Questions about the use of non-class abilities

[vivsavage]

The CKG says that, when making a SEIGE test based on another class's ability (such as a fighter using Move Silently), you don't add your level to the check. Does this mean at low levels it is possible for the 1st level fighter with a prime DEX of 18 (total bonus +9) will be better at moving silently than the 1st level rogue with a prime Dex of 14 (total bonus of +8)?

[Arduin]

Does this mean at low levels it is possible for the 1st level fighter with a prime DEX of 18 (total bonus +9) will be better at moving silently than the 1st level rogue with a prime Dex of 14 (total bonus of +8)?

No, it doesn't. See pg. 125 of PHB:

"It is important to note that the abilities of each class have the best results
when used by only that class. A rogue can move silently, with an absolute
absence of sound. A fighter, therefore, should only be able to move very
quietly, even with a successful roll."

[serleran]

It is possible for any class to have a numerical advantage over another but that does not mean they are "better" at it. For example, only a thief/assassin can move silently and hide simultaneously as this is a direct class ability.

[vivsavage]

Does this mean at low levels it is possible for the 1st level fighter with a prime DEX of 18 (total bonus +9) will be better at moving silently than the 1st level rogue with a prime Dex of 14 (total bonus of +8)?

No, it doesn't. See pg. 125 of PHB:

"It is important to note that the abilities of each class have the best results
when used by only that class. A rogue can move silently, with an absolute
absence of sound. A fighter, therefore, should only be able to move very
quietly, even with a successful roll."

But what does that *mean*? Since there are no opposed rolls in C&C, I don't see any way to differentiate a move silently attempt between a rogue and fighter (for example). With opposed rolls, you could say that a successful rogue attempt would disallow a perception roll by an enemy, while the successful fighter would still allow an enemy to hear him. How would you handle a situation where a rogue and a fighter both succeed on move silently checks to pass by a lazy guard?

[Arduin]

But what does that *mean*? Since there are no opposed rolls in C&C, I don't see any way to differentiate a move silently attempt between a rogue and fighter (for example).

The CK gives the "Guard" a listen check in this instance vs. the Fighter whereas he wouldn't vs. the rogue.

[vivsavage]

But what does that *mean*? Since there are no opposed rolls in C&C, I don't see any way to differentiate a move silently attempt between a rogue and fighter (for example).

The CK gives the "Guard" a listen check in this instance vs. the Fighter whereas he wouldn't vs. the rogue.

That's what my instinct was, but isn't that technically an opposed check? Or would the DC for the guard's listen check be a fixed 18 (rather than the result generated by the fighter's stealth check)?

[Arduin]

That's what my instinct was, but isn't that technically an opposed check? Or would the DC for the guard's listen check be a fixed 18 (rather than the result generated by the fighter's stealth check)?

It would be fixed based on the guards primary and and any mods the CK gives. It is fixed as it is versus a PC NOT using class ability.

[vivsavage]

That's what my instinct was, but isn't that technically an opposed check? Or would the DC for the guard's listen check be a fixed 18 (rather than the result generated by the fighter's stealth check)?

It would be fixed based on the guards primary and and any mods the CK gives. It is fixed as it is versus a PC NOT using class ability.

Okay... I'm still a bit stumped on one issue. The opposition's level is always added to the challenge base, correct? That being the case, doesn't that mean that both the rogue and the fighter are effectively trying to beat the guard's innate perception ability? So why would the guard get to make a perception test versus the fighter's attempt, given that his ability has already been factored into the equation beforehand?

[Arduin]

Okay... I'm still a bit stumped on one issue. The opposition's level is always added to the challenge base, correct? That being the case, doesn't that mean that both the rogue and the fighter are effectively trying to beat the guard's innate perception ability?

No. When rogue is successful in moving silently. He is silent (see quote above: "absolute
absence of sound") and thus, guard gets no listen roll at all....

[vivsavage]

Okay... I'm still a bit stumped on one issue. The opposition's level is always added to the challenge base, correct? That being the case, doesn't that mean that both the rogue and the fighter are effectively trying to beat the guard's innate perception ability?

No. When rogue is successful in moving silently. He is silent (see quote above: "absolute
absence of sound") and thus, guard gets no listen roll at all....

So you don't add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt???

