|
Say I have an Executioner's Hood whose stealth has beaten all the perception rolls, and it attacks the party member in the back.
I suspect the attack of an Executioner's Hood is pretty silent, and so would be the subsequent maintain grapple & constricts, and only the attacked player would be making noise.
Given Baker is in the back, and the initiative order is:
Hood: 20
Able: 18
Baker: 15
Charlie: 10
When do Able and Charlie become aware of the attack on Baker?
1. Upon the initial attack
2. Not until Baker has a chance to get their attention on his turn in the first regular round, since lurking rays make no noise.
3. During the 1st round Able can notice if he beats a perception roll of X? (and what would X be?)
I'm not sure if there are even rules for this.
thanks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They would be aware of it at the moment of attack, but the hood would have a surprise round based on the situation. Unless someone had an ability that always allows action in the surprise round, there would be the drop and grab attack in the surprise round. Then initiative order for round one, giving the hood two rounds of actions before anyone responds. It's a bad time for Baker.
Another Option...
If you wanted the Hood to have a chance to not be initially noticed, you could allow a 'snipe' check which is making a stealth roll after an attack at -20. Use that for Able and Baker's PER rolls and if they make it, yep, it was definitely seen.
I'm not sure I like the responses here.
How does this gel with the oh-so-common trope of a skilled assassin/ranger/stalker/whatever following behind a trail of enemies and picking them off one after another from behind without their notice (at least for a while)?
Also, I'm not aware of any rule that states that characters are automatically aware of everything that goes on around them or that the characters automatically notice when one of them has been attacked. If such a rule exists, I'd love to have it pointed out to me in case it ever comes up when I'm playing....
That is how the rules work. That trope does not do well in Pathfinder.
The stealth rules say you can not stealth while attacking. If you are not hiding then you can be seen if someone has line of sight to you.
Since you can not stealth and attack, that means attacking ends stealth.
It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.
.....This does allow you to move from cover, use Stealth to approach a target, and make a single attack, at which point, Stealth is broken, regardless of the outcome...
Here is another one
Breaking Stealth: When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).
How does this gel with the oh-so-common trope of a skilled assassin/ranger/stalker/whatever following behind a trail of enemies and picking them off one after another from behind without their notice (at least for a while)?
Take 6 levels of Assassin, acquire the "quiet death" class feature.
Every character sees in all directions at once, because there is no facing mechanic. Playing "top down" with no facing mechanic, what your character has LOS on facing any direction, he sees, barring other effects (Invisibility, stealth (which doesn't work in the open past a single turn unless they have HIPS or similar), darkness, blindness.)
@Wraithstrike:
But literally nothing you wrote indicates that characters are automatically aware of everything going on around them.
Even if someone/something isn't using Stealth, there's no guarantee that they're noticed, at least nowhere I can find in the rules. If a character is leaning against a wall looking North in a passageway, and a person crosses that passageway 20' to the South of that character with a normal walk, there's no guarantee the character notices the other person. It isn't a matter of Stealth as a skill; it's a matter of how observant are the characters.
Or do we all just assume that every character is perfectly alert to their surroundings?
Line of sight means you are seen unless you are using stealth. The rules are in the combat chapter.
Anything that isn't hidden has a perception DC of 0, possibly lower if in combat or yelling loudly, etc. Within a reasonable distance, anyone or anything not using stealth is pretty easily observed.
That is part of the reason why scouting out ahead of the party is a so-so proposition and requires you to not engage things, because you will be noticed and most likely ganged up upon.
Technically, with no facing and no Stealth, Able and Charlie automatically see what happened. However, Pathfinder does not explicitly state that they automatically see this; we just infer it from the rules.
Further, Pathfinder does provide rules for this situation.
The DC to see the Assassin's Hood is (base) 0 per the Perception rules (it cannot use Stealth after it attacks (it's S tealth ends after its attack). You can adjust that base for Tiny size (+2) and for distance (+1 DC for every 10' between Able/Charlie and Baker), and maybe even for favorable conditions (bad light, distractions, etc.).
So let's say it's dim light for a +2 DC and Able is 10' in front of Baker, talking with Charlie (+2 DC for being distracted). The final DC is 7: 0 (base) + 2 (size) + 2 (dim light) + 2 (distraction) + 1 (distance).
Technically there is reasonable argument against Taking 10 (danger and/or distractions could prevent a Take-10, and even if the danger is to Baker, the danger clause might be applied to Able and Charlie too) so a GM might rule that a roll is required, but even so, beating a 7 DC with two chances (Able and Charlie) should be super super easy, even if they're level 1. And if the GM doesn't rule out Take-10, then we're back to saying they automatically see what happens unless both Able and Charlie have -4 modifiers on their Perception checks.
That is how the rules work. That trope does not do well in Pathfinder.
Actually, they work quite well. Simply give the monster a special ability similar to Quiet Death (and probably increase the CR by +1). Problem solved.
