Hello!
Scenario: Bandit roasting a rabbit at a campfire in the middle of a dense forest. His back is against a fallen tree trunk. Bounty hunter is now within 30 ft and is unnoticed and undetected. He has cover from the undergrowth.
BH sneaks towards bandit, which gets him half way there, a stealth check is made because it is deemed that the tree trunk offers enough cover. Now, can BH use multiple Step actions to get up to the bandit while still remaining undetected?
To put it simpler, can you use multiple Step actions while you are undetected or hidden and remain so?
Thanks!
|
Sneak is it's own action. As is Step.
Ergo, you are either doing one or the other with each action you take.
That said, you can use the former to move the distance normally covered by the latter (5 feet), and if you succeed, should be safe against Reactions by virtue of being Undetected?
Hello!
Scenario: Bandit roasting a rabbit at a campfire in the middle of a dense forest. His back is against a fallen tree trunk. Bounty hunter is now within 30 ft and is unnoticed and undetected. He has cover from the undergrowth.
BH sneaks towards bandit, which gets him half way there, a stealth check is made because it is deemed that the tree trunk offers enough cover. Now, can BH use multiple Step actions to get up to the bandit while still remaining undetected?
To put it simpler, can you use multiple Step actions while you are undetected or hidden and remain so?
Thanks!
I believe you can just spam Step until you get in range, assuming the Bounty Hunter never gets out of cover during this movement. The Bandit had their chance to spot your char, and failed... Wait why is this in encounter mode?
|
|
I believe you can just spam Step until you get in range, assuming the Bounty Hunter never gets out of cover during this movement. The Bandit had their chance to spot your char, and failed... Wait why is this in encounter mode?
The bandit's Perception DC needs to rolled against with each Sneak action the Bounty Hunter takes - unless that Bounty Hunter benefits from the Terrain Stalker feat of course.
Thanks for the responses!
The part that sort of trips me up is the Success result on Sneak:
"You become observed as soon as you do anything other than Hide, Sneak, or Step. "
Makes it seem that you could Sneak, then stay undetected/hidden by then using Step any number of times (as long as you are concealed/have cover).
What makes the most sense to me is what rainzax said initially, Sneak and Step are just different actions, and thus if you wanted to continue to be undetected/hidden, and move 5 feet, you would just use Sneak. But that phrase above sort of throws me off.
|
|
Pointing that out, I retract my earlier comments, and now agree with ChibiNyan...
...but then does that render Terrain Stalker redundant to the skill it claims to modify!?!...
...And all you have to do is beat the Perception DC once (using Sneak) and are then free to Step any number of times (without having to re-check) until circumstances change?...
...or any number of times during the same turn or until circumstances change?...
(I'm probably partial to the latter, adding "until the end of your turn" clause... not sure what the intent here is though...)
Pointing that out, I retract my earlier comments, and now agree with ChibiNyan...
...but then does that render Terrain Stalker redundant to the skill it claims to modify!?!...
...And all you have to do is beat the Perception DC once (using Sneak) and are then free to Step any number of times (without having to re-check) until circumstances change?...
...or any number of times during the same turn or until circumstances change?...
(I'm probably partial to the latter, adding "until the end of your turn" clause... not sure what the intent here is though...)
Terrain Stalker removes the need to Roll entirely, so it's definitely not redundant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the additional comments! I am also starting to lean in the direction of ChibiNyan's comment as well. As long as the undetected condition is retained via cover/concealment (most likely), then multiple uses of Step do not seem to break the condition, in and of itself.
Honestly, if you are in exploration mode you should just be using a single Avoid Notice roll to determine if you're spotted. Initiative shouldn't be rolled until you're actually going to attack.
I guess you can use a bunch of individual step actions to justify that more if you like using encounter mode for everything, but I think it is a lot easier to say if you successfully Avoid Notice then you won't be noticed until you do something noticable.
|
Encounter Mode in PF2 supports its use upon any kind of contact with opposing forces - even trying to sneak up to and/or past them.
"initiative shouldn't be rolled until you're actually going to attack" is a massive departure from the rules presented in the book.
Not as much as you'd think:
INITIATIVE
The rules for rolling initiative can be found on page 468 of
the Core Rulebook, and the GM guidelines on 498. Below
you’ll find specifics on how to run certain types of initiative
or deal with problems. These are guidelines, and you might
prefer to execute initiative in a different way at your table.
When do you ask players to roll initiative? In most
cases, it’s pretty simple: you call for the roll as soon as
one participant intends to attack (or issue a challenge,
draw a weapon, cast a preparatory spell, start a social
encounter such as a debate, or otherwise begin to use an
action that their foes can’t help but notice). A player will
tell you if their character intends to start a conflict, and
you’ll determine when the actions of NPCs and other
creatures initiate combat. Occasionally, two sides might
stumble across one another. In this case, there’s not much
time to decide, but you should still ask if anyone intends
to attack. If the PCs and NPCs alike just want to talk or
negotiate, there is no reason to roll initiative only to drop
out of combat immediately!
|
|
Honestly, if you are in exploration mode you should just be using a single Avoid Notice roll to determine if you're spotted. Initiative shouldn't be rolled until you're actually going to attack.
