogue with 14 Dex. Otherwise, he would soon be either in jail, starving, or apprenticed to some other trade. Actually, I really don't like the idea of class skills at all. Especially not for skills that can be used untrained. I can understand making Heal or Use Magic Device training take more resources for cross-classes, but why would skills like Spot or Knowledge or Survival? Non-skill focused classes are penalized already by giving them fewer skill points in the first place, why add insult to injury by further restricting their choices for the few skill points they do have? I know that if I was the Captain of the Town Guard in an Urban setting, my training sessions for my guardsmen would include instruction in spotting pickpockets and detecting lies, not in teaching animals tricks or learning to swim.
Jaxgaret 02-26-07, 01:10 PM	I know that if I was the Captain of the Town Guard in an Urban setting, my training sessions for my guardsmen would include instruction in spotting pickpockets and detecting lies, not in teaching animals tricks or learning to swim. Let's see... training in spotting pickpockets and detecting lies... sounds like Skill Focus: Spot and Skill Focus: Sense Motive to me. Something any 1st level Human can pick up. Or it could be a single custom +2/+2 skill feat. Take Alertness, Skill Focus: Listen, and Skill Focus: Spot and you've got +5 to Listen and Spot right there. One Flaw will net a Human that at 1st.
Aminvelos 02-26-07, 01:12 PM	Personally I think it's a nice counter balance, and character building tool. This is quite useful for new players as I see if because they start to understand their role in the group more easily. Once when I played a fighter I trained dogs and taught them tricks. I think that's one thing people overlook with fighters. With some time and work you can create yourself some nice hunting dogs without a touch of a ranger. My dm's in the past typically haven't had us "forcifully" find anything. You either make the check or you don't. You either see the band of thieves at a certain point or get in a very rough life & death situation the next. I remember once we were in this tower and we looked around and fought for our lives for two days until we reached the entrance in hopes of getting the hell outta there only to finally find a secret passage. (Nick finally rolled it) idk I think it helps define character and allows the more melee oriented classes to even out with their general lack of skills. (in comparison to rogs/bards/and with a good INT mod you can have a decent listen or spot as a wizard.)
Aminvelos 02-26-07, 01:15 PM	Personally I think it's a nice counter balance, and character building tool. This is quite useful for new players as I see if because they start to understand their role in the group more easily. Once when I played a fighter I trained dogs and taught them tricks. I think that's one thing people overlook with fighters. With some time and work you can create yourself some nice hunting dogs without a touch of a ranger. My dm's in the past typically haven't had us "forcifully" find anything. You either make the check or you don't. You either see the band of thieves at a certain point or get in a very rough life & death situation the next. I remember once we were in this tower and we looked around and fought for our lives for two days until we reached the entrance in hopes of getting the hell outta there only to finally find a secret passage. (Nick finally rolled it) idk I think it helps define character and allows the more melee oriented classes to even out with their general lack of skills. (in comparison to rogs/bards/and with a good INT mod you can have a decent listen or spot as a wizard.) But then again my dm's generally have a hard set roll you have to get, peroid. If you don't find it that's just your luck sometimes it's better you don't find it, sometimes you miss the treasure of a life time, and sometimes it's both.
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 01:16 PM	This is very true.. in fact, I do this myself. I'm trying to move away from overuse of Spot/Listen, because usually, if I call for an unopposed spot check its because there is something I want the PCs to notice, so I might as well just tell them about it and not bother with the check. However, I disagree with some of your other arguments. The Town Guard example: I think it depends on the campaign. If all Town Guards are level 1 Warriors and all thieves are level 1 Commoners, then your conclusions are correct. Personally, my campaigns tend to give out class levels to almost everyone. The Guard is likely a level 2-3 Fighter, while the average street thief is at least a level 1 Rogue with 14 Dex. Otherwise, he would soon be either in jail, starving, or apprenticed to some other trade. Actually, I really don't like the idea of class skills at all. Especially not for skills that can be used untrained. I can understand making Heal or Use Magic Device training take more resources for cross-classes, but why would skills like Spot or Knowledge or Survival? Non-skill focused classes are penalized already by giving them fewer skill points in the first place, why add insult to injury by further restricting their choices for the few skill points they do have? I know that if I was the Captain of the Town Guard in an Urban setting, my training sessions for my guardsmen would include instruction in spotting pickpockets and detecting lies, not in teaching animals tricks or learning to swim. Very understandable. In a game where standard towns folks are allowed to access the heroic classes, it stands to reason that enemys will be stronger than the base classes were intended to go up against. This warrants an increase of abilities of the characters. If the thieves in the town are all 3rd lvl rogues, the guards need to be fighters and rangers.
Finarin Panjoro 02-26-07, 01:44 PM	If the thieves in the town are all 3rd lvl rogues, the guards need to be fighters and rangers. This is still not necessarily the case. Hide has the limitation of requiring cover or concealment to work. A 20th level rogue can't make it through a well-lit open room without being spotted by a 1st level warrior (without the aid of magic). As in real life, the best defense against thieves are well prepared grounds (well-lit open spaces with no cover or concealment). Guards simply don't need Spot and Listen as class skills to do their jobs well. A guard with maxed cross-class ranks would be exceptionally good at his job. Making Spot and Listen class skills for everyone also completely screws with any character that uses Hide and Move Silently on a regular basis. Common guards have to be less observant than a rogue's max-ranked Hide skill for the sneaky rogue to be a viable character class. An elite guard would be a ranger or a rogue themselves with max ranks in Spot and Listen and should be the primary challenge for the sneak to bypass (requiring the creation of distractions, removal of light sources, setting up a situation that calls him away from his post, or whatever). Some characters should be more observant than others and I think the current selection of classes is about right. It's focused on characters who use their senses to survive constantly (ranger, druid, barbarian) or are trained in stealth themselves and thus are best at countering it (rogue, bard, monk).
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 01:57 PM	Making Spot and Listen class skills for everyone also completely screws with any character that uses Hide and Move Silently on a regular basis. Common guards have to be less observant than a rogue's max-ranked Hide skill for the sneaky rogue to be a viable character class. An elite guard would be a ranger or a rogue themselves with max ranks in Spot and Listen and should be the primary challenge for the sneak to bypass (requiring the creation of distractions, removal of light sources, setting up a situation that calls him away from his post, or whatever). Some characters should be more observant than others and I think the current selection of classes is about right. It's focused on characters who use their senses to survive constantly (ranger, druid, barbarian) or are trained in stealth themselves and thus are best at countering it (rogue, bard, monk). Exactly what I was trying to explain. I have to explain this about twice a session with some of the players I game with.
tarkin 02-26-07, 02:04 PM	You are correct that Spot and Listen are two very important skills that everyone wants. Similarly, high hitpoints, high saves, and high BAB are all very important things that everyone wants. It is for that very reason that ONLY SPECIAL CLASSES should get them. The mere fact that you want them in no way indicates everyone should get them, infact it does the opposite. Some people complain about how rangers are weak - poor armor, low hitpoints, etc. Spot and Listen (along with spellcasting) are part of the balancing factors that make Rangers equal to fighters. The game change you are discussing is not 'fair'. It takes one of the major strengths of otherwise weak characters and gives it to everyone. You want the fancy sports car, you got to pay the high end price. If you don't want to pay the cost, don't whine about how expensive it is and how you wish you could get it anyway.
Vegepygmy 02-26-07, 02:16 PM	Everything Tarkin just said. :pile:
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 02:26 PM	Um, what? Isn't that what Finarin Panjoro and I just said? Classes have skills for a reason.
