>guy makes a "stealth" character
>thinks that just making a high roll means he becomes invisible
Sneaking past the guards does not mean rolling a 30 and then just walking past them.
Sakurako is worst yuru.
>>43512927
You are absolutely correct.
>>43512685
That depends on a multitude of factors. Maybe he really is able to walk past them because he has a Kuroko ability.
It's more to describe slinking through windows and shit.
>>43513638
What the fuck am I looking at.
>>43513777
Cute girls wearing pajamas, obviously.
>>43513777
I don't know either, but I see two of my favorite bands mentioned, and now I'm intrigued....
>>43512685
what if he has a cardboard box
>>43513777
>>43513808
It's Jojo crossover with Yuru yuri. The stands in Jojo tend to be named after things related to music for some reason.
>>43512927
Shut up you boob monster.
>>43512685
>sneaking past guards is unrealistic
>my character casts fireball
:^)
>>43513808
What bands? Cause I see two of my favorites in there as well.
>>43512685
What are you looking for from your player, here? Have you adequately described his surroundings, so that he knows what sort of paths he could take to avoid detection? That seems like the sort of thing you should give him, especially if he rolls a 30.
>>43515916
>what is verisimilitude
>>43516347
>what is being an autist.
>>43512685
Yes it does, it's like you never played Payday 2. Just walk past quicker than their detection meter fills up.
>>43514499
It's because the writer of the JoJo Manga is a huge fan of rock music. A bunch of his characters were named after bands, even before Stands were introduced.
>>43513853
You still can't directly walk past the guards with a cardboard box, they'll still notice you.
>>43512685
>guy make a "fighty" character
>thinks that just making a high roll means he goes past the AC of the dragon.
Yes it does. The sneaking roll is an abstraction representing how well you are doing that. Rolling a 30 and walking past the guard just means you, abstractly, did what needed to be done to go past the guards. Maybe a distraction, or a well placed shadow, or dropping behind them, etc. You just did. End of the story.
So if someone rolls well in combat, do you penalise them for not describing in detail how they swing their hit-stick?
If someone rolls well for disarming a trap, do you penalise them for not describing in detail how they disassemble the mechanism?
If someone rolls well forseducing a dragon, do you penalise them for not describing in detail how theyshove both fists into her soaking wet lizard cloaca?
>>43517640
I understand where you're coming from, but isn't that a bit of a slippery slope? Where do you stand on people making successful social skill rolls without roleplaying what their character says?
>guy makes a "mage" character
>thinks that just making a high roll means he bends the laws of physics
>>43517656
In these cases your accurate, but I ultimately agree with OP. When it comes to sneaking past guards or other hostile enemies, you can't just walk past them with a high roll. You have to do something RP wise to distract them or avoid their line of sight by entering an unobserved enterance.
Same goes with a persuasion check. You can roll high on persuasion all you want but if you are not actually saying anything to convince the Dragon to not eat you then you are as good as dinner.
>>43517671
>rolling
Faggot should have known to put no points into stealth and just roll a wizard capable of casting invisibility.
>>43517659
The DM arbitrates what calls for a check.
You tell a PC whether or not a stealth check can be made in the first place. If it wasn't possible then you need to tell them it isn't'.
Same thing with social shit, diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate are not the same thing as charm person. You can't just do it whenever you want to you do it when the DM arbitrates it possible.
What if he had a ring of invisibility and actually bombed his stealth roll?
>>43517816
Would he even need to make a stealth roll in the first place if he was invisible?
I guess they'd hear him or something.
>>43517803
I should add that bluffing/intimidating in combat is kind of up to the PC though.
>>43517719
Depends of the circumstences, really. Beating the guards' perception means that you manage to avoid them noticing you. You can just say: "I am careful to avoid their gaze, and sneak behind them when they aren't looking".
Same with the dragon. You don't say: "I find the argument to persuad the dragon", but you say "I tell him I am more useful alive", and if you roll good enough, the dragon is convinced.
As much as I like RP, it doesn't always need to be elaborate.
>>43517659
>Where do you stand on people making successful social skill rolls without roleplaying what their character says?
If you want to be technical, you don't NEED to roleplay any dice roll unless you want to.
In the real world, I accept that people are not as good at talking as I am, so I will ask them what they want to convey and HOW with their check.
>>43517826
Stealth checks get a +20 while invisible in pathfinder at least. Maybe he only had a +9 modifier and rolled a 2 or something.
>>43517816
If it's enough for the guard to notice him, then they'll hear the invisible fucker going around, or notice the traces he leaves.
>>43517843
Personaly, I'm a bit annoyed when it's just "I persuade the king to hire me" rather than "I tell the king I'm the one needed for this job." and the roll decides what happen
>>43517851
Well let's see. A guard probably has +3-5 to perception checks due to being level 2 or so with maybe a feat specifically for perception every couple guards. If the guy got a 30 there's a 0% chance they'll hear him.
>>43517841
That's one way to begin your persuasion with the Dragon, but that alone will only buy you enough time to elaborate what good you can be to the Dragon alive.
AS for sneaking past the guards, I guess it mostly depends on the environment. If it's an open courtyard during the day as I have been imagining, then you would need to do something extra, but if there are bushes/ if it's night time/ if another factor is at play then yes a straight perception vs stealth would work.
>>43517871
Indeed, if they are really that kind of guards.
Infiltrating a poorly-staffed fortress isn't the same than getting into the Dwarf King's treasure room.
>>43517659
Easy, if its something the player isn't comfortable with you get them to give you a jist of what they're aiming for and roll with it.
Of course, there's no frills that way, 'I inspire the peasants' means you just inspire them, you they don't consider you a leader or anything and won't follow you personally to the ends of hell.
Same way as the guy rolling stealth is screwing himself over by not realizing if he sets a distraction using XYZ then he can steal the guards wallet and discover he has a hot daughter that likes men in dark clothing as well.
Reward people for doing more, assume just rolling as a base line.
>>43517869
Then it's a personal gripe, but it's not technically wrong.
You get over it when you play with a variety of people and some of them aren't as fast on their feet or as glib as others.
I'd rather someone be short and curt, getting things done and advancing the game for everyone, than trip over themselves for 10 minutes trying to be witty and say something I could have said in 2 just as eloquently.
>>43517887
There is a point where you are being a hardass, tho.
No, it's not actually harder to sneak around during the day, because someone who is actually sneaky knows what to do, how to do it and the best approaches. That's why Stealth is a skill, and it encompasses the character's aggregate knowledge of doing so.
>>43517887
I wouldn't "sneak" in.
I'd disguise myself as a worker and stride in as tho I belonged there.
I have a question... do you GMs sometimes make the party face some situations in which not everything is a solution? Have your players ever complained about it?
Here's an example: the party reaches the city, by night. They approach the guards, who tell them that they'll have to wait until day to get in, because the gate is closed right now. So the rogue proposes a plan to sneak past the guards , open the gate and get in the city like that. But the guards have torches and can see anyone approaching the gates. Not only that, but the gate itself is massive and can't be lifted even by the whole party.
Have you ever had to shoot down a plan of the party before they set it in motion, without it being part of a railroad, but simple logic?
>>43517719
I have some qualms with this logic: if the GM doesn't describe the situation very well, how am I supposed to imagine exactly what my character does? Is there a spot where the light of the torches doesn't reach? Can I hide there and then sneak from the shadows, out of the peripheral vision of the guards? Is there a little crack in the wall that allows me to sneak through or hide when the patrol walk by without being detected? Is one of the guards asleep?
It's a bit difficult, to know what to say if the DM isn't telling you exactly where is what and everything. It could invalidate your roll completely, actually.
>>43512685
So if he'd rolled a 10 but described it in a flowery enough way would you have allowed it?
So what's seen as an acceptable roll to sneak past bog standard guards? DC 65?
