|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say using Search would allow you to detect creatures, if you beat their Stealth DC. It states you are looking for hazards, and hidden rogues are definitely hazards.
The benefit of Observant Explorer is that you can do something else, like Avoid Notice, and still get a perception check against any Creature's Stealth DCs. This gives you a leg up, as you can be aware of everyone and hidden from them at the same time, while without it you would only be aware of anyone who failed against your perception DC.
|
|
It's not silly or even an issue. The perception check is only needed if the creatures are hidden or undetected. If the creature fails the stealth check there's no perception check needed; they aren't hidden.
With your suggestion, I wouldn't see a rogue hiding behind a bush even though I'm searching that bush for hidden objects. That's silly.
You roll hide vs enemy perception DC on your turn. On the enemies turn they can use the seek action to find hidden creatures, rolling perception against your stealth DC.
|
|
There's no rule supporting that Search Activity works vs hidden creatures and furthermore, if we go by your logic, you directly make Avoid Notice a "worse" activity to take compared to Search.
Page 498 explains how Exploration activities are broken down, explaining that you are repeating an action over and over, every 10 minutes. In the case of Searching, you would be Seeking and Moving every round.
So here's a question for you:
Seek has two options, one for Creatures, which is larger (30ft Cone or 15ft Burst) or one for Objects which is a 10ft square area adjacent to you. If a PC were to Seek for objects an area adjacent to them, and there just to happened to be a creature hiding in that 10ft square, and the PC beat their Stealth DC, would they find the creature or not?
Also, can a PC not just Seek in a 15ft burst instead during their Exploration activity if they were in a Forest or something, where seeing every 10ft square would be impractical at best?
Shroud is correct. Search is specifically not for creatures. That's closer to what the poorly named Scout is for.
|
|
To imply that you can't detect a creature in a 10ft square in front of you just because you aren't explicitly looking for creatures is rediculous. I know it's RAW but it's one of those rules that make no sense. To go back to my previous example, how would you not notice a creature hiding in a bush if you were searching that bush for objects and rolled a nat 20?
Also no one has answered the second hypothetical of explicitly Seeking for creatures as an exploration activity.
Observant Explorer is there so you don't have to explicitly Seek for creatures as an exploration activity, freeing you to do something else. It's just like how Trap Finding is there to allow Rogues to find traps while Avoiding Notice. It's not like you NEED the feat to find traps at all.
You can still Seek for creatures as an Exploration activity without the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanic that normally governs encountering hostile creatures in Exploration mode is Initiative, because by definition if you come across hostile creatures or are in a situation where you might be looking specifically for them, you are no longer in Exploration mode.
Creatures can attempt to begin Encounter mode hidden by using the Avoid Notice activity. The function of this activity is also an initiative roll because if there is a chance of being noticed by a hostile creature, you're probably going to be moving into Encounter mode soon.
Specifically looking out for possible attack is a thing that all creatures are doing when exploring, which is what initiative based on Perception is for. To go above and beyond when keeping eyes peeled for ambush, you Scout to increase your reaction time when that Initiaive is rolled.
The Search activity isn't just "Seek but long term" it's "Look for traps or treasure while moving along" which happens to use the mechanics for one of the uses of Seek. There is no point where you might say you should just Search with the other version because that version isn't something you do while Exploring, it's something you do while in an Encounter (because again, if you know that there are creatures hidden nearby, you are not Seeking while Exploring, you should be initiative--which is usually measured in minutes at a time, not seconds).
---
There are two version of Seek because in either case you are looking for very different things. If you are in a position where you might decide whether to use an object Seek vs. a creature Seek, you are in Encounter mode, usually with an active fight going on nearby, so if you are investigating this particular bush for anything, it is probably either a trap or a creature. Seeking is a single action activity, meaning you're probably spending not more than 2 seconds peering at this bush.
If there is a creature in this bush that you do not see and do not even know is there, it must have rolled well with Stealth or be otherwise difficult or impossible for you to perceive (i.e. invisibility), so it is not merely sitting in the bush but actively using the cover provided by the leaves and branches to obscure itself from vision. In the middle of this fight, if you approach this bush searching for objects and not creatures, you are looking for an entirely different set of clues than looking for a creature, and might easily believably not notice with quick scan that there is a creature there. The world is full of idioms and examples where a person misses something obvious right in front of them when looking intently for something unrelated.
