When using Quiet Allies, is the party really forced to use the familiar or animal companion's Stealth modifier if they are the one with the lowest value?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When using Quiet Allies, is the party really forced to use the familiar or animal companion's Stealth modifier if they are the one with the lowest value?
I'd say yes for an animal Companion who is moving freely but not for a familiar that is just stashed in your bag.
As with all things in RPG games, I think that context is key here. If you have a familiar that is traveling on it's own, you may need to use it's sneak if it would be odd for that animal to be around. If for instance you had a cat for a familiar and you happened to be in a cave. If however you were in a town, it wouldn't be weird for that familiar to just be walking around, meaning that it's stealth is largely irrelevant.
I usually allow my wizard who happens to have a cat familiar let it ride in his robes, sidestepping the whole issue. I don't have a character with an Animal Companion in my current campaign, but if I did I would likely give allowances to the character to make stealth easier.
Animal Companions that are traveling directly with the party would need to roll, and would need to be included in the group roll if their bonus was the lowest. However if you say had a bird companion and were in the woods, I wouldn't force you to make the bird go into stealth unless it's presence would somehow be out of the ordinary.
Another option would be to have an Animal Companion move "off screen" during sneaking situations, letting it basically tail the party from a safe distance, and largely be forgotten about until something happens. This ends up being a hand waive situation, with the rider that the animal companion may not start directly next to their controlling player if combat breaks out.
Unless you use your Animal Companion as a mount, I see no reason for it to always move with the party, and if you have a horse, well it would make sense that it wouldn't be very sneaky so should constitute a penalty to stealth as is.
Edited for clarity.
Until your bird becomes medium or large, at which point it is clearly not your run of the mill, normal Raven. Enemy patrols aren't going to just ignore a man sized bird. Even if it is an indigenous species, it's still an obvious threat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As with all things in RPG games, I think that context is key here. If you have a familiar that is traveling on it's own, you may need to use it's sneak if it would be odd for that animal to be around. If for instance you had a cat for a familiar and you happened to be in a cave. If however you were in a town, it wouldn't be weird for that familiar to just be walking around, meaning that it's stealth is largely irrelevant.
I usually allow my wizard who happens to have a cat familiar let it ride in his robes, sidestepping the whole issue. I don't have a character with an Animal Companion in my current campaign, but if I did I would likely give allowances to the character to make stealth easier.
Animal Companions that are traveling directly with the party would need to roll, and would need to be included in the group roll if their bonus was the lowest. However if you say had a bird companion and were in the woods, I wouldn't force you to make the bird go into stealth unless it's presence would somehow be out of the ordinary.
Another option would be to have an Animal Companion move "off screen" during sneaking situations, letting it basically tail the party from a safe distance, and largely be forgotten about until something happens. This ends up being a hand waive situation, with the rider that the animal companion may not start directly next to their controlling player if combat breaks out.
Unless you use your Animal Companion as a mount, I see no reason for it to always move with the party, and if you have a horse, well it would make sense that it wouldn't be very sneaky so should constitute a penalty to stealth as is.
Edited for clarity.
My loyal raven familiar, who has, naturally, been at my side all along
When using Quiet Allies, is the party really forced to use the familiar or animal companion's Stealth modifier if they are the one with the lowest value?
You're only forced to use it is you want your familiar to sneak: if you don't care, it can stand out in the open and is it's lucky, what sees it isn't too hungry... Now if you want to avoid this, toss said familiar into a bag and tie it shut so it can't be detected that way.
I'd agree that an independently moving critter does have to count separately. The companion's a separate character in many ways, so your giant badger familiar who cusses more than the dwarven barbarian is going to need to learn how to keep quiet, whereas a Tiny familiar can be stuffed in your robe and/or wizard hat.
The 'they tail along behind' makes some sense, but only if actual PCs can do that too. 'OK, the badger lags back..well, let's also have Klanky the Champion stay with too.'