I guess you can use a bunch of individual step actions to justify that more if you like using encounter mode for everything, but I think it is a lot easier to say if you successfully Avoid Notice then you won't be noticed until you do something noticable.
I think the terrain plays into this. The (encounter) rules for Stealth explain that in order to stay hidden you need to maintain cover/concealment from the people you're trying to creep up on/past. Crossing a wide featureless plain with Avoid Notice doesn't make sense. Sneaking past an enemy you can't see (and therefore don't know which sightlines to avoid) is also a bit problematic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. We're talking here about situations where a Step in the wrong direction would break cover, while if it's done in the right direction it won't. And of course that can have a time-sensitive aspect as well - if the GM is tracking individual actions of enemies in the same detail as that of players.
I don't think I'd do it exactly like that though. This reminds me of a discussion we had a few months back about two parties unknowingly crossing each other in the woods, both trying not to attract notice. They've been going for miles in exploration mode and suddenly they're in encounter mode for a bit (some tense background music plays) and then they're back in exploration mode, and the players look at you wondering what just got into you.
I mean, you could do it that way. But it just strikes me as a bit weird and unnatural. I think a kind of abstraction is called for, just like we don't insist on building monsters to the same rules as PCs, or how we don't use opposed skill checks anymore.
Instead of awkwardly going round to round, I might abstract that to saying "the enemy is moving around here somewhere, but there is a safe and unsafe area. If the PCs wander into the unsafe area then they get spotted, otherwise they don't". Then I can just show the players the map and ask how they cross it.
But we're not done yet, because then still my players are going to ask me "what's so unusual about this particular clearing? Maybe we just take a 100m detour" because what do they really have to go on to make a decision?
The players and some monsters meeting each other in the forest by coincidence, isn't really a coincidence. It's the GM's decision that they were even in the same 100m squared at the same time, because the GM thought it might be interesting if an encounter could happen. Now there's basically four possible ways the encounter happens:
- PCs and enemies both spot each other.
- PCs spot enemies, but enemies don't spot PCs yet. PCs can decide to turn around and avoid the encounter.
- Enemies spot PCs, and it's up to the enemies whether the encounter happens.
- Everyone avoids notice from everyone else. Encounter doesn't happen.
There are basically two decision variables: PCs spot enemies or not, enemies spot PCs or not. Possibly with degree of success (PCs spot enemies and have time to prepare, but it's too late to avoid being spotted in return). Instead of an extended encounter mode weird movement encounter on an empty map, I think this initial "does the encounter even happen" thing is better resolved with some quick checks in exploration mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are basically two decision variables: PCs spot enemies or not, enemies spot PCs or not. Possibly with degree of success (PCs spot enemies and have time to prepare, but it's too late to avoid being spotted in return). Instead of an extended encounter mode weird movement encounter on an empty map, I think this initial "does the encounter even happen" thing is better resolved with some quick checks in exploration mode.
This is a very important point.
But for the scenario presented, where the bounty hunter is approaching a bandit, presumably with the intent to attack, the comparable decision here is when to introduce encounter mode.
And encounter mode is where the drawbacks of step vs. sneak for approaching a foe is relevant. Step is *slow*. Someone sneaking can go 10' (assuming non-elf and non-fleet speeds) which can make a difference, and those with swift sneak are obviously quite a bit faster. Step can't take you between bits of cover, you need to have it the whole way (whereas sneak lets you move from cover to cover). You can't step into difficult terrain.
All of those are potentially relevant when mixing a party's approach to establish the initial encounter positions when initiative gets rolled. You can still do them pre-initiative, where the player gets every chance to take their actions right up until the attack role, but you might want your unaware NPC to just delay until they have a clue, or have a random chance to do something that would make the slow-but-sure way riskier, or any number of other events that might happen separately from the party member slowly approaching an foe that might as well just be asleep.
But also, just because you *can* abstract something, doesn't mean you always should. Those extra stealth roll factors might be relevant for something like a group sneaking past a moving patrol in an interior setting or anywhere with natural chokepoints that make an encounter more likely, and there are people who enjoy that sort of tactical stealth scenario.
But yeah, sometimes all that matters is the basic stealth roll to bypass. Knowing which approach to use is not unlike knowing when to play out a battle against weaker enemies and when to say, "you cut a swath through a few roving bands of ghouls (that are 10 levels lower) and come away with only scratches, easily healed by a round of treat wounds from your ward medic."