Starting Combat Hidden

[Talakeal]

Something that has come up in my recent game is that the rogue player insists on starting every fight already hidden.

Now, I am running my own system, and I don't really have a rule to cover this. It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic, but it is a bit unfair (after all, why wouldn't everyone start hidden?)

I was trying to look and see how other systems handle this, and afaict, they don't. None of the RPG books on my shelf seem to mention it at all.

So, do you know of any systems that have good rules for determining who can start combat hidden?

How do you handle it at your tables?

Thanks!

[Batcathat]

I don't know how your system handles hiding, but in general it seems like something that should be very dependent on the situation. Are the party ambushing someone? Then it makes sense to start hidden. But if they're just sort of run into their enemies or are ambushed themselves? That makes less sense. Though I suppose it depends on what we mean by "hidden", I could see a stealth expert sticking to the shadows and generally being less noticable when moving around, but I wouldn't really call that "hidden".

[Saint-Just]

GURPS does have one, which is literally "roll stealth". Usually with negative modifiers. You can reconcile "basic -5 to skill" in genre books with generic rules in Basic by presuming that in a stand-up fight you need to hide in one turn, so you usually need to move fast while in the ambush situation you don't need to and can roll the full skill.

[Reversefigure4]

Most every system I've ever played has some sort of 'Stealth vs Perception' system, either against a flat difficulty or (more commonly) opposed by the enemies roll.

Further, many systems have some type of "Hide In Plain Sight" feat or special ability that says you can't use Stealth unless you have cover or the environment justifies it, and this special ability bypasses that.

If you're ambushing somebody, you roll Stealth. If they don't see you, you start the fight hidden from them. (Technically, you're usually taking an action to hide, but this doesn't matter as we don't track round by round actions outside of initiative). Either you're in a hiding spot waiting for them, or you quietly open the door to their room and toss a knife at their back.

If you're doing something else, you aren't hidden, because we've established that instead you're walking down the corridor drinking potions, or standing in the king's throne room talking to him, or whatever.

If everyone can hide as a free action at the start of a combat, then logically, everybody should. There's no downside. If it's your own system and you don't want this to happen, build a chain of feats or the equivilant that say: Feat 1 (Hide In Plain Sight): I may Hide In Plain Sight, even if people are looking directly at me (I'm just that amazing a ninja); Feat 2 (Vanish): I may hide as a free action; Feat 3 (Ghost-like), I may hide instantly as a reaction, even if I am unaware anyone is looking at me or about to ambush me.
Then it becomes possible for the player, and most people in the world won't do it because of the feat investment.

[Thrudd]

It seems like a simple stealth vs perception situation to determine whether the hiding is successful in the first place, should probably be conditional on the terrain and the timing. It shouldn't always, or even often be possible to begin a combat hidden, without magic. The effect of attacking from hiding depends- it might just be that the hiding character gets an attack before the target has a chance to do anything, before initiative is determined. Once they attack, it makes sense that their hiding spot is revealed automatically, unless it's a modern sniper rifle situation and they are at a significant distance, or again, magic.

Haven't found any games talking about it? I mean, D&D has very explicit rules about attacking from hiding, and a whole class that is built around doing it, in every edition. That's what back stab/sneak attack is. If you have sneak attack ability, you do extra damage when attacking from hiding. In 5e, you get advantage on attacks against unaware targets. A surprise round is what happens when one party is unaware of the other when the attack begins- the attackers get to take an action before their targets have a chance to do anything. In 3e that also meant they were "flat footed" and lost dex bonus to armor for that attack.
Anyone can try to hide, most characters won't be particularly good at it.

[Mastikator]

I agree with Reversefigure4, anyone can start combat hidden but then they had to say that they were hiding and that also precludes most other actions.

Hiding also requires being heavily obscured, which limits WHERE you can be. The rogue can also stealth as a bonus action so if there's anywhere to hide they shouldn't have a problem starting their next turn hidden.

[Pauly]

In wargames the basic mechanic is that something that can be stealthy can only start stealthy if they meet conditions.
The most simplistic condition is being in ambush (i.e. waiting for the enemy to come to you).
The most difficult condition is double blind. (i.e. everything is hidden until spotted, which works best when both sides are moving into contact).

The task then is to build the conditions on which it is reasonable for a character to start in stealth. Make the players aware this applies to enemies as well as PCs, so the non stealthy players may decide to veto this change.
Factors that I would consider relevant:
- speed of movement
- sound (far more important irl than most games give credit for)
- cover
- skill at hiding
- any distractions in the vicinity
- how large an area the spotters have to surveil. It’much easier to watch a hallway than a 180 degree arc.
- how close they are to others (once you’ve spotted one member of a group it’s much easier to locate other nearby members).

[Telok]

AD&D just went with surprise rolls. Certain species or classes got bonuses and the DM determined if there was any automatic success or failure. Then as long as one side or set of participants had a chance to surprise or to be surprised you rolled.

[Psyren]

If they start hidden that is usually handled by a mechanic like a surprise round. After all, successfully hiding by definition means that the enemy is unaware of your presence*.

*generally speaking. It's also possible to be hidden from view, but have the enemy know you're out there somewhere. If that's the case, usually they won't be surprised, but may suffer other penalties relative to attacking or being attacked by you.

[Jay R]

So many factors can affect this. It's certainly reasonable to try it, but it isn't automatic.

"In the last two minutes, you were taking part in the discussion. You aren't hidden."

"Sure. As you approached the ogres, you saw them first."

"No. They attacked you."

"You just picked up the sword from the last treasure. You're with the others, not off in a corner."

"You rolled a high initiative, and they are flat-footed. You are in the middle of the path, but you can use your move action to get somewhere hidden before they notice you. Make a Move Silently check and then a Hide check. Remember that if you move more than half your speed, there's a -5 penalty."

Or, in advance, "OK, you're walking through the forest. Is the rogue trying to stay hidden? If so, he needs to stay out of discussions, and if he walks into a trap, the rest of the party won't see it."

Sometimes make them places their minis before they know it's an encounter, so you can see if the rogue is hidden.

But also, if he is doing this regularly, they should occasionally deal with an encounter in which an enemy rogue starts off hidden.

Finally, it's perfectly normal for a rogue to try to stay in the shadows. Let it usually happen. But he needs to be doing it regularly, and it has reasonable consequences. If he's hiding behind a tree, then he has a minus on his Spot check. If he's searching a room, then he isn't hiding.

[Saint-Just]

I think difference between surprise and being hidden is important. If you are on a high alert, moving through the dangerous zone and someone hidden (or straight up invisible) starts shooting at you you don't know where the attacker is you may be especially vulnerable (unable to choose cover effectively, flat-footed in D&D terms etc), but not surprised. On the other hand when the bad guys (or maybe good guys, depending on whom you are playing) jump through the windows, break through the walls or teleport in front of you you may be surprised, but they are not hidden.

Also everything Jay R said about appropriate situation being a prerequisite.

[Quertus]

Pretty much what @Jay R said. Except for a few little details, like I might actually give a bonus to perception rather than a penalty to a Rogue hiding behind a tree (compared to a party being more active).

However, I'll encourage you to talk to your player(s) about this. I'd open with a full heuristic of what is required to qualify as "hidden" (or, at a minimum, copy @Jay R's list) for them to edit, to start a discussion. Honestly, Talakeal, with your group, I might have a physical "hidden" token that the Rogue's player claims and loses by their actions. Because y'all are never in sync, this physical representation might make good practice for "why do you think you are hidden" style questions and productive open communication that your group so desperately needs.

[Talakeal]

Surprise rounds don't really work here.

The issue is not that the whole group is hidden (although, honestly, why not?), it's that the rest of the party charges in while the rogue strikes from stealth to ensure they get the same number of actions as everyone else but also get their first turn sneak attack.

Obviously, stealth rolls as normal.

[Batcathat]

The issue is not that the whole group is hidden (although, honestly, why not?), it's that the rest of the party charges in while the rogue strikes from stealth to ensure they get the same number of actions as everyone else but also get their first turn sneak attack.

If you want to grant the request, it could be justified as the rogue taking advantage of the enemy being distracted by the rest of the party to strike more-or-less unseen. Of course, from a balance perspective it might be good to include some drawback, like losing the first round or whatever (but depending on how the rest of the class balance is, it might not be necessary).

[Talakeal]

If you want to grant the request, it could be justified as the rogue taking advantage of the enemy being distracted by the rest of the party to strike more-or-less unseen. Of course, from a balance perspective it might be good to include some drawback, like losing the first round or whatever (but depending on how the rest of the class balance is, it might not be necessary).

Losing the first round is RAI, but the player has simply stated that they hide first and tell the rest of the party to not attack until they are already hidden and in an ambush position.

[Batcathat]

Losing the first round is RAI, but the player has simply stated that they hide first and tell the rest of the party to not attack until they are already hidden and in an ambush position.

That sounds fine to me, when they're in a position to do so. Since it kind of requires the enemy to come to the party to pull of, I imagine it wouldn't be an every battle thing.

[DeTess]

Losing the first round is RAI, but the player has simply stated that they hide first and tell the rest of the party to not attack until they are already hidden and in an ambush position.

IF that's physically possible, then I don't see why that should be punished. But this request should raise some questions of your own, I think. How far are the rest of the players hanging back? If they're close by, the enemy could notice them and initiate combat before the rogue is in position. If they're far away and the rogue fails their stealth roll (or equivalent in your system), then it should take a while for help to arrive. And of course, there should be fights where 'starting hidden' is not possible, such as when there's nothing near the battlefield that allows for hiding, or because the enemy initiated the fight before the rogue had a chance to hide.

But in general, if there are places to hide and there is no ticking clock forcing an immediate engagement, I don't see why the other players wouldn't give the rogue a moment to get into position, or why you as DM would disallow it.

[Telok]

Due to a character having a habit of knocking up local noble's daughters and freaking ton of spell slots for invisibilty I had something not quite similar during the early days of 3e. Totally not an issue, it mostly just helped not being targeted during the opening round. Backfired occasionally when things had tremor sense or the like, but thats normal & expected.

Party takes a minute to let their assassin get in a good position before starting a combat they get to prep for? Yeah, no problems from me. Good teamwork.

[Quertus]

Yeah, I'm… struggling to imagine any way that a GM penalizing an actual attempt at teamwork - in Bizarro World, at Talakeal's table no less - would ever be a good thing.

What's the problem here? Give your players kudos for having their characters work together. This is time to break out the carrot, not the stick!

[Talakeal]

Yeah, I'm… struggling to imagine any way that a GM penalizing an actual attempt at teamwork - in Bizarro World, at Talakeal's table no less - would ever be a good thing.

What's the problem here? Give your players kudos for having their characters work together. This is time to break out the carrot, not the stick!

Not really sure what teamwork is involved here; its just the rogue player declaring that their character is hidden at the start of every encounter with no input from anyone else.

Likewise, not sure I would use the term "penalize" so much as looking for a reason why everyone doesn't declare themselves hidden to establish a new baseline for the game.

[Telok]

Not really sure what teamwork is involved here; its just the rogue player declaring that their character is hidden at the start of every encounter with no input from anyone else.

So not teamwork, just: DM="roll initative" & player="i'm hidden before combat" ?

Yeah, ok. That won't fly. If my character casts invisibility as the first thing every encounter I don't expect to be invisible before the encounter. There needs to be a 'go stealthy' at some point before combat starts unless they have a special rule allowing retroactive stealth declarations. Now if they have a "declare you're hidden after combat starts and you get to start combat hidden" ability then its fine.

[Psyren]

If you have characters whose concept is being an "ambush predator" then it's healthy to have a mix of encounters where they get to be in position, and encounters where they're caught off-guard. How you arrange that mix should depend in part on how much effort they put in to scouting and being stealthy. (Just saying "I hide" and rolling will work some of the time, but probably not as much as if they are more creative/thorough, imo.)

[Thrudd]

Not really sure what teamwork is involved here; its just the rogue player declaring that their character is hidden at the start of every encounter with no input from anyone else.

Likewise, not sure I would use the term "penalize" so much as looking for a reason why everyone doesn't declare themselves hidden to establish a new baseline for the game.

Wait, don't you have mechanical requirements and processes to determine if/when characters can be hidden? They can't just say "I'm hidden" and you say "ok".
They say "I want to hide", and you say "ok, where?"
"In the shadows"
"Ok, there's a darkened area in the trees 20 feet fron the road. Roll stealth"
"Got 75%"
"Ok, you're hidden. The orc patrol you spotted comes down the road, they see the rest of the party and charge, roll initiative." (roll perception, they don't see the hidden guy)
"As soon as the first orc comes by my position, I sneak attack!"
"You're 20 feet away, so you need to use a ranged attack or come out of hiding"
"I want to stab him with my magic +10 flame sword"
"Then you will need another stealth roll to approach the orc without being seen. It will be easier if you wait until they are engaged with your allies so they are distracted"
"Ok, got a 50%"
(Roll another perception check, orc sees him)
"Sorry, the orc caught you moving out of the corner of its eye, no sneak attack bonus"
"RAAAAH, YOU SUCK!" ( throws dice)

[Reversefigure4]

I was trying to look and see how other systems handle this, and afaict, they don't. None of the RPG books on my shelf seem to mention it at all.

Perhaps you could look at digital rpg copies, since it seems like your shelf must be quite thin to not have a single RPG that has a system for Stealth.

Why not try looking for inspiration at Heart of Darkness, the RPG you're linking to in your own signature, which seems to clearly have rules for Stealth vs Alertness, rules for cover and darkness, rules for what Action is takes to Hide, and rules for being able to Hide while others are looking at you if you roll a critical success?

Are you running into a specific issue that isn't covered by these sorts of rules?

[Pauly]

Not really sure what teamwork is involved here; its just the rogue player declaring that their character is hidden at the start of every encounter with no input from anyone else.

Likewise, not sure I would use the term "penalize" so much as looking for a reason why everyone doesn't declare themselves hidden to establish a new baseline for the game.

If it was a one off DM’s discretion would be the ruling.

However since it has become a regular thing then there needs to be a written process in the rules for how to start an encounter hidden.

This does affect the whole party for a number of reasons.
1) Stealthy movement (1/2 speed in most RPGs) is ridiculously generous compared to real life, but the whole party needs to be moving at the speed of the slowest member otherwise the party breaks up.
2) Verbal communications. If you’re moving in stealth then your character at the very least cannot talk to the rest of the party.
3) Stealthy movement + spot check penalties should be multiplied at least i.e. 1/4 speed or even stationary only. You are doing 2 separate things: looking in your immediate vicinity; and looking outwards. You can’t watch where you place your feet and scan the bushes for threats at the same time.

Your rogue wants to have their cake and eat it too, they want all the benefits of normal movement and communications and all the benefits of being hidden. The party needs to choose one or the other.

Create the rules, put them up for discussion and feedback from the group. Emphasize that you will use the same rules for enemies if they have characters that want to start hidden too.

[Thrudd]

Is this actually an issue where the player is saying "My character is using stealth while moving at all times", assuming that doing so will let them be hidden and get sneak attack at the start of any encounter that occurs?

If this is a condition you allow to exist, regardless of light, terrain and cover (lack thereof), then yes, everyone would and should do that all the time.
Most games don't let characters do that. You track travel time in turns of a specific intervals, and require a stealth check from everyone each turn, with terrain modifiers.
Or, you describe a scene and environment, the players say where and how they attempt to hide/be stealthy, make their rolls, and this applies until they encounter some new environmental (like the trees thin, the fog clears, etc).

[Quertus]

It seems like the first step is to nail down what the current rule is. It sounds to me like the rule is, most charitably, "I have the stealth skill, conditions allow for the use of stealth, and I tell Talakeal that I am hiding -> I begin combat with the Hidden condition".

And that is the way that the rule should remain for the duration of this campaign.

You should discuss with the players how the rule should change for next time, run a few one-shots between campaigns to test out rules changes if you're not satisfied with the current rule.

But given your group, and your history with rules changes, you should not change the rules mid campaign. Or, rather, only your players should initiate a rule change mid campaign. And even that should be handled with all the care of a live dirty bomb.

[HidesHisEyes]

Something that has come up in my recent game is that the rogue player insists on starting every fight already hidden.

Now, I am running my own system, and I don't really have a rule to cover this. It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic, but it is a bit unfair (after all, why wouldn't everyone start hidden?)

I was trying to look and see how other systems handle this, and afaict, they don't. None of the RPG books on my shelf seem to mention it at all.

So, do you know of any systems that have good rules for determining who can start combat hidden?

How do you handle it at your tables?

Thanks!

As with anything I’d recommend first figuring out if a specific rule is needed. Some games have basically no special case rules for anything, they just expect you to use the core mechanic however you see fit. Could you do that with your system?

