So, I'm relatively new to PF, and I was wondering about this. I know that perception is very important, but is there a point when your perception is high enough? With a half-elf inquisitor with Skill Focus Perception, I am starting out at level one with something like a 13 or 14 in perception, and the plan had been to put one skill point in it every level. Is that necessary, or at a certain point do more skill points become superfluous? Not sure if it matters, but I am playing PFS exclusively. Thanks!
Ehh, having someone with +10 in Perception at level 1 is more than enough.
I find that, as the levels progress, say at around level 8, a +5 item and max ranks is more than enough to see you through, even for a fighter, or something. You might be heading into overkill territory, and if you have another skill you like, or a martial/exotic weapon you like, maybe change skill focus for that.
Personally I wouldn't take skill focus perception, unless you can't think of another skill you'd like to be really good at.
Overall no, there is no point where you cap out as being good enough at perception in my opinion. Maybe once you get around a +30 bonus to perception if you really had other things you wanted to invest in I would consider it.
That said I would definitely use a skill point per level on it, and if anything would ditch skill focus for something else. Maybe intimidate depending on my build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think if you start breaking 100 you're probably pretty good to go on to something else for perception.
Ive seen people at my tables, and have a friend of mine, that max this out to ridiculous ends (talking perceptions rolls in the 40's and 50's at lower levels). If you have 10 plus your character level in perception, you should make just about every check.
I'm playing with a lich in a WotW campaign who at level 9 has a perception bonus of around +40. I don't even ask the other party members to roll perception anymore if they're all together. His nat 1 result is higher than their nat 20 results.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on your GM.
Some GMs fail to recognize that your heroes should become heroic. Those GMs might, when you're level 1, set the DC to find a Secret Door to be just a 20. Your character with 14 perception would find 75% of those secret doors. That same GM would set the DC at 40 when you're 10th level and at 60 when you're 20th level because he wants to keep challenging you with harder and harder challenges.
For that kind of GM, you will NEVER feel like a hero because everything is always hard to do, and you will always need to keep pumping up your Perception.
Other GMs recognize that you should be rewarded for your investment and your escalating status as a hero. These GMs keep the DC the same forever, so even your level 20 character with +50 on your Perception check still only needs to beat the same old DC 20 to find typical secret doors. You could literally find those with your eyes shut and your hands tied behind your back. Because you're an awesome hero.
For that kind of GM, you probably don't need to add anything to your Perception again; it's already heroic. Maybe a few more point to top it off and you're set.
Still other GMs split the difference. They let you be heroic some of the time and challenge you at other times. For these GMs, you should try to rise to that challenge (or learn to accept occasional failure).
For that kind of GM, treat him like the first kind and be ready for the challenges.
Short answer: ask your GM what he thinks is a good upper limit.
Modified answer: PFS means multiple GMs but they don't write the modueles, Paizo does, and they usually set the challenges fairly low. You might never need more than you already have. Maybe some folk who play PFS more than I do can answer that more fully.
I put a skill point in perception every level on every character. It doesn't make me the most perceptive character in the party (because most others in the group do the same and some have better bonuses than I do), but it keeps me competent. The thing about many perception checks is they can be opposed rolls rather than static DCs. When it's an opposed check, you really want your bonus to be as high as you can be without harming your character in other areas.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that Perception is opposed by Stealth and modified by distance penalties (-1 per 10 feet), obstacles like doors, etc.
Last night I had a creature with +17 Stealth bonus. The highest Perception in the group (tier 4-5) was +16. If they both take 10 on their checks (before combat), the creature always wins.
Also, if you're a trapfinder, expect DCs to find traps to be around 25 at lower levels and 35 at higher levels. (I like my trapfinders to be able to take 10 and get most traps.)
Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!
Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!
As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.
If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.
If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.
Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
Agreed. You phased it more diplomatically than I would have, for which I'm grateful.
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
What's with the negativity?
I have seen at least two situations where this approach works well.
#1 With new players and players with low system mastery.
#2 With players who focus on the role playing that are not particularly interested in the mechanics.