Now if you roll a critical success and there are no traps or objects of any kind in this bush, it is within your GM's discretion to let you know that you actually do realize that there is a creature in this bush. After all, you are currently in a fight with creatures who are using the forest to cover their movements, so you probably should have been looking for hidden creatures in the first place.
If you roll a nat 20 searching a single bush for objects and are frustrated because there is a hidden creature that you missed, this unfortunate scenario is something which has come around as a result of an incomplete or poor understanding of the rules surrounding Exploration and Encounter, which to be absolutely fair, can be difficult to internalize fully on the first review.
It is important to remember that, by default you will usually resolve any given interaction with a single roll. Creature hides? It rolls Stealth vs. Perception DC. If it succeeds, it is hidden. If it fails, it is not. There is no Exploration activity to discover hidden creatures because that would be initiative, and the only hidden creatures are the ones who are currently succeeding Stealth checks to begin combat hidden.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On page 498 there is a Sidebar that explains how Exploration activities are broken up for the sake of Improvising Exploration activities.
If a player wants to do something not covered by other rules, here are some guidelines. If the activity is similar to an action someone could use in an encounter, such as Avoid Notice, it usually consists of a single action repeated roughly 10 times per minute (such as using the Sneak action 10 times) or an alternation of actions that works out similarly (such as Search, which alternates Stride and Seek). An activity using a quicker pace, corresponding to roughly 20 actions per minute, might have limited use or cause fatigue, as would one requiring intense concentration.
If a PC wants to seek out hidden creatures that's entirely within the rules.
Further more, the feat in question literally says searching for hidden creatures is something that is covered by Searching.
You can attempt a check to notice hidden creatures attempting to Avoid Notice nearby even if you aren't actively Searching for them.
The Pathfinder Agent Dedication has 4 feats that allow for Perception checks to notice hazards, even if you're not specifically searching for them. They are Careful Explorer, Observant Explorer, Environmental Explorer, and Spiritual Explorer. Why would one of these feats unlock a new exploration activity, then allow you to never have to choose to do it? Because it's already something we can do.
Also, Initiative is how quick you react, yes. But seeing a creature trying to Avoid Notice can cause combat to happen earlier. For example, a group of assassins is approaching the party while they're traveling. With your rules, they would be right on top of the party when initiative is rolled, since no one can Search for creatures. Yea they get the +1 from scouting, but it doesn't matter since they're all already there, and they all have Surprise Attack. They don't have to waste actions approaching.
Meanwhile, if someone is Searching for hidden creatures, they could detect one of the assassins 30ft away, triggering initiative then rather than when they're already on top of the party, giving the party an advantage in the combat. In this case, ONE PC can see the assassins and has to use their actions pointing them out to their party, and the assassins realizing they've been spotted can run or close the gap.
The latter is more in line with the rules, allowing PCs to do what they want in Exploration Mode and figuring out how it fits in the rules, rather than saying "Sorry you can't look out for hidden creatures since there's no exploration activity for that!"
|
|
Now you're saying the feat doesn't even work, since you can't negate Avoid Notice with a perception check?
Here's how it works: You are Searching as an exploration activity, and actively looking for creatures attempting to Avoid Notice.
If a creature doesn't Avoid Notice, your activity does nothing, it's just normal Initiative.
If a creature is Avoiding Notice, they make a stealth check vs everyone's Perception DCs. If they succeed, they're hidden, if they crit they're undetected, as normal. The PCs who are Searching explicitly for creatures then make a Perception check vs that creature's Stealth DC. If they succeed, the hiding creature is then one step lower, and if they crit they're detected. Then we use those rolls for initiative and start from there. All this does is negate Avoid Notice for ONE PC by sacrificing their own Exploration Activity, since seeking for creatures means they probably wouldn't notice any Traps or Hazards in the way, since they're looking for movement.
With the feat, the same thing happens except you use whatever Exploration activity's roll you would normally use, such as if you were Avoiding Notice or searching for Hazards.
I have cited rules this whole time, I haven't suggested a single "house rule", and all you've done is say "That's not how it works" with no evidence to back it up. Please reconsider your position on this and come with evidence to back up your claims before proceeding farther.
|
I think Cordell is correct;
- The basic "Searching" activity in the CRB is about Seeking for hazards/doors/objects.
- Both the CRB and the GMG explain that the list of exploration activities in the CRB is not a closed, exclusive list; you could do other things in exploration mode. The existing exploration activities give the GM a basis for comparison when adjudicating new proposed activities.