[Arduin]

So you don't add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt???

Sorry misread the 1st time, sorry. Yes, in the initial roll. However, the fighter doesn't ADD his level & even AFTER/IF the fighter beats it, the guard still gets a roll to hear him. The guard does NOT get a roll to hear the rogue after the rogue makes a successful roll.

[vivsavage]

So you don't add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt???

Sorry misread the 1st time, sorry. Yes, in the initial roll. However, the fighter doesn't ADD his level & even AFTER/IF the fighter beats it, the guard still gets a roll to hear him. The guard does NOT get a roll to hear the rogue after the rogue makes a successful roll.

Hhhmmmm, okay. My twisted logic still has issues here. Consider: the rogue can move with "absolute silence", thus why add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt? Likewise, if the guard's level is added to the fighter's CB, doesn't that already take into account his listening? Why give the guard another chance by allowing him an active listening roll?

My solution would be to leave out the guard's level when considering the overall CL for both the rogue and fighter, and then allow the guard to make a listen attempt to hear the fighter. That seems to make more sense, but I'm willing to be corrected by your wisdom!

[Arduin]

Consider: the rogue can move with "absolute silence", thus why add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt? Likewise, if the guard's level is added to the fighter's CB, doesn't that already take into account his listening? Why give the guard another chance by allowing him an active listening roll?

My solution would be to leave out the guard's level when considering the overall CL for both the rogue and fighter, and then allow the guard to make a listen attempt to hear the fighter. That seems to make more sense, but I'm willing to be corrected by your wisdom!

The guard gets 2 dips because the fighter is using a non-class ability. It is to make it harder.

If you do it your way, high level PC's don't get the benefit. To make it consistent, PC won't add their level on saves vs. spells and the like either. a 1st level Rogue would be able to sneak up on a 20th level as easily as against 1st level character. It would be MAJOR change to the game... Just a heads up.

[vivsavage]

Consider: the rogue can move with "absolute silence", thus why add the guard's level to the challenge base for the rogue's attempt? Likewise, if the guard's level is added to the fighter's CB, doesn't that already take into account his listening? Why give the guard another chance by allowing him an active listening roll?

My solution would be to leave out the guard's level when considering the overall CL for both the rogue and fighter, and then allow the guard to make a listen attempt to hear the fighter. That seems to make more sense, but I'm willing to be corrected by your wisdom!

The guard gets 2 dips because the fighter is using a non-class ability. It is to make it harder.

If you do it your way, high level PC's don't get the benefit. To make it consistent, PC won't add their level on saves vs. spells and the like either. a 1st level Rogue would be able to sneak up on a 20th level as easily as against 1st level character. It would be MAJOR change to the game... Just a heads up.

Ah, good point.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

My basis for giving the listen check to the guard would be along the lines of, if the fighter either forgot to remove his/her armor, he/she/it would be Mr./Ms. Clankypants. If they did remove the armor, that's something that would make noise. Odds are, the fighter would probably forget something or not even think about it (shoes, perhaps?). Either way, they're not the naturals at it that the rogues/assassins are.

[redwullf]

The CKG says that, when making a SEIGE test based on another class's ability (such as a fighter using Move Silently), you don't add your level to the check. Does this mean at low levels it is possible for the 1st level fighter with a prime DEX of 18 (total bonus +9) will be better at moving silently than the 1st level rogue with a prime Dex of 14 (total bonus of +8)?

Despite what others have said about listen rolls for the guard (which I wouldn't bother with) I'd say to your question, yes. In this example the fighter is a better sneak. Until 2nd level, of course, when the rogue catches up. More importantly, don't forget to penalize the fighter's check for any heavy armor, shield, and equipment.

In your example, the fighter has a significantly better Dex. That fighter is just sneakier (and who says they can't be?). But, the rogue will improve with "experience" and pass the fighter up. So be it.

[Omote]

Despite what others have said about listen rolls for the guard (which I wouldn't bother with) I'd say to your question, yes. In this example the fighter is a better sneak. Until 2nd level, of course, when the rogue catches up. More importantly, don't forget to penalize the fighter's check for any heavy armor, shield, and equipment.

In your example, the fighter has a significantly better Dex. That fighter is just sneakier (and who says they can't be?). But, the rogue will improve with "experience" and pass the fighter up. So be it.

