Darkstalker Feat. Why?

[Chester]

I've been reading that the Darkstalker feat from Lords of Madnessis amazing.

Seems pretty situational to me.

Please asplain why it's (supposedly) so good.

[Crake]

I've been reading that the Darkstalker feat from Lords of Madnessis amazing.

Seems pretty situational to me.

Please asplain why it's (supposedly) so good.

It's good because those abilities make it otherwise completely impossible to even attempt to sneak around foes with them. Without it, stealth characters have their entire schtick rendered moot.

[AmberVael]

I don't know if I'd call it amazing so much as essential for a stealth character. If you want to be able to hide, you need Darkstalker, otherwise there are all these abilities that can just say "yeah nah I see you no check required" and leave you incapable of stealth. It may not always come up, but when it does come up, Darkstalker is your only way out.

[rigsmal]

Also, even in a low-op game, there are many ways for mid-level characters and adversaries to pick up these alternative senses, so Darkstalker is even more necessary for stealth.

[Techwarrior]

So, your 3rd level rogue is attempting to sneak into the Baron's manor. He has guard dogs.

Go.

[Necroticplague]

I've been reading that the Darkstalker feat from Lords of Madnessis amazing.

Seems pretty situational to me.

Please asplain why it's (supposedly) so good.

It's not good. It's necessary. Big difference. Without that feat, any stealthy character is completely and utterly ruined by some of those abilities (and mere pretty badly screwed over by the others). Especially as you raise in level, where alternate vision modes basically start growing on trees. Darkstalker is required in order to overcome that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Darkstalker is amazing for stealth like shoes are amazing for walking. You don't need shoes to walk--in fact I prefer to walk barefoot--but when you start encountering hot coals and ice sheets, you really want some protection, or very quickly you're unable to walk at all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not 100% necessary, depending on what you encounter, but there are a lot of things out there with scent, and a decent number with blindsense. Without the feat, they auto-detect you.

[emeraldstreak]

It's a good base. Add things like the Dark template, Ring of Darkhidden, No Light cantrip.

[DrKerosene]

Look at creatures with blindsense. Notice the Destrachan and Yrthak can be beaten by a Silence spell on the group. Grell, with their ability to sense electricity, are harder to figure out an easy answer for.

Anything with Tremorsense can probably be beaten by fly, and most mundane things like Scent can probably be beaten by Etherealness. But let's say you want to sneak past Cerberus while in an Anti-Magic room. Or a level 3 Rogue and some guard dogs.

[Fouredged Sword]

Alt senses are an auto fail for sneaking. I personally think this is a bad design. There should ALWAYS be a way to oppose a sensory method even if it faces a disadvantage. Hide, move sci, concentration (for mental senses)... Darkstalker should possibly add a large bonus (say +10) to avoiding these senses, but it should be possible though just skill alone.

Scent should be defeatable by a disguise check made ahead of time to mask your scent.

[Crake]

It's a good base. Add things like the Dark template, Ring of Darkhidden, No Light cantrip.

I just want to take a moment to say how much I hate ring of the darkhidden. It's an absolutely stupid item with a stupid effect.

[SangoProduction]

Before learning of the feat (and of course, these boards) I just assumed stealth was generally just stealth, flat out, regardless of your special senses.

[Necroticplague]

Before learning of the feat (and of course, these boards) I just assumed stealth was generally just stealth, flat out, regardless of your special senses.

What did you think Blindsense/Blindsight meant with the 'needs no spot or listen....' then?

[weckar]

I just want to take a moment to say how much I hate ring of the darkhidden. It's an absolutely stupid item with a stupid effect.

It made more sense back when darkvision was usually just infravision. It cooled or heated your body to the surroundings.

[Psyren]

So, your 3rd level rogue is attempting to sneak into the Baron's manor. He has guard dogs.

Go.

I agree with your point but this is still an interesting challenge. A couple of Pass Without Trace potions (or a wand) would keep the dogs from tracking you via sent, so you would just have to stay out of sight and 30ft away from them. Is there a better way (without Darkstalker)?

[weckar]

Providing a different extremely strong smell elsewhere in their scent range seems like it should counter your own fairly minor smell.
Scent is not directional unless tracking, after all.

[Fouredged Sword]

Sneak in the day before and toss little cuts of filth fever infected meat over the wall. Come back the next day or so when all the dogs are too sick for guard duty.

[Crake]

I agree with your point but this is still an interesting challenge. A couple of Pass Without Trace potions (or a wand) would keep the dogs from tracking you via sent, so you would just have to stay out of sight and 30ft away from them. Is there a better way (without Darkstalker)?

To be fair, darkstalker doesn't actually stop you from being tracked via scent, it only stops you from being immediately noticed when coming within 30ft of a creature with scent., so you'd need those pass without trace potions either way.

As for a mundane method, you can lay a trap with scentbreakers (from tome and blood, any creature with the scent ability that smells it needs to make a DC18 fort save or lose their scent ability for 1 minute), and then sneak past them while their scent is impaired. Or, since they're just animals, you can just lure them away with a simple distraction, perhaps even a ghost sound cantrip or the like.

[Psyren]

The Ghost Sound idea is brilliant - that would let you move the dogs around to stay outside their detection radius, and since they can't track you thanks to PWT, they won't go looking for an intruder and might not even return to their posts.

You could, for example, Ghost Sound a cat meowing in the bushes just outside the room the dogs are guarding, or you could facsimile their trainer's whistle or even voice to trigger more complex behaviors.

[Necroticplague]

I thought guard dogs were typically leashed to a spot in order to prevent them wandering off like that?

[Psyren]

Both are possible - if they're leashed in place however, the tainted meat idea is probably best (though I would probably use something much faster like Oil of Taggit rather than a disease.)

[BassoonHero]

I detest Darkstalker because it's a feat tax. It effectively reads, "You may continue using the skill ranks you're buying. Normal: They arbitrarily stop working at high levels." It's especially annoying when a PC has an extraordinary sense, because the DM has to remember to give the feat to NPCs and monsters.

