MC caster fix, Frank style

[Essence]

Hide, in the SRD, states that you MUST have some amount of cover or concealment in order to make a hide check.
It also states that you CANNOT hide while being even casually observed.

HiPS overwrites the last rule: If you have some cover or concealment that you can reach, you can hide even with someone watching you.

Camoflauge (or the Shadowdancer version of HiPS if you're within 10' of a shadow) overwrites the first rule: If you aren't being observed, you can hide without needing cover or concealment to do so.

So, assuming we're talking about the most restrictive version of HiPS, the one that doesn't overwrite the first rule:
Ninja O again realizes he's stepped between RC and the signpost.
RC looks at Ninja O and thinks "holy crap, a ninja!"
Ninja O glances around, and finds some nearby cover and/or concealment..."Hey, that scotch broom looks like at least 10% concealment"...and, while RC watches him, he steps behind the scotch broom (which, for the purposes of this thread, is still right between RC and the signpost).

RC blinks a couple of times, and thinks "Damn ninja tricks! He's gone! ......wow, that scotch broom didn't seem so big before...." And RC leans around the "scotch broom" that's interfering with his reading the signpost.


Now, if the Ninja also had Camoflauge or some equivalent, nothing changes except that RC thinks "Damn ninja tricks! He's gone! ...that's funny, where did this scotch broom come from?"

[RandomCasualty]

1087747563[/unixtime]]
No. It absolutely doesn't have anything to do with that. If you don't obscure anything they can see then you don't need to make hide checks because they can't see you.

Well, you don't want to obscure specific things that give you away. What makes you visible is generally contrast. You can be standing in a big dark spot at the center of the room, but if there was a lit area behind you and someone was staring at the lit area, they'd see a shadow blocking their view. Even if they couldn't tell you the color of your shirt because you're in darkness, they still know someone is there. Part of the hide skill is not doing stuff like that that announces you're there. It's what makes it a skill and not just blind luck.

Now with darkvision, it becomes even harder, you'd likely have to avoid any and all contrasts. This would mean that sometimes you'd have to be crawling, or what not.

Hiding behind cover is basically looking out at someone while they aren't looking at you, as well as blending to a degree. Another thing I don't like about the hide skill is that it doesn't grant modifiers based on the quality of the cover. It also means you stay out of obvious areas where people are bound to look.

The more I play it, the more I think Splinter Cell 2 on multiplayer is probably the best simulation of hide versus spot that there is. It's what thieves should be doing, climbing on stuff, hiding behind boxes, and everything. And it shows that if you're just walking down a fairly well lit corridor, or even a dark corridor with a lit area behind you, you're going to get spotted, because even if you're in darkness you've always got to keep contrast in mind. Regardless of whether any light is on you, if you're blocking light from a lit area behind you, then you're going to get spotted.

You seem to imply that somehow good rogues can defy the laws of reality because they're that good, and that just isn't how things work. It's like arguing a chess champion can win games making the exact same stupid moves as a beginner and somehow win the game because he's a good player, even if the move list for the game is exactly the same. But being a good player means you wouldn't make those stupid moves in the first place, and I'd argue that for a rogue it's exactly the same way.

I advise you download the demo to that game, and get some perspective on things. You'll actually get a chance to look for people, and try hiding yourself. If you think that you can be a good thief just by walking down a normal corridor and hoping they don't see you, or that you can block a lit doorway and try to obscure your friend behind it as well as hide yourself, then by all means go for it... tell me how it turns out.

[Crissa]

So... Lemme get this straight.

Because hiding works one way in that game, it should work that way in this game.

IE, even if the Mage with Invisibility only has a +22 to hide in the doorway, the Rogue's +22 doesn't mean a darn thing.

Or since there's one blue dot on the floor, because the Rogue is standing on that blue dot - and obviously since the dot is blue and the floor is white, the rogue can't hide there.

...I dunno. If you look, and don't see the blue dot... You don't see the blue dot.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Obviously tigers are incapable of hiding because their basic body plan generates a lot of contrasts.



-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

The camo pattern on WW2 warships is another example. Vertical stripes mean you don't look like a long object with the expected profile.