I'd agree that an independently moving critter does have to count separately. The companion's a separate character in many ways, so your giant badger familiar who cusses more than the dwarven barbarian is going to need to learn how to keep quiet, whereas a Tiny familiar can be stuffed in your robe and/or wizard hat.
The 'they tail along behind' makes some sense, but only if actual PCs can do that too. 'OK, the badger lags back..well, let's also have Klanky the Champion stay with too.'
I would allow that. The deal is if combat breaks out, the champion is off the board for however many turns it would take to run into it. The rule of thumb I would use is if you are within a triple sneak move, so 1.5 your maximum move, you count towards being in the party for stealth purposes.
Yeah, anything that moves independently counts against it.
Of course, you're using this because you have party members who aren't trained in stealth, and a likely also to not have a high dex. So did you expect it to be really good?
I've viewed Quiet Allies as a handy way to get around things that shouldn't really be a threat (creatures a few levels lower than you) but not as a method to avoid on level enemies.
I always felt like the mechanics made that obvious.
Of course, you're using this because you have party members who aren't trained in stealth, and a likely also to not have a high dex. So did you expect it to be really good?
Our ranger plans on taking it even though everyone is trained DC in Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quiet Allies is great even if everyone has the same Stealth Modifier. Less chances to flub a stealth check, though you are putting all of your eggs in one basket when you are using it.
Quiet Allies is great even if everyone has the same Stealth Modifier. Less chances to flub a stealth check, though you are putting all of your eggs in one basket when you are using it.
I'm not sure what you mean with the eggs, but I'd like to point out that it doesn't impact initiative and the rest of the party can still start combat unnoticed even if the person rolling initially failed to be.
Quiet Allies is great even if everyone has the same Stealth Modifier. Less chances to flub a stealth check, though you are putting all of your eggs in one basket when you are using it.I'm not sure what you mean with the eggs, but I'd like to point out that it doesn't impact initiative and the rest of the party can still start combat unnoticed even if the person rolling initially failed to be.
Come on Cap, you can't tell me that every Stealth check you've ever made was specifically to enter combat. You've never had to sneak past a group of town guards your party wasn't willing to kill? Sneak past an enemy that the GM made sure you knew was WAAAY out of your league, Bilbo Baggins style?
Also, I don't believe that you could enter combat undetected if your party failed a Group stealth check. Why should you be allowed to get out of the consequences of a failure on a group check that you participated in? If you intended to have a different stealth result from the rest of the group, you should have just rolled your own Stealth. So yeah, using Quiet Allies puts the parties eggs in one basket. One roll to stealth them all.
Or what did you think that Quiet Allies did? Only work if the party succeeded, then everyone can just take backsies when the Paladin flubs his roll?
Edit: Let me clarify. If you choose to use Quiet Allies and the roll is failed, the party is detected. You don't get to benefit from the Circumstance bonus that the feat provides and also have a different sneak result than the rest of the group. This is the only way the feat makes any sense.
You are confusing a Stealth check made specifically for Initiative with one made for both Stealth and Initiative purposes. While the rest of the party could definitely use Stealth for initiative when using Quiet Allies, they are held to the result that the party made with the feat for detection purposes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quiet Allies is great even if everyone has the same Stealth Modifier. Less chances to flub a stealth check, though you are putting all of your eggs in one basket when you are using it.I'm not sure what you mean with the eggs, but I'd like to point out that it doesn't impact initiative and the rest of the party can still start combat unnoticed even if the person rolling initially failed to be.Come on Cap, you can't tell me that every Stealth check you've ever made was specifically to enter combat. You've never had to sneak past a group of town guards your party wasn't willing to kill? Sneak past an enemy that the GM made sure you knew was WAAAY out of your league, Bilbo Baggins style?
Also, I don't believe that you could enter combat undetected if your party failed a Group stealth check. Why should you be allowed to get out of the consequences of a failure on a group check that you participated in? If you intended to have a different stealth result from the rest of the group, you should have just rolled your own Stealth. So yeah, using Quiet Allies puts the parties eggs in one basket. One roll to stealth them all.
