Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Rogue Skill governed by Charisma and Luck to a lesser exent.

A successful Diversion check gives you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you. This usage does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

This would allow you to hide before the crowds (as long the skill is successful), people would get an echo like "Bob makes a graceful movement and dissapears from your line of sight!" or if he fails "Bob tries unnsuccesfully to leave your line of sight!", also this skill would allow rogues to hide while in Combat.

I believe this suggestion has already been made in a discussion for bringing in the Bluff skill. This is a component of Bluffing. I have suggested before that we revise hide to require a successful bluff skill to work while others besides your group are watching you. We've also had discussions of Feint, and Taunt, two functions of the D&D Bluff skill that would work as separate skills under FK's command-based skill system.

What's that, you say? We should implement the spot skill?

Ohhhhh! I agree completely

With any of these skills for thieves and rogues I think that a revamp of discern to allow us to see hidden pc's and npc's should come hand in hand...*eats a thief*

Since FK doesn't utilize multi-classing (including prestige classes), I don't see any reason why rogues cannot (at very high level/max level) utilize Hide in Plain Sight. (And high level Rangers, in forest settings, should get this as well)

To activate, type (*snickers*): HIPS

Agreed, of course, that there should be something available other than True Sight to detect those hidden.

And the ability to detect hidden characters could be removed from most spells (if not all) as is in D&D, leaving the only way to detect hidden characters with the skill owned only by rogues, rangers and druids, perhaps rangers and druids would get a penalty at spot (which is how could be called the skill) when not at the wilderness. (The same places in which a ranger can't hide)

Vibius wrote:And the ability to detect hidden characters could be removed from most spells (if not all) as is in D&D, leaving the only way to detect hidden characters with the skill owned only by rogues, rangers and druids, perhaps rangers and druids

Completely disagree.

Perhaps others can't train it as high, maybe, but people already complain about hide being abused. Invisibility is used often enough that we don't need another 'invisibility.'

Selveem wrote:

Vibius wrote:And the ability to detect hidden characters could be removed from most spells (if not all) as is in D&D, leaving the only way to detect hidden characters with the skill owned only by rogues, rangers and druids, perhaps rangers and druids

Completely disagree.

Perhaps others can't train it as high, maybe, but people already complain about hide being abused. Invisibility is used often enough that we don't need another 'invisibility.'

I'm sorry, but I'd have to second Selveem's sentiment here. Anyone should have a chance of spotting what is hidden, though I can understand those capable of hiding being better at spotting those who are.

Realistically, certain types of vision should also increase the chances of spotting such - for example, infravision would make it harder for warm-blooded creatures to hide, particularly where it is cold.

Ok, I gotta disagree with Raona and Selveem...

I like Vibius's idea BUT only if a skill (like... spot) that could detect hidden was added to all classes.

And Raona, technically in 3rd edition, I don't think infravision even exists anymore. It's gone to lowlight vision and darkvision, I *think*.

What exactly are you disagreeing with, then, Glim?

The only portion I disagreed with was the portion I quoted. If you're saying all classes should be able to spot, then you're agreeing with Raona and I.

That spells should not detect hidden. I think they should not, but only if a spot skill was added to all classes.

I suppose that a fair compromise would be that the classes that get that skill in D&D would be the only ones that could get that skill up to GM while the other classes would not able to increase that skill beyond a point, what would mean that while your average hiding character could be detected by anyone, a master of the hide technique could be detected only by those specially trained to that, so if you want to be sure ye haven't anyone skulking around make sure to contact your friendly perceptive friend

I dunno.. I'm still not for that. The MUD doesn't work like D&D. A GM at hide couldn't be detected at all by a Master at spot.

If everything all worked like it did in D&D, I'd support it.

Also, if I remember correctly, skills aren't coded like spells. If you can learn a skill, you can GM it.

With spot and such in I'd want truesight to not see hidden since it's not in it's d20 and previous incarnations of its list of things it shows <.<

I'm not sure where I stand on any of this. Introducing spot is a good idea, and removing detect hidden from spells is an idea that is good if spot is brought in - however, what will the hide-to-spot ratio be? Listen is relatively easy to GM, and all of a sudden GM sneak becomes useless - especially now that you can -rarely- sneak successfully in leather, a thief's primary material of choice, even with a skill level that high. Will spot be as easy to GM, and hide suddenly become useless? It all adds to the downfall of the thief, which is already impending as it cannot fight as good as nearly anything else -and- there's a lack of traps, locks, and hullybaloo that thieves are necessary for in the first place.

Hrosskell wrote:Listen is relatively easy to GM...

When did this happen? Unless it has been changed since ive been busy, ive never noticed this. I always thought it was the other way around. If this is true, I have a few arguments to throw at Dalvyn.

And honestly, spot is more to a thief's benefit. Instead of as it is now in that, someone is hiding *cast spell* I see you! automatically. Now there is a chance for the thief to actually stay hidden and spy on those spellcasters. Spot would be something that could be failed at, whereas currently, spells cannot be, except with some insanely expensive other spell.