That said, I'd modify the ability somewhat and give it to a Choker instead. Why? Gibbing a PC in one hit isn't very fun, and it's much less fun when you deliberately set it up like this. At least the choker just starts strangling with them—on their turn in the first round, they can make some noise (bang on wall), and on the next round people can try to save them. Assuming they're still alive.
That's way more thematic for what would happen to a party of heroes. The "Ganked From Behind" trope only happens to mooks, but the "Turn and see your buddy being yanked up into the darkness, struggling silently" trope is a classic combat initiation trope. :P
That is how the rules work. That trope does not do well in Pathfinder.Actually, they work quite well. Simply give the monster a special ability similar to Quiet Death (and probably increase the CR by +1). Problem solved.
That said, I'd modify the ability somewhat and give it to a Choker instead. Why? Gibbing a PC in one hit isn't very fun, and it's much less fun when you deliberately set it up like this. At least the choker just starts strangling with them—on their turn in the first round, they can make some noise (bang on wall), and on the next round people can try to save them. Assuming they're still alive.
That's way more thematic for what would happen to a party of heroes. The "Ganked From Behind" trope only happens to mooks, but the "Turn and see your buddy being yanked up into the darkness, struggling silently" trope is a classic combat initiative trope. :P
I wasn't saying it was badwrongfun to play the trope. I was saying its not supported well by the official rules.
If you try to play this out in real life you very quickly realise why pathfinder has abstract facing rules. I creates ridiculous GOTCHA! situations which aren't much fun for anyone:
Player 1: "Ok let's stop here and look at the map"
GM: "As you turn around you see 100m back down the path, player 2 has been strangled by a Hood, dead after 10 rounds of struggling."
Player 1: "Uh... I make sure to check on my companions every 10 seconds or so. That's absolutely basic spelunking. No way this would happen."
GM: "But you didn't say you were checking on your companions every 10 seconds!"
Player 1: "I shouldn't need to. You don't get to decide which way my character's head is facing at a particular moment and i'm not going to update you on a round-by-round basis."
GM: "Well, too late, you should have known."
Even simulationist games like GURPS have abstract facing rules precisely for the above reason: it slows the game by creating a situation where your players have to list every tiny action they perform on a given turn that may or may not have some kind of influence on the DM's arbitrarily life-threatening decisions.
There is kinda a "behind", isn't there? Can't a GM make the case that "party is walking straight forward" is a bit of a distraction from things in the opposite direction?
There is kinda a "behind", isn't there? Can't a GM make the case that "party is walking straight forward" is a bit of a distraction from things in the opposite direction?
Maybe. But I'm not convinced that "walking" is the same as "distracted". Far from convinced. Even if it is, the rules don't normally permit Distraction to allow a Stealth check without a Bluff check to cause the distraction. In other words, the guy just walking is not adequately distracted for you to use Stealth - you have to give him a REASON (Bluff check) to focus his attention somewhere else long enough to use Stealth. Walking is not such a reason.
Finally, even if a GM would allow it, Distraction is just a penalty on Perception checks.
Enemies who can legitimately use stealth (they have cover or concealment or an ability like HiPS) can get right up to a PC (or as close as the cover/concealment allows) and even then they can make a move action and finish with an attack, all from Stealth. Given a Stealth check, of course. And Distraction can be a penalty on the PCs opposed Perception checks.
But if that enemy wants to boldly just walk down the hallway with the PC, in full view of their very bright lights, expecting to make Stealth checks because everybody is walking north so that automatically means nobody is looking south, well, that just doesn't work in real life very well at all and in Pathfinder it never works.
Finally, back to the OP, what is to stop the victim Baker from clapping, stomping, banging his weapon against the floor or wall, or even muffled screaming - any of that should get the immediate attention of all his companions unless they are very, very far away.
Not that the attack would have gone unnoticed (Able and Charlie hear it and see it immediately), but even if a very loose (and very likely incorrect) interpretation of RAW causes the GM to decide the critter can drop down on Baker and silently strangle him without Able or Charlie ever having a clue, strangling takes time and Baker, on his very first round, can still get their attention.
Of course, if the critter kills him by doing enough damage in the surprise round in in round 1 to actually kill the guy (or render him disabled due to negative HP), then all bets are off.
Assuming the GM even plays it this way in the first place.
If he does, then heck, why bother being so sneaky about it? These PCs are what, first level, maybe second level? Just bring in a Balor or two and get the job done right...
There is kinda a "behind", isn't there? Can't a GM make the case that "party is walking straight forward" is a bit of a distraction from things in the opposite direction?
No, there is no "behind", not by the rules. A GM can do anything he wants. He can say the party was distracted, or he can say "if you don't tell me you are constantly checking on your allies then you are not doing so".
Also if I am walking with someone, and I notice their footsteps are slower or no longer there I would turn around. It has happened before, and I was not even worried about some bad guy trying to kill me/us because I disrupted his plans.
