Perception DC vs Stealth DC. Wait. What?

[Ravingdork]

Had a queer little incident a while ago when the party turned a corner into a new area and found a band of enemies digging away at the end of a tunnel, their backs turned to us.

As all but one of us weren't using the Avoid Notice action, the question arose as to whether or not they saw us. The GM ruled that he would compare their Perception DCs to our Perception DCs and determine it that way, rationalizing that since they're not actively seeking and (except for me) we weren't actively hiding, it should all be passive values being compared.

"That's not right," I thought to myself, and the game went on. I couldn't recall the specific proper rule at the time, however, so I kept quiet. However, in hindsight, I am concerned that such incorrect rulings might continue and become the norm if not corrected. I don't regret not speaking up at the time (the ruling kept the game moving), but I think it's something I'd like to discuss with them before the next game.

In any event, I'd like to have a firmer grasp of the rules before making my case to them.

How should it have gone down, per the rules?

[Kasoh]

Two groups, not hiding from one another cross paths.

Unless there is some sight obstruction obstacle everyone sees each other and play proceeds from there.

[Aratorin]

I can't find anything in the rules to adjudicate this specific situation. I probably would have rolled secret perception checks vs the Stealth DC of each of your party members to see if the creatures become alerted to your presence.

Although I also would have planned ahead for this. Certainly the DM knew the creatures were going to have their backs turned. It seems foolish for him to not have decided how to run the encounter in advance.

[Kyrone]

It would be a Stealth check against the enemy Perception DC for the enemies to notice, what would happen is that the person that was avoiding notice, if battle happened, would start undetected/hidden depending of the result of their check, while everyone else would be observed.

[Ascalaphus]

Only one person was trying to avoid notice, so everyone else just sees each other. If you had a four-player party, they would definitely see three of them, but the fourth might not be noticed (if he rolled well on his Stealth). So then they'd go into the encounter thinking there were three adventurers.

[Ravingdork]

Oh. I thought it would be more clear cut then that. I guess the scenario isn't really covered in the rules then?

Saying everyone automatically detects everybody, even though their backs are turned doesn't really sit well with me any more than the GM's ruling did.

[theservantsllcleanitup]

I think it very much depends on the distance as well, and as we all know, there are no hard rules on how distance affects perception. If you turned a corner and they were digging 100 feet away, I might say a perception check against your stealth DCs with a penalty for not actively being stealthy (except for the one Avoid Noticer) might be warranted? But if you turn the corner and they are ten feet away, well yeah they would probably just hear your movements straight away.

[Ravingdork]

I don't recall the exact distance, but I believe it was more than 30 feet and less than 60.

[Shisumo]

As a GM, I might have offered the PCs an immediate option to switch to Avoid Notice in an attempt to get the drop, in recognition of the distraction and explicit statement about facing. However, by RAW, anyone not trying to Avoid Notice is automatically Observed by all parties as soon as the encounter begins.

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

How should it have gone down, per the rules?

'roll initiative'.

"Anything in plain view is observed by you." Only the person "using the Avoid Notice action" needs to roll stealth vs perception.

[Goldryno]

Since even while doing another action you can detect basic traps we know the PCs always have some basic awareness of their surroundings. I'd also imagine people actively digging would be pretty distracted.

I'd probably try running it like a hazard. Roll perception checks to see if the party notices the tunnelers before blundering into them and starting an encounter. Perhaps only letting the head of the marching order roll depending on the type of tunnel. If an encounter does start the avoid notice character could roll stealth as usual.

[Timeshadow]

I would have made a secret Perception Check for the lead player and/or anyone using the "Seek" action. If they succeeded they would have noticed sounds of digging up ahead giving the party a chance to change their actions to stealth or whatever. If they failed the check just the sneaky guy could roll stealth the others would have to roll initive as normal. I might give the diggers a penalty to their ini roll if they were very engrossed in what they were doing and making a lot of noise.

[Ascalaphus]

Ravingdork wrote:

Oh. I thought it would be more clear cut then that. I guess the scenario isn't really covered in the rules then?

Saying everyone automatically detects everybody, even though their backs are turned doesn't really sit well with me any more than the GM's ruling did.

It's not just about seeing, but also about hearing.

CRB p. 464 wrote:

Imprecise Senses

Hearing is an imprecise sense—it cannot detect the full
range of detail that a precise sense can. You can usually
sense a creature automatically with an imprecise sense,
but it has the hidden condition instead of the observed
condition. It might be undetected by you if it’s using
Stealth or is in an environment that distorts the sense,
such as a noisy room in the case of hearing. In those
cases, you have to use the Seek basic action to detect the
creature.

If someone is walking up behind you, making no attempt to walk quietly, then you'll notice them automatically. You won't have seen them until you turn around, but you'll know someone is there.

If all of the people trying to close in are trying to avoid being heard (which would mean using the Avoid Notice tactic, or using Stealth in encounter mode), or if the area is really noisy, then it's no longer automatic.

