Failures in 5e & Clunky in 3e: Which specific systems?

[maglag]

I don't know where you live on, but where I am, it's not that uncommon for cloudy days when I have no idea where the hell the sun is, there's not even shadows.

If the clouds are small enough to don't properly obstruct the sun, then they simply weren't big enough to count as concealment and it's indeed still an auto-success (unless you go by mechalich's "there's a speck of dust between you? Concealment!")

Now complaining that you can't spot the apollo mission on the moon is about the same as complaining that you can't read the DNA in somebody else's skin with just your naked eye. It's not really a spot check anymore, you're trying to notice extremely minuscle details.

Mind you, D&D isn't a game about space travel or microbiology, so I would say it's fair to expect that the rules don't cover noticing stupidly small details at distance.

Frank: I already showed you the hide/spot interaction. If there's no valid concealment/cover, you don't need to roll at all. And the wilderness section then adds a cap. So here's how it goes in case dude A is trying to spot dude B:

1-Roll out the spot limit on the current terrain (note: there are no caps for sky/space. Enjoy your praise of the sun and the moon). If dude B is further away to dude A than this, the spot auto-fails. If not, go to step 2.

2-Does dude B have any cover/concealment that would allow them to hide? If no, then dude A auto-spots dude B. If yes, go to step 3.

3-Dude B rolls hide check, which may get huge penalties if they're moving and stuff. Dude A rolls spot check.

So if dude B was running (-20) and is gargantuan (-16) and glittery (-40), and dude A has no spot bonus but rolls a natural 20, then that actually is more than enough to cover the eighty four DC.

And again, dude A had no spot bonus at all, but can still notice dude B at inside the cap limits. Yes, the DCs scale pretty fast, but you also get penalties to your hide check for basically everything and anything.

[GâtFromKI]

Mind you, D&D isn't a game about space travel or microbiology, so I would say it's fair to expect that the rules don't cover noticing stupidly small details at distance.

There's a thing you don't seem to understand: sun and moon example are fun to show the problems of the system, but those are not the real issue. The issue is: if something is at a distance equal to a football stadium from you, either you auto-spot it, either you auto-miss it. The penalty are so huge at that distance that there's no middle ground: if you're aksed for a roll, it fails. Will you argue that a football stadium isn't the scale of D&D rules ? Nobody would care about moon and sun examples if the rules were working properly at the scale of the game, but since it's not the case, those are fun way to magnify the problems.

The Moon example shows that even your auto-spot rule is stupid anyway. In reality, there's a middle-ground: at some distance, an object of a given size becomes hard to notice. In D&D3 it's all MTP: you have to convince MC that you don't need to roll to notice the butterfly 100 feet away, and if you fails you roll with a -10 penalty and you don't spot it. The only system is "either you auto-succes, either the penalty makes you auto-fail, now argue with the MC", which is the same as no system at all - except it takes more space is the book.

I don't know where you live on, but where I am, it's not that uncommon for cloudy days when I have no idea where the hell the sun is, there's not even shadows.

Seriously, are you arguing that total concealment is the same as concealment ?

[maglag]

The issue is: if something is at a distance equal to a football stadium from you, either you auto-spot it, either you auto-miss it. The penalty are so huge at that distance that there's no middle ground: if you're aksed for a roll, it fails. Will you argue that a football stadium isn't the scale of D&D rules ?

600 feet you mean? That's about half the maximum range of a lonbow, when you're taking a -10 penalty to attack rolls (aka most probably missing against any opponent your level).

Also medium-ranged spells can't cover that length even if you're level 20 (which would be 300 feet). Only long-range spells can.

Your normal character with base speed 30 feet would take 5 turns running from one extreme to the other. When combats in 3.5 are supposed to last 1-3 rounds.

Also 600 feet means 120 5-feet squares long. Do you recall any D&D grid maps that big? Because most I remember don't even have 1/3 that length.

Mind you, 600 feet it's still enough for a commoner to succeed on a roll to spot a glowing tarrasque running around like I demonstrated above. No need for MTP.

If you want melee to be viable, you need melee to actually have a chance to get in charge range before the enemy can just leisurely murder them at distance with long-range spells.

