It's not unheard of for a single creature to conduct an ambush, so I would think the observer wouldn't know for certain whether or not an apparent lone ambusher has allies.
I also think more care should have went into the unnoticed condition. Avoid Notice should more clearly spell out when the condition is granted.
"You repeatedly Sneak in an effort to avoid notice while traveling at half speed.
"If you're Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to Sneak (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results). This Sneak loses the secret trait.
"In either case, you are unnoticed to any observers whose Perception DCs you succeed against unless and until something gives away your presence."
It seems to me all these extra rolls lead to constant failure. PF2 is built to failure 40 or 50 percent of the time for at level creatures unless you max a skill out. So if you have to roll to avoid notice and getting lucky enough to succeed, then you have to roll to start hidden during initiative with a 40 to 50 percent failure chance, then you are almost guaranteed failure for at least half the group.
That feels like why bother.
I think we may have figured this math out early in the game, which is why we stopped using Avoid Notice years ago. I think this is why I forgot how this worked because we tested it, found it was a pretty big waste of time, and reverted to letting those that can use stealth well do it like a rogue who can be guaranteed to sneak or hide with Sneak Adept as well as a dex focus and maxed out skill.
Avoid Notice I guess works ok if having to move against fairly weak creatures. Not so great once you reach the higher failure rate where you are almost guaranteed to get caught, especially if you try to ambush and roll initiative with Stealth.
Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
If not rogues, than who?
I agree with Deriven Firelion that it seems like a waste of time.
If not rogues, than who?
I agree with Deriven Firelion that it seems like a waste of time.
Presumably no one.
Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
It is a feature of the entire game for everything. Everything is set for around a 30 to 60 percent failure rate meaning the more rolls, the higher the chance of failure.
PF2 is built that way. It makes certain feats like Sneak Adept extremely powerful as it substantially reduces the failure rate for any class with something like it.
As a DM I have to ask myself is this level of failure working as intended or satisfying the adventure fantasy? Constantly failing stealth checks if not specialized or failing tons of checks? I don't know if it's very fun for groups.
That's why I try to reduce rolls. Increased rolls may make things like attack rolls better since you land more attacks with more rolls, but for things like Stealth or Skill checks where one failure ruins everything more rolls leads to increased failure. Increased failure for Stealth and some skill checks doesn't look that great in a story game like PF.
Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
It is a feature of the entire game for everything. Everything is set for around a 30 to 60 percent failure rate meaning the more rolls, the higher the chance of failure.
PF2 is built that way. It makes certain feats like Sneak Adept extremely powerful as it substantially reduces the failure rate for any class with something like it.
As a DM I have to ask myself is this level of failure working as intended or satisfying the adventure fantasy? Constantly failing stealth checks if not specialized or failing tons of checks? I don't know if it's very fun for groups.
That's why I try to reduce rolls. Increased rolls may make things like attack rolls better since you land more attacks with more rolls, but for things like Stealth or Skill checks where one failure ruins everything more rolls leads to increased failure. Increased failure for Stealth and some skill checks doesn't look that great in a story game like PF.
Isn't removing the failure opportunity on stealth just stacking one more advantage on the rogue which is already the best class in the game?
|
It seems to me all these extra rolls lead to constant failure. PF2 is built to failure 40 or 50 percent of the time for at level creatures unless you max a skill out. So if you have to roll to avoid notice and getting lucky enough to succeed, then you have to roll to start hidden during initiative with a 40 to 50 percent failure chance, then you are almost guaranteed failure for at least half the group.
That feels like why bother.
Which, to go full circle, is the reason you take Quiet Allies if your party is going to be Sneaking.
One roll, so either the entire party succeeds, or the entire party fails, and the odds are much better.
When I ran Prey for Death, the five person party only failed at a stealth check in the infiltration section about 1 time in 5 or 6. Other than the Rogue, no one was better than Trained in Stealth, though I believe everyone was Trained. (Or maybe Untrained Improvisation with a good Dex.)
It seems to me all these extra rolls lead to constant failure. PF2 is built to failure 40 or 50 percent of the time for at level creatures unless you max a skill out. So if you have to roll to avoid notice and getting lucky enough to succeed, then you have to roll to start hidden during initiative with a 40 to 50 percent failure chance, then you are almost guaranteed failure for at least half the group.
That feels like why bother.
Which, to go full circle, is the reason you take Quiet Allies if your party is going to be Sneaking.
One roll, so either the entire party succeeds, or the entire party fails, and the odds are much better.
When I ran Prey for Death, the five person party only failed at a stealth check in the infiltration section about 1 time in 5 or 6. Other than the Rogue, no one was better than Trained in Stealth, though I believe everyone was Trained. (Or maybe Untrained Improvisation with a good Dex.)
Until you roll initiative.
Isn't removing the failure opportunity on stealth just stacking one more advantage on the rogue which is already the best class in the game?Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
It is a feature of the entire game for everything. Everything is set for around a 30 to 60 percent failure rate meaning the more rolls, the higher the chance of failure.
PF2 is built that way. It makes certain feats like Sneak Adept extremely powerful as it substantially reduces the failure rate for any class with something like it.
As a DM I have to ask myself is this level of failure working as intended or satisfying the adventure fantasy? Constantly failing stealth checks if not specialized or failing tons of checks? I don't know if it's very fun for groups.
That's why I try to reduce rolls. Increased rolls may make things like attack rolls better since you land more attacks with more rolls, but for things like Stealth or Skill checks where one failure ruins everything more rolls leads to increased failure. Increased failure for Stealth and some skill checks doesn't look that great in a story game like PF.