There are plenty of right ways to play the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a middle ground, where you scale difficulty at a lower rate that the PCs improve. That is ideally how most published adventures do it, but any GM should adjust as necessary for her group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's with the negativity?
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.
Discernment, reason, and good judgment.
I have seen at least two situations where this approach works well.
#1 With new players and players with low system mastery.
#2 With players who focus on the role playing that are not particularly interested in the mechanics.
The problem is that this method both destroys player agency and negates character development, both of which actually harm roleplaying.
As a simplified demonstration: Lord X. Ample, human fighter, has a 75% chance of hitting an orc at his current level, and will (via expected damage) kill the orc in three hits, meaning it takes him four rounds to kill it.
At the next level, he takes a feat giving him +1 damage, and he gains +1 BAB. However, the GM decides that the next dungeon contains "elite" orcs, who have three more hit points and one more point of armor class. X. Ample now has ... a 75% chance of hitting, and will kill in three hits, so his fight against "elite" orcs is literally, die roll for die roll, the same as his fight against normal ones at the previous level.
Now, he finds a +1 cheese grater (his weapon of choice). In the next dungeon, he faces "extra elite" orcs, who have another point of AC and three more hit points. Ample now has ... a 75% chance of hitting, and will kill in three hits, so his fight against "extra elite" orcs is literally, die roll for die roll, the same as his fight against normal ones way back when.
Now, at the next level, he's fighting "superelite" orcs who have, again, one more point of AC and a defensive ability that exactly negates whatever abilities he took as a feat (or as class abilities). By level 20, he can be fighting godlike "über" orcs that he still has a 75% chance to hit and will take three hits to kill, which means he's done exactly the same thing for his entire adventuring career. Yes, the orcs are now CR 20 but the game play is identical.
Now, let's add his friend Nimblefingers the Rogue. Nimblefingers has now been completely supplanted, because the orcs are gaining abilities just fast enough to keep up with X. Ample, but Nimblefingers himself can't keep up with either of them. So he's gone from being "valued sidekick" to "comedy relief."
Similarly, Arrowroot the Ranger has been maxing Perception at every level, and the monsters have been getting improved Steath scores at the same rate, so that Arrowroot always has a 60% chance of spotting them. Unfortunately, since Neither Nimblefingers nor X. Ample have Arrowroot's perception ability, they now can't find their way out of a CR 20 laundry sack, since that's been very carefully balanced to require the skills of a level 20 ranger to navigate.
Essentially, skilled characters can't get any better (and are just kind of roleplaying the same thing over and over) and unskilled characters are completely washed out.
Basically, the reason for all the negativity is that it's a bad idea to scale DCs with an eye to challenging specialists. Specialists are supposed to get better at things, and that's the reward the player of a specialist is looking for. By deliberately denying the player his/her reward, you're deliberately making the game not-fun.
And I see literally no benefit to making a game not fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further to previous..... as soon as the players twig to what the gamemaster is doing, it will eliminate any incentive to design and play interesting, well-built characters. If the skill DCs are automatically going to be rescaled so that you've got a 50/50 chance of accomplishing anything, there's literally no reason to put points into any particular skill.
"No one has Stealth? No problem, everyone in this dungeon is wearing sunglasses in the dark!"
At the next level: "Hmm, I should get Stealth, but why bother, since they'll just take off the sunglasses and see me anyway."
The effect is to make players a lot less invested in their characters, which again inhibits roleplaying.
Chess Pwn put it well:
the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.
If my choices and skills don't matter, why am I playing a game instead of watching TV?
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.
Your way is fun for you, it is arrogant to say that it is the best or only way to play Pathfinder.
It is also insulting to say the way someone GM's a game is 'horrible' just because you play a particular way. Chances are I wouldn't like how you run your games, but I wouldn't insult you by saying that you are doing it wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.
Oh, I understand that completely. But if you're going to include character advancement at all, characters need to advance. Otherwise you're forcing players to take time and effort to make decisions that literally have no consequences.
And that's simply poor form -- work without reward.
If you want to play story-time, drop the character advancement (and there are probably better systems for you than Pathfinder, but that's another discussion). If you want to play with meaningful character advancement, the characters need to advance meaningfully. (That's damn nearly tautological.) And for meaningful advancement, characters need to get better at doing what they've advanced.
