| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1katmanNov 10, 2007 16:22:08 | 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. 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. 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 enumerate 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 potential 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):
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:
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 skills of their own or very large numbers (but I'd penalize listen checks for large 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 inspires 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.... |
| #2crashy75Nov 11, 2007 23:15:57 | This is one of the reasons I was very dismayed to see the spot skill on that devil 4e stat block. As you've said but didn't go into detail, separate spot and listen checks complicate the issue. Your math looks sound so I'll jump right to your solutions. 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. I don't agree that this method should be used on both sides of the table. The cards should be stacked in the PC's favor mechanically speaking. They're the heroes. They should always have better than even odds against all but the BBEG because it's just plain lame to get outshone by the cannon fodder. 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. I prefer the first one with the variant already given. Every PC rolls vs. NPC's use only the best modifier in the group; stacked in favor of the PC's as it should be. 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. Really I hope they address the real problems with magic items, specifically that they are so good they are required for effective high level play. I'd rather most of that power level be transferred to the PC's and bring items down a bit (though I like the concept of legacy items to a point). Aragorn, Gimli or Legolas aren't cool because of the items they carry. Well, Aragorn has his sword, but still an arse-kicker without it. |
| #3etarnonNov 12, 2007 10:24:16 | I agree with the math. I disagree with the basic premise. Are all 10 orcs going to be eyes on alert, looking in all directions? Since when are 10 adventurers this alert? Seems like 1 or 2 will be the most alert, the rest are there as swords. Again, it's very mechanistic, in a "perfect situation" sort of way, to set it up like that. If the story needs require one PC to sneak past "A troupe of orcs", roll the one time, for the group, I suggest. Now if the scenario is instead, "Penetrate the castle front entrance, with 10 highly trained, alert, pre-warned guards, wearing the "Cloak".. yeah then overall chances of your spy/assassin/whatever getting through might be the 10%. But making it down to the dice roll, there is always that chance of making the roll no matter how many guards there are. I really don't see a need for the official rules to be changed, so much as common sense applied, really, in any in-game situation. There are rules enough already. |
| #4highbulpNov 12, 2007 14:18:18 | So if I understand you correctly... you're arguing that the Cloak of Elvenkind isn't powerful enough? Basically you want it to allow an untrained wearing to hide from half a dozen guys who are actively looking for him? In that case... yes, it does not work the way you want. In 3.5 the Cloak is the equivalent of magical camouflage--it makes it so you blend in a bit, but it certainly doesn't grant you anywhere near invisibility. Remember, being invisible grants you an effective +20 to Hide checks, so a cloak that gives a +15 means that you really are almost invisible. So your analysis shows that wearing camo doesn't necessarily make an untrained person able to sneak past half a dozen enemies who are actively looking for him... yup, that's exactly right. That said, there is nothing wrong with you making Cloaks of Elvenkind in your game grant +15 or +20 hide bonuses (assuming you add an appropriate increase in price). Maybe the standard +5 Cloak is really a "Cloak of Elvenlikeness," which is an attempt to mirror "the elves renowned ability to hide" or whatnot. Also (and it's possible that this is what you are doing and I'm misreading your post), in many games an attempt to sneak past a group of enemies will result in a single Hide check made against multiple Spot checks. So if you just nail that Hide check (say with a 20), then you can sneak past them all. Furthermore, many DMs will rule that if the enemies aren't actively looking for you, they're basically taking 10 and so you only need to beat that in order to move past them. Finally, in 3.5 at least, you need to remember that most common modifier to spot checks: -1 per 10' of distance. That should change your calculations a bit. |