- Using the Seek action to actively seek out hidden creatures is possible in encounter mode.
- It's obvious how to turn that into a new exploration mode, call it "Searching for Creatures" if you want to be clear what it's all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which reminds me that the current iteration of rules governing the transition from exploration mode to encounter mode are not neither very intuitive nor explained in a simple enough fashion in the CRB, especially when stealth is involved for any of the parties.
Don't get me wrong, I do not want surprise rounds back, however their concept was very easy to grasp and implement: The party that achieves surprise goes first using only "half a turn" while doing so, then regular initiative starts. Easy enough.
And while I would not call the current set of rules overly complicated the concepts behind seem a lot harder to grasp. One or both sides roll stealth and then either use this as initiative or roll regular initiative ending up first and having to act while not having noticed anything, GMs needing to track who is aware of whom etc.
Our GM is making mistakes and complaining about missing transparency asking the rule versed players how they think the rules have to be applied in specific scenarios approximately once per session even after a full year of playing.
I am stating this here because we had the exactly same situation as dscribed above during our last session, i.e. one of our players actively used the Search activity to search for hidden enemies during exploration (we were wary of an ambush already), there were hidden enemies nearby and considering the "only the active side rolls" general rule nobody was able to determine how to handle the situation.
We ended up directly switching to encounter mode with our opposition using stealth in order to avoid notice and using the result as their initiative. Fortunately not every enemy made his roll (some failed vs some of our players perception DC) so we noticed them early on and a fairly normal battle evolved.
However while doing we more or less ignored the selected exploration ability which raised the point about using it in the first place.
|
|
The problem that arises is exactly that this leads to 2 rolls to do 1 thing.
Which is simply an opposed roll basically.
Which Pf2 chose to be done with.
In encounter mode that doesn't happen because each turn is one roll vs a DC made by the initiator. But in exploration mode it simply is simultaneous rolls.
It would still be two sequential rolls: one to be sneaky enough not to get spotted by passive opponents, and then a second one by active opponents to spot you after all. The odds of getting past actively searching-for-creatures opponents would get a lot worse that way though.
Furthermore, "seek" is different than "search", in where you look for. Search is an area, seek is a small cone.
That's simply a matter of defining how the exploration activity is going to work. Searching for objects uses Seek for objects under the hood which searches a 10ft area, so Search for objects uses a sort of sliding window of 10ft areas.
Porting that over, Searching for creatures could use a sliding window of 30ft cones (to spot creatures in in the 11-1 O'clock zone in front of you) or 15ft bursts (to also watch your sides and rear). Just like the Search-for-objects tactic has a choice of going slow enough to not step into anything you haven't checked, you could do the same with Search-for-creatures, moving slow enough so that you'll always get a check against hidden creatures before you get adjacent to them.
Implementing it, I'd say it's probably really really slow to be monitoring all sides at once as a single character; using four cones to cover all angles would slow you down beyond the GMG guideline of one action every other round or so. And using 15ft bursts doesn't make that much sense if you're not both at the front and back of your marching order at the same time (party of one). So in practice, I think it would actually make the most sense to just be monitoring a single cone, and if you want to keep a watch in multiple directions, you need multiple sentries.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is to decide that the stealth roll is made before the seek roll and not the other way around?
Avoid Notice would always be first, otherwise they would immediately be detected by the entire party before even trying to hide. The whole point of searching for hidden creatures is to counter Avoid Notice. Imagine if you will the following scenario:
A party is walking to an ancient temple in the middle of the jungle. We have a Fighter Cleric Wizard Rogue party. The fighter is up front Defending, the Cleric is Searching for creatures, the Rogue is Avoiding Notice (They also have the Feat we have been discussing) and the Wizard is Detecting Magic. Since the Fighter isn't good at stealth, a nearby group of Panthers hears the party way in advance and starts Avoiding Notice to get closer and check out the possible meal.
The Panthers each makes a single stealth check to Avoid Notice, and they all get over 24, which beats the Cleric's Perception DC, which is incidentally the highest in the party. The rogue however rolls a 20 which is beats all the Panther's DCs. Currently, the Panthers are aware of 3 of the 4 party members, but the party is unaware of the Panthers.
