| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On paper, there is a simple elegance to the concept of using Perception and Stealth for initiative in combat; using the necessary rolls of Perception vs. Stealth to determine who can see what on entering a room to determine the initiative order.
Unfortunately, our experience is that this isn’t as elegant in play as it appears on paper.
Firstly, we found that it makes the transition from exploration to encounter mode jarring rather than smooth and natural; asking all players to roll Perception in a seemingly empty room and taking note of the individual scores was an obvious out-of-character cue that the party was entering Encounter mode, regardless of whether their characters saw anything. On paper, it looks an elegant and immersive way of handling initiative, but we found it to be quite the opposite.
Secondly, it has a number of problems when it comes to what checks are used for initiative. Not only does it open a can of worms with regards to pausing play while more ambitious players attempt to argue different skills could apply, but it has issues with simple play at the table, as there are potentially a lot of rolls involved.
Take the example of a room with hiding monsters, and several of the PCs sneaking during Exploration mode; All players need to roll Perception, sneaking players also roll Stealth, the monsters all need to roll Stealth, and either need to roll Perception too, or otherwise use their “Perception DC” (which is essentially take-10). This exact situation occurred while I was GMing, where I found that all the PCs failed to even sense the monsters, but as the sneaking PCs rolled very high, they not only weren’t sensed by the monsters, but because their Stealth is their initiative score, they go first in a combat they don’t know they’re in.
Naturally, experiences will differ from table to table, but we simply did not enjoy the change to initiative.
Proposal: I can see at least two options which would result in a smoother transition from exploration to combat:
Either of these streamline the system and allow the transition from exploration to encounter mode to be somewhat more fluid – encounters begin once combat starts, not when creatures attempt to perceive what may or may not be in the room.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a lot of people seem to have gotten tripped up on this; it seems to intersect with problems with there not being explicit surprise round rules. I've found what I think is a pretty elegant solution that I believe works with the rules as written. I spotted it while reading "Initiative after Reactions" on page 331. "In some cases, a trap or a foe has a reaction that tells you to roll initiative. For instance, a complex trap that’s triggered might make an attack with its reaction before the initiative order begins. In these cases, resolve all the results of the reaction before calling for initiative rolls. This means it’s possible that the trap or creature with the reaction might get to go again immediately if it’s at the top of the initiative order.
Using this template, let's see the order of operations for a few scenarios.
Scenario 1: Enemy successfully sneaks up on PCs who aren't Seeking
1. You roll a secret stealth check against the Perception DCs of your PCs. Enemy succeeds!
2. The enemy is hidden from the party, and readies a reaction to go off at a designated trigger. (Flip the switch when they cross this threshold, fire an arrow at the nearest target, etc.)
3. The reaction triggers. Let's say enemy shoots the wizard.
4. Roll for initiative.
Note that you may wish to roll a second stealth check for the enemy initiative roll, because if they have successfully hidden they probably rolled pretty well, which may mean the enemy goes immediately and can drop a PC before they even get a chance to respond. (This tends to leave players salty.) I think that also seems consistent with the rules.
Scenario 2: Enemy fails its stealth check
1. You roll a secret stealth check against the perceptions of your PCs. The enemy fails!
2. PC spots enemy. Roll initiative as appropriate.
You probably want your enemy to make a new roll for initiative to be consistent with the advice for the first scenario. Also, it strikes me as fairly realistic that the monster might still quick draw you even once you've spotted it. It just probably doesn't get to ready a reaction first. (Well, I suppose it COULD if it lays in wait for the PCs as they travel and has a reaction readied as soon as the PCs come into sight or something. But at that point stealth checks don't really feel relevant anyway.) You might even have the enemy roll perception instead of stealth for initiative, to see if it realizes it has been spotted before the PCs get to act.
Now, let's say you've pulled this a couple of times, and your PCs have become wary. They start Seeking before they enter a room, or the second the door opens or whatever. Baring the enemy's reaction triggering the moment both sides have have line of sight with each other, your PCs are now rolling perception against the enemy's stealth DC using the Seek action.
