| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?
Deception check for Initiative then.
Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.
My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.
That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.
Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.
What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?
Deception check for Initiative then.
Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.
My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.
That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.
Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.
Yeah, when transitioning to encounter mode, roll initiative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a quick question from my end: What is limiting us to treat a Deception initiative check like a Stealth initiative check when transitioning from Exploration to Encounter mode?
Typically, you’ll roll a Perception check to determine your initiative—the more aware you are of your surroundings, the more quickly you can respond. Sometimes, though, the GM might call on you to roll some other type of check. For instance, if you were Avoiding Notice during exploration (page 479), you’d roll a Stealth check. A social encounter could call for a Deception or Diplomacy check.
If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).
If you’re "Negotiating" at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a "Deception or Diplomacy" check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice "your behavior" (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for "Sense Motive", regardless of their initiative check results).
I have to admit though that there is a valid point about you already being in encounter mode during a "social encounter".
Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.
if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.
Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.
As the actions of a skill aren’t comprehensive, there may be times when the GM asks you to attempt a skill check without using any of the listed actions, or times when the GM asks you to roll using a different key ability modifier.
This is especially obvious for the Deception skill as for example "bluffing" isn't mentioned at all in the skill description, so what would your GM have you roll to maintain a straight face at the poker table or if you don't want to show weakness in front of coworkers/friends/family members in case of personal bad news?
Having said so I think there are many clever ways of handling the situation as the resonsible GM, including using skill checks before rolling initiative in order to determine the success of any surprising action or even using a *gasp* surprise round, however I also do think that there is only one correct way as per the rules.
For example if the Barbarian player were in my group I would first determine if the opposition (or any part of it) is on their guard or relaxed. If they are on their guard I would probably call for a Deception check to determine if the Barbarian can achieve surprise other than by being fast or if the opposition "can see him comming" before it is actually his turn to act. So any enemy that is on his guard and that the Deception check has failed against can act in the same way as the Barbarian, determined by initiative (Perception rolls as usual). Others will pass their initiative, continuing to do what they are currently doing until the Barbarian has acted because they have no clue what is about to unfold. If the Barbarian is bad at Deception and fails versus all enemies combat starts as normal, i.e. with every opponent being able to act when his initiative count is on as hostilities just broke out.
I know that this is not as per the existing rules and that PF2E desperately tries to avoid "decoupling" of rolls (i.e. trying to avoid additional dice rolls for one and the same situation), however this is probably what I would do.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep in mind that the skill actions listed under a skill are not meant to be all there is.Because the barbarian isn't doing anything requiring a deception check: he isn't Creating a Diversion, Impersonating nor Lying.
if someone else gain init, that person may ask the barb if he intents to attack - forcing the barb either to lie (and make a deception check), either to keep silent (which could be interpreted as a confession). But at the moment the barb decide to be hostile, there isn't any deception involved.
Except, at the moment init is rolled, the barb didn't do any thing at all - he has just some intent, but there isn't any rule saying every character must state every of his intent at all moment or roll deception. There is a rule about lying, and there is rule about sense motive (this costs action to the person who's sensing motive - and he can't do a "general sense motive", he has to spend an action for every person. If there are 4 PCs, there's no way a character may sense the motive of every one of them within 1 round).
Since the barb isn't lying, what is the rule that makes the most sense to use?
Note: you may allow some sort of "passive sense motive". But remember: everyone is trained (or more) in Perception, while only a few numbers of characters are trained in any skill - including Deception. If you allow "passive sense motive", you should clearly state the intents of almost every character at every moment. "The merchand intents to buy your item even if you raise the price by 25%", "your prisoner intents to be a brigand once you'll release him", "your employer doesn't intent to pay you", etc. It's possible to play that way (this is how Malk plays), but this isn't the usual way.
The barbarian, if they want to get a drop on people who are standing right in front of them. Needs to be hiding their emotions, this is a form of deception, quite analogous to non verbal lying in this situation (intentionally presenting yourself as not aggressive so that you can be very aggressive in a way that is advantageous to you).
The barbarian RAW says they want to initiate combat without doing something like this gets no special dispensation, either they roll high and have faster reaction times than the others... or the others roll faster, they can then decide "do we attack this person who looks hostile" "do we tell them to stand down" or "do we stand on guard and respond to hostile activity.
The idea of giving someone a free action is just weird and nonsensical.
Oh, for the record I have absolutely hit people I have seen preparing to hit me (one of the benefits of being a sober individual and downsides of having to deal with aggressive drunks).