[Psyren]

Wait, don't you have mechanical requirements and processes to determine if/when characters can be hidden? They can't just say "I'm hidden" and you say "ok".
They say "I want to hide", and you say "ok, where?"
"In the shadows"
"Ok, there's a darkened area in the trees 20 feet fron the road. Roll stealth"
"Got 75%"
"Ok, you're hidden. The orc patrol you spotted comes down the road, they see the rest of the party and charge, roll initiative." (roll perception, they don't see the hidden guy)
"As soon as the first orc comes by my position, I sneak attack!"
"You're 20 feet away, so you need to use a ranged attack or come out of hiding"
"I want to stab him with my magic +10 flame sword"
"Then you will need another stealth roll to approach the orc without being seen. It will be easier if you wait until they are engaged with your allies so they are distracted"
"Ok, got a 50%"
(Roll another perception check, orc sees him)
"Sorry, the orc caught you moving out of the corner of its eye, no sneak attack bonus"
"RAAAAH, YOU SUCK!" ( throws dice)

If he spotted the patrol and they failed to spot him, shouldn't there be a surprise round? It depends on the system obviously, but my point is several games have ways to handle this scenario you might be overlooking.

[Talakeal]

It seems like the first step is to nail down what the current rule is. It sounds to me like the rule is, most charitably, "I have the stealth skill, conditions allow for the use of stealth, and I tell Talakeal that I am hiding -> I begin combat with the Hidden condition".

And that is the way that the rule should remain for the duration of this campaign.

You should discuss with the players how the rule should change for next time, run a few one-shots between campaigns to test out rules changes if you're not satisfied with the current rule.

But given your group, and your history with rules changes, you should not change the rules mid campaign. Or, rather, only your players should initiate a rule change mid campaign. And even that should be handled with all the care of a live dirty bomb.

The rule is it takes an action to hide.

The player asked me what was to stop him from taking said action at the first sign of trouble before the fight starts, and then remaining hidden and then starting the fight with a first turn backstab.

To which I said... I'll need to think about that and consult the forums.


Perhaps you could look at digital rpg copies, since it seems like your shelf must be quite thin to not have a single RPG that has a system for Stealth.

Why not try looking for inspiration at Heart of Darkness, the RPG you're linking to in your own signature, which seems to clearly have rules for Stealth vs Alertness, rules for cover and darkness, rules for what Action is takes to Hide, and rules for being able to Hide while others are looking at you if you roll a critical success?

Are you running into a specific issue that isn't covered by these sorts of rules?

Its not that stealth rules are in short supply, its that there are lots of edge cases they aren't robust to handle.

In this particular case, its asking at what point it is appropriate to bring out the stealth rules.

[Keltest]

The rule is it takes an action to hide.

The player asked me what was to stop him from taking said action at the first sign of trouble before the fight starts, and then remaining hidden and then starting the fight with a first turn backstab.

To which I said... I'll need to think about that and consult the forums.

This seems pretty straightforward to me. There are 3 scenarios here i see happening.

Scenario 1: Both sides are alerted to each others presence at the same time. He cannot hide before combat because he didnt have the time to do it. Sorry, but thems the rubs for being surprised.

Scenario 2: The party is alerted to the enemy's presence but the enemy remains unaware. He can hide before combat just fine, assuming the terrain is such that he can find a hiding place.

Scenario 3: The enemy is alerted to the party's presence but the party remains unaware. He cannot hide before combat for the same reason as scenario 1.

If you want to vary his start to combat sometimes, then dont disalow hiding entirely, but give the party encounters where hiding successfully is infeasible, like in the middle of a road in a grassland with no cover. Maybe he needs to burn some invisibility if he wants to hide this time, or maybe it isnt worth the resources to do it. Now you have created an interesting scenario where he needs to solve a problem instead of just telling him he cant be sneaky.

[Telok]

In this particular case, its asking at what point it is appropriate to bring out the stealth rules.

Surprise/perception and is there time & terrain available before combat starts.

[Reversefigure4]

The rule is it takes an action to hide.

The player asked me what was to stop him from taking said action at the first sign of trouble before the fight starts, and then remaining hidden and then starting the fight with a first turn backstab.

To which I said... I'll need to think about that and consult the forums.

Its not that stealth rules are in short supply, its that there are lots of edge cases they aren't robust to handle.

In this particular case, its asking at what point it is appropriate to bring out the stealth rules.

"The Rogue wants to hide" doesn't seem like much of an edge case? If the issue is "I am always hidden as my standard mode of operation", that's not particularly a problem. Undoubtedly you already have standard operating procedures - things the characters are doing without explicitly needing to tell the GM. They tie their shoes, they go to the toilet, they oil and maintain their weapons, they eat and drink.

In some cases, the standard operating procedures change. Even though the party don't routinely walk around with weapons in hand, since they know they're presently in a dungeon full of hostile monsters, they might choose to do so for all the upcoming dungeon encounters (and suffer any appropriate penalties if they burst into a room of non-hostile and brandish weapons at them). Maybe they have a standard marching order (Fighter in the front, cleric in the back). Maybe they do things by a certain procedure (At each treasure chest, we check it for traps before the Rogue tries to open it, while the others all stand 20" back). Having these SOPs means you don't have to work out every round exactly where everyone is standing and what they are doing when they're just rolling through the dungeon.

Your system already covers this. When a fight starts, you go into initiative, and start tracking actions round by round. If the Rogue wins initiative and conditions allow, he hides as an action.

If the Rogue wants to be hidden as a part of his standard SOP for dungeon crawling (or for the entirety of his life - weird, but that's your players), then he takes a Hide action out of combat when you aren't tracking actions. When he runs into enemies, you roll Stealth vs Alertness to see if they see him. If not, when combat begins he is already hidden. The downside to this is that he suffers the various penalties for Stealth - moving slower, can't participate in conversations, alarms friendly NPCs when he bursts out of hiding, etc.

What he can't do is "Hide whenever a fight starts" as a free action without some sort of rule-breaking Feat, any more than a character could respond with "The moment there's trouble, I stab someone with a free out-of-combat attack, thus bypassing intiative rules and turn order". Initiative is literally a system that says 'let's slow the game down and track action by action'. What stops him hiding before the fight starts is the exact same system that stops the Wizard casting a spell 'before the fight starts' or the Fighter stabbing somebody before the fight starts.

[Thrudd]

If he spotted the patrol and they failed to spot him, shouldn't there be a surprise round? It depends on the system obviously, but my point is several games have ways to handle this scenario you might be overlooking.

Yes, I guess the surprise round would be the one in which he initially hid in the trees, I should have started the scenario with detecting the orcs, not his request to hide. The rest of the party was too far away from the orcs, maybe they shot some arrows and moved forward in their surprise round. Then initiative gets rolled, and the rogue makes his first attack same as everyone else, potentially a sneak attack.

So, in general I think the request to hide before combat starts should be denied except in the case where the rogue is aware of the enemy before the enemy is aware of the party (and therefore he and the party get an action before combat actually starts).
Initial encounter distance makes a difference, too. If the parties see each other from enough distance, he and everyone else could certainly try to run and hide in an area with some form of obscurement or cover for their first action as the enemy moves forward or makes ranged attacks.

[Pauly]

The rule is it takes an action to hide.

The player asked me what was to stop him from taking said action at the first sign of trouble before the fight starts, and then remaining hidden and then starting the fight with a first turn backstab.

To which I said... I'll need to think about that and consult the forums.
s.

As long as moving and going into hiding are mutually exclusive I have no problem with this. If you’ve ever done any hunting or played paintball this should be obvious. After a character is hidden then they can move, with appropriate penalties, in hiding. The act of jumping into a bush, or other cover, will naturally draw the eye to the movement.

[Talakeal]

As long as moving and going into hiding are mutually exclusive I have no problem with this. If you’ve ever done any hunting or played paintball this should be obvious. After a character is hidden then they can move, with appropriate penalties, in hiding. The act of jumping into a bush, or other cover, will naturally draw the eye to the movement.

Bear with me here.

The thing is, I don't know what "hiding" really means without context.

Like, I understand moving slowly and quietly to avoid attracting attention. I understand moving behind cover or otherwise out of line of sight. But, that only hides you from a specific vantage point. Likewise, most "hiding" involves finding some place where you blend in and then don't move or draw attention to yourself.

This is very different from sneaking around a battlefield.

Like, imagine a dungeon. The rogue "hides" before the fighter opens the door, and the party charges into the next room. If there are monsters in the next room, they can't see the rogue, because she was in a different room. But why is she any more "hidden" when she walks through the same door that everyone else did to engage the monsters?

I don't know, I kind of feel like players expect stealth to work like in a video game where your character crouches down and turns semi-transparent and then remains in "stealth" until they do something to break stealth, but that doesn't really match to my understanding of hiding in the real world.


"The Rogue wants to hide" doesn't seem like much of an edge case? If the issue is "I am always hidden as my standard mode of operation", that's not particularly a problem. Undoubtedly you already have standard operating procedures - things the characters are doing without explicitly needing to tell the GM. They tie their shoes, they go to the toilet, they oil and maintain their weapons, they eat and drink.

In some cases, the standard operating procedures change. Even though the party don't routinely walk around with weapons in hand, since they know they're presently in a dungeon full of hostile monsters, they might choose to do so for all the upcoming dungeon encounters (and suffer any appropriate penalties if they burst into a room of non-hostile and brandish weapons at them). Maybe they have a standard marching order (Fighter in the front, cleric in the back). Maybe they do things by a certain procedure (At each treasure chest, we check it for traps before the Rogue tries to open it, while the others all stand 20" back). Having these SOPs means you don't have to work out every round exactly where everyone is standing and what they are doing when they're just rolling through the dungeon.

Your system already covers this. When a fight starts, you go into initiative, and start tracking actions round by round. If the Rogue wins initiative and conditions allow, he hides as an action.

If the Rogue wants to be hidden as a part of his standard SOP for dungeon crawling (or for the entirety of his life - weird, but that's your players), then he takes a Hide action out of combat when you aren't tracking actions. When he runs into enemies, you roll Stealth vs Alertness to see if they see him. If not, when combat begins he is already hidden. The downside to this is that he suffers the various penalties for Stealth - moving slower, can't participate in conversations, alarms friendly NPCs when he bursts out of hiding, etc.

What he can't do is "Hide whenever a fight starts" as a free action without some sort of rule-breaking Feat, any more than a character could respond with "The moment there's trouble, I stab someone with a free out-of-combat attack, thus bypassing intiative rules and turn order". Initiative is literally a system that says 'let's slow the game down and track action by action'. What stops him hiding before the fight starts is the exact same system that stops the Wizard casting a spell 'before the fight starts' or the Fighter stabbing somebody before the fight starts.

Good points. But see above.

The player in question likes the idea of being permanently hidden as it protects him from both in character attacks as well as having to ever talk to NPCs (as I said in my other thread, he is the one guy who hates dialogue).

[Quertus]

The rule is it takes an action to hide.

The player asked me what was to stop him from taking said action at the first sign of trouble before the fight starts, and then remaining hidden and then starting the fight with a first turn backstab.

To which I said... I'll need to think about that and consult the forums.



Its not that stealth rules are in short supply, its that there are lots of edge cases they aren't robust to handle.

In this particular case, its asking at what point it is appropriate to bring out the stealth rules.


"The Rogue wants to hide" doesn't seem like much of an edge case? If the issue is "I am always hidden as my standard mode of operation", that's not particularly a problem. Undoubtedly you already have standard operating procedures - things the characters are doing without explicitly needing to tell the GM. They tie their shoes, they go to the toilet, they oil and maintain their weapons, they eat and drink.

In some cases, the standard operating procedures change. Even though the party don't routinely walk around with weapons in hand, since they know they're presently in a dungeon full of hostile monsters, they might choose to do so for all the upcoming dungeon encounters (and suffer any appropriate penalties if they burst into a room of non-hostile and brandish weapons at them). Maybe they have a standard marching order (Fighter in the front, cleric in the back). Maybe they do things by a certain procedure (At each treasure chest, we check it for traps before the Rogue tries to open it, while the others all stand 20" back). Having these SOPs means you don't have to work out every round exactly where everyone is standing and what they are doing when they're just rolling through the dungeon.

Your system already covers this. When a fight starts, you go into initiative, and start tracking actions round by round. If the Rogue wins initiative and conditions allow, he hides as an action.

If the Rogue wants to be hidden as a part of his standard SOP for dungeon crawling (or for the entirety of his life - weird, but that's your players), then he takes a Hide action out of combat when you aren't tracking actions. When he runs into enemies, you roll Stealth vs Alertness to see if they see him. If not, when combat begins he is already hidden. The downside to this is that he suffers the various penalties for Stealth - moving slower, can't participate in conversations, alarms friendly NPCs when he bursts out of hiding, etc.

What he can't do is "Hide whenever a fight starts" as a free action without some sort of rule-breaking Feat, any more than a character could respond with "The moment there's trouble, I stab someone with a free out-of-combat attack, thus bypassing intiative rules and turn order". Initiative is literally a system that says 'let's slow the game down and track action by action'. What stops him hiding before the fight starts is the exact same system that stops the Wizard casting a spell 'before the fight starts' or the Fighter stabbing somebody before the fight starts.


Bear with me here.

The thing is, I don't know what "hiding" really means without context.

Like, I understand moving slowly and quietly to avoid attracting attention. I understand moving behind cover or otherwise out of line of sight. But, that only hides you from a specific vantage point. Likewise, most "hiding" involves finding some place where you blend in and then don't move or draw attention to yourself.

This is very different from sneaking around a battlefield.

Like, imagine a dungeon. The rogue "hides" before the fighter opens the door, and the party charges into the next room. If there are monsters in the next room, they can't see the rogue, because she was in a different room. But why is she any more "hidden" when she walks through the same door that everyone else did to engage the monsters?

I don't know, I kind of feel like players expect stealth to work like in a video game where your character crouches down and turns semi-transparent and then remains in "stealth" until they do something to break stealth, but that doesn't really match to my understanding of hiding in the real world.



Good points. But see above.

The player in question likes the idea of being permanently hidden as it protects him from both in character attacks as well as having to ever talk to NPCs (as I said in my other thread, he is the one guy who hates dialogue).

"Staying hidden all the time" SOP is fine, and seems to fit this player's desires.

"Walking through the door and not being noticed (while the party is trying to shove several feet of steel down the enemy's throat)" is about timing, and making sure the enemies are distracted (having murderhobos trying to shove several feet of steel into your orifices, or attempting to use them to make new orifices, tends to qualify as "distracting", IMO), and this "waiting for the right moment" component of such stealth is accounted for (in many systems) by things like worse initiative, or reduced movement.

Even if the PC isn't always hidden, combat doesn't always start the exact instant two sides are aware of one another - even if *both* sides are fully aware of one another. So it's actually stupid and gamey rather than realistic for him not to be able to break LoS and "hide" between when the party knows that there's trouble and when fighting actually starts.

That said, everyone has that same opportunity to do stuff. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has on several occasions spent 10 rounds or more on pre-combat spells (just listen to *and time* how long people spend discussing strategy *in character*, or evaluate how long before Pippin and the party Barbarian go up to the bar for a drink belly trickle stats before trouble starts, and factor in scouting and such, and you'll see how this had happened).

Everyone can do things like attempt diplomacy, draw their weapons, hide, aim, study their opponents, pray to their gods, summon eldritch horrors, or move to position themselves between their tankier party member and trouble (hands on undrawn sword hilts) at the first sign of trouble, before combat starts. And some of those actions may *cause* combat to start.

Everyone can. Most people don't, in fiction or IRL.

This player is playing a character with good combat instincts and reflexes, who immediately hides when they think there's trouble brewing. Good for them.

This doesn't give them free actions, it just means that they're actually using the actions that you should be giving them. Everyone else - PC and NPC - can use or not use that time, too. A leader might hail the other group. A twitchy military unit might all dive for cover, or move the diameter of a Fireball away from one another, or begin/continue looking for an ambush, or perhaps even reach for grenades or hold actions to shoot anything that moves. But, realistically, most will waste that time that exists between when they are aware of the opposition, and combat actually starts.

Unless, of course, your world is filled with mindless morons, who ignore positioning and Diplomacy and Intelligence, that just mindlessly attack anything they see in an optimized Darwinian Selection process that continually kills off the weak. In the case, yeah, combat begins the moment two sides are aware of one another, with no positioning, no sizing one another up, no diplomacy, and no time for the PC to hide.

[Batcathat]

Unless, of course, your world is filled with mindless morons, who ignore positioning and Diplomacy and Intelligence, that just mindlessly attack anything they see in an optimized Darwinian Selection process that continually kills off the weak. In the case, yeah, combat begins the moment two sides are aware of one another, with no positioning, no sizing one another up, no diplomacy, and no time for the PC to hide.

