PDA

View Full Version : Hiding from mindless creatures



Dhavaer
2007-08-01, 05:53 PM
Isoulde is in a forest. There is a skeleton chasing her. The skeleton's instructions are 'kill any living creature you see'. Isoulde ducks behind a tree. The skeleton can no longer see her. She curls up under her cloak, and no part of her can be seen.

First, would the skeleton follow her behind the tree? I'd assume yes, but then it doesn't have an Int score.

Second, would the skeleton make the connection between the cloak and the girl it was chasing? This one I'd assume no, as long as Isoulde is entirely hidden (i.e. makes a successful Hide check).

Fax Celestis
2007-08-01, 05:59 PM
Mindless creatures do as they're told. He's been told to "kill any creature he sees". The skeleton would, in my opinion, progress to where he last saw her, and then go do something else once he lost her. The cloak is not a creature, and is therefore not a valid target for the command.

Bassetking
2007-08-01, 06:02 PM
Dhavier, where's Tristian in all of this?:smallbiggrin:

Dhavaer
2007-08-01, 06:18 PM
Dhavier, where's Tristian in all of this?:smallbiggrin:

His girl, I understand, isn't spelled with a 'u'.

goat
2007-08-01, 06:19 PM
I'd say it follows until it reaches the point at which she disappeared then remains there looking around for something else alive to kill. She'd have to stay hidden until it sees something else to go after.

Gamebird
2007-08-01, 06:23 PM
The problem is that "mindless" is not well defined in D&D. Obviously a "mindless" creature has an intellect, a perhaps-limited ability to reason, and an understanding of the world around them. The skeleton understands a language. It understands the meaning of "living creature" in the context the master intends. It is intelligent enough to use its natural weapons in an effective manner, while minimizing damage to itself.

So to your questions, I would answer:

First, would the skeleton follow her behind the tree? I'd assume yes, but then it doesn't have an Int score.

Of course it would follow her behind the tree, assuming no other "living creature" interposes itself, in the manner D&D defines living creatures (ie, trees and small insects aren't living creatures). And as far as that goes, it is worth mentioning that in D&D another creature can't interpose itself except as a readied action. However, Isolde could run behind another living creature and the skeleton would stop to attack the nearer creature.


Second, would the skeleton make the connection between the cloak and the girl it was chasing? This one I'd assume no, as long as Isoulde is entirely hidden (i.e. makes a successful Hide check).

Yes, because in D&D you can't make a Hide check without cover. Your own clothing does not provide you with cover. Now if she'd carried a tower shield and had time to set it up, then she'd be able to hide behind it. On the other hand, if the tree was large enough to entirely fill a 5x5 space, then the tree could provide cover and she could hide behind it, which would work until the skeleton moved around the tree, following her, and the tree would no longer be between them enough to continue to allow a Hide check.

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 06:31 PM
Yes, because in D&D you can't make a Hide check without cover. Your own clothing does not provide you with cover.Concealment is also sufficient for making a Hide check.

In fact, if she's actually covered up to the point that no part of her can be seen, then she has total concealment and doesn't even need to make a Hide check to be unseen.

Saint George
2007-08-01, 07:53 PM
Under this logic a person wearing a full suit of platemail (No skin showing) would not be attacked by the Skeleton.

Thus, I believe that even a mindless creature should be able to tell if something is hiding under its cape.

Do you really want your players walking around with sheets over their heads so these undead do not attack them?


On a side note I love the "Kill any living creature you see". I can just envision the skeleton losing the girl and chasing ducks for the rest of its unlife.

Tengu
2007-08-01, 08:08 PM
His girl, I understand, isn't spelled with a 'u'.

And he, himself, isn't spelled with the second 'i'.

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 08:12 PM
Under this logic a person wearing a full suit of platemail (No skin showing) would not be attacked by the Skeleton.

Thus, I believe that even a mindless creature should be able to tell if something is hiding under its cape.

Do you really want your players walking around with sheets over their heads so these undead do not attack them?The difference here, is that the standing plate mail or obviously mobile sheets are...well, obvious. An unmoving cloak laying against a tree? Not so much.

Saint George
2007-08-01, 08:19 PM
It is not just a cloak next to a tree, it is a person hiding under the cloak.There is obviously going to be a sizeable lump underneath the cloak. It is the same logic as covering yourself up with a sheet. If all you have to do is cover yourself with a piece of cloth (Sheet, Cloak, Cape, etc) and stop moving then these undead are going to need new instructions. (Attack living things and all clothing that you see)

Gamebird
2007-08-01, 08:25 PM
Concealment is also sufficient for making a Hide check.

In fact, if she's actually covered up to the point that no part of her can be seen, then she has total concealment and doesn't even need to make a Hide check to be unseen.

I agree that concealment can also work. But I don't think that a person's own clothing should be able to grant concealment. If it does, then that should also influence attack rolls made against a person - not just Hide checks.

ElHugo
2007-08-01, 08:27 PM
She's covered... By her own cloak! If that can give me total concealment, I'm buying my character one too...

As it is, by some clever maneuvring, she should be able to duck and weave around the tree just as the skeleton rounds it, and after a little bit of round-the-tree, the skeleton should no longer be able to see her, even if it goes where it last saw her (which makes sense)... Then, depending on its orders, I suppose it would either return to its assigned location or just stand there until some other 'living creature' comes up.

I'd say that being mindless, they can't reason things like 'obviously she can't have just disappeared, she has to be around here somewhere', but would reason 'I could see her until she stepped behind that tree. Lets go check behind that tree'.

That said, none of this has any basis in DnD rules, I'm just pulling this out of my hat, so it could be completely wrong, especially if you're looking for a by-the-rules explanation

EDIT: maybe I shouldn't click open half a dozen tabs and work back through them, heheh. Still, as said before, the cloak thing is improbable. Especially since the skeleton just saw her in the cloak, and besides, come on, hide under your own cloak? Maybe if it was a Magic Cloak of Hiding in the Forest (tm) or something...

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 08:38 PM
OK, I admit my reasoning so far has been flawed. But I've thought of something else.

Is the skeleton even going to look for her around the tree? There was a successful Hide check here, afterall (I'm guessing made when the tree provided cover); she managed to avoid notice from the skeleton to hide, and the skeleton doesn't know where is. And it can't even make a Search check since it lacks an Intelligence score. It will likely continue to run past the tree, unable to determine where she went.

daggaz
2007-08-01, 08:48 PM
Wow... I disagree with so many of you studs tonite... especially you Gamebird, for once..

Its MINDLESS. Assuming the cloak is somewhat neutral in coloration, yeah.. she can hide behind it, and some retarded mindless skeleton is probably going to stare at it, wonder a bit (now isn't that a paradox), and leave, provided she doesn't sneeze or cough or move. Any other character with an INT over 3 would pay much more attention tho.

And here is the kicker, with a mind, you recognize patterns, behaviors, and can make connections between one and two. Ie... i saw her with a cloak... there is that cloak on the ground with a big bump under it, that bump must be her. Also in this list...hey, theres some full plate... hey Im not an Idiot, there must be a person in there!!!

THe mindless entity, on the other hand, will ignore the cloak after a very short and distant inspection. As for a suit of fullplate, they recognize it as the pattern of the thing they are looking to attack (the cloak changes shape, from a hanging, flapping cloak, to a rounded bulky, unmoving object, they cannot bridge the connection between this change), and will attack accordingly. In fact, this is a great way to lead off undead. Remove your armor, leave it in an upright position, and run like hell. They WILL be distracted, and attack it for at least 1d4 rounds, before they realize that it is not a living entity.

Serious, people...use common sense plus Rule 0 at all times.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-01, 09:11 PM
Serious, people...use common sense plus Rule 0 at all times.
It is very obvious that the meaning of common sense here isn't entirely clear.