Agreed. To a T. I'm in agreement with redwulf a lot lately. I guess you're just right.

~O

[TheMetal1]

I think this example from the Players Handbook is helpful.

Another example would be Drox, a 5th level fighter with a 12 dexterity. Dexterity is one of Drox’s prime attributes. He tries to sneak across a squeaky wooden floor without being heard by the sleeping wizard on the other end of the room. He scores 16 on his d20 roll, and adds nothing. Because 16 does not beat his challenge base of 12 (prime) plus the challenge level of 5, he causes the floor to squeak and wakes up the wizard. If Drox were a rogue, he would be able to add his level, and would have succeeded at the task with a total of 21.

A 1st Level Fighter with a Dex 18 Prime.Move Silently past a Guard with 1HD.

The Challenge Level is 1; The Challenge Base is 12 +0 Level Bonus +3 Ability Bonus. The Fighter needs to roll a 9 or better to sneak past.

A 1st Level Rogue with a Dex 14 Prime. Move Silently past a Guard with 1HD.

The Challenge Level is 1; The Challenge Base is 12 +1 (Level Bonus) +1 (Ability Bonus). The Rogue needs to roll a 10 or better to sneak past.

I don't know if I'd give the Guard a listen check, as that's just another roll. The way I look at, the fighter is a better sneak, but only at 1st level. At 2nd Level, the rogue will be equally as sneaky as this 2nd Level fighter. At 3rd Level, the rogue is better.

If we look at it in reverse though.

A 1st Level Rogue with a STR 18 Prime. Attacking a 1 HD guard using a long sword (1d8 damage)

BTH is 0 +3 (Ability). Total +3
Damage 1d8+3 (Ability)

A 1st Level Fighter with a STR 14 Prime. Attacking a guard with 1HD.

BTH is 1 + 1 (Ability)+1 (Weapon Specialization). Total +3
Damage 1d8+2 (Ability and Weapons Specialization).

The 1st Level Rogue in this case is equal to the Fighter in battle, but better in terms of dealing damage. So I think overall is the better combatant. And interestingly, at 2nd Level for both, the Rogue is still a better fighter as both get a +1 Added to their Base to Hit. It isn't until 3rd Level that the Fighter is actually better than the Rogue in terms of actually hitting the enemy. But the Rogue with an STR 18 Prime, will continually be better at dealing damage. It won't be until 7th level when the Fighter rises in his Weapons Specialization Ability again to a +2 to hit and +2 Damage. Even then, the he is only equal to the Rogue in Damage output.

A 3rd Level Rogue with a STR 18 Prime. Attacking a 1 HD guard using a long sword (1d8 damage)

BTH is 1 +3 (Ability) in Melee. Total +4
Damage 1d8+3 (Ability)

A 3rd Level Fighter with a STR 14 Prime. Attacking a guard with 1HD.

BTH is 3 + 1 (Ability) +1 (Weapon Specialization). Total: +5
Damage 1d8+2 (Ability and Weapons Specialization).

Of course if you add in the Rogues Sneak Attack or Back Attack, which then can use at 1st Level, "to Hit" and damage out put makes the Rogue perhaps the overall better fighter for the first few levels.

[Arduin]

The way I look at, the fighter is a better sneak, but only at 1st level.

Not according to the PHB. The fighter isn't 100% quiet on a successful roll whereas the rogue is...

[TheMetal1]

Arduin,

In terms of pure numbers he is, which is what I meant. But I do concede that you are correct as you stated upthread that the PHB clearly says the Fighter is just very quiet not silent like a Rogue.

FYI, in the 3rd Printing of the PHB, that passage is found on page 112.
But what is also interesting and found on that page as well is this little passage about guards...

A rogue moving silently in order to sneak up on a guard would not alert that guard with a successful check. However, a fighter moving quietly, even with a successful roll, should still stand a chance of being noticed by the guard. Thus, the Castle Keeper might allow the guard a wisdom check to notice the fighter moving quietly up behind him

.

So I guess you are also correct on the ruling about the guard. Hats off to you, Sir!

In regards to A Rogue with a 18 STR (Prime). Being better than a Figther 14 STR (Prime), I get that the with the Weapons Specialization, the Fighter is supposed to clearly be the better Fighter, but by the numbers he isn't, how would you portray this in terms of combat?