>>43517948
Roll for sneaking. Apply all you skill, feat, ability, equipment and other bonuses. Add any situational modifiers. Roll Spot for whoever you're sneaking past. Whatever number beats that is an acceptable roll for sneaking.
>>43517938
That's a good idea desu. A quick deception to make sure your disguise is believed and you are in.
>>43517887
>That's one way to begin your persuasion with the Dragon, but that alone will only buy you enough time to elaborate what good you can be to the Dragon alive.
No, the dragon is convinced you are useful. He will then act on this information, probably by saying somehting like "very well, I'll let you live for the moment. Now to X useful thing, or else." Nothing prevents the dragon from changing his minds if the situation change, though, especially if it's proven believing the PC was a bad idea
>. If it's an open courtyard during the day as I have been imagining, then you would need to do something extra, but if there are bushes/ if it's night time/ if another factor is at play then yes a straight perception vs stealth would work.
No, that's the thing. Straight perception vs stealth is always a possibility, unless there is literaly no way the character could succeed (DC too big compared to their skills, for exemple). The thing is, the environement/what time is it/how the guards act/how the PC acts provide *modifiers*, that will change how hard it is.
The PC could just go "I avoid their gaze, am silent, and go behind them." In an open courtyard during the day, with alert guards, it will be fucking difficult, but still possible. At midnight, with tired guards, it would be easier. Or the PC could be smarter and say "I use the bushes to conceal my presence until I'm the closest possible, then wait for the rain to fall to diminish the chances the guards see me", in which case they'll get a bonus (or the guards get a disadvantage).
>>43517719
>You have to do something RP wise to distract them or avoid their line of sight by entering an unobserved enterance.
Compare:
>I attack the Orc
OK, roll to-hit
>I sneak into the compound
Ok, tell me how before I allow you to use your sneak skill.
ONE OF THESE PLAYERS is getting fucked by the GM. The only correct answer is "By rolling 'Stealth' and rolling high."
>>43517944
> do you GMs sometimes make the party face some situations in which not everything is a solution?
Yup.
>Have your players ever complained about it?
Sometime, but generaly they understand how they don't have the capacities for this plan and search for something else
>Have you ever had to shoot down a plan of the party before they set it in motion, without it being part of a railroad, but simple logic?
Sure.
>>43517969
This
>>43517994
false comparison. one attack vs infiltrating an entire compound?
you might as well have the fighter say "i kill the entire orc war party" "roll to hit"
"i roll to sneak past the guard" maybe more legit. still pretty boring though.
>>43518007
Good, because sometimes I get this feeling that /tg/ thinks that every player should have every possibility of doing anything. At least a chance, if s/he rolls high enough.
I am happy that you do what you do, anon!
>>43517924
>No, it's not actually harder to sneak around during the day
It is if you are not in cover. If you try to sneak down an empty road during the middle of the day, then you are at a disadvantage. If you try to sneak right past a guard in the middle of the day and they are not distracted and you are not actually hidden by any feasible mean, at all, then you will be at a disadvantage and the guard may even get advantage depending. The player cans just roll and do something all the time, sometimes you have to plan and role play to get the job done. I'm not saying he could of never snuck past the guard, but you at least have to try to justify your action outside of just a role.
>>43517994
>I attack the Orc
>OK, roll to-hit
Personally I'd never let my players get away with that shit. You've gotta specify that shit man, 'cause I ain't narrating how you swing your axe for you. There's a lot of difference between "I thrust my blade at his face" and "I swing my sword downwards into the bandit's shoulder."
>>43517994
While I agree with you on the principle, it's true that sneaking into a compound is a bit more complex than attacking a foe.
But it's true that "I attack the guard" shouldn't be treated differently than "I sneak past the guard" or "I bribe the guard with gold coins".
>>43517944
>if the GM doesn't describe the situation very well, how am I supposed to imagine exactly what my character does
This defiantly is a good point. It is on your DM to give you the layout of the area, but if you feel inadequately informed, it's on you to ask the DM for details. Sometimes he may be vague because there isn't much to work with. Sometimes he will give you a key detail that solidifies a good plan. You just have to ask first and observe the situation until you know what to do.
>>43518034
Do they have to narrate how they cast spells too, or can they just say "I cast Magic Missile"?
>>43518021
>Good, because sometimes I get this feeling that /tg/ thinks that every player should have every possibility of doing anything. At least a chance, if s/he rolls high enough.
Well,the thing is that there is DCs that the PCs simply can't roll high enough. Like, yes, someone COULD lift the gate. If they managed to roll a 70 on a d20 + STR bonus. It's impossible for those PCs, but if they somehow piss off a demigod of War and that he prusued them to this city, he could theoreticaly manage to do it.
So yeah, don't be afraid to say "you can't succeed with this plan".
>>43518100
What do you think the spell descriptions in the book are for, dingus?
>>43518021
>Good, because sometimes I get this feeling that /tg/ thinks that every player should have every possibility of doing anything. At least a chance, if s/he rolls high enough.
Well,the thing is that there is DCs that the PCs simply can't roll high enough. Like, yes, someone COULD lift the gate. If they managed to roll a 70 on a d20 + STR bonus. It's impossible for those PCs, but if they somehow piss off a demigod of War and that he prusued them to this city, he could theoreticaly manage to do it.
So yeah, don't be afraid to say "you can't succeed with this plan".
>>43518034
Sorry, is this sarcasm?
>>43518026
They can try to just sneak in, but they'll get disadvantages or the guards will be advantaged.
Bob the lowly thief will probably not succeed, but Master Bait, GREATEST BURGLAR ALIVE!, might have the skills to do so.
I dunno, even D&D (which is usually the thing pointed to for such complaints) is pretty good for this. By default, you need cover or concealment for stealthing - so literally either something to hide behind or it being dark/foggy/etc enough for them to not see clearly is needed to even get started. Stuff that let you ignore this tends to be logical enough - if it's (Ex) it's stuff like camouflage or whatnot (high level stuff nonetheless), and if it's (Su) it's, well, magical shit like hiding in something's shadow.
Outside of that, it seems pretty straightforward. If you let them know the lay of the land, the rules mean that they can't just walk past a guy in broad daylight without the aforementioned explaining abilities, and figuring out how to get the cover/concealment needed covers the giving detail/interacting with it part. There, they're getting it working as it should, and you're getting more than "I roll and sneak past everything forever".
One of the more awkward parts of this stuff is working out how often to ask for stealth rolls. Never been quite sure there.
>>43518104
I'm pretty sure the Demigod of War wouldn't waste time lifting the gate.
>>43518104
How does that gate gets opened at all, though?
>>43517719
I thought stealth rolls were just an abstraction of doing that thing exactly.
>>43518166
Some kind of winch mechanism?
>>43516347
Something that has little place in games.
>>43518128
If Mr. Bait is a higher lever he will have a better chance. Thief rogues can get advantage on stealth to counter disadvantage of the direct middle of the day approach.
>>43518169
Not really. It just determines how well hidden or silent you are. If you are walking past a guard, you are obviously not hidden unless darkness is hiding you. Silence alone can only get you so far.
But non. You are literally invisible if you roll a 20 with 0 ranks in stealth. Literally invisible.
>>43518166
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winch
>>43512685
>2015
>Not letting the player roll first and then letting him/her narrate how he does based on the roll
>>43518239
You're wrong, Sheryl. Go be lewd with Henriette or read the rules.
>>43518169
That would be correct. You still have to be stealthy to use the skill, though.
Like, you can't use Stealth and slap the guard's face with your dick at the same time, unless you have powers that allow you to hide in plain sight.
>>43518202
That's what I meant, yeah.
A high-level rogue could just say "I'll go behind those guards, avoiding their vision field and staying silent."
>>43518021
Sure, if they roll high enough.
However, you're supposed to apply modifiers, bonuses and penalties and shit, that make it so that rolling high enough to do impossible things is, just that, impossible.