Being mindless and being incapable of recognizing key patterns are not the same at all. You assume that the undead can recognize a living creature with ease, if they see it fully exposed. But they can't recognize when something human-shaped isn't alive easily? Why not? If you put them in concealing robes, would they turn on each other then?

As for the cloak...they probably wouldn't attack unattended clothing. But if you're hiding under the cloak, what they may well see is the shape of a cloak wrapped around a person curled up on the ground. Which is no less revealing than a person standing up and wearing clothing.


Is the skeleton even going to look for her around the tree? There was a successful Hide check here, afterall (I'm guessing made when the tree provided cover); she managed to avoid notice from the skeleton to hide, and the skeleton doesn't know where is. And it can't even make a Search check since it lacks an Intelligence score. It will likely continue to run past the tree, unable to determine where she went.
It knows more or less where it last saw her. The better (equally mindless) behavior in such a case is to center a search pattern on that point, circling outward until you regain contact. Assuming constant bearing is an awful search rule at relatively short distances.

Yakk
2007-08-01, 09:20 PM
My evil thoughts...

The cloak shouldn't work by RAW, and as fluff, undead that are that easy to fool are a bit silly.

The hide+sneak+listen+readied action to deke around the tree should, however, work. Once it can no longer detect the living creature it is trying to kill, and the living creature is not at the last location it saw it flee to, the undead should switch to it's "default" behavior.

Note that the undead has no intelligence and 1 cha, but does have 10 wisdom.

Note having no intelligence means that it has an intelligence modifier of +0, not -5. No intelligence is different than 0 intelligence.


Nonabilities

Some creatures lack certain ability scores. These creatures do not have an ability score of 0—they lack the ability altogether. The modifier for a nonability is +0. Other effects of nonabilities are detailed below.


Intelligence

Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. It has immunity to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) and automatically fails Intelligence checks.

Mindless creatures do not gain feats or skills, although they may have bonus feats or racial skill bonuses.

Rereading that, the skeleton has no memory. Quite possibly hiding behind the tree is enough, given that instruction "kill any living creature you see" -- once the undead cannot see Isoulde, that instruction does not apply. If the undead has no other instructions, the undead will stand there, and wait for a living creature to show up in the undeads field of view.

Now, people don't actually move discontinuously. So to successfully leave the field of view of the undead, you need to be able to out run it -- I'd rule that simply moving behind the tree is insufficient, and that if the undead spends one turn "following after you" and isn't slowed down by something extra, it never actually lost sight of you.

I'd allow a creative skill check to get out of LOS of the skeleton (jump, tumble, and survival are all appropriate), followed by a hide to make sure all of your limbs are hidden in time.

But the cloak shouldn't do anything -- it is "part of" your equipment, and hence "part of" a living creature. Unless it would be dramatically appropriate for it to work. :) Note, however, that running away and hiding behind the tree would involve an attempt to break line of sight -- so make the other rolls to see if line of sight was broken. If so, don't tell the player anything -- just "You hear your heart beating loudly in your ears, and some leaves rustling in the wind". Let the player imagine that the skeleton is standing over her looking for her to move. Animals should "feel" the unnatural undead and avoid the area. Eventually she will either get tired or she'll peek out -- if she gets tired, she should wake with a cool breeze blowing on her foot -- it slips out while she is sleeping. Possibly she will awake with a start.

This doesn't attract the skeleton, but (survival or listen) the area is still eerily quiet.

The skeleton remains on the other side of the tree, staring at the location she last disappeared to. Naturally, if she looks, the skeleton sees her and advances!

Moving away from the skeleton in a direction exactly opposite the tree is tricky but possible (hide or survival checks to move along just the right line).


Evil enough for you?

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 09:27 PM
It knows more or less where it last saw her. The better (equally mindless) behavior in such a case is to center a search pattern on that point, circling outward until you regain contact. Assuming constant bearing is an awful search rule at relatively short distances.To me, that sounds too methodical for a mindless creature. Besides, it can't search; it has no Intelligence score and thus automatically fails Intelligence checks, like Search checks. I do agree it wouldn't go on indefinitely, after proceeding a ways it would give up continuing and resume its standing orders.

I should probably have said this sooner, but I think hiding from the skeleton behind a tree is cool and am looking for how the rules would support it. The dramatic part is that she won't immediately know if it works; looking to see if the skeleton's still will ruin the attempt if the skeleton sees or hears the movement. Likewise, waiting and continuing to hide may prove counterproductive if the skeleton somehow ends up finding her anyway.



Note having no intelligence means that it has an intelligence modifier of +0, not -5. No intelligence is different than 0 intelligence.Indeed, but there's the other part.
Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. It has immunity to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) and automatically fails Intelligence checks.

Mindless creatures do not gain feats or skills, although they may have bonus feats or racial skill bonuses.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-01, 09:51 PM
To me, that sounds too methodical for a mindless creature. Besides, it can't search; it has no Intelligence score and thus automatically fails Intelligence checks, like Search checks. I do agree it wouldn't go on indefinitely, after proceeding a ways it would give up continuing and resume its standing orders.
Methodical and mindless actually go together. An automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions, yes? On the other hand, if you want it not to understand about the cloak (perhaps because the outline of the person underneath is too broken up), it could 'search' the area but ignore the hidden person as just a piece of cloth.

By search, incidentally, I mean walk in an expanding (presumably hardwired) pattern making appropriate reactive spot/listen checks, not anything involving the search skill.

Though 'has no memory' is problematic, I'd have to throw that out...if it has no memory at all, it also can't possibly take orders.

Gamebird
2007-08-01, 10:21 PM
"automatically fails Intelligence checks"

Which as has been pointed out to me over and over about Spot checks and distance modifiers, this only affects the undead if it is trying to do something that the DM thinks would require an Intelligence-related check. Making a reactive Spot check doesn't count. Does a PC, even one with INT 3, have to make an INT check to figure out that someone who ran behind a tree and didn't come out the opposite side might still be behind that tree? No, they wouldn't. Would you have to make an INT check (or Search check, whatever) to detect someone standing or kneeling on the opposite side of the tree, with no cover or concealment? No, of course not (at least, not without magical or supernatural abilities, or other mitigating factors not mentioned by the OP).

To clarify about the Spot checks, I've previously posed the issue of whether someone can see the sun, since the distance modifiers dwarf even the enormous size and brightness modifiers the sun might have. The best rebuttal is that people only have to make Spot checks when something meets the conditions for hiding, which includes cover, concealment and/or (often, but not always) an attempt to hide. A mountain, in daylight, under normal circumstances, is easily visible even if it is far away. An enormous dragon flying through the air in a cloudless sky is visible despite distance. A person standing in front of you is visible even if they have a cloak on, despite how they might wear that cloak. A Hide check based on nothing more than "I use my cloak" is a failed Hide check (though the PC who knows nothing of undead mentality might not know that).

Also, a PC who doesn't know the undead's commands might not know how to react either.

Yakk
2007-08-01, 10:29 PM
Skill Checks and Stat Checks are distinct things.

Spot is a wisdom based skill.

Hiding behind your own cloak isn't hiding: -- it is disguising yourself as a piece of cloth. Undead have perfectly fine Spot. And the "piece of cloth" disguise of "pull a cloak over you" is not a very good disguise.

Untrained skill checks are not attribute checks, as far as I can tell:

Untrained Skill Checks

Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check.

Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them.


Ability Checks

Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

It is the ability checks that a skeleton always fails.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#abilityChecks

SadisticFishing
2007-08-01, 10:35 PM
This is not an intelligence check, it's a wisdom check. The undead, if it notices that the cloak isn't part of the tree, understands where she went and proceeds to killing her.