It's true that even at high levels, not all opponents have extraordinary senses. But this sort of all-or-nothing risk on a primary character aspect is bad design. A dragon with astronomical perception skills is a challenge to be overcome. But blindsight can't be overcome, merely circumvented, and more likely by the wizard than by the "stealth specialist". Speaking of wizards, it's true that extraordinary senses can interfere with illusions, but a wizard can overcome this interference with the more powerful illusions they get for free when leveling up or simply by using other spells. A rogue who can't use their stealth doesn't have nearly that range of alternatives.

To me, Darkstalker seems like a symptom of the mistake of dividing perception by sense. Having separate skills for Spot and Listen means that there is no skill that covers extraordinary senses, so they can't easily work via skill checks, so the stealth skills have nothing to oppose. There are other ways this could have been handled (e.g. for Tremorsense, roll hit dice + Wis versus Move Silently) but none as graceful as simply rolling Perception versus Stealth.

Extraordinary senses are powerful enough as a substitute for ordinary senses, overcoming invisibility, darkness, and concealment. Auto-negating stealth skills is completely unnecessary and, I would argue, actively harmful. It's an arbitrary gate that enforces specialization: if you want to sneak around at high levels, you need to invest a feat in it. If you can't spare a feat, there's little point in putting in the skill ranks. The characters hit hardest are monks and rangers, the would-be generalists already pinched on feats.

Darkstalker is on my list of feats that ought to be free for everyone, along with Weapon Finesse, Track, and many others.

[Fouredged Sword]

This is why I generally group mental senses under concentration.

[SirNibbles]

I detest Darkstalker because it's a feat tax. It effectively reads, "You may continue using the skill ranks you're buying. Normal: They arbitrarily stop working at high levels." It's especially annoying when a PC has an extraordinary sense, because the DM has to remember to give the feat to NPCs and monsters.

...

Darkstalker is on my list of feats that ought to be free for everyone, along with Weapon Finesse, Track, and many others.

Why? The DM shouldn't just completely remove a player's extra power. That's like making every enemy immune to Sneak Attacks because you have a Rogue in the party.
__

That goes completely against the whole idea of feats representing special training that not everyone has. If you want to make a new category of feats and give everyone Bonus Feats to choose from this category, that's one thing. Making everyone a trained ninja tracker breaks immersion.

[Astralia123]

Aren't thieves supposed to be really clever and professional when they do their work? In game world, thieves live well enough without this feat.



I detest Darkstalker because it's a feat tax. It effectively reads, "You may continue using the skill ranks you're buying. Normal: They arbitrarily stop working at high levels." It's especially annoying when a PC has an extraordinary sense, because the DM has to remember to give the feat to NPCs and monsters.

It's true that even at high levels, not all opponents have extraordinary senses. But this sort of all-or-nothing risk on a primary character aspect is bad design. A dragon with astronomical perception skills is a challenge to be overcome. But blindsight can't be overcome, merely circumvented, and more likely by the wizard than by the "stealth specialist". Speaking of wizards, it's true that extraordinary senses can interfere with illusions, but a wizard can overcome this interference with the more powerful illusions they get for free when leveling up or simply by using other spells. A rogue who can't use their stealth doesn't have nearly that range of alternatives.

To me, Darkstalker seems like a symptom of the mistake of dividing perception by sense. Having separate skills for Spot and Listen means that there is no skill that covers extraordinary senses, so they can't easily work via skill checks, so the stealth skills have nothing to oppose. There are other ways this could have been handled (e.g. for Tremorsense, roll hit dice + Wis versus Move Silently) but none as graceful as simply rolling Perception versus Stealth.

Extraordinary senses are powerful enough as a substitute for ordinary senses, overcoming invisibility, darkness, and concealment. Auto-negating stealth skills is completely unnecessary and, I would argue, actively harmful. It's an arbitrary gate that enforces specialization: if you want to sneak around at high levels, you need to invest a feat in it. If you can't spare a feat, there's little point in putting in the skill ranks. The characters hit hardest are monks and rangers, the would-be generalists already pinched on feats.

Darkstalker is on my list of feats that ought to be free for everyone, along with Weapon Finesse, Track, and many others.

You are exaggerating.

Blindsight/blind sense does not automatically disable hiding; first, it says "The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability", and as the DM you have right to rule what is unusual. Secondly, a creature with this sense still cannot automatically penetrate cover, which means a rogue still can effectively hide from such a creature, and catch the creature flat-footed by making a surprise attack.

Scent and tremorsense are even easier to counter.

It is not an all-or-nothing situation. A sneak-attacker can work against these creatures well enough without this feat (though sneak attacks aren't powerful enough in the first place), and it would be even easier if his party do something to help him (like creating some covers on the battlefield).


On the other hand, I'd say it is really unnecessary to have monsters select this feat. You can define a situation "unusual" in regard to blindsight/blind sense mechanics. What if the monster's form is indistinguishable from rocks when it remains still? What if (as the strategy I mentioned) the monster hides behind some cover and makes a surprise attack at the PCs? What if the enemies observe the PCs from a considerable distance and attack outside the range of their extraordinary senses?

You don't need to feel pressed by PCs who possess these abilities. Let them enjoy the benefits once for a while, and teach them lessons that these benefits aren't absolutely reliable.

[Arbane]

Aren't thieves supposed to be really clever and professional when they do their work? In game world, thieves live well enough without this feat.


Most D&D thieves stick to robbing low-ish level humanoids, not bizarre monsters.

(Also, there's a disconnect between the rules and the fiction. Not the only one.)

[Jack_McSnatch]

Well, the OP's question has already been answered repeatedly, so here's my two copper. You wanna sneak up on dragons, demons, dogs, wizards, and psions? You need darkstalker. Plain and simple. Oh sure, you can pay absurd amounts for the magical and alchemicsl items needed to bypass blindsight, or scent, OR... you could take a feat, and save all that gold you otherwise would've spent for less situational magic items. I mean, really, how much would you have to spend to have all these items that bypass all these senses, and usually only negate one sense to an item?

Should every rogue grt darkstalker because they put ranks in hide and move silently? No, that's idiotic. Most rogues operate in cities, dealing primarily with human and humanoid opponents. Darkstalker is an extraordinary ability, just like the things it counters, and it being a feat is supposed to represent the special training you need to attain it. More importantly, given the campaign, you may NOT need it. A thieves guild game, set primarily in a city, isn't going to have as many foes with special senses. Oh sure, you'll run into one or two. Dogs at the mayor's mansion was a good earlier example. It's not a feat tax. It's a matter of considering the kind of game you're playing. In a city game, no. Hell, that makes that kind of game more fun, because you actually have to outwit and out manuever your enemies. But if you're in the more traditional game, where you're running into dragons and undead around every corner, it's far more worth it.

