Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
problems with scouting
38 views
Skip to first unread message
David Lamb
Mar 20, 2013, 11:03:38 AM3/20/13
to
I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
Rely only on magical scouting?
apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
Rely only on magical scouting?
dr...@bin.sh
Mar 20, 2013, 1:21:43 PM3/20/13
to
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of telling you
lJ | | to slow down."
|_l
Justisaur
Mar 20, 2013, 2:20:18 PM3/20/13
to
high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen. Most of my
games no one wants to use a scout though, perhaps it's because they
get to have all the fun while everyone else sits around twiddling
their thumbs.
- Justisaur
Jim Davies
Mar 20, 2013, 8:11:18 PM3/20/13
to
On the grave of David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> is inscribed:
That's not quite the problem, usually. The rogue is prepared for
scouting and so can stack up the bonuses, whereas a guard is probably
just a mook fighter or monster with no great perception bonus. There
are exceptions, of course.
Scouting isn't too hard if the scout can see in the dark and isn't
obstructed by something like a door. Of course doors are quite common
in dungeons and many races can't see in the dark without help. So IME
it's most effective outside, where the rogue gets a fat range bonus on
his stealth bonus.
Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
Then there's the question of what the rogue can do about the guard.
Stealth is very probably good enough to establish that the guard
exists, but may not be good enough to let the rogue kill him: one
sneak attack from a bow is a bit risky, and trying a full TWF sneak
means getting very close.
And then there's the question of what the other players are doing
while all this goes on.
In PF it's acknowledged that the Stealth rules are essentially broken
and stealth as written doesn't work. So you have to bodge it for
common sense. It may be the same in 3.5; I can't remember.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
scouting and so can stack up the bonuses, whereas a guard is probably
just a mook fighter or monster with no great perception bonus. There
are exceptions, of course.
Scouting isn't too hard if the scout can see in the dark and isn't
obstructed by something like a door. Of course doors are quite common
in dungeons and many races can't see in the dark without help. So IME
it's most effective outside, where the rogue gets a fat range bonus on
his stealth bonus.
Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
Then there's the question of what the rogue can do about the guard.
Stealth is very probably good enough to establish that the guard
exists, but may not be good enough to let the rogue kill him: one
sneak attack from a bow is a bit risky, and trying a full TWF sneak
means getting very close.
And then there's the question of what the other players are doing
while all this goes on.
In PF it's acknowledged that the Stealth rules are essentially broken
and stealth as written doesn't work. So you have to bodge it for
common sense. It may be the same in 3.5; I can't remember.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
David Lamb
Mar 20, 2013, 9:48:57 PM3/20/13
to
On 20/03/2013 8:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
> In PF it's acknowledged that the Stealth rules are essentially broken
> and stealth as written doesn't work. So you have to bodge it for
> common sense. It may be the same in 3.5; I can't remember.
What sort of bodging do people use?
> In PF it's acknowledged that the Stealth rules are essentially broken
> and stealth as written doesn't work. So you have to bodge it for
> common sense. It may be the same in 3.5; I can't remember.
As a word freak I'm also curious about the etymology of "bodge"
WDS906 (less the 906)
Mar 21, 2013, 11:35:52 AM3/21/13
to
On 3/20/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
With a +15 hide bonus versus a 0 spot bonus the halfling will be spotted
> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
about 4% of the time. That doesn't sound too bad until you look at what
happens when he does get spotted and as you note he can't get away.
This is a common failing all across D&D: it's hard to get away. If you
are in heavy armor or otherwise slow every fight is generally fight
until you win, or die. At least until your spell casters come up with
ways to help you escape.
David Lamb
Mar 21, 2013, 12:48:50 PM3/21/13
to
On 21/03/2013 11:35 AM, WDS906 (less the 906) wrote:
> On 3/20/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
>> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
>> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
>> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
>> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
>
> With a +15 hide bonus versus a 0 spot bonus the halfling will be spotted
> about 4% of the time.
I reread the description of Hide and found that total cover or
> On 3/20/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
>> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
>> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
>> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
>> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
>
> With a +15 hide bonus versus a 0 spot bonus the halfling will be spotted
> about 4% of the time.
concealment eliminates the need for a hide check, but I'd want to add
some sort of rule for "peeking around corners" to give another plus.
