[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Sorry I'm not adding anything constructive to the discussion with this, but now I can't help but imagine a PC taking unnecessary risks by voluntarily passing by additional guards just to get a chance to generate more Edge 

Well, first of all that's not a thing.  See Preventing Edge abuse (pg. 45).  If you're passing by a guard/camera/drone unnecessarily just to gain the edge for doing so, then you don't get the Edge   Same concept for Riggers... they get edge every time they perform a vehicle related test (while Jumped In... See Control Rig cyberware).  Driving to Stuffer shack? Doing a donut just to gain the Edge?  GM is empowered, and expected, to put the kibosh on generating Edge just for Edge's sake.

However, if you have to sneak past 2 "checkpoints", then yes you should have the opportunity to generate more edge than if there were only one chance for you to be detected.  Absolutely.  You take the risk, you (potentially) get the Edge.  That's a core facet of the entire edition.

[Xenon]

Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.

Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/

I personally find it plausible that most guards will act (raise an alarm / attack / call in high threat response units / whatever) if they have actual visual confirmation of an intruder trying to sneak in the shadows. That it in this scenario it doesn't really matter if they can also hear the intruder.

I also find it plausible that guards will just become suspicious if they hear something strange (they might or might not report to central that they heard something and that they will investigate further), but I also find it plausible that they would want to get visual confirmation before they will act for real (raise an alarm / attack / call in HTR / whatever).

But it will also depend on the situation, how professional the guards are and how on edge they are.

Feel free to make another call that you think is more fitting.
How the guard choose to react in each situation was not really the point of the post anyway ;-)

What if you replace Invisibility by a Silence spell and the guard succeeds against the Stealth test...

Invisibility is often more useful than Silence. Silence typically only come into play when there is no line of sight.
Like if you you are already invisible, are trying to sneak up on a guard from behind or if the room have some sort of sound sensitive scanners.

But it can also be used to prevent a guard from vocally calling for help ;-)

but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.

Agreed.

But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.

if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.

Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

but considering factors like lighting, guards' sensory enhancements, presence or absence of bottlenecks, availability of cover, degree of ambient noise, and any number of other factors that SHOULD be considered for edge for the ninja or for the guard.

Agreed.

But this have nothing to do with if you roll stealth before the infiltration and then roll perception against a threshold or if you reroll stealth for each single guard. If either side have an advantage (for whatever reason, you listed several) then you can give that side a point of edge in that specific situation. No matter if stealth was rolled as a threshold before the infiltration or not.

Au contraire, mon frère. Not getting your edge until well after the roll was made means you can't use that edge to reroll dice in that roll.  Granted it's usually more beneficial to reroll opposing hits rather than your own failures... but if you're rolling hits to establish a threshold that will then be tested against multiple times, then THAT changes the calculus. Even if you don't agree that nothing beats pushing your hits up higher in this sort of case, giving retroactive edge later on is still taking this perfectly legal option away from the ninja.

if you roll stealth for each guard you must bypass, that's a potential 2 edge per guard.

Not sure I agree with that reading, but if this is how you typically rule it then I don't understand what is stopping you from awarding the ruthenium polymer coated ninja one point of edge each time a guard take a perception test against his stealth threshold?

I think we can agree to agree that we've deconstructed the question in the original post all the way down to the Art/Habits of GMing.  I agree that streamlining rolls is a very advantageous thing, even when it might impinge on the "technically correct" way of doing things.  For example: if the ninja has both silence and invisibility going, I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests: one against each status and a third against the stealth test.  However, I concede that's kind of unwieldly/unfun way to actually run a game.  I'd put it at 2 tests: 1 against the statuses and 1 against the ninja's stealth test.  I could (and have, at length) pick at the problems of boiling it down to 1 instead my preference of 2.  But it's ultimately a matter of preference/keeping play going and the difference between the two is fuzzy anyway. Even grouping 1 test against both silent and invisible has its problems, even though I just said I'd be amenable to doing it.  What if the guard has Audio Enhancement in his earbuds?  That bonus to hearing things is suddenly helping him see through invisible as well, if one perception test is simultaneously being tested against both statuses.