I have also talked people down or just moved back and readied myself to see if they follow through on what I am expecting them to do / ready an escape route.
This is also an example of winning initiative.
A good example of deception for initiative would be when a new kid joined my highschool, he walked up to me smiling (first I had ever met him) and headbutted me. I had no inkling it would happen and my reaction speed was lower than his ability to deceive me.
To expand on it further, this is a part of what makes the skill for initiative system so great. Rolling Athletics when you are fully aware of where the foe is to get there faster than they can react to it is incredibly thematic and gives a lot of extra use to skills that would not otherwise get used as often.
|
Yeah, when transitioning to encounter mode, roll initiative.What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?
Deception check for Initiative then.
Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.
My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.
That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.
Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.
Again, though... you should most likely already be in encounter mode (social encounter, using initiative) [note - it's part of the rules] if you are doing what seems to be tense negotiations.
Neither initiative nor encounter mode mean combat. It just means timing is tracked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all agree that there are 2 primary schools of thought on this topic, and I can see both angles.
At this point there is little point to rehashing each argument; try as anyone may I doubt any argument at this juncture will materially effect any of our opinions on the matter. This isn't helped by how inflammatory things have gotten in the last couple days.
Choose the method that best fits your table.
Yeah, when transitioning to encounter mode, roll initiative.What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?
Deception check for Initiative then.
Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.
My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.
That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.
Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.
Again, though... you should most likely already be in encounter mode (social encounter, using initiative) [note - it's part of the rules] if you are doing what seems to be tense negotiations.
Neither initiative nor encounter mode mean combat. It just means timing is tracked.
Negotiations are explicitly an exploration mode activity, even if you are tracking order in some way.
Negotiations are explicitly an exploration mode activity, even if you are tracking order in some way.Yeah, when transitioning to encounter mode, roll initiative.What did the Barbarian expect to get from charging like this? Maybe catching people unaware?
Deception check for Initiative then.
Or did he expect them to be shocked by his dominating behavior? Intimidate check for Initiative it is then.
My default roll for Initiative is Perception. If a character wants to use a skill check instead, they have to declare it and act appropriately.
That’s basically how I would approach the Barbarian’s initiative. I agree with the folks in the thread that keep it simple - simple initiative roll.
Depending how surprised or unready the other people are, I would maybe offer a +2 to the barbarian’s roll, but either way, it is an initiative roll.
Again, though... you should most likely already be in encounter mode (social encounter, using initiative) [note - it's part of the rules] if you are doing what seems to be tense negotiations.
Neither initiative nor encounter mode mean combat. It just means timing is tracked.
See Social Encounters.
Edit: Here we go back around the merry go round.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Surprise Attack
You spring into combat faster than foes can react. On the first round of combat, if you roll Deception or Stealth for initiative, creatures that haven’t acted are flat-footed to you.
It is unquestionably true that there's no such thing as a surprise round, or a surprise action, the benefit of sneaking up on another creature is getting to use stealth for initiative.
We can deduce this from both the stealth rules as written which insist directly that initiative is rolled when a creature intends to start hostilities, and we can see from this rogue feature that there's an intention that you could begin an encounter by rolling stealth, but then having other creatures act before you.
You would be rolling stealth and they would be rolling perception, and according to the avoid notice language cited in the thread those checks are both to see who goes first AND whether or not they notice you sneak up on them.
So, if you're in hiding, and want to attack, initiative is rolled and you do a stealth check and they do a perception check, there's no such thing as a situation where they win and don't know you're there and trying to get the jump on them.
The surprise attack feature heavily implies that the intent of the rules is that this would work in the same way, where the deception check made is both your turn order, and whether or not you fool your foe as to your intentions.
By definition, having lower deception init than their perception init, means that they caught on to you, the roll determines that you have done something to give away the game- maybe you went for your weapon but they were a faster draw, maybe your expression gave it away, whatever.
You haven't directly attacked them yet, but they know you fully intend to, and you can't really play it off because they already saw through your lie
you could begin an encounter by rolling stealth, but then having other creatures act before you.
You would be rolling stealth and they would be rolling perception, and according to the avoid notice language cited in the thread those checks are both to see who goes first AND whether or not they notice you sneak up on them.
So, if you're in hiding, and want to attack, initiative is rolled and you do a stealth check and they do a perception check, there's no such thing as a situation where they win and don't know you're there and trying to get the jump on them.