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 02:28 PM	There are 10 kinds of people, those that understand Binary and those that don't. Lol, 2.... This quote makes me smile.
Puca 02-26-07, 02:58 PM	What are the other eight kinds?
Vegepygmy 02-26-07, 03:18 PM	Um, what? Isn't that what Finarin Panjoro and I just said?Yes. We're vigorously agreeing with you. Did you want us to argue with you?
Suzaku455 02-26-07, 03:23 PM	Yes. We're vigorously agreeing with you. Did you want us to argue with you? Yea I think he's waiting for someone argue, such as someone saying nothing but bull along with saying he's an expert in some sort of field.
Jaxgaret 02-26-07, 03:38 PM	What are the other eight kinds? You mean the other 1000 kinds? :rimshot:
Puca 02-26-07, 04:08 PM	Im really tempted to keep playing dumb on this, but Ive done enough damage. :)
Aggrenox 02-26-07, 05:22 PM	Wait what? No I want to hear a good supportive arguement for the other side. Did you want us to argue with you? No- I just misread the comment.
Crashy75 02-27-07, 01:25 AM	Doesn't it bother you that the commoner gets spot and listen but the fighter doesn't? I would think the city watch would catch on. "Don't learn any combat skills. We need you to keep your senses sharp!" Spot is reserved to characters that need to notice hiden traps and enemys, or he and his friends die. Rangers, rogues, scouts and the like. And commoners. ;) Listen- Listen is opposed by move silently. Thus, the first instance with the Town Guard apply's here as well. Only the trained thieves last long in the criminal world. That is till they are opposed by a trained detective or tracker. Or a commoner. See where I'm going with this? EDIT: Honestly, i think most career (non-rogue) NPC criminals would be experts that would select thief-like skills as class skills. They might also have stealthy as a feat (countering alertness). Any commoner that's doing some thieving would probably desperate and starving and would likely get caught.
High Octane 02-27-07, 03:06 AM	I think fighters should get spot and listen as class skills. Do I have a flavor reason? Nope. I just think fighters need a slight boost to their playability, and a wider skill set helps that.
Vegepygmy 02-27-07, 03:11 AM	Doesn't it bother you that the commoner gets spot and listen but the fighter doesn't?It bothers me (a tiny little bit) that commoners have Spot and Listen as class skills. It doesn't bother me that fighters do not have Spot and Listen as class skills. All it means to me is that the DMG authors didn't put a great deal of thought into the commoner class skill list. Or that they intended the commoner class to include certain archetypes for whom Listen and Spot would be appropriate class skills (like, I don't know...rabbit hunters, for example). In any event, just because a possible mistake was made on the commoner class skill list, that's no reason to compound the mistake by giving everyone Listen and Spot as class skills.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 04:38 AM	How do you feel about keeping the number of Ranks in a cross-class Skill the same, but buying Ranks in a cross-class Skill only costing 1 point per Rank?
Crashy75 02-27-07, 09:46 AM	It bothers me (a tiny little bit) that commoners have Spot and Listen as class skills. It doesn't bother me that fighters do not have Spot and Listen as class skills. All it means to me is that the DMG authors didn't put a great deal of thought into the commoner class skill list. Or that they intended the commoner class to include certain archetypes for whom Listen and Spot would be appropriate class skills (like, I don't know...rabbit hunters, for example). In any event, just because a possible mistake was made on the commoner class skill list, that's no reason to compound the mistake by giving everyone Listen and Spot as class skills.I don't think that all classes should have spot and listen. Wizards, sorcerers, clerics shouldn't have it, as well as most npc classes (I'm only going core here). Yes, a mistake was made with the commoner class. A mistake was made with the warrior and fighter classes as well. The OP made the assumption that all guards would be warriors and most criminals would be commoners. I don't see it that way. I believe most criminals would be experts. Commoners aren't particularly good at criminal endeavors. They should get caught when they commit crimes unless they are incredibly lucky. The real criminals are the experts and rogues. The warriors and fighters simply cannot police these guys.
Finarin Panjoro 02-27-07, 01:23 PM	I do think its odd that commoner's get Spot and Listen. But the fix is to take it away from them not give it to anyone else. IMC commoners never take ranks in Spot or Listen because they're busy taking ranks in Profession (farmer, cook, etc), Knowledge, Heal, or Survival...things a commoner would actually use on a regular basis. It doesn't bother me that warriors don't have Spot and Listen, they're grunts trained to fight and that's it. Being a guard is not the primary job of a fighter or a warrior. Their primary job is to fight someone. But fighters have enough feats that combined with cross-class ranks and magic they can still be very good at Spot and Listen if that's part of their character concept. And as I've explained they don't need max ranks to be effective guards, they just need a little planning and some good lighting. If they're going to spend most of their careers as guards then the alertness feat and some cross-class ranks will be more than adequate. To do otherwise is to make it impossible for rogues to function adequately to be fun as a player class. A rogue trying to infiltrate a castle may have to sneak by 10 guard posts to succeed. If they all have a 50/50 chance of detecting him he will NEVER be a successful rogue and thus not much fun to play. Only by limiting guards to cross-class ranks (which means they're not likely to have any ranks at all) can a rogue hope to be a viable class. Even if the warriors maxed out cross class ranks this is going to make it incredibly difficult for even an optimized much higher level rogue to sneak past all of them because they will have to make so many opposed checks that eventually someone is going to succeed. As an example let's say a 5th level rogue is trying to sneak into a castle with only 1st level warrior guards. They have a Spot and listen of +0 the rogue has a Hide and Move Silently of +12. If he's got to sneak past 10 of these grunts it is still very likely he'll be spotted. If they maxed out cross-class ranks in Spot and Listen and each have a +2 its much harder. If they all had +4 from maxed in class ranks he might as well give up. He's only going to make it past them about 2/3 of the time and with 10 tries that leaves him being spotted 3 or 4 times on his way in. How would it be any fun to play a rogue if you can't even reasonably sneak into a place guarded by people 4 levels lower than you? I realize that a rogue could certainly have a higher bonus than this (stealthy and skill focus feats, being a halfling, cloak and boots of elvenkind) but you're now forcing that character to expend more and more resouces on just being able to sneak around to the detriment of other things he should be doing (sneak attacking, finding traps, pulling scams, etc). How many Player Characters play a fighter who's a guard? Probably almost none since that's a mundane non-adventuring type job. A lot more play a rogue who's a thief so its a game play issue more than anything else. Fighter's are fun without Spot and Listen as class skills. Rogues are more fun if Fighters and particularly warriors don't have Spot and Listen as class skills.
not Yoda 02-27-07, 01:55 PM	How do you feel about keeping the number of Ranks in a cross-class Skill the same, but buying Ranks in a cross-class Skill only costing 1 point per Rank? I like that one.:)
Aggrenox 02-27-07, 02:08 PM	The OP made the assumption that all guards would be warriors and most criminals would be commoners. I don't see it that way. I believe most criminals would be experts. Commoners aren't particularly good at criminal endeavors. They should get caught when they commit crimes unless they are incredibly lucky. The real criminals are the experts and rogues. The warriors and fighters simply cannot police these guys. Most often in suppliments and corebooks, Guards are warriors. The assumption is justified. The DMG lists them as Soldiers, Town Guard, thugs, etc. But I do agree, most of the successful thieves are experts and rogues. But those are the successful ones.