Or what did you think that Quiet Allies did? Only work if the party succeeded, then everyone can just take backsies when the Paladin flubs his roll?
Edit: Let me clarify. If you choose to use Quiet Allies and the roll is failed, the party is detected. You don't get to benefit from the Circumstance bonus that the feat provides and also have a different sneak result than the rest of the group. This is the only way the feat makes any sense.
You are confusing a Stealth check made specifically for Initiative with one made for both Stealth and Initiative purposes. While the rest of the party could definitely use Stealth for initiative when using Quiet Allies, they are held to the result that the party made with the feat for detection purposes.
The Quiet Allies feat says it doesn't apply to initiative though. In lieu of applying an exception, initiative should use the default rules, which includes that if you roll higher than the perception DC of the enemies while Avoiding Notice you begin combat undetected. I don't see anything in the text or order of operations that changes that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but if you fail your stealth check, and therefore are no longer sneaking, the GM probably isn't going to let you use stealth for initiative anyways. I mean maybe, but I don't think it's that weird that a GM wouldn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Quiet Allies feat says it doesn't apply to initiative though. In lieu of applying an exception, initiative should use the default rules, which includes that if you roll higher than the perception DC of the enemies while Avoiding Notice you begin combat undetected. I don't see anything in the text or order of operations that changes that.
Incorrect. If you are sneaking and using Quiet Allies, then the group is either undetected or detected together. The "This doesn't apply for Initiative Rolls," rider is there to stop the party from having a single initiative, nothing more.
From what you are saying, you believe it is possible to bypass a failed group check. Why? That's a fairly awful reading of the rules. When a player makes a decision, they should be held to that decision and the outcome thereof. That includes participation in a group activity like Quiet Allies.
If you become detected due to a failed Stealth roll, why would you suddenly be undetected again when you roll initiative?
I've argued in the past that Initiative does not have a direct benefit beyond deciding the turn order. This is true 90% of the time, the one exception being with Stealth. In cases where you are using Stealth for both detection and initiative purposes, the game allows you to use one roll for both. This is an exception to the standard initiative rules.
If however you are part of a group Stealth check for detection using Quiet Allies, you should not be allowed to bypass the outcome of that check with your own Stealth. You lumped your fate in with the group.
And it makes perfect sense. The rogue, instead of keeping his distance from the party, decides to stick close to help his allies sneak up on an enemy. Someone tips the enemy off, drawing attention to the group and by extension, the rogue.
Quiet Allies very much puts the parties eggs in one basket.
Does the term "group check" appear anywhere in the rules? Because I don't recall that being a defined thing in PF2, as opposed to 5e. I feel like figuring out actual rules for "group checks" is key to this.
Beyond that, I'll point out that this distinction only really matters to ranged characters without Surprise Attack, aka non-rogues. A rogue will still treat enemies as flat-footed anyway.
Does the term "group check" appear anywhere in the rules? Because I don't recall that being a defined thing in PF2, as opposed to 5e. I feel like figuring out actual rules for "group checks" is key to this.
Beyond that, I'll point out that this distinction only really matters to ranged characters without Surprise Attack, aka non-rogues. A rogue will still treat enemies as flat-footed anyway.
No, Group Check is not a specifically defined term in PF2. But that is irrelevant. Quiet Allies definitely indicates that you and all participating allies use a Single roll for Stealth for the group. I just used "group check" because it is a handy short hand.
And the distinction is important to any character who wishes to begin a combat scenario as Undetected, not just characters without Surprise Attack.
My point is, if you are in a situation where the group agrees that they should use Quiet Allies, they probably want to succeed. Otherwise, why would you have used Quiet Allies?
Perhaps you wanted to avoid a combat to conserve resources. Perhaps you don't want to have to murder hobo your way through town guards on your way to complete some mission objective. Perhaps you need to steal a magical ring from a Dragon that you have no hope of defeating.