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 11:18 PM
It is the ability checks that a skeleton always fails.I find it horribly amusing that you say that after quoting that ability checks, which are most certainly failed, are essentially untrained skill checks. I suppose you're right though. I'm having difficulty believing that a mindless shambling pile of bones is better at reasoning skills then an intelligent animal is, though.



But let me try this again:


Once she runs behind the tree, she's allowed to make a Hide check because the tree grants her cover. If she succeeds, she's hidden. Once the skeleton follows around the tree, it's entitled to a Spot check. If she's allowed a Hide check for whatever reason, and it beats the skeleton's Spot check, the skeleton doesn't see her.

At that point, the skeleton doesn't know where she is, or where she could be. Now we enter "mindless adjudication", wherein I believe that the skeleton will react as though she's not there, because it failed to detect her, and it will move on in her general direction. In order for it to hang around and search the area, it would have to deduce that she's hidden herself from it. I'm pretty sure a deduction of that sort would be an Intelligence check, which we've established for certain that the skeleton will fail.

On the other hand, if the skeleton follows around the tree and she's not allowed a Hide check, the skeleton spots her, and proceeds to follow its directive to kill any living creature.


Personally, I favor the scenario that rewards the character for outsmarting the mindless skeleton. In retrospect, the cloak thing ends up being pure fluff.

Tor the Fallen
2007-08-01, 11:26 PM
I have a related question, but as yet just a gedanken.

If you cast an illusion in front of a skeleton or other mindless creature that spand a chasm and looks like a bridge, they won't cross it, will they? How do they know what's real and what's not? Magic? Is there some hidden, deeper philosophical meaning here?

kjones
2007-08-01, 11:29 PM
=To clarify about the Spot checks, I've previously posed the issue of whether someone can see the sun, since the distance modifiers dwarf even the enormous size and brightness modifiers the sun might have. The best rebuttal is that people only have to make Spot checks when something meets the conditions for hiding, which includes cover, concealment and/or (often, but not always) an attempt to hide. A mountain, in daylight, under normal circumstances, is easily visible even if it is far away. An enormous dragon flying through the air in a cloudless sky is visible despite distance.

I was about to make some angry response to this, but I realized it makes quite a bit of sense. I mean, when it's cloudy, the sun has concealment, and anybody who has tried to shoot the sun's EXACT location on a cloudy day would understand that it might require some Wis.


If you cast an illusion in front of a skeleton or other mindless creature that spand a chasm and looks like a bridge, they won't cross it, will they? How do they know what's real and what's not? Magic? Is there some hidden, deeper philosophical meaning here?

The question here is the type of illusion magic. If it's a phantasm or pattern, then it only exists in the minds of those who it affects; thus, it doesn't actually affect, say, the photons reflecting off of what's (not) there. So a phantasmal or pattern chasm would be ignored, because they are mind-affecting. A shadow gap, however, is quasi-real, and would be avoided.

Linky (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#illusion)

Dhavaer
2007-08-01, 11:30 PM
I have a related question, but as yet just a gedanken.

If you cast an illusion in front of a skeleton or other mindless creature that spand a chasm and looks like a bridge, they won't cross it, will they? How do they know what's real and what's not? Magic? Is there some hidden, deeper philosophical meaning here?

They'd cross it if their orders required them to. They'd then fall off and probably be destroyed. Good way of using a command undead ability.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-01, 11:47 PM
Once she runs behind the tree, she's allowed to make a Hide check because the tree grants her cover. If she succeeds, she's hidden. Once the skeleton follows around the tree, it's entitled to a Spot check. If she's allowed a Hide check for whatever reason, and it beats the skeleton's Spot check, the skeleton doesn't see her.

At that point, the skeleton doesn't know where she is, or where she could be. Now we enter "mindless adjudication", wherein I believe that the skeleton will react as though she's not there, because it failed to detect her, and it will move on in her general direction. In order for it to hang around and search the area, it would have to deduce that she's hidden herself from it. I'm pretty sure a deduction of that sort would be an Intelligence check, which we've established for certain that the skeleton will fail.
The problem I have with this is that you're asserting that the base assumption is that if you loose sight of someone, their 'general direction' remains the same until you see them again. Why, if the skeleton is going to remember some detail about its last contact with the prey, would it focus on their bearing, rather than their location?

It doesn't "deduce that she's hidden from it", it goes to the last place she was seen, doesn't see her, and scouts from there. Not because it 'thinks' she's hiding nearby, but because she could have gone in any direction from there, and it has no way of knowing which.

Jasdoif
2007-08-01, 11:56 PM
The problem I have with this is that you're asserting that the base assumption is that if you loose sight of someone, their 'general direction' remains the same until you see them again. Why, if the skeleton is going to remember some detail about its last contact with the prey, would it focus on their bearing, rather than their location?The skeleton is already at that location, and sees nothing. Apparently the location is a dud, that leaves the bearing. Or a bearing, if you prefer.

Either way, it leads the skeleton away in some direction. I believe that "idle around in the last known spot" conflicts with the directive of "kill any living creature you see," given the indication that the last living creature seen is not there.

Generic PC
2007-08-02, 01:02 AM
The problem I have with this is that you're asserting that the base assumption is that if you loose sight of someone, their 'general direction' remains the same until you see them again. Why, if the skeleton is going to remember some detail about its last contact with the prey, would it focus on their bearing, rather than their location?

It doesn't "deduce that she's hidden from it", it goes to the last place she was seen, doesn't see her, and scouts from there. Not because it 'thinks' she's hiding nearby, but because she could have gone in any direction from there, and it has no way of knowing which.

no, what i believe this person is asserting is that a mindless thing would assume that they go in the same direction. being mindless sort of assumes, IMO (which may be wrong) that they cannot really deduce. I would say Sherlock Holmes had a better Intelligence than wisdom (though they were both meant to be great, i would think) because i would base deductions off of Intellect more than Wisdom. For instance, if this skeleton was, instead a human, and had a mind, it would realize almost instantly, when this person was not behind the tree, they had either hidden or had began running much faster than before. (or something completely different, like become invisible, i suppose.) The human would (or at least, I would) assume that this person wouldnt have begun running faster, or it would have tried that earlier, so i would begin searching, as mentioned, methodologically. however, IMO, the Skeleton cannot deduce like i did above, and would follow its orders, killing anything living it will see, or standing inert if it does not see anything. It would obviously be making Spot/Listen checks, but if nothing picks up on its "radar", whats it gonna do? bend the rules? (This line of thought assumes this person did actually, hide, or the chase would continue, as well as that there were no other factors, like a slightly different order, or the cloak mentioned above.)

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-02, 01:11 AM
The skeleton is already at that location, and sees nothing. Apparently the location is a dud, that leaves the bearing. Or a bearing, if you prefer.

Either way, it leads the skeleton away in some direction. I believe that "idle around in the last known spot" conflicts with the directive of "kill any living creature you see," given the indication that the last living creature seen is not there.
I would never advocate the skeleton just stopping there (though Generic PC has a point that the 'kill anything you see' order doesn't actually say to do anything if you see nothing to kill). However, the only behavior that gives a skeleton a reasonable chance of finding a lost target (hiding or fled) in an open area is an expanding search pattern, perhaps spiraling out from the point of contact. So this is the search and destroy behavior I'd expect (eventually, it ought to abandon the pattern). If the priority is instead to just find something to kill, without concern for the previous target, just running off in a straight line makes sense.

Starsinger
2007-08-02, 01:34 AM
Uhh... what color is the cloak? If it looks semi natural, I'd definitely say the Skellie is filled with oblivion. If it looks... not natural, but she stays still enough, I'd have it assume she was debris. Maybe, maybe... maybe I'd have the skeleton make a wisdom check to attempt to search through the "debris". Although, after many nightmares as a child involving hiding with monsters, naturally I believe that hiding under a cloak/blanket/towel would definitely provide cover from enemies (including undead, murderers, and were-wolves.)

