Attacking From Stealth

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Dalin

I didn't realize that the teamwork rules were different in Action and DFRPG. In DFRPG Exploits, p. 6, there's a section called "Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem." The mechanic here is to take the highest skill and subtract for the number of people with no points in the skill. No bonus for companions who have the skill.

Has anyone on here tried both versions?

They sound equivalent to me, just worded differently.

[beaushinkle]

Originally Posted by Dalin

I didn't realize that the teamwork rules were different in Action and DFRPG. In DFRPG Exploits, p. 6, there's a section called "Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem." The mechanic here is to take the highest skill and subtract for the number of people with no points in the skill. No bonus for companions who have the skill.

Has anyone on here tried both versions?

Imagine that you have Thief with Stealth 16, a Bard with Stealth-12, a Swashbuckler with Stealth-12, and a Wizard with no Stealth.

In the DFRPG rules, it would be 16 -1(for the wizard) = 15

In the Action 2 rules, it would be 16 + 3 (thief, bard, swash) - 4 (group size) = 15

They should always be equivalent: adding the number of people with the skill, and then subtracting the group size is equivalent to subtracting the number of folks without the skill.

The DFRPG wording is less math!

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

They should always be equivalent: adding the number of people with the skill, and then subtracting the group size is equivalent to subtracting the number of folks without the skill.

The DFRPG wording is less math!

I’m not sure how I missed that. Thank you for the crystal clear explanation!

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

Goals

• The solution should avoid spotlighting the least stealthy player (rather than spotlighting the most stealthy). IE: If we're always making the player with the lowest stealth do the rolling, why did the highest-stealth player invest the points? See the alexandrian.

This goal is a deal-breaker for anything I'd come up with, because having stealth attempts spotlight the weakest link[1] is both absolutely realistic and a common trope in fiction. It only takes seeing one enemy soldier to realize you're under attack, no matter how many other enemy soldiers you didn't see. (Note: you may make poor decisions though if you don't realize how many enemy soldiers you didn't see.)

Traditionally the way you deal with non-stealthy characters on stealthy missions is you leave them behind until sentries are dealt with. In a DFRPG setting it might also be reasonable to apply range penalties to Vision rolls opposing Stealth/Camouflage and double range penalties to Hearing rolls opposing Stealth, but fundamentally there's still that opportunity for the newbie to mess up and make a loud noise, and get threatened by some grizzled old sergeant, "You give away our position one more time, I'll bleed you, real quiet, and leave you here. Got that?" (Predator.)

I think this goal is in conflict with all of your other goals. What you need instead is a way for very stealthy characters to benefit from their stealthiness even if there are non-stealthy characters in the party, and splitting the party (or at least letting some members lag far behind) is how you accomplish that.

[1] Note that combat (especially ranged combat) also tends to spotlight the character with the worst defenses, rather than the best, unless you keep them out of combat.

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

Let me clarify: I'm not looking for tactical advice for the Hunters for the Prey. I'm looking for a non-ambiguous way to mechanically arbitrate Hunters attempting to Stealth up to Prey and melee them.

Assume this is the only thing relevant to the situation. No magic, no ranged, no shenanigans. Just trying to figure out what happens when folks with stealth try to use it, as above, according to the above design goals.

Well if we ignore the problematic goal, all of your three scenarios are pretty simple in my opinion. The prey are roughly three seconds away from you at top speed (although you won't be moving at top speed), so (spitballing based on GURPS patterns and assuming I want a rule for repeated use and not just a ruling for one situation) I'd take the logarithm of the number of prey from the size/speed/range table as a bonus to the best prey perception (yards = number of prey, size modifier = bonus to best Perception but never worse than +0), and I'd roll a Quick Contest between that and the worst Stealth of all the hunters in motion after adding the logarithm from the size/speed/range table to the Stealth of all the Hunters (yards = distance away from nearest Prey at the moment of contact, size modifier = bonus to Stealth) penalized by the log number of seconds you'd have to move in the open to reach the prey (in this case 3, so a -1 penalty, although there's no implication that you'll actually move at top speed while sneaking).

Scenario 1: Stealth-16 (because hunter is approaching into melee, modifier +0, over 3 seconds, modifier -1) vs. Perception-13. Hunter will probably all sneak up right behind prey successfully; 71.9% chance of successfully sneaking.

Scenario 2: No change, still 16 vs. 13. (This is a concession to simplicity, and in practice there would usually be a weak link with worse stealth than the others.)

Scenario 3: Stealth-16 vs. Perception-15 (+2 for 4 observers, according to the usual pattern of rounding categories up on the size/speed range table, but really it doesn't matter which way you choose to round as long as you're consistent). 54.9% chance of success. Still doable but significantly harder, enough to pass the sniff test. With six prey the odds would go down to 45.9%--it's fairly likely that SOMEONE out of the six observers will hear you or turn enough to spot you before you finish your sneak.

If there were a wall or jungle foliage between you and the prey so that you're not sneaking out in the open, you wouldn't have that -1 penalty, and your odds of success would improve by a notch to 79.4% in scenario 1-2 and 63.8% in scenario 3.

P.S. You can probably tell I'm a fan of GURPS: GULLIVER.