[RandomCasualty]

1087793481[/unixtime]]
Because hiding works one way in that game, it should work that way in this game.

IE, even if the Mage with Invisibility only has a +22 to hide in the doorway, the Rogue's +22 doesn't mean a darn thing.

Well, quite simply, it should work similar to how we'd expect it to work in real life. Hiding in real life is about staying out of sight for the most part, or using camouflage at longer ranged. But despite however good you may be, you really do need cover or concealment of some kind to hide well, either that or you need to be at a really long range with some camo gear.

Or since there's one blue dot on the floor, because the Rogue is standing on that blue dot - and obviously since the dot is blue and the floor is white, the rogue can't hide there.

...I dunno. If you look, and don't see the blue dot... You don't see the blue dot.

But the point is that if you know the dot is there, because the floor has a set pattern for instance, then you could normally see the dot and you know this, then to not be able to see part of it would effectively be a failed spot check, because you know something is there. Even if you can't see the rogue per se, simply disrupting the pattern visibly is enough to show you that there's someone there. Because you immediately notice it and go into alert mode and immediately move to investigate it.

And the only way to avoid a situation like this is to actively avoid places like this as a rogue. I think it's best just to call that part of the hide skill in general. And it's ok to have places you just can't hide in at all due to the setup of the room. Against someone with darkvision I think it's perfectly ok to make it really difficult to hide in a room with a well done light/dark color pattern.

I realize it's a double standard between what a caster can do and what a rogue can do, but see invisibility or true seeing shouldn't see the guy using mundane methods to hide either.

[Lago_AM3P]

I realize it's a double standard between what a caster can do and what a rogue can do, but see invisibility or true seeing shouldn't see the guy using mundane methods to hide either.

There we go. The truth comes out.

I don't want to play a game where characters see exceptions to the numbers in the game just because they have a certain title stapled on their numbers. A game intentionally designed like this after the massive frickin' failures we've had with clerics and druids sounds retarded as hell.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Magic breaks rules by definition. Magic cannot be balanced against mundane and still remain magical. There IS and MUST BE a double standard. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

The solution is to give everyone equal magic. Not equal oppertunity to gain magic, but equal magic. You can do this by basing magic on character level, by devorcing magic entirely from class and level (In a manner similar to Call of Cthulu d20), or by snipping magic out of the system alltogether. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you can make the mundane as awesome as magic and have it still be mundane, or nerf magic to the level of the mundane and make it still be magical. Cuz it just doesn't work.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1087863148[/unixtime]]Magic breaks rules by definition. Magic cannot be balanced against mundane and still remain magical. There IS and MUST BE a double standard. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

And I don't even think the double standard has to be a problem balance wise. It just means that different classes can do different stuff. The only time it becomes a problem is when the magical version is hands down better than the nonmagical one in all ways.

The thing with the magical version is because it's not logical, it can also have illogical restrictions placed on it, like invisibility preventing you from attacking. You could probably balance invisibility even more with hide by placing the restriction that you can't interact with your environment at all without becoming visible.

So long as the magical version carries drawbacks, there is absolutely no problem wtih having it be better in some ways than the nonmagical one. It's only when the magical version is totally in all ways better than the mundane one that things get broken mechanically.

But simply allowing magical stuff to break the rules doesn't innately cause balance problems.

[Username17]

There IS and MUST BE a double standard.

Bullshit.

Just because not everyone is "magic" or "psychic" or "computer literate" or "divinely blessed" or subscribed to whatever other arbitrary criteria you have, does not mean that everyone is held to different levels of narative restriction.

Muggles are not playable characters. If some of the other characters are "sorcerers", the rest of the players have to be "super heroes". If some of the other characters are "realistic gritty detectives", then the best you are going to be able to pull with another character is to be a "psychokinetic". Whatever level of realism you hold any of the characters to is the level of realism you hold everyone to.

If people are breaking all kinds of rules and doing magical crap all the time, then that's what people are doing. If your wizards are running around turning invisible and transforming into dragons then your warriors need to be Pecos Bill and be dragging whirlwinds around by the reins.