Having time to hide is one thing, having opportunity to do so is quite another. You're right that combat might not start the moment two hostile groups meet, but group A is probably pretty likely to notice one member of group B running into the woods or whatever. It can certainly work in some scenarios and some settings, but far from all of them.

[Saint-Just]

Bear with me here.

The thing is, I don't know what "hiding" really means without context.

Like, I understand moving slowly and quietly to avoid attracting attention. I understand moving behind cover or otherwise out of line of sight. But, that only hides you from a specific vantage point. Likewise, most "hiding" involves finding some place where you blend in and then don't move or draw attention to yourself.

This is very different from sneaking around a battlefield.

Like, imagine a dungeon. The rogue "hides" before the fighter opens the door, and the party charges into the next room. If there are monsters in the next room, they can't see the rogue, because she was in a different room. But why is she any more "hidden" when she walks through the same door that everyone else did to engage the monsters?

I don't know, I kind of feel like players expect stealth to work like in a video game where your character crouches down and turns semi-transparent and then remains in "stealth" until they do something to break stealth, but that doesn't really match to my understanding of hiding in the real world.
.

Some uber-gamist and abstract system may allow stuff like that for everyone. Many systems allow stuff like that for preternatural powers - including being just too cool for this world. Classic ninja folklore includes the supposed ability to stand super-still in unnatural poses so the result is people looking at you and not seeing you. Peter Watts had a fun/creepy take on that in his science fiction with monsters that move super-fast while your eyes make saccadal movements and freeze when they don't. The stuff D&D would stat as Hide in Plain Sight (which is significantly more than a feat).

But just as a normal use of a skill? Hiding while you are walking through an empty tunnel, or while you are walking through the only entrance into the room while that entrance is being watched or there are people on high alert in the room? That should be disallowed (more realistic) or invite penalties so hefty that only a character extremely focused on stealth and "high-level" or equivalent should be able to pull it off (slightly more permissible). Again, it all depends on exact circumstances. Modern road tunnel should be impossible to hide in if well-lit (and if it's dark then the issue is not the hiding skill but ability to act in an absence of light), but throw some post-apocalyptic wrecks and garbage in it and it becomes merely hard. Most beam or arch bridges should be impossible to hide at if free of obstruction, but on some truss bridges it is just barely plausible to hide behind the beams and then rapidly move from one beam to another. Even in a classic dungeon I can imagine in some circumstances sneakily opening the door and slipping within (realistically speaking relies on precise fields of vision of those inside, so depends on circumstances beyond the character's control, but can be abstracted into a penalty). But sneaking into combat once the fighting has started? Should not be possible by default.

[Psyren]

This seems pretty straightforward to me. There are 3 scenarios here i see happening.

Scenario 1: Both sides are alerted to each others presence at the same time. He cannot hide before combat because he didnt have the time to do it. Sorry, but thems the rubs for being surprised.

Scenario 2: The party is alerted to the enemy's presence but the enemy remains unaware. He can hide before combat just fine, assuming the terrain is such that he can find a hiding place.

Scenario 3: The enemy is alerted to the party's presence but the party remains unaware. He cannot hide before combat for the same reason as scenario 1.

If you want to vary his start to combat sometimes, then dont disallow hiding entirely, but give the party encounters where hiding successfully is infeasible, like in the middle of a road in a grassland with no cover. Maybe he needs to burn some invisibility if he wants to hide this time, or maybe it isnt worth the resources to do it. Now you have created an interesting scenario where he needs to solve a problem instead of just telling him he cant be sneaky.

+1. A healthy mix of these three will keep your player on his toes.

[Quertus]

Having time to hide is one thing, having opportunity to do so is quite another. You're right that combat might not start the moment two hostile groups meet, but group A is probably pretty likely to notice one member of group B running into the woods or whatever. It can certainly work in some scenarios and some settings, but far from all of them.

And "someone running off into the woods" might raise tensions, change focus/actions, or even be the trigger that initiate combat.

However, someone "taking cover"? Or casually continuing walking? I hate to give away all my tricks, but stealth is as much psychology as physical skill - just look at all the "throw a rock" examples in movies for a trivial example.

So, someone who is actually good at hiding should be good at making those opportunities, that don't arouse suspicions. At leaving LoS casually and seeming unimportant.

The simplest Gamist abstraction is to simply say, "yeah, you start combat hidden". The best alternative is to pixel-*****, and risk "guy at the gym" errors.

EDIT: and, for the record, I'm apparently one of several "gods of stealth" I know compared to Playground "guy at the gym" expectations. "Sneaking in combat" is child's play. Of course, I *accidentally* snuck through a secured military facility, so my experiences may not be typical…

[Batcathat]

And "someone running off into the woods" might raise tensions, change focus/actions, or even be the trigger that initiate combat.

However, someone "taking cover"? Or casually continuing walking? I hate to give away all my tricks, but stealth is as much psychology as physical skill - just look at all the "throw a rock" examples in movies for a trivial example.

That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it depends a lot on the situation. Are the two groups running into each other on a busy and/or dark street? Yes, there are probably lots of ways for a decently skilled stealth expert to hide before combat erupts. Is one of the groups catching the other in a brightly lit corridor in the big bad's secret base? The opportunities are probably a lot more limited, from both a physical and psychological point of view.


The simplest Gamist abstraction is to simply say, "yeah, you start combat hidden". The best alternative is to pixel-*****, and risk "guy at the gym" errors.

GMs make judgement calls all the time, why would "does it make sense to be able to hide before combat here?" be so much harder than any other?

Of course, it is Talakeal's group we're talking about, so the right answer in this particular situation might be "let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, so they don't melt down like spoiled five-year-olds" but I was trying to answer in a more general sense.

[GloatingSwine]

Surprise rounds don't really work here.

The issue is not that the whole group is hidden (although, honestly, why not?), it's that the rest of the party charges in while the rogue strikes from stealth to ensure they get the same number of actions as everyone else but also get their first turn sneak attack.

Obviously, stealth rolls as normal.

This sounds like rogues being rogues to me? As long as the rogue is making enough effort before the combat starts to be in a position to be hidden, and contributes effectively when combat starts rather than hiding for the sake of staying hidden, it sounds like the rogue is doing it right.

[Quertus]

That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it depends a lot on the situation. Are the two groups running into each other on a busy and/or dark street? Yes, there are probably lots of ways for a decently skilled stealth expert to hide before combat erupts. Is one of the groups catching the other in a brightly lit corridor in the big bad's secret base? The opportunities are probably a lot more limited, from both a physical and psychological point of view.



GMs make judgement calls all the time, why would "does it make sense to be able to hide before combat here?" be so much harder than any other?

Of course, it is Talakeal's group we're talking about, so the right answer in this particular situation might be "let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, so they don't melt down like spoiled five-year-olds" but I was trying to answer in a more general sense.

There you go. It is Talakeal's group. So any time that there is an interpretation whereby what were getting out of Bizarro World could possibly make any sense, let's go with that. Do it enough, and maybe some day the communication issues and (im)maturity issues will be resolved.

[Talakeal]

This sounds like rogues being rogues to me? As long as the rogue is making enough effort before the combat starts to be in a position to be hidden, and contributes effectively when combat starts rather than hiding for the sake of staying hidden, it sounds like the rogue is doing it right.

What is "enough effort" though?

Currently, he just declared that he is always hidden at the start of the campaign and that is the end of it.

The biggest issue is that I feel like giving one player a bonus hide action at the start of every combat is just kind of unfair to the other players.

[Pauly]

What is "enough effort" though?

Currently, he just declared that he is always hidden at the start of the campaign and that is the end of it.

The biggest issue is that I feel like giving one player a bonus hide action at the start of every combat is just kind of unfair to the other players.

You are giving him a bonus action for free.

The simplest way to resolve it is to say if he wants to start every encounter hidden the whole party has to move at hidden rate of movement and be prevented from verbal communication whilst moving. The entire party has to be under the penalties for hidden movement all the time if he wants to be hidden for every encounter.

If he wants to follow the RAW he has to take an action to go into hiding during the encounter. If he wants a bonus hide action don’t give it away for free.

[DeTess]

What is "enough effort" though?

Currently, he just declared that he is always hidden at the start of the campaign and that is the end of it.

The biggest issue is that I feel like giving one player a bonus hide action at the start of every combat is just kind of unfair to the other players.

How fair this is depends a lot on how you're actually playing your game. If there is a pre-combat approach to the actual encounter (when appropriate) where the players have the chance to know a fight is coming and set up? If so, the player should have hidden during this period (just as the spellcasters cast buffs and the fighters make sure they're at the front of the group).

If you abstract this portion of the game away then letting the player make this declaration is fine (in the same way that it would be fine for the players to declare their marching order and for wizards to declare what buffs they have cast).

In other words, if the way the game goes is like this:

DM: You see a flickering light deeper in the cave, like a torch or campfire, and hear the cackling of a small band of goblins walking their patrol. What do you do?
players: *describe preparations, but rogue states no intention to hide*
DM: Okay, anything else? the patrol is getting closer to your position.
players: no, we're good.
DM: Roll initiative
rogue: I am hidden.

Then it's fine to deny it, because the rogue player had their chance to hide and didn't take it. however, fi it is more like this:

DM: you advance into the cave. You see a flickering light, like a torch or campfire, and hear the cackling of a small band of goblins walking their patrol. you round a corner and come face-to-face with the greenskins. Roll initiative.
Rogue: I would be hidden at this point

I see no reason to deny it.

[Saint-Just]

EDIT: and, for the record, I'm apparently one of several "gods of stealth" I know compared to Playground "guy at the gym" expectations. "Sneaking in combat" is child's play. Of course, I *accidentally* snuck through a secured military facility, so my experiences may not be typicalÂ…

As for "sneaking" in combat: are we sure we're talking about the same thing? I have no doubt that stealth is easier when all your targets are distracted, but would that allow fast enough movement through an open space to be of any use? If the task was impossibly hard it can remain too hard after very favourable modifiers.

As for your "sneaking in" through a military base - do you claim you were purposefully sneaking through an area you only later found to be a military base, or you have just walked through? The second one involves no skill.

[Satinavian]

The thing is, I don't know what "hiding" really means without context.

Like, I understand moving slowly and quietly to avoid attracting attention. I understand moving behind cover or otherwise out of line of sight. But, that only hides you from a specific vantage point. Likewise, most "hiding" involves finding some place where you blend in and then don't move or draw attention to yourself.

This is very different from sneaking around a battlefield.

Like, imagine a dungeon. The rogue "hides" before the fighter opens the door, and the party charges into the next room. If there are monsters in the next room, they can't see the rogue, because she was in a different room. But why is she any more "hidden" when she walks through the same door that everyone else did to engage the monsters?

I don't know, I kind of feel like players expect stealth to work like in a video game where your character crouches down and turns semi-transparent and then remains in "stealth" until they do something to break stealth, but that doesn't really match to my understanding of hiding in the real world.
As you are designing your own system anyway, you can change it.

If you copy D&D with hide actions, hidden status effects and sneak attacks for rogues, you get behavior like D&D. But that is your fault alone. Look how Shadowrun (as something widely known) handles stealth : As runners are basically criminals trying to stay unnoticed as long as possible, stealth is a major part of the gameplay. And somehow SR does not have a single one of your specific problems.

[Thrudd]

What is "enough effort" though?

Currently, he just declared that he is always hidden at the start of the campaign and that is the end of it.

The biggest issue is that I feel like giving one player a bonus hide action at the start of every combat is just kind of unfair to the other players.

You need to have rules that specify when and how he can be hidden. IE, He must make a successful stealth roll (against awareness) while in an area of obscurement. Define "area of obscurement"- a region that has cover, darkness or both. In plain language, a player must have something to hide in or behind from the POV of those they wish to be hidden from. If they move out of the area of obscurement, they are no longer hidden. Any movement they make while under obscurement will require a new stealth roll to remain hidden (moving silently).
You perhaps can specify that sneak attack can work even if the character is not technically hidden, so long as the target is not yet aware of the attacker's presence- if they failed awareness checks to notice the character approaching. Moving silently should be sufficient depending on the facing and level of distraction of the target.

If all this already exists in some form in your game, then obviously the solution is to enforce your rules and deny the blanket declaration of being hidden. The only time he should be able to be hidden prior to combat is if he knows the enemy's position, they aren't aware of him, and he is already in a region that will allow hiding. Otherwise he'll need to use to use the first combat round to move into a place where he can hide and take the action to hide.

If he wants to be hidden at all times, the burden is on him to describe how and where he's hiding in every scenario and environment the party finds themselves in. This will establish his general position at the beginning of any combat. You should enforce whatever movement rate is require for stealthy movement, and of course disallow talking with the other characters. It seems very impractical and implausible, but it is a fantasy game, I suppose.

[Talakeal]

As you are designing your own system anyway, you can change it.

If you copy D&D with hide actions, hidden status effects and sneak attacks for rogues, you get behavior like D&D. But that is your fault alone. Look how Shadowrun (as something widely known) handles stealth : As runners are basically criminals trying to stay unnoticed as long as possible, stealth is a major part of the gameplay. And somehow SR does not have a single one of your specific problems.

Good suggestion!

I sold my Shadowrun books years ago, it might be time to dig it up.


That being said, I am not sure how being like D&D is a bad thing or a matter of fault; afaict these issues are fairly system agnostic and, looking at D&D, is so sparse that it really has nothing for me to build on.


Edit: Do you have any specific edition of Shadowrun or section of the book I should be reading? I am skimming a 4E digital copy my roommate had, and it seems to be more or less in line with how D&D does it but is even more vague and gives me even less to work with.

[Telok]

EDIT: and, for the record, I'm apparently one of several "gods of stealth" I know compared to Playground "guy at the gym" expectations. "Sneaking in combat" is child's play. Of course, I *accidentally* snuck through a secured military facility, so my experiences may not be typical…

You aren't alone. Although someone's involved borrowing an officer's hat and wearing the right kind of coat, so not exactly the "sneaky unseen" type of stealth. Personally I wear boots with rattley swivel eyelets and no laces in an attempt to both clomp & jingle, and still accidentally sneak up on people.

[Keltest]

Good suggestion!

I sold my Shadowrun books years ago, it might be time to dig it up.


That being said, I am not sure how being like D&D is a bad thing or a matter of fault; afaict these issues are fairly system agnostic and, looking at D&D, is so sparse that it really has nothing for me to build on.


Edit: Do you have any specific edition of Shadowrun or section of the book I should be reading? I am skimming a 4E digital copy my roommate had, and it seems to be more or less in line with how D&D does it but is even more vague and gives me even less to work with.

D&D 5th edition is sufficiently vague that it has started internet arguments about what precisely qualifies as stealth by the rules, but in principle its pretty simple. You need to be unseen and unheard, thats it. Unseen is accomplished with a line of sight blocker like a hedge, thick fog, or (magical) shadows. Being unheard is taking the hide action. Once you meet both those conditions, you roll your stealth check against their perception.

It is, IMO, a system that actually works better if you start with whats intuitive and work backwards to find the relevant rule. Obviously if they can see you then you arent hidden, for example.

[Quertus]

As for "sneaking" in combat: are we sure we're talking about the same thing? I have no doubt that stealth is easier when all your targets are distracted, but would that allow fast enough movement through an open space to be of any use? If the task was impossibly hard it can remain too hard after very favourable modifiers.

As for your "sneaking in" through a military base - do you claim you were purposefully sneaking through an area you only later found to be a military base, or you have just walked through? The second one involves no skill.


You aren't alone. Although someone's involved borrowing an officer's hat and wearing the right kind of coat, so not exactly the "sneaky unseen" type of stealth. Personally I wear boots with rattley swivel eyelets and no laces in an attempt to both clomp & jingle, and still accidentally sneak up on people.

Bingo! My "accidental stealth" involved looking like I belonged, and acting like I belonged, until I realized that I was lost, and asked for directions. I was met with complete incredulity that I wasn't dead long before I got to where I was, and was escorted to my actual destination by "scary people" (heavily armed? MPs? Darn senility)

There's a difference between being seen and being noticed. There's plenty of skills one could apply to make people not care about you walking through that door nearly as much as they care about the murderhobo trying to shove several feet of steel into a new orifice of their own making. Although, honestly, not much skill is really required in that particular scenario, if you stop and think about it…

[Saint-Just]

Bingo! My "accidental stealth" involved looking like I belonged, and acting like I belonged, until I realized that I was lost, and asked for directions. I was met with complete incredulity that I wasn't dead long before I got to where I was, and was escorted to my actual destination by "scary people" (heavily armed? MPs? Darn senility)

There's a difference between being seen and being noticed. There's plenty of skills one could apply to make people not care about you walking through that door nearly as much as they care about the murderhobo trying to shove several feet of steel into a new orifice of their own making. Although, honestly, not much skill is really required in that particular scenario, if you stop and think about it…

Definitely not the same kind of skill as hiding in the shadows and bushes (you'd probably want to cue that off purely mental stats, possibly even treat that as a social skill), and I strongly doubt it would be helpful when there are actual hostiles in the area (in your example people definitely had social considerations in their mind, which they wouldn't in combat) and doubly so it wouldn't be helpful to move into advantageous combat position (as opposed to slipping through).