As the Panthers approach, they come within 30 feet of the party which is the range of Seek. The cleric rolls a 20 perception, which just barely misses the Panther's DCs. The Rogue however gets an automatic check since they have the feat, and rolls a 22, beating the DC and makes them Detected by the Rogue. And only the Rogue.
Here's the catch; We're still in Exploration Mode. Just because both sides are aware doesn't mean a fight has broken out. The Panthers are stalking up to get closer and observe, and if the Rogue doesn't point the Panthers out to the party, they may not even attack. As far as the Panthers know, they haven't been detected, and they may want to keep it that way.
Initiative is only rolled once someone declares a Hostile action against someone. The rogue might want to flank the Panthers before striking, or position themselves in a good location to do it without being seen. Once the rogue or panthers wants to start combat, we would go into initiative, using all the rolls we made earlier as their initiative.
You are operating under the assumption that as soon as you roll a skill that would be used for initiative, you start fighting. That's not the case. If you try something and fail, that could be your initiative roll. Like if you were sneaking through a manor and failed a Stealth Check, alerting the guards to your presence, that could also be your initiative roll for that encounter. If you passed, there would be no encounter sure, but since the fail caused the encounter that would be your initiative. The Guards might not try to attack immediately which could give the rogue the chance to use a different skill for initiative, but if the rogue wants to run that would be their init.
There's no rules saying that all I have explained above is wrong, and if there is please give me which page that appears on.
|
|
says who exactly?
certainly not the rules, there's no initiative in exploration.
and certainly not "it's the only way to do so"
as an example of "roll perception first stealth second":
"you see someone, oups, he now moved into concealment and you lost him"
there's no initiative order in exploration to judge what roll goes first, that's why it defaults to ONE roll, it's either the one hiding or the one searching, but not both, since "both" leads to 2 different outcomes with the same exact rolls just based on pure bias.
I explained why it has to be that way.
otherwise they would immediately be detected by the entire party before even trying to hide.
If Avoid Notice wasn't first, the party would automatically see the enemies and probably start initiative before they even had a chance to Avoid Notice.
that's irrelevant.
It is entirely relevant and the crux of our argument, you can not dismiss the point.
can't you sneak when you are in someone's seek range? ofc you can.
You can, they were saying that a creature seeking for hidden opponents would only get the perception check when they came within range, not that creatures can only Avoid Notice in range. Avoid Notice happens WELL before they come into range of the perception check.
and they end up with totally opposite outcomes.
They are not opposite. Again, the perception check only changes the result for the creature explicitly looking. If something crit on their stealth, and the seeking creature only succeeded on theirs, the hiding creature would only be Hidden on combat start, not Undetected. Its a counter to a common exploration activity, and suggesting that that can't be done is ridiculous.
hence why, Paizo, in the Rules, actually has only 1 roll and specifically doesn't mention "creatures" in the Search activity.
The description says "You Seek meticulously for hidden doors, concealed hazards, and so on." It does not exclude Creatures. Further more I have provided evidence that you can do what ever you want in Exploration mode, so searching for creatures is 100% within the scope of the rules.
Again you have no provided any evidence to back up your claims. I have read through the section on Initiative and it only mentions that Initiative is rolled to determine order in the Encounter mode and that it's not a check, but you could use the results of a check for your initiative. As Ascalaphus stated, they aren't that clear, so your insistence that that's the way it is isn't good enough.
Please provide a source, just saying "This is the rule" isn't enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why I do not like the exploration / encounter split that PF2 introduced, simply because it somehow seems to promote thinking in fixed categories instead of handling the game like the free flow of actions it once used to be.
Having said so I do very much prefer Cordells approach instead of "you can't detect an ambush before the actual ambush, roll initative" approach that a superficial reading of the rules does indeed suggest.
|
|
Shroud, WHERE do the rules state what you are saying? What page of the CRB does it explain I can't do what I suggest. Please provide a source, because I have looked through all relevant sections of the book and haven't found anything to support your argument. If you can't provide a source, well that just speaks for itself now doesn't it?
For your reference, page 479 explains Exploration Activities thusly:
When you want to do something other than simply travel, you describe what you are attempting to do. It isn’t necessary to go into extreme detail, such as “Using my dagger, I nudge the door so I can check for devious traps.” Instead, “I’m searching the area for hazards” is sufficient. The GM finds the best exploration activity to match your description and describes the effects of that activity.
As I mentioned before, on page 498 there is a Sidebar explaining that you can improvise exploration activities.