We're (ok, I've been) getting pedantic about best practices in GMing, really.

[Odsh]

Converting "the PC is seen" to "the guard gets suspicious" is an elegant way to circumvent the issue in this case.

Not sure what you are trying to tell me here..... :-/

No irony nor sarcasm, sorry for my poor wording if it's how it was perceived.

Unresisted Invisibility or Silence should give an edge on Stealth tests i.m.h.o. Said differently, if you have the same chance of getting caught with and without Invisibility or Silence, something is off.
From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm. Works well for Invisibility, maybe less so for other similar spells (but I agree, highly debatable).
Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.

Personally I see pros and cons in both cases and I find both interesting. And indeed, I have nothing better to propose.

[Xenon]

I still say the "technically correct" thing to do is for every potential observer to make 3 perception tests...

I am not getting upset if people rule that each individual guard get to roll perception multiple times against each intruder and that each intruder reroll their stealth against every single guard they run into (and in some cases perhaps even multiple times against each guard).

I just don't think this was what the authors had in mind when they deliberately changed sneaking, invisibility and silence to set 3 different thresholds for perception before the infiltration was even started.

The astral perception table have list 17 items over 5+ thresholds, yet I am pretty sure you just take one astral perception test to resolve that.

From my understanding, your approach is to make failed Stealth test less impactful by making the guard suspicious instead of raising the alarm.

Ah, now I think I understand what you mean! Sorry :-)

No, my approach was that:
A guard that See an intruder (for whatever reason and no matter if he also Hear the intruder or not) will raise alarm.
A guard that Hear (for whatever reason) but does not See (for whatever reason) an intruder will become suspicious.
A guard that doesn't See (for whatever reason) nor Hear (for whatever reason) an intruder will not react at all.

Reason why the guard 'Heard but not See' the intruder in the example was because invisibility was successful but stealth was not. But the guard would probably also be suspicious if the intruder was walking around like normal in the next room, or if the intruder was walking as normal behind a guard because he had a silence spell but the guard resisted the silence spell, or if the intruder was walking in front of a guard while using invis and silence but the guard resisted the silence spell. Etc. There could be any number of reasons. Not all of them depending on failed stealth specifically. Failing 'Stealth' was not really the key here. Guard 'Hearing but not Seeing' the intruder was.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat means to give actual Edge points, which is true to the rules. However, it doesn't fit perfectly well with the idea of a single Stealth test that fits all circumstances in advance.

With few exceptions, outside of combat and hacking Edge from *gear or qualities* etc typically either just award one point of Edge for the entire encounter / scene or they reward you with one bonus Edge point for a specific test that also need to be spend directly on the related test.

Since book is pretty explicit that you typically just roll once at the start I think the intention here is actually that you do just roll stealth once (just how you typically just roll spellcasting once for invisibility or silence = streamlined) and reward one edge if you have coating. This also opens up the possibility to have a larger patrol of guards to roll perception once as a Grunt Group (rather than two-three opposed rolls for each member of the patrol). This me and SSDR *disagree* on. Which is fine. There is no fixed rule either way I think. But still.... automatically earning 2 Edge every time a pair of guards walk pass you...? That will pile up a lot of Edge very quickly(!)

Anyway.

But then I also *agree* with SSDR that both parties may gain additional edge during the infiltration attempt based *on circumstances*.

Trying to sneak pass a checkpoint that is well lit and there is little cover will be harder than normal and will probably grant a point of Edge to the guard at the checkpoint. Sneaking pass a guard in a large warehouse with AGVs moving all over the place, is poorly lit and have a lot of cover will probably instead grant a point of Edge to the intruder. No issue here.

What to spend Edge on then? Well.... Guard can spend Edge on his perception test. Intruder can also spend Edge on the guard's perception test. I don't really see the issue with this to be honest.