Scenarios 3: PCs succeed at Seek check.
1. PC opens door, immediately Seeks. They succeed against the creature's stealth DC.
2. Inform your PC of what they spot.
3. Roll initiative. (Probably. Once the PCs know it about to go down I see no reason not to, but you could stay out of initiative up until someone actually does something to give themselves away. Either the monster attacking, or the PCs taking action against it.)
In this scenario, if the PC tries to pretend it didn't see the enemy, you might have them roll Deception for initiative.
Scenario 4: PCs fail at Seek check.
1. PCs open door, immediately Seeks. They fail against the creature's stealth DC.
2. At this point the creature can roll stealth to see if it can pull of a surprise reaction. See scenarios 1 and 2 for how this can play out.
Let me know what y'all think of my way of running this!
I love your Solution Captain Morgan I this really made the initiative system make more sense to me I hope they end up using an example like this in the final book
Yay! Glad it helped. ^_^
So in Scenario 3, they roll stealth AGAIN after failing it?
So in Scenario 3, they roll stealth AGAIN after failing it?
In scenario 3, they (meaning the monster) never failed a stealth check. Opposed rolls aren't a thing anymore. The PCs used a Seek action to beat their stealth DC. I suppose the monster might have rolled an initial stealth check when they were hiding in the first place, but that check doesn't matter once people start Seeking. At that point it is just the stealth DC.
When you actually roll initiative, you can have the monster roll stealth (since they were sneaking) or perception (to simulate how quickly they realize they've been spotted.)
So a lot of people seem to have gotten tripped up on this; it seems to intersect with problems with there not being explicit surprise round rules. I've found what I think is a pretty elegant solution that I believe works with the rules as written. I spotted it while reading "Initiative after Reactions" on page 331. "In some cases, a trap or a foe has a reaction that tells you to roll initiative. For instance, a complex trap that’s triggered might make an attack with its reaction before the initiative order begins. In these cases, resolve all the results of the reaction before calling for initiative rolls. This means it’s possible that the trap or creature with the reaction might get to go again immediately if it’s at the top of the initiative order.
I don't mean to be critical, but this seems like a bit of a stretch in terms of rules intent (). I read it as a reference to mimics and other creatures that have a specific reaction ability with a triggering clause.
I'm also not sure it actually helps. As a recap: The GM rolls Stealth for all sneaking PCs and monsters (as per the rules on Stealth).
Outcome A) (By your interpretation) if all of one (and only one) faction succeed, they get to take a readied action (single action) prior to Initiative being rolled, with the PCs rolling for themselves, and the GM rolling for the monsters.
Outcome B) Members of each faction have spotted at least one of the other faction - the GM must take note of which monsters saw which PCs, and tell each PC which monsters they have seen. Everyone then either rolls Perception or Stealth again to determine Initiative.
Noting that the second result could appear to negate the effect of the secret GM roll.
In this, only the rogue was sneaking. When the orcs leapt out and roared, the effect of the rogue having been sneaking through the forest was not a secret Stealth check to determine surprise, but instead was simply the rogue using Stealth to determine his Initiative, instead of his Perception.
I didn't see any hint of there being a surprise round or multiple rolls involved, though it simply may not have come across via the audio, I admit.
In terms of complexity it isn't an improvement over Pathfinder 1, and in terms of intuitive play... I'd argue it's worse, personally, and would prefer simply having an Initiative score to save argument and confusion.
I don't mean to be critical, but this seems like a bit of a stretch in terms of rules intent (or the rulebook is obscurely written, which is quite possible).
Indeed, either of those is possible, but that's why I noted in works with the rules as written, not as intended. ;)
Noting that the second result could appear to negate the effect of the secret GM roll. ...
Well, yeah, when you succeed on a perception or knowledge check (or an enemy fails a stealth check in this case) it is functionally the same if the GM rolled it in secret vs you rolling it in the open. The point of secret checks is so that players don't know when they have failed or critically failed.