Kel_Arath
2007-08-02, 03:56 AM
The skeleton would walk around the tree in chase and stop and stand there. It wouldn't attack the person under the cloak as long as they stayed still, seeing as "It can draw no conlclusions of its own..." and it wouldn't move unless there was another creature because of the rest of that sentence "...and takes no initiatve." So it wouldn't have the initiative or the reasoning to check under the cloak, go look for them, etc.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 05:35 AM
I suppose it all depends on how a skeleton perceives things. It rather obviously doesn't have eyes (besides, it'll keep fighting if you knock its head off). If the skeleton is a bunch of bones possessed by some lesser dark force, said dark force presumably has senses. Probably not eyes either. It would be reasonable to suppose it has a "life sense" which it uses to, you know, detect and attack life - in which case it would indeed not be fooled by (most) illusions, but it would also not be fooled by hiding or even invisibility.

$.2

Kioran
2007-08-02, 05:39 AM
Most people who say "the skeleton finds her anyway and she´s screwed" penalizae player creativity and restrict the options to RAW. It´s no wonder than that everything without shiny toys is dull.....

its_all_ogre
2007-08-02, 05:45 AM
i allowed a pc using a tent to move around in to not be harmed by a horde of zombies and skeletons. it was such a silly plan that it had to work!

mind you i have also had an amusing adventure years ago where skeletons were left with the order attack anything that moves.
pcs find a few skeletons attacking branches on a tree that is blowing in the breeze.
whats going on? they approach the skeletons, maybe they're fighting some kind of tree-monster?:smallbiggrin:

Dhavaer
2007-08-02, 07:34 AM
It would be reasonable to suppose it has a "life sense" which it uses to, you know, detect and attack life - in which case it would indeed not be fooled by (most) illusions, but it would also not be fooled by hiding or even invisibility.

$.2

Why would that be reasonable? If skeletons were immune to invisibility, don't you think it would mention it in their description?

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 08:27 AM
I would never advocate the skeleton just stopping there (though Generic PC has a point that the 'kill anything you see' order doesn't actually say to do anything if you see nothing to kill). However, the only behavior that gives a skeleton a reasonable chance of finding a lost target (hiding or fled) in an open area is an expanding search pattern, perhaps spiraling out from the point of contact. So this is the search and destroy behavior I'd expect (eventually, it ought to abandon the pattern). If the priority is instead to just find something to kill, without concern for the previous target, just running off in a straight line makes sense.

Search and destroy is a tactical decision--a very basic one, but a tactical decision nonetheless. It requires memory and forethought, neither of which is within a skeleton's capabilities. The fact that it's the only behavior that gives a reasonable chance of success is irrelevant. Mindless things are incapable of strategy. If that results in them failing at their assigned tasks, them's the breaks.

In this case, the skeleton keeps chasing Isoulde until she ducks behind the tree. Then it stops--because it has no memory. The only thing it can remember is its orders. It doesn't know what it was doing two seconds ago. It doesn't follow Isoulde to her last known location, because that would require it to remember where that location was and that there was a reason to go there. As far as the skeleton is concerned, its target has just ceased to exist.

I agree with the earlier poster who said the skeleton should get to finish out one more turn's worth of movement, reflecting the fact that the skeleton and its prey are actually moving at the same time; but if at the end of that movement the skeleton can't see Isoulde, it gives up. It stands there motionless (or perhaps wanders randomly, depending on what you consider its "default behavior" to be) until it spots another living creature to attack, and then it attacks it.

Now, if the skeleton happened across somebody hiding under a cloak, would it attack that person? That really depends on how you think the skeleton identifies living prey. Still, the skeleton presumably would not attack a cloak lying on the ground. Would it attack a cloak draped over a statue? Hard to say, but if the answer is no, then the skeleton wouldn't attack a living target either (unless it spotted the movement of the target's breathing). Again--no memory, no deductive skills. The skeleton is not capable of thinking, "What? A statue with a cloak draped over it, out here? What are the odds?" As far as it's concerned, what it sees is what there is.


Why would that be reasonable? If skeletons were immune to invisibility, don't you think it would mention it in their description?

This is pretty well established: Undead have the same sensory capabilities as ordinary humans. See Sage Advice (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060718a)--"Undead creatures see and hear pretty much just like other sorts of creatures do. They aren't imbued with any sort of special sense that allows them to note unseen things or creatures."

Except for undead such as dread wraiths (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wraith.htm) that specifically have a life-sensing ability, the only difference between undead and human senses is that all undead have 60-foot darkvision (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#undeadType).

Yakk
2007-08-02, 09:16 AM
Once the target is out of line of sight, the skeleton's orders no longer apply.



+-------------------+
| . |
|X. S|
| . |
+-------------------+

Each character is a 5' section.
The ... is a thick curtain the skeleton can't see through.
X is a living creature.
S is the skeleton with the instruction "Kill any living creature you see, and wait otherwise".

The curtain starts blocking the view of the Skeleton.

Nothing happens.

Move the curtain aside. Skeleton spots the living creature. It attempts to kill the living creature -- which makes it move towards the living creature.

In the first round, it doesn't quite reach the living creature. The curtain then blocks the skeleton's view again.

The skeleton waits. It can no longer see a living creature, and it has no memory.

If you built a room with two curtains, one on each end, that was long enough, you could get the skeleton to walk back and forth as long as you wanted, forever. Because it has no memory.

...

Based on that interpretation, if the skeleton loses sight of the human, it enters default mode -- which I would assume would be "wait". It could also be "wait here", which would mean the skeleton would turn around and go back to it's guard post. It has no instructions about searching for things not in it's line of sight.

The question is, did the human manage to get out of the line of sight of the skeleton. If they both have the same movement and are in melee range, I'd require a roll to produce a temporary gap (jump, survival, tumbling, or strength), and then a roll to hide oneself out of LOS fast enough.

The cloak is, I believe, immaterial. The tree is enough. There is no need to tell the player this. :)

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 09:21 AM
Why would that be reasonable? If skeletons were immune to invisibility, don't you think it would mention it in their description?

Because I'm reasoning from flavor, not rules text. I never said i was talking about the exact kind of skeleton described in the MM; if I were a necromancer, this sounds like a good way I would use to make skeletons.



(edit) Oh by the way, having the skeleton return to its guard post presupposes that the skeleton remembers where that is. If we're arguing that skels have no memory, then it will not be able to find it.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 09:28 AM
Because I'm reasoning from flavor, not rules text. I never said i was talking about the exact kind of skeleton described in the MM; if I were a necromancer, this sounds like a good way I would use to make skeletons.

I like the idea of undead with life sense, certainly. If it were up to me, it would be standard for all undead. However, that is quite clearly a house rule, and as such doesn't really bear on the OP's question, which is about the kind of skeletons described in the MM.

Also, given that this is a forum about RPGs, if you say "skeletons," you should expect people to assume you're talking about skeletons as described in the rules of the RPG under discussion, unless you specifically say otherwise.


(edit) Oh by the way, having the skeleton return to its guard post presupposes that the skeleton remembers where that is. If we're arguing that skels have no memory, then it will not be able to find it.

Yup. Only way the skeleton will be able to return to its post is if its instructions include "Guard this spot." (While the skeleton itself can't remember anything, the magic that controls it presumably renews its orders from moment to moment.) And even then, if it can't see the spot it was supposed to guard, it won't be able to figure out how to get back.