Unless you toss in magic, and then "impossible" goes to cry in a corner as the fabric of reality is bent six ways to Sunday with the power of the wizzard's brainymeats.
>>43517994
>the orc is across the room from you
>I attack the Orc
How? You're out of range and you only have your bastard sword out. You going to charge him, or draw your bow, or do anything else?
>I charge the orc.
Ok, roll to hit.
>I sneak into the compound
How? There's guards on lookout.
>I avoid the guard's line of sight and sneak in
Ok, roll your sneak skill.
PROTIP: If there's a limiting factor as to why you can't use an ability, I'm going to ask how you're going to get around it. Most people know they have to move up adjacent to an orc to hit it with a sword, and guess what? That's just as much effort as it takes to avoid the guard's gaze.
>>43518248
>that filename
>>43518034
This.
>I attack the orc!
>I cast fireball!
>I haggle with the merchant!
>I intimidate the guard!
>I try to negotiate!
You fucking what? When people continuously pull this shit I have the NPCs treat them like creepy emotionless freaks and ask why they attack with weird robotic flailings.
>>43518694
I played a creepy emotionless killer kid before, it was pretty fun.
>>43518733
Go away, Chara.
>>43518733
I played a Kriegsman in Dark Heresy once, even the inquisitor acted a little afraid of him sometimes.
>>43518766
I love that characters will fail to recognise you as a human being in that game if you murderhobo. It goes well with >>43518694
>>43518291
But anon, all that Invisibility is 20 against Spot.
So at 20 Hide, you are invisible.
Its not hard.
The game works like that.
By the same scale, you are completely undetectable at 40.
>>43518771
That means you played him correctly.
>>43517640
You require concealment or cover to make a hide check. If you have shadows or bushes, yes you can sneak by them, but even if you roll a 100 you cannot hide somewhere with neither of those.
Being able to hide while observed is often a high-level ability, a supernatural power, or a racial power
>>43518793
Well, I'll be straight-forward with you. My brother'd really like to see a human...so y'know, it'd really help me out...if you kept pretending to be one.
>>43518034
>There's a lot of difference between "I thrust my blade at his face" and "I swing my sword downwards into the bandit's shoulder."
Not mechanically.
>>43516347
>wizards can be overpowered and do whatever they want
>everyone else can suck the wizards dick while he handles everything, because muh wizard superiority
You are the type of shit player/Gm that makes roleplaying games suck.
Either we let the characters break reality, or we don't. If we are throwing around fireballs, then for people on the same level of skill (like, sneak instead of being able to cast fireballs) you can do equally reality bending shit, like sneaking past people in broad daylight on an open field.
Because the assumption is that the wizard spent a fuck ton of time learning magic, which by extension means that the rogue spent an equal amount of time learning to be sneaky as fuck.
>>43518842
If you aren't involving flavor at all, why not just sit in a room by yourself and roll dice to look at the numbers they produce?
>>43512685
What are you trying to say here?
If you're trying to say that players should narrate their actions more, yeah, I can get behind that. Thing is, you've got to understand that, after you've done it a number of times, narrating how you do something becomes, I dunno, redundant? Boring? If every time you cast a fireball, you said "I hold my staff aloft and chant the words of fire: 'astcay ireaballay ownay!'" it just becomes a wordier way of saying "I cast fireball." With sneaking past guards, I don't think that happens enough to where it would become so mundane.
If you're trying to say your character can't just become invisible, I'd say that depends on the game. In a game where wizards throw fireballs, is it really out there that a character could become invisible? I don't think so.
>>43518891
Because fluffing out every single strike on every single mook without repeating yourself a dozen time is difficult and boring. I save the fluff for the major fights.
>>43512685
That's exactly how stealth was intended to work in D&D pre-3E. Anyone could attempt to sneak around, but only thieves could blend into any shadow or move without making any noise.
Unfortunately that wasn't communicated very well and now we have this shit.
>>43518891
Why do you have combat mechanics that aren't differentiated from each other at all?
>>43518931
Yep. Thief skills were magic, and thieves even eventually got magical spells.
>>43518034
>There's a lot of difference between "I thrust my blade at his face" and "I swing my sword downwards into the bandit's shoulder."
But in Dark Heresy hit location (And thus armor/critical effects) are determine by the hit roll. It wouldn't be right to fluff "I hit him in the face!" before rolling the dice that show that no, you hit him in the leg.
>>43518835
This is part of the check.
If there is absolutely no way of sneaking (and most of the time, there is one, no matter how small), then no rolls are allowed. If it's difficult, because there is a good number of guards, you're on daylight, there is no bushes, etc, you adjust the difficulty of the roll accordingly. You win the roll, you did it. You don't, you didn't succeed. It is easy to understand and there is really no room for interpretations.
Superhuman difficulty can be beat by superhuman skills. Even ten people guarding a small entrance can be misdirected and deceived by somebody small, fast and good enough. Just ask magic performers. They routinely do things even more difficult.
>>43517944
>Have you ever had to shoot down a plan of the party before they set it in motion, without it being part of a railroad, but simple logic?
Yes. Usually, it's enough to just explain the logic. In your example, I'd just remind them that infiltrating the gatehouse in order to open the defences is an act usually followed by an invading army marching through said gate, and as a result security is tight and that if the party is caught, the guards will assume it's an act of war and respond accordingly by raising the alarm.
So, if they want to risk summary execution as spies and causing a city-wide panic just to avoid having to sleep on their bedrolls for one more night, they can try it.
[spoilers]Then if they succeed, they'll learn that without hospitality papers from the customs officer at the gatehouse, none of the merchants in town will trade with an outsider.
I stopped trying, and just goes for "I attack", because my GM keeps slapping us with penalties regardless of what we say.
>Heavily armoured dude with sick damage reduction regardless of what part of the body we target.
>I thrust my sword towards one of the joints in his armour, knowing my sword can't pierce his armour directly. I use the fact that he just parried a blow from my companion to sidestep around him a bit to get a better angle.
>GM: alright -1 for moving, and -3 for targeting a small area
>okay...
>hit
>rolls for damage
>not high enough, the damage reduction reduces it to zero.
>despite targeting an area that wasn't as armoured?
>yes, it doesn't matter where you target him, he always have his damage reduction from his armour
>...Then Why did I get -3 to hit?
I just gave up trying to fluff anything if I just get riddled with penalties, and no bonuses at all for trying. Not even exp bonuses, nothing. Just pure penalties.
>>43518960
Out of curiosity, does DH have anything resembling called shots?
>>43518802
No, that's not how it work.
at 20 in Hide, you are hard to percieve. If you are invisible, you have a +20 at hiding, because you remove one of the big clues of your presence, clouding other people's perception.
At 40, only those who are really, really perceptive can find where you are.
>>43518938
This.
Imagine playing a wizard, but every single spell does the exact same fucking thing mechanically, they're just "flavored" differently, and you have a fighter.
A fighter thrusting his sword at the bandit should mechanically be different from the fighter bringing the blade down on the bandit's shoulder. Otherwise, your combat system is at least ten dicks.
>>43518983
Not every system is so precise, nor do they NEED to be.
>>43518835
>>43518969
>Being able to hide while observed is often a high-level ability
There is means to misdirect a person enough to vanish from its viewpoint, even when he glares at you, by the way. This is difficult, but some martial arts and magic performers routinely do vanishing tricks. Very impressive.
You need very good skills and to be really fast, but isn't that covered by having a good stealth skill?
>>43518976
Yes, actually. There's a hit penalty, as I recall, but it's till useful, especially if you aim a bit first.
So you can snipe fuckers in their poorly armored head.
>>43518974
Your GM sounds like the biggest arsehole this side of Uranus.
I hope he gets rabies.
>>43518974
Have you considered telling the GM to stop this bullshit, or to stop playing with him if you did and he refused to do so?