[Satinavian]

Edit: Do you have any specific edition of Shadowrun or section of the book I should be reading? I am skimming a 4E digital copy my roommate had, and it seems to be more or less in line with how D&D does it but is even more vague and gives me even less to work with.The editions don't change much. The important points are :

- There is no sneak attack as class ability and no class skill. Everyone can do stealth, everyone can profit from stealth. You don't get groups where one player needs stealth for his tricks to work and the others don't care.
- Being hidden or not depends mostly on perception and stealth checks. People can be hidden from some but at the same time visible to other enemies. There is no "hidden" status. Hidden always carries the informaion "from whom". If the whole group out of line of sight, you don't have hidden and non-hidden members. No one can see any of them.
- The whole hidden and noticed thing is symmetrical. The enemies are unknown to the group until they are found as well. Usually per the same perception mechanics unless it is really obvious. Not noticing all enemy combattants is common.
- Surprise attacks are powerful, but surprise wears off and is basically a once per combat thing
- There lots of rules and modifiers for perception rolls as well as guidelines for far you can hear stuff etc.
- The basic assumption is that the whole team is sneaking or not because raising alarm, calling for reinforcements and paying more attention to a place where someone got found is expected. It is not really useful to sneak in a group of looud people. People are aware the group is there and once they see it, they tend to see you anyway. Also people can alert each other.
- There is no such thing as hide-in-plain-sight or even being-hidden-in plain-sight unless you have basically invisibility, magically or technologically andboth can be countered in various ways. If you go through a door that is under observation because of your teammates, you generally are seen, no check allowed.

It basically boils down to "no sneak attack, no "hidden"-status, only opposed skill rolls heavily modified for the situation (that can also shift into auto-success and auto-failure territory) and attacking usually gives you away.

[Tarmor]

My feelings on "staring the encounter hidden" are basically, 'yeah, why not'. He's a rogue. My only concerns are that:
1. He must be aware of the potential trouble, and the opponent must not have already been aware of him. (if he has been sighted, then its going to take him his first action to move out of sight.)
2. He must have a means of not being noticed/observed. You can't hide in a large open space, a brightly lit corridor, etc.

I'd be thinking about the area/terrain/buildings/etc at the location the group is. Possibly offer some options for stealth - for example: "There's a large rock you could hide behind easily, but it's not very close to where everyone else is. There is a tree close to the road, but it doesn't provide as much cover." (Rock may give a Stealth bonus, but it will take another Stealth action to move from it to enter combat once it starts, tree has a penalty.) Being able to start an encounter in stealth, doesn't mean that where's he's hidden is going to be right in the middle of where the fight breaks out.

I've had the rogue in my D&D group hide perfectly, then have another PC "pull" the opponents away from where he was by their actions. I've also seen the Rogue pick a good hiding place when my monsters/NPC's weren't planning on going past him in the first place. (In that case, though, your player would probably blame you that he didn't get a sneak attack because you changed plans specifically based on his action.)

Alternatively, if most/all of the group is aware of potential opponents (that aren't aware of them) then ask EVERYONE what they do (give them all an action) before the initiative roll.

[Quertus]

Definitely not the same kind of skill as hiding in the shadows and bushes (you'd probably want to cue that off purely mental stats, possibly even treat that as a social skill), and I strongly doubt it would be helpful when there are actual hostiles in the area (in your example people definitely had social considerations in their mind, which they wouldn't in combat) and doubly so it wouldn't be helpful to move into advantageous combat position (as opposed to slipping through).

One of the best combatants I know will do exactly that - move around, making themselves appear "less important" than the guy "trying to shove several feet of steel into a new orifice", only to have moved into advantageous combat position while attentions were elsewhere. That's… kinda his MO, tbh. Not that he wouldn't best me, or half a dozen of me, in a stand-up fight anyway.

So… yeah, "stealth" comes in many forms, not just "lurk in the shadows", but many very mental forms as well, and I'd like to avoid "guy at the gym"ing the character / system to the point where my experiences seem phenomenally superhuman

[Talakeal]

So, we had another session.

I told Bob that he can't start stealth hidden without good reason.

He told me that if I am going to "waste his first turn" then he is going to waste as much of my time as possible and make me actually play out a solo infiltration mission before each combat so that he can start hidden in an ambush mission behind enemy lines. Which, aside from boring the rest of the party to tears, is likely to get him killed off the first time he flubs a crucial stealth roll.


The editions don't change much. The important points are :

- There is no sneak attack as class ability and no class skill. Everyone can do stealth, everyone can profit from stealth. You don't get groups where one player needs stealth for his tricks to work and the others don't care.
- Being hidden or not depends mostly on perception and stealth checks. People can be hidden from some but at the same time visible to other enemies. There is no "hidden" status. Hidden always carries the informaion "from whom". If the whole group out of line of sight, you don't have hidden and non-hidden members. No one can see any of them.
- The whole hidden and noticed thing is symmetrical. The enemies are unknown to the group until they are found as well. Usually per the same perception mechanics unless it is really obvious. Not noticing all enemy combattants is common.
- Surprise attacks are powerful, but surprise wears off and is basically a once per combat thing
- There lots of rules and modifiers for perception rolls as well as guidelines for far you can hear stuff etc.
- The basic assumption is that the whole team is sneaking or not because raising alarm, calling for reinforcements and paying more attention to a place where someone got found is expected. It is not really useful to sneak in a group of looud people. People are aware the group is there and once they see it, they tend to see you anyway. Also people can alert each other.
- There is no such thing as hide-in-plain-sight or even being-hidden-in plain-sight unless you have basically invisibility, magically or technologically and both can be countered in various ways. If you go through a door that is under observation because of your teammates, you generally are seen, no check allowed.

It basically boils down to "no sneak attack, no "hidden"-status, only opposed skill rolls heavily modified for the situation (that can also shift into auto-success and auto-failure territory) and attacking usually gives you away.

I see then.

I think you might be misinterpreting my problems then.

Currently, my game works a lot more like Shadowrun than D&D, and that is where the problem lies.

The player simply wants to have a "hidden" condition, while my game uses a more complex system of who can see who at any given time. Trying to square both of them creates an incredibly complex situation.

[Telok]

So, we had another session.

I told Bob that he can't start stealth hidden without good reason.

He told me that if I am going to "waste his first turn" then he is going to waste as much of my time as possible and make me actually play out a solo infiltration mission before each combat so that he can start hidden in an ambush mission behind enemy lines. Which, aside from boring the rest of the party to tears, is likely to get him killed off the first time he flubs a crucial stealth roll....

I think you might be misinterpreting my problems then.

Currently, my game works a lot more like Shadowrun than D&D, and that is where the problem lies.

The player simply wants to have a "hidden" condition, while my game uses a more complex system of who can see who at any given time. Trying to square both of them creates an incredibly complex situation.

Then problem is the player. I'm sorry I can't help. Need a place to hide? I may be able to swing that.

[Talakeal]

Then problem is the player. I'm sorry I can't help. Need a place to hide? I may be able to swing that.


Agreed.

But... he was pissed off at the time because he felt like I was pulling the rug out from under him and leaving him with no alternative.

It's not exactly problematic to want to get their most out of your character's abilities, I just wish I had a more concrete and fair way of handling it that didn't feel like I was pulling a rule out of my butt every time so that we could avoid such conflicts.



I remember a very similar situation once when I was playing a rogue and I attacked someone who was standing in complete darkness a hundred yards from his allies, and the DM rules that the guard called for help and I was immediately spotted despite the fact that there was no rational way they could see me; the DM argued that because the guy I attacked could see me and that he wasn't hidden from his allies, they would simply come directly to his and spot me despite the intervening darkness and distance.

Honestly its kind of ironic that video games are the ones that tend to use a blanket "hidden" condition when you more or less need a computer to calculate who can see who at any given moment.

[Milodiah]

Yeah, this is definitely one of those topics that needs an agreement between player and GM, but it also does kinda raise the question of "what is hiding".

In terms of entering combat in a certain way, it kinda reminds me of playing a cavalier, but that question complicates it. You do best on your mount, but it's a pretty clear-cut, definable thing of "are you on your mount at the start of combat" with there being obvious situations of when you would or would not be on your mount at the start of combat, and what would be required to get on your mount during combat. Ambushed while traveling between towns? Yeah, you're on your mount. Ambushed while sitting at the bar in a tavern? Yeah, no, you're not on your mount. Then you define what it'll take to get on your mount, in this case going outside the tavern to where said mount is, unhitching it from the post, and climbing on top.

But it gets a little harder than that, obviously, because it's not really a yes/no answer for "am I hidden" in the same obvious way as there is for "am I on a horse right now". I really like the suggestion made earlier, that there's a physical token that represents the intent of staying hidden. You as the GM would decide if any given action they take, or situation they enter, necessitates flipping that token. If you're moving between towns, you'd be hidden (or have the chance to instantly make your stealth roll at the start of combat) if you're moving alongside the road in the brush, scouting ahead. You wouldn't be hidden if you were walking beside the paladin engaged in a lengthy argument with him. You're not so much deciding at the moment if they're actually possessing the "hidden" condition, you're determining whether or not rolling stealth should be allowed as an automatic thing at the beginning of combat or whether the player has to take an action or something to qualify for the chance to roll such as diving into a ditch and then crawling away.

The compounding thing is, what in your opinion as a GM is being stealthy and not being stealthy, and how can you convey this to your player? You should probably come up with a definition of what being detected by enemies is, something like "they are both aware of your presence and consider you a threat". If some bandits burst into the tavern and demand that everyone gives up their money, and you're tucked into a corner booth, maybe the first part of the definition is not true - they see that there's a booth there, and they see that it is occupied. But maybe the stealth check is you making an effort to appear as nonthreatening as possible so they make the mistake of turning their back to you or something. They still know you're there, unless they don't have object permanence, but by failing to consider you a threat they've put you in a situation where you could definitely spring out of "hiding" to attack, or stay "hidden" further into combat because the actual combat is between the bandits and the rest of the obviously armed and dangerous adventuring party that was at the middle table.

After that, just work on communicating "yes, you can do that and be stealthy" and "no, you cannot do that and be stealthy", until your player gets a general feel for what makes you say yes and no. At that point they'll hopefully start molding their behavior so that you meet halfway with how a "sneaky rogue" should be behaving.

[Batcathat]

But... he was pissed off at the time because he felt like I was pulling the rug out from under him and leaving him with no alternative.

It's not exactly problematic to want to get their most out of your character's abilities, I just wish I had a more concrete and fair way of handling it that didn't feel like I was pulling a rule out of my butt every time so that we could avoid such conflicts.

I doubt there is a completely objective way to rule it (at least without getting into ridicolous amounts of detail for every situation). Did your player actually attempt to justify why his character should be able to be automatically hidden in all situations or did he just go straight to hissy fit? I'm not sure how good his character is supposed to be at hiding, but saying you should always be able to hide because you're good at hiding is like saying you should always be able to lift stuff because you're strong, regardless of how much something actually weighs

[Talakeal]

I doubt there is a completely objective way to rule it (at least without getting into ridicolous amounts of detail for every situation). Did your player actually attempt to justify why his character should be able to be automatically hidden in all situations or did he just go straight to hissy fit? I'm not sure how good his character is supposed to be at hiding, but saying you should always be able to hide because you're good at hiding is like saying you should always be able to lift stuff because you're strong, regardless of how much something actually weighs

He has a magic item which blurs his image and grants him a +2 bonus to stealth and AC. He says he is always moving ahead of the party while "invisible" to scout, and that it makes no sense that if he was scouting that he should suddenly become visible when initiative is rolled.


It is a bit weird how much he over emphasizes being "invisible" at all times, like the other night they were at a banquet and he said he spent the entire meal walking along the table hidden and pickpocketing every guest and never once took to his seat; this served the double purpose of making him some money and getting him out of RPing, and he got mad when I said that while slipping away or picking a few pockets is certainly viable, there is no way in the world that people aren't going to notice you leaving your seat to orbit the table for the entire meal just because you move quietly and have a blurred outline.

[Milodiah]

He has a magic item which blurs his image and grants him a +2 bonus to stealth and AC. He says he is always moving ahead of the party while "invisible" to scout, and that it makes no sense that if he was scouting that he should suddenly become visible when initiative is rolled.


It is a bit weird how much he over emphasizes being "invisible" at all times, like the other night they were at a banquet and he said he spent the entire meal walking along the table hidden and pickpocketing every guest and never once took to his seat; this served the double purpose of making him some money and getting him out of RPing, and he got mad when I said that while slipping away or picking a few pockets is certainly viable, there is no way in the world that people aren't going to notice you leaving your seat to orbit the table for the entire meal just because you move quietly and have a blurred outline.

...so he's one of those players, huh?

Good luck. The problem becomes less "well if you're concealing yourself you can't participate in this or that" because clearly he values being concealed over...you know, participating in things. Part of me wants to say he needs to start experiencing in-game consequences for being a kleptomaniac, but part of me knows that's probably not going to fix the problem, and instead drive him to try even harder to avoid being caught. At this point it's a matter of whether his obsession is negatively impacting the fun being had by other people, which I assume it is, and he probably needs to be told to knock it down a few notches, which he will not take kindly to.

[HidesHisEyes]

Good suggestion!

I sold my Shadowrun books years ago, it might be time to dig it up.


That being said, I am not sure how being like D&D is a bad thing or a matter of fault; afaict these issues are fairly system agnostic and, looking at D&D, is so sparse that it really has nothing for me to build on.


Edit: Do you have any specific edition of Shadowrun or section of the book I should be reading? I am skimming a 4E digital copy my roommate had, and it seems to be more or less in line with how D&D does it but is even more vague and gives me even less to work with.

They’re definitely not system agnostic. Some games don’t have any special rules or sub-systems for stealth or how stealth interacts with combat. (Hell, some games don’t even have any special rules or sub-systems for combat). In those games you just describe yourself being stealthy and resolve it the way you would resolve anything else, one situation at a time. I think when you have an involved tactical combat system like D&D and special stealth rules that give you very clear, defined and predictable advantages in the combat system, that’s when you get the issue of “I hide” becoming a rote, mechanical step that the stealth player says every time because there’s no reason not to.

But my intuitive answer is that even in D&D I would go on a case by case basis. I’d want to tell the player they can’t just assume they can be hidden at the start of every encounter. They need to engage with the fiction and tell me how exactly they’re being sneaky when they want to be sneaky. If it does start to feel rote and mechanical and like they really should just be able to assume they’re always skulking in the shadows when the fight starts, then I’d want to up my encounter game and mix it up a bit, having fights in brightly lit areas, places with no hiding spots, monsters coming out of the walls on all sides, etc.

EDIT having read the thread more closely: definitely sounds like the player is the problem. I think it’s time to have a chat. What does he want out of the game, can he understand why you don’t want to treat “hiding” like invisibility, is there any way you can compromise. Sounds like he’s being very immature though.

[Thrudd]

He has a magic item which blurs his image and grants him a +2 bonus to stealth and AC. He says he is always moving ahead of the party while "invisible" to scout, and that it makes no sense that if he was scouting that he should suddenly become visible when initiative is rolled.


I don't think any type of rule will solve this conflict. There are already rules for stealth in your game, but the player seems to insist it should work the way he imagines it rather than whatever is written; there's no reason to think this would change if you added an official "hidden" condition with reasonable requirements. He thinks his character should be able to be hidden in plain sight/invisible at all times, unless you make that possible in your rules, he won't be happy.

I'd say the best way to resolve the conflict is to allow him to be hidden/invisible with a stealth roll (as an explicit feature of the magic item) but with the condition that he needs to come up with a plausible location in the current environment where he could have been moving unseen. Not an entire stealth mini-game, just a description of where he thinks his character should be. Get him to agree that you must approve and are allowed to alter or deny his description if it seriously conflicts with verisimilitude (but most of the time you'll be pretty lenient). Perhaps have explicit exceptions that he is aware of ahead of time, such as small rooms and narrow corridors, where it should be understood that hiding is impossible, even with the magic item.

[Keltest]

I'd say the best way to resolve the conflict is to allow him to be hidden/invisible with a stealth roll (as an explicit feature of the magic item) but with the condition that he needs to come up with a plausible location in the current environment where he could have been moving unseen.

I'd say that the best way to resolve the conflict is to tell the player that you (the DM) are not here for his own personal enjoyment and that if he doesnt like the way the stealth rules work he is free to make a different character or leave the table. When somebody starts threatening to deliberately waste table time, that means you pull out the Big Red Button. I know if somebody at my table was deliberately trying to waste everyone's time out of spite, as soon as they started talking about something that wasnt their action i would go "cool, you forfeit your turn." and move on to the next guy who actually wants to play the game.

Edit: Having said that, i do agree that Mr Sneak has a point that if he was successfully hidden when combat was called, there is absolutely not reason for him to have suddenly broken out of sneaking. Presumably the sound of drawn swords does not count as radar.

[Batcathat]

I'd say that the best way to resolve the conflict is to tell the player that you (the DM) are not here for his own personal enjoyment and that if he doesnt like the way the stealth rules work he is free to make a different character or leave the table. When somebody starts threatening to deliberately waste table time, that means you pull out the Big Red Button. I know if somebody at my table was deliberately trying to waste everyone's time out of spite, as soon as they started talking about something that wasnt their action i would go "cool, you forfeit your turn." and move on to the next guy who actually wants to play the game.

Edit: Having said that, i do agree that Mr Sneak has a point that if he was successfully hidden when combat was called, there is absolutely not reason for him to have suddenly broken out of sneaking. Presumably the sound of drawn swords does not count as radar.

I agree on both points, though in regards to the first one I think the hope of Talakeal's players behaving like sane people or Talakeal dropping them from the group are both pretty slim. In regards to the second one, I think the main issue is whether the character can always start out hidden, his magical stealth and habit of scouting ahead should certainly make it the case sometimes.

[GloatingSwine]

So, we had another session.

I told Bob that he can't start stealth hidden without good reason.


I would rather tell him that he will almost always have the opportunity to begin combat hidden but he's going to have to tell you how he's going to hide prior to each combat based on the description you've given the party about the surroundings. Let him know that "Stand in the open in my blur field" is barely ever going to be enough because it's not invisibility, it's just very good camouflage, but will allow him to make use of much less concealment than anyone else could get away with.

That makes him engage with the situation in a way that earns the advantage he wants.

[Talakeal]

I'd say that the best way to resolve the conflict is to tell the player that you (the DM) are not here for his own personal enjoyment and that if he doesnt like the way the stealth rules work he is free to make a different character or leave the table. When somebody starts threatening to deliberately waste table time, that means you pull out the Big Red Button. I know if somebody at my table was deliberately trying to waste everyone's time out of spite, as soon as they started talking about something that wasnt their action i would go "cool, you forfeit your turn." and move on to the next guy who actually wants to play the game.

Edit: Having said that, i do agree that Mr Sneak has a point that if he was successfully hidden when combat was called, there is absolutely not reason for him to have suddenly broken out of sneaking. Presumably the sound of drawn swords does not count as radar.

Keep in mind, he was upset when he said this and was putting it in uncharitable terms.

A more neutral way of saying it would be that if he needs to play out a solo infiltration before the combat starts to start out hidden, then that is what he will do, but that is going to eat up a lot of time and leave the other players bored.

[Keltest]

Keep in mind, he was upset when he said this and was putting it in uncharitable terms.

A more neutral way of saying it would be that if he needs to play out a solo infiltration before the combat starts to start out hidden, then that is what he will do, but that is going to eat up a lot of time and leave the other players bored.

Presumably you have no intention of actually making anyone do that though, so he's either going to go out of his way to waste everyone's time or he's just trying to blackmail you into letting him cheat.

Unless (again) you actually did just arbitrarily rob him of pre-established stealth when combat started, in which case that really is a DM foul that you probably shouldnt repeat.

[Talakeal]

Presumably you have no intention of actually making anyone do that though, so he's either going to go out of his way to waste everyone's time or he's just trying to blackmail you into letting him cheat.

Unless (again) you actually did just arbitrarily rob him of pre-established stealth when combat started, in which case that really is a DM foul that you probably shouldnt repeat.

The sticking point is what qualifies as “pre-established”.

Is it him declaring he hides the moment I call for an initiative roll, or is it playing out an infiltration mission beforehand? What is grounds for establishment?

[Batcathat]

Is it him declaring he hides the moment I call for an initiative roll, or is it playing out an infiltration mission beforehand? What is grounds for establishment?

I think that's bound to be a judgement call, even if you could create some sort of guidelines. A whole infiltration mission before each combat sounds... excessive but saying he just autohides is going too far in the other direction, I think. At the risk of stating the obvious, I think it basically boils down to "Does it make sense for him to be hidden right now?". Was he scouting ahead when the party got ambushed in the forest? Sure, it makes sense to be hidden. Is the party in more or less complete darkness and he's moving silently? It makes sense for him to manage to hide before combat starts. But then there are plenty of situations where it doesn't make sense (because of the environment or the lighting conditions or everyone's positioning or whatever).

Basically, I think you as the GM has to make the call. In most groups I doubt that would be much of an issue. In your group? Well...

[Milodiah]

The sticking point is what qualifies as “pre-established”.

Is it him declaring he hides the moment I call for an initiative roll, or is it playing out an infiltration mission beforehand? What is grounds for establishment?


Thats why I actually really like the idea of the physical, flippable token that was mentioned earlier. I do a similar thing at my tables when I play games like Call of Cthulhu; major items of kit or big, bulky weapons like Thompson sub machine guns, shotguns, are on an index card. It serves a dual purpose here, one is that nobody has to flip to page 238 or whatever to see what the stats are, but it also symbolizes physical possession of that thing, at the moment. If the players specify they are leaving it in the trunk of the car, it goes into a pile that represents that. That way nobody gets to say "well I actually meant to bring the shotgun" at the start of combat, because if you did then you would have physically collected that card to indicate it. And if a cop stops you says "hold on a second why do you have a Tommy gun in my quiet suburb" you can't say "oh I actually left it in the car" because there it is, right in front of you.

Sure, players are forgetful. If someone declared their intention to collect it or stow it, but then got off on a tangent and didn't actually move the card, I'll do it for them. But you'd be surprised just how often the players do it, since its a nice tactile addition to the game and I find players like to get to DO things.

In the same sense, the "hiding" token is him visibly indicating how his character is choosing to act at the moment. Dark side up, presumably, would be the norm for this guy. It's not exclusive to him being inside a barrel or something all session; it just means he's moving in a way that would let him vanish quickly, which is something that obviously the character know how to do. He's keeping up near walls, not walking in the middle of streets or lights, etc, ready at any moment to Assassin's Creed his way into Concealment.

Any time he says he's doing something that would make that implausible, like buying something from a merchant or climbing a ladder, that token flips to exposed. He can still try to stealth, but he's going to have to go out of his way and actively seek a way to flip that token back over first, like jumping off that ladder into a bush. That's when its an action to hide rather than just 'I roll stealth' at the beginning of an encounter.

[Talakeal]

This is further complicated by the idea of "hidden" as an objective condition. What does hidden actually mean? From whom? Can your allies target you while you are hidden? As in the example I posted a few days ago, what does it mean to be hidden from some people while actively fighting others?

So, in my last session there were two combats.

The first was against four ogres that had taken up residence in an observatory on a hill. They were outside resting on various balconies and catwalks. The party approached in the open and engaged them in a pitched battle.

The second was a group of trolls who made their lair in a volcanic cavern. They had no sentinels, and the party burst in the main entrance and started kicking butt.


In both of these cases, how would you rule preemptive stealth would work?

[Batcathat]

In both of these cases, how would you rule preemptive stealth would work?

It's hard to say for certain without more detail, but I would probably have allowed preemptive stealth in both cases, mainly since the combat was initiated by the party and it's easy to justify Stealth Guy going around a little or hanging back to avoid being seen. I'd still ask the player to justify it, but less "play out an entire infiltration mission" and more "explain your approach".

[Talakeal]

It's hard to say for certain without more detail, but I would probably have allowed preemptive stealth in both cases, mainly since the combat was initiated by the party and it's easy to justify Stealth Guy going around a little or hanging back to avoid being seen. I'd still ask the player to justify it, but less "play out an entire infiltration mission" and more "explain your approach".

I would say that “hanging back a little” would be well represented by taking the hide action, but he wants to open the fight in melee with a first turn backstab.

[icefractal]

I'm curious btw - do combats last significantly more rounds in your system, or is backstab really strong? Because from a 3.x perspective, using a round to hide seems like almost always a trap option.

[Milodiah]

This is further complicated by the idea of "hidden" as an objective condition. What does hidden actually mean? From whom? Can your allies target you while you are hidden? As in the example I posted a few days ago, what does it mean to be hidden from some people while actively fighting others?

Yeah, a formal dictionary definition is probably gonna be needed here.

I pitch the definition of being detected as 'the enemy is both aware of your location and perceives you as a threat.'

The first one basically means they know at least exactly which square you're in. I'd still give it to him if they knew he were somewhere in that treeline, or in the building somewhere, etc, but it'd make the check harder.

It also means that even if one or more enemies are aware of your location, you are still concealed from enemies who have been alerted that something is wrong but have not been informed of your exact location. Its one thing to yell "Intruder!" It's another to yell "Intruder, he's hiding behind that crate!" while pointing at the crate and illuminating it with your lantern. I always say that if the sneaky guy gets detected but eliminates the guy in the first combat round, a general alarm probably got shouted but no more than that, it's unlikely for a guard to be narrating everything he sees in a loud voice as you're stabbing him.

That brings us to the concept of general versus specific alerts, something I borrowed from shadowrun decking. General alert means they know there is an intruder or other problem, but specific means they know YOU are the intruder. They know what you look like, where you last were, what you've been doing, etc. I've never been hard pressed on the fine details like you are now, but perhaps two tokens could be used. Think of it like the metal gear solid, hitman, etc games. They search for you, they find you, they tell other people where you are, in that order.

[Talakeal]

I'm curious btw - do combats last significantly more rounds in your system, or is backstab really strong? Because from a 3.x perspective, using a round to hide seems like almost always a trap option.

Combats are significantly longer than D&D yes.

No, a sneak attack by itself isn't that great, hiding is generally more of a defensive action imo.

But the real advantage is that, unlike D&D, hidden is determined per person rather than being a condition, so he will hide before combat, sneak attack enemy A on round one, sneak attack enemy B on round two, sneak attack enemy C on round three, sneak attack enemy D on round four, etc. until there are no enemies left who aren’t aware of his presence, at which point he will take an action to hide and then repeat.

[Xervous]

Combats are significantly longer than D&D yes.

No, a sneak attack by itself isn't that great, hiding is generally more of a defensive action imo.

But the real advantage is that, unlike D&D, hidden is determined per person rather than being a condition, so he will hide before combat, sneak attack enemy A on round one, sneak attack enemy B on round two, sneak attack enemy C on round three, sneak attack enemy D on round four, etc. until there are no enemies left who aren’t aware of his presence, at which point he will take an action to hide and then repeat.

This strikes me as rather weird in terms of mechanics. Is he making stealthy attacks? In most TTRPGs combat actions tend to break stealth unless you’re that good, or are using specialized equipment.

[Batcathat]

I would say that “hanging back a little” would be well represented by taking the hide action, but he wants to open the fight in melee with a first turn backstab.

Yeah, that's another interpretation, like I said it's hard to tell without specifics (and even then it'd be subjective). Starting out with an immediate backstab could be a valid action but it, once again, depends on the specific situation.

[Thrudd]

This is further complicated by the idea of "hidden" as an objective condition. What does hidden actually mean? From whom? Can your allies target you while you are hidden? As in the example I posted a few days ago, what does it mean to be hidden from some people while actively fighting others?

So, in my last session there were two combats.

The first was against four ogres that had taken up residence in an observatory on a hill. They were outside resting on various balconies and catwalks. The party approached in the open and engaged them in a pitched battle.

The second was a group of trolls who made their lair in a volcanic cavern. They had no sentinels, and the party burst in the main entrance and started kicking butt.


In both of these cases, how would you rule preemptive stealth would work?
Hiding normally wouldn't work in either scenario, unless the party lured the enemies toward a spot where the rogue was hiding, or the rogue had infiltrated the area where the enemies were beforehand completely unnoticed and hid somewhere among them (assuming there even is an appropriate spot for that to happen).
I guess he could have stealthed into either of those areas before the party went in, hidden behind something or lurked in a shadow with his magic item activated, and waited for the party to enter.

This is really about appeasing a difficult player (and I presume the other players would agree that it isn't worth constantly fighting over), rather than establishing a balanced set of rules that simulate stealth in a reasonable way. You have a handle on how stealth could and should work, we have no dearth of potential rule sets to apply.

I'd still say to just let it happen, with caveats. This guy, I gather, doesn't like to pay attention to anything happening outside of combat, so he isn't actually actively participating in scouting, is he? He just wants his character to be perpetually scouting and not have to think about how that's happening. So let him make a stealth roll, based on his roll vs the awareness of the enemies, quickly describe how he snuck into the area and where he hid prior to the fight starting. If the area would be more difficult to sneak into or hide in, apply a penalty to his roll or a bonus to the awareness roll or both. If it would be impossible, tell him it would have been impossible and his character would have known that and reported as such to the rest of the party (you know, like a scout does). If his stealth roll failed, tell him he was seen/found out just before the attack started. So you are doing an "infiltration mission" at the start of every combat, but it consists of two dice rolls (his and yours), and a one or two sentence description of where he is and what happened.

[Satinavian]

He has a magic item which blurs his image and grants him a +2 bonus to stealth and AC. He says he is always moving ahead of the party while "invisible" to scout, and that it makes no sense that if he was scouting that he should suddenly become visible when initiative is rolled.Seems reasonable. If he scouts ahead, he encounters enemies before the rest of the party and should get his stealth roll for not being noticed. If that one works, he can stay out of line of sight until the others arrive and start the combat hidden. But if the roll fails, he has some time alone with the enemy until the others arrive.


It is a bit weird how much he over emphasizes being "invisible" at all times, like the other night they were at a banquet and he said he spent the entire meal walking along the table hidden and pickpocketing every guest and never once took to his seat; this served the double purpose of making him some money and getting him out of RPing, and he got mad when I said that while slipping away or picking a few pockets is certainly viable, there is no way in the world that people aren't going to notice you leaving your seat to orbit the table for the entire meal just because you move quietly and have a blurred outline.I would not have allowed that. Blurry is not invisible (and actually more than a bit attention-grabbing at a feast) and there are numerous onlookers. If he had insisted to try it anyway, i would have let him roll : opposed rolls against all the onlockers with his blur bonus and some big malus for the situation. And if found, he would have been treated like the thief he is. But if he is that masterful a thief to still pull that off, good for him.

More honestly, pickpocketing at a feast without the blur-item is something i would rule as far easier and actually quite likely to succeed for a professional if that is a feast where moving around occasionally instead of staying seated is something a lot of people do. Pickpocketing in a gathering is easy, if you can blend in. But if everyone else stays seated, it is basically impossibly hard. The same goes if the PC is some guest of honer who has the attention of the others all the time.


Of course i would have told the player the chances as i see them before they commited to the action.


This is further complicated by the idea of "hidden" as an objective condition. What does hidden actually mean? From whom? Can your allies target you while you are hidden? As in the example I posted a few days ago, what does it mean to be hidden from some people while actively fighting others?

So, in my last session there were two combats.

The first was against four ogres that had taken up residence in an observatory on a hill. They were outside resting on various balconies and catwalks. The party approached in the open and engaged them in a pitched battle.

The second was a group of trolls who made their lair in a volcanic cavern. They had no sentinels, and the party burst in the main entrance and started kicking butt.


In both of these cases, how would you rule preemptive stealth would work?I would have asked if he wants to scout ahead as always and the party is willing to wait for that. If yes, then played out his solo scouting. If no, no stealth.


I mean i have been in groups that tend to send a scout in first and somehow there never was some disagreement like you always get.

But you already know that i would have kicked that particular player long long ago for many other reasons. And my games are so much fun usually going years without arguments and when a disagreement arises we are having a productive discussion like adults.


I would say that “hanging back a little” would be well represented by taking the hide action, but he wants to open the fight in melee with a first turn backstab.Sneaking into melee range is hard and depending on layout and positioning outright impossible. I would only allow it if he would successfully make those hard (situationally adjusted) sneak rolls and if not, he gets to start without support from the rest of the party in melee range of the enemy.



Scouting is a difficult minigame of risk vs. reward. One can shorten it to one opposed roll or some such, but the player doesn't get the big reward without actually taking the risk.



But the real advantage is that, unlike D&D, hidden is determined per person rather than being a condition, so he will hide before combat, sneak attack enemy A on round one, sneak attack enemy B on round two, sneak attack enemy C on round three, sneak attack enemy D on round four, etc. until there are no enemies left who aren’t aware of his presence, at which point he will take an action to hide and then repeat.
You are allowing him to actually fight in melee without being noticed by other combattants of the same fight ? If that is something your rulesystem does, he has found an exploit and abuses it. Again.




I know you are different and your table dynamics include some strange power play between GM and player on the metalevel. But i personally get quite hostile when i perceive some player argueing in bad faith. For me rules discussions should be a cooperative endeavor to get the best rules, not some adversarial power play to get the most benefiacial ruling tor a certain PC or an attempt to get away with as much as you can. Which is, again, why i would in most cases not give Bob what he wants (unless he convinces he it is reasonable) and would have kicked him long ago for throwing a tantrum over it. I don't have an advice to make your table work.

[GloatingSwine]

The first was against four ogres that had taken up residence in an observatory on a hill. They were outside resting on various balconies and catwalks. The party approached in the open and engaged them in a pitched battle.

The second was a group of trolls who made their lair in a volcanic cavern. They had no sentinels, and the party burst in the main entrance and started kicking butt.


In both of these cases, how would you rule preemptive stealth would work?

Insufficient information.

What I can do though is tell you what I would do if I were in the mindset of your rogue player (but possessed of all my normal faculties).

I would ask in both situations "What cover can I use to hide in to get the drop on these enemies"? Then on receiving an answer I would ask to the party "let me get into that position then we start the fight".

If your party are taking the initiative to start the fights on their own terms, I think it's reasonable for you as a DM to enable the rogue player by providing some cover that allows them to use their sneak attacks against at least some enemies as long as they meet that threshold of asking about the situation and using what they are told about it, and co-operating with the rest of the party.

If the players are caught on the hop and the fight comes to them, then the rogue shouldn't expect to start combat hidden unless he had previously told you how he was hiding.

[Talakeal]

Seems reasonable. If he scouts ahead, he encounters enemies before the rest of the party and should get his stealth roll for not being noticed. If that one works, he can stay out of line of sight until the others arrive and start the combat hidden. But if the roll fails, he has some time alone with the enemy until the others arrive.

I would not have allowed that. Blurry is not invisible (and actually more than a bit attention-grabbing at a feast) and there are numerous onlookers. If he had insisted to try it anyway, i would have let him roll : opposed rolls against all the onlockers with his blur bonus and some big malus for the situation. And if found, he would have been treated like the thief he is. But if he is that masterful a thief to still pull that off, good for him.

More honestly, pickpocketing at a feast without the blur-item is something i would rule as far easier and actually quite likely to succeed for a professional if that is a feast where moving around occasionally instead of staying seated is something a lot of people do. Pickpocketing in a gathering is easy, if you can blend in. But if everyone else stays seated, it is basically impossibly hard. The same goes if the PC is some guest of honer who has the attention of the others all the time.


Of course i would have told the player the chances as i see them before they commited to the action.

I would have asked if he wants to scout ahead as always and the party is willing to wait for that. If yes, then played out his solo scouting. If no, no stealth.


I mean i have been in groups that tend to send a scout in first and somehow there never was some disagreement like you always get.

But you already know that i would have kicked that particular player long long ago for many other reasons. And my games are so much fun usually going years without arguments and when a disagreement arises we are having a productive discussion like adults.

Sneaking into melee range is hard and depending on layout and positioning outright impossible. I would only allow it if he would successfully make those hard (situationally adjusted) sneak rolls and if not, he gets to start without support from the rest of the party in melee range of the enemy.



Scouting is a difficult minigame of risk vs. reward. One can shorten it to one opposed roll or some such, but the player doesn't get the big reward without actually taking the risk.



You are allowing him to actually fight in melee without being noticed by other combattants of the same fight ? If that is something your rulesystem does, he has found an exploit and abuses it. Again.




I know you are different and your table dynamics include some strange power play between GM and player on the metalevel. But i personally get quite hostile when i perceive some player argueing in bad faith. For me rules discussions should be a cooperative endeavor to get the best rules, not some adversarial power play to get the most benefiacial ruling tor a certain PC or an attempt to get away with as much as you can. Which is, again, why i would in most cases not give Bob what he wants (unless he convinces he it is reasonable) and would have kicked him long ago for throwing a tantrum over it. I don't have an advice to make your table work.

So here is the thing:

The player is used to D&D where "hidden" is an absolute condition, and is used to 3.5 D&D where an invisibility spell or a skill boosting item essentially means it is a permanent condition regardless of what you are doing.

My system is written to be more of a case by case basis where rather than being "hidden" as a condition, I determine whether any given enemy is aware of you at any given time.

The player is trying to combine these assumptions into a sort of "best of both worlds" situation where entering the hidden condition is global but breaking it is on a case by case basis. And I don't really think this is malicious behavior, he is merely trying to get the most out of his character and bringing in assumptions where they don't apply.

[Keltest]

So here is the thing:

The player is used to D&D where "hidden" is an absolute condition, and is used to 3.5 D&D where an invisibility spell or a skill boosting item essentially means it is a permanent condition regardless of what you are doing.

My system is written to be more of a case by case basis where rather than being "hidden" as a condition, I determine whether any given enemy is aware of you at any given time.

The player is trying to combine these assumptions into a sort of "best of both worlds" situation where entering the hidden condition is global but breaking it is on a case by case basis. And I don't really think this is malicious behavior, he is merely trying to get the most out of his character and bringing in assumptions where they don't apply.

I can respect trying to bring in some more realism into a rules system, but for stuff like stealth in particular, IMO the merits of a quick and easy-to-grasp resolution are more important to the gaming experience.

Doubly so because presumably you need to turn this system on your players at some point, so telling someone "sorry, you dont know this guy on the battle map is here yet, only Tony knows he exists, and Tony just got stabbed to death." is going to be a hard sell.

[Reversefigure4]

But the real advantage is that, unlike D&D, hidden is determined per person rather than being a condition, so he will hide before combat, sneak attack enemy A on round one, sneak attack enemy B on round two, sneak attack enemy C on round three, sneak attack enemy D on round four, etc. until there are no enemies left who aren’t aware of his presence, at which point he will take an action to hide and then repeat.

So it's your system. Is this working as it's intended to work? Is there a specific concept or style of game or genre you're trying to mimic with these rules? I can't think of many fights from movies or books where combatants are unaware of each other. Batman taking out mooks from the shadows is one, or a Movie Ninja Fight where combatants are totally unaware of each other and combat is shown only through disappearing bodies or the rustle of bushes.

So you have Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric vs Orcs A, B, C, and D. The Rogue can happily engage A, then B, then C, all without being seen by D. So what is Orc D supposing to be seeing? Are his fellow orcs just mysteriously dropping dead from swords through the chest? Does D see them engaged in a sword fight with only the shadows - something is there, but he can't make it out?

Most systems don't do this because it adds a lot of complexity - for each individual Orc, you need to track which party members you can see, and even in a relatively simple 4 vs 4 fight, you need to track that A, B, and D can see each other, that the Fighter and Cleric made their Alertness checks to see Orc C hiding, that the Rogue and Orc C can't see each other because they failed the checks, that the Wizard can see the Rogue the whole time, but not when the Rogue hides again, beating his Alertness... there's a reason most systems use a simple 'attacking breaks Stealth' - it's easy to track, and under normal circumstances it's hard for combatants to miss a swordfight happening right in front of their face.

Is this how you're intending the system to work and the sort of Stealth you want to emulate? If not, you need to fix your rules. If so... well, it's an odd setup, but if your system is aiming to tackle Batman Stealth Fights, then everybody should probably be hiding regularly, and it's an intentional effect that people can have sword fights right next to each other while un-noticed.

Be sure that the players understand that's how it works for everyone, though. Most players will turn up their nose at the concept that only Bob can see the guy that's stabbing him, and your players more than most.

[Talakeal]

So it's your system. Is this working as it's intended to work? Is there a specific concept or style of game or genre you're trying to mimic with these rules? I can't think of many fights from movies or books where combatants are unaware of each other. Batman taking out mooks from the shadows is one, or a Movie Ninja Fight where combatants are totally unaware of each other and combat is shown only through disappearing bodies or the rustle of bushes.

So you have Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric vs Orcs A, B, C, and D. The Rogue can happily engage A, then B, then C, all without being seen by D. So what is Orc D supposing to be seeing? Are his fellow orcs just mysteriously dropping dead from swords through the chest? Does D see them engaged in a sword fight with only the shadows - something is there, but he can't make it out?

Most systems don't do this because it adds a lot of complexity - for each individual Orc, you need to track which party members you can see, and even in a relatively simple 4 vs 4 fight, you need to track that A, B, and D can see each other, that the Fighter and Cleric made their Alertness checks to see Orc C hiding, that the Rogue and Orc C can't see each other because they failed the checks, that the Wizard can see the Rogue the whole time, but not when the Rogue hides again, beating his Alertness... there's a reason most systems use a simple 'attacking breaks Stealth' - it's easy to track, and under normal circumstances it's hard for combatants to miss a swordfight happening right in front of their face.

Is this how you're intending the system to work and the sort of Stealth you want to emulate? If not, you need to fix your rules. If so... well, it's an odd setup, but if your system is aiming to tackle Batman Stealth Fights, then everybody should probably be hiding regularly, and it's an intentional effect that people can have sword fights right next to each other while un-noticed.

Be sure that the players understand that's how it works for everyone, though. Most players will turn up their nose at the concept that only Bob can see the guy that's stabbing him, and your players more than most.

That is a very good point. I do think a lot of the tension is coming from trying to square the circle between MMO style ease of play stealth and Batman style in-depth stealth.

[Milodiah]

The way I've always tried to handle that is if one enemy spots you, and is given sufficient time to inform the others of your presence (usually one combat round) without you doing something about them, then everyone with him knows where you are even if they didn't initially beat that opposed check or whatever to detect you. Obviously there are exceptions, but in general it works well enough. Though I should specify that only applies to people in his immediate vicinity, where he can point and say something, they can look where he's pointing, and then they say "oh yeah there IS a guy there". If it's just a general distress signal type thing (depending on the setting that could be anything from a radio to a flare gun to a particular pattern of Dancing Lights, to just yelling for help really loud) then that isn't going to give the enemy your location, just that there is A Problem.

If people disagree, then sure, we can go to complex check systems to ensure everyone perceives everyone else. But that's gonna apply to the enemies, too, and I guarantee they're gonna get fed up with not being able to attack the enemy whose model is clearly on the battle mat because their character doesn't know that, and any attempt at metagaming will be discouraged.

[Satinavian]

The player is trying to combine these assumptions into a sort of "best of both worlds" situation where entering the hidden condition is global but breaking it is on a case by case basis.Yes, that is the impression i get.

And I don't really think this is malicious behavior, he is merely trying to get the most out of his character and bringing in assumptions where they don't apply.And i would still tell him "No", even if it were not malicious.

It is just not how your rulesystem works and it would be a bad idea to change it accordingly as what the player wants is utterly overpowered. And would undoubtly cause no little amount of backlash if some NPC used it against the group.



The thing is, what rules or houserules i use depends only on the merits of the rules, the consequences they have and what i want to achieve. The player behavior does only change how i interact with the player, whether i remain open or friendly and whether i keep or kick them. Those two things should not be mingled. No favorable rules for nice players, no unfavorable ones to punish them. The only exception are gentlemens agreements to not abuse stuff so you don't have to nerf it rulewise.

[Quertus]

The player's plan is, sneak attack each opponent from hiding, return to hiding, repeat.

Let's say that there are 4 opponents. And that the average expected damage from hiding is 5.

If the PC starts the combat hidden, his expected damage for the first 5 rounds is 5+5+5+5+0=20.

If the PC has to spend the first round or combat hiding, his expected damage for the first 5 rounds of combat is 0+5+5+5+5=20.

You've changed rules mid game, sacrificed player good will, removed the "feel good" the player had, and guaranteed worse gameplay as now you'll be wasting everyone's time on pixel *****ing whether or not he's hiding…

… for no fundamental change in average total combat DPS.

Good job. Clearly a Determinator-approved use of your resources.

[Batcathat]

You've changed rules mid game, sacrificed player good will, removed the "feel good" the player had, and guaranteed worse gameplay as now you'll be wasting everyone's time on pixel *****ing whether or not he's hiding…

Yes, the ideal solution is clearly to give a problematic player what they want, regardless of whether it makes in-game sense or not, so they won't whine. I'm sure that'll set a great precedent for the future. :smallconfused:

[Milodiah]

Yes, the ideal solution is clearly to give a problematic player what they want, regardless of whether it makes in-game sense or not, so they won't whine. I'm sure that'll set a great precedent for the future. :smallconfused:

Especially since the OP is the creator of their system, and if the creator fails to provide an answer to the problem then every gm who encounters this in the future will have it too.

[Talakeal]

The player's plan is, sneak attack each opponent from hiding, return to hiding, repeat.

Let's say that there are 4 opponents. And that the average expected damage from hiding is 5.

If the PC starts the combat hidden, his expected damage for the first 5 rounds is 5+5+5+5+0=20.

If the PC has to spend the first round or combat hiding, his expected damage for the first 5 rounds of combat is 0+5+5+5+5=20.

You've changed rules mid game, sacrificed player good will, removed the "feel good" the player had, and guaranteed worse gameplay as now you'll be wasting everyone's time on pixel *****ing whether or not he's hiding…

… for no fundamental change in average total combat DPS.

Good job. Clearly a Determinator-approved use of your resources.

You are aware that your math only works if you choose to snapshot combat at X+1 rounds, with X being the number of enemies, correct?

But who said I changed the rules mid game? The printed rules that we have been playing with say that hiding takes an action, and the player is asking for an exception to those rules to let him be permanently hidden.

[Quertus]

Yes, the ideal solution is clearly to give a problematic player what they want, regardless of whether it makes in-game sense or not, so they won't whine. I'm sure that'll set a great precedent for the future. :smallconfused:


Especially since the OP is the creator of their system, and if the creator fails to provide an answer to the problem then every gm who encounters this in the future will have it too.


You are aware that your math only works if you choose to snapshot combat at X+1 rounds, with X being the number of enemies, correct?

But who said I changed the rules mid game? The printed rules that we have been playing with say that hiding takes an action, and the player is asking for an exception to those rules to let him be permanently hidden.

Hmmm… I suppose it's possible I misread the OP. :smallredface:

OK, if it's *not* the case that the player has been allowed to start combat hidden simply by saying, "I'm hidden", and no previous players have done so either, if this doesn't represent a change in how things have been played at your table, then that changes my response.

And, as to my math, well, the player's plan was to attack everyone from hiding once, repeat. This makes it sound like combat lasts long enough that the difference in pacing will be minimal (after 12 rounds, it's 45 vs 50 damage, and back to 60 vs 60 at 15, for example). Which… is a pretty bad plan, at least in most systems.

I agree that versimilitude is important… but… if I understood correctly, and "stealth" is broken on an individual basis, and only by attacking the person you have stealth against? Then "reality" has left the building long ago, and, speaking for myself, my belief in the system will be broken far less by "you get to start hidden", and far more by "guy at the gym"ing stealth conditions to work less well than I've witnessed IRL.

It's Talakeal's table, so of course I cannot argue the claim of "problem player"; I just think that, in this case, there's no evidence of the player doing anything wrong.

I don't think it's wrong for the system to leave it to the table to determine what valid conditions for entering the "hidden" condition are. That said, if you want something explicit in the rules? Personally, I might go for… any time there is cover, poor lighting conditions, distractions, or the target is engaged in an activity other than active perception… and there is noise or a vacuum… and (for each other applicable sense of the target).

That is, you cannot enter the "hidden" condition if there is even a single relevant sense against which you *cannot* hide (sorry, anthropomorphic deer / cat girl, you didn't approach from downwind, so the guard dogs *will* smell you coming, regardless of your stealth, and you're not flying, so the creature with tremor sense will know exactly where you are).

As to setting a precedent, it's that the rules don't change mid-campaign.

[Milodiah]

I gather that the CORE issue isn't that the player is doing the hit-dip-hit-dip-hit stealth attack approach, its more that he's kind of exploiting the typical nebulousness of the medium to retroactively say he was hiding at the start of the fight, even though he didn't necessarily have a reason to think he should be hiding. Thus the title of the thread, STARTING combat hidden.

[Keltest]

I gather that the CORE issue isn't that the player is doing the hit-dip-hit-dip-hit stealth attack approach, its more that he's kind of exploiting the typical nebulousness of the medium to retroactively say he was hiding at the start of the fight, even though he didn't necessarily have a reason to think he should be hiding. Thus the title of the thread, STARTING combat hidden.

Is "being in a potentially dangerous situation" not enough of a reason to be slow and sneaky?

[Milodiah]

Is "being in a potentially dangerous situation" not enough of a reason to be slow and sneaky?

What's a particularly dangerous situation, though? Traveling on a main road in daylight? Walking down a city street? Eating dinner in a tavern?

At some point it starts being ridiculous that there's no negative effects to "being slow and sneaky", like moving at a slower speed than the rest of the party, being viewed as suspicious by the city watch, or not being served in the tavern.

That's been what the last four pages of discussion have been. It's not that the guy says he hides at the start of combat, its that he says he ALREADY WAS hidden.

Reminds me of El Disgusto.

[Talakeal]

So I talked to Bob and we came to a compromise.

He flat out said that if it takes an action to hide, he refuses to play a rogue and will be making a new character.

I said that he can start out hidden IF he is aware of the enemies before they are aware of the party; which means no stealth if the PCs are ambushed or if the rest of the PCs rush ahead of him.

Seems to be a good compromise, but it still isn't great as a longtime rule as the optimal position is still for everyone, PC and NPC alike, to declare they are hidden 24/7 if there is no cost to using the hide ability.


I agree that versimilitude is important… but… if I understood correctly, and "stealth" is broken on an individual basis, and only by attacking the person you have stealth against? Then "reality" has left the building long ago, and, speaking for myself, my belief in the system will be broken far less by "you get to start hidden", and far more by "guy at the gym"ing stealth conditions to work less well than I've witnessed IRL.

Who is the "guy at the gym" here? The mooks who are getting back-stabbed?

The system is designed so that if you stick to the shadows and invest heavily in stealth skills, you can pick most enemies off one by one like Rambo or Batman or Solid Snake or pretty much any ninja.

It works well enough, the problem is that if hiding doesn't take an action, there is no trade off and there is no reason for everyone not to attempt it.


Is "being in a potentially dangerous situation" not enough of a reason to be slow and sneaky?

From a fluff perspective, being "slow and sneaky" doesn't mean a whole lot when you are part of a party who is making all sorts of noise and the enemy has no reason to see you as anything but another member of the group, especially when you are actively doing rogue stuff like searching and disarming traps. In a dungeon situation, the enemy literally doesn't know the rogue exists as an individual, but they know that there are a bunch PCs in the next room who are all about to kick in the door and rush in.

From a game perspective, if there is no tradeoff for stealth, then the optimal move is for everyone on both teams to be stealthy all the time, which is a logistical nightmare to actually manage at the table.


And, as to my math, well, the player's plan was to attack everyone from hiding once, repeat. This makes it sound like combat lasts long enough that the difference in pacing will be minimal (after 12 rounds, it's 45 vs 50 damage, and back to 60 vs 60 at 15, for example). Which… is a pretty bad plan, at least in most systems.

Damage total will be one round behind, and will then catch up every fifth round, only to fall behind again on the following round.

BUT keep in mind that being hidden also protects one from being hit in turn, and that as enemies die their damage goes down (as does the number of rounds between hiding).


I don't think it's wrong for the system to leave it to the table to determine what valid conditions for entering the "hidden" condition are. That said, if you want something explicit in the rules? Personally, I might go for… any time there is cover, poor lighting conditions, distractions, or the target is engaged in an activity other than active perception… and there is noise or a vacuum… and (for each other applicable sense of the target).

All of these things modify stealth, but they are not automatic. It is perfectly possible to be fighting with someone else in the dark with neither person attempting to hide from the other.


I don't think it's wrong for the system to leave it to the table to determine what valid conditions for entering the "hidden" condition are. That said, if you want something explicit in the rules? Personally, I might go for… any time there is cover, poor lighting conditions, distractions, or the target is engaged in an activity other than active perception… and there is noise or a vacuum… and (for each other applicable sense of the target).

That is, you cannot enter the "hidden" condition if there is even a single relevant sense against which you *cannot* hide (sorry, anthropomorphic deer / cat girl, you didn't approach from downwind, so the guard dogs *will* smell you coming, regardless of your stealth, and you're not flying, so the creature with tremor sense will know exactly where you are).

As to setting a precedent, it's that the rules don't change mid-campaign.

The thing is "hidden" is not a condition, it is an action. Because, unless you are "hide and seek" style climbing into someplace out of the way and staying still, you need to hide FROM something.

As I said above, its less about changing the rules and more working out a gray area to determine exactly what point one can hide. Its less about punishing the rogue player and more trying to make their be some sort of cost to hiding so that the optimal move isn't for every single person to be hidden at every single moment, which is a logistical nightmare.


What's a particularly dangerous situation, though? Traveling on a main road in daylight? Walking down a city street? Eating dinner in a tavern?

At some point it starts being ridiculous that there's no negative effects to "being slow and sneaky", like moving at a slower speed than the rest of the party, being viewed as suspicious by the city watch, or not being served in the tavern.

That's been what the last four pages of discussion have been. It's not that the guy says he hides at the start of combat, its that he says he ALREADY WAS hidden.

Reminds me of El Disgusto.

This.

[Xervous]

So I talked to Bob and we came to a compromise.

He flat out said that if it takes an action to hide, he refuses to play a rogue and will be making a new character.

I said that he can start out hidden IF he is aware of the enemies before they are aware of the party; which means no stealth if the PCs are ambushed or if the rest of the PCs rush ahead of him.

Seems to be a good compromise, but it still isn't great as a longtime rule as the optimal position is still for everyone, PC and NPC alike, to declare they are hidden 24/7 if there is no cost to using the hide ability.




Sounds like you could do with some rule elaboration on surprise, ambushes, and perhaps a list of example sounds and how far they can be heard.

[Quertus]

So I talked to Bob and we came to a compromise.

He flat out said that if it takes an action to hide, he refuses to play a rogue and will be making a new character.

I said that he can start out hidden IF he is aware of the enemies before they are aware of the party; which means no stealth if the PCs are ambushed or if the rest of the PCs rush ahead of him.

Seems to be a good compromise, but it still isn't great as a longtime rule as the optimal position is still for everyone, PC and NPC alike, to declare they are hidden 24/7 if there is no cost to using the hide ability.

So figure out, during this campaign, how you would like to change the rule for after the campaign. Run it by us. And run a few one-shots with the changes rule before starting your next campaign, to test that the change doesn't engage behavior like, "we let the Avatar of Hate kill us all to free Teleport back to town" .


Who is the "guy at the gym" here? The mooks who are getting back-stabbed?

The poor PC (because of course NPCs will still ambush the party) who cannot hide in ways that people can actually hide IRL.


The system is designed so that if you stick to the shadows and invest heavily in stealth skills, you can pick most enemies off one by one like Rambo or Batman or Solid Snake or pretty much any ninja.

It works well enough, the problem is that if hiding doesn't take an action, there is no trade off and there is no reason for everyone not to attempt it.

Other than build resources?


From a fluff perspective, being "slow and sneaky" doesn't mean a whole lot when you are part of a party who is making all sorts of noise and the enemy has no reason to see you as anything but another member of the group, especially when you are actively doing rogue stuff like searching and disarming traps. In a dungeon situation, the enemy literally doesn't know the rogue exists as an individual, but they know that there are a bunch PCs in the next room who are all about to kick in the door and rush in.

Which is why Batman has Robin wear bright colors, and rush in first, so that nobody notices when the bat sneaks in.


From a game perspective, if there is no tradeoff for stealth, then the optimal move is for everyone on both teams to be stealthy all the time, which is a logistical nightmare to actually manage at the table.

Other than build resources?


Damage total will be one round behind, and will then catch up every fifth round, only to fall behind again on the following round.

Yup.


BUT keep in mind that being hidden also protects one from being hit in turn,

Meaning the enemies are better focusing fire on his team mates, while he's spreading the damage out. Another way this is a bad tactic in most systems.


and that as enemies die their damage goes down (as does the number of rounds between hiding).

Which happens at the same rate for either progression.


All of these things modify stealth, but they are not automatic. It is perfectly possible to be fighting with someone else in the dark with neither person attempting to hide from the other.

Me: these are the conditions for when you can make a check.
You: those don't automatically make you hidden.

I think there's a disconnect here somewhere…


The thing is "hidden" is not a condition, it is an action. Because, unless you are "hide and seek" style climbing into someplace out of the way and staying still, you need to hide FROM something.

So let's take a look at Batman in your system.

So, Batman knows that mob boss Vinnie and his dozen thugs are meeting someone in a warehouse.

He has himself shipped into the warehouse in a crate with a false / sliding side, which Robin (posing as a worker) moved into position. Then Robin waits outside, watching.

Batman waits until Robin radios him with the identity of the person Vinnie is meeting with (el Sinister), and Intel on the security cameras, before exiting the crate.

Batman gains the "hidden" trait against Vinnie, his dozen thugs, El Sinister, and the security cameras. So, classic Batman, he begins taking out the security cameras, right? Well, no - so long as he *doesn't* attack the security cameras, they'll never notice him.

Instead, he begins taking out Vinnie's goons.

Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the dynamic duo, The Red Ninja, a master contortionist, is hiding in El Sinister's briefcase, watching events through 1-way mirrored eye holes.

As soon as Batman takes out the first of Vinnie's goons, The Red Ninja notices him, and activates the electrified catwalks / the knockout gas vents / the floor is lava / whichever trap is appropriate to Batman's location.

Thus dies Batman. Because he didn't know to hide against The Red Ninja.


As I said above, its less about changing the rules and more working out a gray area to determine exactly what point one can hide. Its less about punishing the rogue player and more trying to make their be some sort of cost to hiding so that the optimal move isn't for every single person to be hidden at every single moment, which is a logistical nightmare.

Other than build resources?

Most firefights begin with everyone attempting to get cover. "Cover" is a concept of a state that really only applies against some targets and not universally to everything, yet many systems treat the abstraction as simply a "has cover" state. The optimal opening move in many systems is for everyone to seek cover.

If everyone who spent build resources on stealth tries to obtain the "hidden" state? I guess I'd say it gives mechanical "teeth" for how an ambush is even possible in the first place (otherwise, why don't both sides of every engagement open with, "we ambush them"?). It'd be like half-zombie kids walking up to the target before attacking, because, due to their "stealth", the target doesn't view them as a threat until too late.

Actually… how isn't "I'm hidden" exactly the same as "we ambush them"? Does your system have rules for entering the "ambush" state/condition, or is it all GM fiat?

[Batcathat]

The poor PC (because of course NPCs will still ambush the party) who cannot hide in ways that people can actually hide IRL.

How did you come to that conclusion? Because I'm pretty sure people IRL can't count on starting every combat hidden.

[Satinavian]

So I talked to Bob and we came to a compromise.Good for you.

This would mean, he still gets to sneak attack all enemies in a fight one after another, right ? Well, if it makes him happy and is tolerable for you, ok.


The poor PC (because of course NPCs will still ambush the party) who cannot hide in ways that people can actually hide IRL.I am pretty sure, NPCs operate under the same hide rules as PCs. Any kind of stealth-nerf would obviously make NPC ambushes weaker as well and vice versa.


Other than build resources?No build ressources required to hide. Build ressources only come into play when testing whether a specific observer can see through it or not.

But that was not even the argument. The cost T is talking about is cost per use. He didn't want to have hidden as spammable, always on by default condition. Build ressources don't really come into play here as even Sir Clanks-a-lot without any investmentment in stealth could try to hide at the beginning of every combat if it doens't cost anything. Maybe with luck it works once in a while.


As soon as Batman takes out the first of Vinnie's goons, The Red Ninja notices him, and activates the electrified catwalks / the knockout gas vents / the floor is lava / whichever trap is appropriate to Batman's location.

Thus dies Batman. Because he didn't know to hide against The Red Ninja.You write it as if it were something you disagree with ?

I do remember a lot of sessions where the players were not aware of certain guards/observers and this totally messed up their supposedly stealthy approach when they acted where this particular observer sould see them. Seems completely fine.




If everyone who spent build resources on stealth tries to obtain the "hidden" state? I guess I'd say it gives mechanical "teeth" for how an ambush is even possible in the first place (otherwise, why don't both sides of every engagement open with, "we ambush them"?). It'd be like half-zombie kids walking up to the target before attacking, because, due to their "stealth", the target doesn't view them as a threat until too late.
Again, there no build ressources to aquire a hidden state, there are only actions to do so. And T assumes that making it free results in having to run every scenario as double-blind because everyone hides all the time until they get explicitely noziced and he doesn't want to do that because it is a logistical nightmare.

[Talakeal]

The poor PC (because of course NPCs will still ambush the party) who cannot hide in ways that people can actually hide IRL.

I don't see it; explain?


Which is why Batman has Robin wear bright colors, and rush in first, so that nobody notices when the bat sneaks in.

Which would be fine in my system. But the problem is, the rogue players wants to be the first person in combat.


Other than build resources?

Sativinian has addressed this above.


Meaning the enemies are better focusing fire on his team mates, while he's spreading the damage out. Another way this is a bad tactic in most systems.

It depends. Sometimes spreading damage around is good, sometimes focusing it on the tankier characters is good. Sometimes the rogue should take one for the team, other times they should escape with their lives after being beat up. The point is that it is a tool to control the enemy's damage and it shouldn't be ignored in that capacity.

Also, the player has spent build resources with the assumption he will be permanently hidden and is more or less an unarmored glass canon.



Me: these are the conditions for when you can make a check.
You: those don't automatically make you hidden.

I think there's a disconnect here somewhere…

Yeah, the same disconnect my player has.

My player says that because he has an amulet of blur, he should always 100% of the time be able to hide.

I am saying that these things all modify your chance to be hidden, but are not a binary. Just because the room is dimly lit does not mean everyone can roll a stealth test every turn at no cost regardless of circumstances.



Actually… how isn't "I'm hidden" exactly the same as "we ambush them"? Does your system have rules for entering the "ambush" state/condition, or is it all GM fiat?

It does.



Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the dynamic duo, The Red Ninja, a master contortionist, is hiding in El Sinister's briefcase, watching events through 1-way mirrored eye holes.

As soon as Batman takes out the first of Vinnie's goons, The Red Ninja notices him, and activates the electrified catwalks / the knockout gas vents / the floor is lava / whichever trap is appropriate to Batman's location.

Thus dies Batman. Because he didn't know to hide against The Red Ninja.

In my system I would say that since he is in El Sinister's briefcase, hiding against El Sinister or people in its vicinity counts as hiding against the red ninja.


Now, let me ask you, in your preferred system, would you say that if Red Ninja was on the same side of the crates as batman and equipped with night vision goggles, Batman still hides against him fine? Because my player would. What if he only had night vision goggles OR was positioned on the same side of the crates as Batman.




So let's take a look at Batman in your system.

So, Batman knows that mob boss Vinnie and his dozen thugs are meeting someone in a warehouse.

He has himself shipped into the warehouse in a crate with a false / sliding side, which Robin (posing as a worker) moved into position. Then Robin waits outside, watching.

Batman waits until Robin radios him with the identity of the person Vinnie is meeting with (el Sinister), and Intel on the security cameras, before exiting the crate.

Batman gains the "hidden" trait against Vinnie, his dozen thugs, El Sinister, and the security cameras. So, classic Batman, he begins taking out the security cameras, right? Well, no - so long as he *doesn't* attack the security cameras, they'll never notice him.

Instead, he begins taking out Vinnie's goons.

Hold on a sec. Character's can take a "search" action to target a hidden character, and I would say the security cameras do nothing but searching, and once they have pinpointed Batman's location, they can give anyone whom they can communicate that information to a +20 bonus to search checks of their own.

[Quertus]

How did you come to that conclusion? Because I'm pretty sure people IRL can't count on starting every combat hidden.

Other posters' descriptions of what they thought would make good rules for stealth. They erred on the side of not allowing stealth, which would totally "guy at the gym" the game compared to my experience with this reality.


I am pretty sure, NPCs operate under the same hide rules as PCs. Any kind of stealth-nerf would obviously make NPC ambushes weaker as well and vice versa.

The way Talakeal wrote their post, I did not take that as a given.


No build ressources required to hide. Build ressources only come into play when testing whether a specific observer can see through it or not.

But that was not even the argument. The cost T is talking about is cost per use. He didn't want to have hidden as spammable, always on by default condition. Build ressources don't really come into play here as even Sir Clanks-a-lot without any investmentment in stealth could try to hide at the beginning of every combat if it doens't cost anything. Maybe with luck it works once in a while.

Again, there no build ressources to aquire a hidden state, there are only actions to do so. And T assumes that making it free results in having to run every scenario as double-blind because everyone hides all the time until they get explicitely noziced and he doesn't want to do that because it is a logistical nightmare.