> That doesn't sound too bad until you look at what
> happens when he does get spotted and as you note he can't get away.
>
> This is a common failing all across D&D: it's hard to get away. If you
> are in heavy armor or otherwise slow every fight is generally fight
> until you win, or die. At least until your spell casters come up with
> ways to help you escape.
being inaccessible at the moment. Was there the same problem with
running away back then?
Maybe the 18/01 fighter carried the hobbit? :)
Some kind of Morale rules might cause the bad guys to stop chasing
same-speed characters before too long. They might plausibly be afraid of
an ambush, since pretending to run away was a think in real life. Still
leaves the little guys up the proverbial creek.
Justisaur
Mar 21, 2013, 2:59:41 PM3/21/13
to
being spotted are far worse, you can at least distract most monsters
with food or coin easily, and you aren't quite as slow as 3e, most
humanoids wear armor which slows them down enough.
- Justisaur
Jim Davies
Mar 21, 2013, 3:49:33 PM3/21/13
to
On the grave of "WDS906 (less the 906)" <Bil...@seurer.net> is
inscribed:
>On 3/20/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
>> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
>> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
>> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
>> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
>
>With a +15 hide bonus versus a 0 spot bonus the halfling will be spotted
>about 4% of the time.
If the halfling or (more likely) the guard is taking 10, it's 0%. So
you need a nice DM.
>That doesn't sound too bad until you look at what
>happens when he does get spotted and as you note he can't get away.
This is when you need to carry stuff like caltrops and tanglefoot bags
to help you get away, but again that might not work and shouldn't be
necessary.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
inscribed:
>On 3/20/2013 7:11 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
>> Halflings are notably awkward here: the great stealth & dex bonus
>> suggests that they should be good at it (+15 isn't unreasonable at 1st
>> level), but no low-light- or dark- vision and 20' move means they
>> can't do it in a dungeon and can't escape easily if detected.
>
>With a +15 hide bonus versus a 0 spot bonus the halfling will be spotted
>about 4% of the time.
you need a nice DM.
>That doesn't sound too bad until you look at what
>happens when he does get spotted and as you note he can't get away.
to help you get away, but again that might not work and shouldn't be
necessary.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Jim Davies
Mar 21, 2013, 3:56:45 PM3/21/13
to
>I'm trying to remember what it was like in the Olde Dayes, my AD&D books
>being inaccessible at the moment. Was there the same problem with
>running away back then?
Nobody runs in 1e. You move 120 feet per minute, tops. That's 1.3 mph.
>being inaccessible at the moment. Was there the same problem with
>running away back then?
So by the time the monsters get close to you, winter will have come
and the snow will discourage pursuit.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
Tetsubo
Mar 21, 2013, 4:09:44 PM3/21/13
to
in the 1E era we that made no sense. Six seconds make so much more sense.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> http://www.aaargh.org
>
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Harold Groot
Mar 21, 2013, 11:03:53 PM3/21/13
to
to emphasize mobility. Sure, the resources (feats, magic, etc.) spent
in that area can't then be spent to optimize your offense - but as
noted, there are times when being able to outrun the opposition is
VERY important. Sometimes it's just chasing down and finishing off
your opponents before they can sound the alarm, but sometimes it means
YOU are the one trying to break off and retreat. Our group had a
couple of instances of Full-Out Retreat where even WITH our emphasis
on mobility we barely got to safety.
My own current stealth character is a whisper gnome (lots of racial
bonuses for stealth) who gets 30 move to start (not the 20 that most
small characters get) with a level of cleric (with the Celerity
domain, so +10 movement, and the Travel domain, so automatic Freedom
of Movement if they try a surprise grapple or WEB - and also
LONGSTRIDER as a domain spell) and a level of barbarian (another +10
movement). This means her "Getting the hell out of here" maneuver is
usually successful. Of course that's at the cost of 1d6 sneak attack
damage and some skill points (if she had taken 2 more levels of Rogue
instead), but it's been worth it. Successful scouting means you can
be well prepared for the fights you need to have and that you can
often completely avoid the fights you don't need to have. Add in some
cheap blend-in-or-hide magics (Hat of Disguise, Ring of Darkhidden)
and some teammates who WILL BE PREPARED to ambush any beings who are
chasing her and things have gone pretty well when she scouts.