[Odsh]

I think we're saying the same thing, but with different words :-)

I don't think I was able to convey the issue I perceive very well though. The lengthier a discussion gets, the less constructive it usually becomes, so please bear with me as I give it another try.

Let's look at a first example where a runner tries to infiltrate a facility by just relying on his skills to remain undetected. He must go past multiple guards at different places in the facility, but the whole infiltration part is resolved on his side by making a single Stealth roll in the beginning. I agree that mechanically speaking this is not a bad thing: if you keep adding Stealth tests along the way, he is bound to roll poorly sooner or later and eventually get caught, plus it speeds up the dice rolling part to concentrate on more interesting aspects of the game.

Now let's rewind and consider the same runner attempting exactly the same thing, but this time he benefits from a beefy Silence spell that none of the guards are likely to resist. Apart from the spell, nothing changes, and by that I mean he never relies exclusively on the spell to remain undetected. Basically, he acts exactly in the same way as in the first example.

If you look at those two examples, his chances of success *should* be higher in the second case (unless all guards are deaf or something, but let's assume this isn't the case).

Let's take a closer look at the dice rolls.

First example:
Runner: Stealth test, X successes
Guard: Perception test, Y successes

Second example:
Runner: Silence test, Z successes
Runner: Stealth test, X successes
Guard: Perception test, Y successes, Y < Z

I *would* see a big problem if the runner would be detected in both cases simply when Y>X ("the guard sees you, but doesn't hear you, so he raises the alarm"). Because that would mean that the Silence spell doesn't help at all. Which is why I'm specifically interested in how you address that particular issue in your examples. Unless I missed something, the only mechanism I could see in those examples that contributes to that is the "I detect you" vs "I become suspicious" thingy in the case of Invisibility. And that's really fine, but if you look at the big picture and replace Invisibility with other kind of bonuses, to me it's a system that relies a bit too much on GM fiat rather than rules. I would prefer, if possible, a generic system that could take any kind of advantage the runner might have into account to improve his chances of success.

And that's where the situational Edge system fits perfectly well in i.m.o. But with the big caveat that you can't have that one Stealth test in the beginning to rule them all if some of the guards resist the spell and others don't, especially if you have drones and such in the lot. Or you simply don't care and rule that, since the spell fools most of the guards, the runner globally has a situational advantage and you toss him that Edge point and make a single Perception test for the group of guards. In any case, I don't see a perfect solution.

[Xenon]

Because that would mean that the Silence spell doesn't help at all. Which is why I'm specifically interested in how you address that particular issue in your examples.

Invisibility is typically a lot more useful while infiltrating than Silence.
Magicians typically always prioritize Invisibility over Silence (or cast both).
Benefit of Silence is that you can for example cast it on a guard (that will prevent him from verbally calling for help).

But this have nothing to do with if perception is rolled against thresholds or direct opposed by stealth ;-)



You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs [Threshold set by Stealth before infiltration]
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.

Same outcome.



You silently try to sneak behind a guard (no line of sight).
If guard hear you he will likely turn around and you will be immediately spotted.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. [Threshold set by Silence spell before infiltration]
If guard fail then all is well and you continue.
If guard is successful then he take an Opposed Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility test.
If the guard fail then all is well and you continue.
If the guard beat this threshold as well then the shit is about to hit the fan.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition
Compare hits against Threshold set by both Silence spell as well as Threshold set by Stealth skill before infiltration.
If the guard does not beat the highest threshold then all is well and you continue.
If guard beat the highest threshold then the shit is about to hit the fan.

Same outcome.

[Odsh]

You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.

I think we just have to agree to disagree at this point.

To me a Stealth test is not purely opposed by the visual perception, it encompasses all senses, not just the visual perception. In which case, if you try to remain out of sight and not making any sound, the Silence spell not helping at all in the above example doesn't sit well with me.

[Shinobi Killfist]

You stick to the shadows while sneaking pass a guard. You have Silence but not Invisibility.