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.
Your way is fun for you, it is arrogant to say that it is the best or only way to play Pathfinder.
It is also insulting to say the way someone GM's a game is 'horrible' just because you play a particular way. Chances are I wouldn't like how you run your games, but I wouldn't insult you by saying that you are doing it wrong.
Pathfinder is inherently an incredibly numbers heavy game. Groups that don't want to deal with numbers are better served with other RPG's, which is entirely fine, but just ignoring the numbers of Pathfinder makes using the system at all pretty pointless.
As for the OP, Perception is the one skill that always needs to be boosted further, without question. Even though you'll eventually be able to find a secret door on a 1, enemy stealth WILL continue to scale up as the CR of encounters goes up. Being ambushed is never fun.
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.Oh, I understand that completely. But if you're going to include character advancement at all, characters need to advance. Otherwise you're forcing players to take time and effort to make decisions that literally have no consequences.
And that's simply poor form -- work without reward.
If you want to play story-time, drop the character advancement (and there are probably better systems for you than Pathfinder, but that's another discussion). If you want to play with meaningful character advancement, the characters need to advance meaningfully. (That's damn nearly tautological.) And for meaningful advancement, characters need to get better at doing what they've advanced.
Okay, now I feel like we are having a conversation with no value judgements, which is good.
One group I know of, did exactly what you suggested and switched to VTM to play a more rules-lite game and that suited them perfectly.
I am curious about how you give a feeling of advancement to your players? The APs assume that you will increase in power over time and so the difficulty increases as you progress, but you seem to be against that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.Oh, I understand that completely. But if you're going to include character advancement at all, characters need to advance. Otherwise you're forcing players to take time and effort to make decisions that literally have no consequences.
And that's simply poor form -- work without reward.
If you want to play story-time, drop the character advancement (and there are probably better systems for you than Pathfinder, but that's another discussion). If you want to play with meaningful character advancement, the characters need to advance meaningfully. (That's damn nearly tautological.) And for meaningful advancement, characters need to get better at doing what they've advanced.
Okay, now I feel like having a conversation with no value judgements, which is good.
One group I know of, did exactly what you suggested and switched to VTM to play a more rules-lite game and that suited them perfectly.
I am curious about how you give a feeling of advancement to your players? The APs assume that you will increase in power over time and so the difficulty increases as you progress, but you seem to be against that.
I believe what he's referring is the difference between the goblin keep and the great hall of the dwarven lords.
The goblin keep has a hidden door which requires a DC 25 Perception check to notice. When your player, now at 10th level, enters a very similiar goblin keep at 10th level, he should be able to notice it by the light of a quarter moon while in combat, as opposed to the careful probing of each 5-ft. section of wall that was required at 1st level.
Conversely, when the group of players enter the great hall of the dwarven lords at 1st level, the party's dwarven rogue literally spends the night in a chamber where he carefully probes the every nook and cranny trying to find the lever for a secret passage. The lever is well hidden, (a DC of 30) and of course he misses it. But when the party returns at 10th level, now as honored heroes, the rogue is able to find the lever within seconds of entering the room, using a combination of experience and magic items he's gained along the way.
A 1st level goblin is a pushover, even as a party of 1st level adventurers. By 10th level, you can dispatch an entire tribe without even breaking a sweat. Why shouldn't this kind of advancement occur with skill checks?
The monsters get tougher, but they don't specifically counter what the PCs are specialized in.
Not against the game getting harder, but your choices should matter.
For example, I dm 'd way of the wicked with one character who had roughly a +60 stealth. The monsters didn't start having skill focus perception and alertness, the tried to use the abilities they had to fight him. They mostly got rocked but that was his reward for his stealth investment.
I have no issue with that approach. I assume everyone is having fun.
I also have no issue with the opposite approach. Suppose that same character breezes through the AP and the player has become bored so the GM introduces a new monster to challenge them. In my view the GM is making the game more fun not less.
By the way I thought Way of the Wicked was awesome.