BW0222 02-27-07, 02:40 PM	Folks, I see nothing terribly wrong about the classes which do and do not get spot and listen as class skills. I see the assumption that guards or city watch need either as being false. A guard standing in front of a doorway, looking down a hallway can't be snuck up on. He doesn't need spot. In order to attempt a hide check, you need concealment. Assuming there is a torch in the hallway, no one can even attempt a hide check unless when somehow find concealment -- like extinquishing the torch, obscuring mist, moving some furnature into the hallway, etc. The guard would certainly notice any attempt to make concealment in the hallway and sound the alarm. No point needing listen either. You can be as quiet as you like and the moment you step around the corner, the guard can see you. For 99% of guard duties... anyone will do. As for watching over a crowd or something, you don't need a spot check. You rely on that fact that of the hundreds of folks in the crowd, several dozen will be making spot checks to see something unusual and one of them will do well and yell "Guards". Your mere presence would likely prevent folks from trying anyway. You can certainly take the skill cross class. There is no reason why your normal guard or city watch would need spot or listen.
TheCobra 02-27-07, 02:49 PM	Yeah, it's pretty silly to think a guard needs the ability to spot people. It makes a lot more sense if he's no better at this than your average person. A guard standing in front of a doorway, looking down a hallway can't be snuck up on. Not until someone gets a copy of Complete Adventurer, anyway.
Finarin Panjoro 02-27-07, 03:18 PM	You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It's not good for the game. The number of Spot checks being made against a single sneaking rogue is so high that if they do not have a vast numerical advantage over the numerous spotters they cease to be a viable archetype. And even with CA if the hall is 25 feet or longer a guard with a Wisdom of 4 and no ranks in Spot cannot be snuck up on.
TheCobra 02-27-07, 11:04 PM	The number of Spot checks being made against a single sneaking rogue is so high that if they do not have a vast numerical advantage over the numerous spotters they cease to be a viable archetype. Well, you have to consider the distance penalty to spot checks. That helps sneakers a lot. And plenty of environments are more favorable for sneaking than the long, narrow, well-lit hallway. And even with CA if the hall is 25 feet or longer a guard with a Wisdom of 4 and no ranks in Spot cannot be snuck up on. Well, rogues only need to get within 30 feet to sneak attack. If the hall is 35 feet, the rogue peers around the corner to see the guard. The guard makes a spot check at -3. If the guard fails, the rogue pops into the hall, getting a surprise round. Even if everyone had spot, hide would still be a useful skill.
Crashy75 02-27-07, 11:40 PM	Bluff would still be useful too.
Aminvelos 02-27-07, 11:54 PM	u can lower skill requirement for spot and listen checks with one feat to the typical 1 if u really want it
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 10:03 AM	The Cobra, The situation you're describing assumes that killing the guard is a worthwhile scenario for the rogue. In many cases leaving a dead, disabled, or missing guard means he's failed because soon the entire place will be alerted to his presence. If the rogue wants to infiltrate undetected then he's got to have the numerical advantage I'm talking about to be viable. This is the bread and butter of a theif, especially one who doesn't want to kill a bunch of people on his way in. If he doesn't mind killing or incapaciting everyone he encounters then having more ranks in Spot becomes less of an issue because even if he is spotted he plans to take them out of commision anyway. Its when he can't afford to be spotted at all that the higher values matter. Also if you read the rules on Spot carefully you'll discover that the distance penalties to Spot checks only apply to initial encounter distances in the wilderness, not standard spot checks for hidden creatures. Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant). So there's no distance penalty to Spot checks for a rogue hiding 30 feet away. Though admittedly most people apply both of these modifiers to all Spot checks since this distinction is often overlooked. I am adamantly against giving Spot and Listen to anymore classes and I'm in favor of taking it away from commoners. The one exception is that I did create a feat for my campaign that can allow a fighter to gain Spot and Listen as fighter class skills because I believe the archetype of the alert warrior is valid. But even then they only become fighter class skills, if he multi-classes out he's got to pay for them accordingly.
BW0222 02-28-07, 10:37 AM	TheCobra Well, you have to consider the distance penalty to spot checks. That helps sneakers a lot. And plenty of environments are more favorable for sneaking than the long, narrow, well-lit hallway. The distance penalty is only used by the DM when determining the encounter distance. If one side is aware of the other, or you otherwise know the encounter distance, that penalty does not apply. Well, rogues only need to get within 30 feet to sneak attack. If the hall is 35 feet, the rogue peers around the corner to see the guard. The guard makes a spot check at -3. If the guard fails, the rogue pops into the hall, getting a surprise round. Actually, no. You know the encounter distance is 35 feet. There is not -3. That penalty is solely for the purpose of determining encounter distance. And that isn't the purpose of a guard. The guard isn't there to stop folks willing to kill him. There purpose was to persaude all those folks not willing to kill to stay out. In the middle ages, threatening a guard was likely a death penalty offense. Killing one would have entire your family killed along with you. Of course in the middle ages, carrying a weapon would cost you imprisonment, loss of a hand, etc. If you are guarding something so valuable that it is worth killing for, then you bet that the guards might take slightly more precautions... say putting four guards in the hallway, having dogs, having guards on the other side of the doorway, using magic, having other guards in towers watching or behind arrow slits watching those guards in the hallways, 2000 lbs metal gates, etc. Even if everyone had spot, hide would still be a useful skill. You could say that about any skill. If everyone had use sense motive, then bluff would still be useful. Unfortunately, bards would be a lot less useful... since a ranger could do the same thing. Not every class needs spot or listen. You can do you job without them. Your average town guard, soldier, etc. is not worrying about spotting rogues coming at them in the dark -- or animals coming at them in the forests. They have little need for the skill, hence it is cross-class.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 11:16 AM	The distance always applies. Yes, you can try to ruleslawyer it away, but this doesn't make any sense and isn't good for the game. From Rules of the Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a): According to the rules, any time you make a Spot check you take a -1 penalty on the check for every 10 feet of distance between you and what you're spotting.
Crashy75 02-28-07, 11:36 AM	BW0222 does have a point on the dead guard. Bluff would probably be better here. City guards are really gullible don't cha know.