I have provided evidence in support of my interpretation, you have not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I have with "seeking for creatures as an exploration activity" is that seek has such a small area of effect that you'd need to pretty firmly decide WHERE you were Seeking. Someone suggested "within 30 feet of you," which is reasonable. But how often does an enemy get within 30 feet of a PC without initiative being called for anyway? That's well within pouncing distance for a panther. And initiative is not triggered when a hostile action occurs, but rather when hostile intent is declared. A creature without hostile intent who simply wishes to observe the party will likely keep a safer distance.
So the only case it seems like you'd catch an enemy would be when they used something like invisibility to stalk right up to an unaware party member before striking. Which is pretty niche and would be better prevented by something like Scent. That's not an especially useful tactic. I suppose there could be the occasional enemy lying in wait in the bush adjacent to a bend in the forest path who is waiting for you to get close before jumping out. It feels pretty terrain dependent.
Now, one time that I can imagine an exception is if the party is staying in one place for an extended period, like during a 10 minute rest. Giving someone lookout duty and the time to study their environment while other folks are engaged in whatever else makes sense, and I could see spotting a farther off unnoticed creature with a Seek at that point.
Now, Observant Explorer can give you a free Seek check to spot someone without these limitations. Usually, this will mean spotting someone despite them rolling high to avoid notice and keeping their distance. I think a reasonable interpretation might also allow this character to spot an undetected foe in the often discussed "What if party A beats the Perception DC of party B but Party B rolls higher for initiative" scenario.
Yea the question wasn't whether it was effective or not, but whether you can. It would mainly be useful to detect animals hiding from the party as they tromped through the forest, which is great since you could avoid a nest of vipers you were about to step into.
A nest of vipers sounds more like a hazard to be honest. Which is admittedly a gray area. Most other animals seem unlikely to be things that would wait for you to step on them to attack. And in the case of a snake you might as well just slap a perception check on the specific incidental to let players spot them.
But... Sure, such an activity seems like it could be done within the spirit of the rules if not the letter.
|
|
Yea the question wasn't whether it was effective or not, but whether you can. It would mainly be useful to detect animals hiding from the party as they tromped through the forest, which is great since you could avoid a nest of vipers you were about to step into.A nest of vipers sounds more like a hazard to be honest. Which is admittedly a gray area. Most other animals seem unlikely to be things that would wait for you to step on them to attack. And in the case of a snake you might as well just slap a perception check on the specific incidental to let players spot them.
But... Sure, such an activity seems like it could be done within the spirit of the rules if not the letter.
I used Vipers because they're creatures. A viper nest would just be a bunch of vipers in the same square vibing, until adventurers come along.
that's not what i'm saying though.
what i'm saying is that the original Stealth check vs Perception DC is exactly that roll to determine if you can detect an ambush.
If you want to give the roll to the one searching instead of the one sneaking i have no isue with it. What i have an issue with is requiring the one stealthing to effectively pass 2 checks for the same 1 action.
So, it can be either a stealth vs a perception DC OR a perception check vs Stealth DC for the same 1 instance of "ambush" but NOT both of them simultaneously.
That much is understood. The "problem" being that when you do it this way you can't succeed on your watch, it is only the others that can fail. However I can get behind the concept of switching rolls to suit the player agenda.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In exploration mode, time is more flexible and the play more free form. In this mode, minutes, hours, or even days in the game world pass quickly in the real world, as the characters travel cross country, explore uninhabited sections of a dungeon, or roleplay during a social gathering. Often, developments during exploration lead to encounters, and the GM will switch to that mode of play until the encounter ends, before returning to exploration mode.
Emphasis mine.
This is following a point I was making earlier but seems to have been gone overlooked. Earlier it was said that just because both sides are aware of the other, it doesn't mean that combat has started, therefore the game is in Exploration mode currently. This is not true. The guidelines for Encounter mode explicitly state that while the most common event that triggers initiative is the beginning of combat, in reality it's used for any situation where tracking round-by-round actions is useful or necessary--such as for example, when the party is in the immediate vicinity of hidden creatures.
I think part of the point shroudb is making above is that, if you are in a position where you are looking for hidden creatures, you are already in Encounter mode. Exploration is measured in minutes, hours, and days, so if you're in a situation where any second now one party might detect another party, you should already be entering into initiative order. If the assassins are sneaking into position and it matters to you how close they get before they are spotted, you are already in Encounter mode because each round of actions matters.