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.Oh, I understand that completely. But if you're going to include character advancement at all, characters need to advance. Otherwise you're forcing players to take time and effort to make decisions that literally have no consequences.
And that's simply poor form -- work without reward.
If you want to play story-time, drop the character advancement (and there are probably better systems for you than Pathfinder, but that's another discussion). If you want to play with meaningful character advancement, the characters need to advance meaningfully. (That's damn nearly tautological.) And for meaningful advancement, characters need to get better at doing what they've advanced.
Okay, now I feel like having a conversation with no value judgements, which is good.
One group I know of, did exactly what you suggested and switched to VTM to play a more rules-lite game and that suited them perfectly.
I am curious about how you give a feeling of advancement to your players? The APs assume that you will increase in power over time and so the difficulty increases as you progress, but you seem to be against that.
I believe what he's referring is the difference between the goblin keep and the great hall of the dwarven lords.
The goblin keep has a hidden door which requires a DC 25 Perception check to notice. When your player, now at 10th level, enters a very similiar goblin keep at 10th level, he should be able to notice it by the light of a quarter moon while in combat, as opposed to the careful probing of each 5-ft. section of wall that was required at 1st level.
Conversely, when the group of players enter the great hall of the dwarven lords at 1st level, the party's dwarven rogue literally spends the night...
All good points. I think this approach is typical for D&D style games.
The dilemma I have with this approach in Pathfinder where there is rapid power advancement is that sand box type campaigns are hard to construct. A situation that is a challenge at say 10th level becomes easy at 11th level and trivial (and boring) at 12th level. Any thoughts on this?
The monsters get tougher, but they don't specifically counter what the PCs are specialized in.
Not against the game getting harder, but your choices should matter.
For example, I dm 'd way of the wicked with one character who had roughly a +60 stealth. The monsters didn't start having skill focus perception and alertness, the tried to use the abilities they had to fight him. They mostly got rocked but that was his reward for his stealth investment.
I have no issue with that approach. I assume everyone is having fun.
I also have no issue with the opposite approach. Suppose that same character breezes through the AP and the player has become bored so the GM introduces a new monster to challenge them. In my view the GM is making the game more fun not less.
By the way I thought Way of the Wicked was awesome.
EDIT: sorry, didn't see your second post. Hold a moment.
Fair enough: I've spent most of my time playing homebrews, so that's just the lense I tend to view the game through.
With an AP, I agree that a new monster added to challenge a player can add to the fun, and I see how this could translate into increasing skill checks. But I also believe that consistency and logic are some of the most needed aspects in creating a role-playing scenario. Going into a gangster's palace and finding he has an unexpected giant death pet is acceptable IF it's believable that he or his minions could capture it in the first place.
By the same token, there shouldn't be a DC 30 perception check to notice a secret door in a goblin-built guardhouse, even if the DC 20 pereception check seems easy for the adventurers because the goblins don't have the wherewithal to build such a thing.
A GM should, in short, always have a rational behind adding any challenge to an adventure beyond that of it being fun/necessary for things to be fun. If there are players that are breezing through certain challenges, then their nemesis should take note, and take in-game steps to thwart them. So apply arcane locks, coat the narrow ledges with ice, invest in perception boosting gear for your guards and set tripwires with booby traps. If none of these things can be done, or if the villain can't think of anything, then let the players breeze, and let the world take note: their next nemesis will not be so unprepared.
Well, there's a couple of ways of dealing with this:
1. If your players become grossly overpowered for a certain challenge, eliminate that challenge altogether. The pathfinder/D&D world is terrifyingly dynamic. Realistically, its entirely possible for a party of characters crawling through a Fire Giant's fort to suddenly find the resistance to their passage nearly completely gone. The magically locked doors are blasted open, the guards that they were sneaking past are slain, the charismatic elven ninja that previously required some fast talking and diplomacy to convince of your mutual goals has fled the scene. Instead, a lich has taken up residence, envious of the Fire Giant's famed wealth. New ectoplasmic traps, swarms of wights (giant and otherwise) search the halls for fresh meat and missed treasure for their undead overlord.
2. If you have a particular skill that's being troublesome with a certain player, consider having the nemesis of the players realize that the paltry tactics they've been using are insufficient.