>>43518960
For this reason alone, I tend to fluff my attack after rolling
I say "I attack", I figure out where I hit, and how well I did, and then fluff it from there. If the target dodges or parries, to GM counters my fluff with his own, and it creates a pretty cool and dynamic combat experience.
We never say what we try to do before rolling. It doesn't make sense. Rather do it after knowing how well you did. Same with any other roll. So a seduction roll that went well would be me explaining how I am.smooth talking some, while a failure would be me doing some bad pick up line right out of a bad joke.
>>43518991
"All your spells do the same thing, wizard, because this game doesn't NEED to be precise."
fuck that fuck you
>>43519012
I played Dark Heresy through IRC, so we'd discuss the mechanics of the move ("I attack, any modifiers? ... Ok, +X for this, +Y for that, -Z for this, that's +T total, Target number's N, rolling... And that's a hit to the dong") in the OOC channel, and then we'd fluff it out in the IC channel.
>>43519013
welcome to evocation
>>43518980
It's a joke, m8
Rolling 20 does not mean automatic success but people tend to mistakenly houserule it as such, so it became a running gag that getting a 20 on anything means you were fucking incredible at it.
i.e. "I rolled to pet my dog but I got a 20. It was so content it ascended to Nirvana and became a bodhisattva."
>>43519008
I have, but he is the only GM I know aside from myself, and I don't want to be a forever GM, coupled with the fact that it is the same group, so I can't run my own party at the same time.
Maybe I should just do what this guy does instead:
>>43519012
>>43517994
That's a poor comparison. There are only so many ways to attack an enemy, and many of them are covered as skills or manoeuvres. There's no need to differentiate between a chop and a slash, for example.
Sneaking into a compound, however, could go very differently depending on how you attempt to do so. Maybe you attempt to slip past the guards unnoticed, or walk past them in disguise, or make a distraction to let yourself in. Perhaps you instead try slipping over the walls or through a weakness, like a sewer pipe large enough to crawl through.
Each method changes the situation. If you try to slip past the guards directly, the difficulty would be higher. If you used a disguise, there would be a record of your entry that could later be exposed. If you use a distraction to make an opening, the guards will be on higher alert afterwards. If you crawled through a sewer, that changes where you start from within and penalizes further stealth checks slightly until you rid yourself of the stench.
You need to at least provide a baseline the DM can build on.
>>43519042
>I cast Fireball!
d20 to hit, 2d6 damage
>I cast Magic Missile!
d20 to hit, 2d6 damage
>I cast Sleep!
d20 to hit, 2d6 damage
>I cast Polymorph!
d20 to hit, 2d6 damage
>I cast Invisibility!
d20 to hit, 2d6 damage
>>43519056
You pet the Dog. Critical pet! Its excitement knows no bound.
>>43519013
>a system does not need to be so precise because that level of detail doesn't always serve the game
>strawmans an argument for no real reason
I could argue with you, but then... it would be a waste of time. Here is your reply.
>>43518135
That's easy though. Just carry a tower shield.
Hiding behind a tower shield grants full concealment. Stealth hides you and all your equipment, including the shield. It's the fantasy equivalent of the cardboard box.
>>43519088
>I cast Sleep!
>I cast Polymorph!
>I cast Invisibility!
hey these aren't evocation you're trying to trick me!
>>43519069
>There's no need to differentiate between a chop and a slash, for example.
Then there's also no need to differentiate between waiting for the right moment to slip past and creating a diversion and slipping through the air ducts because they're all be making the same fucking stealth roll.
>>43519104
>>strawmans an argument for no real reason
Seemed more like reductio ad absurdum to me, which is a valid argument.
People abuse the word 'strawman.'
>>43519104
If you can't answer why wizards get a precise, varied system while fighters get a boring, one button system, then don't both hitting the post button, chief.
Let's imagine a being, created as a guardian, who has the power to see everything in a given perimeter.
This being, that we can call the Panoptikon, has perfect visual perception. It can percieve the smallest change in air current, the smallest speck of dust, is not troubled by intense light or by deep darkness, etc.
It would be impossible to hide from the Panoptikon, so a rogue would have to find another way to fool it.
Now, let's compare this to, say, the elven guards in the queen's courtyard. They're in broad daylight, alert, knows the place like the back of their hand and have good sensory capacities.
Even if it's monstrously difficult, a rogue would still have the possibility to hide from them and sneak behind them. Find a blindspot in their scanning, breath only when they do, wait until they're focusing on the wrong part of the place, etc.
Saying "I try to sneak behind them" is valid, but it basically means "My character is improvising based on his training and what he thinks is going on." rather than "here's the plan, how much does it helps my character?"
>>43518931
>Unfortunately that wasn't communicated very well and now we have this shit.
Honestly I feel this line should be slapped on every D&D book sometimes.
>>43519101
>>43519148
Until a rogue figures out how to stay perfectly outside Panoptikon's perimeter, and lure him away just so that whatever it is he's guarding is just outside his perimeter as well.
Because fuck you Panoptikon.
>>43518983
The average cut and thrust doesn't need to be differentiated, because the defining point of a standard attack iistha they are standardized. Moves beyond that, such as a shield bash, a pommel strike, half-swording, trips, feints, counters, and pocket sand, are distinct skills or attacks of their own, with accordingly different mechanical effects.
>>43519161
>>43518931
Actually, it was because 3.X was "why are you not using magic?"
The design team kind of got pissed at the non-casters.
Thankfully the other editions undid most of the damage... though not the ones done on 3.X players.
>>43519135
Fighters have a few buttons they use most of the time and are pretty good in those situations, Wizards have a lot of buttons with use conditions and with efficacity that is more context-dependant.
If you're not playing 3.X or its clones, that is.
>>43518980
There is even a scaling chart for spot checks.
It literally works like that.
>>43519198
>standard attack
>standardized
That's the problem: you have one class with standardized actions, and the other class has actions with real depth to them (not just in the variety of different magic spells they have available to them, but also that often the same magical spell can be used in different ways).
Again, if we're to have standardized attacks for the fighters, why not standardized magic for wizards? Standardize all the magic spells so that they're d20 to hit and do 2d6 damage. Makes as much sense as doing the same to attacks.
>>43519134
Except the argument is a foolish one, and has no real bearing.
A game to choose how much detail it places into what aspects, and espousing that there is some innately positive aspect to one way or another is asinine. More is not inherently better, nor is less.
>>43519189
That would go in the " a rogue would have to find another way to fool it." clause.
Rogues could also perfectly disguise themselves into one of the persons the Panoptikon is authorised to let near the item, or just take a ballista and aim at the fucker.
>>43519135
Because I don't play just 3.pf, anon.
>>43519120
Yes there is, for the exact reasons I just explained. If you sneak in through the ducts, then you're going to make several checks in there as you navigate to where you're trying to go and inevitably get the opportunity to eavesdrop on the villain's master plan, as seen in every spy movie ever made. If you fail and are discovered, you're facing heavy penalties to escape from a tight space.
Meanwhile, if you used a distraction the guards are going to be more alert afterwards, meaning you get a rolling penalty for a while afterwards, possibly the duration of the mission, but since you aren't in a fucking metal tube, it's infinitely easier to recover and escape if you're detected.
>>43519260
>sneak through the ducts
d20 stealth roll
>sneak past the guards
d20 stealth roll
>wait for them to go on lunch and then
d20 stealth roll
>hide in a box and get on a cart and
d20 stealth roll
>penalties
So you're saying if I describe myself as sneaking through the air ducts, I get penalized more than the guy who just says "I sneak past the guards, staying out of their line of sight." Haha fuck you.
>>43519246
The spells don't have more real depth to them, it's just that they're a complexe, context-dependant toolbox compared to a simpler one that can be used in more situation.
>>43519290
>So you're saying if I describe myself as sneaking through the air ducts, I get penalized more than the guy who just says "I sneak past the guards, staying out of their line of sight." Haha fuck you.