| #5empirateNov 13, 2007 8:29:33 | I very much appreciate the work you put into this article, katman, though I think it might have been done in a more concise form. Your fundamental point, as I understand it, is that opposed-rolls skills become prohibitively difficult to use successfully, even with very favorable base odds, once a lot of opponents are involved. I like the approach in which only the best spotter rolls a check, with bonuses for more creatures participating. However, statistically, this approach flattens your bell curve out to a plain horizontal line - the d20 isn't ideally suited to modeling probabilities in the first place. The statistics problem you bring up exists in all situations in which many checks become necessary. For example, I've heard countless people argue for Trip attacks with Improved Trip, especially against high-AC foes. "You only need a touch attack, then they're prone, and you get a +4!" being a common line of reasoning. As I pointed out in another thread, a Trip attempt takes three rolls: A touch attack and an opposed roll (your roll plus the opponent's). Thus, three rolls can go against you. Your touch attack, while easy, will still have a certain chance to miss. An opposed roll, even if it heavily favors you (Sweeping weapon, Improved Trip, larger size...) requires not only you to roll adequately, but also your opponent to roll lower than a certain number. Three rolls that can stop your attempt, in which case you don't get to make the extra attack provided by Improved Trip. And even if you do trip the opponent, you still have to roll an additional time to actually damage them. +4 bonus or not, this roll can fail, too. Trip is good for battlefield control and denying the opponent actions. It is good for the AoO it generates from opponents standing up (hopefully within easy reach of three or four members of your team). It is not easy to pull off, though. I guess what I'm getting at is this: There are tactics, like simply attacking, that only require one roll to meet a certain target number. There are other tactics that require more rolls to exceed (or remain below, in the case of opponent's rolls) certain target numbers. The first kind of tactic is inherently superior to the latter, over time, even in the face of hefty bonuses/penalties. So what I'd argue for in the case of opposed rolls: Active participants roll normally, but only once. Assume the passive participants (in katman's example, the Orcs) are taking ten. Compare the check result rolled by the active participant to the check result generated by all opponents taking ten. If the active participant's check exceeds that result, he's golden. If not, he's screwed. You can modify this mechanic by only using the highest check result of the passive participants, with each of their check result beating 10 adding +1, up to a maximum of +10. Let's do a quick calculation: James has Hide +0, with the aforementioned magical ring, and a Cloak of Elvenkind for an additional +5. Orcs have Spot +0. James can sneak past one Orc without problems 75% of the time, since the Orc's Spot check result is +10. To beat this, James needs to roll a six or higher. As long as he keeps a bit of distance or uses cover/concealment, he should never have a problem. James can sneak past 5 Orcs 60% of the time, since the Orcs' Spot check results in an 14 (10 plus 4, for four Orcs contributing +1 each). James needs a 9, which he gets 60% of the time. Taking cover, concealment, and distance is advised. James can sneak past 10 Orcs 35% of the time. The Orc's Spot check result is 19, and James needs a 14 to beat this. As long as he keeps decent cover/concealment and distance between himself and the Orcs, he's OK, but he shouldn't try anything fancy. As the number of Orcs James tries to hide from reaches 11, his chances are minimized at 30%. No matter how many Orcs are there, not all of them will contribute to overall watchfulness. Some of them might even distract others. So James is well advised to invest in some Hide ranks and a good Dex if he wants to get close to this bunch. Note that a PC actually attempting to crawl under the noses of 10 to 20 Orcs should have more than +5 to Hide. Even at first level, a Rogue probably has at least a +7 or more in Hide without the Cloak (that's +11 or more for Halflings and Gnomes! A Halfling can reach +13 without even