I believe this part is incorrect. If you're using the Avoid Notice exploration activity before the encounter begins, you do roll only one Stealth roll, but it's compared to the opponent's Perception DC to see if they notice you and the opponent's Initiative roll to see where you go in initiative order. It's entirely possible for them to roll higher than you on initiative and not notice you because you are actively using Stealth, which is compared to a DC rather than to an opposed Perception check. They have to spend an action to Seek (vs. your Stealth DC, not your rolled result, if I'm reading it correctly) to try to find you.
If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).
[my bold]
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.
Are they though? If anything they are run in a malleable version of encounter mode, with rounds that may have been adjusted in length.
I see no reason to force two separate initiative rolls in a social encounter that becomes a combat encounter. You aren't transitioning into a new scene. At most you are altering the length of a turn. I dont even recommend that.
The idea that this would qualify as a "new instance" with fresh initiative is far more "gamey" than I tend to like. To me it is far simpler to keep initiative in place for the duration, and count any non-combat actions that characters have committed their turns to as binding for the "transition" into combat. This causes the least disruption in the scene, and has the added benefit of providing a reason for a character, whether PC or NPC, to begin hostilities.
Run encounter mode as you will. I won't say that you are wrong. But I will defend my view as I dont see it as conflicting with the rules.
|
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.Are they though? If anything they are run in a malleable version of encounter mode, with rounds that may have been adjusted in length.
I see no reason to force two separate initiative rolls in a social encounter that becomes a combat encounter. You aren't transitioning into a new scene. At most you are altering the length of a turn. I dont even recommend that.
The idea that this would qualify as a "new instance" with fresh initiative is far more "gamey" than I tend to like. To me it is far simpler to keep initiative in place for the duration, and count any non-combat actions that characters have committed their turns to as binding for the "transition" into combat. This causes the least disruption in the scene, and has the added benefit of providing a reason for a character, whether PC or NPC, to begin hostilities.
Run encounter mode as you will. I won't say that you are wrong. But I will defend my view as I dont see it as conflicting with the rules.
This thread has actually motivated to try for the first time running a tense social encounter that could have evolved into a combat in encounter mode just to see how my players liked it. They actually loved it! It added a new level of dramatic tension, especially as some of the more hotblooded members contemplated holding their action or just start attacking. Also had characters be cautious of their surroundings and how they were arranged.
Not saying this is the right way to do things but I really enjoyed it and if you have not tried it before I highly suggest experimenting with this style! I am adding it to my repertoire not for every social encounter but I can now definitely see how it can add to a game.
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.Are they though? If anything they are run in a malleable version of encounter mode, with rounds that may have been adjusted in length.
I see no reason to force two separate initiative rolls in a social encounter that becomes a combat encounter. You aren't transitioning into a new scene. At most you are altering the length of a turn. I dont even recommend that.
The idea that this would qualify as a "new instance" with fresh initiative is far more "gamey" than I tend to like. To me it is far simpler to keep initiative in place for the duration, and count any non-combat actions that characters have committed their turns to as binding for the "transition" into combat. This causes the least disruption in the scene, and has the added benefit of providing a reason for a character, whether PC or NPC, to begin hostilities.
Run encounter mode as you will. I won't say that you are wrong. But I will defend my view as I dont see it as conflicting with the rules.
Rounds of action don't necessitate initiative. Order doesn't matter as much as tracking how characters spent their time in a round of negotiations.
Are you using an influence system?
... despite the name social encounters are run in exploration.Are they though? If anything they are run in a malleable version of encounter mode, with rounds that may have been adjusted in length.
I see no reason to force two separate initiative rolls in a social encounter that becomes a combat encounter. You aren't transitioning into a new scene. At most you are altering the length of a turn. I dont even recommend that.
The idea that this would qualify as a "new instance" with fresh initiative is far more "gamey" than I tend to like. To me it is far simpler to keep initiative in place for the duration, and count any non-combat actions that characters have committed their turns to as binding for the "transition" into combat. This causes the least disruption in the scene, and has the added benefit of providing a reason for a character, whether PC or NPC, to begin hostilities.
Run encounter mode as you will. I won't say that you are wrong. But I will defend my view as I dont see it as conflicting with the rules.
Rounds of action don't necessitate initiative. Order doesn't matter as much as tracking how characters spent their time in a round of negotiations.
Are you using an influence system?
Using rounds in any form would necessitate initiative if there are 2 different sides. If you didn't run initiative in that sort of scene, how do you determine who does what when?
