Stealth: Cover AND/OR In Plain View

[Vynticator]

So I'm trying to reconcile some of the elements in a typical quick contest using Stealth vs Perception (or Observation).

COVER: There is a +3 to -5 modifier for the quality of cover available to the Stealther according to Basic Set p.222

IN PLAIN VIEW: However, there is also the +10 modifier for the 'Guard' to see something In Plain View. (Sense rolls, Basic p.358)

Now, if someone is trying to sneak along a bare corridor (say, 5 yards long) up to a guard who is broadly watching the corridor, are we talking a -5 for no cover to the stealther AND +10 for in plain view for the guard, for a NET penalty on the contest of -15 against the stealther? (with variable range penalties for the distance, I understand - but see below)

SUPPLEMENTAL: And if the Stealther tries to cover the distance at a Move of greater than 1yd/secong, s/he is at a NET -20, correct?

FURTHER: Do we apply range penalties for all vision rolls at the same rate as we do for, say, combat at range? Because it seems to me that *seeing* at 10 yards is a heck of a lot easier than *shooting* at 10 yards.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Vynticator

Now, if someone is trying to sneak along a bare corridor (say, 5 yards long) up to a guard who is broadly watching the corridor, are we talking a -5 for no cover to the stealther AND +10 for in plain view for the guard, for a NET penalty on the contest of -15 against the stealther? (with variable range penalties for the distance, I understand - but see below)

SUPPLEMENTAL: And if the Stealther tries to cover the distance at a Move of greater than 1yd/secong, s/he is at a NET -20, correct?

That sounds reasonable enough. This is a pretty much impossible task really, sneaking down 15 feet of well lit bare corridor with an alert guard at the other end of it isn't something I'd even let you roll for unless you had some sort of supernatural edge. Though adding modifiers for both sides of the roll together isn't quite a fair assessment.

FURTHER: Do we apply range penalties for all vision rolls at the same rate as we do for, say, combat at range? Because it seems to me that *seeing* at 10 yards is a heck of a lot easier than *shooting* at 10 yards.

Yes. That's largely what that +10 for in plain sight modifier is for.

[Vynticator]

Great, thanks, that's as I thought - pretty much impossible, one would have to wait for chance when the guard was looking aside, tying his laces, reading a magazine, watching TV or whatever to even attempt the roll.

If there were *some* cover en route, though (a recessed doorway, a cardboard box, large pot plant etc.) the +10 for "In Plain View" goes away completely and we're in the realm of +3 to -5 for the level of cover, correct?

I think that works in my mind, in the zero cover scenario you're reliant almost entirely on luck for the vision component of the stealth attempt, all you can control is the sound you're making en route - hence a massive net penalty. As soon as there is *somewhere* to get out of view, it becomes much more mainstream stealthing, timing the ducking into cover and such like, so the penalties are much lower. Do other people see things the same way?

[DouglasCole]

This post I did on "In Plain Sight" might be helpful.

[Vynticator]

Thanks, Douglas. Except I'm afraid that goes quite against the phrasing of the 'in plain sight' rule- it's quite a house rule to add +10 to everything (or to make an 'aim' maneuver for the eyes at +5, which you also consider and I think I prefer in realism terms). I'm trying to stick closely to RAW as we take turns with GM ing in our group (but have continuity of characters) so I am loathe to impose house rules on the other potential GMs.

But if we *are* house-ruling here...One element of Vision that RAW seems to ignore is movement/stillness. Something moving is much more immediately visible even at medium range than something still. This is certainly true in the Abrams example you use, for instance. I wonder if a flat +5 for movement within field of vision, with additional +5 for 'aimed' sight, might be closest to realism. Thoughts?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Vynticator

Thanks, Douglas. Except I'm afraid that goes quite against the phrasing of the 'in plain sight' rule- it's quite a house rule to add +10 to everything

If you don't, you wind up with a whole bunch of really silly results, because range modifiers are pretty substantial. Someone 50 yards away (a short city block) is impossible to see without vision bonuses -- you're rolling against a 2. Frequently a +10 isn't even enough, Venus is SM +41 with a typical range penalty of -65, so you're starting at -24.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If you don't, you wind up with a whole bunch of really silly results, because range modifiers are pretty substantial. Someone 50 yards away (a short city block) is impossible to see without vision bonuses -- you're rolling against a 2. Frequently a +10 isn't even enough, Venus is SM +41 with a typical range penalty of -65, so you're starting at -24.

Silhouetted Against Space is a big bonus, IIRC in the 20s.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If you don't, you wind up with a whole bunch of really silly results, because range modifiers are pretty substantial. Someone 50 yards away (a short city block) is impossible to see without vision bonuses -- you're rolling against a 2. Frequently a +10 isn't even enough, Venus is SM +41 with a typical range penalty of -65, so you're starting at -24.

+10 from Plain Sight gets you to -14, and the +4 Spaceships recommends for being silhouetted against deep space still only gets you down to -10. Venus' high reflectivity should give a bonus (maybe up to +4, comparable to solar panels), but you'll still need to use Time Spent to have a good shot at seeing it on a clear night.
EDIT: Rechecked after seeing Vicky's post - apparently my mind merged the +2 from above with the 2 from +24, causing me to read the deep space modifier as +4. +24 means, combined with the +10 for Plain Sight, Venus is at +10, even when not accounting for its reflectivity. That actually seems off to me - is Venus really as easy to see as someone 2 yards in front of me?

I think I'll be using the Plain Sight modifier pretty much all the time, thanks to Douglas Cole's analysis.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Varyon

+10 from Plain Sight gets you to -14, and the +4 Spaceships recommends for being silhouetted against deep space still only gets you down to -10. Venus' high reflectivity should give a bonus (maybe up to +4, comparable to solar panels), but you'll still need to use Time Spent to have a good shot at seeing it on a clear night.

I think I'll be using the Plain Sight modifier pretty much all the time, thanks to Douglas Cole's analysis.

Which is about right, since you still need to know just where to look, and then pay attention to spot it among the nearby stars.

[Vynticator]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If you don't, you wind up with a whole bunch of really silly results, because range modifiers are pretty substantial. Someone 50 yards away (a short city block) is impossible to see without vision bonuses -- you're rolling against a 2. Frequently a +10 isn't even enough, Venus is SM +41 with a typical range penalty of -65, so you're starting at -24.

I don't think that's absurd at all. Have you ever tried to pick out an individual from a crowd at 10 yards, let alone 50? Or to find kids playing hide and seek in a lightly wooded forest? It really isn't easy.

The contest of skills is only needed if the target is hidden or attempting to be stealthy. I reckon I could stealth my way much closer than 50 yards given basic cover against an average observer, and I am completely untrained. If there's nothing in the way then plus 10 seems fine. And as for Venus, well, maybe the numbers work there, maybe not, I'm not fussed if GURPS doesn't mathematically represent all vision for all sizes at all ranges perfectly!