As an aside, I don't feel like this example adequately demonstrates a flaw with Avoid Notice because, narratively if not realistically, a creature preparing an ambush should be waiting in position when the party arrives, so there is no question of the ambushing creature making multiple stealth rolls to Avoid Notice. There is only the question of the moment the PCs come close enough that the GM calls for initiative, then we find out through Initiative whether the ambush will be spotted in the moment before it is sprung, and whether the PCs will have time to react before assassin or jaguars come raining out of the trees.
And again, because I feel this is important. The reason why you do not normally (without the Observant feat) search for hidden creatures in Exploration is because if you do not already see hidden creatures, there has already been a d20 roll to resolve the issue of whether you see them or not. You may search for traps in Exploration because the trap is considered hidden by default and remains so until somebody exceeds the DC. A stealthy character must instead exceed any observer's Perception DC in order to remain hidden, so granting the ability to also search for hidden creatures means that any ambush automatically has two chances to fail, making it immediately much more difficult that the Avoid Notice activity ever actually succeeds at what it is supposed to do--allow a creature to start a combat hidden.
Regarding the vipers, in nature when vipers do not want to be stepped on, they make a big aggressive warning display like hissing to deter treading. If they are indeed just vibing, they are not attempting to hide so there should be no difficulty spotting them as soon as they come into view. If on the other hand they are hiding, and in fact every single one of them succeeds against a potential foot's Perception DC, then their ambush has been successful so now it is time to strike.
---
ADDENDUM: I was going to add that it would be possible to reverse the roll, such that the onus for detecting an ambush lies on a Perception roll vs. Stealth DC instead of vice versa, but then realised why the rules work the way they do: Doing it this way would then assume that any creature which chooses to Avoid Notice is always automatically hidden until a searching character happens to beat their Stealth. This works for traps but not for creatures, so if there is going to be only one roll, one point of failure, it must be on the Stealth check (and again, one point of failure is the goal here; until the Encounter begins one roll is usually enough to determine success or failure in most tasks).
|
|
Wild Empathy begs to differ about your interpretation. If the party I mentioned earlier with Panthers had a druid, the druid would be able to attempt to Make an Impression on them, assuming no one had made a hostile action yet. Would we switch to Encounter mode, then back to Exploration while the druid talks with them, then back to Encounter if they fail? Or more simply, stay in Encounter mode until someone does a hostile action? It also doesn't make sense to constantly roll stealth check when no one is in he heat of combat.
Exploration mode assumes you take the same action or alternate actions constantly over minutes. You are usually doing one thing each round in Exploration mode, usually Striding. If avoiding notice, you Sneak or Hide once per round. If you are Searching, you alternate 1 round of Stride and 1 round of Seek. Since this takes place over a long period, you can roll once for that period. Using more than one action per round (Spells are fine) is tiring and can make you fatigued quick if you do it too long.
Once adrenaline kicks in, we go to Encounter mode. Encounters usually last less than a minute, so the burst of activity isn't that tiring in the grand scheme of things. This is why its 3 actions per round, to portray how much more active you are in combat.
To say you are in Encounter mode just because something possibly hostile is nearby isn't staying true to what the rules say. It's "usually" combat because it's intense. It could also be a life or death situation where someone is hanging from a cliff. I agree it should be any time that rounds matter, but you also need to remember how much energy it actually takes to do three things in 6 seconds and make that judgement call when it matters.
No, mechanically it's exactlyt 2 identical rolls with the same % of success. That's how mirrored rolls work since the DCs are equal to check+10. So, we are rolling 2 exact same rolls (1d20+A vs DC:B+10 and 1d20+B vs DC: A+10 is mechanically the same)
Actually I don't think it is mechanically the same as the one making the check wins ties.
So if it is Stealth +10 versus Perception +10, the chance to sucessfully use Stealth is 55% (roll of 10+ vs DC20).
If you reverse the rolls and use Perception +10 versus Stealth +10, the chance of Stealth being successful is only 45% (1 to 9 on the Perception roll).
So reversing checks might not be a good idea after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wild Empathy begs to differ about your interpretation. If the party I mentioned earlier with Panthers had a druid, the druid would be able to attempt to Make an Impression on them, assuming no one had made a hostile action yet. Would we switch to Encounter mode, then back to Exploration while the druid talks with them, then back to Encounter if they fail? Or more simply, stay in Encounter mode until someone does a hostile action? It also doesn't make sense to constantly roll stealth check when no one is in he heat of combat.