As to influence, nothing specific. I tend to keep track of the disposition of the creature and modify it based on circumstance. So a creature that begins hostile may be open to being easily swayed, or they may dig in and require additional "convincing" to improve their disposition. I haven't yet ran a "court room" scenario with a mob or jury to convince yet. I'll report back if/when that happens.
you could begin an encounter by rolling stealth, but then having other creatures act before you.
You would be rolling stealth and they would be rolling perception, and according to the avoid notice language cited in the thread those checks are both to see who goes first AND whether or not they notice you sneak up on them.
So, if you're in hiding, and want to attack, initiative is rolled and you do a stealth check and they do a perception check, there's no such thing as a situation where they win and don't know you're there and trying to get the jump on them.
I believe this part is incorrect. If you're using the Avoid Notice exploration activity before the encounter begins, you do roll only one Stealth roll, but it's compared to the opponent's Perception DC to see if they notice you and the opponent's Initiative roll to see where you go in initiative order. It's entirely possible for them to roll higher than you on initiative and not notice you because you are actively using Stealth, which is compared to a DC rather than to an opposed Perception check. They have to spend an action to Seek (vs. your Stealth DC, not your rolled result, if I'm reading it correctly) to try to find you.
If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).[my bold]
You know what though, if you applied the stealth initiative vs perception DC concept to deception, you might wind up with someone beating you in initiave but doesn't realise your intentions due to beating their perception DC. Interesting. Your GM could use the Spidey sense solution again, but I guess they'd be using actions to Sense Motive instead of Seek?
@Cap Morgan, that is an option. I may institute that as a house rule.
Edit: After trying it out of course.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really looks like this debate is endless. Some defend the rule side, that being the initiator shouldn't give you an advantage otherwise players will fight to initiate.
I don't think that is quite right. People defending RAW are arguing that the advantage of being the initiator is captured by the ability to use skills other than perception for initiative.
In the Barbarian example, the Barbarian would be rolling Athletics to represent the fact that he is trying to use his physical ability to do damage before anyone else can deal with the new situation. The guards are using Perception to determine how well the noticed the situation changing.
Imagine that it was the Wizard who was short tempered. Despite his strength of 8, despite being completely untrained in Athletics, he decides to run across the room and stab someone. He should be bad at it. It should be easier for the guards to intercept him than the Barbarian.
RAW initiative captures these nuances. By making this an Athletics vs Perception roll, everyone's more relevant capabilities are factored in. The Barbarian is strong and can jump into combat quickly when he initiates a charge. The Wizard is weak and physically inept, and is less likely to complete his action before anyone else does anything. A perceptive guard is more likely to read the attitude of the Barbarian, to see the anger building, the hands clenching. An unperceptive guard may not understand that the stumbling Wizard is really trying to hurt someone.
The counter argument, that whoever yells "I attack!" first should get a free action before anyone else can do anything, ignores all of this. It presumes that people exist in distinct states with no transitions between. The Barbarian is in the Negotiation State until his is the Across The Room Swinging His Axe State. The argument is that it doesn't matter how ready a guard is, how able he is to gauge the mood of characters. His ability to prevent or intercept attacks is entirely and completely negated by anyone declaring an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His ability to prevent or intercept attacks is entirely and completely negated by anyone declaring an attack.
As is your ability to defend yourself if somebody comes out of a dark alley and stabs you while you were busy talking to your friend about the movie you just watched. However this is not the point.
The point is that per RAW you can never truly surprise anybody!
Yes, you can be faster than everybody else when the bullets start flying and I have to admit that you could count that as some sort of surprise, however this is not the kind of surprise that those opposed to RAW initiative rules are talking about. It is very clear that PF2E goes a very long way to ensure that anybody and his dog has had a chance to not be "surprised", which if taken to the extreme can lead to strange occurances like your Spidey sense going of when the GM asks for initiative before anything is actually happening, e.g. in case of hidden opponents.
It really looks like this debate is endless. Some defend the rule side, that being the initiator shouldn't give you an advantage otherwise players will fight to initiate.I don't think that is quite right. People defending RAW are arguing that the advantage of being the initiator is captured by the ability to use skills other than perception for initiative.
In the Barbarian example, the Barbarian would be rolling Athletics to represent the fact that he is trying to use his physical ability to do damage before anyone else can deal with the new situation. The guards are using Perception to determine how well the noticed the situation changing.