If it wasn't specifically instructed to return, then whoever sent the skeleton chasing off after living creatures will probably never see it again. Not that necromancers usually worry much about the fate of one skeleton. That's the nice thing about animated minions... they are thoroughly expendable.

Zherog
2007-08-02, 09:46 AM
It is intelligent enough to use its natural weapons in an effective manner, while minimizing damage to itself.

It depends on what you mean by "minimizing damage to itself." In my opinion, mindless creatures are incapable of tactical thought. This means, for example, they'll move in the most direct path to their target regardless of whether or not it provokes attacks of opportunity. So if that's the sort of thing you meant, then I strongly disagree with you. If you meant "it gets Dex to AC" then yeah - I can go along with the "minimizing damage to itself" piece of text.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 09:49 AM
However, that is quite clearly a house rule, and as such doesn't really bear on the OP's question, which is about the kind of skeletons described in the MM.
Why? Nowhere does the OP mention this is even D&D we're talking about. I suppose we could infer that as it mentions of int scores and hide checks (although nearly every RPG that I know of has those), but even then she does not mention the MM. There's plenty of skeletal creatures in other books, and I don't consider creating your own creatures to be house ruling.



Isoulde is in a forest. There is a skeleton chasing her. The skeleton's instructions are 'kill any living creature you see'. Isoulde ducks behind a tree. The skeleton can no longer see her. She curls up under her cloak, and no part of her can be seen.

First, would the skeleton follow her behind the tree? I'd assume yes, but then it doesn't have an Int score.

Second, would the skeleton make the connection between the cloak and the girl it was chasing? This one I'd assume no, as long as Isoulde is entirely hidden (i.e. makes a successful Hide check).

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 09:55 AM
Why? Nowhere does the OP mention this is even D&D we're talking about. I suppose we could infer that as it mentions of int scores and hide checks (although nearly every RPG that I know of has those), but even then she does not mention the MM. There's plenty of skeletal creatures in other books, and I don't consider creating your own creatures to be house ruling.

A "skeleton" is a creature defined in the D&D rules. Liches and death knights and huecuvas and the like are all skeletal, but they are not "skeletons."

The mention of Int scores and Hide checks strongly implies that we're talking about D&D, which is the default around here anyway. Therefore, if the OP refers to "skeletons," in a context where it would be reasonable for that to refer to the "skeleton" monster, then that's what it should be assumed to refer to. Occam's Razor and all that.

And creating your own creature is absolutely a house ruling. Is it in the rulebooks? No. Does it involve rules? Yes. Is it specific to your gaming "house?" Yes. Ergo, it is a house rule.

That's not a bad thing, in fact I strongly approve of homebrewing monsters--it's a great way to make your game exciting again when your players know the Monster Manual backwards and forwards, and it lets you tailor the standard D&D ruleset to fit the flavor of your campaign--but when somebody asks about a monster that's listed in the Monster Manual, that person is most assuredly not asking about your particular homebrew monster.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-02, 09:59 AM
Amusingly Kurald, there is a "lifesense" Ability. I think 1 creature has it, actually, I can't recall any others.
Lifesense (Su)
A dread wraith notices and locates living creatures within 60 feet, just as if it possessed the blindsight ability. It also senses the strength of their life force automatically, as if it had cast deathwatch.

Golthur
2007-08-02, 09:59 AM
I would think of a skeleton's instructions like a computer program. In essence, it does exactly what it's told to do - no more, no less. It doesn't have the capability of making "judgment calls".

It doesn't mean that a skeleton doesn't have a memory, exactly, it just means that it's not really capable of learning anything. It's "guard post" can be pre-programmed in, likewise a search pattern to use to find a creature that's now hidden.

However, if the necromancer did not give it instructions on what to do if it's pursuing a living creature and the creature "disappears", then too bad for the necromancer. I would say that the skeleton would immediately revert to its standing orders - likely "wait at your guard post for a new creature to come around".

It is possible that the necromancer could give it some instructions on what to do in this scenario - it's just not very likely that he'd do so unless he had this exact problem ("bug") before :amused:

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-02, 10:10 AM
Search and destroy is a tactical decision--a very basic one, but a tactical decision nonetheless. It requires memory and forethought, neither of which is within a skeleton's capabilities. The fact that it's the only behavior that gives a reasonable chance of success is irrelevant. Mindless things are incapable of strategy. If that results in them failing at their assigned tasks, them's the breaks.
Mindless things are quite capable of strategy. They aren't capable of inventing strategy, analyzing strategy, or changing strategy (without outside modification), but the instincts and programs explicitly allowed to them most assuredly can include something as simple as what I described (excepting only the 'no memory' clause, addressed below).

Memory (beyond the simple and immediate) and forethought are not required...it doesn't decide that it wants to kill this particular person, and that this is the smart way to do it. Its orders demand killing this particular person (I'm supposing...as written, they don't), and this is its universal response for losing track of something it has to kill.

re Golthur: skeletons seem to possess a number of useful behaviors the necromancer is not required to explicitly program them with. Recognize creatures (with high detail), wield weapons, inflict bodily harm, recognize creatures no longer living, maintain 360 degree awareness...I'd include 'regain lost visual contact' in that library.

In this case, the skeleton keeps chasing Isoulde until she ducks behind the tree. Then it stops--because it has no memory. The only thing it can remember is its orders. It doesn't know what it was doing two seconds ago. It doesn't follow Isoulde to her last known location, because that would require it to remember where that location was and that there was a reason to go there. As far as the skeleton is concerned, its target has just ceased to exist.
I realize that that is what is written. It's just that the no memory claim is nonsensical. First of all, it can take orders, and having a large memory for commands and none at all for anything else seems unjustifiable. Secondly, nothing is completely without memory. Various hymenopterans have an assortment of memory-dependent activities, and they're just about the most popular examples of 'mindless'. Finally, skeletons can use weapons, and they don't forget what weapon is in their hand when it leaves their field of vision. Similarly, they are capable of the same battlefield awareness as anyone else...which demands that they be able to at least momentarily remember what they see, since they can't see in all directions simultaneously.

Also, some very basic instructions would become impossible without memory. Do you think the order 'walk in an outward spiral from here' is one a skeleton can follow? Or what about 'walk west to the second river'? Neither of those is possible for something with no memory at all beyond the given command.


I agree with the earlier poster who said the skeleton should get to finish out one more turn's worth of movement, reflecting the fact that the skeleton and its prey are actually moving at the same time; but if at the end of that movement the skeleton can't see Isoulde, it gives up. It stands there motionless (or perhaps wanders randomly, depending on what you consider its "default behavior" to be) until it spots another living creature to attack, and then it attacks it.
If the instruction was indeed 'kill any living creature you see', this is certainly correct. It doesn't actually care about any creature it doesn't see. Just the successful hide check causes it to completely abandon pursuit.

This apparently being a forest, it seems to me that that particular order ought to crash the skeleton's little processor, since at any given time it's likely to see several living things and have no way to chose between them. If it choses randomly it'll spend a lot of time swatting bugs, and some attempting to charge birds.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 10:11 AM
I would think of a skeleton's instructions like a computer program. In essence, it does exactly what it's told to do - no more, no less. It doesn't have the capability of making "judgment calls".

It doesn't mean that a skeleton doesn't have a memory, exactly, it just means that it's not really capable of learning anything. It's "guard post" can be pre-programmed in, likewise a search pattern to use to find a creature that's now hidden.

However, if the necromancer did not give it instructions on what to do if it's pursuing a living creature and the creature "disappears", then too bad for the necromancer. I would say that the skeleton would immediately revert to its standing orders - likely "wait at your guard post for a new creature to come around".