David Lamb
Mar 22, 2013, 7:24:14 AM3/22/13
to
On 21/03/2013 11:03 PM, Harold Groot wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:52 -0500, "WDS906 (less the 906)"
> <Bil...@seurer.net> wrote:
>> This is a common failing all across D&D: it's hard to get away. If you
>> are in heavy armor or otherwise slow every fight is generally fight
>> until you win, or die. At least until your spell casters come up with
>> ways to help you escape.
>
>
> So much depends on what sort of build your PCs have. Our group decided
> to emphasize mobility.
Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:35:52 -0500, "WDS906 (less the 906)"
> <Bil...@seurer.net> wrote:
>> This is a common failing all across D&D: it's hard to get away. If you
>> are in heavy armor or otherwise slow every fight is generally fight
>> until you win, or die. At least until your spell casters come up with
>> ways to help you escape.
>
>
> So much depends on what sort of build your PCs have. Our group decided
> to emphasize mobility.
optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
"ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
Tetsubo
Mar 22, 2013, 8:33:08 AM3/22/13
to
ordinary Rogue isn't a Scout. They are a Rogue doing scouting. A Rogue
purpose built for scouting though, is a Scout. Or any other class
purpose built for that task. Off-the-shelf characters don't tend to
excel at any one specific thing. They are generalists. A Scout is a
specialist.
Loren Pechtel
Mar 22, 2013, 11:50:59 PM3/22/13
to
sneaking around inside an orc army encampment. I forget how they
messed up but the alarm was sounded.
I did a couple of quite reasonable nerfs to the orc's shooting and
even then they were just about turned into swiss cheese before they
got smart and used stealth rather than running away like a bull in a
china shop. (1) Since they were facing long range archery I allowed
a shield held overhead to stop most of the arrows. 2) The to-hit
very quickly went above 20 and so I started reducing the number of
potential hits as the to-hit went up. Since the orcs couldn't
overtake they were simply standing there and shooting, when it was up
to something like 5 range increments and the party went to stealth the
orcs couldn't detect them anymore.)
Harold Groot
Mar 23, 2013, 2:16:42 AM3/23/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 07:24:14 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:
Well, that's not really Optimized, it's merely a reasonably strong
build. But an ordinary "off-the-shelf" fighter (or any other class,
for that matter) is rather seldom seen these days, so why should the
scout be so limited? People regularly use 2-handed weapons and Power
Attack to build fighters to be strong in melee and nobody thinks twice
about it. So why should there be any problems with a scout build who
can be as effective at scouting as the fighter is at melee fighting?
wrote:
build. But an ordinary "off-the-shelf" fighter (or any other class,
for that matter) is rather seldom seen these days, so why should the
scout be so limited? People regularly use 2-handed weapons and Power
Attack to build fighters to be strong in melee and nobody thinks twice
about it. So why should there be any problems with a scout build who
can be as effective at scouting as the fighter is at melee fighting?
dr...@bin.sh
Mar 23, 2013, 2:21:24 AM3/23/13
to
Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
> Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
only if the guard thinks its a really smart thing to leave his post
> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
for a potentially long period of time chasing someone.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "If I don't look directly at it, it can't kill my brain."
|_|_[T]_|_| -- Roy, the Order of the Stick
Harold Groot
Mar 23, 2013, 3:02:44 AM3/23/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:33:08 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Yes, you really have to be suited for the assignment. Most PCs are in
roles where assistance is handy. So if you design a "meh" fighter,
well, you'll probably have 3+ other PCs to support you when you melee.
Same for the spellcasters, rogues and so on. Most of the time if
you're not so good at something you've at least got some immediate
help available. But the Scout (of whatever class) is OFTEN going to
find himself alone in dealing with his problems. So the bad results
for designing a "meh" scout are likely to be lethal much more often
than the bad results for a "meh" (any other assignment).