Personally I would expect for a GM to let me know about any houserules before we start playing, "you do not have 360 degree line of sight ........" is a houserule. It being reasonable to some people does not make it any less of a houserule. If he counters with "you were distracted" then I would like to know what he counts as distracted since I don't think walking forward counts as so much of a distraction that you don't notice your buddies dying.
I've usually seen the 'ambush the back of the queue' thing done in Three Stooges shorts, myself. Especially when the monster finally gets behind Moe. And he starts yelling at it as if it were one of the others. The only other close reference was the Alvin York one, and in that case his targets knew damn well they were under attack.
I don't see any reason why the others couldn't hear about the scuffle when it starts. That said, as a GM, you may want to be careful about designing an encounter where a CR2 critter has a chance of taking out a PC without much resistance. It may leave a bad taste in players' mouths, and summoning a balor won't help if the player's wielding his Core Rulebook, -4 for improvised weapon or not.
But one if one of the party members drops her glasses and has to get on her hands and knees to look for them?
But one if one of the party members drops her glasses and has to get on her hands and knees to look for them?
LOL
If this is the trailing party member this might be darwinism in play, if they allow the party to travel ahead without them. :)
Am I only one who thought she was hot?But one if one of the party members drops her glasses and has to get on her hands and knees to look for them?Well, if they're smart they shout "Jinkies!" so the rest of the party knows to look at them.
Aaand now I'm tempted to make Velma.
Nope.
On the topic it might be difficult to shout "Jinkies!" as the Executioner's Hood' Strangle (Ex) special ability mention that Creature grappled by the Hood cannot speak of Cast spells with verbal components and must hold its breath.
Well it doesn't say anything about shouting but this can be circumvented by making noise another way.
Even if they don't "see" the creature, the attacked party member is going to make some kind of clamor. They may not be able to speak, but they can stamp their feat or clap their hands or something to get attention. So even if you have a terribad GM who doesn't understand the concept of abstract facing, he is still obligated to give you a prompted perception check to notice the noisy struggle going on "behind" you. If he fails to do that, as well as failing to understand abstract facing, he's not qualified to be a competent GM; find a new one.This is my position, actually.
The knowledge of the presence of the attacker shouldn't be automatic. There should, however, be a Perception check of appropriate difficulty to notice the attack. Honestly, the check would probably be really low in most cases unless there were a lot of extenuating circumstances (like the encounter is occurring in a foundry with massive background noise and is insufficiently well lit, but has flashes of bright light from pouring metals that mess up vision, etc.).
Why is that?
If he is attacking he is not seen, but if he is not attacking you get to follow the normal rules and know he is there, despite stealth not being applicable in the first scenario either?Wouldn't an attacker be more likely to draw attention than someone who is not attacking? If not why? If the answer is yes then why is someone who, by the rules is no longer in stealth mode not being notice?
Or are you saying you are artificially extending stealth mode because you like it better?<---There is nothing wrong with this. I am just trying to be sure I understand you.
Perception includes hearing as well as seeing.
It's not about "stealth mode."
There is literally nothing in the rules that states you automatically see or notice everything around you. Literally. Nothing.
Someone pointed out the DC to notice a visible creature is 0.
What they didn't point out were the modifiers to those DCs that are immediately below that list of DCs.
So then a reactive(free) perception check is granted by the rules for observable stimuli since you are making a rules based argument.
Assuming a party member is even 20 feet away the DC is a 2. So while this is not "automatic" as in "no roll" needed most parties have at least one person who could make this check even if they rolled a one.
Now honestly if you go strictly by the rules you should make a stealth check to notice everything, but to avoid time being wasted for every thing your can sense GM's hand wave rolls unless it is important.
So in this case the observer only has to worry about the perception penalty due to distance gets a distance modifier. Basically it is about as close to automatic as it needs to be or do you not hand-wave any perception checks?
Depends on the situation, but I would assume most checks would have very low DCs. Distraction (focusing on another subject, like examining the dungeon ahead for traps and ambushes) and adverse condition (looking in the wrong direction for a visual based check) add 7 to the DC on its own.Assuming at level one character with at least a 10 wisdom and a rank in the Perception with a class skill bonus, the perception check will be so low as to be almost automatic with the short distance that the party is from the one in back.
That is not the rules. That is you trying to justify a situation because you want it to work that way. There is nothing wrong with that. You are the GM. You can make up any modifiers you want, but trying to argue that someone who is not even hiding is hard to notice is silly. If the party is really examining and avoiding ambushes(which tend to come from behind) then it makes sense for them to look behind them also, which means that +7 would not be there, and once again there is directional looking in PF. If you have line of sight with no cover or concealment then you see in that direction. Seeing as how the man in the rear is the most vulnerable to an ambush it makes sense that people would be looking out for him. That way even if he is taken out it will be noticed and your "pick off the team" trope is not working.
+7 according to you +2 assuming 20 feet equals a 9
level 1 ranger
1 rank
+3 class skill
2 wisdom
6
So at worst he has to roll a 3, and that is at level 1.