[Arduin]

So I guess you are also correct on the ruling about the guard. Hats off to you, Sir!

Thanks but, not to me sir. The writers did an awesome job putting everything together so well that it's easy to understand and find answers.

[vivsavage]

I think the rules citations given in this thread put a clear end to my question (heck, I should have read it myself before posting). But I still have some philosophical problems:

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill. This is a somewhat bizarre legacy of D&D; as you grow in level, so does everything else you face. So, while your stealth ability might have jumped 9 points from level 1 to level 10, your opposition has grown as well... meaning your chance of succeeding on the stealth check really never improves to any significant degree.

2) Going back to the difference between the fighter and the rogue trying to sneak past the guard, the CL added to the CB is equal to the guard's level. This, I suppose, is to represent the guard's trained ability at detecting an infiltrator. What, then, does the extra listening attempt by the guard to hear the fighter represent? It just seems a bit clumsy.

I'm almost tempted to say that adding your level to your attempt, as well as the level of your opponent to the CB, is almost redundant. I would suggest forgoing adding the level of the opponent to the CB unless the opponent has a skill that makes sense (such as an NPC rogue trying to listen for a PC rogue). This being the case, adding your full level to your check might be a bit much. Maybe half-level would work. I dunno.

[alcyone]

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill. This is a somewhat bizarre legacy of D&D; as you grow in level, so does everything else you face. So, while your stealth ability might have jumped 9 points from level 1 to level 10, your opposition has grown as well... meaning your chance of succeeding on the stealth check really never improves to any significant degree.

I'd say to stop doing that! There's no reason everyone has to be the equal of the characters as they level. The game should work well with a group of mixed levels pitting themselves against varied levels. Why should goblins disappear just because you got better at fighting them? Or now you only encounter goblin generals with +5 swords. The game doesn't make you do this, and I think you'll find that most of the TLG modules don't either, especially the sandbox Blacktooth Ridge ones.

[redwullf]

I think the rules citations given in this thread put a clear end to my question (heck, I should have read it myself before posting). But I still have some philosophical problems:

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill. This is a somewhat bizarre legacy of D&D; as you grow in level, so does everything else you face. So, while your stealth ability might have jumped 9 points from level 1 to level 10, your opposition has grown as well... meaning your chance of succeeding on the stealth check really never improves to any significant degree.

Indeed! You have hit upon one of the fundemental grievances about this system, which has been raised and debated numerous times. Generally you will encounter NPCs and creatures that are comparable to you in level/HD, which means your abilities, when level is added, really stay at roughly a 1:1 ratio per encounter (with many variances, of course, in day-to-day play). In some ways, this seems unfair to the PC, but in other ways, it also makes sense that higher level NPCs and higher HD critters are equally more experienced. Gone are the days of AD&D where a high level Thief could sneak past Odin himself. I would say, however, that it's really no different than any other system currently out there. Take D20 (Pathfinder, specifically) - the "Perception" modifier of high level NPCs and monsters is very comparable to the increase in skill (modifiers) for PCs to perform stealthy skills. It is only through feats and high attributes that PCs have some sort of edge, but even then it's marginal.

This "problem," in other words, isn't unique to C&C. It's an obvious mechanic in modern systems that "flattens" the ability/skill check mechanic to remain closer to a 1:1 ratio against creatures of comparable ratings. In many ways, this actually seems more "realistic" than the OD&D way, which virtually assured guaranteed success for high level PCs, even against high level NPCs and monsters. See also, Saving Throws, which simply became "2" or "3" at high levels in D&D, assuring an 80 to 90% success against any spell or ST-required attack. This has also changed in modern mechanics, where the "DC" for the saving throw is much more in-line with PCs modifiers. Success is harder to come by at higher levels, against comparable opponents. Against creatures of a much lower level/HD, of course, PCs are god-like.

2) Going back to the difference between the fighter and the rogue trying to sneak past the guard, the CL added to the CB is equal to the guard's level. This, I suppose, is to represent the guard's trained ability at detecting an infiltrator. What, then, does the extra listening attempt by the guard to hear the fighter represent? It just seems a bit clumsy.