[Psyren]

I agree it should be a feat, but given that the Rogue class' core fantasy is being sneaky, they (and probably Rangers) should get it for free at mid-high levels. Let other sneaky classes like bards and monks pay that tax, since they have other ways to avoid notice anyway (e.g. invisibility and empty body) - rogues don't, and they deserve to be kings of sneaking.

[lord_khaine]

Well, the OP's question has already been answered repeatedly, so here's my two copper. You wanna sneak up on dragons, demons, dogs, wizards, and psions? You need darkstalker. Plain and simple. Oh sure, you can pay absurd amounts for the magical and alchemicsl items needed to bypass blindsight, or scent, OR... you could take a feat, and save all that gold you otherwise would've spent for less situational magic items. I mean, really, how much would you have to spend to have all these items that bypass all these senses, and usually only negate one sense to an item?

Funny enough, im pretty certain there isnt really anything that bypasses Touchsight.


I agree it should be a feat, but given that the Rogue class' core fantasy is being sneaky, they (and probably Rangers) should get it for free at mid-high levels. Let other sneaky classes like bards and monks pay that tax, since they have other ways to avoid notice anyway (e.g. invisibility and empty body) - rogues don't, and they deserve to be kings of sneaking.

Perhaps not for free, but maybe as an more expensive skill trick.

[Psyren]

Funny enough, im pretty certain there isnt really anything that bypasses Touchsight.

Incorporeal likely would since it's not a force effect. Total cover from the detector would work as well.

Another interesting method would be hiding in plain sight, so to speak. Touchsight tells you that creatures are there but does little to help you distinguish between them. If you were able to, say, release a bag of rats and then shrink in size, the Psion would have little way to single you out.


Perhaps not for free, but maybe as an more expensive skill trick.

I'm not a fan of skill tricks to be honest. They throw off the skill math and the usage limits are too built around encounters. If you want something to be doable with skills, just make it a use of that skill, like they eventually did with Conceal Spellcasting.

[Gnaeus]

If we discussing how things should be run, I like how Starfinder does it.
1. They say blindsense is based on a sense. Like blindsense sound or blindsense smell. Then you can actually circumvent it with reasonable methods.
2. Based on the PC race with blindsense, blindsense negates stealth bonuses from cover and invisibility (and presumably lesser forms like camouflage). If you beat their stealth check you notice them and pinpoint their square, but they can still have total concealment against you.

[BassoonHero]

Why? The DM shouldn't just completely remove a player's extra power.

Extraordinary senses typically do two things. First, they let you deal with effects that interfere with ordinary senses — invisibility, darkness, obscuring mist, even in some cases physical barriers. This makes a creature resilient to effects that might otherwise be “instant-win buttons”. Second, they mean that the primary role of some classes and an important secondary role of others arbitrarily doesn't work — unless they pay the feat tax, in which case it works again.

A mature adult red dragon has a Spot of +34 or more.* They are not easy to sneak up on, and because of their blindsense you can't bypass their senses with invisibility. There is absolutely no need to further stipulate that the Hide skill just doesn't work. If you think that without that stipulation it's too easy to sneak up on a dragon, then have blindsense grant a bonus to Spot and Listen.

* This is the baseline figure with no Alertness, buffs, or magic items. If your players are optimizers with easy access to magic items, then presumably so is the CR 18, Int 18, triple-standard-wealth dragon.

From the perspective of a player with extraordinary senses, the major selling point is the first benefit. Players like blindsense because they have to be able to deal with invisibility and other things that flat-out ignore their ordinary senses. How many times does a high-level character run into opponents with a lot of ranks in the Hide skill, versus opponents with invisibility, etherealness, blur, displacement, mirror image, and so forth?

Letting the Hide skill work normally versus extraordinary senses doesn't “completely remove” the benefits of extraordinary senses.


That's like making every enemy immune to Sneak Attacks because you have a Rogue in the party.

It may not surprise you that I think that giving a common enemy type total immunity to a rogue's primary combat ability was also a bad design choice, and for the same reasons as my opinion on extraordinary senses.


Blindsight/blind sense does not automatically disable hiding; first, it says "The creature usually does not need to make Spot or Listen checks to notice creatures within range of its blindsight ability", and as the DM you have right to rule what is unusual.

It sounds like you and I agree that blindsight/sense should not disable the Hide and Move Silently skills. I'm not going to quibble over our different reasons for that conclusion.


Should every rogue grt darkstalker because they put ranks in hide and move silently? No, that's idiotic. Most rogues operate in cities, dealing primarily with human and humanoid opponents.

This, to me, is a non sequitur. Most people in a setting are very low-level. Most NPC rogues (and monks and rangers) have a handful of ranks in their stealth skills. They face low-level challenges that have low-level powers. So while I agree that most rogues won't run into many creatures with extraordinary senses, I disagree that this is particularly relevant to player characters. A player character should not automatically be at a disadvantage against an opponent merely because that opponent is rarely encountered by low-level background NPCs.

This is particularly true at mid-to-high levels. A fighter doesn't need a special feat to damage a dragon, even though that dragon's hide is tougher than anything a low-level NPC enforcer would have seen. A paladin doesn't need a special feat to smite a pit fiend, even though a paladin fresh from the abbey would be unlikely to encounter a devil of any kind. Likewise, for a high-level rogue, extraordinary senses are just part of the job. Replacing the outright immunity with a flat bonus adequately reflects the fact that it's harder to hide from such creatures.

[Axel_690]

Mindsight.
Lifesense.
Touchsight.
F**k Darkstalker.

[Psyren]

A mature adult red dragon has a Spot of +34 or more.* They are not easy to sneak up on, and because of their blindsense you can't bypass their senses with invisibility. There is absolutely no need to further stipulate that the Hide skill just doesn't work. If you think that without that stipulation it's too easy to sneak up on a dragon, then have blindsense grant a bonus to Spot and Listen.

