Good afternoon, all! I come to you with a request for some advice on how to run an encounter for my tabletop campaign.

The general idea for the adventure is a "bounty race:" a spy for Gardoula the Hutt had been working in Jabba's inner circle for some time, and he has stolen lots of important information from the crime lord. Unfortunately, when making good his escape, he was revealed (somehow, the details don't matter). Now, he's on the run, and has fled to the wilderness of Onderon.

Every Hutt family is now after this guy; Jabba wants him dead before anyone else can get him, the other Hutt families want him alive so they can extract information from him. Even the Imperials are getting in on the deal. The PCs have had previous dealing with Bargos the Hutt (from the Debts to Pay adventure), and they owe him a favor. Since they've recently run into Imperial trouble, Bargos, who doesn't have the available funds to get in on this race in the normal way, is blackmailing the party with their owed favor and "protection" from the bounty on them as a way to get them to cooperate.

The encounter I'm specifically having trouble with is one that's set to take place after the PCs track down and capture the fugitive. A master bounty hunter, hired by Jabba directly, is going to attack from Extreme range with a tricked out sniper rifle, aiming for the spy, not the party. Because he's so far away, the encounter isn't so much a combat encounter, but one where the PCs are trying to protect their target from someone they can't easily retaliate against. Putting them on the defensive, forcing them to think in a different way than they've normally done.

They will have a chance to know this guy is out there (a rival group of novice bounty hunters is going to approach them and suggest they work together to secure the guy, and then work out the whole "who betrays who" thing once they're sure no one else is gonna steal the prize; this group will know about the master hunter being tapped for this).

The big problem I'm having is working out skill check difficulties at that distance. Obviously, the standard way to do it would be to have the players roll Perception vs. the Bounty Hunter's Stealth when he's getting in position to see if they even realize he's found them, and then to give his initiative some Boosts and theirs some Setbacks when he actually sets up to fire. But the standard Perception vs. Stealth check isn't working out so well in practice; I've made some test rolls, and the party seems to be noticing him about 60% of the time, which doesn't make too much sense considering someone who is very good at Stealth and very far away (over a kilometer).

What I've been doing so far:

1. The party's pool is a group Perception, the highest Perception + highest Cunning, with a Boost for everyone else (PPPBBB);

2. The Bounty Hunter's Stealth sets the difficulty, with 2 Setbacks for his Stalker 2 (CCDDSS);

3. I add 1 additional Setback for the terrain (rocky, hilly, light woods), and 2 additional Setbacks for the distance (extreme).

So, do you think this is a fair way to go about establishing whether they know he's there or not? If not, how should I alter the check? Should I pile a bunch more Setbacks on? I would want to do more than 4 for distance, but I could do that, and maybe add another for terrain. Or should I, instead of adding Setbacks for distance, increase the difficulty instead? Basically make the check Perception vs. Distance, instead of Perception vs. Stealth? Clearly, your skill at not being seen is less useful the further away you are, because you're already so hard to see...Should I make every player in the party roll individually? While that might reduce the odds for any one individual, I think the chances actually go up because of the multiple rolls.

Or should I simply not allow a check? Say that he's too far away for the PCs to reliably have a chance to notice him until he strikes? This is one I'm leery of, because it might make the scene interesting if they happen to notice he's around (not exactly where he is, but at least knowing that they're being followed), I just don't want it to be as easy as it seems to be based on the dice pools I've been testing. Maybe no check unless they actively mention that they're watching for other bounty hunters? But then that feels too much like the traditional "killer GM" problem of, "You didn't say it, so it didn't happen!"

So please, let me know what you think!

What are you looking to have happen overall in the encounter? What kind of a feel or chain of events do you want to see unfold? Answering that will help you decide whether you're even posing the correct kind of skill check with the correct kinds of result options.

The purpose of this adventure is to test and challenge the party in ways they haven't been challenged yet. So far, in every adventure, they're hired to do a job, and they've actively been the ones making things happen. This encounter (or series of encounters dealing with this bounty hunter) is supposed to make them react to something, be on the defensive, and be the ones who are lacking resources.

The adventure is split into several arcs:

1. Get to Onderon: There is an Imperial presence on the planet, and as mentioned they will find out they've now got a bounty on their heads from the Empire, so getting onto the planet without being detected is going to be tough, and will test our Pilot/Scoundrel;

2. Find the Mark/Wilderness Tracking: Moving through the wilderness and tracking an elusive target when they know the clock is ticking, so our Hunter can flex his muscles. The other bounty hunters will appear and offer to work with them here, getting them potentially more info and letting our Entrepreneur do some negotiating;

3. Hunted: The encounter this thread is about, where they are being tracked and hunted by a master bounty hunter trying to kill the guy they're trying to save. Away from their ship and with limited resources, how do they escape this guy who seems to have all the cards?;

4. Inquisition: To make matters worse, they meet up with the Inquisitor that is after them, an encounter that will test our three nascent Force-users;

5. Resolution: Seeing what they are willing to do to keep themselves safe (will they give this guy up to torture and death to the Hutts for their own safety? Will they kill the Bounty Hunters who helped them?)

Encounter 3 is supposed to have a sense of fear and dread about it. They are literally being hunted by someone they might only ever catch vague glimpses of, and while they themselves are not in danger, their mark, a nice guy who got caught up in Hutt intrigue, is in deadly danger (and his death puts them in similar straights). It's also supposed to be exhausting, because they have to run and if they don't stay on the move the guy chasing them can attack from nowhere without warning, and they can't retaliate.

I roll for perception type rolls without the players knowledge so they don't know if they missed something or not. It also lets me decide when they have a chance to catch on or if its in the best interest of the story to keep them in the dark.

If it were my game I would initiate a 'miss' or two by the sniper, with no chance for them to detect him. This gets them on edge, aware someone is stalking them but doesn't yield a chance of blowing the whole thing if they roll lucky. When your ready, start letting them roll.

How about an opposed roll for initiative using Vigilance. Have them roll against whatever you like most, Stealth, or even the BHs weapon skill for the Difficulty. You could stick with Stealth for the Master BH adversary. That would give you a RRP, plus they have a couple ranks of Stalker, so instead of Boost since it's an opposed roll make that a couple Setbacks, and maybe upgrade the Difficulty twice for the Extreme range. Make one PC's roll the one that you look at for the mark as they are acting as the principle security on them.

You set yourself a little chart up like a custom results table. For uncancelled Failures, that's wounds the mark suffers, 3 uncancelled Threats or a Despair and they suffer a critical, and then something corresponding if they actually succeed on on the Vigilance roll.

Then depending on what they do you could have additional rolls in subsequent rounds of combat. The result could be a real **** show for the principle if he goes down. They've gotta find the sniper, go assess the principle's injuries, un-@$$ the area, etc.

I don't know it it'll help, but Nexus of Power chameleon droid has a talent called Cunning Ambusher. It adds Setback to opponent's Vigilance initiative checks. Don't know if that helps.

Eh, it doesn't really help because I was already going to be adding Setback Dice to their initiative checks, and probably Boosts to his at the same time, and he doesn't need yet another ability to make it more difficult for them.

I have it broken down like this: if they are unaware that he's even on the planet, that's a Setback to them;

If they don't know he's found them and is tailing them, that's a Setback to them and a Boost to him;

They'll get an additional Setback or two for range and being caught completely unawares, and if he has a lot of time to settle in and prepare a shot (like if they stop to make camp), he'll get an extra Boost.

So the actual initiative checks are all taken care of. The problem is that second point: I want to give them a chance to realize he's found them before he can start shooting (maybe even a day or so in advance), but I don't want to make it too easy for them, as this guy is really good and has lots of advantages in his favor.

This is a case for vigilance not perception. Perception is actively looking for something. Vigilance is noticing something in the environment... like a sniper. A successful vigilance vs. the snipers stealth would mean they noticed the sniper.

Perhaps you could flip the opposed check around and have the NPC make the active Stealth roll against the PC's Perception or Vigilance. I know this is not usually done, but the odds should change significantly given the size of the dice pool. It would also allow you to roll in secret if you wanted to.

I have also wondered about how to manage Stealth checks at different ranges. I treat a stealth check at Short range as base line and add Boost or Setback for other ranges, but it doesn't always seem to reflect the increase in difficulty, as you have pointed out.

This is a case for vigilance not perception. Perception is actively looking for something. Vigilance is noticing something in the environment... like a sniper. A successful vigilance vs. the snipers stealth would mean they noticed the sniper.

I'm pretty sure that is wrong. "The perception skill represents the character's constant, passive state of awareness (p. 114 ETOE)."

Anytime you are actively looking for something, it is vigilance.

So in your example, the GM might ask the players for a perception check against the snipers stealth to see if they notice. If they fail he takes a surprise shot, then when they are actively looking for the sniper, it would be a vigilance check.