trying hard). Against an infinite amount of Spot +0 critters, this gives him a 40% chance to remain undetected even in conditions that don't favor hiding. I stressed the need to get cover/concealment and keep a certain distance when hiding. Environmental factors are very important especially for opposed checks. Multiple rolls for multiple opponents mitigate environmental advantages, though, thus making them less important/interesting. I won't allow them any further for this very reason. Also, this works to the PCs' disadvantage in some situations as well, and makes maximizing ranks in "passive" skills like Spot or Listen more important. I'd still allow an actual roll for these skills when a creature spends an action to spot or listen for foes, though. What do you think? |
| #6think0028Nov 13, 2007 18:34:03 | Problem #2: It is too easy to get that +19 difference. Whisper Gnome Rogue 1 with 20 DEX. Hide and Move Silently check of +17 (I believe, the Move Silently check may only be +13) with no feats. Take Stealthy? +19 each. At level 1, you are GUARANTEED to sneak pass any +0 modifiers. And it gets worse. |
| #7billthemaniacNov 13, 2007 20:29:34 | Opposed rolls are the problem, not the items. Fix 1 vs. 5 opposed rolls and you fix the items. Maybe give only 1 person a role in unequal (not ride vs. ride, but bluff vs. sense motive) contexts. So Bob just has to beat their Spot DC, which is 11+spot mod, or 11, so he makes it past a patrol of virtually any size 75% of the time. |
| #8elyasravenwoodNov 15, 2007 8:32:57 | Katman Thank you your article makes allot of sense. I think we can lump grappling into a similar category. I think that pinning an opponent requires more rolls then almost anything else in the game. At least I cannot think of anything else right now. First the attacker initiates a grapple by making a ranged touch attack, (assuming he has the improved grapple check and does not provoke and attack of opportunity). Then there is the opposed grapple check. Latter that round, or in the beginning of the next round before your initiative, your opponent, who is being grappled, gets to attempt another grapple check, to attempt to break free. Now I may be wrong about this but I think you need to make another grapple check to finally pin your opponent. So in summation you need to succeed in one ranged touch attack, and three grapple checks in order to pin someone. Katman, I think you can probably better then I see the statistical improbability of successfully pinning someone. Your article brings up some very good points that I was intuitively aware of. I remember watching the usefulness of the cloak and boots of Elvin kind plummet through the editions, being actually useful in 2nd ed, to being marginally useful in 3rd ed with the +10 modifier, to being not worth the gold it costs in 3rd ed with by offering a measly +5 bonus. With your spy trying to get through the Orc lines, I as a Dm have seen the reverse. If I wanted to ambush someone with leveled rouge, the most unlikely characters usually spot him the wizard or the fighter. What often happens is the party rogue/bard/ranger etc makes a spot and a listen check, and then everyone else wants to make a check, so by the time all of the “ I got a 15”” I got a 5” and the smug “ I got a 19 where is spot, and what is my wisdom modifier again?” has rung out, the rogue has been spotted, and the fight has begun, instead of using spring attack to ambush the cleric or mage and sneak attacking them, the rogue is springing away for his life. Well there we are. Your suggestions are very useful. I think I will have only one player make a search or spot check, with other stealthy types using the “aid another” roll. And to keep things fair, in terms of the goose and gander, I will do the same for the opposing side, and have them make a single listen or spot roll, opposed by the party rouge. Thank you for your thoughts, I Appreciate how things were laid out. |
| #9QubeNov 16, 2007 14:37:23 | I disagree: Fordo (a halfling who put 10 in dex, making it 12), tries to sneak past a 20 orcs guard post ... - 7 of them are sleeping, - 7 aren't on guard and are just doing ... stuff. (since you need 3 8hour shifts) some of them are drunk, some of them are carving a new javelin, one is roasting the beef, etc ... - 2 of the actual guards aren't actually working (If you're going movie-style: these are the bad guards, to lazy to do anything, sleeping on duty ...), - 2 of them are looking the other way (receiving a -2 circumstance penalty) - 2 orcs that get a normal spot checks Halflings are small and receive a +4 on hide. together with his +5 cloak, and +1 from dexterity, thats a +10 modifier. These are default orcs and have -2 on spot, because of their low wisdom. So 8.57% change against the 2 orcs, and 6.67% chance against the other 2 orcs There you go: a 72.8% that Frodo sneaks past a 20 orc guard post. If only Frodo did not put a 10 into his dex ... and if only he would take 10 ... |