Guard roll Perception + Intuition vs. Stealth + Agility
If guard is successful then you are spotted. The shit is about to hit the fan.
Your Silence spell does not come into play in this case.

I think we just have to agree to disagree at this point.

To me a Stealth test is not purely opposed by the visual perception, it encompasses all senses, not just the visual perception. In which case, if you try to remain out of sight and not making any sound, the Silence spell not helping at all in the above example doesn't sit well with me.

While it is more than just visual, most people are visual based, and sound just does not travel the same as sight.   On most surfaces if you are more than 10 feet away from someone even without them trying to stealth they wont be heard, unless you have squeaky shoes or something. At best in most circumstances you are looking for a glitch which seems uncalled for to even ask for a roll. Now if the guard has cyber ears maybe make them roll, if they are trying to sneak up on them make them roll, if they are trying to manipulate a object in view without it being noticed make them roll etc.

If they successfully are invisible to the target I'm going to ask myself is there some reason I am even calling for a stealth roll at this point. There can be easily enough, proximity, maybe its to reflect navigating through a busy corridor without bumping into anyone since they can't see you to avoid.

And even if I call for a stealth test due to some circumstance that makes sound relevant I have to make a judgement call on what a failed stealth test means.  Like you roll stealth and get 3 hits, he rolls perception and gets 3 net hit 0 but hit the threshold.(I'm forgetting which way they go on this if you need a net hit or just hit the threshold on stealth)  What does 0 net hit on a hearing test when a person is invisible mean?  Is it they hear footsteps, 10 feet away to the northeast, or are they just did I hear something?  For example hearing whispering is a threshold of 3, if they just hit the threshold but not exceed it do you have them not just hear whispering but understand it clearly? Me if they hit the threshold I'd say they hear that people are whispering, a net hit they'd pick out a few words(but I wouldn't be a dick about it and make them only hear words that mislead them unless it was also a glitch), 2 net hits now they pretty much hear the conversation, maybe missing a word or two here and there, 3 net hits they heard it clearly. Invisibility is kind of the same boat, your primary sense is saying there is nothing so you are entirely relying on hearing, there may be circumstances that make things easier, lone person in a corridor on a tiled floor, but carpeted floor 5- 6 people in the hallway if I made them make a stealth test which is unlikely at this point, what would just hitting the threshold or 1 net hit mean.

[Xenon]

My point was that it doesn't really matter if you Pre-Roll or Re-Roll, but we can explore this topic as well I guess ;-)


A guard within hearing range but not within line of sight will perhaps get auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??

A successful invisibility spell represent that you avoided visual confirmation.
The guard will not see you at all. As long as he is not within hearing range he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard is within hearing range then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??


A guard with just line of sight but not within hearing range will perhaps get visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??

A successful silence spell represent that you avoided auditory confirmation.
The guard will not hear you at all. As long as he doesn't have line of sight he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard have line of sight then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

A tangent that I think adds an interesting, and potentially relevant wrinkle:

How would you represent trying to sneak past a dog?  Hearing and scent is how it's gonna detect you.  Sight is a distant third in the precedence for their senses.  I'd say a dog is functionally immune to invisibility due to this.  Maybe being invisible would help you defend against being bitten...maybe.  But being detected?  Zero help whatsoever.  Does the presence of a guard dog alter how you'd manage the mechanics of stealth and invisibility?

What about a drone that works just like a dog, primarily locating intruders via non-sight based means?

My instinct would be to just assign a threshold for the ninja to test against, and probably a high one.  And I'll have to think about why I'm more willing to do success tests here than opposed tests vs metahumans.

[Xenon]

I personally think it makes more sense to use stealth exclusively for staying out of sight and moving silently. Palming, blending in, sneaking, etc.

That you need to deal with dogs with help of other means (snacks, tranq darts, staying at distance and down-wind, pepper punch, covering yourself in shit or possible using tailored pheromones, etc.)