At the end of the day, the reasoning doesn't matter. The fact is that you can't override a failed check. By participating in Quiet Allies, you bind yourself to the Quiet Allies check. No initiative roll is going to make you undetected if that check is failed.
Yeah but if you fail your stealth check, and therefore are no longer sneaking, the GM probably isn't going to let you use stealth for initiative anyways. I mean maybe, but I don't think it's that weird that a GM wouldn't.
You can't fail your stealth check, you roll stealth and our sneaking. But you can fail to beat the perception DC of the enemy, but you don't know this until they react to you in some way.
So you could have a poor stealth check roll, and then roll stealth for init and win init but start combat detected instead of undetected.
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, than to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, then to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I tend to operate under the assumption that you don't typically make checks for "doing nothing". A bluff would only be required if the enemy were to try to act like they didn't notice the party in a specific way. Imagine if they tried to make an "opening" for the detected creatures so they can spring a trap by turning their backs, or if they tried to lie aloud to indicate to the detected creatures that they are unaware of them.
Imagine a group of guards in front of a gate. If they are standing still both before the group approaches and after the group "fails" to beat their perception DC, what evidence does the party have to deduce that they have been spotted? It's possible that they are trained to only speak to people who get to a certain distance, or violate a strict set of rules like the Palace Guards in England. Did the Guards have to deceive the players into believing they weren't seen?
Sorry, I meant to imply that the enemy was actively trying to deceive the PCs in order to get the upper hand, much like we often see in movies and the like (where someone sees a reflection of someone sneaking up on them, but doesn't let on that they know until they can dodge and counter or whatever).
Sorry, I meant to imply that the enemy was actively trying to deceive the PCs in order to get the upper hand, much like we often see in movies and the like (where someone sees a reflection of someone sneaking up on them, but doesn't let on that they know until they can dodge and counter or whatever).
The ball's in the enemy's court, as it were. Naturally, you'd notice if the enemy beat your Sneak check if they do things like sound alarms, call for reinforcements, and attack you. Or if they just riff on you like a bad movie. Most PCs will notice when the guards nickname them 'Sir Sneaksanot' or 'Klankytankytanya'.
Or they could ignore you for a while, then start making their OWN Sneak rolls to follow you to a better ambush ... and maybe Deception, based on what they're doing. The party might figure out they've failed when the guards are all giggling and whispering 'Don't look at them' and so on ...
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, than to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I would agree that it is much better to let the enemy believe they have the upper hand, because you can lure them into a situation in which you substantially have the upper hand, which is why I said "until they react".
So yes, if they don't react immediately they would make a deception check against the PCs perception DCs to see if the PCs notice their pretending not to notice.
If the NPCs wanted to start combat at that time I would call for perception based init rolls from the PCs and deception based init rolls for the NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently read (in a novel, not a rulebook) that it is better to let a revealed enemy believe he has the upper hand, than to alert him to the fact that you've detected him.
You don't know the enemy has seen you until they react in some way. But what if they don't? How would that work? You failed to beat their Perception DC, so they then get a Deception Check against your Perception DC to turn the tables, gain initiative, and make YOU flat-footed at the start of combat instead?
I would agree that it is much better to let the enemy believe they have the upper hand, because you can lure them into a situation in which you substantially have the upper hand, which is why I said "until they react".
So yes, if they don't react immediately they would make a deception check against the PCs perception DCs to see if the PCs notice their pretending not to notice.
If the NPCs wanted to start combat at that time I would call for perception based init rolls from the PCs and deception based init rolls for the NPCs.
Agreed. To me, the counter-scenario, where the guards attempt to deceive the PCs but fail, is akin to novels I've read where the assaulting party notices something amiss e.g. "The guards are *supposed* to rotate every thirty minutes, and always have except for fog. It's a clear night; we should not go in."
That could be the sort of result of the PCs defeating the Deception attempt (or the NPC losing the Deception check, depending on perspective) if the guards do attempt the bluff.