This is a bit of an oversimplification though. No matter how numerically high Spot is, it is subject to limitations that can reduce the impact the creature is meant to have. Using your adult dragon as an example - one of the big advantages blindsense has over Spot is that blindsense works with your eyes closed, say, while you're sleeping. Spot is also foiled by invisibility, and even sharp hearing is far too imprecise. Blindsense is what enables some tense and iconic fantasy moments like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FocqBbPJ1cQ) without damaging that suspension of disbelief.

Where you and I agree is that high level rogues shouldn't have to "pay to play" for those moments. Generally, if every single member of a class is taking a feat, that feat is poor design. I think that's every bit as true for Dark Stalker as it is for Natural Spell, Point Blank Shot, and Power Attack.


* This is the baseline figure with no Alertness, buffs, or magic items. If your players are optimizers with easy access to magic items, then presumably so is the CR 18, Int 18, triple-standard-wealth dragon.

It's completely fine to load up a dragon with goodies that aren't part of his statblock, but you need to adjust the CR of the encounter to take that customization into account.

[Astralia123]

The fact is rogues are really limited in higher level encounters. This feat's point is to make them slightly more competitive (still not enough in most cases, mind you). I don't see anything inappropriate in it - except that this feat appears in a relatively uncommon extension source (shouldn't similar abilities have been included in complete series or so?! - like that).

I guess some of the people in this thread intend to say things like that.

[SirNibbles]

Extraordinary senses typically do two things. First, they let you deal with effects that interfere with ordinary senses — invisibility, darkness, obscuring mist, even in some cases physical barriers. This makes a creature resilient to effects that might otherwise be “instant-win buttons”. Second, they mean that the primary role of some classes and an important secondary role of others arbitrarily doesn't work — unless they pay the feat tax, in which case it works again.

A mature adult red dragon has a Spot of +34 or more.* They are not easy to sneak up on, and because of their blindsense you can't bypass their senses with invisibility. There is absolutely no need to further stipulate that the Hide skill just doesn't work. If you think that without that stipulation it's too easy to sneak up on a dragon, then have blindsense grant a bonus to Spot and Listen.

* This is the baseline figure with no Alertness, buffs, or magic items. If your players are optimizers with easy access to magic items, then presumably so is the CR 18, Int 18, triple-standard-wealth dragon.

From the perspective of a player with extraordinary senses, the major selling point is the first benefit. Players like blindsense because they have to be able to deal with invisibility and other things that flat-out ignore their ordinary senses. How many times does a high-level character run into opponents with a lot of ranks in the Hide skill, versus opponents with invisibility, etherealness, blur, displacement, mirror image, and so forth?

Letting the Hide skill work normally versus extraordinary senses doesn't “completely remove” the benefits of extraordinary senses.



It may not surprise you that I think that giving a common enemy type total immunity to a rogue's primary combat ability was also a bad design choice, and for the same reasons as my opinion on extraordinary senses.



It sounds like you and I agree that blindsight/sense should not disable the Hide and Move Silently skills. I'm not going to quibble over our different reasons for that conclusion.



This, to me, is a non sequitur. Most people in a setting are very low-level. Most NPC rogues (and monks and rangers) have a handful of ranks in their stealth skills. They face low-level challenges that have low-level powers. So while I agree that most rogues won't run into many creatures with extraordinary senses, I disagree that this is particularly relevant to player characters. A player character should not automatically be at a disadvantage against an opponent merely because that opponent is rarely encountered by low-level background NPCs.

This is particularly true at mid-to-high levels. A fighter doesn't need a special feat to damage a dragon, even though that dragon's hide is tougher than anything a low-level NPC enforcer would have seen. A paladin doesn't need a special feat to smite a pit fiend, even though a paladin fresh from the abbey would be unlikely to encounter a devil of any kind. Likewise, for a high-level rogue, extraordinary senses are just part of the job. Replacing the outright immunity with a flat bonus adequately reflects the fact that it's harder to hide from such creatures.

I was referring to the idea that every enemy needs Darkstalker just because the player has Blindsense. Let players benefit from their abilities once in a while- don't just custom tailor every creature to be effective against the player's unique strengths.

A flat bonus is what I think would work best as well.

[BassoonHero]

one of the big advantages blindsense has over Spot is that blindsense works… while you're sleeping.

Is this a deliberate feature or just a consequence of the fact that blindsense doesn't have real mechanics? The Spot skill doesn't work while you're sleeping because your eyes are closed; the Listen skill does, but there's a specified penalty. There's no such thing a a blindsense penalty, but I'm not sure it's really supposed to work equally well awake or asleep.


Spot is also foiled by invisibility, and even sharp hearing is far too imprecise. Blindsense is what enables some tense and iconic fantasy moments like this without damaging that suspension of disbelief.

I agree, and I think that this is the right role for blindsense, for players as well as for monsters.


Where you and I agree is that high level rogues shouldn't have to "pay to play" for those moments.

Hear, hear!

I think that a lot of skill-related abilities need to be easier to get. For example, blindsense should be available as a skill trick, as should hide in plain sight, as should half of the abilities of classes like the thief-acrobat. I'm working on a replacement skill system that consolidates skills to around a dozen and gives out a free skill trick every other level.


Generally, if every single member of a class is taking a feat, that feat is poor design. I think that's every bit as true for Dark Stalker as it is for Natural Spell, Point Blank Shot, and Power Attack.

I might disagree on the particulars. It may be unavoidable that, for instance, most archers will take the same couple of archery feats. Where I draw the line myself is at — as you say — “pay to play”. You need Precise Shot for effective ranged attacks, so if I want Joe Fighter to have ranged attacks in his arsenal, it has to be free because the original 3e idea that the fighter's bonus feats would enable generalization was dead on arrival.

Power Attack may be a different matter. Every serious 2HF fighter will probably want it, sure, but they don't need it (in comparison to, say, Weapon Finesse). The problem is that in 3.5, all fighters use 2HF because the alternatives of TWF and sword-and-board are bad.

Natural Spell, on the other hand, is just irredeemably broken, but then probably so is wild shape, so meh.


It's completely fine to load up a dragon with goodies that aren't part of his statblock, but you need to adjust the CR of the encounter to take that customization into account.