[Zapp]

Ravingdork wrote:

Had a queer little incident a while ago when the party turned a corner into a new area and found a band of enemies digging away at the end of a tunnel, their backs turned to us.

As all but one of us weren't using the Avoid Notice action, the question arose as to whether or not they saw us. The GM ruled that he would compare their Perception DCs to our Perception DCs and determine it that way, rationalizing that since they're not actively seeking and (except for me) we weren't actively hiding, it should all be passive values being compared.

"That's not right," I thought to myself, and the game went on. I couldn't recall the specific proper rule at the time, however, so I kept quiet. However, in hindsight, I am concerned that such incorrect rulings might continue and become the norm if not corrected. I don't regret not speaking up at the time (the ruling kept the game moving), but I think it's something I'd like to discuss with them before the next game.

In any event, I'd like to have a firmer grasp of the rules before making my case to them.

How should it have gone down, per the rules?

Since at least one hero just trundled along (using another activity than Avoid Notice; rolling initiative using something other than Stealth) the monsters spot the group automatically.

That much is in no question.

What Avoiding Notice and Stealth-based initiative helps for is hiding that particular hero. The group might be noticed, but a given hero mightn't.

Each and every hero that does use Avoid Notice, and is allowed by the DM to roll a Stealth-based initiative (I mean, if you carry a torch, or walk along singing to yourself, I would never let you use Stealth for your initiative)...

...compares his Initiative result to the passive Perception DC (The monster's listed Perception bonus +10) of each and every monster in the encounter.

If your Stealth-based Initiative beats the monster's passive Perception, your GM should let you start out hidden from that particular monster, such as starting the encounter in high grass or behind a boulder, etc. That monster's own active Initiative doesn't play a part in this.

So when everybody's Initiative is known, you also know which creatures can't see which other creatures.

A hero can easily be hidden from some monsters while still be revealed to other monsters.

The same goes for monsters: any monster that uses a Stealth-based Initiative should be considered to be lurking, and should be allowed to start the encounter in such a way that it makes sense: any hero whose passive Perception its Initiative beats, starts out not knowing the monster is there.

This means the placement of combatants needs to be adjusted to make sense. If your Stealth-based Initiative beats a monster's Perception DC, then you should be allowed to start the encounter in a square not directly in line of sight from that monster, since that would make it automatically spot you (unless we're talking magic like Invisibility or high level "hide in plain sight" abilities, of course).

Hope that helps. It certainly was not trivial for us to suss out what the rules actually mean in practice! :)

PS. Of course if everybody in the party sneaks, and none is using light or sound, and ALL of them beat the highest Perception DC of all the monsters... then and only then is the group as a whole unnoticed. As you might imagine, Pathfinder 2 isn't geared up for this.

[Zapp]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Only one person was trying to avoid notice, so everyone else just sees each other. If you had a four-player party, they would definitely see three of them, but the fourth might not be noticed (if he rolled well on his Stealth). So then they'd go into the encounter thinking there were three adventurers.

Ascalaphus wrote:

It's not just about seeing, but also about hearing.

If someone is walking up behind you, making no attempt to walk quietly, then you'll notice them automatically. You won't have seen them until you turn around, but you'll know someone is there.

If all of the people trying to close in are trying to avoid being heard (which would mean using the Avoid Notice tactic, or using Stealth in encounter mode), or if the area is really noisy, then it's no longer automatic.

Since the thread is filled with contradictory answers, let me just repost one poster you should listen to, Ravingdork :)

[Unicore]

The perception check for your party to realize there was potentially something around the corner should have come before you all walked around the corner. The enemies were digging. Your GM should have given you a chance to have a clue and decide how to approach the corner. At the point you round the corner, it probably was too late not to be doing so stealthily.

One problem I have with the mechanics of avoid notice is that it is pretty much impossible to be stealthy and not also be very aware of what is going on around you. Separating those two actions out feels incredibly counter intuitive to me.

Also, If any one in the party was detecting magic, then group stealth is definitely out of the question as you have to be talking in clearly audible voice.

[Captain Morgan]

Paizo likes to treat enemies in this situation as distracted, giving them a penalty on perception and initiative checks. I think quite often it is like -4. Otherwise, facing rules don't really exist and anyone not trying to hide will be spotted or heard.

However, a GM could say that if their attention is actively being drawn away and it is too noisy to hear someone approach that they won't notice the PCs. It isn't RAW, but it also isn't an absurd exception.

[masda_gib]

Let them roll initiative.
If they all beat the diggers initiative, your party cann all use their turn to sneak away back around the corner.
When the diggers then turn their heads on their turn, it's a "Huh? What was that? Nobody there." moment for them.
Anyone still visible on the diggers turn will be spotted.

[Ravingdork]

I like the suggestions to have allowed everyone to hear the sounds of digging PRIOR to having come around the corner and been exposed. Having read everyone's thoughts I think that's how I'm likely to run it in the future; everyone has the opportunity to switch to Avoid Notice if they so choose.