I think in the context of Sneaky McRogue failing their stealth check, I'd probably tell them to roll perception for initiative instead. Because at this point, what matters is how quickly they realize they are spotted.
For the Glass Canon example, I'll note a few things. One, that fight was atypical because [redacted]. Two, the orcs blew their "surprise round" standing up and roaring, probably because of [redacted.] Three, the rogue didn't see the orcs until they popped up, so he couldn't get a surprise round. Stealth makes perfect sense for initiative though-- because the orcs or [redacted] may not have seen him sneaking either, allowing him an opening to go first in initiative.
In terms of complexity it isn't an improvement over Pathfinder 1, and in terms of intuitive play... I'd argue it's worse, personally, and would prefer simply having an Initiative score to save argument and confusion.
*Shrugs.* No accounting for personal preference, I guess. I find a lot of this stuff a marked improvement over PF1 to be honest, in terms of how stealth vs perception works and such, and I like having different tactics leading to different initiatives.
This method at least seems to help a few folks out in running the new system. (Although to be fair I dunno if Kazami, Ikos, and DerNils still prefer the old way to this.)
Scenario 3&4 - you don't need to make seek checks (which could be useless as the Monster may be too far away or out of you cone), this is what your exploratoin tactic "Searching" is for. Everybody that is searching gets to have a perception roll vs. the ambush/hazard.
Good call! I wasn't really factoring in Exploration tactics. But yeah, if the PCs are moving at half speed and Searching they will get a chance to spot the ambush.
I would acutally go so far as to say that you only get to roll if your proficiency in Perception is equal or higher than the enemies in Stealth, to be in line with Hazards, but that's minor.
That might be a reasonable house rule. I think I'd prefer minimum PC proficiency to be based on terrain and context rather than the enemy stealth DC. It is easier to conceal yourself with a gilly suit in the forest than simply hiding behind a trashcan, for example, and is even easier to hide yourself in a secret hiding hole specifically dug out for this purpose. But I'd probably want to examine that idea more before committing to it.
Now what I am honestly unsure about is how much Information to give Players that have succeeded in the intital roll. Maybe make one of the hidden Monsters Sensed? In the case of traps you are not even supposed to tell them where the trap is, just a General area.
I think it largely depends on context. I had some thoughts in DMW's thread on adding a fifth visibility condition for when you are completely unaware of someone and a normal failure on a stealth check in this context only making you Sensed. Basically, if a monster fails a check to sneak up on a PC, I'd tell the PC they heard a twig snap, with enough of an approximation of the location to do a Seek check. If the monster critically fails, the PC directly sees the monster.
For the trap example, I think you might be misinterpreting the page 331. The example they give is that on a 28 perception check you give "a clue about the presence of the [DC 25] trap" but don't give them anything on the DC 30 Secret Door. A clue on the trap is a little vague, but that doesn't mean you can't tell them where the trap is. Indeed, the most obvious clues are location based. "You notice a very fine trip wire." "That one floor tile seems slightly off." "The handle on this door is a little bulkier than it needs to be, as though something has been built into it." Stuff like that is what I'd probably use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would also rule something like "there is something off about that door" It's just that the end of that sentence:
"...but the party needs to examine the area more to
learn more about the trap"
sounds a lot like they need to do another Seek before switching to Disabling.
I actually like the interaction with complex Hazards as described - gives me a warm Feeling for the old days of Hero Quest with Players pining over every step they take and due to secret rolls not being sure if there is no trap or if they rolled s$+#ty.
That slows that game to a crawl. Now, since multi-encounter buffs are no longer a thing each and every square should be checked 3 times before moving into it. Same with any other object.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This exact situation occurred while I was GMing, where I found that all the PCs failed to even sense the monsters, but as the sneaking PCs rolled very high, they not only weren’t sensed by the monsters, but because their Stealth is their initiative score, they go first...