Imagine that it was the Wizard who was short tempered. Despite his strength of 8, despite being completely untrained in Athletics, he decides to run across the room and stab someone. He should be bad at it. It should be easier for the guards to intercept him than the Barbarian.
RAW initiative captures these nuances. By making this an Athletics vs Perception roll, everyone's more relevant capabilities are factored in. The Barbarian is strong and can jump into combat quickly when he initiates a charge. The Wizard is weak and physically inept, and is less likely to complete his action before anyone else does anything. A perceptive guard is more likely to read the attitude of the Barbarian, to see the anger building, the hands clenching. An unperceptive guard may not understand that the stumbling Wizard is really trying to hurt someone.
The counter argument, that whoever yells "I attack!" first should get a free action before anyone else can do anything, ignores all of this. It presumes that people exist in distinct states with no transitions between. The Barbarian is in the Negotiation State until his is the Across The Room Swinging His Axe State. The argument is that it doesn't matter how ready a guard is, how able he is to gauge the mood of characters. His ability to prevent or intercept attacks is entirely and...
You realize I'm not the one you have to argue with? I was trying to find a middle ground, not considering that anyone's right or wrong. As long as the barbarian won't be the first one to act, some players will be disappointed. And as long as you get free actions by being the initiators, other players will be unhappy.
Hence my houserule proposition :)
As is your ability to defend yourself if somebody comes out of a dark alley and stabs you while you were busy talking to your friend about the movie you just watched. However this is not the point.The point is that per RAW you can never truly surprise anybody!
Yes, you can be faster than everybody else when the bullets start flying and I have to admit that you could count that as some sort of surprise, however this is not the kind of surprise that those opposed to RAW initiative rules are talking about. It is very clear that PF2E goes a very long way to ensure that anybody and his dog has had a chance to not be "surprised", which if taken to the extreme can lead to strange occurances like your Spidey sense going of when the GM asks for initiative before anything is actually happening, e.g. in case of hidden opponents.
I understand what you are saying, but I'd argue that the degree of action-simulation-error (TM Sapient) is low. Being good at Stealth, or some other skill, models the idea of surprise well enough IMO. If Clumsy McBumblepants attempts to stealthily attack from a dark alley, maybe his Surprise is foiled by the garbage cans he sent flying. But if Whisper Airdancer tries? Well, all those years of cat burglar training might just pay off, allowing them to strike first. Surprise!
I don't really agree with the idea that initiative is happening before anything happens, even with hidden opponents. Once those hidden opponents begin to act, there is a chance that Perception will allow someone to notice. Initiative is meant to aggregate the whole of the situation. A very stealthy hidden opponent is likely to go early do to their excellent stealth (which is what they should be rolling). But that experienced guard might have a high perception, which gives them an advantage too.
You realize I'm not the one you have to argue with?
Not arguing. Just tossing in my thoughts. Sorry if it came off as an attack.
Initiative is meant to aggregate the whole of the situation. A very stealthy hidden opponent is likely to go early do to their excellent stealth (which is what they should be rolling). But that experienced guard might have a high perception, which gives them an advantage too.
The thing is that the idea of doing away with compared rolls can lead to results that we already had lengthy discussions about in other threads.
One party, the one acting aka setting up an ambush or surprise attack, does a skill check versus a fixed value, usually Stealth (but maybe Deception or even Athletics in our case) versus passive Perception mostly and this roll is also used to determine the acting partys initiative.
However once the GM calls for initiative, a new roll - ranked roll as they call it - is made and it may easily be that even if the prior skill check was high enough to beat the passive DC, however is not high enough to beat the active initiative roll of the opposition.
Which for an ambush or surprise attack can lead to situations where one side is not aware of the others whereabouts or intentions, they just know that things are about to happen and need to act to their best knowledge and ability, e.g. using a seek action in order to detect the ambush or shouting a warning for everybody to stay put in case of negotiations.
And with true surprise rounds out of the equation the principle of "you can't punish people for rolling high" must be applied to both NPCs and PCs, which simply means that if a NPC guard can react to a PC "surprise attack" simply by being faster, then this principle also needs to hold true for a PC character that spurs to action before an ambush actually happens.
His ability to prevent or intercept attacks is entirely and completely negated by anyone declaring an attack.As is your ability to defend yourself if somebody comes out of a dark alley and stabs you while you were busy talking to your friend about the movie you just watched. However this is not the point.
The point is that per RAW you can never truly surprise anybody!