| #10swccgfNov 18, 2007 13:25:17 | I see the OP's point, but I run my games more like Qube desribed. There are always people talking and gambling and being rowdy in these situations, so unless there is something unusual going on most of those involved wouldn't even get spot checks etc. |
| #11shaftielNov 18, 2007 21:38:58 | - 7 of them are sleeping, I like Qube's method but do it a little differently: most, if not all, people "take 0" on their Spot and Listen checks when they are distracted, and frequently take 0 or 5 even if they are supposed to be guarding something. The trick is to take the time to pick the moment you pass them. Having actually done guard duty in the Army, I've got to say that this is a pretty common scenario. Especially when you are in a low-no threat situation, distracted, or exhausted. I twice pulled 48 hour guard shifts while stationed in the States (an absolute zero-risk non-combat situation) and it's real tough to spot stuff when you're beginning to hallucinate from lack of sleep. Now I know orcs would never make this mistake, as they are intelligent, wise, and highly Lawful... oh, wait... -Shaftiel |
| #12wrecanNov 19, 2007 7:51:52 | What if the rules for group checks was as follows: The person with the highest check modifier is the "primary" person on a skill and everyone else is restricted to Aiding Other. That lessens the benefit of groups but still gives some advantage to groups acting in concert. I haven't done the math, but that might make it more realistic for individuals trying to sneak past a group. |
| #13finarin_panjoroNov 19, 2007 19:54:31 | An alternative to revising the rules for cloaks and boots of elvenkind (which becomes problematic since other skill boosting items would have to be adjusted as well) I present the alternative that I use. I prefer to have success or failure be in the hands of the player. Thus NPCs always take 10 on opposed skill checks (and many opposed combat checks such as tripping etc.). This is the same as setting a DC for the check that is fairly middle of the road. Success or failure thus lies solely with the PC attempting to utilize his skill. Thus a rogue sneaking into a guarded camp may be certain that if he rolls well he will succeed. None of this I rolled a 16 but the enemy rolled a 20 and I'm spotted stuff. This has essentially the same effect as giving the enemy one spot roll to detect the PC because they all rolled the same number: 10. So if the guards all have Spot modifiers of +2 then a Hide check result of 12 is enough to sneak by all of them. If the rogue has a distraction provided for him he can be nearly certain of success (needing only a check result of 7 to succeed against all the observers in that area). If there are observers with different modifiers then he must beat the DC of the best observer (guards all have +2, but a ranger with Spot +6 is present). If this occurs during the surprise round then he can beat some of them and not others and only those with higher modifiers may act. Now this may sound like its giving away the farm, but its really not. Even with only a +2 modifier guards can still spot a rogue if he doesn't have cover or concealment available. Thus it requires trickery, timing, and distractions on the part of the rogue to bypass areas that he can't sneak through and the excitement of stealth is maintained. Also having NPCs take 10 constantly saves a lot of rolling on the part of the DM. You always know what the DC is for bluffing, intimidating, sneaking, or spotting someone. This is probably the best house rule I have. |
| #14sinisNov 19, 2007 20:22:44 | There are extreme issues when you buff up the cloaks and the player is trying to sneak up on one person. Remember that there is a distance penalty to spot. In the games I've played, we've always had the trouble of not seeing things coming, even if we've maxed out spot (this becomes really obvious when spot is cross-class). |