Just using the goodies already in the stat block requires adjusting the CR. Dragons get a giant pile of feats (Alertness specifically suggested) and a decent-sized pile of spells (which could include a variety of buffs). If the players are picking their feats and spells from a dozen sources, then so too should the dragon.

Magic items are trickier; the dragon is supposed to have a giant pile of useful magic items, and yet it seems clear that dragons are balanced with the assumption that they won't use them. I don't know, maybe dragon hoards everywhere are supposed to overflow with Apparatuses of Kwalish instead of Periapts of Wisdom.

Disclaimer: the last time I threw a dragon at players it lolstomped them all because I figured that before burning a Wish to teleport into danger it would cast its all-day protective buffs. This TPK brought to you by Monte Cook.


Let players benefit from their abilities

A key part of my last comment was that giving all high-level stealthy enemies Darkstalker does not prevent players from benefitting from blindsense.

[Fouredged Sword]

Spot isn't foiled by invisibility. Invisibility offers a large bonus VS spot, but it isn't infallible. Rules that deal in absolutes and offer no resistance are generally bad in games. They rob the player of agency. Things can be nearly impossible without being actually impossible. 3.5 is HIGH fantasy in most games. Yeah at level 3 you are not going to spot someone invisible with your naked eye, but a rogue at level 20 likely can do is by taking 10 unless the target is also trained in stealth.

[Melcar]

[...] if you want to sneak around at high levels, you need to invest a feat in it. If you can't spare a feat, there's little point in putting in the skill ranks. The characters hit hardest are monks and rangers, the would-be generalists already pinched on feats.

Darkstalker is on my list of feats that ought to be free for everyone, along with Weapon Finesse, Track, and many others.

Ok, so what your saying is, that its too much to ask, to have the specialist sneaker, invest 1 feat in his primary specialization???:smallconfused:

That seems more than fair to me. Just like a fighter has to specialize and take feats in the weapon he want to excel in. Or any other class for that matter, who wants to specialize in something...

[NichG]

Darkstalker is kind of funny, because its almost a tax on system mastery. That is to say, if you know what is possible in the system, you're also going to start thinking that your opponents can use those things against you, so you might invest more resources in covering your weaknesses than someone else who just wasn't aware that they could end up hitting a hard counter. But if you're at a table where no one actually has that system mastery to find and deploy the hard counters, taking Darkstalker is just unnecessary. However lets say you're the person playing the nobleman whose house is being robbed or whatever, at a table where everyone has that system mastery - you're going to have to assume that the thief will have Darkstalker (because obviously they should), which means you'll expend extra resources to put together something that Darkstalker can't answer.

So in the end, the table of people who lack system mastery end up with (very slightly) more resources because of it - excepting all of the resources that system mastery allows you to just reach out and grab, that is.

Anyhow, not saying that's a good thing, just that its kind of a funny example of something like Prisoner's Dilemma, where the Nash equilibrium is actually worse for everyone than the case where everyone is just irrational or random.

[Mordaedil]

I don't think it's quite a "grab at 1st level" feat though.

It's definately worth grabbing, but I can see delaying until 6th or 9th level before taking it.

And you honestly don't absolutely need it, because things with these abilities are rare and you're going to encounter them when the DM expects you to be caught. There is no other reason for their inclusion.

[Crake]

Mindsight.
Lifesense.
Touchsight.
F**k Darkstalker.

Personally I think if you're using darkstalker, it should work against all of the above. They all practically function the same as the senses that darkstalker avoides, I don't see why it shouldn't give you the same opportunity against these senses too.

When I DM, darkstalker guarantees you the ability to hide/move silently against an opponent, no matter what special senses they have. Remember that you have to make both hide and move silently, and if you fail either the sense picks you up, so it's not like it's easy.

[Mr Adventurer]

things with these abilities are rare

I don't think that's true.


and you're going to encounter them when the DM expects you to be caught. There is no other reason for their inclusion.

I don't think that's true either.

Most Animals.
Any True Dragon.
Any Ooze.

These three examples alone are staples of the D&D adventure. Two of them are an entire creature type.

[Eldariel]

This is a bit of an oversimplification though. No matter how numerically high Spot is, it is subject to limitations that can reduce the impact the creature is meant to have. Using your adult dragon as an example - one of the big advantages blindsense has over Spot is that blindsense works with your eyes closed, say, while you're sleeping. Spot is also foiled by invisibility, and even sharp hearing is far too imprecise. Blindsense is what enables some tense and iconic fantasy moments like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FocqBbPJ1cQ) without damaging that suspension of disbelief.

Where you and I agree is that high level rogues shouldn't have to "pay to play" for those moments. Generally, if every single member of a class is taking a feat, that feat is poor design. I think that's every bit as true for Dark Stalker as it is for Natural Spell, Point Blank Shot, and Power Attack.



It's completely fine to load up a dragon with goodies that aren't part of his statblock, but you need to adjust the CR of the encounter to take that customization into account.

Using its treasure is explicitly a part of a creature's CR and altering their feats or skills causes no adjustment; you should almost never encounter statblocks straight outta the MM.

[Psyren]

Using its treasure is explicitly a part of a creature's CR and altering their feats or skills causes no adjustment; you should almost never encounter statblocks straight outta the MM.

1) If you use custom treasure, the guidelines state that the monster should be using up no more than half of it on itself (DMG 54-55.) Besides which, it's trivially easy to give a monster items that perfectly counter the PCs and utterly wreck them, but is crushing the players into powder really your goal? Killing off your players is very easy for any GM, but I'd wager that's not the reason most of us sit down to play this game.

2) I encounter statblocks straight out of the MM/Bestiary all the time. In general you shouldn't be customizing monsters/encounters unless they're special in some way - especially if, again, you're customizing them purely to counter the players' capabilities.

[Eldariel]

1) If you use custom treasure, the guidelines state that the monster should be using up no more than half of it on itself (DMG 54-55.) Besides which, it's trivially easy to give a monster items that perfectly counter the PCs and utterly wreck them, but is crushing the players into powder really your goal? Killing off your players is very easy for any GM, but I'd wager that's not the reason most of us sit down to play this game.

2) I encounter statblocks straight out of the MM/Bestiary all the time. In general you shouldn't be customizing monsters/encounters unless they're special in some way - especially if, again, you're customizing them purely to counter the players' capabilities.