Agreed! I think this flies in the face of Siege Engine's basic principal, which is to avoid "opposed checks." Granted, this isn't technically opposed, but tomato tomAHto, I say. Also, though the "listen check" has been shown to exist in the rules by the other posters (pg. 125 of the 4th printing PHB, incidentally, rather than pg. 112 of the 3rd printing), you should also note two important details that go hand-in-hand with that "rule." In other words, there's more context than to simply say the guard should get a listen check.

1. If you're following the strict rules, the Fighter shouldn't get a move silently check at all:

There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another character class. For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock, or a wizard might attempt to track. It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide if such an action is even possible. In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability.

If a Castle Keeper, for whatever reason, does allow a character to attempt a non-class ability, then the SIEGE engine attribute mechanic changes in one significant way. The character does not add his level to the attribute check roll. Instead, the character rolls a d20 and adds the appropriate attribute modifier only.

Emphasis mine. Of course, I would allow the move silently check for the fighter, in your scenario, but I would stick true to the fact that s/he gets to add no level modifiers. At low levels, this seems to encroach heavily on the rogue's abilities, but at mid to high levels, that will no longer be the case.

2. The "rule" that has been quoted sounds like a suggestion to me:

Thus, the Castle Keeper might allow the guard a wisdom check to notice the fighter moving quietly up behind him.

Again, emphasis mine. The CK might allow it, but doesn't have to. In other words, the CK needs to make a ruling on this, end of story.

I'm almost tempted to say that adding your level to your attempt, as well as the level of your opponent to the CB, is almost redundant. I would suggest forgoing adding the level of the opponent to the CB unless the opponent has a skill that makes sense (such as an NPC rogue trying to listen for a PC rogue). This being the case, adding your full level to your check might be a bit much. Maybe half-level would work. I dunno.

I'll once again summarize my thoughts by saying that I would allow the check, since anyone can "try" to be sneaky as far as I'm concerned. The Fighter would suffer without adding his or her level to the check, and suffer even more greatly for any armor and heavy equipment being carried. The roll would be challenging on its own (far more than if the rogue tried it, despite the Dex difference). Also, in the true spirit of Siege Engine, I wouldn't bother with the listen check for the guard, since that sounds awfully like an "opposed" check to me - and the beauty of this system is to have a quick resolution and to keep things moving along. As a CK, I would have the fighter make the roll, and we would press on with whatever comes of that. Quick, simple, and fairly ruled, IMO.

[Lord Crimson]

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill. This is a somewhat bizarre legacy of D&D; as you grow in level, so does everything else you face. So, while your stealth ability might have jumped 9 points from level 1 to level 10, your opposition has grown as well... meaning your chance of succeeding on the stealth check really never improves to any significant degree.

The bolded part above is a flawed assumption, as others point out.

Sure, you're more likely to go on adventures with more higher level/HD creatures as you level up. But not all of the creatures in a higher level adventure are going to necessarily be higher level/HD. Instead, you're as likely to encounter higher numbers of weaker creatures.

And not all CLs are based on a creature's HD (for example: traps and locks and stuck doors and whatnot).

[Arduin]

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill.

Not really true. Example: You are beginner chess player. You have a tough time vs. other beginners. You get slaughtered in 4 moves vs. a "master". When you advance in experience to "master" you now have a chance against another master.

Now, you can STILL go play against beginners and your tricks will work against them almost 100% of the time. But, the prize for winning that tournament is a gift certificate for a free Happy Meal. Won't even cover one weeks expenses for your Keep. You also won't have improved your game (no XP). Master vs. Master; those same tricks might work only 50% of the time against them...

Now, if your GM makes all beginners "disappear" once you become a Master, that is an entirely different problem that has nothing to do with the games system...

[vivsavage]

1) If you always add a CL to the CB based on the level of the opponent, then you really aren't 'improving' in your skill.

Not really true. Example: You are beginner chess player. You have a tough time vs. other beginners. You get slaughtered in 4 moves vs. a "master". When you advance in experience to "master" you now have a chance against another master.

Now, you can STILL go play against beginners and your tricks will work against them almost 100% of the time. But, the prize for winning that tournament is a gift certificate for a free Happy Meal. Won't even cover one weeks expenses for your Keep. You also won't have improved your game (no XP). Master vs. Master; those same tricks might work only 50% of the time against them...