Why use Wild Empathy as an example? It is not different than the Make an Impression activity except that it can be used on animals. Do you think a pack of assassins descending from the trees to kill the party cause conflict because the party might Make an Impression on them? If you replace assassins with panthers, it doesn't change the scenario--a creature you hadn't seen is dropping on your head and not about to pause their attack so they can be convinced otherwise. This doesn't interfere with the druid's ability to talk to wild animals which are NOT dropping on their head any more than the inability to parlay with a bandit ambush is a flaw in the normal function of Diplomacy to parlay with non-hostile creatures (or hostile creatures which are not imminently attacking).
(As an aside, there is room for GM fiat to determine how/when the players can stop an encounter when one or more party attempts to parlay with the other mid-combat which is not covered by the normal Make an Impression, say when two groups mistakenly enter combat with one another but realize they don't need or want to fight.)
The thing is, I wouldn't enter into Encounter Mode unless there was a reason to, such as the group approaches an ambush. There's no reason for there to be a Searching (creatures) activity because if you get into the scenario where you are being ambushed by a hidden creature, whether or not it is hidden is already being resolved when it rolls vs. your Perception DC. You have already had your chance to see it and if it rolls high, it succeeds, if it rolls low, you succeed. You don't get two chances to see it unless you roll such high initiative that your first round is "Wait, we're not alone!" followed by a Seek action to try to pin point what is tickling the hairs on the back of your neck. Or have a feat that gives you a free attempt to notice all hidden creatures regardless of circumstance.
Of course you wouldn't be making multiple Stealth rolls in Exploration Mode--but that is what you were suggesting doing by wanting to see how close an assassin sneaks to the party before combat.
---
As an alternative, the example in the Basics of Stealth video by Basics4Gamers (not Paizo source, but still pretty solid on their mechanical understanding) uses the example of a character sneaking around a university campus and around guards. This is a good example of a situation where you might enter Encounter Mode (sneaking from cover to cover around multiple possible observers and attempting to keep alert of foes) which does not necessarily come from heightened adrenaline. This is purely GM call which mode they feel is more appropriate--Encounter mode makes sense for tracking round by round movement of various obstacles and observers while Exploration makes sense for glossing over multiple rounds of activity punctuated by rolls to represent achieving certain challenges (getting through the door).
Mind you, there is no special prohibition against using specific actions in Exploration mode. There is one scenario that readily comes to mind where a character may reasonably attempt to Seek out a hidden creature while not in combat. Should the party enter an area where a creature is attempting to avoid notice with no intent to ambush or attack the party (let's say a lone goblin, or a well-fed giant spider) and that this creature succeeds in its attempt to Avoid Notice, thus remaining undetected and unnoticed. If as the party passes through this area, a player happens to investigate this creature's hiding spot, certainly they would have a chance of noticing that there is a creature hidden in there, potentially triggering initiative once it leaps up and attempts to escape or fight its way out, or other interaction according to the creature's proclivities.
I'm not saying there is no scenario where one might ever try to spot a hidden creature in Exploration mode, simply that tactic of moving along and searching for creatures doesn't make sense since you'd normally resolve the question of noticing a creature or not on it's Stealth, which would be resolved either as a part of initiative when it springs out to attack, or when you enter the area it resides in should it not be preparing to strike.
|
|
You have already had your chance to see it and if it rolls high, it succeeds, if it rolls low, you succeed.
This is a flaw in your argument. If it beats the DC, it succeeds. If it doesn't, IT fails. It's measuring the creature's attempt to stay hidden, NOT the parties attempt to find hidden creatures. You are suggesting that the PCs don't ever get an attempt to seek hidden creatures because the enemy is already making the checks? Why even have a Seek action to begin with then? If the enemy fails their Sneak or Hide checks, you see them, so we should just eliminate the creature aspect of Seek.
Of course you wouldn't be making multiple Stealth rolls in Exploration Mode--but that is what you were suggesting doing by wanting to see how close an assassin sneaks to the party before combat.
I was absolutely not suggesting that. I was suggesting that if a party Seeks for creatures they can detect them before the creatures get too close.
Why use Wild Empathy as an example? It is not different than the Make an Impression activity except that it can be used on animals.