There are, of course, meta-gaming reasons not do to scouting. If you
successfully avoid a reasonable percentage of encounters because you
had effective scouting, you may fall behind in levels from where you
were expected to be (many DMs are reluctant to give XP for avoiding a
fight). If you're in a module that expects you to have become a
certain level by the time you hit the Big Bad, you could be
understrength. And besides the XP, there's also the treasure you were
expected to take from the dead monsters. A fight avoided is treasure
avoided. Or there's the problem of the other players having nothing to
do while the scout is out scouting around. But IF you decide to have a
scout, effective ones are quite possible. And if the DM is running his
own game he's much more likely to adapt on the fly to fit your
lower-than-expected power level at various points. Also, people here
have many times talked about how effective the SBT
(Scry-Buff-Teleport) option is. They tend to forget that
Scout-Buff-Fight gets you much the same results - without most of the
backlash you get from The Anti-SBT League.
wrote:
roles where assistance is handy. So if you design a "meh" fighter,
well, you'll probably have 3+ other PCs to support you when you melee.
Same for the spellcasters, rogues and so on. Most of the time if
you're not so good at something you've at least got some immediate
help available. But the Scout (of whatever class) is OFTEN going to
find himself alone in dealing with his problems. So the bad results
for designing a "meh" scout are likely to be lethal much more often
than the bad results for a "meh" (any other assignment).
There are, of course, meta-gaming reasons not do to scouting. If you
successfully avoid a reasonable percentage of encounters because you
had effective scouting, you may fall behind in levels from where you
were expected to be (many DMs are reluctant to give XP for avoiding a
fight). If you're in a module that expects you to have become a
certain level by the time you hit the Big Bad, you could be
understrength. And besides the XP, there's also the treasure you were
expected to take from the dead monsters. A fight avoided is treasure
avoided. Or there's the problem of the other players having nothing to
do while the scout is out scouting around. But IF you decide to have a
scout, effective ones are quite possible. And if the DM is running his
own game he's much more likely to adapt on the fly to fit your
lower-than-expected power level at various points. Also, people here
have many times talked about how effective the SBT
(Scry-Buff-Teleport) option is. They tend to forget that
Scout-Buff-Fight gets you much the same results - without most of the
backlash you get from The Anti-SBT League.
Tetsubo
Mar 23, 2013, 3:32:39 AM3/23/13
to
On 3/23/2013 2:21 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>> Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
>> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
>> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
>
> only if the guard thinks its a really smart thing to leave his post
> for a potentially long period of time chasing someone.
Yeah, that is what the gong or alarm bell is for...
> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>> Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
>> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
>> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
>
> only if the guard thinks its a really smart thing to leave his post
> for a potentially long period of time chasing someone.
LL
Mar 23, 2013, 6:34:17 AM3/23/13
to
If the scout fails to beat the perception roll of the guard for the
first time, the guard heard/saw something and becomes more alert.
If the scout continues and fails a second or at max 3 times, he's been
discovered and the alarm will be sounded. The guard might try to attack,
but might as well wait for backup.
Works for me and my groups.
LL
dr...@bin.sh
Mar 23, 2013, 3:14:56 PM3/23/13
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> On 3/23/2013 2:21 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>>> Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
>>> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
>>> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
>>
>> only if the guard thinks its a really smart thing to leave his post
>> for a potentially long period of time chasing someone.
>
> Yeah, that is what the gong or alarm bell is for...
at least a standard action to use. gives the scout a round to get
> On 3/23/2013 2:21 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> write:
>>> Thanks for the suggestions on how to optimize a scout. Without the
>>> optimization, though, it looks like WDS point still holds -- an
>>> "ordinary" off-the-shelf scout has a hard time getting away.
>>
>> only if the guard thinks its a really smart thing to leave his post
>> for a potentially long period of time chasing someone.
>
> Yeah, that is what the gong or alarm bell is for...
ahead, maybe find a better hiding spot.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
lJ | | That which does is fracking toast after I respawn."
|_l
David Lamb
Mar 23, 2013, 3:54:16 PM3/23/13
to
On 20/03/2013 2:20 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:03 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>>
>> Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
>> Rely only on magical scouting?
>
> Quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to get move silently and hide
> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
I took a look at a random selection of monsters from the SRD and it
> On Mar 20, 8:03 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>>
>> Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
>> Rely only on magical scouting?
>
> Quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to get move silently and hide
> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
seemed to me that most of them had Spot comparable to their hit dice,
which means only a few points lower than a same-level scout. And some
are even worse -- don't try to sneak up on a CR 5 wraith, with its +12
spot, when you're a level 5-6 character.