Edit.
Having said that, if you cast invisibility on yourself (to prevent him from attacking you) and silence on the dog (to prevent others from hearing when it is barking) then it doesn't really matter if he can smell you ;-)

[Reaver]

Don't forget that skills aren't just about doing something, they imply a practical knowledge of said skill.

So someone trying to sneak past a dog using infilration (or whatever the 6e skill is called) would know what to watch out for, and how best to approach the situation. With greater skill ranks impling more complete knowledge....

Just cause YOU don't know how to get past a dog, doesn't mean your character is oblivious to that knowledge.

[Odsh]

My point was that it doesn't really matter if you Pre-Roll or Re-Roll, but we can explore this topic as well I guess ;-)


A guard within hearing range but not within line of sight will perhaps get auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??

A successful invisibility spell represent that you avoided visual confirmation.
The guard will not see you at all. As long as he is not within hearing range he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard is within hearing range then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid auditory confirmation.
Since the guard can only hear you, not see you, should you get a bonus to stealth against auditory confirmation in this case??


A guard with just line of sight but not within hearing range will perhaps get visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??

A successful silence spell represent that you avoided auditory confirmation.
The guard will not hear you at all. As long as he doesn't have line of sight he will be unaware of your presence.
If the guard have line of sight then stealth still comes into play, in order to avoid visual confirmation.
Since the guard can only see you, not hear you, should you get a bonus to stealth against visual confirmation in this case??

If you limit the amount of senses that the guard can detect you with, then yes, you should get a bonus to stealth since the whole endeavour just became easier.

He doesn't just "have line or sight" or "not have line of sight". You're sneaking about. Attempting to move from hiding spot to hiding spot when he's not looking. Not making any noise just ups the chances of not drawing his attention towards your position and him not looking in your direction at the wrong time.

I find it really strange that you insist on a single dice roll that abstracts the whole procedure, but then analyze in details very specific and individual situations without looking at the big picture.

A dimly lit warehouse. A single guard with his dog, sitting on a bench in the middle of the night.
"15 minutes to go until the next shift buddy" says the guard while yawning and patting the dog lying next to him.
Suddenly, the dog rises up and stares intently straight ahead, its ears pointed up.
"Ah come on, seriously, I'm really not in the moods for chasing rodents this time..."
The guard shifts his gaze in the same direction and frowns. Did he just see something moving behind those crates, or is his fatigued mind playing tricks on him?
He stands up, points a flashlight towards the crates and starts moving, the dog ahead of him and pulling insistently on the leash.
"Nothing, you see". His voice doesn't sound very convincing though. The dog starts sniffing the ground and becomes more and more agitated.
The guard lets himself be guided, resisting with one hand the dog's now frantic pulling to keep a steady and careful pace and illuminating the way ahead with the other hand. He finally arrives at a door, just in time to see it closing.
"Rodents definitely don't open doors." He gulps, pulls out his handgun. "And I'm definitely not paid enough for this job". He moves forward.


That could be the roleplay behind a single Stealth roll.

Would Invisibility have helped?
Would Silence have helped?
Would something that eliminates scent have helped?

To me, yes, they should have.

[Xenon]

I find it really strange that you insist on a single dice roll that abstracts the whole procedure

Just because stealth is typically rolled once when you sneak into a research facility (according to SR6 p. 97) does not mean you should abstract the whole procedure into a single roll. All patrols still roll their perception tests.

...but then analyze in details very specific and individual situations...

Reason why we analyzed it in detail here in the thread was because you asked very detailed questions.

If silence is successful then the character is not heard.
If invisibility is successful then the character is not seen.
If stealth is successful then the character is not noticed at all.

Silence can also be used to prevent someone else from making sounds.
Invisibility can also be used in situations where stealth is not an option.

It is not more complicated or detailed than that.

....without looking at the big picture.

As in all situations in SR6 (not limited to stealth nor if you preroll or reroll), if either side can argue that they have some sort of circumstantial tactical advantage over the other then they might earn a point of Edge for that.