Actually, Anon said that if you get in the airduct, you will be harder to find, but that you'd have penalties to escape if discovered, while if you just sneak in, you would have penalties to do so, but none in particular to escape if discovered.
>>43519292
>spells don't have more real depth to them
Grease can be used to make things slippery. You can make the floor slippery so people fall, you can make a weapon's handle slippery so an attacker fumbles it, you could make a shield's face slippery and go skateboarding on it, you could make bars or bindings slippery so you can more easily slip through them, or you could make your clothes slippery to slip out of grapples. And if that weren't enough, the grease can be used with fires. You can grease a goon and set his dumb ass on fire.
Tell me spells don't have depth, because I love hearing idiots say stupid shit.
>>43519316
Okay, but basically, if I describe my actions, you twisted wish me and fuck me over like an asshole genie, so I'm better off staying vague. Got it.
"I roll for stealth."
>>43519246
>Again, if we're to have standardized attacks for the fighters, why not standardized magic for wizards?
Because wizards already have the same standardized attack: whacking somebody with their staff.
Every single class has the same basic, generic "attack" option, then has skills and abilities beyond that unique to their class. Every class can swing a sword, but only fighters get to use more elaborate (and thus mechanically distinct) moves like parries or leading the enemy into dodging into the path of a followup.
The problem is that too many systems don't differentiate those things enough and fold everything under "an attack", making the only real difference flavor. Additionally, all those moves tend to be very focused in their uses compared to the versatility of magic in general.
>>43519330
All the things you have said, save
>You can grease a goon and set his dumb ass on fire.
are true, and directly covered in the spell's description. However, because magic in 3.pf is permissive, because the spell does not say it is flammable, you must assume it is not.
>>43519339
Then you're giving the DM free reign to decide how you went in. If they really wanted to fuck you, now they get to go wild.
So, since you didn't say otherwise, you snuck in by hiding yourself in a crate, unaware that the shipment you've infiltrated is bound directly for the docks to be shipped on the evening tide.
Worse, they stack another crate on top of yours. By the time you've freed yourself, you're at sea and the city is cresting the horizon.
Or you could think like a normal person and realize that difficulty changing with the situation is completely normal, not a sign that everyone's out to get you.
>>43519339
It's not twist wish. The GM is supposed to tell you what's likely to happen, if your character know can think of it.
Like:
>"I roll for stealth"
>"Alright, do you go for the airduct, or for the front door? Because the door is harder to infiltrate, but if you're seen you won't have to crawl out of the tube."
>>43519355
>Every single class has the same basic, generic "attack" option, then has skills and abilities beyond that unique to their class.
Except fighter. And you can't say "disarm" because everyone can do a disarm.
>>43519374
Previous editions said specifically it was flammable, 3.pf doesn't say whether it is or isn't, but I've been in games where it was played like it was.
>>43519433
>not a sign that everyone's out to get you
>interprets everything I'm saying in a way that purposefully fucks me over
Genie, for my last wish, I wish I'd never met you!
>>43519330
All you said can be summarized with "the spell makes things more slippery and oily, gain X bonus when relevant."
There is no more depth to it than any other actions giving bonuses
>>43519448
>Except fighter. And you can't say "disarm" because everyone can do a disarm.
Are you talking about 3e or pf?
Because talking about fighters from those games is like saying that Batman sucks because of the Adam West's series in the 60's
>>43519290
>sneak through the ducts
d20+9 stealth roll, opponent gets a free rounds if detected.
>sneak past the guards
d20 stealth roll
>wait for them to go on lunch and then
d20+12 stealth roll to avoid detection while waiting, d20+5 stealth to slip in. Time lost.
>hide in a box and get on a cart and
Infiltration autosucceeds, d20+10 stealth roll to get out of the box unnoticed. DM decides where you ended up, time lost.
>>43518832
So Krieg are universally bad at sex?
How do they produce more mechanical, emotionally dead children then?
>>43519517
Very mechanically. Missionary position, for the sole purpose of procreation, with the lights off.
Or test tube babies or something fuck if I know
>mfw I don't play shit editions
>>43519514
>I slash for the bandit's torso
d20+3 attack roll
>I bring my sword down on the bandit's shoulder
d20+1 attack roll, bandit has to make a check to see if they keep ahold of whatever they have in that hand
>i go for a pommel strike to the opponent's head
d20 attack roll, opponent makes a check to see if stunned or knocked out
Oh wait no we can't have interesting mechanics in this game. Gotta standardize attacks, standardize stealth, standardize magic, standardize standards. Everything is a d20 for 2d6 damage. You sneak and do 2d6 damage to the guards (2d6 shame damage because they feel bad they didn't see you).
>>43519448
>3.pf doesn't say whether it is or isn't, but I've been in games where it was played like it was.
Then that was a houserule.
All spells in 3.pf say exactly what the spell CAN do. It's why some fire spells explicitly say "Sets flammable items alight" and some do not. I believe fireball does not set things on fire, flaming hands does.
>>43519471
>interprets everything I'm saying in a way that purposefully fucks me over
If you honestly think that's what any of those examples are, you're a fucking idiot.
Purposely fucking you over would be something like
"I sneak in through the air vent."
>"Forty feet into the vent, you find yourself being sucked into a giant fan. The vent is too tight to turn around and the vacuum is too powerful to resist. Take 5d6 slashing damage, sixes explode since you're going in head first, and you take a permanent -d4 to charisma if you survive due to disfigurement."
>"OK, scratch that, I just slip past the guards while they're changing shifts."
"You trip the ward which activates during shift changes, which was built to stop exactly what you're doing. Both shifts of guards are now aware of you. Roll initiative."
>"Wait, why couldn't I detect the ward? I should have seen it while I was watching the gate and waiting."
"It's undetectable unless it's active."
>"This is bull, I sneak in through a crate."
">>43519433 happens. Roll on this table to determine the ship's destination."
>>43519544
You seem to have me confused with someone else, since I've argued in favor of those sorts of variations at several points in the thread.
>>43519544
>>43519514
>sneak through the ducts
d20 with advantage stealth roll, opponent gets a free rounds if detected.
>sneak past the guards
d20 stealth roll
>wait for them to go on lunch and then
d20 stealth roll with advantage to avoid detection while waiting, d20 with advantage tealth to slip in. Time lost.
>hide in a box and get on a cart and
Infiltration autosucceeds, d20 stealth roll with advantage to get out of the box unnoticed. DM decides where you ended up, time lost.
>I slash for the bandit's torso
d20 attack roll
>I bring my sword down on the bandit's shoulder
d20 attack roll, bandit get disadvantage for using this hand OR opposed roll to make him drop what he hold
>i go for a pommel strike to the opponent's head
Opposed roll to stun
>>43519666
Uh, no, standardized attacks. Everything is just d20 and then do damage because standardization is fun!
But how dare you not describe every special snowflake standardized attack you make, you ROLL player.
A character should be just as capable as the character sheet suggests they are. If someone is trying to sneak around and is succeeding because the *player* is doing all the thinking for the career stealth master (..lol), then that character shouldn't suddenly become a bumbling fuckup if the initial player has to leave and someone were to sub in for them (supposing the substitute isn't sure how to describe stealth/prefers not to talk in general.)
A description makes the game more fun and should be encouraged but it is not at all necessary. The character that has been stealthing their whole life will know how to move unnoticed through an area way better than their player ever will. If you want to play your own little subgame where they get a cookie every time they needlessly describe something they want their character to do, then fine: just admit that it's (1) incongruous and (2) a part of the game you inserted on your own.
>>43519682
>not improvising mechanical effects and circumstance bonuses or penalties when the Fighter tries to do something specific
People like you are why "I stand next to him and full attack" is considered the standard.
>>43519682
What the fuck are you even arguing at this point? It almost seems like you're trying to argue that attack rolls should have variations but other checks shouldn't, which is completely retarded. They both ought to get variations.