Where's the middle ground? Monsters just as written carrying 100% items they can't/don't use are approximately as straining for believability as monsters running around with anti-PC builds.

Luckily it's trivially easy to find the workable middleground where monsters exist as the settings-internal logic dictates and they use both, non-core options and items that augment their natural abilities or further their in-settings goals. And yes, every creature encountered should ideally have a raison d'êtré guiding their behaviour - and in many cases they are very easy to think up.

Just it not being core isn't a good excuse for throwing focused creatures like Giants not running Brutal Throw for instance.

[Psyren]

Where's the middle ground? Monsters just as written carrying 100% items they can't/don't use are approximately as straining for believability as monsters running around with anti-PC builds.

Luckily it's trivially easy to find the workable middleground where monsters exist as the settings-internal logic dictates and they use both, non-core options and items that augment their natural abilities or further their in-settings goals. And yes, every creature encountered should ideally have a raison d'êtré guiding their behaviour - and in many cases they are very easy to think up.

Just it not being core isn't a good excuse for throwing focused creatures like Giants not running Brutal Throw for instance.

Again, I'm completely fine with you customizing monsters. But I'm glad you brought up Brutal Throw because it illustrates my point perfectly. When you look at a Cloud Giant's statblock (for example) his ranged attack is 10 points below his melee one - clearly this does not include Brutal Throw. You can definitely add or swap that in, but this will make his ranged ability far superior than it is "out of the box" and an encounter involving him should be harder as a result. Feats are not equal, otherwise everyone would be just as happy with Toughness as they are with Extend Spell.

Basically, CR or EL or whatever you want to call it is as much art as science, and you should be judging how hard the fight itself is before slapping an arbitrary number onto it, rather than blindly accepting the arbitrary number that is already there.

[Eldariel]

Again, I'm completely fine with you customizing monsters. But I'm glad you brought up Brutal Throw because it illustrates my point perfectly. When you look at a Cloud Giant's statblock (for example) his ranged attack is 10 points below his melee one - clearly this does not include Brutal Throw. You can definitely add or swap that in, but this will make his ranged ability far superior than it is "out of the box" and an encounter involving him should be harder as a result. Feats are not equal, otherwise everyone would be just as happy with Toughness as they are with Extend Spell.

Basically, CR or EL or whatever you want to call it is as much art as science, and you should be judging how hard the fight itself is before slapping an arbitrary number onto it, rather than blindly accepting the arbitrary number that is already there.

Aye, that's precisely why I don't use either CR or EL as such; I judge the difficulty based on the monsters and the party and the circumstances rather than some abstract numbers that can and will never account for most of the variables making creatures dangerous in the first place. My point was that CR as written does not account for either; and I'd rather tend towards the more dangerous end of the spectrum in that regard since otherwise most of the material in the system will be wasted and the PCs will eventually become too familiar with various creatures for there to really be any surprises. I like surprises.

[rrwoods]

1) If you use custom treasure, the guidelines state that the monster should be using up no more than half of it on itself (DMG 54-55.) Besides which, it's trivially easy to give a monster items that perfectly counter the PCs and utterly wreck them, but is crushing the players into powder really your goal? Killing off your players is very easy for any GM, but I'd wager that's not the reason most of us sit down to play this game.

2) I encounter statblocks straight out of the MM/Bestiary all the time. In general you shouldn't be customizing monsters/encounters unless they're special in some way - especially if, again, you're customizing them purely to counter the players' capabilities.

Eh, I dunno. I almost always customize monsters, partially because rewriting the stat block from base principles allows me to understand how all the numbers come to be (as well as fix the all too common “the stat block is wrong” problem). I usually switch feats out, because often the feats listed just aren boring. If the creature is already interesting to fight without switching feats I might not do it, or if its role is being part of a mob or something else where making it more “interesting” just makes the encounter too difficult to run. Occasionally I’ll poke at a specific hole in the players’ abilities because it’s an interesting problem to present, but that doesn’t mean I’m trying to just crush them.

[Psyren]

I would rather make the CR reflective of the final difficulty, than throw it out entirely. It's a starting point (especially in Pathfinder.) When I look at an unmodified Cloud Giant, I know that he's an appropriate challenge for a level 11 party as printed. I therefore further know that if I give that Giant a "str to ranged" feat, either adding it outright or replacing a less useful feat like Iron Will, that his ranged DPR is going to go up fairly significantly. It might be possible to argue that his CR doesn't change (especially if ranged combat is not advantageous for him in that encounter) but I would argue that in many instances it does - more viable options for the monsters should mean that the fight is harder.

[Gnaeus]

My group I would describe as high-middle to lower high optimization. I modify monsters so I don't have to lower their CR.

[Psyren]

My group I would describe as high-middle to lower high optimization. I modify monsters so I don't have to lower their CR.

For individual groups that will certainly happen, especially when those groups have GMs (or players) that frequent optimization-minded boards like this one. For less experienced groups though, I'd still rather go with the printed monster than not.

[Eldariel]

I would rather make the CR reflective of the final difficulty, than throw it out entirely. It's a starting point (especially in Pathfinder.) When I look at an unmodified Cloud Giant, I know that he's an appropriate challenge for a level 11 party as printed. I therefore further know that if I give that Giant a "str to ranged" feat, either adding it outright or replacing a less useful feat like Iron Will, that his ranged DPR is going to go up fairly significantly. It might be possible to argue that his CR doesn't change (especially if ranged combat is not advantageous for him in that encounter) but I would argue that in many instances it does - more viable options for the monsters should mean that the fight is harder.

I'd say that CR should be assigned depending on the party. Monk/Rogue/Paladin/Fighter each with the "natural" PHB builds is going to have a lot harder time against a Cloud Giant (some may just not be reasonably able to beat its Obscuring Mist spam plus Levitate plus attacks) than a well-built party with full casters who can target its relatively Will, Ref and Touch meaningfully (even simple Grease and Web can be quite effective against it). Even just Shattering its Morningstar practically halves its melee damage output. A solid party at level 5-7 probably has reasonable odds of taking one down (depending on their daily loadout of course), while a weak party might not be a match even on level 11 before their raw numbers catch up. A beginner group would probably tend towards the first more than the latter, but every single player is only a beginner once and when they gain experience and make solid builds that make sense and avoid the countless trap options in the system, they'll have a much easier time against it.