Justisaur
Mar 25, 2013, 4:59:00 PM3/25/13
to
first level rogue should have 4 points in hide + at least a couple
from dex, and certain races grant a bonus as well.
If they actually want to be good at scouting they should be taking
skill focus or something similar, I've never seen anyone go that far
though.
Get up a few levels and cloak of elvenkind will get a hefty +5 bonus,
bringing the odds down considerably.
- Justisaur
tussock
Mar 26, 2013, 12:51:04 AM3/26/13
to
David Lamb wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> And some are even worse -- don't try to sneak up on a CR 5 wraith, with
> its +12 spot, when you're a level 5-6 character.
Yep. I think the only way you can get "most" monsters with less than
optimal spot and listen is to count all the insects and other no-skill
types. Which I guess is technically correct. Dragons don't have spot and
listen by default because they don't have pre-assigned skills at all, and
there's 120 dragons.
Most types though, maxed-out spot and/or listen. You need about double
your level + 10 (so +12 at 1st level, +30 at 10th level) to beat them
reliably, which means building a nice big stack.
--
tussock
> Justisaur wrote:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>>>
>>> Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
>>> Rely only on magical scouting?
>>
>> Quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to get move silently and hide
>> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
>
> I took a look at a random selection of monsters from the SRD and it
> seemed to me that most of them had Spot comparable to their hit dice,
> which means only a few points lower than a same-level scout.
And monster hit dice often outpace CR.
>>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>>>
>>> Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
>>> Rely only on magical scouting?
>>
>> Quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to get move silently and hide
>> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
>
> I took a look at a random selection of monsters from the SRD and it
> seemed to me that most of them had Spot comparable to their hit dice,
> which means only a few points lower than a same-level scout.
> And some are even worse -- don't try to sneak up on a CR 5 wraith, with
> its +12 spot, when you're a level 5-6 character.
optimal spot and listen is to count all the insects and other no-skill
types. Which I guess is technically correct. Dragons don't have spot and
listen by default because they don't have pre-assigned skills at all, and
there's 120 dragons.
Most types though, maxed-out spot and/or listen. You need about double
your level + 10 (so +12 at 1st level, +30 at 10th level) to beat them
reliably, which means building a nice big stack.
--
tussock
tussock
Mar 26, 2013, 1:41:45 AM3/26/13
to
David Lamb wrote:
> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
The problem, by-the-book, is that you need to make two checks opposed by
> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
every opponent every action while moving at half speed and sticking to
concealment or cover (which may not conceal /you/ if the monsters have
better vision, or are just slightly concerned about the sudden appearance of
a dense fog or shadowy light source underground).
The monsters not only have enough points in spot and listen, but they
can see further than the PCs with perfect clarity too. Most PCs need some
light to operate at all, which is the opposite of stealth, while monsters
almost all have Darkvision to a greater range than any PC races.
> Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
> Rely only on magical scouting?
very hard and very fast and be gone before the enemy can organise a deadly
response. Sniping could work, should the penalty go from -20 to 0.
Magically: you scry, you buff, you teleport, you win. Or you do whatever
your houserule or common sense response to that dilemma is. Pretty much
everyone simply doesn't do that, because it's too good.
Arguably, skill-based scouting that worked would have a similar effect
on the game, so it may be a good thing that you can't do it.
--
tussock
Joanna Rowland Stuart
Mar 26, 2013, 1:01:00 PM3/26/13
to
In article <p1p72ax...@scrub2.WOOLEY>, sc...@clear.net.nz (tussock)
wrote:
> The problem, by-the-book, is that you need to make two checks
> opposed by every opponent every action while moving at half speed
> and sticking to concealment or cover
I like the simpler variant of one check every minute, opposed by the
nearest actively guarding opponent, with any other nearby opponents who
are actively on guard contributing via Aid Another (bonus +1 for each
such guard, maximum bonus +8). Once the scout gets within 60 feet of any
active guard, checks are made each round, with the check now being made
(and opposed) individually.
If the guards are inactive (i.e. passively standing sentry, or routinely
patrolling a beat), decrease the check frequency by a factor of four (i.e.
every four minutes or four rounds). Passive guards *cannot* "take 10".