The way the rules are written, the rules conflate determining awareness with determining quickness of action. I am guessing the designers want to (1) have "one less check" to determine, and (2) to lessen the importance of Dexterity. Look at the "Structure" of an encounter under Encounter Mode on page 304: it assumes that one side is not ambushing the other. The only places where we get guidance on ambushes is under "Watches and Surprise Attacks" (page 332): "you might have the ambusher attempt a Stealth check against the Perception DCs of the party to see if anyone noticed his approach" - a perfectly fine rule, but it is implied that if neither side is resting, then there can be no ambush.
This combining of things rankles me. Being aware of an enemy sometimes happens long before one is called upon to act. Under the Playtest rules, are we to assume that monsters are always aware of the party when the party starts combat? What if the goblins are carousing and fighting among themselves when the PCs approach? Shouldn't we reward the players for sending a stealthy scout and coming up with an ambush?
And when we get to rolling initiative, what if everyone in the party already is aware of the goblins they are ambushing? Why, if they are starting the fight, are they made to roll Perception again?
The Playtest has led to metagaming in my group: one player whose Stealth is higher than his Perception is always sneaking around, and the other players are Searching. This lets them apply each of them apply their higher modifier for initiative purposes. Also, this defies belief: now the Stealthing character is not seeking out danger, while the Seeking characters are now loudly trundling down a passageway. Which makes no sense: experienced adventurers are able to do both.
I am inclined to do the following to adjudicate AWARENESS:
1. If the party is making any effort to be undetected, allow monsters to have a Perception roll against the Stealth DC of the party (determined by the least stealthy character in the party). The monsters have a single roll - but if they are actively aware of danger and are searching for it, then each creature gets a roll.
2. If a group of monsters won't automatically be noticed by the party for some reason, then the party gets a secret Perception roll, using their highest Perception modifier, against the monsters' Stealth DC.
3. If one side is aware of the other, the GM does something about it! Intelligent monsters will set up an ambush. The players will be told what they see. (Maybe I tell the characters in a whispering voice what they see, and direct them that their characters must coordinate a plan without speaking to each other! Muahaha...)
4. If one side ambushes the other, let's have some rules for this! Two proposals:
Ambush Rule A: A separate surprise round where the ambushing side can do ONE action. Then determine initiative afterward. This allows a melee character to charge toward the enemy, a ranged character to loose an arrow, a monk to enter a fighting stance, etc. A rogue, if they succeed at their Stealth check to walk up to an enemy, can do a Strike as their first action. Then we determine initiative as normal. The ambushers use Stealth for initiative; the ambushees use their Perception for initiative.
Ambush Rule B: There is no surprise round, but the side that is doing the ambush is first in initiative against the creatures they're aware of. (A Stealthy PC still gets to their their Stealth check against the Perception DC of the monsters: if they succeed then they are simply not detected by the monsters yet and can still benefit catching one of them flat-footed.)
5. Any character that is unaware of an enemy has the flat-footed condition against it.
PF2's Exploration Tactics would apply as follows:
1. The party chooses together whether they are being quiet and sneaky. This will affect their travel speed. Within that group decision, individuals can decide what to focus on. Some individual activities, such as Searching for hazards, also may impose a speed penalty on the party.
2. Various actions are not mutually exclusive. A character can both be stealthy and search the environment. But by focusing on something via a Tactic, you get the benefit of having your own roll (and your natural d20 roll which will never be considered lower than 10).
So, if the monsters might detect the party, the monsters roll Perception against the party's Stealth DC. If a character is focusing on stealthing, then the character gets to benefit from a Stealth check which may be higher than the party's, to remain undetected. (I don't think this needs to be a secret roll, your character will know if they snap a twig or their armor creaks.)
If the monsters detect the party and then choose to ambush them from hiding, they have a Stealth roll against the party's Perception DC. But any character focused on searching for danger gets a free secret Perception roll (minimum natural 10, and the GM rolls secretly) to possibly detect them.