>>43512685
This happened to me a few years ago with a player who had played a lot of MMOs, but no tabletop RPGs.
>Me, GM: The only entrance you can find has one guard standing at it, keeping a sharp lookout. He hasn't spotted you.
>Player: I stealth.
>GM: Do you mean you try to sneak past?
>Player: Yeah, but I stealth, too.
>GM: You're -using- your stealth skill to sneak past, yeah.
>Player: I mean I enter stealth mode.
>GM: Like, by crouch-walking, or...?
>Player: No no, I turn invisible. I stealth.
>GM: You can't turn invisible, you don't know that spell. You're a rogue.
>Player: Yeah but I have the stealth skill, that's what that is, right?
>GM: No, having the stealth skill just means you're good at sneaking and hiding, it doesn't mean you turn invisible.
>Player: Oh.
ONE SESSION LATER
>Player: I don't want to play a rogue anymore. Here's my new character.
>>43519755
Well, it IS the player's fault for being an illiterate nigger
>>43519682
What are you talking about? This >>43519666 is near literaly the 5e rules for the issue.
>>43519755
>>43519794
Come on when I started I hated reading the books. It was too heavy and boring, I wanted to play. Now that I understand tabletop I like reading books but even now sometimes it's hard to navigate
>>43519844
I mean, I'm not expecting a new gay to read all the wizard spells and how grappling works, but if you're rolling a fuckin rogue you should at least read how sneaking works. It's like a fighter not knowing basic melee mechanics.
>>43518832
Very interesting read.
The DKoK are my favourite regiment of the Imperial Guard.
>Krieg gangbang
>Each one takes turns fucking the woman in the missionary position, mechanically and without enjoyment, cum inside, then get up
>The others stand at attention and observe without moving
>They're all mentally complaining that it is wasteful since only one successful fertilization is required per child, and it is unclear if the woman is even fertile at the present.
>Slaanesh cries itself to sleep while gnawing a pillow in frustration after seeing this.
>>43512685
Do you ask a player how he performs a surgery when rolling for medicine? I doubt you do.
The same goes for any other activity. If someone rolled a 30 on stealth check on my session, I wouldn't bug him and stall the session with bullshit about guard's patrolling routine and detailed descriptions of the environment. I would probably make up the environment depending on the roll and player's plan.
>>43520438
>The others stand at attention and observe without moving
>>43517640
>Maybe a distraction
No a distraction would be something he'd specifically have to say he was doing, if you roll a sneak roll to walk past a guard, you are literally just sneaking on tippy toes in the shadows around the guard.
that said, the DC to make that sneak roll is lowered if a PC first does do a distraction to get them looking in the wrong direction.
>>43518854
You are either magic or not magic. If you are not magic, you can be as stealthy as you want but you are not going to become invisible. If you want to become invisible, learn a spell.
>>43520452
>Do you ask a player how he performs a surgery when rolling for medicine?
Yes.
"Having limited time and without access to the proper equipment I take out my smaller knife and dislodge the bullet, then I soak the wound in alcohol and cut strips from my sleeve to use as a bandage."
If they want to do something exceptionally long and tedious while everyone else is talking or otherwise engaged then I would only ask for a bare-bones explanation of what it is they're doing, but if someone makes a skill roll they'd better have an explanation for it.
>>43520565
So you require out of character knowledge for an in character skill, huh
>>43520595
> out of character knowledge
What?
In what way did I at all imply this?
>>43520612
By saying that you require a player to describe how he performs a surgery. Not everyone knows medicine, you know.
>>43520504
1. Well sure if you're playing a shit system.
2. Its not about becoming invisible, its about ever increasing levels of implausibility. Someone with high Stealth should be able to sneak past people in ways that even the best real people cannot. For him, climbing through airvents stops being loud, etc.
3. The roll is the abstraction of it succeeding. If he rolls high on stealth, then he snuck past them. Everything past that is just coming to a consensus of HOW he did it.
>>43520565
>>43520595
I would say this cannot be applied universally and shouldn't be. Asking for flavor text is fine, but you can't honestly expect a player to know how surgery works, or how master thieves get past people in plain daylight.
>>43520612
By having the player know things that he may not know, just like the character may be a politician, but the player isn't.
>>43519755
Just a fucking shame it works like that in DnD.
It literally works like that. Especially when you use take 10.
>>43519517
Use of the "Vitae Womb", an AdMech sanctioned but rarely used technique to keep numbers up.
What exactly it entails has never been described in detail. Could go from 'in vitro fertilization' to 'cloning vats'.
>>43520624
I wouldn't expect them to understand how to sterilise their equipment but I'd expect them to tell me that the do so. Just like I wouldn't expect a person playing a rocket engineer to understand the schematics of a space shuttle, but I would expect them to know a fuel jet from a window.
>>43520674
>I'd expect them to tell me that the do so
Why? That ought to be covered by the character's skill/roll.
>>43520638
>>43520633
Listen, I've never been a doctor but I know that bullets should be removed from people they find themselves in, and that bandages stop you from bleeding to death. A fucking child would know this, and a person who wants to seriously roleplay a medic should at least know the function of what you generally find in a first aid kit.
>That guy makes a stealth character
>Hide and Move Silently so high that nothing short of a god could perceive him when he hid
>Starts fucking around by entering stealth, walking near guards and loudly singing "CLANG CLANG CLANG WENT THE TROLLEY, DING DING DING WENT THE BELL, ZING ZING ZING WENT MY HEARTSTRINGS"
>Picked up an apple in the middle of a crowded room, everyone thought it was haunted
>DM eternally pissed at him for it
>>43520700
If the player has absolutely no idea what to do, then he can roll to see if his character would know and I'll fucking tell him, though never in my time as a GM have I encountered a player who was utterly oblivious as to who he was or what he could do. How is this a problem for anyone who has been to school for more than 5 years?
>>43520718
>>43520674
So basically, the character is stupid and will make rookie fuck ups because the player isn't as skilled?
>>43520718
Listen, I've never played a wizard, but I know that guano should be rubbed on your hands before speaking the incantation "AI NUNEMNOR AK LUMINIOUS AK JUDEN" and pointing your ring finger at the enemy, and that speaking "Kainsorous" aloud will make it burst before hitting an object. A fucking elven child would know this, and a person who wants to seriously roleplay a wizard should at least know the functions of what you generally find in a spell component pouch.
>>43517659
>I understand where you're coming from, but isn't that a bit of a slippery slope?
If you aren't going to accept it in stealth, then logically you shouldn't accept it in combat (as in his example) either.
>>43520762
>>43520774
I don't understand what you're getting at. Any human being who has lived on this planet for more than a decade and a half should be perfectly capable of knowing these things.
I am serious, if you don't know that bullets don't belong inside people, you're literally retarded and should not have internet access.
>>43520718
Shows what you know. Removing bullets, like any surgical operation, will cause further damage, so it should only be done if it's absolutely necessary - most often it's better to just leave them be.
>>43520822
You're missing the point. The point of the matter is that asking for flavor text is good, demanding it, especially for tasks there is no way the player could reasonably know how to do, is asinine. You'll either end up with the player describing rookie mistakes, or using the most rudimentary descriptions for complex injuries that would probably be handled another way.
>>43520718
Well, I've been forced to administer first aid as a non-medic, I've had to do tech-stuff when the smart guys were rendered ineffective, I've had to diplomacy when the party was split. It's not like every action will be one that the character is built for.
>>43520753
>If the player has absolutely no idea what to do, then he can roll to see if his character would know and I'll fucking tell him
Perfectly fine.
It's not as though one can expect average Joe the minutia of the local saints or how a master smith forges blades or how to parse administratum records. Flavor should be encouraged, possibly with roleplaying EXP, but not required. "I perform first aid" is a completely valid action.