Add appropriate modifiers as usual (e.g. visibility, range, cover,
terrain, fatigue, wounds)
Cheers
JOanna
wrote:
> The problem, by-the-book, is that you need to make two checks
> opposed by every opponent every action while moving at half speed
> and sticking to concealment or cover
nearest actively guarding opponent, with any other nearby opponents who
are actively on guard contributing via Aid Another (bonus +1 for each
such guard, maximum bonus +8). Once the scout gets within 60 feet of any
active guard, checks are made each round, with the check now being made
(and opposed) individually.
If the guards are inactive (i.e. passively standing sentry, or routinely
patrolling a beat), decrease the check frequency by a factor of four (i.e.
every four minutes or four rounds). Passive guards *cannot* "take 10".
Add appropriate modifiers as usual (e.g. visibility, range, cover,
terrain, fatigue, wounds)
Cheers
JOanna
David Lamb
Mar 26, 2013, 5:09:04 PM3/26/13
to
On 26/03/2013 12:51 AM, tussock wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote:
>>> David Lamb wrote:
>>>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>>>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>>>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>>>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
> David Lamb wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote:
>>> David Lamb wrote:
>>>> I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>>>> apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>>>> Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>>>> scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>>> Quite the opposite, it's pretty easy to get move silently and hide
>>> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
>>
>> I took a look at a random selection of monsters from the SRD and it
>> seemed to me that most of them had Spot comparable to their hit dice,
>> which means only a few points lower than a same-level scout.
>
> And monster hit dice often outpace CR.
>>> high, and most monsters have mediocre or no spot/listen.
>>
>> I took a look at a random selection of monsters from the SRD and it
>> seemed to me that most of them had Spot comparable to their hit dice,
>> which means only a few points lower than a same-level scout.
>
> And monster hit dice often outpace CR.
> Most types though, maxed-out spot and/or listen. You need about double
> your level + 10 (so +12 at 1st level, +30 at 10th level) to beat them
> reliably, which means building a nice big stack.
So we're back to: yes, monsters will out-Spot your Hide and out-Listen
> your level + 10 (so +12 at 1st level, +30 at 10th level) to beat them
> reliably, which means building a nice big stack.
your Move unless you take huge bonuses somehow. At first level you can
get at best +4 from skill, +3 from a single skill focus (or to both if
you're allowed flaws), and +5 from Dex 20 if you started with an 18 and
became a +2 Dex race. Maybe +2 more if your race has bonuses to Move and
Hide (or +4 if you're a Whisper Gnome like Harold recommended). Thus a
highly optimized scout gets +16 at first level to both skills in the
best case. +13 for one of them if you're not allowed flaws. Minus 1 to
both if you got a mere 16 before racial dex mods.
So that works at first level I suppose.
At 10th level you have +7 on those numbers from skill ranks, +5 for
Boots and Cloak of Elvenkind (at whatever level you can afford them). +2
Dex from levels 4 and 8, so another +1. So (in the 'without UA flaws
case) that's +29. Almost, but not quite. So I suppose it's possible at
10th level.
At level 16 it looks hard to get a +42 (according to your formula). You
only get +6 more from skill ranks, +1 more from 2 stat boosts. IIRC
single-skill boosting items are (boost^2)*100, which is where the 2500
for the boots of elvenkind come from, so that +6 you're missing has to
come from boots+11, which would cost 12,100 if the DM lets you make
them. Double for the other skill's item, or maybe a bit less if the DM
lets you make a single item that gives both. I suppose that's affordable.
David Lamb
Mar 26, 2013, 5:14:28 PM3/26/13
to
On 26/03/2013 1:41 AM, tussock wrote:
> David Lamb wrote:
>
>> >I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>> >apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>> >Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>> >scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
> The problem, by-the-book, is that you need to make two checks opposed by
> every opponent every action while moving at half speed and sticking to
> concealment or cover (which may not conceal/you/ if the monsters have
> David Lamb wrote:
>
>> >I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>> >apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>> >Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>> >scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
> The problem, by-the-book, is that you need to make two checks opposed by
> every opponent every action while moving at half speed and sticking to
> better vision, or are just slightly concerned about the sudden appearance of
> a dense fog or shadowy light source underground).
Is that really RAW? I don't see a check-every-round rule in the
> a dense fog or shadowy light source underground).
d20srd.org description of Move/Listen. I do see the "single d20 roll for
all creatures in position to hear/see" rule.