Rhuxley 02-28-07, 11:43 AM	Well lets start over... The problem: Players what spot & listen, because its so useful. Why give it to them? Because you feel it fits their character archetype better than ride & handle animal. The Fix: Make them give up skills for it. If they think spot is more useful then Ride, then obviously you make them make more spot checks than you do ride checks. Or they dont ride a horse. Makes sense to me, though I feel riding a horse in battle and getting the extra movement and the +1 bonus to attack is more usefull than being able to spot. If they feel listening is more important that raising dogs that give free attacks, can guard, etc then let them have the listen skill. Let them pick the way they were trained, spot is not better than ride or HA.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 12:29 PM	If the rogue wants to infiltrate undetected then he's got to have the numerical advantage I'm talking about to be viable. He still has the problem with the guard down the narrow hall in the front the door, spot or no spot. It's just hard to sneak by someone in that situation. Of course, there's usually a way to distract or trick the guard, or another way into the room in question. I am adamantly against giving Spot and Listen to anymore classes and I'm in favor of taking it away from commoners. I think this only matters at low levels. At higher levels, the rogue can sneak past mooks regardless of whether they have spot and listen as a class skill. And, as I DM, I know there are plenty of good classes that have spot and listen. If the king really wants his palace guarded, it's going be a druid, ranger, rogue, or beguiler, not a warrior or fighter. Not every class needs spot or listen. You can do you job without them. Your average town guard, soldier, etc. is not worrying about spotting rogues coming at them in the dark -- or animals coming at them in the forests. They have little need for the skill, hence it is cross-class. I like my warrior types to be alert. I think it's more fair, flavorful, and realistic. You're right, in D&D, that's no reason to change things. But it makes sense for guards and warriors in general to be good at spotting threats. In more realistic settings, everyone has sneak attack. Getting attacked when your defenses are down is commonly fatal. Any type of warrior or soldier has to worry about an ambush.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 12:39 PM	The distance always applies. Yes, you can try to ruleslawyer it away, but this doesn't make any sense and isn't good for the game. We're not ruleslawyering it away. It doesn't exist by the rules in the SRD/PHB, which trumps a Rules of the Game article. That being the case that penalty alone is not enough to balance the harm done to stealth characters by giving Spot and Listen to all fighters and/or warriors. For a theif to be a valid archetype standard guards must not have max ranks in Spot and Listen. Standard guards shouldn't even have max cross-class ranks. Elite specialist guards might have alertness and max cross-class ranks and that would make it nearly impossible for a non-magic using rogue to infilitrate the area.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 12:55 PM	We're not ruleslawyering it away. It doesn't exist by the rules in the SRD/PHB, which trumps a Rules of the Game article. Play however you like. I'll go with Skip on this one. You can call it a house rule, but the RotG article makes it at least somewhat official. Besides, in the case of a rogue sneaking up on a guard, that check is to determine the distance at which the encounter starts. That being the case that penalty alone is not enough to balance the harm done to stealth characters by giving Spot and Listen to all fighters and/or warriors. What harm? Do the PCs actually regularly encounter high-level fighters and warriors in your campaigns? Even if they do, it's not logical for anyone to pay a 5th-level fighter to do a job a 1st-level rogue/druid/ranger/beguiler could do just as well. It only matters when it comes to 1st-level warriors. Wow, so 1st-level warriors who have the skill points are now 10% more likely to spot that rogue. Yes, that's a game-breaking problem. Elite specialist guards might have alertness and max cross-class ranks and that would make it nearly impossible for a non-magic using rogue to infilitrate the area. No, not really. Guards move around, and most buildings have multiple entrances. The rogue can hide behind a barrel and then climb in a window after the guard walks by. Or throw a rock and distract the guard. And so on. Besides, why should we care about rogues that don't use any magic? That's not normal. A simple potion of invisibility owns the heck out of warriors acting as guards. That's standard rogue gear.
Crashy75 02-28-07, 01:00 PM	For a theif to be a valid archetype standard guards must not have max ranks in Spot and Listen. Standard guards shouldn't even have max cross-class ranks. Elite specialist guards might have alertness and max cross-class ranks and that would make it nearly impossible for a non-magic using rogue to infilitrate the area. I don't know about your city guards but mine are hardly ever past level 3.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 01:04 PM	I don't know about your city guards but mine are hardly ever past level 3. Certainly not warriors past 3rd level. High-level warriors/fighters sleep or live it up while low-level rangers/rogues/scouts/beguilers/druids keep watch. They only come out once the alarm is sounded.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 05:09 PM	Well WotC's and Dungeon magazines published scenario's disagree with you. Higher level PCs run into high level PC based guards and thugs all the time in their published adventures. And of course low levels is the only place this matters because guards are only a deterent to low-level PCs. Once long term invisibility and dimension door become available guards are a non-issue. So it only really matters to low level rogues or to rogues in low-magic campaigns, but you're not suggesting a 10% increase in their chances of being seen. A single warrior 1 with 4 ranks in Spot and Listen is not likely to catch a 5th level rogue with a +12 modifier to Hide and Move Silently, but 10 of them are and the rogue has to sneak past all of them to get inside. A 5th level rogue should be able to take 10 on his Hide and Move Silently checks and have a reasonable chance of getting past 1st level standard guards. And this one can by taking 10 he gets a 22 against their Spot of +0, even with maxed cross-class ranks at +2 they'd need to roll a 20 to detect him. However if they all have a +4 on Spot if any of those guards rolls an 18-20 they are going to Spot him. If you've got 10 guards this is virtually garaunteed to happen and that's with 4 levels of difference in class at which point the CR system doesn't even consider them a challenge! It gets much worse as the level gap narrows. If the warriors are 3rd level then a 16 will do the trick. Every single one of them has a 25% chance of detecting this rogue on an average roll. If he can't take 10 it goes from bad to utterly impossible to succeed even with first level warriors. So the response to this is that it is NEVER a good idea for a rogue to try to sneak into a guarded place, he should always depend on magic. Bye-Bye thief archetype as viable character option. If instead you leave the classes as they are then the rogue can reliably sneak by these low level guards, but he's challenged when he comes up against the BBEG's ranger henchman. He also has to use some creativity to get by the standard guards when there's no cover or concealment by creating distractions or timing his entry for the changing of the guard or whatever. The point is it is still viable and fun to be a thief under these circumstances. It isn't if guards can have max in-class ranks in Spot and Listen. Besides why does anyone care what ranks a guard has? Are any of you planning on playing a guard as your next PC? If you're the DM then your ultra-stealthy rogue is supposed to be able to sneak past these guys. He's the hero/villain of the story. Besides, in the case of a rogue sneaking up on a guard, that check is to determine the distance at which the encounter starts. This is only the case if they are outside. If they are in an interior space the actual distance is used to determine the distance at which the encounter starts. That is that if the rogue steps into line of sight at the end of 40 foot hall the encounter begins at 40 feet. You don't roll randomly to determine the distance if the distance is already set.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 05:48 PM	Well WotC's and Dungeon magazines published scenario's disagree with you. Higher level PCs run into high level PC based guards and thugs all the time in their published adventures. I'm a powergaming DM. What can I say? Warriors and fighters make poor guards. In my Faerun, other classes serve as guards whatever possible. To me, this seems more logical. The powers of Faerun know who spots better than whom. So it only really matters to low level rogues or to rogues in low-magic campaigns, but you're not suggesting a 10% increase in their chances of being seen. A single warrior 1 with 4 ranks in Spot and Listen is not likely to catch a 5th level rogue with a +12 modifier to Hide and Move Silently, but 10 of them are and the rogue has to sneak past all of them to get inside. A 10% chance each time, yes, assuming the warriors in question had enough skill points to max out spot. If you've got 10 guards this is virtually garaunteed to happen and that's with 4 levels of difference in class at which point the CR system doesn't even consider them a challenge! Yes, there's about a 80% chance one of the 10 guards will see the rogue in this situation. But then, that's quite a few guards. If you distance penalties, as you should, and the rogue tries to run across as few guards as possible, she would do fine. Why do you think a 5th-level rogue should be able to sneak past 10 guards with ease? And you realize, of course, that, if the 10 guards were commoners instead of warriors, the the rogue would be screwed by the RAW. So the response to this is that it is NEVER a good idea for a rogue to try to sneak into a guarded place, he should always depend on magic. Like any other character without vow of poverty, basically. Of course, she only needs magic if you don't give spot penalties by distance, she's facing a bunch of guards, and she gives up for some reason if anyone ever spots her. So do what's good for your campaign, but don't assume all others are the same. If instead you leave the classes as they are then the rogue can reliably sneak by these low level guards, but he's challenged when he comes up against the BBEG's ranger henchman. Or the BBEG's elite commoner henchman. Besides why does anyone care what ranks a guard has? I don't know. I would think DMs would be more likely to give listen and spot to fighters. This is only the case if they are outside. If they are in an interior space the actual distance is used to determine the distance at which the encounter starts. That is that if the rogue steps into line of sight at the end of 40 foot hall the encounter begins at 40 feet. You don't roll randomly to determine the distance if the distance is already set. I think you're confused. The rules aren't completely clear on the matter, but the rolling for longest possible spotting distance is something else entirely. The DMG says spot and listen checks determine when any encounter starts. It doesn't matter whether the encounter starts outside or inside. This is most likely what the description of the skill is referring to.