It is possible that the necromancer could give it some instructions on what to do in this scenario - it's just not very likely that he'd do so unless he had this exact problem ("bug") before :amused:

Pretty much... although the rules on skeletons also say "its instructions must always be simple (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/skeleton.htm)." So it's a computer program with about 4K of RAM. :smallbiggrin:

Exactly what "simple" means here is not defined; I personally would limit it to a single sentence with no more than one or two subordinate clauses and no conditionals. "Kill every creature that enters this room" would be okay. "Pursue and kill every creature that enters this room, adopting a widening search pattern if the creature disappears, and return to this room after the kill is accomplished" would not.


re Golthur: skeletons seem to possess a number of useful behaviors the necromancer is not required to explicitly program them with. Recognize creatures (with high detail), wield weapons, inflict bodily harm, recognize creatures no longer living, maintain 360 degree awareness...I'd include 'regain lost visual contact' in that library.

I agree that skeletons obviously contain some pre-programmed routines, but I don't see any reason to assume that "regain lost visual contact" is among them. They clearly have routines to distinguish living creatures from inanimate objects, to attack (with or without weapons), and to visually identify creatures and locations pointed out to them in their orders. Beyond that? It's not entirely clear, but I would err on the side of assuming it doesn't know how to do things.


I realize that that is what is written. It's just that the no memory claim is nonsensical. First of all, it can take orders, and having a large memory for commands and none at all for anything else seems unjustifiable.

The ability to take orders is a specific exception to the general rule.


Secondly, nothing is completely without memory. Various hymenopterans have an assortment of memory-dependent activities, and they're just about the most popular examples of 'mindless'.

We're not talking about hymenopterans, we're talking about mindless undead. A robot is a better comparison. And while a robot does, as you say, have a memory for commands, that doesn't mean it uses its memory to store any kind of record of things that have happened to it. In fact, unless specifically programmed to do so, it maintains no such record.


Finally, skeletons can use weapons, and they don't forget what weapon is in their hand when it leaves their field of vision.

They can feel it in their hands.


Similarly, they are capable of the same battlefield awareness as anyone else...which demands that they be able to at least momentarily remember what they see, since they can't see in all directions simultaneously.

They can hear as well. Vision is not the only sense they possess.


Also, some very basic instructions would become impossible without memory. Do you think the order 'walk in an outward spiral from here' is one a skeleton can follow? Or what about 'walk west to the second river'? Neither of those is possible for something with no memory at all beyond the given command.

I do not, in fact, consider those to be instructions a skeleton can follow.


If the instruction was indeed 'kill any living creature you see', this is certainly correct.

That's what the OP specified. Why are we suddenly assuming otherwise?


This apparently being a forest, it seems to me that that particular order ought to crash the skeleton's little processor, since at any given time it's likely to see several living things and have no way to chose between them. If it choses randomly it'll spend a lot of time swatting bugs, and some attempting to charge birds.

Yeah. Gotta hate that literal skeleton mind. Honestly, mindless critters make lousy guards. Their main value is as cannon fodder to swarm whatever target you point them at.

Person_Man
2007-08-02, 10:21 AM
You're in a forest, and the skeleton's orders were very poorly worded. A forest is filled with birds, squirrels, deer, insects, etc. The skeleton has been ordered to kill any living creature it sees. So a sentient being shouldn't have that much trouble running away.

Golthur
2007-08-02, 10:30 AM
re Golthur: skeletons seem to possess a number of useful behaviors the necromancer is not required to explicitly program them with. Recognize creatures (with high detail), wield weapons, inflict bodily harm, recognize creatures no longer living, maintain 360 degree awareness...I'd include 'regain lost visual contact' in that library.
I would think of that sort of thing as being in the SkeletonOS (TM) :smile:

But, in my mind there's a difference between "hey, she went around a tree, I'll follow" and "I'm going to comb the area looking for this creature that disappeared". The first would be built-in IMHO, but the second I would rule requires explicit instruction of some sort if the skeleton is going to do more than walk around to the other side of the tree and look around for one turn.

Ultimately, though, it's up to the individual DM as to what the "default OS behaviour" for a skeleton is.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-02, 01:44 PM
The mention of Int scores and Hide checks strongly implies that we're talking about D&D, which is the default around here anyway.
This is not the D&D forum, this is the "d20 and General RPG forum". Just because you automatically assume that people are talking about D&D doesn't mean everybody else has to jump to the same conclusion. I can think of half a dozen other RPGs that also have int scores and hide checks.


And creating your own creature is absolutely a house ruling.
Kindly stop patronizing me. A creature is not a rule. If one makes a creature involving all standard rules and feats and nothing new, I would not consider that a houserule, just like making a character using all stard rules and feats isn't (although obviously the new critter is homebrew). Just because you define it differently does not make that the universal truth.

mostlyharmful
2007-08-02, 02:22 PM
this all boils down to how the DM interprits 'mindlessness', whether they use it as just really stupid or whether it means they mechanically follow a set of simple instructions (again DM call on 'simple') or if they (my favorite) treat it as can't be affected by any magical mind targeting effect. I love the skeletons that can have a conversation when they're restrained and even show similar character traits to the person they used to be albeit evil and brain-cravingly

Runolfr
2007-08-02, 02:50 PM
If we assume a more sensible set of instructions for the skeleton, like "kill any living humanoid you detect in the forest", it's unlikely that Isolde would easily escape.

She'd have to successfully Hide from the skeleton, and she'd have some bad situational modifiers, I'd say. Her cloak wouldn't be good enough; it was the probably the most visible thing about her to the pursuing skeleton, so it would likely go straight for the cloak if it saw it on the ground.

If it did lose track of her behind the tree -- for example, if it was far enough behind when she broke line-of-sight that it coasted to a stop before passing the tree -- it would just wait where it was for a new target to present itself. Isolde would therefore have to stay hidden and quiet indefinitely.

Of course, this might be the occasion to employ some cliche escape plans. Against a mindless undead, throwing a rock to create a distraction would probably be effective. Arranging her cloak on a shrub so it appeared to be her might also distract the skeleton long enough for her to get away in another direction.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 02:52 PM
This is not the D&D forum, this is the "d20 and General RPG forum". Just because you automatically assume that people are talking about D&D doesn't mean everybody else has to jump to the same conclusion. I can think of half a dozen other RPGs that also have int scores and hide checks.

I just looked over the top 20 threads on this forum at this moment, not counting this one. 18 out of 20 were about D&D and the other two were non-system specific. There was not a single thread in those 20 that was specifically about a game other than D&D.

So, yeah, there's no rule on this forum that every thread has to be about D&D. But almost every thread is, and the few that aren't tend to say so up front. This particular thread is using terms that have specific meaning in D&D, contains nothing to indicate that it's not D&D, and asks questions whose answers are system-specific. It is entirely logical to assume that it's about D&D unless the OP says otherwise.


Kindly stop patronizing me. A creature is not a rule. If one makes a creature involving all standard rules and feats and nothing new, I would not consider that a houserule, just like making a character using all stard rules and feats isn't (although obviously the new critter is homebrew). Just because you define it differently does not make that the universal truth.

*shrug* Okay, I'll concede the terminology. The point stands: When a poster asks about "skeletons," that poster is generally not asking about anybody's homebrew skeleton variants.

Runolfr
2007-08-02, 02:53 PM
In assessing the behavior of a mindless undead and what would fool it, it might be helpful to consider what a mindless vermin would do in the same circumstances.

Would a monstrous spider or monstrous scorpion round the tree and investigate the cloak? If you answered yes, the skeleton probably would, too.

Tormsskull
2007-08-02, 02:54 PM
Interesting topic, this one. Personally I would rule that a cloak used as a blanket would not deter a skeleton from attacking the person under the cloak if the skeleton had been chasing the target.