That's not true. You just need to roll high on stealth or deception for initiative. It is true that there's no way to do it with 100% reliability, but that's fine to most of us, even if leads to the occasional spider sense scenario.
You can also manipulate the bonuses in various ways to improve your odds. The most obvious being using the cover bonus to stealth checks on initiative.
That's not true. You just need to roll high on stealth or deception for initiative. It is true that there's no way to do it with 100% reliability, but that's fine to most of us, even if leads to the occasional spider sense scenario.
You can also manipulate the bonuses in various ways to improve your odds. The most obvious being using the cover bonus to stealth checks on initiative.
Well that is the crux of this thread, because if acting first is counting as "surprising" your enemy is apparently highly debatable in between the individual posters.
For one camp, and I think this is also true for the designers of PF2E, acting first is the equivalent of "surprising your enemy". For example a GM can easily disallow reactions before your first turn because he decides that you are indeed "surprised".
However for the other camp just acting first is not the equivalent of "surprising your enemy", you just were faster on the draw.
Imagine two duelling cowboys. One shoots first, one dies. Hardly a surprise, just one being faster than the other. However the guy with the Winchester on the roof of the saloon shooting one dead before the duel even begins, well that's a surprise.
Judging developer's intent from the actual mechanism in P2e called Surprise Attack, "surprising" your enemy involves starting from Stealth or Deception and beating them in initiative.
Interestingly, it doesn't seem like a rogue even has to succeed vs. the enemies' DCs, only attempt to and roll higher on init.
One party, the one acting aka setting up an ambush or surprise attack, does a skill check versus a fixed value, usually Stealth (but maybe Deception or even Athletics in our case) versus passive Perception mostly and this roll is also used to determine the acting partys initiative.However once the GM calls for initiative, a new roll - ranked roll as they call it - is made and it may easily be that even if the prior skill check was high enough to beat the passive DC, however is not high enough to beat the active initiative roll of the opposition.
Which for an ambush or surprise attack can lead to situations where one side is not aware of the others whereabouts or intentions, they just know that things are about to happen and need to act to their best knowledge and ability, e.g. using a seek action in order to detect the ambush or shouting a warning for everybody to stay put in case of negotiations.
And with true surprise rounds out of the equation the principle of "you can't punish people for rolling high" must be applied to both NPCs and PCs, which simply means that if a NPC guard can react to a PC "surprise attack" simply by being faster, then this principle also needs to hold true for a PC character that spurs to action before an ambush actually happens.
I don't really agree with the "Spidey Sense" description, as others have put it. It isn't that the character is reacting to a feeling something is going down. It is that they initially didn't notice the concealed character (or deception, or whatever), but did as the attack was beginning. They notice the bow being pulled back, the person getting in position to jump, the bead of sweat that gives away the lie, etc.
I do agree that initiative should work the same for PC and NPC alike. This is one of the reasons I dislike the proposals for a free turn for whoever decides to attack first. PF adventure paths are full of areas where NPCs will attack on sight. The typical, non-murderhobo, PC party wants to assess things first. If being the first to decide to attack equals the first to act, a good portion of monsters, beasts, and villains should always get a surprise round.
I don't really agree with the "Spidey Sense" description, as others have put it. It isn't that the character is reacting to a feeling something is going down. It is that they initially didn't notice the concealed character (or deception, or whatever), but did as the attack was beginning. They notice the bow being pulled back, the person getting in position to jump, the bead of sweat that gives away the lie, etc.
While I have to agree that Spidey sense might be a derogatory term in the end it does not matter how you call it or how you imagine it as the ingame effect will be identical. Be it the sound of weapons being drawn, armour creaking, weapons glistening in the sunlight or your subconsciousness noticing things that you have consciously overlooked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I have to agree that Spidey sense might be a derogatory term in the end it does not matter how you call it or how you imagine it as the ingame effect will be identical. Be it the sound of weapons being drawn, armour creaking, weapons glistening in the sunlight or your subconsciousness noticing things that you have consciously overlooked.
Or, "I didn't see you at first, but now that you are moving..." It doesn't have to be subconscious. Things are changing.
So as a question do we still have distance modifiers on Perception, and if so do those modifiers or any others such as from precipitation effect perception rolls for initiative?
So as a question do we still have distance modifiers on Perception, and if so do those modifiers or any others such as from precipitation effect perception rolls for initiative?
No official distance modifiers, but I suspect you could make a circumstance penalty for it pretty easy if you had to.
Circumstance penalties like precipitation would apply to initiative, yes.