If people are being held back to all kinds of "realistic" limits, then that's what people are doing. If your warrior can't pull himself out of the swamp by his own bootstraps because of the Laws of Motion, then your wizards need to have magic that works pretty much like technology.

If your Rogue has to explain how he manages to hide in the monochromatic room, then your wizard has to explain how light still reaches his retinas while he is invisible. And that's the bottom line. Either you hand wave everything or nothing.

Or you're an asshole.

-Username17

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Yeah, I agree with you, and you proved my point, so what? I'm saying that you should quit pretending magic can be balanced against non-magic and just make everyone magical already. It's the only reasonable solution.

-Des

[RandomCasualty]

Mechanical balance and narrative effect are totally different things. You don't need nonmagicals to throw fireballs or do other crap that magicals can. So long as their bow or their sword is equally effective on average, you have no problem.

There is only one thing you really care about for balance and that's effectiveness per the amount of character development points you spent on it. Now, obviously you can't do this truly quantifiably beacuse you can't decide how many skill points a feat or a spell slot is worth, so you really can't actually figure out what a generic character development point gives you, as you can wtih systems like GURPS.

But the basic premise still remains the same. Amount of specialization invested in something and the return. So long as that return actually helps you in play equivalently, it doesn't necessarily have to produce magical effects.

If a wizard can shapechange into a hydra, the fighter doesn't need to be able to do that too, he just needs to be able to beat a hydra in his base form. Basically all combat abilities are just means to an end. You're trying to kill the enemy. And so long as you're all effective at that, it doesn't matter if you're firing mundane arrows or balls of hellfire.

You really don't need superman to travel with Merlin or Gandalf, you can have King Arthur or Aragorn.

Now you can either try to play it like a superhero game where everybody has magical powers or you can simply limit magic in such a way that it doesn't make nonmagic obsolete.

As I said before, the great thing about magic is that it's limitations don't have to make sense logically. Stuff created by fabricate could collapse into a useless pile of goo on contact with water, or teleport has some kind of weird risks associated with it, or costs XP or whatever.

So long as you allow magic without drawbacks that is flat out better than physical stuff, you're always going to have arguments as far as casters being uber. If you really want to fix the system then you should fix that. No matter how many magical abilities you bestow on non-casters they will always have the following disadvantages:

-There will always be stuff they can't do, which no skill covers, like teleportation.
-They can't change what they picked at the start of each day, like a wizard can.

The only way you'll ever be somewhat close to balance is by placing meaningful limits on magical stuff, which makes it better in some regards but also weaker in others.

Until you do that, claims that casters are better than non-casters are going to continue regardless of how you revamp skills, because you can still change into tons of stuff with shapechange, teleport halfway across the world, scry people and lots of other stuff that you'll never be able to do with skills, and you get to choose which of that stuff you want to use at the beginning of the day.

I'm all for the basic premise that skills let you do normal stuff that is in turn limited by realistic conditions. Magic lets you do irrational stuff that is in turn limited by irrational conditions. So long as the limitations are limiting to the proper degree, there's no problem. It just means that in some cases magic may be better and in some cases mundane might be better. And that's what we're trying for.

The goal isnt' to make the warrior the same as the wizard, it's to make them different but equal.

[Username17]

Mechanical balance and narrative effect are totally different things.

No they are not. This was proved by the fact that there is a difference between a +22 Hide bonus "because you are invisible" and a +22 Hide bonus "because you are skilled". If the same numerical bonus has a different narrative effect it's a mechanical balance issue.

Next question.

-Username17

[Crissa]

1087873158[/unixtime]]

Mechanical balance and narrative effect are totally different things.

No they are not. This was proved by the fact that there is a difference between a +22 Hide bonus "because you are invisible" and a +22 Hide bonus "because you are skilled". If the same numerical bonus has a different narrative effect it's a mechanical balance issue.

Well... No, I mean, where you get the numbers changes the flavour text and what you can use to defeat the numbers, but...

...It should balance out, either way. Because if the +22 via Hide gets either 'cannot attempt' or a higher DC than the +22 via Invisibility... Why doesn't the Invisibility just give a higher bonus?