Now, if your GM makes all beginners "disappear" once you become a Master, that is an entirely different problem that has nothing to do with the games system...

Hhhmmm, I can see what you mean. I'll have to think it over.

On to my other question: Going back to the difference between the fighter and the rogue trying to sneak past the guard, the CL added to the CB is equal to the guard's level. This, I suppose, is to represent the guard's trained ability at detecting an infiltrator. What, then, does the extra listening attempt by the guard to hear the fighter represent?

[Arduin]

On to my other question: Going back to the difference between the fighter and the rogue trying to sneak past the guard, the CL added to the CB is equal to the guard's level. This, I suppose, is to represent the guard's trained ability at detecting an infiltrator. What, then, does the extra listening attempt by the guard to hear the fighter represent?

For the 1st part, could be yes. The concept of "levels"/HD is there to show many things. A 10th level fighter can't REALLY take 10X the damage of a normal person. Nor, can he really survive deadly poison that would drop a body the size of a horse. There is luck, favor of the gods, 6th sense, etc., etc. Hence a fantasy world rather than mundane.

Now, the reason for the additional check vs. the fighter; it is to simulate the game rule fact that no matter his roll, he's NOT as good at moving silently as a Rogue. He just isn't trained in it. I make may a really good "play guitar" check and have better finger dex than a Jimmy Hendrix but, my playing is NOT going to be better. Maybe the fighter looked at the guard as he approached (there really is training in the real world that teaches you to NOT look directly at your victim as you sneak up to kill them but, to look off to one side or the ground behind them).

The exact reasons aren't fixed and is part of the job of the GM to describe based on the situation. It is what gives color to the encounters.

[Lord Dynel]

On to my other question: Going back to the difference between the fighter and the rogue trying to sneak past the guard, the CL added to the CB is equal to the guard's level. This, I suppose, is to represent the guard's trained ability at detecting an infiltrator. What, then, does the extra listening attempt by the guard to hear the fighter represent?

Pretty much what Arduin said. Since the fighter can never do any better than "pretty darn quiet" (as opposed to the "total absence of sound") there will always be a chance to hear the fighter tiptoeing across the room behind the guard.

The two checks? I wouldn't even bother with two checks. It's bad enough the fighter can't add his level into the roll, and he's trying to do something he's not good at, but if he gets good enough to actually beat the TN to get past the guard then I'd probably just go with that. Make it simpler - throwing an extra die roll in there for an additional chance to screw the players is not only time consuming, but harsh, in my humble opinion. Especially if it's against a guard. If it's a mid-level bad guy, for example, I'd probably throw a second check. Succeeding at moving silently should be just that; I think that instead of giving the guard roll, make it harder for the fighter to succeed. I'd think this would work better - maybe add the guard's level and his Wis bonus, or his level and just a flat +2 to the CL to represent the more difficult chance.

I know there aren't opposed checks, even though this seems like one...I know, I know, it's not a "by-the-book" opposed check but it smells like one. Just stretched out over a round instead of an "at the same time" roll. The fighter succeded on his check? Awesome! Oh, wait, now the guard gets a check. Damn. I don't like that all that much. No offense to those who do, of course. I just think that we CK's have ample opportunites to screw over the players. Sneaking past a guard doesn't have to be one of them. Anyway, just my two cents!

[doominicus]

The CKG says that, when making a SEIGE test based on another class's ability (such as a fighter using Move Silently), you don't add your level to the check. Does this mean at low levels it is possible for the 1st level fighter with a prime DEX of 18 (total bonus +9) will be better at moving silently than the 1st level rogue with a prime Dex of 14 (total bonus of +8)?

Despite what others have said about listen rolls for the guard (which I wouldn't bother with) I'd say to your question, yes. In this example the fighter is a better sneak. Until 2nd level, of course, when the rogue catches up. More importantly, don't forget to penalize the fighter's check for any heavy armor, shield, and equipment.

In your example, the fighter has a significantly better Dex. That fighter is just sneakier (and who says they can't be?). But, the rogue will improve with "experience" and pass the fighter up. So be it.

I totally agree with you. Probably the fighter has a natural gift (high dexterity) but the rogue shall improve his skill with experience. I see no problem with that.