I think the idea of mindless undead having no memory means that they have no memory of their former lives, and no ability to learn new things. They cannot be taught new tricks, they cannot relay information or things that they have seen to their masters, etc.

If a skeleton was chasing someone they were tasked to kill, and that target jumped behind cover and hid, I'd rule that the skeleton makes a spot check, and if it fails it would stay stationed there until something else resulted in its command to be triggered.

If you interpret the no memory clause literally, they wouldn't even know how to walk, because walking is something you learn, not something you instinctively know how to do. And if they have absolutely no memory they would not recall learning how to walk. So perhaps the wording is not as clear as it could be, but I think the general intent is to allow them to chase their targets with some degree of discerning.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 03:03 PM
In assessing the behavior of a mindless undead and what would fool it, it might be helpful to consider what a mindless vermin would do in the same circumstances.

Would a monstrous spider or monstrous scorpion round the tree and investigate the cloak? If you answered yes, the skeleton probably would, too.

Vermin are a bit of an issue because the rules describe them as having no memory, while real-world vermin have at least rudimentary memory.

By a strict reading of the rules, the vermin also would stop dead when its prey went out of sight--at least assuming the vermin couldn't sense the prey in some other fashion.

...come to think of it, I'm not sure what real-world vermin would do in that situation. I have the impression that most predatory insects don't engage in lengthy pursuits, but surely there are at least a few that do. Any entomologists want to weigh in?

Yeril
2007-08-02, 03:25 PM
Personaly even skeleton or zombie, would be able to link together "Hey that girl just ran behind a tree, lets go look over there." since I would say that it would be a WISDOM based assumption.

However the body shaped lump under the cloak might throw it off, but id atleast allow a spot vs hide check to notice somthing fishy about it. again wisdom skills.

if It failed it would probaly look around and then either go off the the direction she was heading in originaly or head back to where it started.

they might not be sapient but they are sentinent.

Jasdoif
2007-08-02, 03:32 PM
OK, let me recap what I think we're all in agreement on by now.


The cloak alone isn't sufficient to allow a Hide check when the skeleton goes around the tree. Something else, perhaps an above-ground root or underbrush, or simply terrain shape, must provide some sort of cover or concealment. If she can't make the Hide check, or if the skeleton's Spot beats it, then the skeleton discovers her location and proceeds to attack. But if the Hide check wins, the skeleton doesn't see her.

And that's when behavior come into question.



I think the idea of mindless undead having no memory means that they have no memory of their former lives, and no ability to learn new things. They cannot be taught new tricks, they cannot relay information or things that they have seen to their masters, etc.This I agree with.


If a skeleton was chasing someone they were tasked to kill, and that target jumped behind cover and hid, I'd rule that the skeleton makes a spot check, and if it fails it would stay stationed there until something else resulted in its command to be triggered.That's interesting...I would expect the skeleton to check around nearby, as simply waiting where it lost sight isn't following its instructions to the best of its ability if it's determined (correctly or not) that its target isn't present.

Of course, the OP states that the skeleton isn't after a specific target, it's been ordered to "kill any living creature it sees", so this train of thought might not apply.

Dausuul
2007-08-02, 03:45 PM
The cloak alone isn't sufficient to allow a Hide check when the skeleton goes around the tree.

I don't think we're in agreement on this point yet. First, there's the underlying assumption that the skeleton will come around the tree to begin with. Second, there's the question of whether the skeleton can distinguish "person under cloak" from "lump of rock under cloak," and if not, what it will do about it.

I'd be inclined to say that if you can lie still enough that the skeleton can't spot you breathing, and the cloak is spread out so your body shape is not clearly visible (i.e., you took the time to unhook the clasp and spread it over yourself rather than just wrapping it around you and yanking the hood up), then it will assume you're just a cloak thrown over a rock and ignore you.

This is at least not contradicted by RAW (once you take off the cloak, it could be argued that it's no longer part of your equipment and can thus offer concealment). And I think it fits well with the idea of the skeleton as a mindless killing machine with no deductive or reasoning skills.

Jasdoif
2007-08-02, 04:06 PM
First, there's the underlying assumption that the skeleton will come around the tree to begin with.They're in a forest. Forest are generally filled with trees and other visual obstructions. If the skeleton stops the instant it loses line of sight, it would be unable to chase her in a forest at all.


Second, there's the question of whether the skeleton can distinguish "person under cloak" from "lump of rock under cloak," and if not, what it will do about it.

I'd be inclined to say that if you can lie still enough that the skeleton can't spot you breathing, and the cloak is spread out so your body shape is not clearly visible (i.e., you took the time to unhook the clasp and spread it over yourself rather than just wrapping it around you and yanking the hood up), then it will assume you're just a cloak thrown over a rock and ignore you.

This is at least not contradicted by RAW (once you take off the cloak, it could be argued that it's no longer part of your equipment and can thus offer concealment). And I think it fits well with the idea of the skeleton as a mindless killing machine with no deductive or reasoning skills.If this was done before the skeleton came after her, I would agree. However, the skeleton has been chasing her; I think it would be incapable of distinguishing her cloak as not being part of her. While I would grant a circumstance bonus to the Hide check because the cloak would muffle movement, it still wouldn't provide the opportunity to make the Hide check on its own.

Mike_G
2007-08-02, 04:16 PM
I'd allow a Hide vs Spot, modified for how obvious the cloak is. A bright red cloak would give a penalty, an Cloak of Elvenkind or a camouflaged one would give bonuses. I've (in wargames) chased a camouflaged-uniformed man, and known that was part of his clothing, but still had a hard time seeing him when he went prone in the brush and stopped moving. The right colors and patterns are very hard to detect in the right terrain. So, if Isoulde was a ranger or Scout, I'd give her a good chance of pulling this off.

If the Skeleton lost his quarry, and his orders were to patrol the area and attack any humanoids, I'd rule he'd go back to patrolling. If he just froze in place and waited for here to be visible again, then mindless undead would be very easy to defeat. Just have them chase you away from their post, go invisible and walk away. You have now put them out of the way, and don't have to worry about them, unless they have a "return to default" in their orders.

Yakk
2007-08-02, 04:27 PM
Vermin are a bit of an issue because the rules describe them as having no memory, while real-world vermin have at least rudimentary memory.

There is a neat experiment with a particular kind of wasp.

The wasp finds something to eat, and flys to it's underground burrow. It drops the corpse outside the burrow.

It then goes inside, checks around. If there is something in the burrow, it tries to kill it. If it succeeds, it then comes out, picks up the corpse, and brings it back into the burrow, and does it's waspy thing with it.

The experiment is as follows: when the wasp goes into the burrow to look if anything is inside, you move the corpse a few inches.

When you do this, the wasp comes out of the burrow, goes to the corpse, moves it back to it's original position, and then goes back into the borrow without the corpse, checking if there is anything in the burrow, and comes back out.

If you repeatedly move the corpse, the wasp will never figure it out. It's "program" is built around the corpse being at a very precise spot, and if the corpse is somewhere else, it moves it to that spot, leaves it, checks the burrow, and then comes out again.

That is mindless, and the kind of "no memory" that a mindless creature might have. It doesn't get frustrated, it doesn't learn -- it has instinct and a sort of "programmed" memory, but that's it.

...

So:
1> If the character breaks LOS, the skeleton is likely to coast to a stop and wait until it can see a new living thing.

2> The skeleton is no worse and sometimes better at recognizing things than your average untrained human -- it has a spot modifier of +0, and can see in the darkness in black and white to a range of 60'.

A "smart" necromancer should give something like:
1> Kill the nearest living creature which enters this room besides me.
2> Kill anything that attacks you.
3> Move to this location and guard if you can.
4> Kill any living creature that you see within 60' of you.
5> Kill any living creature you detect within 5' of you.
6> Collapse on the ground.
in priority order.