In all this, the GM is free to reward other skills where appropriate, such as Deception and/or Thievery when an assassin strikes up a conversation to get close to their mark. The consistent theme is that they are to adjudicate awareness of the enemy, which needs a place in the rules.
P.S.: I am still running the Playtest rules as written, and introduce these ideas just to further the discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far, when the players come into an encounter after already having rolled Stealth or Athletics or Perception or whatever for their exploration tactic, I've just been using their previous roll as their initiative roll rather than stopping the table to roll everything /again/. I thought that is what was intended. Is that wrong and they are supposed to reroll the check they just rolled?
Re surprise rounds, while I've been running RAW without a surprise round, I would definitely prefer to have one. I definitely agree that giving a bonus "turn" of 1 action (maybe 2 on critical success vs enemy perception / init) instead of a whole round would still be beneficial, without being as swingy and brutal as an entire round of surprise actions. And creatures should definitely be flat footed until they act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This exact situation occurred while I was GMing, where I found that all the PCs failed to even sense the monsters, but as the sneaking PCs rolled very high, they not only weren’t sensed by the monsters, but because their Stealth is their initiative score, they go first...The way the rules are written, the rules conflate determining awareness with determining quickness of action. I am guessing the designers want to (1) have "one less check" to determine, and (2) to lessen the importance of Dexterity. Look at the "Structure" of an encounter under Encounter Mode on page 304: it assumes that one side is not ambushing the other. The only places where we get guidance on ambushes is under "Watches and Surprise Attacks" (page 332): "you might have the ambusher attempt a Stealth check against the Perception DCs of the party to see if anyone noticed his approach" - a perfectly fine rule, but it is implied that if neither side is resting, then there can be no ambush.
This combining of things rankles me. Being aware of an enemy sometimes happens long before one is called upon to act. Under the Playtest rules, are we to assume that monsters are always aware of the party when the party starts combat? What if the goblins are carousing and fighting among themselves when the PCs approach? Shouldn't we reward the players for sending a stealthy scout and coming up with an ambush?
And when we get to rolling initiative, what if everyone in the party already is aware of the goblins they are ambushing? Why, if they are starting the fight, are they made to roll Perception again?
The Playtest has led to metagaming in my group: one player whose Stealth is higher than his Perception is always sneaking around, and the other players are Searching. This lets them apply each of them apply their higher modifier for initiative purposes. Also, this defies belief: now the...
Most of your ideas are consistent with my own, which I believe are consistent with raw. A couple of things though.
1) If the party is sneaking up on unaware monsters, the monsters don't get a perception roll. Each party member gets a stealth roll against their perception DC.
2) If monsters are waiting in ambush for the party, the party only gets a perception roll if they are using the Searching tactic or seek action. Otherwise the monster just rolls stealth against their perception DC.
3) I think applying the sneaking and searching tactic at the same time is reasonable, but I'd probably rule since both halve your speed being so careful slows you to a quarter of your speed, barring feats to let you do either task faster. Which shouldn't be a huge deal in most dungeons but will be tough for overland travel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like CaptainMorgans solution and I think being able to ready an action to use as a reaction is RAI even.
They just need to state that clearly in the "How combat starts" chapter and not just as one of the possible actions in combat.
I think readying an action outside of combat to
ambush was explicitly not allowed in PF1. Now this seems to be the way to go. This is a big change and should be clarified.
I like CaptainMorgans solution and I think being able to ready an action to use as a reaction is RAI even.
They just need to state that clearly in the "How combat starts" chapter and not just as one of the possible actions in combat.I think readying an action outside of combat to
ambush was explicitly not allowed in PF1. Now this seems to be the way to go. This is a big change and should be clarified.
Readying actions outside of combat may not have been allowed in PF1, but it was pretty close to how surprise rounds wound up working anyway in my experience.
Page 317: "If you’re Sneaking at an encounter’s start, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check as part of your initiative roll, both to determine initiative order and to see if the enemies notice you."