No. The rogue is already the only class that can near guarantee stealth. It's making it so only the rogue should even bother using stealth.
Here is another line of thought however; If you arent bothering with sneaking past, or getting a better position and preparation before initiative, or even care about the difference between undetected compared to undetected and unnoticed. Then ofcourse the roll is a waste of time, You aren't interacting with the reason to why its there. Even if most of the time its just there so that if you fail you begin the encounter.
There are those who will tell you that using it to get close is doing it wrong.
No. The rogue is already the only class that can near guarantee stealth. It's making it so only the rogue should even bother using stealth.Isn't removing the failure opportunity on stealth just stacking one more advantage on the rogue which is already the best class in the game?Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
It is a feature of the entire game for everything. Everything is set for around a 30 to 60 percent failure rate meaning the more rolls, the higher the chance of failure.
PF2 is built that way. It makes certain feats like Sneak Adept extremely powerful as it substantially reduces the failure rate for any class with something like it.
As a DM I have to ask myself is this level of failure working as intended or satisfying the adventure fantasy? Constantly failing stealth checks if not specialized or failing tons of checks? I don't know if it's very fun for groups.
That's why I try to reduce rolls. Increased rolls may make things like attack rolls better since you land more attacks with more rolls, but for things like Stealth or Skill checks where one failure ruins everything more rolls leads to increased failure. Increased failure for Stealth and some skill checks doesn't look that great in a story game like PF.
Sneak adept does upgrade failures but without it a rogue is just like anyone else who invests in stealth.
So up to level 9 they are not any better than anyone else and only the rogues that get sneak adept will have that safety net of sneak adept.
No. The rogue is already the only class that can near guarantee stealth. It's making it so only the rogue should even bother using stealth.Isn't removing the failure opportunity on stealth just stacking one more advantage on the rogue which is already the best class in the game?Maybe that is a feature? Maybe even rogues are not supposed to easily get the advantages of stealth against those harder foes?
It is a feature of the entire game for everything. Everything is set for around a 30 to 60 percent failure rate meaning the more rolls, the higher the chance of failure.
PF2 is built that way. It makes certain feats like Sneak Adept extremely powerful as it substantially reduces the failure rate for any class with something like it.
As a DM I have to ask myself is this level of failure working as intended or satisfying the adventure fantasy? Constantly failing stealth checks if not specialized or failing tons of checks? I don't know if it's very fun for groups.
That's why I try to reduce rolls. Increased rolls may make things like attack rolls better since you land more attacks with more rolls, but for things like Stealth or Skill checks where one failure ruins everything more rolls leads to increased failure. Increased failure for Stealth and some skill checks doesn't look that great in a story game like PF.
Sneak adept does upgrade failures but without it a rogue is just like anyone else who invests in stealth.
So up to level 9 they are not any better than anyone else and only the rogues that get sneak adept will have that safety net of sneak adept.
Yeah. On top of the massive number of skill increases and dex focus. The sneak adept makes it near guaranteed from level 9 up. It's almost always a very solid feat choice.
With foil sense, swift sneak, and blank slate you are nigh undetectable.
If you bring your allies with you to tail a suspicious NPC, you'll have to Avoid Notice. If anyone fails, the NPC might abandon their plans to visit headquarters since they noticed someone following them. The NPC might even lure the PCs into an severe ambush set up by the NPC's cult to dispose of anyone tailing them.
If you really want to bring your allies, then Quiet Allies will be useful here, as it's only one roll instead of four.
Alternatively, you can improve your odds further by just not taking your allies. Still one roll, but it's your modifier rather than the worst in your party. There's even a feat designed to help with this solo strategy. But if you nonetheless fail and get lured into that ambush...
"Don't you know, you never split the party!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you bring your allies with you to tail a suspicious NPC, you'll have to Avoid Notice. If anyone fails, the NPC might abandon their plans to visit headquarters since they noticed someone following them. The NPC might even lure the PCs into an severe ambush set up by the NPC's cult to dispose of anyone tailing them.
If you really want to bring your allies, then Quiet Allies will be useful here, as it's only one roll instead of four.
Alternatively, you can improve your odds further by just not taking your allies. Still one roll, but it's your modifier rather than the worst in your party. There's even a feat designed to help with this solo strategy. But if you nonetheless fail and get lured into that ambush...
"Don't you know, you never split the party!"
Another great way to increase party Stealth is to have an Expert in Stealth take Quiet Allies, and have the character with the highest Stealth modifier take the Keen Follower general feat.
That way it is one Stealth check for the whole party at the party's highest Stealth modifier.
It seems to me all these extra rolls lead to constant failure. PF2 is built to failure 40 or 50 percent of the time for at level creatures unless you max a skill out. So if you have to roll to avoid notice and getting lucky enough to succeed, then you have to roll to start hidden during initiative with a 40 to 50 percent failure chance, then you are almost guaranteed failure for at least half the group.Just to check. Have you noticed that this is completely wrong as NorrKnekten for example mentioned? If you fail on Stealth as Initiative you are hidden, not observed! Observed is a critical failure.
So they start off Hidden if they had cover to hide, but the enemy knows their approximate location if they have cover and can see them if they don't. So it will depend on terrain, cover, and distance to the enemy.
This makes it easier.
I still have no interest in multiple rolls and convoluted stealth rules. Just going back to running it as I was running it to get things rolling fast with less wasted time rolling with a single check for stealth and initiative when the combat starts.
As this is a rules forum, I'll leave the conversation as how I run things at home for speed and efficiency isn't by the rules.