>>43520822
The point is that you're apparently stuck in the "I know it so everyone should know it" stage of development, which most people advance beyond before the age of 8. Combine that with the "well you didn't say every minute thing your character was doing, so he fucks up QWOP style" bullshit and you have a recipe for never gaming with anyone of value ever again.
>>43520822
A fuckton of people who have been shot still have the bullets inside of them. If there's little risk of infection and the potential to cause more harm by removing it, it'll be left in. This is the case for a fairly good potion of gunshot wounds.
President Garfield would have survived his gunshot wound if the doctor wasn't a dumbass like you who tried digging out the bullet the moment he saw the man.
>>43520868
My point is that you don't have to know how to do something in order to describe your character doing it, you can describe your character beating out and tempering hot steel without knowing the first thing about blacksmithing.
>>43520870
And being a character unskilled in those areas, you would probably have to roll to see if you know what the hell you're doing and if successful I could give you something to work with.
>>43520852
Well, shit. But this fits my point perfectly, because despite me being factually incorrect, it was still a relatively nice description and exactly the sort of thing I expect (and pretty much always receive) from my players.
>>43521070
>My point is that you don't have to know how to do something in order to describe your character doing it, you can describe your character beating out and tempering hot steel without knowing the first thing about blacksmithing.
But you shouldn't NEED to.
>>43521070
>And being a character unskilled in those areas, you would probably have to roll to see if you know what the hell you're doing
Well, yeah. I mean, you have to roll for all your actions, skilled or otherwise.
>>43520646
In 3.X, maybe
>>43520822
So, according to you, just having the player say "I remove the bullet" is fine?
Even if it's in many case dangerous, require a full operating room and risk to cause more ills than good if done outside of certain specifics?
>>43521070
>Well, shit. But this fits my point perfectly, because despite me being factually incorrect, it was still a relatively nice description and exactly the sort of thing I expect (and pretty much always receive) from my players.
Point is, if you had a GM as strict as you are about demanding descriptions of skill checks, but more knowledgeable about medicine, he'd take your effort at describing surgery and say, "Well, you dig out the bullet, and in doing so cause even more damage. Now your patient is bleeding even worse, bandages be damned. Patient, take 1d6 damage."
>>43517994
>Could I try hitting the orc?
>No, he's 300 feet away.
>Could I try sneaking in?
> No, there's only one corridor in and the guards are standing side to side, gazing down the length if it.
>>43521070
>Well, shit. But this fits my point perfectly, because despite me being factually incorrect, it was still a relatively nice description and exactly the sort of thing I expect (and pretty much always receive) from my players.
So, for you, "I pray the gods of Metal to have them guide me in the forging my blade" is perfectly fine to roll a crafting roll, even in setting with no gods of Metal?
>>43520898
>The point is that you're apparently stuck in the "I know it so everyone should know it" stage of development
Nice one, except what the fuck am I saying I know that everyone else doesn't? I was wrong in this thread, and I wouldn't expect my players to not be wrong about anything ever. If I thought they'd said something stupid, I'd ask them if they were sure and tell them if I thought they had missed some vital information.
>"well you didn't say every minute thing your character was doing, so he fucks up QWOP style"
What the fuck are you talking about? I ask people to describe what they're doing, not write me an essay or a step-by-step comic strip on it.
>you have a recipe for never gaming with anyone of value ever again.
I have been GMing for 8 years and I cannot recall there having ever been any sort of issue regarding this.
>>43520646
It literally doesn't, though?
D&D specifically requires that you have cover or concealment to attempt to hide. You also usually can't take 10 in that sort of situation, since taking 10 is only allowed when there's no threat or distraction. The risk of discovery is automatically a threat, so taking 10 on a sneak check is pretty much never an option unless you specifically have an ability that allows you to take 10 when you otherwise couldn't.
It only works like that in D&D-based video games, which is probably where the player the other anon's greentext is about got the idea.
>>43521081
>>43521106
Not that guy, but ANY description tends to be better than none.
If you're a permissive GM it's nice to have someone do a bit of forethought into their actions, like "I try to persuade the guard to let us go because we look so innocent" rather than "I diplomacy the guard", or "I use a herb in the bandages help the wounds clot" rather than just "I use heal skill".
Even - ESPECIALLY when using magics and the like, you can throw in technobabble or whatnot to get people into the game more. "He hissed out the incantation, the wand tracing out the symbols for fire before the flames engulfed the wave of spiders" is a bit more interesting to me than "Ok, I'll have my character use firey hands with the wand".
Alchemy is great, you can do all sorts of odd things there.
>>43521081
I wholeheartedly disagree.
>>43521150
I don't understand how you came to this conculsion. Have you ever seen a movie where two characters lock blades while dueling and exchange snide remarks? It is very different from how actual swordfighting takes place, but it makes for a good scene so it doesn't matter very much.
>>43521126
I don't think that that's the case. I don't ask people for a calculated and precise diagnosis of their every motion, but for a description of an event with a bit of meat to it. When somone does something that I know is entirely wrong and stupid, I'll either ignore it if it's not important, or tell them if it is. I wouldn't say nothing and then make their player ignorance into a weapon against them, I've never done that and it sounds like a shit thing to do.
>>43518034
>Not keeping it a little vague so each player can have their own interpretation of what goes on.
I bet you make them narrate how they chew their food, and which sock they put on first.
>>43521314
>When somone does something that I know is entirely wrong and stupid, I'll either ignore it if it's not important, or tell them if it is. I wouldn't say nothing and then make their player ignorance into a weapon against them, I've never done that and it sounds like a shit thing to do.
Just a little bit ago, you were saying it's perfectly reasonable to demand sound descriptions from players because "Any human being who has lived on this planet for more than a decade and a half should be perfectly capable of knowing these things."
You're backpedaling. But you're backpedaling into actually sane and reasonable territory, so that's not a bad thing.
>>43516347
A retarded concept only new GMs and eternal that GMs think is a good idea to incorporate.
>>43521226
I'm all for fun descriptions, but it's a question of having nice things, not a necessary requirement. "I try to heal the guy" is enough, the same than "I use the smithy to forge a blade" or "I attack the brute".
I wouldn't accept "I diplomancy the guard", though, because it's too general, the same way that if someone told me "I attack the soldiers" I would ask "which one?"
>>43521226
There is a difference between saying it MUST be there and acknowledging there is something to be gained frm it.
But it shouldn't be a mechanical issue.
>>43521314
I respect the fact you disagree.
>>43521399
Yes i did say that. I am not backpeddling, I stand by that wholeheartedly. I never once said that I would fuck people over for not knowing things. When I said "these things", I was not referring to intimate knowledge of biology or medicine, but of knwoing such basic things as the importance of stemming bloodloss.
If someone was genuinely struggling for anything to say, I would help them by describing it myself, but this pretty much never happens to me.
ITT using the stealth skill doesn't make you stealthy
Seriously if you pull shit like this you're just a dick, using stealth is already a spotlight stealing tool if you are gonna make them spend 30 minutes describing how they do it you should consider a different hobby.
>>43521501
So you're saying that
>I do a piloting roll
to stop a plane from crashing wouldn't cut it for you, but
>I jump in the pilot's seat and try to maintain the plane in the air
would be ok?
>>43521519
>30 minutes
More like 15 seconds.
"I dart behind the vase, throw a copper piece behind me, and dart past when they look that way."
>>43521550
>GM: "As half-dragons, the guards risks to be offended by you throwing a copper piece. Roll for racial insensivity"
>>43521447
>>43521466
That's fair enough. It's why I said "better", and not "absolutely necessary". It does tend to help clarify things like "which one are you shooting at" or "what are you trying to achieve", though.
>>43521519
If you can't balance spotlighting then you're a bad GM to begin with. Give the rest of the team something else to do as well. Are you going to say the party face can't RP talking to people because it's not fun for the other players too?
>>43521547
I'd say "I take to the pilot's seat, pulling back on the controls to end the dive and and activating several switches to stabilise the plane's flightpath."