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 06:20 PM	Why do you think a 5th-level rogue should be able to sneak past 10 guards with ease? 10 first level guards. The reason is that according to the DMG a CR 4 levels below your own is not considered a challenge in combat. Well, if its good for combat why not for stealth activities used to avoid combat. And you realize, of course, that, if the 10 guards were commoners instead of warriors, the the rogue would be screwed by the RAW. Now you're just trying to push my buttons.;) I thought we had both already agreed that commoners with Spot and Listen was a bad idea and thus not a justification for anything. Like any other character without vow of poverty, basically. Of course, she only needs magic if you don't give spot penalties by distance, she's facing a bunch of guards, and she gives up for some reason if anyone ever spots her. If you're only using stealth for combat then this whole debate is irrelevant because a 5th level rogue can probably kill all 10 guards without taking a single point of damage themselves. Their CR is too low to even be considered a challenge by the DMG. However with max ranks in Spot sneaking past them is an insurmountable challenge. So do what's good for your campaign, but don't assume all others are the same. I only assume that the rules are the same which they are. So the rules change would have the same effect in both. If your rogues depend on magic to get the job done why do they bother with ranks in Hide and Move Silently in the first place. I think you're confused. The rules aren't completely clear on the matter, but the rolling for longest possible spotting distance is something else entirely. The DMG says spot and listen checks determine when any encounter starts. It doesn't matter whether the encounter starts outside or inside. This is most likely what the description of the skill is referring to. Nope, I'm not confused and the rules are completely clear on this if you actually read them. Longest possible spotting distance is used for encounters where that distance cannot be determined by the map. In a map its determined by when you do and do not have complete cover. As soon as they have line of sight bingo there's your starting encounter distance. In a large field you use the random generation rules to determine the distance. But the description of Spot does specifically say that the -1 penalty per 10 feet is applied only to these randomly generated encounter distances. I'm not saying you have to follow that and Skip certainly doesn't think you have to, but that is what the RAW actually says.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 06:38 PM	10 first level guards. The reason is that according to the DMG a CR 4 levels below your own is not considered a challenge in combat. Well, if its good for combat why not for stealth activities used to avoid combat. That could just be a problem with the CR system. How would your 5th-level rogue do against those 10 1st-level guards in combat? I thought we had both already agreed that commoners with Spot and Listen was a bad idea and thus not a justification for anything. It's still more RAW than removing the distance penalty to spot whenever possible. If you're only using stealth for combat then this whole debate is irrelevant because a 5th level rogue can probably kill all 10 guards without taking a single point of damage themselves. Really? What is this rogue's AC? It might not be over 20. The 1st-level warriors should have +2 or +3 to hit. I think they'd probably kill her. If your rogues depend on magic to get the job done why do they bother with ranks in Hide and Move Silently in the first place. Because it helps. Invisibility is basically just a fat bonus to hide checks. As soon as they have line of sight bingo there's your starting encounter distance. No, you are confused. Spot and listen checks start before the encounter starts. The DMG makes this clear on page 22. Encounters start with awareness. Spot and listen checks determine awareness. In a large field you use the random generation rules to determine the distance. But the description of Spot does specifically say that the -1 penalty per 10 feet is applied only to these randomly generated encounter distances. No, it doesn't. Spot doesn't say anything about randomly rolled distance. Spot and listen checks determine the distance at which at an encounter starts almost all the time.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 07:25 PM	No, you are confused. Spot and listen checks start before the encounter starts. The DMG makes this clear on page 22. Encounters start with awareness. Spot and listen checks determine awareness. No, it doesn't. Spot doesn't say anything about randomly rolled distance. Spot and listen checks determine the distance at which at an encounter starts almost all the time. Actually line of sight determines awareness in the absence of cover and concealment. Spot checks are only necessary if cover and concealment are being used to avoid being spotted or when the encounter distance is being determined randomly (see below). If your rogue steps into a well-lit corridor 40 feet away from a guard with no cover and no concealment the guard never has to roll a spot check to detect him. He's spotted automatically by the guard (whether you allow a penalty for distance or not is irrelevant here because no check is required).Determining Awareness Sometimes all the combatants on a side are aware of their opponents, sometimes none are, and sometimes only some of them are. Sometimes a few combatants on each side are aware and the other combatants on each side are unaware. Determining awareness may call for Listen checks, Spot checks, or other checks. Note the use of the word may. That means not always. Random encounter distances only appear in the wilderness section of the DMG to allow you to determine at what distance spot checks become possible.Stealth and Detection in a Forest: In a sparse forest, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 3d6×10 feet. In a medium forest, this distance is 2d8×10 feet, and in a dense forest it is 2d6×10 feet. These randomly establish the maximum distance at which a Spot check can succeed. Therefore if you are beyond that point it doesn't matter how high a Spot check you rolled because spotting them is not possible. Spot checks of this type are used to determine when the encounter begins and are penalized based on range (-1 per 10 feet). However I'll concede the range point for the purpose of this thread since it is a minor factor when dealing with interior spaces which is what we're talking about (sneaking into somewhere). Interior spaces are too short in most cases to apply more than a -2 modifier for distance and frequently they are not even that high. There's just no way around the fact that making common guards into ultra-alert rogue detectors is bad for the rogue class. It also makes the encounter with truly elite guards much less interesting since there's less distinction between a guard force made up of rangers and rogues and a guard force made up of warriors.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 07:57 PM	Actually line of sight determines awareness in the absence of cover and concealment. Spot checks are only necessary if cover and concealment are being used to avoid being spotted or when the encounter distance is being determined randomly (see below). Again, I suggest to read page 22 of the DMG. Spot checks of this type are used to determine when the encounter begins and are penalized based on range (-1 per 10 feet). What type? Spot checks can be used to determine at what distance the encounter starts regardless of whether the maximum spotting distance is rolling or determined by the map. You're correct about line of sight and all that, but that's neither here nor there. I think some it may be a holdover from 3.0. The encounter section of the 3.0 DMG is much clearer about how encounter start, with a base difficulty for spotting creatures and so on.
Aggrenox 02-28-07, 08:39 PM	I don't know. I would think DMs would be more likely to give listen and spot to fighters. Me, Never. Eff that.
gelalshawr 02-28-07, 08:43 PM	I'm noticing that all the examples given in this concept are assuming that your guards are Lawful-aligned, and always paying attention to their surroundings, most low-level mooks are just working a day job (or night job as the situation dictates) and are susceptible to distractions or bribes, paying more attention to their late night snack than the hall they're guarding, or perhaps chatting with the guard on the other side of the hall. Interior guards are worse, they expect the guards on the outside to catch people before they get inside, so their alertness level is much lower. these are all totally valid situational modifiers that your DM can, and imho should, put into his campaign.
High Octane 02-28-07, 08:47 PM	How do you feel about keeping the number of Ranks in a cross-class Skill the same, but buying Ranks in a cross-class Skill only costing 1 point per Rank? Theres a feat for that. Able Learner. Races of Destiny. Human only.