A distance of 200 feet (when you get the -20 penalty) for spot/hide rolls from humanoids just happens to be a bit above the average distance for medium-ranged spells, viable longbow shooting, and two rounds of running for closing in melee (or one round if you've got some great speed from somewhere else). Also a lot closer to the local map sizes you usually find in 3.5 D&D books.

[GâtFromKI]

Are you doing nothing but combat when you play D&D ? Because in my games, sometimes the PCs explore the wilderness. And in my games, there are bizarre things of any size. In my games, the question "can the PCs spot the dragon at the top of the mountain ?" arise at one point or another. And I don't think this kind of situation isn't supposed to happen : it's a normal situation that the system is supposed to handle. And the actions of the PC may depend on the answer, even if there's no combat music yet.

So yes, the system can handle a Final Fantasy's World Map, where monsters appear when the combat music begins and there's nothing you can do about it, but nobody cares because that's not what it's supposed to do and nobody wants play FFWorldMapRPG.

[Fwib]

Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4

[maglag]

Are you doing nothing but combat when you play D&D ? Because in my games, sometimes the PCs explore the wilderness. And in my games, there are bizarre things of any size. In my games, the question "can the PCs spot the dragon at the top of the mountain ?" arise at one point or another. And I don't think this kind of situation isn't supposed to happen : it's a normal situation that the system is supposed to handle. And the actions of the PC may depend on the answer, even if there's no combat music yet.

You are free to think whatever you want. But 3.5 wilderness rules puts a cap of 4d10×10 feet for maximum spot distance in mountain terrain (aka maximum 400 feet). So no, the game explicitly says that you're not supposed to be able to spot the dragon lurking at the mountain peak 600
feet above the party.

Notice however that there is no cap for listen checks, and the distance penalties for those are halved in mountain terrain, so someone with a +10 listen bonus could hear the dragon up to 600 feet away in this kind of scenario.

Now you might not like those numbers, but the game is called "dungeons and dragons", where you're supposed to go into tight confined areas and murder stuff for fun and profit, with a preference for close and personal, not "huge open spaces and long-range safe documentation", where you're peaceful explorers admiring the horizon.

[phlapjackage]

You are free to think whatever you want. But 3.5 wilderness rules puts a cap of 4d10×10 feet for maximum spot distance in mountain terrain (aka maximum 400 feet). So no, the game explicitly says that you're not supposed to be able to spot the dragon lurking at the mountain peak 600 feet above the party.

That seems like a pretty clunky rule...exactly what this thread is about, hmmmm....

Now you might not like those numbers, but the game is called "dungeons and dragons", where you're supposed to go into tight confined areas and murder stuff for fun and profit, with a preference for close and personal, not "huge open spaces and long-range safe documentation", where you're peaceful explorers admiring the horizon.

Fuck off with that stupid attempt at limiting what the game can and can't do based simply on it's title. By your "logic", a party can never encounter any monster or NPC that's not dragon-like either.

[Judging__Eagle]

Okay, so spotting obvious things is harder; but, however, are they hiding?

I'd argue that if I can "hide" on someone and be within five feet of them; then I should have a really good chance of hiding from them from 100 feet.

However, the examples being given by the Sun and Moon aren't examples of the opposed object making a Hide check (in fact; the one time that they have sufficient concealment that isn't cloud, or volcanic ash, cover, such as an eclipse, we do consider them "hidden", as far as I am aware of).

Perhaps relying on maximum viewing distances for all non-hidden encounters; and Distance modifiers for hidden encounters; might be a better solution? While there is such a thing as "infinite" visibility when it comes to cloud/condensation density & coverage; physical visibility doesn't actually reach that quite high.

[GâtFromKI]

You are free to think whatever you want. But 3.5 wilderness rules puts a cap of 4d10×10 feet for maximum spot distance in mountain terrain (aka maximum 400 feet). So no, the game explicitly says that you're not supposed to be able to spot the dragon lurking at the mountain peak 600
feet above the party.

OK, I don't have any idea what point you're trying to make and why you're arguing.

As I said, using the perception rule, the game plays like Baldur's Gate with nobody being able to see 200 feet away because of the heavy fog of war.

Now it seems you're agreeing with me: in the mountain zone there's fog of war at 4d10x10 feet, preventing PC to actually see the mountains. And I said it's a shitty and unusable rule. Do you disagree with that ?

Now you might not like those numbers, but the game is called "dungeons and dragons", where you're supposed to go into tight confined areas and murder stuff for fun and profit, with a preference for close and personal, not "huge open spaces and long-range safe documentation", where you're peaceful explorers admiring the horizon.

Are you on drugs ?

There are rule about wilderness. There are spells made to be used in wilderness. One of the inspiration of D&D is Lord of the Ring, where the character spend more time in wilderness than in actual dungeon. Most of the fantasy fictions have their characters spend more time in wilderness than in dungeons. Actually I'm quite sure there's more wilderness than dungeon in all of the source material. Wilderness may be less important than dungeon in D&D, but still wilderness play an essential part in the stories D&D's trying to emulate. If so can't see that, you're either stupid, either trolling, probably both.

Even in the den, a notorious example of mid-level adventure is "going to the cloud castle". "Can I see the cloud castle at all ? Can I see its highest tower ? Can I see the highest window ?" are all legitimate questions when the PCs are still on the ground, long before they actually go to the castle.

I'd argue that if I can "hide" on someone and be within five feet of them; then I should have a really good chance of hiding from them from 100 feet.

I'd argue that for the sake of simplicity, the distance penalty should be the same when there's hide check involved and when there's not. If the rules don't work when no one's hiding, they won't magically work when people are hiding.

(in fact; the one time that they have sufficient concealment that isn't cloud, or volcanic ash, cover, such as an eclipse, we do consider them "hidden", as far as I am aware of).

Are you also trying to say that total concealment is the same as concealment ?

Perhaps relying on maximum viewing distances for all non-hidden encounters; and Distance modifiers for hidden encounters; might be a better solution?

So you auto-spot a fly 400 feet away, but there's no way you can spot a dragon 500 feet away ? Sounds like shit.


Edit : the size penalty on hide check is logarithmic (multiplying the size by 2 adds a constant to the DC) while the distance penalty on perception is linear. First you should correct this basic math error : there's no way you can obtain consistent results at different scale using those formula.

[allanlerouge]

hello everybody !

First post, sorry to intrude ...

I'm using the Skill rules that TarkisFlux created, and the Perception and Stealth parts are very nice for solving the problems you seem to have.

I won't list all that it does here, but some things come to mind, considering your previous problems :

• + Perception Skill regroup all 5 senses
  + Each sense has specific DCs depending on "strength" of the stimulus and "distance" from said stimulus (except for Taste & Touch, obviously), among other things.
  + "Always On" check, at "Take 0".
  + Searching for "secrets" is available to everyone with 4+ Ranks.
  + The Base DC to detect many things is 0, then you add modifiers.
  + Stealth (regrouping Move Silently and Hide) simply add to the base DC to detect you. Not 2 different systems.

Some examples :

• + A Small / Medium / Large "thing" is DC 0 to see up to 100 / 200 / 400 ft., then +2 per 50 / 100 / 200 ft. . So :
  • - The Ogre standing in short grass is DC 0 up to 400 ft., DC 10 at 300-350 ft., and DC 20 at 550-600 ft.
    - The Human standing in short grass, or Ogre standing in chest-high grass (medium), is DC 0 up to 200 ft., DC 10 at 600-700 ft., and DC 20 at 1100-1200 ft.
    - The Halfling standing in short grass, or Human standing in chest-high grass (small), or Ogre standing crouched in chest-high grass (small), is DC 0 up to 100 ft., DC 10 at 1200-1400 ft., and DC 20 at 2200-2400 ft.
  + The Gargantuan Dragon standing at the top of the mountain : DC 0 to see up to 1600 ft., then +2 per 800 ft.
  + The Tarasque on the plain : DC 0 to see up to 3200 ft., then +2 per 1600 ft.

So, for me, it solves many problems :

• + The whole Perception subject is vastly clarified
  + Searching for "secrets" is clear.
  + Circumstances of the element to sense are important (size, distance, other sensual inputs, etc.).
  + Size matter, but it's the size of what's to be seen - a Huge Creature who's only showing its head from cover will not be as easy to spot as if it was going out in the open.
  + Distance modifiers (and the "DC 0" range) vary by the size of what is observed.
  + Always on Perception (even at a reduced check) accelerate things greatly : you know what anyone can see from the total Check Modifier and their attention state.
  + Failing a Perception Check by a little margin still allow to sense that "something is there", thus providing incentive to look better.
  + The whole feel more "logical" in its uses and effects. You want to be as far away from the observers as possible, and blend as much as possible with the ambiant situation.
  + There is no "automatically succeed on your spot check" : circumstances clearly determine what you can detect or not, whether you're actively looking or not.
  + Open field with / without grass ? Got that covered, for walking deer adult and for deer fawns sleeping.
  + No fog of war.

What do you think of this Perception rule/skill ?

P.S. : I'm not here on behalf of TarkisFlux, I just thought that what I'm using covers the problems presented here - and whatever the missing case, I can ask him about his insight on the subject, whereas the D&D designers are ... Well, out there ?

[Judging__Eagle]

Sorry Allanlerouge; I'm just not a fan of folding the stealth abilities, as it makes a casting of Silence make everyone in the affected radius invisible; and a casting of Invisibility makes the target silenced. I like some of the ideas TarkisFlux has though.

Edit : the size penalty on hide check is logarithmic (multiplying the size by 2 adds a constant to the DC) while the distance penalty on perception is linear. First you should correct this basic math error : there's no way you can obtain consistent results at different scale using those formula.

This could be a good issue to address. I'm not sure how to address the logarithmic aspect.

Perhaps, however; a creatures Spot ranks (or x5) are their "Spot Increment" in squares (or feet) ; and each increment beyond that; they take a linear penalty?

A level 1 Rogue 4 Ranks in Spot

1-20 Feet: +0
21-40 feet: -1
41-60 feet: -2
...
91-100 feet: -5

That seems more reasonable.

At level 5; 8 ranks in spot:

1-40 feet: +0
41-80 feet: -1
...
391-400 feet: -10

The best mortal being able to half spot something the size of a man 400 feet away seems like an improvement; but I'm not really looking at this in detail right now.

Would something like that be closer to better?

[Lokey]

Don't start with numbers, unless your goal is to make crap and it has to be done 10 minutes ago (just like most of the pros). A sensible mechanical progression can be hammered into anything. Start with how you want the system to work, then work on numbers (with no/some/lots of situational penalties at level 1, 4, 7, 10... a low/average/high roll with no skill, some skill, focused skill means you spot/search what).

Edit: Crap, was as wrong as others about what spot is for (too many game systems, let alone the mess that is DnD). Also need to know wtf you want spot to do, because 3.x isn't very consistent about that

[Omegonthesane]

Sorry Allanlerouge; I'm just not a fan of folding the stealth abilities, as it makes a casting of Silence make everyone in the affected radius invisible; and a casting of Invisibility makes the target silenced.

Maybe mechanically, but empirically, many GMs are unlikely to treat "Stealth Yes" as Predator cloaking even in D&D, where actual Predator cloaking is only +20 to Hide.

If it gets you that agitated, you could just add a line about how Invisibility only works against beings that can see (who presumably have a smaller Perception penalty against everything than a sighted sentry has against an Invisible target). And similar for Silence and deaf spotters.

[OgreBattle]

What RPG has a solid stealth/perception system that we could look at as an example.

[allanlerouge]

@Judging__Eagle:

Maybe some things weren't explained clearly, so I'll try to correct what seems wrong with your statement (and maybe I didn't understand you, no offense meant) :

• * Perception is used for the 5 senses.
  * So if you are in a Silence effect, you just do not register on the Sound sense (better not get close to someone though, as this kind of Silence is very noticeable if you're in it). But you can still be seen, smelled, touched or (urg) tasted.
  * And if you're invisible, you do not register on the Visual sense. But you can still be heard (even your breathing), smelled, touched, or tasted (ahem...).

If one is under both Silence and Invisibility, well, then one is very difficult to Notice. Seems natural to me ... (and the Tome of Prowess rules have the Rank 8 ability "See the Invisible, Hear the Silenced" to use against such a situation).

On the folding of the Stealth abilities, well, your preferences ^^.

---

On the global subject, I've the same question as OgreBattle: what are the RPG systems that have good & solid Stealth / Perception mechanics ?

[Blicero]

@Judging__Eagle:

On the global subject, I've the same question as OgreBattle: what are the RPG systems that have good & solid Stealth / Perception mechanics ?

This question has been asked here before. Many posters claim the answer is "none of them". Frequent points brought up are:

• Stealth systems either need to be quickly resolvable or something the entire group can take part in
• Quickly resolvable stealth systems tend to be binary in outcome, which makes them vulnerable to iterative probability
• More complicated stealth systems might work with some sort of "stealth hit points" system that handles interactions other than "the dude sees you" or "the dude does not see you"
• Some stealth systems (e.g. D&D 3) are action-based, where you make a single Stealth roll to move X feet undetected. Other stealth systems (e.g. Burning Wheel) are objective-based, where you make a single Stealth roll to sneak into the bandit's camp and reach the chieftain's tent. The former is vulnerable to iterative probability; the latter can interact weirdly with situations where tactical movement is necessary

I've heard that the recent game Invisible Inc. has a compelling turn-based stealth system. I do not know if any of its features could be adapted to use in a tabletop system.

[rasmuswagner]

A Stealthand-Perception system needs to resolve the following situations:
1. Trying to launch a surprise attack against an enemy
2. Evading detection long enough for the enemy to go away (or until a certain event occurs)
3. Points one and two, but in the middle of combat.
4. Infiltrating a hostile location (or sneaking up on a conversation).

Points 3 and 4 are vastly different situations, and probably can't be resolved with the same rules.

[Emerald]

I've heard that the recent game Invisible Inc. has a compelling turn-based stealth system. I do not know if any of its features could be adapted to use in a tabletop system.

Invisible Inc. has three stealth components: vision, hearing, and security level.

All enemies that can see (guards, drones, and cameras) have their range of vision marked on the map:

Red squares are ones they can see, yellow squares are ones that they can't see due to cover, and the areas are updated in real time as guards/drones move or look around. Guards are completely unaware of any agents' presence and patrol on assigned routes until they spot an agent, either because they move in such a way to catch sight of someone on their turn or an agent moves into their vision area (which causes the agent's turn to end).

Once an agent is spotted, the guard goes into overwatch (effectively readies an action to shoot the agent and can keep turning to face the agent as they move) and you must immediately move the agent into an unseen area with their first square of movement on that agent's next turn; if you do, you're unseen again and the guard will move to their last known location to look for them, but if you don't move them or move them into another seen space the guard will shoot the agent (a one-hit drop in Invisible Inc.).

For hearing, movement is silent by default; an agent can walk up right next to a guard and as long as they're not in the guard's vision area the guard will have no idea the agent is there. However, you can choose to sprint for extra movement, which alerts any hearing enemies (guards and sound sensors, but not drones) within 5 squares of the agent of the agent's exact location, and guards will start moving towards the agent's location as above.

Finally, there's a security tracker with 6 alarm levels, each consisting of 5 "points." By default the tracker rises by one point every round, but certain actions (killing certain guards, a guard or drone discovering a knocked-out guard, being seen, etc.) raise the tracker faster. At each alarm level, something happens, like extra cameras coming online, computers becoming harder to hack, or more (and harder) guards or drones coming into the level.


So it's actually pretty easy to implement that in tabletop. You can get most of the way there by starting with 3e, using the facing variant (with a few tweaks, like letting people take an action to look around or focus on a single character to turn to face them out-of-turn), setting a much lower Spot distance penalty (say, -1 for every doubling of distance [-1 for 10 feet, -2 for 20, -3 for 40, -4 for 80, etc.] instead of a flat -1 per 10 feet), having everyone take 10 on all perception- and stealth-related checks at all times by default, and giving characters the ability to both determine other creatures' sensory arcs and ranges and to guess how they'll turn and move on their next action (probably a Knowledge check for the former and Sense Motive for the latter).

The rest of the experience depends on the DM's intelligent use of time pressure and consequences, and converting the explicit round-by-round tracker to a set of advice on setting up encounters and a few good example scenarios should work well enough for that.

Really, the biggest obstacle to implementing such a system is that people don't like to use facing (either the official version or a houseruled simplification) because it's much slower and clunkier to resolve than the standard rules. Change that part and implementing stealth becomes a lot easier.