| #15cr0mNov 20, 2007 12:41:57 | What the game needs is better helping rules. Make it so that in a group, the character with the best skill rolls and the rest help. My advice is to rethink Aid Another so that rather than bog things down with another roll, do something along these lines: Character with best skill uses his full modifier + Character with next best or equivalent skill / 2 (min. 1) + + 1 per each additional helper. That's the way it usually is: one guy is in charge and everyone else is helping him. Same with the PCs! |
| #16cr0mNov 20, 2007 18:02:46 | Even if you run games like Qube, the rules still penalize skill checks unfairly. What D&D needs is better helping rules. Aid Another is a good start, but the extra dice rolling is a big negative in my game. What I'd do is rule that when more than one person help at the same task, the more expert person rolls, and everyone else helps his roll. Here's one way: Orc with the highest Spot rolls. Second best Spotter orc adds his ability / 2 (min. 1). Each additional orc Spotting adds 1, up to the maximum the DM thinks can reasonably help. This is to reflect that a camp of 100 orcs is actually easier to slip into, due to the crowd, and to make sure that you don't have 100 rogues all picking the same lock! If you run games like Qube, you only worry about the handful of orcs actually doing their jobs. If you've got orcs each watching a different sector, then you only roll for the sector the PCs are approaching from--the other groups are irrelevant. Even more importantly, you roll once, not once every 10' feet. I'd also let people with different skills help--not currently allowed by Aid Another. If I'm trying to fortify a building before the orcs attack, other characters should be able to help my Knowledge (Siege Engineering) with Strength checks as I order them to move things around and create barricades. |
| #17Osaka_SLoKU5yqWENov 20, 2007 21:42:41 | Qube's example works with orcs, but not with any well ordered military force. All we have to do is switch the orcs with a human army of professional soldiers, and we are back to the same problem. Personally, I do a single roll for these kinds of things, using the character with the highest modifier. They're the best at it, so why shouldn't they be the one to notice anything. Even if you dislike it logically, it makes good sense mechanically. It also means that the PCs are more of a team, and that games aren't slowed by rolling 50 Spot checks for a band of soldiers. And, if the PCs all want a go, then give it to them. There are only going to be 6 PCs max (probably), so giving them six rolls and the bad guys one isn't really a bad thing. As other people have said, the game should give them the weight. Remember, being a DM is like playing football with shrewd children: you're meant to let them win but not give the impression that you did so. |
| #18katmanNov 21, 2007 13:32:05 | First of all, cookies to everyone for commenting so civilly. Fine discussion. I actually figured the submission had been rejected by RR, so I went and posted it in the 4E Concerns [q.v. - thanks to EGG for teaching me that term] and 3E Skills [q.v.] forums. Some interesting responses came back. First of all, I found that a lot of DMs seem to use the "Monsters Take 10" rule. That modification, all by itself, eliminates a lot of these problems because you get into the "slow decline over multiple checks" zone very quickly. You also hit non-detectability very quickly, however, which can be an issue. On a related point, BW0222 pointed out that many monsters don't have great spot checks, and adds that: "Amongst PC classes there are few which have spot as a class skill and fewer builds which max it out." I've always thought that last bit was totally broken, personally. Spot is one of those skills that's pretty much universal, and the "class-ization" of universal skills in 3E has led to some silly results (like the policeman Warrior 2 with no skills in Spot, Diplomacy, or Sense Motive). As for having the Player take 10, I've never treated Hide checks that way because I believed the PC was always threatened in those situations. If the Player can take 10, my math changes quite a bit. Comments on that one? |