Basically, RC, you're just saying that magic means you can throw the DC system out the window just because it's magic.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1087873158[/unixtime]]
No they are not. This was proved by the fact that there is a difference between a +22 Hide bonus "because you are invisible" and a +22 Hide bonus "because you are skilled". If the same numerical bonus has a different narrative effect it's a mechanical balance issue.

It is my belief that hiding and being invisible should be too separate states. While being invisible can help you hide, there are certain things that you can do while invisible that you can't do while hiding. Walking through open ground in broad daylight with no cover or concealment is one of them.

Now you can deal with these one of three ways.

-Either you have to make invisibility somehow balanced wtih hiding by giving it disadvantages that hiding doesn't.

-You can treat them the same and just grant a hide bonus for invisibility.

Personally I think the first way is more interesting and more consistent. When you say "I'm hiding" and you say "I'm invisible" you're clearly talking about two different things. When you're invisible you really don't have to hide very much, you really can just walk out in the open. When you're hiding you can't, because the very word "hiding" implies that you aren't in a place where you'd likely be seen. That's what hiding is, staying out of sight.

So IMO they should be different things and should be handled differently. Even if spot can possibly see them both, they still should not be the same.

[User3]

Magic should let you do stuff that can't be done with skills, and visa versa. Making everyone magic is lame to the nth degree.

To make a better system, just give regular people and nonmagic heroes things that they can do within the laws of reality(not magic), but still fantastic.

Take James Bond or Batman. Both fight against wizard guys with a bunch of tricks(Joker) or Sorcerers with a theme of tricks(Mr. Freeze).

But they still do fantastic things that are well within the laws of reality. James Bond can seduce any woman, place himself in the right spot to avoid explosions, and even turn his old enemies into allies. He fights better than any man alive and can jump off a cliff without a parachute to catch a falling plane and then stop a powerdive and fly away before the chemical factory blows up(Goldeneye, my favorite). He's pimp, and nothing he does breaks reality in any way.

Batman leaps and fights monsters stronger and faster than him and wins. He reacts to the unexpected by creating new plans and tactics and improvising techniques.

Pimp skill in DnD should let you ride a dragon's back and stab the hell out of it while avoiding all its blows, or do a flying leap from a cliff to bodyslam a harpy to the ground and walk away uninjured, or any of a number of wild and equally unlikely but possible things.

I'm all for powering up high level non-casters to be equal to casters. A rogue should be able to disable a Wall of force or a Gate, or stand perfectly in the blind spot of a iron golem so that it can't see you. A fighter should be able to throw a sword better than most people fight with them, or put an arrow right through a Large monster's eye.

Spellcasters should be like mobile weapon platforms or plot devices. Sometimes the mage opens a Gate(plot), and some times he cast Fly and Fireballs the Insect Horde of Doom while the heroes save the townsepeople.

Giving access to equivalent effects doesn't mean that they have to be the same mechanically. Different mechanics makes things feel more different that just saying "the thief becomes invisible with his Hide and the mage casts invisibility."

And thats the deal. Seperate but equal. That's fun. Its not D20, or even DnD, as the system has never allowed for truly heroic actions, but it could.

[Sma]

A lot of what you describe there K sounds like the use of what is usually called spell in D&D. I don´t think anyone here would have a problem with calling those abilities by another name, such as Soft landing instead of Featherfall, but if they basically have the same game effect it might be easier calling them by their spell name so we don´t mix them up.

I think that simply assinging a spell to an ability level could prove problematic in some cases. And I agree there should be some sort mechanical difference between spells and skillbased abilities. Skillbased stuff shouldn´t be limited in uses per day for example. They should in most cases be extraordinary type abilites so they work independent of antimagic fields or wild magic areas.

Greetings,

Sma

[Crissa]

RC, Invisibility gives you a +20 to hide right there, in the middle of the courtyard. Cover and concealment stack with this. The Rogue has a +20 in his pocket. Why can't they hide just as well in the open?

If either runs, it's the same modifier. If either stands behind a buhs, it's the same modifier.

Why are you letting Invisibility give a bigger bonus than it says it gives?

-Crissa