I must say I like Joanna's alternative better.
Justisaur
Mar 27, 2013, 11:00:36 AM3/27/13
to
invisibility, and you only need worry about listen in most
situations. If your party deems it important enough you don't need to
worry about either, but then we get into the whole magic trumps skill
debate.
- Justisuar
WDS906 (less the 906)
Mar 27, 2013, 2:18:01 PM3/27/13
to
On 3/27/2013 10:00 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> Possibly by 10th, definitely by 16th you should have a ring of
> invisibility, and you only need worry about listen in most
> situations. If your party deems it important enough you don't need to
> worry about either, but then we get into the whole magic trumps skill
> debate.
By 16th level the things you meet are often not affected by invisibility
> Possibly by 10th, definitely by 16th you should have a ring of
> invisibility, and you only need worry about listen in most
> situations. If your party deems it important enough you don't need to
> worry about either, but then we get into the whole magic trumps skill
> debate.
much.
David Lamb
Mar 27, 2013, 3:09:44 PM3/27/13
to
into "increases a skill" spell. So instead of Invisibility and Detect
Invisibility you'd increase Hide and Spot rolls, respectively.
Anonymous Jack
Mar 27, 2013, 3:38:37 PM3/27/13
to
On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> I've occasionally thought about translating some "always win" spells
> into "increases a skill" spell. So instead of Invisibility and Detect
> Invisibility you'd increase Hide and Spot rolls, respectively.
That's RAW. From SRD:
> I've occasionally thought about translating some "always win" spells
> into "increases a skill" spell. So instead of Invisibility and Detect
> Invisibility you'd increase Hide and Spot rolls, respectively.
" If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are
immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving "
That means a lot of monsters actually have a good chance of seeing
that invisible person, if moving
WDS906 (less the 906)
Mar 27, 2013, 4:48:17 PM3/27/13
to
On 3/27/2013 2:38 PM, Anonymous Jack wrote:
> On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> I've occasionally thought about translating some "always win" spells
>> into "increases a skill" spell. So instead of Invisibility and Detect
>> Invisibility you'd increase Hide and Spot rolls, respectively.
>
> That's RAW. From SRD:
> " If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are
> immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you�re moving "
> On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>> I've occasionally thought about translating some "always win" spells
>> into "increases a skill" spell. So instead of Invisibility and Detect
>> Invisibility you'd increase Hide and Spot rolls, respectively.
>
> That's RAW. From SRD:
> " If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are
>
> That means a lot of monsters actually have a good chance of seeing
> that invisible person, if moving
Check out Spot:
> That means a lot of monsters actually have a good chance of seeing
> that invisible person, if moving
"A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of
an invisible creature near you, though you can�t actually see it."
Once you know there is someone in the area the scout has already mostly
lost the battle.
Jim Davies
Mar 27, 2013, 9:30:46 PM3/27/13
to
>I've read comments that (non-magical) "scouting doesn't work" in 3.5,
>apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>
>apparently mostly because the enemy's chance to out-Listen your Move
>Silently is too high for safety (and similarly for Hide/Spot), and the
>scout is likely in a lot of trouble once detected.
>
>Has this been a problem in your game? If so how did you work around it?
>Rely only on magical scouting?
Bear in mind the range penalties for perception, viz. -1 per 10'. That
>Rely only on magical scouting?
doesn't help much in a dungeon room, but it can make quite a
difference in more open areas. And the rogue can make use of cover,
distractions, misdirection and so on. Many opponents will be doing
something other than actively guarding or hunting the PCs, so they can
be regarded as distracted for another -5. Add some other interfering
conditions like people talking, rain falling, orcs squabbling and the
perception DC goes up again.
Masterwork clothing (soft shoes, black cloak) gives another +2 to
stealth in the right circumstances. Masterwork aids to perception will
again be be circumstantial, eg telescope or ear trumpet, but they have
to be used and the troll doesn't have them.
PF makes this a bit easier for PCs by combining the skills into one,
ie Stealth vs Perception, so you only need to make one roll and max
out one skill. Of course the enemy likewise needs only one skill to
detect you, but 3e monsters often have good bonuses in both.
--
Jim
http://www.aaargh.org
0 new messages