| #19katmanNov 21, 2007 13:41:32 | I'm cutting my reply into 3 to make linking for discussion purposes a bit easier. This time, I thought it wise to deal with this issue amidst the responses. It's an excellent type of point, in that it goes right into a build that helps us scope this thing out as played: QUOTE=Think0028;14325631]Problem #2: It is too easy to get that +19 difference. Whisper Gnome Rogue 1 with 20 DEX. Hide and Move Silently check of +17 (I believe, the Move Silently check may only be +13) with no feats. Take Stealthy? +19 each. At level 1, you are GUARANTEED to sneak pass any +0 modifiers. And it gets worse. Could you do a breakdown on the math there? I believe it's +13 Hide - what might I be missing? * Maxed out ability (Lvl 1+3 ranks) = +4 * Dex 20 = +5 * Size bonus on hide = +4 That's +13, and 20 Dex isn't simple at 1st level using point buy. Given maxed skill limits, Whisper will be 6th level before he's +19. For a totally maxed-out stealth-designed PC, I don't have a basic problem with being able to sneak past commoners at will at that level. A non gnome/halfling character built the same way wouldn't have that ability until L10, and really by L10 you should be pretty damn impressive to normal people. On the other hand, if you use the "monsters take 10" rule, then even that +13 becomes undetectable for a lot of folks pretty fast. A 1st level halfling rogue with 17 Dex could take Ranks +4, add Dex +3 and Hide Bonus +4 (n.b. the broken rule if taking 10 is the norm), to get +11. Against the average orc with +2 Spot bonus, taking 10, he can't lose (rolls 1, +11 = tie, re-roll). If taking 10 is the norm, I'd strongly suggest making the hide bonus +1/+2 for small, and reserving +4 for tiny creatures. But then, this example does point out the potential issues with "monsters just taking 10" as a mechanic, so maybe that mechanic isn't ready for prime time yet as a premise. Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium. |
| #20katmanNov 21, 2007 14:04:23 | Reply #3 here deals with some of the good points raised re: tweaks and options for DMs: The "-1 per 10 feet" addendum. Was pointed out in the other 2 threads, and Empirate did an excellent job of explaining its uses in more depth. I had missed that one, and it does make a difference. Not a complete difference, but a difference. Highbulp re: Cloaks of Elvenkind The problem with elven cloaks, of course, is that invisibility lets you move around and still get that +20, whereas the cloak does not. Monsters do have a tendency to blunder in closer when PCs are trying to hide - and while an invisible spy can just maintain distance via movement, that's a lot harder for our cloak-wearing friends. So even a +20 cloak wouldn't be equivalent to that Ring of Invisibility, which lets you move and confers +40 if you're immobile. In a "Take 10" world, however, the +10 Elf Lauren Cloak is good enough, since it guarantees immobile hides against most commoner class opponents, and offers very good odds to anyone with some skill against a wider variety of opponents. I'd keep the "alternations required" rule for the flavor and role-play opportunities, though, and to tone down the value of such cloaks when first found. Aid Another and Group Spots: For those using the "aid another" option, Hebitsuikaza had an interesting suggestion that uses sliding additions for "aid another" based on your ability score: "So if their spot check is +0 or less, then they add 0 to the total Just throwin' that out there for folks, but it does mitigate the PC response of "we'll have one "spot guy," and everyone else invests in other things because we just help her" reaction. It also gives "high spot" monsters in groups the aura they ought to have. H. adds that: "The noisier and busier the people making the check are, the higher of a penalty they should incur." A good reminder. Paring down the number of spot checks made by such groups also achieves this effect, but folks using group take 10s or aid another options need another mechanic, and they can keep this in mind. It isn't unreasonable for a lazy, quarrelsome orc guard post's Spot or Listen check to be -1, for instance (Spot +2, +1 aid another for the 2nd, -4 circumstance). Which serves to penalize undisciplined and less trained individuals, as it true in the real world. Pez suggested offsetting penalties for spot/listen checks by group size, which if done well would tend to even out the "aid another" bonuses. It also makes real world sense, as only elite units have the noise discipline to remove this as a factor - otherwise, the guy behind you crashing through the brush, or cursing, or just being in your way will crimp your style on spot/listen. ... On the flip side, we also want a fast, easily playable mechanic, and as we can see Spot/Listen can certainly get pretty complicated pretty fast if we let it. One for the game design folks to ponder, I guess, as they move toward 4E. Hopefully, these discussions have raised the issue well, and helped to sketch out its parameters for them. Keep the thoughts coming... |