I can't find a more concrete explanation of this elsewhere, I vaguely remember reading it, but it might just be conjecture based on this rule.
Anyway, my reading of this rule is that anyone who is faster than a character using Stealth in the initiative order has spotted the sneaker - someone slower does not see the sneaker. This regardless of whether perception or a skill was used for the initiative roll. So, if two creatures are sneaking against each other, the highest Stealth roll also serves to detect the other sneaker. If using Acrobatics and a chandelier to win initiative, the new angle and surprise move allowed the initiative winner to spot the sneaking creature, and so on.
The way I read it, you can use Stealth before initiative, as long as you are not interacting with anyone. Moving into position and the like are legit. A failed Stealth check in this situation triggers initiative.
Once combat starts, you can use Stealth for initiative as long as you are trying to be stealthy - even if initiative was triggered because you failed a Stealth roll. If you win, you are sensed, not seen (as long as you fulfill the conditions, such as cover or concealment).
On a failed Stealth roll in exploration mode, an initiative is triggered. If the Sneaker wins the initiative and decides to sneak away or otherwise remain stealthy, the other side never sees the sneaker. They are likely to take a Seek action to see if someone is there. If this fails, they are likely to surmise that they heard wrong, that it was actually nothing special.
This is such a typical movie scene, I like that the rules can produce this result.
..to hold their action until the rest of the party is in.
According to your interpretation combat would have to start as soon as the PC fails his check.
In this situation, one part is still using Stealth.´- the NPCs. I am still inclined to use the same rules for PCs and NPCs. So no initiative as long as one side has, but does not use, what used to be Surprise in PF1.
But the PC could still use Stealth for initiative in this case; the goblins know he's there, but not exactly where. This last is a judgement call based on the situation and not based on any rule.
To continue on this tangent, there is a Stealth rule on p158 that says:
If you’re unseen by a creature and it’s impossible for that creature to see you (such as when you’re invisible, the observer is blinded, or you’re in darkness and the creature can’t see in darkness), you automatically treat the result of your d20 roll as a 20 against that creature on your checks to Sneak.
Would people allow this to apply on initiative checks? Thinking about it, I believe this could be a nice ambush rule. Considering the swinginess of PF2, going first is about as good as having a surprise round in PF1, and this almost but not quite guarantees you go first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 317: "If you’re Sneaking at an encounter’s start, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check as part of your initiative roll, both to determine initiative order and to see if the enemies notice you."
You are correct, sir.
This strongly implies that at the start of an encounter:
The mention of the Stealth rules is important, because by them (again, page 158) the GM is expected to roll a secret Stealth check to see if the sneaking PC is noticed. The problem is that this usually triggers an encounter, which means that the player is supposed to roll (p317).
I'd put this under: "Ideas for how to handle immersion and sneaking, which we hadn't yet made consistent across the chapters".
I'd put this under: "Ideas for how to handle immersion and sneaking, which we hadn't yet made consistent across the chapters".
Yes, very much so. The playtest is an early iteration of the rules, we always have to remember that. Its good to point out where things don't fit - but lets not go overboard.
|
Perhaps I've missed a similar post on this thread but I did not see anything.
We've had a situation arise twice now, monster is using stealth for exploration mode, rolls say a 24 stealth, monster is using stealth for initiative and rolls a 22. The rest of the party is seeking and rolls below monster with perception.
Now rules as I understand mean that the PC should have no idea there is a monster until it attacks or a PC with a perception initiative beats the monster's stealth initiative.
Where does that original PC's initiative end up, does he get shunted to the end because he rolled above and has to wait until it comes back around? Is he "delaying" until after the monster's presence has been established?
My interpretation of this, which admittedly is probably not RAW, is that stealth in combat is different from stealth outside of combat, because in combat you know who the participants are.
So in Remarian's example above, once combat starts the PCs have realized that there is a hostile creature in the room with them; they just don't know where that hostile is.