TheCobra 02-28-07, 08:52 PM	these are all totally valid situational modifiers that your DM can, and imho should, put into his campaign. Indeed. I also don't believe I've ever made a PC rogue go up against ten guards alone. Certainly not at once and at level 5 or earlier. And even if the guard see the rogue, she can usually beat his initiative and give him the run around. If security is so tight that things go crazy when any intruder is seen, the rogue should use a potion or two. Rogues have more to worry about from alarm than from 1st-level guys with full spot ranks.
tiercel 02-28-07, 09:53 PM	The thing is that Spot and Listen are two of the skills that stay important even in the upper levels. A number of other skills become increasingly unimportant -- Open Locks means less if you have a wand of knock, chime of opening, or even an adamantine weapon. Handle Animal and Ride start losing utility when your pet or mount is just way too fragile compared to you (druids and paladins being exceptions here, though even in their cases they are only looking at fixed-DC targets in general anyhow). Perhaps more to the point, from a DM's point of view, it becomes awfully hard to sneak up on a party of PCs where every character can Spot and/or Listen. It's one thing to make a stealthy BBEG who has a pretty reasonable chance to get the jump on the party's "rogue-type" character, and another who can beat four opposed rolls at once. I mean... I can see a little bit of the frustration, since at higher levels only the characters with maxed class Spot ranks might as well even roll Spot checks (anything that is challenging for the "spotters" to actually spot is impossible for the other characters, and anything the other characters have a chance of Spotting will be noticed by "spotter" characters even on a natural 1). On the other hand, you want to reward skillmonkey classes with *something* they can do no-one else can as well at the higher levels. In the end, if it is really, really, REALLY important for your fighter to Spot things, it is not the end of the world to just multiclass into one level of Ranger or something and then keep it maxed for the rest of your career. (Or, heck, as mentioned not only in this thread but right in the PHB, work with your DM to make a "variant fighter" that gives up other class skills/a feat/some armor proficiency to get different/more class skills.)
Crashy75 02-28-07, 09:59 PM	I'm noticing that all the examples given in this concept are assuming that your guards are Lawful-aligned, and always paying attention to their surroundings, most low-level mooks are just working a day job (or night job as the situation dictates) and are susceptible to distractions or bribes, paying more attention to their late night snack than the hall they're guarding, or perhaps chatting with the guard on the other side of the hall. Interior guards are worse, they expect the guards on the outside to catch people before they get inside, so their alertness level is much lower. these are all totally valid situational modifiers that your DM can, and imho should, put into his campaign. That's true. Not all guards would take ranks in s/l even if they had them as class skills. But what about the few guards that do their job? They have to take a level of some other class to do it? Or waste some of their few valuable feats. Feats they could use to improve their combat prowess? They have to be human? They have to have an above avg. intelligence? They can't be a dedicated guard and a competent warrior? I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 10:00 PM	OK so I read pg. 22 of the DMG. I quote: When you decide that it is possible for either side to become aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine which of the three above cases comes into play....ultimately it's you (the DM) who decides when the first round begins and where each side is when it does. I'm not sure what this was supposed to clarify about your argument, but it boils down to 'it's up to the DM to determine.' I will admit that I totally agree with you that the 3.0 encounter guidelines were much clearer and easy to use. I've always wondered why they removed them in 3.5. In fact, when in doubt I still use the 3.0 guidelines. I should clarify that when I posited my example of a 5th level rogue versus 10 1st level warriors I was not talking about facing all 10 of them at the same time. Let's say there are two check points with 3 guards and two check points with 2 guards. The rogue still has to sneak past all 10 of them successfully to go undetected. This is where their ranks in Spot make a big difference. If the rogue has to successfully make 10 opposed checks to complete her mission every +1 they get is a major advantage. It only takes 1 guard to raise the alarm. And I have to say that a rogue should have more to fear from alarmthan they should from a 1st level guard even with max ranks in Spot. Alarm is a far more expensive option than a 1st level guard. A trained hireling costs 3 sp per day. To alarm the same area for a day costs 500 gp. gelalshawr, I agree however I think this attitude and laxness on the part of the guards is better represented by them not having Spot and Listen as class skills than with arbitrary circumstance modifiers assigned by the DM. The average warrior does not have the discipline or perception to be that good at spotting anything. I also believe that the -5 penalty for being distracted is something that is factored into stealth missions. It's there to give rogues something to achieve. By creating a distraction they greatly increase their chances of succeeding at their attempts. However a 1st level character with max ranks is only brought to a -1 Spot modifier if they are distracted. This is still way too attentive for what amounts to hired thugs.
Crashy75 02-28-07, 10:04 PM	... gelalshawr, I agree however I think this attitude and laxness on the part of the guards is better represented by them not having Spot and Listen as class skills than with arbitrary circumstance modifiers assigned by the DM. .... And I think this attitude and laxness on the part of the guards is better represented by them not taking spot and listen ranks at all. :D
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 10:05 PM	touche'
TheCobra 02-28-07, 10:25 PM	Perhaps more to the point, from a DM's point of view, it becomes awfully hard to sneak up on a party of PCs where every character can Spot and/or Listen. It's one thing to make a stealthy BBEG who has a pretty reasonable chance to get the jump on the party's "rogue-type" character, and another who can beat four opposed rolls at once. For some reason the PCs in my campaigns often don't even max out spot and listen when they're in class. I don't really know why. I guess I should be tougher about it. They do get surprised fairly often, they just don't seem to mind much. Anyway, you have put skill-boosting items into the picture as well. If both characters have max ranks and the same ability modifier, whoever has a bonus item will do the best. Unless the PCs buy items that grant a bonus to spot, it should still be possible for NPCs to sneak up on them. Various types of magic also making sneaking easier. A trained hireling costs 3 sp per day. To alarm the same area for a day costs 500 gp. Using the rules in the PHB, yes. Those rules are just to make it hard for spells to get spells. The DMG II, on the other hand, lets you hire characters with levels in PC classes for the character's level squared in gp per day. A 3rd-level wizard could manage it, so it'd cost about 9 gp per day. Still significantly more than 3 sp per day, but not completely unreasonable.
Nathreet 02-28-07, 10:42 PM	These are really skills the DM should roll for the players for RP reasons. Like someone said, asking the player to roll just gives it away (though that poster wanted to give it away). I've also seen the rule where the DM uses one roll for all the players (and adds modifiers individually). That reduces the chance of one player just getting lucky, and keeps it from being nigh-impossible to sneak up on a crowd.
Finarin Panjoro 02-28-07, 11:43 PM	The DMG II, on the other hand, lets you hire characters with levels in PC classes for the character's level squared in gp per day. A 3rd-level wizard could manage it, so it'd cost about 9 gp per day. Still significantly more than 3 sp per day, but not completely unreasonable.Well, he could do it for 18 hours a day anyway (alarm has a 2/hr per level duration so 6 hours per casting and a 3rd level wizard has 3 first level slots if he has a bonus 1st level spell or uses his second level slot for alarm). But even so that's a daily cost of almost 10 gp. You'd be better off to buy the 500 gp alarm trap since you'll have paid for it in just over 2 months of paying that wizard to cast alarm 4 times a day. However for that same 500 gp you can hire a trained guard (a warrior 1) for 1660 days or just over four and 1/2 years. Or four guards for an entire year, or...well you get the picture.