If characters are in disagreement, and one wants to charge out, then we roll initiative immediately, with those wanting to use Stealth doing so.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Captain Morgan wrote:

Paizo likes to treat enemies in this situation as distracted, giving them a penalty on perception and initiative checks. I think quite often it is like -4. Otherwise, facing rules don't really exist and anyone not trying to hide will be spotted or heard.

In earlier editions, perhaps, but in 2E a -4 seems overly harsh. I'd say a -1 or even a -2 circumstance penalty would be more appropriate and inline with the game's math.

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

I like the suggestions to have allowed everyone to hear the sounds of digging PRIOR to having come around the corner and been exposed. Having read everyone's thoughts I think that's how I'm likely to run it in the future; everyone has the opportunity to switch to Avoid Notice if they so choose.

If characters are in disagreement, and one wants to charge out, then we roll initiative immediately, with those wanting to use Stealth doing so.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Captain Morgan wrote:

Paizo likes to treat enemies in this situation as distracted, giving them a penalty on perception and initiative checks. I think quite often it is like -4. Otherwise, facing rules don't really exist and anyone not trying to hide will be spotted or heard.

In earlier editions, perhaps, but in 2E a -4 seems overly harsh. I'd say a -1 or even a -2 circumstance penalty would be more appropriate and inline with the game's math.

Actually just double checked, and there's a PF2 book where some enemies are playing cards and take a -4 to the check. Remember, initiative doesn't have critical success or failure conditions, so the double value of most bonuses or penalties doesn't really apply. In fact, given the tight math and lack of surprise round, one could argue that a large penalty is even more important to demonstrate this lack of preparedness.

[Zapp]

Ravingdork wrote:

In earlier editions, perhaps, but in 2E a -4 seems overly harsh. I'd say a -1 or even a -2 circumstance penalty would be more appropriate and inline with the game's math.

In Extinction Curse, there's an encounter with enemies squabbling, getting a -8 penalty to initiative. Go figure :)

[cavernshark]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Actually just double checked, and there's a PF2 book where some enemies are playing cards and take a -4 to the check. Remember, initiative doesn't have critical success or failure conditions, so the double value of most bonuses or penalties doesn't really apply. In fact, given the tight math and lack of surprise round, one could argue that a large penalty is even more important to demonstrate this lack of preparedness.

There's also a PFS scenario where the PCs take a -4 to initiative because they're busy trying (and failing) to negotiate with some locals when the combat begins. It resulted in my wizard having a 0 initiative. In the same scenario, there's a less strict but continuous -2 initiative penalty possible for a single PC.

These seem to be derived from the Special Circumstances rules. [Edit: Except Zapp's example above which is obviously a lot :) ]

Special Circumstances wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 492
The player characters in your group will at times attempt tasks that should be easier or harder than the rules or adventure would otherwise lead you to expect, such as a PC Gathering Information in their hometown. In these cases, you can just apply a circumstance bonus or penalty. Usually, this is +1 or –1 for a minor but significant circumstance, but you can adjust this bonus or penalty to +2 or –2 for a major circumstance. The maximum bonus or penalty, +4 or –4, should apply only if someone has an overwhelming advantage or is trying something extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.

You can also add traits to actions. Let’s say that during a fight, Seelah dips her sword into a brazier of hot coals before swinging it at an enemy with a weakness to fire. You could add the fire trait to this attack. A PC getting an advantage in this way should usually have to use an action to do so, so Seelah would get the benefit for one attack, but to do it again she’d need to bury her sword in the coals once more.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

One problem I have with the mechanics of avoid notice is that it is pretty much impossible to be stealthy and not also be very aware of what is going on around you. Separating those two actions out feels incredibly counter intuitive to me.

masda_gib wrote:

Let them roll initiative.

If they all beat the diggers initiative, your party cann all use their turn to sneak away back around the corner.
When the diggers then turn their heads on their turn, it's a "Huh? What was that? Nobody there." moment for them.
Anyone still visible on the diggers turn will be spotted.

Pathfinder 2 is a game where encounter starts are *balanced* above everything else, just like everything else in the game.

The assumption is always that encounters start "in your face", at short distances, so melee monsters aren't disabled by having to spend multiple rounds just running.

There is no notion of ambushes, surprise rounds or anything that grants a substantial advantage to one side.

The most benefit the rules are willing to give you is when everybody on one side acts before everybody on the other side, and every attacker starts out hidden. That's not nothing, of course, but a far cry from "real" benefits for taking your enemy by surprise.

I mean the 2 points of flatfootedness (for anyone not a Rogue or a specialist monster) actually is next to nothing compared to how other games treat these situations.

But since giving more than that would lead to situations where one side wins even before the battle has begun, it is a complete no-no in Pathfinder 2.

[Zapp]

cavernshark wrote:

These seem to be derived from the Special Circumstances rules. [Edit: Except Zapp's example above which is obviously a lot :) ]

Like Captain Morgan said, initiative is a special check with no critical effects so the bonuses or penalties can likely be doubled compared to this.