Wild Empathy states:
You have a connection to the creatures of the natural world that allows you to communicate with them on a rudimentary level. You can use Diplomacy to Make an Impression on animals and to make very simple Requests of them. In most cases, wild animals will give you time to make your case.
This means the group of curious panthers will allow the Druid to finish the check before deciding to attack. Creatures with the express intent to murder the PCs will not give that chance. It is a completely different scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have already had your chance to see it and if it rolls high, it succeeds, if it rolls low, you succeed.This is a flaw in your argument. If it beats the DC, it succeeds. If it doesn't, IT fails. It's measuring the creature's attempt to stay hidden, NOT the parties attempt to find hidden creatures. You are suggesting that the PCs don't ever get an attempt to seek hidden creatures because the enemy is already making the checks? Why even have a Seek action to begin with then? If the enemy fails their Sneak or Hide checks, you see them, so we should just eliminate the creature aspect of Seek.
The flaw is not with my argument. You are extending the premise to absurdity. Why even have a Strike action, then? Stating it doesn't make sense in Exploration has nothing to do with the function of those actions in Encounter mode. The functions of Sneak and Seek are both clear--just because it is overkill and a drastic nerf to Avoid Notice if a basic tactic always gives you two chances to notice hidden creatures before every ambush.
Again, in the typical scenario, if you are in an area with hidden enemies, either they failed to Avoid Notice and the Encounter begins, or they succeeded, and they are attacking. Roll initiative either way. To interrupt their initiative roll with two Perception rolls--one for initiative, one to gain a free Seek action--strikes me as akin to asking for the ability to roll to block an opponent's attack. There is no dodge roll in this game because it is accepted that if the attack roll succeeds, the dodge has failed. Seek exists because you can, on your turn, during the encounter, try to spot enemies who have already succeeded at hiding.
There is no Seeking a creature before it gets too close because the character is already on the lookout for danger, and the enemy succeeding at Avoid Notice is the notification that the enemy has gotten too close. They have, in essence, already completed their Sneak action to get where they have (unless you want to roll a multitude of Sneak actions for each inch of ground to see how close) and winning initiative and using the Seek action is the mechanical representation of being wary and perceptive enough to notice hidden foes approaching.
I cannot stress this enough: giving Avoid Notice two points of failure makes it far less useful in any infiltration scenario, both for foes and characters, and makes it far less likely anyone can succeed at, much less be willing to use the tactic.
This means the group of curious panthers will allow the Druid to finish the check before deciding to attack. Creatures with the express intent to murder the PCs will not give that chance. It is a completely different scenario.
The quoted text is irrelevant. In most cases indeed, but in any case where the panthers are descending from the trees, ambushing the party from Stealth, they are by no stretch of the imagination 'curious', they are creatures with the express intent to kill the PCs. If they were interested in parlaying with the druid, they would not be hiding up in the trees ready to attack.
On the other hand, if they were hiding but not prepared to attack, this is exactly the scenario I described in my previous post. If they succeed at hiding, the party bypasses them completely because they succeeded at hiding. If the party is specifically looking for panthers in this area, they take a moment to search the area for creatures not as a persistent exploration tactic, but by simply pausing the take the Seek action as one might normally in any scenario where they want to interact with a specific part of the environment. There is no Exploration tactic for using the Interact action while moving, yet I presume characters may announce their intent to open doors in most games.
Exploration Mode exists to bypass stretches of repeating the same set of actions over and over until something new happens. If you come on a hidden creature and it attacks, that something new has happened and you are in Encounter Mode. There was never a chance to look for it because its check was its initiative roll. Regardless whether is succeeded or failed, the 'something new' has happened and it is time to react accordingly, excepting only the scenario where it chooses to bypass the party.
Thank you for making stealth out of encounters start to make sense, Sibelius Eos Owm, they've always been the most terrifying/incomprehensible parts of the rules for me. One of the solo campaigns I'll be practicing with is for an aspiring leshy gentlewoman thief, so...I should really watch that video about stealth and brush up on the infiltration subsystem when the time comes.
I think LarsC and ShroudB at the start had the right general idea, but it's hard to be sure without spending an unhealthy (for me) amount of time researching to weigh in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't let this thread stay dead? It's been almost 3 years. In fact, it would have been 3 years since the last reply if you just waited a day.
Also, the Remaster comes out in 2 weeks. There's no reason to go over these rules now, as they will possibly change with the remaster.