But I'd accept what you've said and add to the description after you roll.
Rolled 20 + 15 (1d20 + 15)
>>43521584
The guards may be offended, that means they're more likely to be lead astray!
>>43521584
Fuck that, if I'd know what race they were I wouldn't have been sneaking. I lift up the vase and hurl it at them while screaming the most dreadful racial slurs I can come up with.
Fucking dragonfuckers...
>>43521588
> Are you going to say the party face can't RP talking to people because it's not fun for the other players too?
RPing the face is something that 90% of the time is gonna affect the rest of the party, stealth 90% of the time is gonna be used so the sneaker can get some kind of advantage in the next fight.
>If you can't balance spotlighting then you're a bad GM to begin with. Give the rest of the team something else to do as well
Like what? I will admit I'm not the best GM but if the party rogue is sneaking ahead to scout out the next room should I be throwing monsters at everyone else half way through him doing that?
>>43521501
>I never once said that I would fuck people over for not knowing things.
You never said it in so many words, but you sure as hell implied it when, rather than rejecting the suggested summary of your position:
>So basically, the character is stupid and will make rookie fuck ups because the player isn't as skilled?
You defended your policy as reasonable:
>Any human being who has lived on this planet for more than a decade and a half should be perfectly capable of knowing these things.
Perhaps that was not in fact what you meant to imply, but if that's the case you really need to work on your communication skills. If you respond to a claim about what your position entails by defending your position rather than denying the claim, that comes across as a tacit admission that the claim is a valid representation of your position.
>>43521610
Your reckless action sends the guards to their sub reddit for Guards' Rights Activists, and they spend the next hours complaining about you and your behavior.
However, you risk to attract unwelcome attention, because of this. Roll for Anonymity.
>>43512685
>If I roll an 80 on escape artist I can go someone butthole's up even if I'm a fucking giant
>But if I roll an 80 on stealth I can't be invisible
Ok
>>43521725
If I roll an 80 on escape artist I can go someone butthole's up even if I'm a fucking giant
You're not the only one in there
>>43512685
This .gif enrages me.
>>43521695
>Perhaps that was not in fact what you meant to imply, but if that's the case you really need to work on your communication skills.
Well I guess I'm a fucking retard then. I apologise for the confusion. I completely failed to see the implication at the time and I now feel like a right old git.
>>43512685
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWcN4SK_o2g
Now go suck a goat's dick
>>43521725
Actually, I don't believe you can, unless that person already has a stupidly large anal gape. The original calculation was sized for a Small category creature.
Giants are size Large or higher, which would require a minimum of 4in^2 in area for a DC80 opening. Quickly calculating that out gives you the result that the recipient's ass would need to stretch to 2.26 in in diameter to accommodate a large sized creature. While a quick google search assures me that this is indeed possible, in most D&D settings, the only people who would be able to hide a giant rogue inside of themselves would be Bards with dragon fetishes.
>>43522018
>>43521725
>If someone can fit a 2" diameter dildo in them, they can anal vore a giant who is skilled enough at Escape Artist
Are John Peta manga set in the D&D world or something?
>>43522018
Someone post the Kobold singularity bomb.
>>43521641
If the rogue isn't allowed to show off neat sneaking skills why did you let him take it to begin with?
DMs seem horrible at handling stealth because it's harder to wrap your head around the concept of someone sneaking through a room unnoticed than killing things or using magic. Personal experience has convinced me to never, ever roll up stealth characters and reading through this thread has cemented the decision.
A wizard who casts invisibility on himself should NEVER be superior to a rogue who has dedicated all his skills and training to being a literal ninja who slips past the edges of people's vision like a ghost.
If you're ever about to say "no, you can't sneak by just because you rolled high", stop and ask yourself if you would have allowed a wizard with invisibility to sneak by. If the answer is yes, shut the fuck up.
>>43522290
>Personal experience has convinced me to never, ever roll up stealth characters and reading through this thread has cemented the decision.
Exchange stealth for martial and that's me
>>43522311
exchange stealth and martial for psyker
but that's got less to do with DMs and more awful luck
>>43522290
You can roll a stealth character, as long as you have magic to back it up
>>43522364
Honestly every single party should just consist of five wizards.
>>43522453
Four wizards and a cleric
>>43522453
I contend that better party balance consists of three wizards, a cleric, and a druid.
>>43522453
add a druid and a 1 to 2 clerics and you have the perfect party
>I'm going to roll a mundane PC, but I want to do magical stuff
Fuck you, if you want to do magic, roll a wizard
>>43522652
sneaking past a guy definitely requires magic yup
>>43512685
I'm pretty new and I'm wondering how well actually putting a challange to where you decide to stealth.
Like, putting negatives to their rolls if they have like, been seen or are it's midday with a very open place. How well does it work, should I go with the book or try to fix the books into my image?
>>43521909
Perfect
>>43517671
I make that motherfucker wave his hands and incant a spell.
First session I let him know I'm recording it all and he should too. In the following games he must stick to the formula or risk the mojo.
If we are really going hard core I make them come up with some pseudo-metaphysical reason for how their spell functions. It's sort of like startrek techno-babble: it doesn't actually need to work but it has to sound impressive and have some string of logic to it.
>guy makes a character
>thinks that making a high roll means he succeeds
>>43517947
A logical and reasonable course of action could get you a +2 to the roll.
i don't know what describing it 'flowerly' is supposed to mean though
>>43523352
>(of a style of speech or writing) full of elaborate or literary words and phrases.
>"flowery language"
>synonyms: florid, flamboyant, ornate, fancy, convoluted; high-flown, high-sounding, magniloquent, grandiloquent, baroque, orotund, overblown, pleonastic;
informalhighfalutin, purple, fancy-dancy, fancy-schmancy;
rarefustian
I made a stealth build specifically to deal with faggots like this. High enough mods to sneak past gods, constant non-detection and hide in plain sight at relatively low levels. Get riggity rekt son.
>>43523271
In a d% system
>>43518974
God damn man, I always hand out bonuses like candy when players do stuff like this. I hate the "my turn, I attack, roll → next turn" crap that combat can degenerate to.
I once had one of my players actually remember the description of the room they were in, and reached around and smashed a enemy in the face with an ornamental plate instead of his weapon one round. The ceramic shards in the eyes blinded the guy and had him stumbling around uselessly for a while, and the rest of the party's eyes lit up. They now try using anything they can to their advantage in combat and resort to basic attacks much less frequently now.
>>43523379
I meant in that context, but okay
>>43523551
Beautiful GM detected
>>43523551
>I hate the "my turn, I attack, roll → next turn" crap that combat can degenerate to.
I'd so many awful GMs that I'm used to start games like that, devoid of any creativity, if the GM seems to be nice eventually I start roleplaying even in combat.
>playing a d20 system
>allowing wizards to bypass obstacles because "lolmagic"
>giving out bonuses like +2 that don't matter for shit against a d20 roll
why did D&D ruin everything
>>43523568
It's pretty clear if you know the definition.
>So if he'd rolled a 10 but described it in an elaborate enough way would you have allowed it?
>>43521799
I actually used to hide in plain sight back when I was living in dorms in college - people would leave the room to pee and I'd just go into a corner that they had to walk past or stand behind the door and they'd usually take a while to figure out where I was.
>>43522290
Something I do is say that if you are invisible, you are also blind, because if you are invisible then your eyes cannot collect light in order to see. Invisibility then still has its uses, but you can't just use it to be captain stealthmaster and make the rogue look useless, because you can't see shit.
>>43524534
that's not how the invisibility spell works.
Magic is convenient in that it is allowed to be complete game breaking bullshit with little to no downside.
>>43512685
>>rolling 30
>>stealth character
what level is this guy?
also
>>not having hellcat stealth.
op's talking about someone who hasnt even properly invested in stealth.
>>43522290
As a DM invis is really easy to counter compared to a high stealth rogue