[Psyren]

This is a fundamental difference in our approaches to the game. For me, CR is a minimum guideline - it says that a APL 11+ party, each member (regardless of class) having level 11+ WBL, can take on a Cloud Giant. Even if a party of optimized level 7 wizards or druids or whatnot could do the same, I don't think that number is wrong - that fact isn't relevant to me, and so I'm fine with the number being where it is.

If I do have higher-op players and need to tailor a printed encounter to be more challenging for them, I'm certainly comfortable doing so (and in fact, there are helpful guides like this one (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxiv?GMs-Guide-to-Creating-Challenging-Encounters) to assist me in doing it systematically and fairly) but my point of view is that the designers have to start somewhere. If you and your group are comfortable optimizing, my point of view is that the printed stats and CRs simply aren't made for you; they're there to help the people that need it, the ones that don't frequent forums like this one (which, I would bet a substantial sum on, is actually a majority of the base.)

So philosophically, if you and your playgroup look at a CR 11 monster and think "that thing is weaksauce; for a level 11 party I'd actually give it X and Y and Z to buff it appropriately" - what I would think instead is "that thing is designed for the kind of level 11 party that doesn't hang out on GitP or MMB, but my own group routinely punches about 2-3 CR above their expected weight class, let me boost that thing to CR 14 by adding X and Y and Z."

The result is actually the same, but for that less optimized party the designers likely had in mind, I would know that they would probably need a couple more levels under their belt to take on my tweaked monster. In fact, I would know exactly how many more levels they'd need, based on what I added to it.

And one more philosophical difference I'd like to call out:


...every single player is only a beginner once...

How do you define "once" here? Their first combat? Their first campaign? Their first time reaching 20 in any class? Suffice to say, I don't agree with this at all; I think we are beginners many times in our roleplaying career, even if we stick largely to one system. This is a deep game with many mechanics one can be exposed to, and almost every class plays differently, some radically so. Some of us learn faster than others, but I think assuming every playgroup has, or is even capable of, the optimization level of yours is where the disconnect lies.

[Eldariel]

This is a fundamental difference in our approaches to the game. For me, CR is a minimum guideline - it says that a APL 11+ party, each member (regardless of class) having level 11+ WBL, can take on a Cloud Giant. Even if a party of optimized level 7 wizards or druids or whatnot could do the same, I don't think that number is wrong - that fact isn't relevant to me, and so I'm fine with the number being where it is.

If I do have higher-op players and need to tailor a printed encounter to be more challenging for them, I'm certainly comfortable doing so (and in fact, there are helpful guides like this one (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pxiv?GMs-Guide-to-Creating-Challenging-Encounters) to assist me in doing it systematically and fairly) but my point of view is that the designers have to start somewhere. If you and your group are comfortable optimizing, my point of view is that the printed stats and CRs simply aren't made for you; they're there to help the people that need it, the ones that don't frequent forums like this one (which, I would bet a substantial sum on, is actually a majority of the base.)

So philosophically, if you and your playgroup look at a CR 11 monster and think "that thing is weaksauce; for a level 11 party I'd actually give it X and Y and Z to buff it appropriately" - what I would think instead is "that thing is designed for the kind of level 11 party that doesn't hang out on GitP or MMB, but my own group routinely punches about 2-3 CR above their expected weight class, let me boost that thing to CR 14 by adding X and Y and Z."

The result is actually the same, but for that less optimized party the designers likely had in mind, I would know that they would probably need a couple more levels under their belt to take on my tweaked monster. In fact, I would know exactly how many more levels they'd need, based on what I added to it.

How do you ensure a WBL 11 party can take on a Cloud Giant though? WBL can be well spent or poorly. A Chained Archetypeless Monk with a Cloak of Cha +6 isn't likely a threat to a Cloud Giant. I think you're relying on a line and number drawn in water here.

And how do you ensure the party gains appropriate WBL? Do you fudge treasure or just drop it from heavens?


How do you define "once" here? Their first combat? Their first campaign? Their first time reaching 20 in any class? Suffice to say, I don't agree with this at all; I think we are beginners many times in our roleplaying career, even if we stick largely to one system. This is a deep game with many mechanics one can be exposed to, and almost every class plays differently, some radically so. Some of us learn faster than others, but I think assuming every playgroup has, or is even capable of, the optimization level of yours is where the disconnect lies.

Only before they've played enough to learn - my point is that with enough experience, everyone will inevitably eventually become an expert, and through playing and reading books people will gradually gain said experience. If you're playing with experienced players, you should adjust CR to match. You don't need to read internet theory to understand what works and what doesn't. There were experts and beginners back in AD&D days too, albeit with far fewer options at their disposal. Fireball didn't gain its fame in vain; it was one of the best 3rd level spells in the system.

[Psyren]

How do you ensure a WBL 11 party can take on a Cloud Giant though? WBL can be well spent or poorly. A Chained Archetypeless Monk with a Cloak of Cha +6 isn't likely a threat to a Cloud Giant. I think you're relying on a line and number drawn in water here.

I ensure it by knowing my players - which, after 11 levels of play, I should have a decent handle on.

Either that, or I'm using a premade adventure/AP/module, which tend to be easy and do the work of placing items and challenges for me. At the very least, they are a minimal amount of work to tweak if i feel that is needed.



And how do you ensure the party gains appropriate WBL? Do you fudge treasure or just drop it from heavens?

I.... place it in the world. Also math. What do you do with treasure? :smallconfused:

And again, if I'm running a premade most of that work is done for me already.



Only before they've played enough to learn - my point is that with enough experience, everyone will inevitably eventually become an expert, and through playing and reading books people will gradually gain said experience. If you're playing with experienced players, you should adjust CR to match. You don't need to read internet theory to understand what works and what doesn't. There were experts and beginners back in AD&D days too, albeit with far fewer options at their disposal. Fireball didn't gain its fame in vain; it was one of the best 3rd level spells in the system.

I do adjust CR to match. We just label what we're doing differently - for you, you see the monster as being weak and make it "a true CR 11" for your experienced 11 players - for me, I think the 11 was assigned to it with a lower common denominator of players in mind, and if my own players are punching above that, I mentally add a few points to the CR of every printed encounter going forward, and adjust accordingly (typically, using guidelines like the ones I linked above.)