Bhaal006 03-01-07, 02:06 AM	Lets think about the role of a fighter for a minute, fighters are not town gaurds, fighters are trained combatants, meant to be opposed by other trained combatants, im suprised every general in the world hasn't been assassinated by now because the soldiers he surrounds himself with, can't see their hand in front of their face. There are just some cases where logic SHOULD apply to D&D Also, so what if a rogue has to spend more of his resources to be effective at sneaking, Fighters have to spend more to be effective in combat, its a trade off. You can't say commoners getting spot and listen is a mistake and fighters not getting it isn't that just doesn't make any sense at all The check DC's are meant to challenge charcters with max skill ranks, which means that having half ranks makes the task nearly impossible. also if it wasn't a challenge in sneaking past the gaurds the all the treasure in all the world would belong to Dragons and rogues, because apparently nobody cant train a gaurd properly.
Broken vacuum 03-01-07, 04:28 AM	What a lot of people here seem to forget when they argue about commoners and the spot and listen skills, is that the commoner is a NPC class - not a PC class. The commoner class is designed to be something of a catch-all category for a very big group of people. Your average commoner will not think of himself as a commoner (except possibly in the socio-economic sense), but as a shepherd, driver, sewage worker or whatever. And the DM is supposed to give every particular commoner a set of skills suitable to his vocation and role in the community. Most commoners will not have have high spot or listen skills, but some, like shepherds, will. Commoners do not have a lot of skill points (no more than a fighter) and those they have, they need to invest in things that help them live their life, e.g. craft skills.
Finarin Panjoro 03-01-07, 09:47 AM	Lets think about the role of a fighter for a minute, fighters are not town gaurds, fighters are trained combatants, meant to be opposed by other trained combatants, im suprised every general in the world hasn't been assassinated by now because the soldiers he surrounds himself with, can't see their hand in front of their face. There are just some cases where logic SHOULD apply to D&D You've pretty much contradicted yourself in your opening paragraph. You're right fighters are not town guards and they are meant to oppose other trained combatants or big nasty monsters. They in no way need ranks in Spot or Listen to achieve those goals. Generals are in no danger of being assassinated (through non-magic stealth anyway) because the rules on stealth mean that a man surrounded by other people with +0 Spot modifiers CAN'T be snuck up upon even by a rogue with 20 ranks in Hide. Besides most generals are going to have a spy (a rogue) and a scout (a ranger) on staff who will have max ranks and should be more aware than the grunts guarding the door. Also, so what if a rogue has to spend more of his resources to be effective at sneaking, Fighters have to spend more to be effective in combat, its a trade off. But its not a fair one because a rogue is expected to fight every time the fighter fights, but the fighter is not expected to sneak every time the rogue sneaks. So the rogue has to be combat viable as well as sneaky. You can't say commoners getting spot and listen is a mistake and fighters not getting it isn't that just doesn't make any sense at allCommoners getting spot and listen is a mistake and fighters not getting it isn't.:P The check DC's are meant to challenge charcters with max skill ranks, which means that having half ranks makes the task nearly impossible. That's just not true. It might be for tasks with set DCs (like searching for traps), but it's not for opposed checks because a higher level of randomness is involved. I could roll high while you roll low. True half ranks in a one-on-one situation is serious disadvantage. Half ranks in a ten-on-one situation is an insurmountable challenge for the guy with max ranks. Stealth is a case of one skill versus many many opposed checks. In those cases every +1 the many get has a much larger impact than a simple skill-to-skill comparison would imply. Yes a rogue with a +15 Hide check should have little trouble passing by one guard with a +4 bonus to Spot, but if he has to pass by 10 of them its a different story. also if it wasn't a challenge in sneaking past the gaurds the all the treasure in all the world would belong to Dragons and rogues, because apparently nobody cant train a gaurd properly. Exactly! It's already a challenge without them having any ranks in Spot and Listen whatsoever! Well done!
TheCobra 03-01-07, 04:14 PM	3 first level slots if he has a bonus 1st level spell or uses his second level slot for alarm If he can cast 2nd-level spells, he has a bonus 1st-level slot. Few wizards have below 14 INT, so he likely has a bonus 2nd-level slot as well. You'd be better off to buy the 500 gp alarm trap since you'll have paid for it in just over 2 months of paying that wizard to cast alarm 4 times a day. However for that same 500 gp you can hire a trained guard (a warrior 1) for 1660 days or just over four and 1/2 years. Or four guards for an entire year, or...well you get the picture. Actually, that makes the alarm trap look like a pretty good deal. I thought you were using the rules for buying spells in the PHB. That would make alarm cost 120 gp per day. A one-time cost of 500 gp is reasonable, especially when you consider that even a simple house costs 1,000 gp. Many treasure rooms and such should have alarm traps. Generals are in no danger of being assassinated (through non-magic stealth anyway) because the rules on stealth mean that a man surrounded by other people with +0 Spot modifiers CAN'T be snuck up upon even by a rogue with 20 ranks in Hide. Uh, that's not true at all, unless the general in question spends all of his time in a crowd of bodyguards in an open field in the daylight. For assassination, you just need the surprise round, which is fairly easy to get if any cover is around. If possible, you want your bodyguards to hear the assassin sneaking around the corner to put a crossbow bolt in your heart. Seeing him as he jumps into the room and shoots doesn't really help you.
Finarin Panjoro 03-01-07, 05:55 PM	I'm not saying that the alarm trap isn't a good deal I'm saying it's not as cost effective as 4 1st level warrior guards with 0 ranks for guarding the same space. Especially since the alarm trap doesn't actually do anything to prevent someone from taking what its guarding. As long as the general is surrounded by aides he's in no danger of being snuck up on (without magic) as long as the area he's in is lit. Even if there is cover it must provide the rogue with cover from everyone present and with enough people present that becomes impossible to achieve. And most Kings, Generals, etc are constantly surrounded by aides and bodyguards. Put a guard in each corner of the room and one next to the general and they probably have line of sight to everywhere in the room. Similarly guard the outer hall and the rogue has no chance of infiltrating that room unassisted. How many high level fighter-types do you know that can be killed with a single crossbow bolt anyway?:)
TheCobra 03-01-07, 06:12 PM	I'm not saying that the alarm trap isn't a good deal I'm saying it's not as cost effective as 4 1st level warrior guards with 0 ranks for guarding the same space. Depends on how long you want the place watched. And against higher-level threats, 1st-level warriors aren't good for much more than sound alarm. And most Kings, Generals, etc are constantly surrounded by aides and bodyguards. Put a guard in each corner of the room and one next to the general and they probably have line of sight to everywhere in the room. Similarly guard the outer hall and the rogue has no chance of infiltrating that room unassisted. Unless she, you know, kills, distracts, or tricks the guard(s) outside the room. If nobody has ranks in listen, they might not even hear the guard's body drop. Also, generals don't always stay inside all day. In city streets or in a forest, there are plenty of places for assassins to hide. Noticing the ambush before it's sprung can be the difference between life and death. Smart generals want bodyguards who can do this. How many high level fighter-types do you know that can be killed with a single crossbow bolt anyway? Poison. Sneak attack. In a campaign I'm running, the PCs managed to take out a fairly high-level NPC with a single bolt with drow poison on it. Low rolls happen.
angryman 03-01-07, 06:57 PM	I think fighters should get spot because as it is, they are woefully inadqeuate at noticing ambushes. In fact, fighters are often worse than barbarians (need some wis, more skills), clerics, druids, paladins, monks, rangers & rogues at spotting enemies. Isn't that odd? Fighters make almost the worst sentries. Also, fighters can walk into a combat zone and are almost completely oblivious. That's not a good survival mechanism and it's not what fighters should be like. Imagine a war setting where the group is moving through a ravine. There is an enemy ambush set up, something that a fighter, if anyone, should be able to sense. But no. The most likely person to see it is the rogue or the druid. That's odd, as I said. Give fighters spot and listen, for crying out loud.