| #21averroesNov 21, 2007 14:10:12 | I hope I didn't miss someone else saying this but, Shouldn't it be harder to hide from a lot of guys than just one? I agree that not all Orcs would be spotting and that's fine. But it should be hard for average James to sneak past 5 guards paying attention, even with a little magic boost. Honestly the opposed rolls don't seem that broken to me. Trying to bluff a big group of people is harder than trying to bluff one guy. I haven't really seen my hiding characters always fail or anything like that. If you think the elvenkind stuff is too weak up it a bit. I know the ones in my games gives a +10 instead of the 5. Cause I do remember what they were like in 2e. |
| #22finarin_panjoroNov 22, 2007 11:44:06 | The problem with doing assistance based checks for large groups is that if applied logically it creates some weird mechanical problems. Best example: You have 20 spotters. You take the best spotter's modifier and allow the others to aid. No problem. But then you have a party of 5 trying to sneak past, it makes sense to use the lowest person's Hide modifier because he's the most likely one to be spotted. If you use the highest person's modifier then the entire party suddenly sneaks as well as the rogue or ranger. In fact because these unskilled mooks are aiding (+2 per person) the rogue is harder to detect when he's dragging along his 4 loud clumsy friends then when he's alone. So you only need one party member to be good at Hide and Move Silently because the entire party can "piggy back" on his skill modifiers. This is why I like my take 10 rule (see previous post). It's the rogue versus the best spotter in the group. If the rogue rolls well he'll probably succeed. If the rogue rolls poorly only the best spotters are still likely to see him. The cleric will still have a very difficult time sneaking past that same alert guard, but can if buffed by the party (invisibility, cat's grace, silence spells, etc). The rogue's extreme stealth skills become a resource savings for the party this way. They don't have to use magic as often for stealth because the rogue is very likely to succeed so long as he rolls decently (and he can often take 10 and have a reasonable chance as well). |
| #23zelck_dupNov 26, 2007 20:22:30 | Could you do a breakdown on the math there? I believe it's +13 Hide - what might I be missing? Whisper Gnomes and Forest Gnomes have an additional +4 racial bonus to Hide. And yeah, it's extremely easy to become impossible to detect. When I was playing in the Core Coliseum, I had an ECL 9 Forest Gnome Ghost with the following entry in the stat block: +39 Hide [7rnk +3dex +4size +4race +8race +3psicrystal +10competence] [4ranger 6psiwarcc] +4 in a wooded area And this was before buffing with the Dorje of Chameleon, which adds a +10 enhancement bonus for 10 minutes, and a use of Compression, which adds a +5 bonus (combination of size and dex) for 3 minutes. Thanks to the distance penalties for Spot checks, if this guy wants to stay hidden, he won't be seen even while sniping you to death. Right now, I'd say the Hide/Move Silently skills are less broken than Diplomacy, but broken all the same. If you force enemies to take 10, then it becomes even easier for this guy to autosucceed his Hide check (if he's the enemy or if he's the PC). |
| #24bekelevenDec 23, 2007 22:54:29 | This is all well and good until someone breaks your game. I refer you to the Immortal T.L. Alton, Whisper gnome Rogue. Level 1- Assume T.L rolls elite array. With a +2 dex, he has 17 for a modifier of +3 on his hide. But wait! He's small! that's +4 more. And whisper gnomes get a +4 racial bonus, in addition to his 4 ranks a level 1 rogue would have. That's +15 at level 1. What if nimble little T.L is able to sneak his way past the lightly dozing magical shopkeep (with his spell-like ability silence) and grab a cloak of elvenkind? Given that you suggest upping the cloak to +10 or more, he now has guaranteed success against anyone with a spot check of +5 or lower. All I'm saying here is that sure, sometimes the common folk get screwed; but at the same time, a good gamer can make do, or even excel in situations where a less specialized person would fail. Hell, I didn't even use any feats; what about stealthy and skill focus (hide) for +20 at level 1 (no items or magic)? |
| #25pntbttr14Feb 07, 2008 12:56:20 | Well, one way to consider sneaking past large groups is to not allow a certain percentage of the group to not make spot checks, the reasoning being that a certain number are not going to be looking in the right direction, since they don't know where the sneaker could be. Just a suggestion. |