[Eldariel]

I ensure it by knowing my players - which, after 11 levels of play, I should have a decent handle on.

Either that, or I'm using a premade adventure/AP/module, which tend to be easy and do the work of placing items and challenges for me. At the very least, they are a minimal amount of work to tweak if i feel that is needed.

Surely you don't solely start adventures on level 1? And what does you knowing them change in player ability? Jon Dahl's level 11 characters got wrecked by a Hellcat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?498768-Hellcat!-What-the-hell) and died horribly in the Red Hand of Doom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?417731-NO-SPOILERS!-The-doomest-and-red-handest-of-all-RHoD-Campaign-Journals!); players can hit way below the listed CR in their competence.


I.... place it in the world. Also math. What do you do with treasure? :smallconfused:

And again, if I'm running a premade most of that work is done for me already.

What if it's useless? Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has a super Bastard Sword that nobody in my party couldn't use. And a Legacy Weapon. If you just give players treasure as listed, they can, depending on encounters, easily double or halve their expected WBL. That's natural - the system evens out eventually, but eventually comes too late for most games. And it's fully possible to have 100k gp that's of absolutely zero combat use to you. Unless you run magic marts that's hard to correct without implausibly skewing the treasure towards the players, and even with magic marts or crafting players are looking at only 50% of their earned treasure value as keepsakes if they have to sell most of their stuff. That makes for a lot of huge swings in every direction and the game that's anywhere close to WBL would be a rarity indeed if ran by drop tables.


I do adjust CR to match. We just label what we're doing differently - for you, you see the monster as being weak and make it "a true CR 11" for your experienced 11 players - for me, I think the 11 was assigned to it with a lower common denominator of players in mind, and if my own players are punching above that, I mentally add a few points to the CR of every printed encounter going forward, and adjust accordingly (typically, using guidelines like the ones I linked above.)

Again, there are level 11 characters that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Cloud Giant would be much too hard for them if they can't even fight a Hellcat. Why is CR 11 assumed to be the lowest common denominator? Why not just go purely with the flow? I think CR is better suited for beginner DMs as a guideline, more than anything.

[Psyren]

Surely you don't solely start adventures on level 1?

With inexperienced players, of course I do :smallconfused:


And what does you knowing them change in player ability? Jon Dahl's level 11 characters got wrecked by a Hellcat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?498768-Hellcat!-What-the-hell) and died horribly in the Red Hand of Doom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?417731-NO-SPOILERS!-The-doomest-and-red-handest-of-all-RHoD-Campaign-Journals!); players can hit way below the listed CR in their competence.

I don't recall starting any of those threads, so not sure what your point is supposed to be.


What if it's useless? Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has a super Bastard Sword that nobody in my party couldn't use. And a Legacy Weapon.
If you just give players treasure as listed, they can, depending on encounters, easily double or halve their expected WBL. That's natural - the system evens out eventually, but eventually comes too late for most games. And it's fully possible to have 100k gp that's of absolutely zero combat use to you. Unless you run magic marts that's hard to correct without implausibly skewing the treasure towards the players, and even with magic marts or crafting players are looking at only 50% of their earned treasure value as keepsakes if they have to sell most of their stuff. That makes for a lot of huge swings in every direction and the game that's anywhere close to WBL would be a rarity indeed if ran by drop tables.


Is that a PF module? I've never played it. But I'd have no problem dropping a shop into a module if the party grossly mismatched the loot it had. You're supposed to read them in advance after all.

Even if all the loot is useless (I for one haven't come across any APs where that's the case) it's not as swingy as you believe it to be either.



Again, there are level 11 characters that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Cloud Giant would be much too hard for them if they can't even fight a Hellcat. Why is CR 11 assumed to be the lowest common denominator? Why not just go purely with the flow? I think CR is better suited for beginner DMs as a guideline, more than anything.

Blue is exactly what I'm saying, so what's the problem?

[Eldariel]

With inexperienced players, of course I do :smallconfused:

Ah, that might be one of the sources in our different experiences. I personally find level 3-4 much more satisfying in 3.X systems for basically everyone.


I don't recall starting any of those threads, so not sure what your point is supposed to be.

That players' skills at character building form a huge, huge spectrum and that there are certainly going to be players who cannot beat creatures at their assigned CR.


Is that a PF module? I've never played it. But I'd have no problem dropping a shop into a module if the party grossly mismatched the loot it had. You're supposed to read them in advance after all.

Even if all the loot is useless (I for one haven't come across any APs where that's the case) it's not as swingy as you believe it to be either.

Certainly, a lot of it can hit home but misses do happen too and at least I find it strange as a player if we keep getting oddly convenient toys or if ye olde magic marts with basically everything exist or are easily accessible.


Blue is exactly what I'm saying, so what's the problem?

I'm questioning your premise of CR being appropriate for the lowest common denominator. And you don't strike me as a beginner DM so I don't see what value there is in it to you.

[Psyren]

Ah, that might be one of the sources in our different experiences. I personally find level 3-4 much more satisfying in 3.X systems for basically everyone.

I don't mind starting there with an inexperienced group either. But definitely not at 11. So you can alter that last quote to be "after 8 levels of play" or whatever you find palatable if that helps.


That players' skills at character building form a huge, huge spectrum and that there are certainly going to be players who cannot beat creatures at their assigned CR.

Maybe, but it won't be because their characters were wholly incapable/outclassed from the start - like it would be with, say, a 3.5 core monk. So the number itself still works.


Certainly, a lot of it can hit home but misses do happen too and at least I find it strange as a player if we keep getting oddly convenient toys or if ye olde magic marts with basically everything exist or are easily accessible.

There's an awful lot of daylight between "fixed rewards only" and "magic marts where everything exists" you know.


I'm questioning your premise of CR being appropriate for the lowest common denominator. And you don't strike me as a beginner DM so I don't see what value there is in it to you.

The value is that, rather than saying "CR 11 is wrong for that monster because my 11 party can easily stomp it" I instead say "My 11 party can handle CR 14 printed challenges, so I'll make that CR 11 monster as strong as a CR 14." In short, for me it doesn't really matter what number they put there because I know the game and my players, but I like what it represents because it still gives me a baseline I can work from.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy