Stealth and Mounted Combat

[Talakeal]

Something came up a few sessions ago in a play test of my system that the rules didn't cover, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to resolve this or examples of how their favorites RPGs would handle it.

I had a combat where a stealthy character was fighting an enemy mounted on a giant scorpion. The stealthy character was using hit and run tactics and ambushing the rider, and the rider's perception score was high enough to beat the attacker's stealth, but the mount's was not. Should the rider be able to direct their mount to attack the hidden character?

Any opinions or insights welcome. Thanks!

[Thrudd]

Something came up a few sessions ago in a play test of my system that the rules didn't cover, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to resolve this or examples of how their favorites RPGs would handle it.

I had a combat where a stealthy character was fighting an enemy mounted on a giant scorpion. The stealthy character was using hit and run tactics and ambushing the rider, and the rider's perception score was high enough to beat the attacker's stealth, but the mount's was not. Should the rider be able to direct their mount to attack the hidden character?

Any opinions or insights welcome. Thanks!

I don't see why they wouldn't/couldn't. Do you have rules for animal handling/riding? It seems like they should easily be able to, since they can see the target, but they'd need to make a check to direct their mount properly. Do the mount and rider act on different turns? If so, then it would need to wait for the rider's turn, right?
Is the stealthy character literally invisible when they go into hiding? That would need to be a penalty to the mount, if they can't perceive the invisible character, even with the rider directing them. But if they are just being "slippery" and dipping into shadows or behind cover, why couldn't they be attacked?

[Satinavian]

Something came up a few sessions ago in a play test of my system that the rules didn't cover, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to resolve this or examples of how their favorites RPGs would handle it.

I had a combat where a stealthy character was fighting an enemy mounted on a giant scorpion. The stealthy character was using hit and run tactics and ambushing the rider, and the rider's perception score was high enough to beat the attacker's stealth, but the mount's was not. Should the rider be able to direct their mount to attack the hidden character?

Any opinions or insights welcome. Thanks!
Have experienced something similar just two days ago.


It was handled in the following way : The animal handler could direct the animal to attack the hidden creature (command action and stuff). But the creature could not attack the hidden foe unltil it had found it. It had to do "search" over half the combat until it rolled high enough. But as the animal could consider both where the handler pointed during the command and where its allies fought, it got a huge positive modifier on its search roll and would probably have beating the opposing stealth pretty fast if not for a certain debuff.

[Telok]

Gonna say it depends on the mount, training, and attack.

A warhorse trained to rear & kick on command will do so even without a target. A warbear trained to bite & maul will look for a target. Giant spider mount could spray webs at a target/area on command, but probably needs a target to bite. Giant scorpion... fvvv.... I'd end up going with some sort of feel between it's training, mentality, and the rider's control abilities.

Like in a world of magic or stealth suits I can see some mounts trained to blindly attack a spot. Depending on the mount & control method it could be a basic "attack into the spot right in front of you" or "attack the place I'm pointing at". Or something like a guard dog being trained to attack what it can smell & hear even if it can't see it.

Here's a question: flip the PC & NPC positions (as mounted vs stealthed units not the specific characters) and check if you & the player are cool with the way its going down. If a PC is as invested as the NPC as a mounted combatant would you be happy having them use the same mechanics & rolls?

[Talakeal]

I don't see why they wouldn't/couldn't. Do you have rules for animal handling/riding? It seems like they should easily be able to, since they can see the target, but they'd need to make a check to direct their mount properly. Do the mount and rider act on different turns? If so, then it would need to wait for the rider's turn, right?
Is the stealthy character literally invisible when they go into hiding? That would need to be a penalty to the mount, if they can't perceive the invisible character, even with the rider directing them. But if they are just being "slippery" and dipping into shadows or behind cover, why couldn't they be attacked?

All characters on the same side act in the same turn, but riders and mounts both get to act individually (although they move together).

The character is not invisible, but they have a camouflage magic item that gives them a bonus to their stealth rolls.


I ended up compromising by having the rider take an action to assist the mount with its stealth roll, but the player still complained claiming that during the argument we had a few months ago about whether or not she could start combat hidden (that's its own thread) I promised her that enemies would never be able to assist one another in searching for her. Which I don't think I ever said, and is probably a misunderstanding of me saying that attacking one person doesn't automatically reveal you to their allies.

Regardless, I would like to have a solid rule in place for the future.

[Thrudd]

All characters on the same side act in the same turn, but riders and mounts both get to act individually (although they move together).

The character is not invisible, but they have a camouflage magic item that gives them a bonus to their stealth rolls.


I ended up compromising by having the rider take an action to assist the mount with its stealth roll, but the player still complained claiming that during the argument we had a few months ago about whether or not she could start combat hidden (that's its own thread) I promised her that enemies would never be able to assist one another in searching for her. Which I don't think I ever said, and is probably a misunderstanding of me saying that attacking one person doesn't automatically reveal you to their allies.

Regardless, I would like to have a solid rule in place for the future.

I think your ruling made perfect sense, and would work fine for a solid rule. The rider can take an action to direct the mount toward the hidden target, and it should get a big bonus to its search, if it needs to search - or he can direct it to attack the spot where the hidden character is, if the mount is trained to attack on command.
Characters absolutely should be able to assist one another in searching - if one enemy has seen the hidden character, there's no reason they can't point out their location to others, especially if they use their whole action for the turn doing that.

[Psyren]

Depends on the system, but assuming 5e -

The rider can direct the mount to attack a particular square, and the mount will get disadvantage to hit until/unless the target is no longer obscured relative to it.

[Yora]

We're probably talking about sneaking, not invisibility.

When one character can see a character sneaking, it should be trivial to point out the position to others. And in the situation of a rider on a mount, the rider can literally move the mount until the hidden character is right in it's face.

[Quertus]

Something came up a few sessions ago in a play test of my system that the rules didn't cover, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to resolve this or examples of how their favorites RPGs would handle it.

I had a combat where a stealthy character was fighting an enemy mounted on a giant scorpion. The stealthy character was using hit and run tactics and ambushing the rider, and the rider's perception score was high enough to beat the attacker's stealth, but the mount's was not. Should the rider be able to direct their mount to attack the hidden character?

Any opinions or insights welcome. Thanks!

Well, this is kinda a response that merits a “well, duh” response, but…

If entity A can perceive entity B, then of course they can direct entity C to attack entity B. However, this is subject to the limitations of how entity A can direct entity C, and the rules for attacking something you cannot perceive.

So, in 3e for example, if C is an unintelligent Mount, and it has an “attack a square” trained trick, then A can direct it to attack the square the B is in.

To generalize, I think that “communication”, training, personality, and sentience matter. Personally, I think that any “beast” that isn’t naturally hyper-aggressive or a trained war mount is likely to get spooked if it suddenly encounters something “underfoot” that it hadn’t previously perceived. Whereas “rear up and ‘Attack’ in front of you” is a trick many animals are trained to do (for movies, for example), and “charge in that direction” is something I’d expect from any Mount capable of charging.

[Thrudd]

Here's another trick for giant scorpions, or any other creature with long tails - a 180 or 360 degree tail swipe move (if you've ever played Conan Exiles you know how hard those giant scorpion, crocodile and dragon attacks are to evade if you're anywhere close to the thing). The rider wouldn't need to be able to direct the mount to a specific location, just to spin or flail a large appendage in a general area, and there should be a chance to hit anything hiding there, and even anything adjacent to it in any direction. That move should be pretty easy for a rider to command it's mount to perform, easier than it would be to train a tail sting or claw grab toward a specific spot.

[Slipjig]

Not sure about RAW, but common sense dictates that invisibility and simply hiding should be treated differently. Pinpointing an invisible creature that you aren't adjacent to for an ally would be tough, absent a ray or laser pointer ("No, no, three more feet to the left... now she's ducking..."). Unless the invisible creature is standing next to a n obvious reference point, the assisted creature still has to get lucky by picking the right square, then still has disadvantage on their attack roll. For directing a mount, instead of the "picking a square" chance, I'd require an Animal Handling check to convince your mount to attack what appears to be empty air.

Simply being hidden using Stealth is a totally different thing. If you are hiding in deep shadows or behind a stack of crates, once someone sees you it's trivially easy for them to shout your location to everyone around them, at which point seeing the hidden person should be automatic if they have LoS. Even if you camouflaged, that just makes you look like an inanimate object, and directing a mount to attack that rough patch of wall or pile of rags should be no more complex than directing it to attack an opponent.

[Talakeal]

My system doesn’t really have “invisible” as a separate condition.

Instead there are levels of concealment, which penalize both accuracy and perception when attempting to target something.

There isn’t really “attacking a space” except with Area effects, instead you roll to spot a hidden target and then roll to attack if you succeed, both penalized by whatever concealment they might have.

[HidesHisEyes]

Something came up a few sessions ago in a play test of my system that the rules didn't cover, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about how to resolve this or examples of how their favorites RPGs would handle it.

I had a combat where a stealthy character was fighting an enemy mounted on a giant scorpion. The stealthy character was using hit and run tactics and ambushing the rider, and the rider's perception score was high enough to beat the attacker's stealth, but the mount's was not. Should the rider be able to direct their mount to attack the hidden character?

Any opinions or insights welcome. Thanks!

It’s hard to say without knowing the ins and outs of the game, but I think it should be pretty trivial for someone to point out the position of someone who’s sneaking around (whether they’re pointing it out to a person or to their mount.) I like fast and simple mechanics where I can get ‘em and I think it’s easier to just say “being ‘hidden’ means being ‘hidden’ from everyone present”.

[Quertus]

My system doesn’t really have “invisible” as a separate condition.

Instead there are levels of concealment, which penalize both accuracy and perception when attempting to target something.

There isn’t really “attacking a space” except with Area effects, instead you roll to spot a hidden target and then roll to attack if you succeed, both penalized by whatever concealment they might have.

How do blind creatures fight?

[Talakeal]

How do blind creatures fight?

In short, they have a -6 penalty to hit rolls and perception rolls to target a sneaking opponent, exactly the same as if they were fighting in pitch blackness, although there are many spells and abilities that will modify this.

[Quertus]

In short, they have a -6 penalty to hit rolls and perception rolls to target a sneaking opponent, exactly the same as if they were fighting in pitch blackness, although there are many spells and abilities that will modify this.

And… they cannot attempt to “hit” their opponent until they successfully “target” them? If that’s how your rules work, then the Mount, by failing to perceive the target, simply cannot target them with an attack.

Obviously, as others have pointed out, there are various scenarios where such results vary from “highly realistic” to “highly unrealistic”. But if that’s how your rules work, that’s how you should have ruled it.

[Talakeal]

And… they cannot attempt to “hit” their opponent until they successfully “target” them? If that’s how your rules work, then the Mount, by failing to perceive the target, simply cannot target them with an attack.

Obviously, as others have pointed out, there are various scenarios where such results vary from “highly realistic” to “highly unrealistic”. But if that’s how your rules work, that’s how you should have ruled it.

Well... the rules do allow someone to assist on a perception test, but for some reason Bob get it in his head that I had promised him I would never rule against him when we were debating starting every fight hidden a few months ago.

Not sure if I philosophically agree though. I would argue that a GM who always follows RAW in a gray area is kind of a jerk, and I would argue that mounts (or familiars, mind-controlled minions, and remote-controlled drones) kind of blur the line between separate character and equipment; and I don't think anyone would argue that they can't be stabbed because the knife didn't perceive them independently of its wielder.

[Reversefigure4]

I don't think anyone would argue that they can't be stabbed because the knife didn't perceive them independently of its wielder.

That's because a knife is an inanimate object capable of taking neither perception nor attack actions on it's own. Most rulesets, including the one you're referencing, treat inanimate objects differently to mounts.

Your rules to say is that "If you can't see a creature, you can't target it and have -6 to perceive and attack it. You also have seperate mount rules for a mount being able to take actions as directed by it's rider (how far it can move, what the Ride check DCs are, etc.).

You're the GM and rulewriter both. If you say mounts automatically see what their riders do, then that's what happens. If you say it's a DC22 Ride check and a move action for a rider to direct the mount to attack a creature it can't perceive, then that's what happens. Make a call, write down the rule, and you've uncovered something in your playtesting not covered by the current 580 pages of rules.

[Talakeal]

That's because a knife is an inanimate object capable of taking neither perception nor attack actions on it's own. Most rulesets, including the one you're referencing, treat inanimate objects differently to mounts.

In my opinion mounts are in a kind of grey area between equipment and independent creatures.


You're the GM and rule-writer both. If you say mounts automatically see what their riders do, then that's what happens. If you say it's a DC22 Ride check and a move action for a rider to direct the mount to attack a creature it can't perceive, then that's what happens. Make a call, write down the rule, and you've uncovered something in your playtesting not covered by the current 580 pages of rules.

That's basically what I did, I am just wondering what other player's / game designer's opinions are on the matter before I make a final implementation.

[Telok]

In my opinion mounts are in a kind of grey area between equipment and independent creatures.

Can it decide on its own to flee if hurt &/or on fire? Actually, can it decide anything or initiate any action without driver input? If yes then creature, else vehicle. Really the only issue around mounts is questions of control. Who, how well, limits, loss of, etc.

Now that's for action scene purposes. If you're talking xp awards, loot splits, threat calculations, purchasing/finding, and stuff... that's extremely system & setting dependent.

[Talakeal]

Man, I think the one lesson I am taking away from this playtest is "Don't let Bob play a rogue". Every session it ends with an argument about the stealth rules.

We played again last night. Now, Bob is, in D&D terms, a tiefling rogue / warlock multiclass and he has the ability to make short distance teleportations by entering the Hellscape and emerging at a different point Event Horizon style. He was coming to assassinate his arch enemy, and said enemy had bound a creature resembling a Bebelith to guard him, an extra-dimensional spider that preys upon demons and lurks in the Hellscape.

Mechanically, it was pretty simple. The Bebelith guarded the Hellscape. Normally, guarding means that you automatically spot people who interact with what you guard with (unless they get a critical success on their stealth test) and can then make an attack on them in the manner of a delayed action. In other words, it was resolved in exactly the same way as if I had a mundane guardsman watching a door, except that instead of a specific location on the material map, it was guarding the extra-dimensional space. The downside of this is, however, that it had to beat Bob on an initiative test to strike at all, as if Bob exited the Hellscape before it got to him, it would have missed his opportunity as it slipped back into the physical world.

So, the Bebelith does nothing for 80% of the battle, either falling to hit bob or failing its initiative test. But then it finally hits him, grabs him, and then proceeds to attack on its following turn.

At which Bob exploded that it was completely cheating and unfair. Because guarding something makes you likely to see through stealth, which in his mind should cost you your turn, and then taking a readied action should cost you your NEXT turn as well.

And I am like, the only non-standard thing here is it is guarding an extra-dimensional space instead of a mundane location, otherwise this is a perfectly ordinary resolution of the guard mechanics. At which point he said that the rules are completely stupid; that if you are guarding a location you shouldn't have an increased chance to spot people who walk through it, and if you do spot them you should lose out on at least one preferably two turns worth of attacks as a tradeoff.

Urgh.


Can it decide on its own to flee if hurt &/or on fire? Actually, can it decide anything or initiate any action without driver input? If yes then creature, else vehicle. Really the only issue around mounts is questions of control. Who, how well, limits, loss of, etc.

Now that's for action scene purposes. If you're talking xp awards, loot splits, threat calculations, purchasing/finding, and stuff... that's extremely system & setting dependent.

It seems kind of weird to me to use a different set of rules for a wholly mechanical vehicle than a well-trained mount, and there is still a bit of overlap when dealing with magical constructs or sufficiently advanced machines with automated systems or crude AI.

In this particular case I don't even know which one it was, as the scorpion was a bio-mechanical construct being magically puppeted by a hag and controlled with her magic, so it really blurred the line.

[False God]

Man, I think the one lesson I am taking away from this playtest is "Don't let Bob play a rogue". Every session it ends with an argument about the stealth rules.

Sounds like you just shouldn't play with Bob.

Also 5E Stealth rules have had problems since release, thanks to "natural language" wording and a general wishy-washyness that is intended to leave the DM in control, but really just leaves most people confused.

Also, if Horse and Rider doesn't go over well, try It That Rides as One, body horror warning FYI:
https://media.wizards.com/2016/images/daily/c4rd4r7_Vk8Ayo6l8l.jpg

[Thrudd]

Man, I think the one lesson I am taking away from this playtest is "Don't let Bob play a rogue". Every session it ends with an argument about the stealth rules.

We played again last night. Now, Bob is, in D&D terms, a tiefling rogue / warlock multiclass and he has the ability to make short distance teleportations by entering the Hellscape and emerging at a different point Event Horizon style. He was coming to assassinate his arch enemy, and said enemy had bound a creature resembling a Bebelith to guard him, an extra-dimensional spider that preys upon demons and lurks in the Hellscape.

Mechanically, it was pretty simple. The Bebelith guarded the Hellscape. Normally, guarding means that you automatically spot people who interact with what you guard with (unless they get a critical success on their stealth test) and can then make an attack on them in the manner of a delayed action. In other words, it was resolved in exactly the same way as if I had a mundane guardsman watching a door, except that instead of a specific location on the material map, it was guarding the extra-dimensional space. The downside of this is, however, that it had to beat Bob on an initiative test to strike at all, as if Bob exited the Hellscape before it got to him, it would have missed his opportunity as it slipped back into the physical world.

So, the Bebelith does nothing for 80% of the battle, either falling to hit bob or failing its initiative test. But then it finally hits him, grabs him, and then proceeds to attack on its following turn.

At which Bob exploded that it was completely cheating and unfair. Because guarding something makes you likely to see through stealth, which in his mind should cost you your turn, and then taking a readied action should cost you your NEXT turn as well.

And I am like, the only non-standard thing here is it is guarding an extra-dimensional space instead of a mundane location, otherwise this is a perfectly ordinary resolution of the guard mechanics. At which point he said that the rules are completely stupid; that if you are guarding a location you shouldn't have an increased chance to spot people who walk through it, and if you do spot them you should lose out on at least one preferably two turns worth of attacks as a tradeoff.

Urgh.



It seems kind of weird to me to use a different set of rules for a wholly mechanical vehicle than a well-trained mount, and there is still a bit of overlap when dealing with magical constructs or sufficiently advanced machines with automated systems or crude AI.

In this particular case I don't even know which one it was, as the scorpion was a bio-mechanical construct being magically puppeted by a hag and controlled with her magic, so it really blurred the line.

A vehicle literally can't do anything without a controller/pilot. A construct with AI might be able to act without the rider's input in order to fulfill its programming or protect its rider. An animal mount or a fully sentient AI has its own survival instinct and might even act against its rider's wishes if the rider loses control. Whether or not you want to bother with rules for such things, due to bloat or to maintain a more simple to use system, is another question, but it certainly makes sense that a living animal might be treated differently than an unthinking or programmed object (the reason elephants were not an automatic win for those riding them was because they would get out of control pretty easily and stomp their own side. Horses were notoriously scared of charging camels, according to Xenophon). Also, if the mount you were talking about was being magically controlled by its rider in the fashion of a puppeteer, I'd think there should be no confusion at all that it could attack whatever the rider directed it toward; its own perception is irrelevant, right? Maybe the players didn't realize that at the time, and Bob's nature would mean they would immediately complain about it, but all you had to do was say "this isn't a normal scorpion, the hag is controlling it magically", and the complaints should end.

Of course, I'm not sure that reason necessarily applies, when someone is arguing in bad faith with the goal of "winning" or gaining advantage in every situation, which is what Bob sounds like most of the time in your descriptions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it would make a difference what sort of character they were playing.

[Lord Torath]

Maybe the players didn't realize that at the time, and Bob's nature would mean they would immediately complain about it, but all you had to do was say "this isn't a normal scorpion, the hag is controlling it magically", and the complaints should end.

Of course, I'm not sure that reason necessarily applies, when someone is arguing in bad faith with the goal of "winning" or gaining advantage in every situation, which is what Bob sounds like most of the time in your descriptions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it would make a difference what sort of character they were playing."Wait, shouldn't it then have to spend an action to direct the mount?"
"Nope."
"No fair! I'd have to spend and action doing that. Why doesn't the hag?"
"If you're ever a hag controlling a giant scorpion, you'll find out. Until then, it will have to remain a mystery."

[Reversefigure4]

Mechanically, it was pretty simple. The Bebelith guarded the Hellscape. Normally, guarding means that you automatically spot people who interact with what you guard with (unless they get a critical success on their stealth test) and can then make an attack on them in the manner of a delayed action.

It sound like it's hideously difficult to sneak past guards, which probably makes playing a Stealth character frustrating. So if you're 'on guard', you likely spot the Stealther, AND you get a free attack on them. This presumably at least costs you an action(?), but it creates some weird oddities. Aren't PCs incentivised to perpetually be On Guard (guarding the area around themselves) when they aren't using their standard actions elsewhere, in order to automatically foil ambushers? At the least, if you have any idea somebody might be sneaking around, just go On Guard and automatically spot them. It sounds like the sort of rule guaranteed to create arguments.

[Telok]

It seems kind of weird to me to use a different set of rules for a wholly mechanical vehicle than a well-trained mount, and there is still a bit of overlap when dealing with magical constructs or sufficiently advanced machines with automated systems or crude AI.

In this particular case I don't even know which one it was, as the scorpion was a bio-mechanical construct being magically puppeted by a hag and controlled with her magic, so it really blurred the line.

Yeah, you can get blurry lines. The DtD40k vehicle section has a similar grey area. There's an AI module (can also be a spirit controlling magitech or something) that's limited to basic movement, helping the pilot, and a limited number of other actions per scene. Then there's the berserker AI module that's a pretty decent combatant & pilot but is utter uncontrolled beyone on/off. The difference of machine vs golem vs biological doesn't matter at all. The only question is still which mind, pilot or AI, is rolling it's dice.

It was useful for me to build a T-rex with the vehicle system to get a set of basic stats and a price (yes PCs can buy them... usually untrained, housebroken costs more). So I have two sets of stats for a T-rex, animal & vehicle, but they really only differ in how granular the movement system is. Build a "living vehicle" with an AI but no control system and have the AI take input & act as it was the animal. What's the difference between a "mount" & a "vehicle" then?

So in DtD the "bio-mechanical construct being magically puppeted by a hag and controlled with her magic" wouldn't be an issue. It sounds, at that description, like a straight meat-suit vehicle with a magic based control system. If the vehicle has it's own mind (AI, living, whatever) and is just following orders, well that's just a different control system that's resolved the same as a generic horse-style mount.


It sound like it's hideously difficult to sneak past guards, which probably makes playing a Stealth character frustrating. So if you're 'on guard', you likely spot the Stealther, AND you get a free attack on them. This presumably at least costs you an action(?), but it creates some weird oddities. Aren't PCs incentivised to perpetually be On Guard (guarding the area around themselves) when they aren't using their standard actions elsewhere, in order to automatically foil ambushers? At the least, if you have any idea somebody might be sneaking around, just go On Guard and automatically spot them. It sounds like the sort of rule guaranteed to create arguments.

I think the "guard" situation is more akin to someone watching a hallway or cleared kill zone where there's a limited & defined space without obstructions that has the person's full attention. I don't think its anything like someone sitting watch at a campfire or walking through a market with some "on guard" switch turned on like a mmo stealth toggle. So when something moves in the cleared & intently watched kill zone the guard fires off a shot. Its not something you'd be doing 24/7 unless you're some robot sentry gun thing.

[Duff]

I'd say ordering the creature to attack would be a different command to a general attack. So if it's a mental control type situation, the creature attacks with normal penalties for attacking something it can't see.
If it's more a puppetting type control, then if the controller can see, the attack can go off
OTOH, if it's more like a charm or a tamed animal type arrangement, then the rider says "attack" and the beast is confused, because it's can't see what it's supposed to attack. Unless the creature it trained to flail wildly into the space in front of it on command in order to deal with this sort of threat

[Satinavian]

Not sure if I philosophically agree though. I would argue that a GM who always follows RAW in a gray area is kind of a jerk, and I would argue that mounts (or familiars, mind-controlled minions, and remote-controlled drones) kind of blur the line between separate character and equipment; and I don't think anyone would argue that they can't be stabbed because the knife didn't perceive them independently of its wielder.
In a group with as much distrust as yours and as many rule arguments, a "GM who always follows RAW in a gray area" is a good thing. Leaving things vague and arbitrary tends to blow up in your face when arbitration is challenged so often.

That is even more true as you are running your very own system and have no reason to complain that the rules don't do what you want them to do.

[Talakeal]

In a group with as much distrust as yours and as many rule arguments, a "GM who always follows RAW in a gray area" is a good thing. Leaving things vague and arbitrary tends to blow up in your face when arbitration is challenged so often.

That is even more true as you are running your very own system and have no reason to complain that the rules don't do what you want them to do.

Its not about leaving things gray and arbitrary, its about situations the rules don't cover.


I think the "guard" situation is more akin to someone watching a hallway or cleared kill zone where there's a limited & defined space without obstructions that has the person's full attention. I don't think its anything like someone sitting watch at a campfire or walking through a market with some "on guard" switch turned on like a mmo stealth toggle. So when something moves in the cleared & intently watched kill zone the guard fires off a shot. Its not something you'd be doing 24/7 unless you're some robot sentry gun thing.

Pretty much this.

Note that it is still possible to sneak while being watched, but it requires extraordinary skill or mitigating circumstances such as cover, distance, distraction, or darkness.


As for players declaring guard actions outside of combat all the time, I am not sure how much of an advantage that actually gives, and is less disruptive than, say, in 3.5 when my players would constantly declare readied actions outside of combat to bypass the normal initiative system.

[Reversefigure4]

I think the "guard" situation is more akin to someone watching a hallway or cleared kill zone where there's a limited & defined space without obstructions that has the person's full attention. I don't think its anything like someone sitting watch at a campfire or walking through a market with some "on guard" switch turned on like a mmo stealth toggle. So when something moves in the cleared & intently watched kill zone the guard fires off a shot. Its not something you'd be doing 24/7 unless you're some robot sentry gun thing.


Upon using this maneuver, the attacker declares that they are standing guard over a person, place, or unattended object until the start of their next turn. Guarding something is not subtle, and it is clear to all observers exactly who is guarding what.
If someone attempts to interact with something that is being guarded, its protector may immediately make an attack or other offensive action against them exactly as if they had used the delay ability. A character who attacks in such a manner may not do so again until the start of their next turn, even if they used the guard ability more than once. A character can, however, guard several things at once by using this maneuver repeatedly or applying it to the same attack multiple times.
A character cannot simultaneously be guarded and guarding something else. A character can, however, choose to stop guarding something or reject being guarded at any time.
A character that is protecting a place chooses a number of contiguous zones equal to or less than their perception score and which all lie in front of them. They may attack anyone who enters the area, but not
those who were already inside.

I don't quite see why you couldn't guard a campfire with this? (Except that you can't look behind you, so PCs need to have their backs to a wall while camping) As long as somebody is 'on watch', they see any non-Critical Success people ambushing them AND get free attacks off on them. So few ambushes from the GM (because most PCs are going to have somebody watch the campfire), but it's more damning from a PC POV. It sounds frustrating to be a Stealth character. How many places are you sneaking as a PC that don't have people who are on guard (and probably have decent perception, AND you need a critical success to surpass them)? Seems like the vast majority of the time you'd fail and get Attack of Opportunitied. I'm kind of with Bob's point that since Guarding only costs you a -2 accuracy, costs no actions, AND lets you see all Non-Critical Stealthers, AND lets you attack them, Guarding seems very strong and seriously decreases the utility of Stealth... AND when you gain teleport abilities that let you bypass the Guard, the GM immediately puts in an ethereal Guard that sees you when you teleport so you can't gain a benefit from those either. In a group that already doesn't trust the GM and complain constantly, complains from this seem like a pretty inevitable outcome.

[Talakeal]

I don't quite see why you couldn't guard a campfire with this? (Except that you can't look behind you, so PCs need to have their backs to a wall while camping) As long as somebody is 'on watch', they see any non-Critical Success people ambushing them AND get free attacks off on them. So few ambushes from the GM (because most PCs are going to have somebody watch the campfire), but it's more damning from a PC POV. It sounds frustrating to be a Stealth character. How many places are you sneaking as a PC that don't have people who are on guard (and probably have decent perception, AND you need a critical success to surpass them)? Seems like the vast majority of the time you'd fail and get Attack of Opportunitied. I'm kind of with Bob's point that since Guarding only costs you a -2 accuracy, costs no actions, AND lets you see all Non-Critical Stealthers, AND lets you attack them, Guarding seems very strong and seriously decreases the utility of Stealth.

I really don't see the problem here. In my experience most games, including D&D IIRC, have stealth be an auto fail if you just walk right up to someone. I have never played a video game with a stealth mechanic that let's you just walk right up to a guard while they are looking at you, and heist movies always have them creating distractions or finding alternate routes to bypass guards rather than just walking right past and hoping to go unnoticed. Even Batman sticks to the shadows and hides among the gargoyles and catwalks.

Likewise, IF the players can find a perfect box to camp in, yeah, I don't think someone should be able to sneak up on them without extraordinary circumstances. And in this case it isn't really a bonus attack, its really just rolling initiative.

Nobody has had a problem with how stealth works in my game. Except of course for Bob, but then again he bitches if it isn't just perfect invincibility for him and a guaranteed sneak attack every round, and complains the opposite way when someone else (or god forbid an enemy) is playing the stealth character, so what can you do?

Now, I do agree that the math for modifiers is a bit wonky at times and still needs some work, but I am trying to stick to a streamlined system rather than have all sorts of exceptions.


AND when you gain teleport abilities that let you bypass the Guard, the GM immediately puts in an ethereal Guard that sees you when you teleport so you can't gain a benefit from those either. In a group that already doesn't trust the GM and complain constantly, complains from this seem like a pretty inevitable outcome.

Hardly immediately, it is 19 sessions later. It was also the player's choice in a way, as they specifically took (several) flaws that they were a hunted outlaw with the understanding that encounters would be tailored to catch them as a result. Still... yeah, they do complain about everything.

[gbaji]

Sounds like Bob is trying to munchkin his character a bit. The best advice I can give for players like that is to set clear and well defined rules and stick to them. Try to avoid making a ruling on the spot for that one situation because it may come back to bite you. If you do come across a situation where the rules don't perfect apply, discuss it with your players, come up with a ruling, but make it clear to the players that you reserve the right to re-address the issue at a later time after more thought and discussion as to what the correct official ruling should be. You don't want to bog down game play with rules determinations, but you also don't want to be stuck to a knee-jerk ruling you made 6 months ago that doesn't really work well after further consideration.

As to invisibility/stealth effects, I too make a distinction between ranged and melee for those. If someone is undetectable at range (either invisible or using stealth of some kind and hasn't been spotted), then you can't target them. Period. If they're attacking you with some ranged attack or ability, then if it's visible, you might get "he's thataway" the first attack, and "he's over thereish" on the second (good enough for area effect attacks but still not for direct targeting, and then only if the character is actually trying to locate the unseen enemy).

If using some sort of skill based stealth ability, this also provides an opportunity to make additional spot/scan/whatever skills to see the enemy, which may change their status from unseen to seen.

If they are in melee, things get a bit trickier, but not terribly so. My general rule of thumb is that you get one "free" attack in melee when undetected. You get to make an attack, and the enemy can't defend. I play in a skill based game system, where the defender has dodge or parry options to use. In an AC based game, you'd eliminate dex based AC or equivalent. Once you've attacked, however, the other character is aware that you are in that location and are right next to them (adjacent hex if using a battle map). At that point, he can attack and defend at half skill (or similar for AC based system). He knows you're where you are, he just can't see you to swing effectively at you. This effect continues as long as the invisible character remains in melee with that opponent. If he disengages and comes back later, he gets that free attack again (you've lost his location so he's able to come at you from a new direction basically).

I also make a distinction between "in combat" and not. Basically, how alert are you to the presence of enemies who may be about to attack you. As a general rule, if there's been no combat action yet, no alarm sounded, etc, then folks are going to be relaxed, hanging out, working their boring guard shift, etc. Undetected characters are able to use special abilities (in my game system, a backstab skill exists for this), that often allow for pretty immediate droppage of the target by the invisible character. Once people are aware of an enemy presence, combat has begun, alarms have been sounded, etc, the assumption is that folks are alert, drawing weapons, taking up battle stances, bobbing and weaving, and otherwise not just sanding perfectly still for you to aim that killing blow.

This "on alert" status is for all characters on all sides once they are aware that something is afoot, an enemy is attacking, etc. So easy stealth kills aren't so easy in that situation.

Obviously, if you play in a game system that has a defined "sneak attack" ability that is usable in combat, then you follow the rules for that as best you can. And that may even duplicate my general rule above for attacking while unseen (but require some special skill for it).

As to the mount at range and an enemy spotted by the rider but not the mount, that should be relatively easy. The rider controls where the mount goes. So the rider should always be able to move the mount next to the enemy and attack him normally. The mount may get a new spot chance at that point, and if properly war trained may be directed by the rider to attack the location the enemy is anyway (using the skill reduction rule I mentioned earlier about attacking unseen melee opponents). Same rules apply.

[Slipjig]

It sound like it's hideously difficult to sneak past guards, which probably makes playing a Stealth character frustrating.

That's probably by design. Unless you are already in combat, giving them a free attack is probably overkill, and I wouldn't even say they couldn't be surprised (if you have been staring down the same hallway for several hours, you probably aren't primed to act the second something appears). But if you have a couple of mooks guarding a specific defined space that falls within their vision cone (say, looking down an empty hallway), it SHOULD be all but impossible to pass through that space unseen as long as they are paying attention. There's a reason why infiltration scenes almost always involve either a distraction or finding an alternate route (e.g. air vents or sewers).

This is obviously much less true for guards watching a crowd pass through their guarded space looking for people who shouldn't be there, or for a lone sentry trying to pull 360 security. In both those cases I'd allow an opposed Stealth v. Perception check (or Deception if blending with the crowd).

[Reversefigure4]

I really don't see the problem here. In my experience most games, including D&D IIRC, have stealth be an auto fail if you just walk right up to someone.

Ah, I see where I've gone wrong. I'd taken "zones" to mean some considerable distance, meaning zones equal to perception would easily fill most battlefields. I see they're only meant to be a pace (so 10 feet away for the average +10 Spot human). So your average guard can only auto see you when, indeed, you're walking right up to their face, which is much more conceivable.

I'm not sure how the Hellscape demon can guard in all directions at once, though? How did it know teleporting Bob would be coming from a particular direction to know which way it needed to face to guard? Or is it a creature with it's own special rules that are different from how Guarding usually works?

[Talakeal]

I'm not sure how the Hellscape demon can guard in all directions at once, though? How did it know teleporting Bob would be coming from a particular direction to know which way it needed to face to guard? Or is it a creature with it's own special rules that are different from how Guarding usually works?

As a spider demon, it had antenna and pallesthesia, which allowed it 360 degree vision and detect his general area.

That being said, I did fudge it a bit as I didn't map out the higher dimensions, but the tradeoff was that if she was fast enough on her initiative test she would avoid its attacks entirely.

[Reversefigure4]

That being said, I did fudge it a bit...

Which is pretty much the source of 90% of the problems you have. Fudging only works when your players trust you. Bob doesn't trust you in the slightest, and you apply the rules rigidly to what his character can do, then turn around and apply different stealth and guard rules to your monsters. Of course he was going to dispute it.

Normal tables wouldn't blink at in monster with radius sight, because they trust the GM didn't put it in just to screw with them... But yours is not a normal table.

[Talakeal]

Which is pretty much the source of 90% of the problems you have. Fudging only works when your players trust you. Bob doesn't trust you in the slightest, and you apply the rules rigidly to what his character can do, then turn around and apply different stealth and guard rules to your monsters. Of course he was going to dispute it.

Normal tables wouldn't blink at in monster with radius sight, because they trust the GM didn't put it in just to screw with them... But yours is not a normal table.

Agreed, although I do, if I may deflect a bit, think the hypocrisy kind of runs the other way.

I have never been much of a stickler for the rules, and am perfectly happy to fudge in my player's favor when it makes sense. Heck, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I let Bob start every fight hidden without making a roll or spending an action, and he has it in his head that I promised him that NPC's could never assist one another in searching for him, and his concealment power is grandfathered in from an earlier version of the rules.

Likewise, I let Kim, the party's abjurer cast protection spells against things that aren't technically valid like suffocation or mind control, and Sonya is a shadow mage with a custom spell list that includes some very powerful spells that I would never put on the generic spell list.

On the other hand, my players seem to get mad whenever I customize a monster (or have a fight take place in any sort of non-standard environment). Like, one of the mechanics of my game is that NPCs have weaker versions of feats than are available to my players, and that generates no end of bitching.

Just the other night Bob was telling me that playing characters by the books bores him, and that he doesn't think he will ever play a character without custom feats and magic items again; and I was kind of taken back by the blatant double standard he expects from the game.

Yet, on the other hand, they trust me to actually write the entire rule set, but don't trust me to balance a single monster? Its so weird.

[gbaji]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding which version of which game you are using, but shouldn't NPCs with class levels have the exact same feats available to PCs, and not weaker ones? You're already basically a bit of a gimme GM, and they seem to be complaining anyway.

One of the hardest things to do as a GM is create a game environment where you are playing the NPCs who are acting (assuming there's any conflict in your game) in opposition to the PCs, while not yourself appearing to be adversarial to them. You are the rule maker and world builder and NPC player. You have to balance those so that the first two are separate from the last one. Otherwise, your players will not trust you. They will believe you are manipulating the rules to harm them in some way, and/or creating NPCs and specific abilities for those NPCs to thwart them in unfair ways.

On the flip side if players become too accustomed to you giving them special abilities and interpreting the rules in ways that benefit them all the time, they will feel betrayed when you *don't* do that. Which is what it sounds like has happened.

Set firm rules and firm boundaries. You can fudge outcomes and events to make gameplay better (but be cautious here too), but don't fudge actual rules. If a rule doesn't work well, discuss it with the players and make a rule change. But really really think through the long term ramifications of that change.

Also, and this may just be a preference of mine after many years (*cough*decades*cough) of GMing games, avoid putting rules or power combinations in your game that act as a "I win" button for the players. If there's one constant about players is that if they have a way to bypass everything in their way and go directly to the final objective of a scenario, they will. Every. Single. Time. Sometimes, that's just clever gameplay. They came up with something you didn't consider. Great. That's a one time thing. This specific set of circumstances allowed something to happen. No problem. Learn as a GM how your own game rules work and realize that the NPCs you are playing *also* know those game rules (they live in that game, right). So mistakes you might make, flaws in defenses you might leave open, etc are not things they might have done. But you, as the GM, don't get a do-over when you do that. Just play with it and learn from it.

But I would never, ever, put in my game a combination of abilities that allowed a PC to basically teleport to any location on a battlefield, while invisible, then conduct a sneak attack on anyone there, and then teleport away without anyone nearby getting some sort of attack of opportunity to at least make the attack cost something. That set of rules/powers/abilities/whatever will *always* be abused by the player. You have put yourself in the position of either allowing that PC to essentially trivialize all major encounters in the game, or force yourself to have the NPC bosses somehow always come up with some sort of specific defense to that ability.

And that will never go over well. Another firm rule is that you can't take away from players something you already gave them. Well, you can, but they will always resent you for it. What you just encountered is that player resentment. You gave Bob the ability to do this. You allowed him to use it (presumably multiple times). Now, fairly or not, he sees any NPC who has a way to defend against it as you "cheating" and denying his character use of his ability. The learning experience here is to never have allowed that attack method in the first place.

[Talakeal]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding which version of which game you are using, but shouldn't NPCs with class levels have the exact same feats available to PCs, and not weaker ones? You're already basically a bit of a gimme GM, and they seem to be complaining anyway.

One of the hardest things to do as a GM is create a game environment where you are playing the NPCs who are acting (assuming there's any conflict in your game) in opposition to the PCs, while not yourself appearing to be adversarial to them. You are the rule maker and world builder and NPC player. You have to balance those so that the first two are separate from the last one. Otherwise, your players will not trust you. They will believe you are manipulating the rules to harm them in some way, and/or creating NPCs and specific abilities for those NPCs to thwart them in unfair ways.

On the flip side if players become too accustomed to you giving them special abilities and interpreting the rules in ways that benefit them all the time, they will feel betrayed when you *don't* do that. Which is what it sounds like has happened.

Set firm rules and firm boundaries. You can fudge outcomes and events to make gameplay better (but be cautious here too), but don't fudge actual rules. If a rule doesn't work well, discuss it with the players and make a rule change. But really really think through the long term ramifications of that change.

Also, and this may just be a preference of mine after many years (*cough*decades*cough) of GMing games, avoid putting rules or power combinations in your game that act as a "I win" button for the players. If there's one constant about players is that if they have a way to bypass everything in their way and go directly to the final objective of a scenario, they will. Every. Single. Time. Sometimes, that's just clever gameplay. They came up with something you didn't consider. Great. That's a one time thing. This specific set of circumstances allowed something to happen. No problem. Learn as a GM how your own game rules work and realize that the NPCs you are playing *also* know those game rules (they live in that game, right). So mistakes you might make, flaws in defenses you might leave open, etc are not things they might have done. But you, as the GM, don't get a do-over when you do that. Just play with it and learn from it.

But I would never, ever, put in my game a combination of abilities that allowed a PC to basically teleport to any location on a battlefield, while invisible, then conduct a sneak attack on anyone there, and then teleport away without anyone nearby getting some sort of attack of opportunity to at least make the attack cost something. That set of rules/powers/abilities/whatever will *always* be abused by the player. You have put yourself in the position of either allowing that PC to essentially trivialize all major encounters in the game, or force yourself to have the NPC bosses somehow always come up with some sort of specific defense to that ability.

And that will never go over well. Another firm rule is that you can't take away from players something you already gave them. Well, you can, but they will always resent you for it. What you just encountered is that player resentment. You gave Bob the ability to do this. You allowed him to use it (presumably multiple times). Now, fairly or not, he sees any NPC who has a way to defend against it as you "cheating" and denying his character use of his ability. The learning experience here is to never have allowed that attack method in the first place.

I am with you until the end there. Doesn't that apply to every single ability in the game? Sure, some are better than others, but every ability is going to have situations where it is of more or less useful, and many where it doesn't apply at all.

[gbaji]

I am with you until the end there. Doesn't that apply to every single ability in the game? Sure, some are better than others, but every ability is going to have situations where it is of more or less useful, and many where it doesn't apply at all.

Yeah. You'd think so. But it's about player perception. And degrees. An ability that gives bonuses in certain situations, or is variable in effect, and said effect is noticeable but still minor, can be managed pretty easily. The players can accept that sometimes it helps them, and sometimes it doesn't. Of course, they may still complain if that ability *never* comes into play (you have a bonus against giants, but the GM never puts giants in the game, for example). This is doubly problematic in games with limited choice feat/skill/whatever selection rulesets. If, upon leveling, I had to make a choice to take a bonus to X or Y or Z, and I choose X, but X never appears, I'm going to feel cheated, right?

In this case, the combination of abilities is so absolute in effect that it's effectively an "I win" button for the player. It amplifies the problems for the GM (you) because if you allow it to be used it will trivialize many encounters that were intended to be difficult (or at the very least puts a crimp on your creativity because a number of fun and interesting encounter scenarios have to be rejected in the planning stages because you'll immediately realize "Bob will just teleport over there and kill the guy in one round"). Every encounter has to be either modified to account for Bob's ability (which will automatically and correctly be interpreted as GM fiat) or not modified (GM pretends he doesn't know about Bob) and be gimped.

It's kind of a lose/lose situation. What I meant by "taking things away from the player" is that you allowed this combination and interpreted the rules to allow their use to be the way he has come to expect. Changing it *now* becomes taking that away from him. And as mentioned above, if you're using any form of select/buy game system (which I believe you are), it's a direct removal of the PCs agency in the game. He likely had to make a number of character build choices specifically to enable that combination of abilities to do what he's doing and if you rule that it doesn't work that way, he's going to feel cheated.

There's no good answer here once you get this far in (something you learn as a GM is to detect these problems and avoid them ahead of time). You may be able to talk to Bob and get him to realize that his character build is unbalanced and causing problems, and maybe get him to accept a modified interpretation of said abilities to be more reasonable and/or even an option to rebuild some things on his character an a compromise. Unfortunately, IME, that rarely works and will almost always be seen by the player as an attack by the GM on his character. That he's being punished for being clever or whatever. Dunno. You might get lucky. Again though, often the very type of player who will build a character like that will tend to be the one least likely to accept modifications just from a personality POV. Never know though, he could be that rare player who intentionally stretches/breaks the rules just to see if it can be done (I used to do this in Champions all the time back in the day) and having accomplished that is perfectly fine with accepting that it's a bad idea for game balance and will just retire the concept character and move on. Maybe.

Unfortunately, more often than not, the only way out is to end the campaign, retire the characters permanently, create a brand new setting with new classes, races, rules, etc, and ensure that the new game doesn't allow such things. It's a long learning experience.

[Lord Torath]

I think one of Jay R's "Rules for DMs" is appropriate here:
"When a player gets a new ability, have at least one situation in the next adventure where it's useful. Otherwise the ability doesn't exist. Also have a situation in the next adventure where the ability is worthless. Otherwise the rest of the character doesn't exist (paraphrased)."

It is entirely appropriate that Bob's stealth abilities don't always solve the problem.

[Talakeal]

Krystal is a very strong character, as Bob is both the most knowledgeable and interested in power gaming, but neither her stealth nor her teleportation are "win buttons".

The problem is that Bob, no matter what character he plays, is both egotistical and paranoid, and if his preferred strategy doesn't work he feels like he is being both persecuted and cheated.


I will always use a mixture of enemies and encounter types, and sometimes you are going to run into situations where your character build just isn't very good, but on the other hand sometimes you will run into situations where your build is so good it trivializes encounters. IMO this isn't a bad thing.

[Keltest]

Krystal is a very strong character, as Bob is both the most knowledgeable and interested in power gaming, but neither her stealth nor her teleportation are "win buttons".

The problem is that Bob, no matter what character he plays, is both egotistical and paranoid, and if his preferred strategy doesn't work he feels like he is being both persecuted and cheated.


I will always use a mixture of enemies and encounter types, and sometimes you are going to run into situations where your character build just isn't very good, but on the other hand sometimes you will run into situations where your build is so good it trivializes encounters. IMO this isn't a bad thing.

I mean frankly, it sounds like what you should do is tell Bob to get over it or get out. Ideally more politely, but nobody needs a player like how you have been describing Bob. The actual rules dont matter, Bob is just being a jerk if he cant handle not being the best at everything whenever he feels like it.

[Telok]

I mean frankly, it sounds like what you should do is tell Bob to get over it or get out. Ideally more politely, but nobody needs a player like how you have been describing Bob. The actual rules dont matter, Bob is just being a jerk if he cant handle not being the best at everything whenever he feels like it.

To be fair when people discuss others in their groups you're usually hearing the worst of them. Those people may have one triggery thing, annoying habit, or three fuss ups in ten years, and some forumite will declare that person a horrible dog-kicking monster the be banned & shunned forever more.

Like I'll talk about a first time DM who'll follow a module a touch too blindly and not remember five different characters of backstory & mechanical details. Then someone will characterize them as a near illiterate cave man who is antifun and deserves to make the same old no-useful-advice mistakes that caused bad games and failing groups in the 80s. Doesn't mean he's a bad person. He's a nice guy & good player who is just a first time DM, a little overwhelmed, a bit touchy on advice = criticisim = argument, and struggling with a game that needs experience or active mentoring to be run effectively.

[GloatingSwine]

Sounds like you just shouldn't play with Bob.

Also 5E Stealth rules have had problems since release, thanks to "natural language" wording and a general wishy-washyness that is intended to leave the DM in control, but really just leaves most people confused.

Also, if Horse and Rider doesn't go over well, try It That Rides as One, body horror warning FYI:
https://media.wizards.com/2016/images/daily/c4rd4r7_Vk8Ayo6l8l.jpg

Takaleal is playing his own system not D&D, I'm at work so I can't download it to check but I recall from the last Bob Does Stealth thread that the stealth rules are decently robust (and Bob is getting a free pass on some of them already).

"The rider uses their action to assist the mount to Do A Thing" seems like it's a sensible part of any animal control rules too. Codify it in the riding and handling rules what sort of actions the rider can help with and what the effects and bonuses are.

[Keltest]

To be fair when people discuss others in their groups you're usually hearing the worst of them. Those people may have one triggery thing, annoying habit, or three fuss ups in ten years, and some forumite will declare that person a horrible dog-kicking monster the be banned & shunned forever more.

Like I'll talk about a first time DM who'll follow a module a touch too blindly and not remember five different characters of backstory & mechanical details. Then someone will characterize them as a near illiterate cave man who is antifun and deserves to make the same old no-useful-advice mistakes that caused bad games and failing groups in the 80s. Doesn't mean he's a bad person. He's a nice guy & good player who is just a first time DM, a little overwhelmed, a bit touchy on advice = criticisim = argument, and struggling with a game that needs experience or active mentoring to be run effectively.

The way Talakeal has described it, this is not abnormal behavior from Bob, its just the day to day.

[gbaji]

Krystal is a very strong character, as Bob is both the most knowledgeable and interested in power gaming, but neither her stealth nor her teleportation are "win buttons".

The problem is that Bob, no matter what character he plays, is both egotistical and paranoid, and if his preferred strategy doesn't work he feels like he is being both persecuted and cheated.

Is Bob the player and Krystal is Bob's character with the teleportation abilities? Just clarifying here.

Any ability where you as the GM have to contrive something to a nearly silly level of abnormal (a guardian creature with the ability to perceive alternate dimensions and 360 degree vision absolutely counts) in order to defend against it is pretty much the definition of an "I win" button. I could very much be missing details of how this ability works, how often it can be used, what other costs are associated with it, risks involved, etc, but it very clearly is causing *you* the GM trouble to deal with. Otherwise you would not have mentioned it as causing a problem in your game. Again. The lesson here is to not put stuff like that in your game.

As to Bob's playstyle and personality issues, I'm also curious: How old is Bob? I've found that it's usually younger players who really get caught up in the "wish fulfillment fantasy" aspect of play. They want their character to use their abilities to do cool and awesome things, and often don't want to hear that the rules apply to everyone equally. I think almost all players start out this way to a certain degree. Most mature out of it. Sadly, some do not.

The only thing I can suggest is to just keep presenting Bob with firm rules he must follow within the game. If you really want him to realize how silly he's being some of the time, then have NPCs use the same abilities and tactics against him. A lot of this mentality comes from players thinking that they are playing the game "against the GM", and the GMs role is to allow them to do what they want to succeed. Once it dawns on them that the same game rules apply to everyone (including NPCs), they might just change their tune. When they realize that the same abilities, when used against them, are totally unfair and make it impossible to fight back against their enemies, the lightbulb might just go off that it's a broken ability. Maybe.



I will always use a mixture of enemies and encounter types, and sometimes you are going to run into situations where your character build just isn't very good, but on the other hand sometimes you will run into situations where your build is so good it trivializes encounters. IMO this isn't a bad thing.


Yeah. As long as the variation of character builds has a limited range of effect on the outcome of encounters, that's absolutely true. And yes, sometimes a character will have just the right combination of abilities to trivialize a single specific encounter where things just happen to align right. That's ok as well. Where you get into trouble is when a specific build can trivialize a large number of encounters. And it's unfortunate, but some game systems (and rules choices) just tend to lend themselves to that.

Such game systems and/or rules sets can be absolutely fun for short term adventures or one shots, but if you want to run a longer term campaign at all, with players replaying their characters in one adventure after another, then you'll want to trend away from such things. They will cause problems over time. You'll constantly have to deal with characters with abilities (or items!) that they gained earlier that are powerful in some way, and have to deal with how to manage encounter difficulty from that point on.

One GM I played with long ago was an absolute genius at story telling, scene setting, etc, but he was terrible at game balance. He had this idea that more powerful characters could play with less powerful ones, and the players would just use their less powerful weapons, abilities, etc in order to be "fair". So while we played in a large long running campaign, with each player having a stable of characters to play, he would never place limits on which characters could play in any given adventure. Points for realism, I suppose, but what ended up happening is that players would bring a character that was way more powerful than the adventure and trivialize things (which is not so fun for everyone else). Worse, he would sometimes very blatantly try to remove abilities and items from said powerful characters to bring them back in line with the power level for the adventure (one of the worst things you can do as a GM btw). As a player you had to guess what the appropriate power level for the adventure might be and avoid playing your more powerful characters so as to avoid having their stuff destroyed, abilities erased, or whatever as a consequence of your choice. He would also sometimes forget that he'd given a specific character some powerful item in a previous adventure, and when you used it go "Wait. What does that do. Gee... that seems really powerful". That was like the kiss of death. On several occasions I had characters just never use certain items they had because I knew they were too powerful for the adventure and I'd get hit with something nasty as a result. So I guess, in a weird way, his starting premise did sorta apply, but not in a way that was particularly healthy.

When he eventually retired (and yeah, btw, while he did have some odd foibles he was otherwise an excellent GM), we took over the game world and one of the first rules we established was that the GM absolutely could and should tell the players during a session 0 what the approximate power level for the adventure was to be. Yeah, a bit of meta information, but it made things so much easier to play. The same concept can be applied here. if a character has some combination of powers/abilities/items gained previously that would trivialize the adventure you are writing, there's nothing wrong with just saying "that character is too powerful for this adventure. Play another".

You wouldn't allow players to run level 15 characters through a module designed for levels 5-8, right? Same concept applies. Once you allow characters from one adventure to be played in subsequent adventures, you need to come up with some sort of meta-rules for managing that.

[Talakeal]

Is Bob the player and Krystal is Bob's character with the teleportation abilities? Just clarifying here.

That is correct. Bob is the player, and Krystal is his character.


Any ability where you as the GM have to contrive something to a nearly silly level of abnormal (a guardian creature with the ability to perceive alternate dimensions and 360 degree vision absolutely counts) in order to defend against it is pretty much the definition of an "I win" button. I could very much be missing details of how this ability works, how often it can be used, what other costs are associated with it, risks involved, etc, but it very clearly is causing *you* the GM trouble to deal with. Otherwise you would not have mentioned it as causing a problem in your game. Again. The lesson here is to not put stuff like that in your game.

The monster in question isn't anything too crazy, its basically just a Bebelith / Phase Spider*, which if we were playing D&D would come straight from the Monster Manual with no alterations.


It is in no way needed to somehow counter Krystal; I could do that fine by just using slightly higher level monsters as long as they weren't completely incompetent when it comes to perception.

In this case though, I knew the bad guy was going to have some sort of summoned demon helping him, and this bad guy is specifically trying to guard himself against Krystal, so I thought it would be interesting if he went with a spider demon. So yeah, I guess you could say it was an encounter tailored to counter her, but it was totally IC, from an OOC perspective I could have taken her out far more simply and effectively.

The "problem" with my game is that Bob wants to argue any time his abilities are not fully effective regardless of the character, and stealth rules are notoriously full of fuzzy areas. "Stuff like that" translates to any half-way decent character ability or one with any wiggle room whatsoever.



As to Bob's playstyle and personality issues, I'm also curious: How old is Bob? I've found that it's usually younger players who really get caught up in the "wish fulfillment fantasy" aspect of play. They want their character to use their abilities to do cool and awesome things, and often don't want to hear that the rules apply to everyone equally. I think almost all players start out this way to a certain degree. Most mature out of it. Sadly, some do not.

He is in his thirties. I have been playing with him for some time, and he has indeed mellowed out quite a bit, but he never entirely grew out of it.


One GM I played with long ago was an absolute genius at story telling, scene setting, etc, but he was terrible at game balance. He had this idea that more powerful characters could play with less powerful ones, and the players would just use their less powerful weapons, abilities, etc in order to be "fair". So while we played in a large long running campaign, with each player having a stable of characters to play, he would never place limits on which characters could play in any given adventure. Points for realism, I suppose, but what ended up happening is that players would bring a character that was way more powerful than the adventure and trivialize things (which is not so fun for everyone else). Worse, he would sometimes very blatantly try to remove abilities and items from said powerful characters to bring them back in line with the power level for the adventure (one of the worst things you can do as a GM btw). As a player you had to guess what the appropriate power level for the adventure might be and avoid playing your more powerful characters so as to avoid having their stuff destroyed, abilities erased, or whatever as a consequence of your choice. He would also sometimes forget that he'd given a specific character some powerful item in a previous adventure, and when you used it go "Wait. What does that do. Gee... that seems really powerful". That was like the kiss of death. On several occasions I had characters just never use certain items they had because I knew they were too powerful for the adventure and I'd get hit with something nasty as a result. So I guess, in a weird way, his starting premise did sorta apply, but not in a way that was particularly healthy.

When he eventually retired (and yeah, btw, while he did have some odd foibles he was otherwise an excellent GM), we took over the game world and one of the first rules we established was that the GM absolutely could and should tell the players during a session 0 what the approximate power level for the adventure was to be. Yeah, a bit of meta information, but it made things so much easier to play. The same concept can be applied here. if a character has some combination of powers/abilities/items gained previously that would trivialize the adventure you are writing, there's nothing wrong with just saying "that character is too powerful for this adventure. Play another".

You wouldn't allow players to run level 15 characters through a module designed for levels 5-8, right? Same concept applies. Once you allow characters from one adventure to be played in subsequent adventures, you need to come up with some sort of meta-rules for managing that.

As a player, that would hurt my immersion both in and out of character. Being told I can't play my favorite character this week because it would break the adventure is no fun, and in character its kind of backward; if there is a problem that can be trivially solved by a certain character, isn't that exactly who you should be seeking out for help?

I personally prefer to just not run adventures that can be broken so easily. I do, however, have something of a reputation as a killer DM both IRL and on the forums because I often "idiot-proof" my adventures by coming up with ways in which the bad guys can deal with various common tactics like being attacked by fliers, mobbed by hirelings, sniped from range, being resistant or immune to its primary form of attack, etc. My thinking is that creatures that have not learned how to deal with this would have long since been taken out by NPCs and there would be no need to go looking for exceptional heroes and showering them with the treasures they demand.


*: Although, I actually notice that phase spiders lack Tremor Sense by default, which is odd because every other spider in the game has it. Wonder if that is an oversight or a conscious choice.

[Telok]

I personally prefer to just not run adventures that can be broken so easily. I do, however, have something of a reputation as a killer DM both IRL and on the forums because I often "idiot-proof" my adventures by coming up with ways in which the bad guys can deal with various common tactics like being attacked by fliers, mobbed by hirelings, sniped from range, being resistant or immune to its primary form of attack, etc. My thinking is that creatures that have not learned how to deal with this would have long since been taken out by NPCs and there would be no need to go looking for exceptional heroes and showering them with the treasures they demand.

"I am Bubba-Hotep the Inflammable Mummy Mage! My legions of undead are... being slaightered by adventurers.... again. Oh! Nice fireball. Hey, didn't see that guy there. Gosh, those poison arrow traps aren't doing anything to the dwarf in plate armor.

I wonder if it would be unfair for me to cast protection from fire, true sight, and have the minions spread some oil around the pit trap to make it slippery?"

[gbaji]

In this case though, I knew the bad guy was going to have some sort of summoned demon helping him, and this bad guy is specifically trying to guard himself against Krystal, so I thought it would be interesting if he went with a spider demon. So yeah, I guess you could say it was an encounter tailored to counter her, but it was totally IC, from an OOC perspective I could have taken her out far more simply and effectively.

Oh. Ok. In that case, Bob is just whining. That's a totally acceptable case where the bad guy should have set up specific defenses to counter her abilities.


The "problem" with my game is that Bob wants to argue any time his abilities are not fully effective regardless of the character, and stealth rules are notoriously full of fuzzy areas. "Stuff like that" translates to any half-way decent character ability or one with any wiggle room whatsoever.

Yeah. That's a tricky one. I'd still recommend just setting firm rules where possible and be consistent with rulings. And yeah, I agree that some areas of any rules are going to be a bit vague and handwavy. And that's also where players may disagree with the GM on rules interpretations. One thing to keep in mind in situations like this is that you, as the GM, are the one creating the setting. Therefore, by definition, you have "perfect" knowledge of what is where, how things look, how they are connected etc. Your players always have "imperfect" knowledge of the environment, because they only know what can be conveyed via the table conversation. So you may present the players with a house with a door and a window in it, and have a firm idea of where the door is in relation to the window, how big the door is, how big the window is, how high the window is, whether it has shutters, or glass pane, or whatever. But the players may just know "there's a door and a window". If the PC decides to heroically fling himself through the window to gain entrance, you are the one making the rules as to whether the window is big enough to jump through, too high to jump into, or has an awkward sill on it that would hinder such an action (or even what obstacles are on the other side, like maybe a kitchen sink). If you rule that the player can't jump through for some reason, or how difficult it will be, or what other troubles may ensue that may make said leap less than the heroic action the player intended, that's the ruling. It's yours to make (yes, this was an actual argument I observed during play one time).

Just remember that when you make rulings like this, you have to be able to clearly state why you are making the ruling. In areas where the rules are fuzzy, it often does come down to the specifics of the situation. And as I said, you as the GM always have perfect knowledge of this (again, assuming a standard GM run game where you created the environment). The flip side of this is that when the players ask for details their characters would reasonably be able to observe in order to make better decisions, you are absolutely obligated to provide them to them. Players who run roughshod over GMs can be a pain, but the same works in reverse. If the players perceive that you are misleading them or omitting key information so as to "trick" them into doing something foolish or harmful, they'll not appreciate that either.



As a player, that would hurt my immersion both in and out of character. Being told I can't play my favorite character this week because it would break the adventure is no fun, and in character its kind of backward; if there is a problem that can be trivially solved by a certain character, isn't that exactly who you should be seeking out for help?

It's something that you have to deal with when/if you run a long term continuous game world/setting, with players having multiple characters to play at differing power levels though. It's pretty unrealistic that it just so happens that every bad guy who appears within sight of the PCs just happens to increasingly ramp up in power level with their own. When running a story arc, it works because you can always portray increasing power as the PCs seeking out more challenging things to deal with. They were assumed to always be there, but the PCs were either unaware of them, or weren't prepared to deal with them, their patron/guild didn't assign them the task cause it's out of their league, whatever.

But at some point in a game world, the reverse has to happen as well. Yeah. Seems unrealistic, but there will be minor challenges that maybe can be handled by the B (or C, or D) team instead of the kingdom's greatest heroes. We can assume they are off doing great hero things instead, while the spunky group of newcomers deals with the local riff raff, or whatever. And yeah, as a metagaming methodology, that involves the GM telling the players "ok, next scenario is going to be a low/mid/whatever power adventure, located in <wherever>. Let me know who you plan on running". That tiny bit of fourth wall breakage will make for a heck of a lot more enjoyment for everyone at the table.

Let me be clear. I'm not talking about a week to week shift in characters being played based on the difficulty of the planned encounter. I'm talking about whole adventures. The previous one was done. Those characters completed their task, saved the day, and went back home and are enjoying some time off. Now some completely new thing has occurred with new characters in some specific location and they may decide to run off and do something about it. In the case of my game, it's in the same setting, but may be starting in a different town. The other way to look at it is that if your lower power level characters encountered something interesting to maybe investigate, would they immediately run off to some group of powerful people, tell them about it and wash their hands of the whole thing? Or would they think "we can do this!" and go try to do it themselves? That's the kind of "new adventure in the same world" scenario I'm talking about.

Your now powerful characters didn't do that then they were starting out, right? Why would you do that with new/younger characters simply because you, as the player, know you have higher level characters available elsewhere in the world? Also remember that the new characters may not know your other characters anyway. There are some concessions to be made for a stable power level in any game, and this is a pretty minor compromise to make that work.

[Talakeal]

To go back to the earlier discussion about how mounts are a gray area between character and equipment, I had an interesting argument come up this weekend in my Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game group.

I have a spell which protects all members of my faction. My opponent then proceeded to try shooting my horses out from under me, arguing that horses are not members of a faction, but are instead more like a piece of equipment.