Finarin Panjoro 03-01-07, 07:23 PM	Smart generals want bodyguards who can do this. I agree. So a smart general doesn't hire a warrior or a fighter as a bodyguard! Though in the case of a fighter I don't believe this to be true since with max cross class ranks, alertness, skill focus, and a few decent releveant magic items they can be a wiz at spotting without having it as a class skill. If I was a general I'd hire a fighter/ranger or fighter/rogue as my bodyguard. Or a monk.
angryman 03-01-07, 07:55 PM	If I was a general I'd hire a fighter/ranger or fighter/rogue as my bodyguard. Or a monk. Which is sad, because even though fighters can only fight, those combinations often make better bodyguards.
Ellanon 03-01-07, 08:14 PM	Which is sad, because even though fighters can only fight, those combinations often make better bodyguards. Which is precisely the reason I wish there was a good classless system for this game. It's the silly distinction between the classes that gets everyone all worked up. If the skills themselves were equal, I'd suggest just dropping one class skill for Spot, but we all know they are not equal. As a player, how many class skills would you give up so that a fighter could have Spot? As a DM, how many class skills would you allow a fighter to give up so that he could have Spot?
TheCobra 03-01-07, 08:17 PM	If I was a general I'd hire a fighter/ranger or fighter/rogue as my bodyguard. Or a monk. I'd probably hire a beguiler. Or a druid, though I'd worry she'd betray me for nature or some such. Druids are the best when it comes to spot and listen.
JTalbain 03-01-07, 08:53 PM	Well lets start over... The problem: Players what spot & listen, because its so useful. Why give it to them? Because you feel it fits their character archetype better than ride & handle animal. The Fix: Make them give up skills for it. If they think spot is more useful then Ride, then obviously you make them make more spot checks than you do ride checks. Or they dont ride a horse. Makes sense to me, though I feel riding a horse in battle and getting the extra movement and the +1 bonus to attack is more usefull than being able to spot. If they feel listening is more important that raising dogs that give free attacks, can guard, etc then let them have the listen skill. Let them pick the way they were trained, spot is not better than ride or HA. I disagree with this. Ride and Handle Animal are active skills which only apply in certain situations. If a player's mount is killed, or if he is in a situation which doesn't allow for the use of one, his mount is useless. If the fighter is at a level where the dogs are no longer useful or there simply are no good animals available to train, his Handle Animal is useless. Meanwhile, Spot and Listen directly oppose direct hazards to your character's immediate health. Everyone can make use of them, and they are not situational. It's actually for that reason I have no problem with commoners having spot and listen as class skills. Think about it. Typical life in a D&D world is like a fantasy game set in the Middle Ages. The average commoner lives on a small piece of a land which they farm for their lord and/or for subsistence. They cannot use armor, cannot use magic, and they have ABSOLUTELY NO COMBAT SKILLS. Their only real defense against anything is to see danger before danger sees them and either hiding or running to someone who is proficient with one of the above. So why is it that Fighters don't need Spot or Listen? Because they are typically so armored and proficient at combat that it typically doesn't matter if they do get snuck up on. They have a resource to fall back on in these situations, therefore they don't need it. Spellcasters have different defenses, but they are there. Commoners have nothing. Spot and Listen are how they stay alive.
angryman 03-01-07, 09:01 PM	Which is precisely the reason I wish there was a good classless system for this game. It's the silly distinction between the classes that gets everyone all worked up. If the skills themselves were equal, I'd suggest just dropping one class skill for Spot, but we all know they are not equal. As a player, how many class skills would you give up so that a fighter could have Spot? As a DM, how many class skills would you allow a fighter to give up so that he could have Spot? Giving the fighter a lot more wouldn't overpower him these days. I'm tempted to give them 4 skills/level and both spot and listen as their skills, but that's just me.
Ellanon 03-01-07, 11:47 PM	Giving the fighter a lot more wouldn't overpower him these days. I'm tempted to give them 4 skills/level and both spot and listen as their skills, but that's just me. If giving him alot wouldn't over power him, would giving him a little not be enough? Personally, I think this is a bunch of fuss over nothing. I've never met a serious roleplayer that gave a rats rear if their fighter did 0.003 damage per attack less that some other class. Seriously, why do you play a fighter? Is it because of the damage output? The people in my group play a fighter because it's a fighter. They play a rogue because a rogue is a rogue. This is why I enjoy a classless system. No more fighting about what a fighter is and what a fighter isn't. And that's really all I see here. My definition of a fighter isn't your definition of a fighter. Not only that, but people begin to argue realism. I love realism, but I will never let it get in the way of gameplay and balance. And I don't believe things are as out of balance as people here make out. I think the fighter is fine in the grand scheme of things. You can nitpick, but when you look at the game as a whole, all is well. This game is meant to be played in a group. So the fighter doesn't get Spot an Listen - someone in your group should. My first gaming session I always sit the players down and have them create their characters together. This enables the players to mesh character histories together and cover things that other characters may be lacking.
Zumarai 03-02-07, 06:41 AM	I hear in d20 Star Wars Saga they will be folding Listen and Spot into Perception. What do you think?
Vrellum 03-02-07, 10:30 AM	I think its perfectly reasonable that a character can advance from 1st level to 20th level and never learn anything about spotting/hearing enemies or avoiding ambushes. I mean doesn't it make perfect sense that the fighter would just walk around looking at his feet for 20 levels because he figures the rogue will spot the enemies for him? Its not like being able to spot a hiding foe would do anything useful for a fighter, or be something a fighter would be interested in.
Finarin Panjoro 03-02-07, 11:37 AM	To be honest, the idea of giving fighters Spot and Listen is not so bad to me. It's warriors that I absolutely can't stand having them as skills. Warriors are non-specialized mooks who happen to know how to use a sword and at low levels they are very common (almost every humanoid monster is a warrior at low levels). Giving them two of the best skills in the game is a major blow to stealth chararacters. My objection to fighters getting Spot and Listen as class skills is because honestly you can make the same argument for almost any skills in the game. If the fighter can be a guard he needs spot and listen, if the fighter is a commando he needs hide and move silently, if he's a bounty hunter he needs surivival for tracking, if he's a warrior king he needs diplomacy and sense motive, and so on. Why don't fighters have Heal? They get wounded more than just about anyone else. You see where I'm going? My solution to this was to create a fighter only feat called Skill Emphasis. A fighter can take it once and selects one of the +2/+2 skill boost feats to go with it. For that feat only, those two skills become fighter class skills. So your fighter guard would take Skill Emphasis: alertness and gain a +2 to Spot and Listen and make them Fighter skills. A woodsman would take Skill Emphasis: Survivalist, a Sheriff: investigator, a commando: stealthy, a General: negotiator, A mage hunter: magical aptitude, and so on. The fighter is limited to one skill specialization to fit the niche job that he's taken. The fighter's flavor text indicates that they are versatile and I felt this feat allowed the application of that philosophy to the fighter's skills in a way comparable to how it is with his feats. It allows the fighter a single combat relevant skill specialization to complement his feat selection. It also gives him some possible out of combat utility.