(4 through 6 exist in case the skeleton gets lost. :) )

Naturally, "Kill" and the guarding behavior would have to be detailed -- basically, run at the thing and hit the living parts with your weapons and/or hands, and dodge things thrown, swung or thrust at you. Given that the stat block includes attack and movement stats, I'm assuming that "Kill" is covered by the basic programming of a skeleton. ;)

Jayabalard
2007-08-02, 04:27 PM
A "skeleton" is a creature defined in the D&D rules.In addition to the current and earlier editions of D&D and AD&D, it's also a creature defined in most other FRPGs, dozens of places in fantasy and horror literature and movies.

Unless I missed it, the OP did not post this in "Simple Q&A (By RAW)" thread, nor does the OP specifically state that he's looking for a "RAW only answer", so it's kind of absurd to suggest that general, non-raw discussion about the perception of mindless creatures, vermin and undead is out of place... doing so is just another way to "tell a poster to shut up or to stop posting on the current thread". If you don't like what they have to contribute, you can always disregard/ignore their posts.

Certainly, that type of broad, general discussion is more interesting to me than a that thread that is simple a dissection and regurgitation of the rules.

Ulzgoroth
2007-08-02, 06:23 PM
They're in a forest. Forest are generally filled with trees and other visual obstructions. If the skeleton stops the instant it loses line of sight, it would be unable to chase her in a forest at all.
This is part of why I consider 'regain visual contact' a necessary part of the basic skeleton package. It's just too debilitating not to have.

There is a neat experiment with a particular kind of wasp.

The wasp finds something to eat, and flys to it's underground burrow. It drops the corpse outside the burrow.

It then goes inside, checks around. If there is something in the burrow, it tries to kill it. If it succeeds, it then comes out, picks up the corpse, and brings it back into the burrow, and does it's waspy thing with it.

The experiment is as follows: when the wasp goes into the burrow to look if anything is inside, you move the corpse a few inches.

When you do this, the wasp comes out of the burrow, goes to the corpse, moves it back to it's original position, and then goes back into the borrow without the corpse, checking if there is anything in the burrow, and comes back out.

If you repeatedly move the corpse, the wasp will never figure it out. It's "program" is built around the corpse being at a very precise spot, and if the corpse is somewhere else, it moves it to that spot, leaves it, checks the burrow, and then comes out again.

That is mindless, and the kind of "no memory" that a mindless creature might have. It doesn't get frustrated, it doesn't learn -- it has instinct and a sort of "programmed" memory, but that's it.
Well, first of all that isn't the behavior of a memoryless creature. Why? Because that same wasp was able to find the burrow again after flying away from it. If I'm remembering my insects right, that's probably by aerial landmark recognition. Though with the right set of orders, that is a trick you could play on a skeleton...a case of a simple and reasonable behavior being sabotaged.

Here are some other nice bits of insect memory:
-certain ants, after finding food, return to their nest from far away by a direct path. They apparently do this by a step-counting dead-reckoning system. If you sneakily shift them (by putting a paper in their path and moving it while they walk over it) they'll return to an offset of the nest location, and if they can't find scent cues there will be lost.

-all ants, after hatching, acquire and become permanently loyal to the identity scent of their colony. This can work even when they hatch in a colony of another species.

-honeybees, famously, remember and share directions to food sources based on solar navigation.

-dragonflies patrol territories (I don't know the mechanics here).

Kyace
2007-08-02, 09:52 PM
This is part of why I consider 'regain visual contact' a necessary part of the basic skeleton package. It's just too debilitating not to have.

Well, first of all that isn't the behavior of a memoryless creature. Why? Because that same wasp was able to find the burrow again after flying away from it. If I'm remembering my insects right, that's probably by aerial landmark recognition. Though with the right set of orders, that is a trick you could play on a skeleton...a case of a simple and reasonable behavior being sabotaged.
Pretend that by genetic evolution or design the wasp is programmed to place its burrow under rare Waspburrow trees. Now the wasp goes out and finds food and brings it back, returning not by memory but by being programmed to take food to the Waspburrow tree. It places the corpse at a 23 degree angle from the burrow to the tree then goes inside to check. While inside, you move the corpse. When it returns, it is programmed to get the food from an angle 23 degrees from the tree and bring it in, however there is no food there. The wasp is hungry so it looks for food and finds the corpse nearby. It brings the corpse to 23 degrees then goes inside to check.... repeat ad nauseum.

The wasp, without any actual memory but acting on programming alone could repeat the process until it starved.

I'm not saying real wasps have no memory, but I'm saying you could model the behavior with a mindless agent acting on states.

Matthew
2007-08-02, 10:11 PM
What an odd sort of question. I think I would allow the Cloak to count as concealment for the purposes of Hiding, so long as the Character did not try to Hide in Plain Sight. I would probably also tack on some circumstance modifiers. If the Skeleton fails to perceive the ruse, then it returns to whatever default orders it has.

My Fantasy justification for this is, of course, LotR, where magical Elven Cloaks allow Aragorn and his companions to be hidden from the keen eyed Riders of Rhoan.

Diggorian
2007-08-02, 10:30 PM
Isoulde is in a forest. There is a skeleton chasing her. The skeleton's instructions are 'kill any living creature you see'. Isoulde ducks behind a tree. The skeleton can no longer see her. She curls up under her cloak, and no part of her can be seen.

First, would the skeleton follow her behind the tree? I'd assume yes, but then it doesn't have an Int score.

No Int but average Wisdom, which I interpret as instinct. Yeah it would follow.


Second, would the skeleton make the connection between the cloak and the girl it was chasing? This one I'd assume no, as long as Isoulde is entirely hidden (i.e. makes a successful Hide check).

Would it make the connection, I think yes as it's a part of the prey. But, if she's successfully hidden no part of her is revealed.

Renx
2007-08-02, 10:44 PM
No Int but average Wisdom, which I interpret as instinct. Yeah it would follow.

I agree. Also, I have a personal preference to believe that undead have a small-scale 'heat' vision/sense as they themselves are almost totally lacking heat (dare I say, cold-blooded?) .

Now, if the cloak was something special (even a +1 something or of elvish make), then I'd probably have to roll for it (heck, roll anyway, it should be fair). Bonus +2 or +4 for player creativity, though.

If she had climbed a tree and done the same thing I probably would have ruled that the skellie just moves on. And why is she hiding from a lowly skeleton, anyway?

Dhavaer
2007-08-02, 10:58 PM
And why is she hiding from a lowly skeleton, anyway?

No bludgeoning weapons.

Gamebird
2007-08-05, 05:43 PM
It depends on what you mean by "minimizing damage to itself." In my opinion, mindless creatures are incapable of tactical thought. This means, for example, they'll move in the most direct path to their target regardless of whether or not it provokes attacks of opportunity. So if that's the sort of thing you meant, then I strongly disagree with you. If you meant "it gets Dex to AC" then yeah - I can go along with the "minimizing damage to itself" piece of text.

I meant it gets Dex to AC.

Maelstrom
2007-08-05, 06:53 PM
In assessing the behavior of a mindless undead and what would fool it, it might be helpful to consider what a mindless vermin would do in the same circumstances.

Would a monstrous spider or monstrous scorpion round the tree and investigate the cloak? If you answered yes, the skeleton probably would, too.


Except that the scorp (or other mindless vermin) have other reasons to be pursuing what is most likely prey...

Golthur
2007-08-05, 08:46 PM
Some spiders (particularly jumping spiders) are also relatively clever, exhibiting both sophisticated hunting strategies and curiosity. :smile:

I wouldn't consider them necessarily intelligent, but I wouldn't consider them mindless, either.

Heck, even earthworms can learn a simple maze - so again, not mindless.