And nobody has to spend build resources to try to hit things, either. But to *succeed* at hiding or hitting things? That is, hopefully, a different story.


You write it as if it were something you disagree with ?

I do remember a lot of sessions where the players were not aware of certain guards/observers and this totally messed up their supposedly stealthy approach when they acted where this particular observer sould see them. Seems completely fine.

I write it as to ask Talakeal whether it's something that they agree with. Whether that's the fiction that they want their rules to produce, the stories that they want to tell

"Yes" and "No" are both fine answers.

But Talakeal has been upset by the fiction that their rules produce before ("death is a free Teleport home!", for example), so I thought it worth pointing out.

[Talakeal]

@Quertus: I don't know if you saw, but I posted a longer response to your previous post at the same time you made this one.


Other posters' descriptions of what they thought would make good rules for stealth. They erred on the side of not allowing stealth, which would totally "guy at the gym" the game compared to my experience with this reality.

The issue is not stealth, the issue is free stealth that doesn't slow down the ambusher at all or cost them anything in terms of action economy.



The way Talakeal wrote their post, I did not take that as a given.

PCs and NPCs use the same rules in my game, although they are built differently and players have a few metagame resources such as rerolls that NPCs do not.



And nobody has to spend build resources to try to hit things, either. But to *succeed* at hiding or hitting things? That is, hopefully, a different story.

But attacking takes an action. The wizard doesn't just get a free attack every turn while casting a spell for example, but the rogue wants a free hide every turn while attacking at full effectiveness.

[Quertus]

@Quertus: I don't know if you saw, but I posted a longer response to your previous post at the same time you made this one.

But attacking takes an action. The wizard doesn't just get a free attack every turn while casting a spell for example, but the rogue wants a free hide every turn while attacking at full effectiveness.

Communication is hard. Forget everything else for a moment: is or is it not the case that your system by default gives the "hidden" condition to every character with the hidden condition, vs every target against which they have the hidden condition, for free, every round, unless and until they [attack or are spotted by] the target, and that having the hidden condition gives combat bonuses? Is or is it not the case that "hide every turn while attacking at more than full effectiveness" is a reasonable statement of how your rules work?

-----

I'm glad you brought up Batman, because there is, IIRC, some version of… Teen Titans maybe… where Robin(?) consistently disappears the moment the situation looks tense. While the other PCs be all like, "what's that" or "maybe we should…", Robin is already in motion.

Honestly, it sounds to me like this PC is just that (annoying, terrible at teamwork) Robin, who knows how to take advantage of the time that others waste.

Of course it's the optimal play to do something… from a simplistic outside PoV. But people are programmed to *not* act on those instincts, because things like "teamwork" and "evaluating the situation" are actually evolutionarily superior. Robin and this PC have honed their reflexes to overcome evolutionary programming, and act in a preprogrammed way to certain stimulus.

It's perfectly versimilitudinal to me.

[Talakeal]

Communication is hard. Forget everything else for a moment: is or is it not the case that your system by default gives the "hidden" condition to every character with the hidden condition, vs every target against which they have the hidden condition, for free, every round, unless and until they [attack or are spotted by] the target, and that having the hidden condition gives combat bonuses? Is or is it not the case that "hide every turn while attacking at more than full effectiveness" is a reasonable statement of how your rules work?

Indeed, communication is hard, to the point where I am not quite sure what you are asking.

How stealth is intended to work:

You take an action to hide. If successful, other characters become unaware of your location.
You may not target a character whose location you are unaware of.
You receive a bonus to hit against a character who is unaware of your location.
Once hidden, other characters must roll a spot test to become aware of your location.
The difficulty of this spot test is determined by your stealth score and the actions you took on your last turn, as well as environmental factors such as cover, concealment, distance, ambient noise, etc.
Once they have made a spot test, characters become aware of your location until you hide again, and may call out your position to give allies a bonus to their spot test.


It works more or less fine except in weird corner cases like trying to hide from someone whose location you yourself are unaware of.


I'm glad you brought up Batman, because there is, IIRC, some version of… Teen Titans maybe… where Robin(?) consistently disappears the moment the situation looks tense. While the other PCs be all like, "what's that" or "maybe we should…", Robin is already in motion.

Honestly, it sounds to me like this PC is just that (annoying, terrible at teamwork) Robin, who knows how to take advantage of the time that others waste.


Personally I don't think there should be "win button" character decisions like that; if he wants to always have initiative / an extra turn, he should take a character ability that gives him such.

The same player also insists he lives in a cardboard box eating bread and water and spends all his free time training and working, so I should give him extra gold and XP to compensate, and I am like, "no, that's not how that works, you need to actually take a merit for that, I am not giving you huge mechanical abilities just for making a one time declarative statement about how miserable your character is during downtime".

[Telok]

How did you come to that conclusion? Because I'm pretty sure people IRL can't count on starting every combat hidden.

I think it was more about how we have some systems that say a knight in armor has to make a dex check at a penalty just to stand quietly behind a heavy curtain while someone walks past, or that people sitting in chairs and resting on couches are automatically found because they aren't "talking a stealth action". Walk into a library and look around, is everyone you don't automatically notice "taking a stealth action", or are they just not yammering and banging on stuff? We have a black cat that likes to sleep in a dark brown leather chair, and she's been sat on more than a couple times. She's not "taking the hide action", she literally just sprawls out asleep and blends in. Yet people continually fail to see her in full daylight.

Overly specific and overly general rules tend to have weird effects when they're always followed, and rpg stealth can often be both at the same time.

[Batcathat]

I think it was more about how we have some systems that say a knight in armor has to make a dex check at a penalty just to stand quietly behind a heavy curtain while someone walks past, or that people sitting in chairs and resting on couches are automatically found because they aren't "talking a stealth action". Walk into a library and look around, is everyone you don't automatically notice "taking a stealth action", or are they just not yammering and banging on stuff? We have a black cat that likes to sleep in a dark brown leather chair, and she's been sat on more than a couple times. She's not "taking the hide action", she literally just sprawls out asleep and blends in. Yet people continually fail to see her in full daylight.

Overly specific and overly general rules tend to have weird effects when they're always followed, and rpg stealth can often be both at the same time.

Sure, I can agree about that part (not hiding from someone just because you can't see them gets very weird in some situations), I'm mostly against the idea of hiding automatically in all situations that the player seems to desire.

[Quertus]

Indeed, communication is hard, to the point where I am not quite sure what you are asking.

How stealth is intended to work:

You take an action to hide. If successful, other characters become unaware of your location.
You may not target a character whose location you are unaware of.
You receive a bonus to hit against a character who is unaware of your location.
Once hidden, other characters must roll a spot test to become aware of your location.
The difficulty of this spot test is determined by your stealth score and the actions you took on your last turn, as well as environmental factors such as cover, concealment, distance, ambient noise, etc.
Once they have made a spot test, characters become aware of your location until you hide again, and may call out your position to give allies a bonus to their spot test.


It works more or less fine except in weird corner cases like trying to hide from someone whose location you yourself are unaware of.



Personally I don't think there should be "win button" character decisions like that; if he wants to always have initiative / an extra turn, he should take a character ability that gives him such.

The same player also insists he lives in a cardboard box eating bread and water and spends all his free time training and working, so I should give him extra gold and XP to compensate, and I am like, "no, that's not how that works, you need to actually take a merit for that, I am not giving you huge mechanical abilities just for making a one time declarative statement about how miserable your character is during downtime".

Well, hiding feeling like a win button is better than "lose button" character decisions, like the… "storm Cleric" PC that your system didn't support, right?

(Also, there's a reason I keep talking about how bad of a tactic it is, and referenced a character who failed the same way)

As to your system… I suppose it depends on the *action* that those spot checks require as to whether or not it's fair to say that, by default, your system gives the hidden condition to anyone with the hidden condition.

However, since you apparently have to perceive your opponent to hide from them in your system, the player is playing the game correctly, informing you that they are hiding the moment that they perceive potential hostiles. Kudos to them!

[Talakeal]

I think it was more about how we have some systems that say a knight in armor has to make a dex check at a penalty just to stand quietly behind a heavy curtain while someone walks past, or that people sitting in chairs and resting on couches are automatically found because they aren't "talking a stealth action". Walk into a library and look around, is everyone you don't automatically notice "taking a stealth action", or are they just not yammering and banging on stuff? We have a black cat that likes to sleep in a dark brown leather chair, and she's been sat on more than a couple times. She's not "taking the hide action", she literally just sprawls out asleep and blends in. Yet people continually fail to see her in full daylight.

Overly specific and overly general rules tend to have weird effects when they're always followed, and rpg stealth can often be both at the same time.

Yeah. that was something that I struggled with.

As I said above, I do have separate rules for becoming aware of enemies than for stealth.


Well, hiding feeling like a win button is better than "lose button" character decisions, like the… "storm Cleric" PC that your system didn't support, right?

Saying the system doesn't support a character is a bit disengenous.

The system supports storm clerics fine, its that the player ALSO expected to be a monk, a diplomat, and a life cleric at the same time because he is used to 3.5 D&D where clerics are an OP class in an attempt to bribe players into the healing role.

And again, that's not so much a bad character as failing to match his level of specialty to the party; in a much smaller or much larger party such a character would have been fine.

But really, that's a bit of a red herring. You keep going back to build choices, when I am talking about actions. They aren't the same thing.



As to your system… I suppose it depends on the *action* that those spot checks require as to whether or not it's fair to say that, by default, your system gives the hidden condition to anyone with the hidden condition.

Did you mean to use a tautology or is that a typo?

Either way, my system doesn't have the hidden "condition", just whether or not any given character is aware of another's location.


However, since you apparently have to perceive your opponent to hide from them in your system, the player is playing the game correctly, informing you that they are hiding the moment that they perceive potential hostiles. Kudos to them!

No no no no no no no no no.

That's the whole point of the thread! When he becomes aware of the enemy, he claims he was ALREADY hidden.

So, if I say "You become aware of enemies in the area, what do you do before they spot you?" His statement is not "Hide." its "Backstab them immediately because I took the hide action this morning and never left stealth!"

[GloatingSwine]

No no no no no no no no no.

That's the whole point of the thread! When he becomes aware of the enemy, he claims he was ALREADY hidden.

So, if I say "You become aware of enemies in the area, what do you do before they spot you?" His statement is not "Hide." its "Backstab them immediately because I took the hide action this morning and never left stealth!"

Clearly that's not how the rules work, unless he's been making sneak tests every n seconds of play. If he insists on this make him do so. Make him roll a sneak test every round he moves in the presence of anything which might detect him, because that's what the sneak rule says he should do. Even wildlife. Eventually everyone will become so annoyed by him having to ask what the alertness roll of a field vole is and whether he has beaten it that there will be a blazing row and this behaviour will curtail itself.


How I envisage this type of situation should go:

1. The rogue becomes aware of enemies, they are not yet aware of him because he generally acts in a stealthy manner and has a blur suit.

2. The rogue declares where and how he is going to hide from these enemies and rolls stealth vs. their alertness (use an aggregate score for this one). This is not an action, we are not tracking actions yet. His declaration of how and where he is hiding needs to be specific enough that, if you were using models to track combat, his would be placed on the board. That's the important bit at this point. He needs to be rolling because now it matters whether he passes his sneak test or not. Also this lets you vary the situation by setting different levels of alertness for different situations, sentries on guard, more alert and get bonuses, trolls sitting down for dinner, not alert at all and get penalties.

3. The party arrives, combat begins. Now we are tracking actions.

4. When he makes an attack, he needs to make a sneak roll vs alertness against all enemies in position to notice an attack has happened (by my reading of the stealth rules it sounds like this should be happening anyway? Making an attack provokes an opposed stealth vs alertness roll to everyone, the target doesn't need one because unless the attacker can disappear into total concealment or a crowd they are automatically revealed to the target.). Use individual rolls for this one.

That should at least be everyone nearby the target because even if they're not looking they might hear him doing it, hence the roll. Dice it out a few times in downtime to figure out a level which will allow him to on average get away with it as long as he does it when nobody's looking (give the enemies a bonus to their alertness if they have sight of the target and a bigger one if they have sight of his position as well, so he is best off picking targets unobserved by their friends and has to think about his initial hiding spot more).

Make him require a critical success to hide again in the same place once he is revealed.

Although possibly a lot of this is because he's had too free a ride with the stealth rules, like his insistence that he was pickpocketing everyone at a banquet should have been sneak vs. alertness for the whole table every time he moved and at least vs. every target when he tried to pickpocket, and the law of averages would have doomed him within two rolls if he'd actually been rolling despite his fancy blur suit.

[Quertus]

Did you mean to use a tautology or is that a typo?

Either way, my system doesn't have the hidden "condition", just whether or not any given character is aware of another's location.



No no no no no no no no no.

That's the whole point of the thread! When he becomes aware of the enemy, he claims he was ALREADY hidden.

So, if I say "You become aware of enemies in the area, what do you do before they spot you?" His statement is not "Hide." its "Backstab them immediately because I took the hide action this morning and never left stealth!"

Aiming for system agnostic pseudocode, and to match the form of your statement a few posts ago, is what produces the near tautology.

OK. Sounds like this is really simple: "that's not the way that the rules work in this system".

Now, expect your players to game whatever system you are using, and to argue that the bandits that set up this morning can't be hidden from them, to always have at least 1 invisible PC so that the opponents cannot ambush the party, etc.

When he tries to "be invisible" and pick pockets at a banquet, remind him a) that he's not invisible (and, honestly, *more* extremely super visible than the rainbow hair clown court jester); b) that the wait staff constantly entering and exiting the room will, by your system, always be unaccounted for.

Eventually, he'll either become acclimated to your system, or have a meltdown about how "unrealistic" it is, then make a new character. Possibly an invisible pixie illusionist Rogue, who spots and creates bright, shining caricature illusions of all hidden enemies (perhaps with an at-will item), while being a glass cannon assassin themselves (poison blowgun for near silent ranged attacks, perhaps?).

[GloatingSwine]

To be honest I do think that the way the rogue player wants to approach using stealth in combat is both a: correct and b: interesting play because it also gives him a reason to act later in the turn rather than earlier because his biggest point of benefit is being able to make the kill shot on a target because then he doesn't get the auto-reveal only the sneak vs alertness rolls against anyone else who might have noticed.

But if he leaves his attack too late then the best target might have died anyway.

The idea that the rogue is getting a bonus action needs to be balanced against the point that if he blows that initial stealth roll to get to a good position of attack (or even just stand still unnoticed, he should still be making a roll here) he's caught flat footed and on his own, and that would be a really bad time to fumble his initiative.

[Quertus]

My player says that because he has an amulet of blur, he should always 100% of the time be able to hide.

I am saying that these things all modify your chance to be hidden, but are not a binary. Just because the room is dimly lit does not mean everyone can roll a stealth test every turn at no cost regardless of circumstances.


Now, let me ask you, in your preferred system, would you say that if Red Ninja was on the same side of the crates as batman and equipped with night vision goggles, Batman still hides against him fine? Because my player would. What if he only had night vision goggles OR was positioned on the same side of the crates as Batman.

My preferred system is 2e D&D, which handles matters of perceiving actions of Rogues… poorly. Stealth is an unopposed roll, with no consideration of the perception capabilities of the observer; contrarywise, noticing the Thief picking pockets is based entirely on the skill of the observer, with no regard for the skill of the cut purse. :(

As to how I might handle it, were I writing my own system? I already answered that:



Personally, I might go for… any time there is cover, poor lighting conditions, distractions, or the target is engaged in an activity other than active perception… and there is noise or a vacuum… and (for each other applicable sense of the target).

That is, you cannot enter the "hidden" condition if there is even a single relevant sense against which you *cannot* hide (sorry, anthropomorphic deer / cat girl, you didn't approach from downwind, so the guard dogs *will* smell you coming, regardless of your stealth, and you're not flying, so the creature with tremor sense will know exactly where you are).

To clarify, those are the conditions required to *attempt* a hide check. Which is opposed by perception.

[Talakeal]

To be honest I do think that the way the rogue player wants to approach using stealth in combat is both a: correct and b: interesting play because it also gives him a reason to act later in the turn rather than earlier because his biggest point of benefit is being able to make the kill shot on a target because then he doesn't get the auto-reveal only the sneak vs alertness rolls against anyone else who might have noticed.

But if he leaves his attack too late then the best target might have died anyway.

The idea that the rogue is getting a bonus action needs to be balanced against the point that if he blows that initial stealth roll to get to a good position of attack (or even just stand still unnoticed, he should still be making a roll here) he's caught flat footed and on his own, and that would be a really bad time to fumble his initiative.

That seems like a good idea.