Stealth: Double the guard, set booby traps to alert said gaurds, etc.
Fly: Bows.
Diplomacy: Unleash the zombie/golem/etc. that won't befriend the players... IF the nemesis has access to such a beast. Otherwise: more traps, give orders to kill on sight any intruders, etc.
Perception: Bury the vaults, or empty them. Place guards on your 'hidden' chambers. Forgo ambushes in favor of favorable defensive positions, etc.
Those are just a few thoughts of mine. Comments?
Depends on your GM.
Some GMs fail to recognize that your heroes should become heroic. Those GMs might, when you're level 1, set the DC to find a Secret Door to be just a 20. Your character with 14 perception would find 75% of those secret doors. That same GM would set the DC at 40 when you're 10th level and at 60 when you're 20th level because he wants to keep challenging you with harder and harder challenges.
For that kind of GM, you will NEVER feel like a hero because everything is always hard to do, and you will always need to keep pumping up your Perception.
Other GMs recognize that you should be rewarded for your investment and your escalating status as a hero. These GMs keep the DC the same forever, so even your level 20 character with +50 on your Perception check still only needs to beat the same old DC 20 to find typical secret doors. You could literally find those with your eyes shut and your hands tied behind your back. Because you're an awesome hero.
For that kind of GM, you probably don't need to add anything to your Perception again; it's already heroic. Maybe a few more point to top it off and you're set.
Still other GMs split the difference. They let you be heroic some of the time and challenge you at other times. For these GMs, you should try to rise to that challenge (or learn to accept occasional failure).
For that kind of GM, treat him like the first kind and be ready for the challenges.
Short answer: ask your GM what he thinks is a good upper limit.
Modified answer: PFS means multiple GMs but they don't write the modueles, Paizo does, and they usually set the challenges fairly low. You might never need more than you already have. Maybe some folk who play PFS more than I do can answer that more fully.
Oh I know this one, the first GM is playing Pathfinder and the second 5E.
Eventually, you reach the idiot point. This is when a character could (pretty reasonably) detect secret doors from five rooms, through six doors and a hundred feet away, from the sound of echoing footsteps he's making. When a -30 penalty makes things somewhat interesting rather than impossible. When nobody needs to stand guard anymore because the character is better SLEEPING than all the others together watching intently. You will know the idiot point when you see it.
@ Anonymous Warrior.
Please don't delete your posts, I like your writing style!
@ Anonymous Warrior.
Please don't delete your posts, I like your writing style!
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure I was addressing your question, rather than ranting. Also, it's past midnight here, so impaired judgment and all.
It's almost 6pm here, so I am wide awake. Anyway good night chat soon hopefully.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you can't seem to understand is that some groups prefer the story-time way of playing the game. They don't care about the mechanics, the GM works that part out.
Your way is fun for you, it is arrogant to say that it is the best or only way to play Pathfinder.
It is also insulting to say the way someone GM's a game is 'horrible' just because you play a particular way. Chances are I wouldn't like how you run your games, but I wouldn't insult you by saying that you are doing it wrong.
I had to chime in. And what you do not seem to understand is that those groups should NOT be playing Pathfinder. That is not what the system is for.
Any group that wants "Storytime" should play cWoD/nWoD/CoD, Fate, or some other system that is specifically designed to be a focus on story. Pathfinder is designed to function as it does. Adjusting DCs because specialists make them easy defeats the purpose of using the system. Although, do keep in mind, the entire system is designed around PF 15 point buy. (NOTE: assumption, based on doing some of the maths)
Are you trying to be insulting? I will play whatever game I feel like, however I want.
Perhaps you have forgotten: The Most Important Rule. "...Remember these rules are yours. You can change them to ft your needs..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF 15 point buy. (NOTE: assumption, based on doing some of the maths)
Didn't they say they literally did the math wrong and it was supposed to be 20pt buy?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF 15 point buy. (NOTE: assumption, based on doing some of the maths)Didn't they say they literally did the math wrong and it was supposed to be 20pt buy?
Yup. The infamous 15pt buy, which ensures that no one except the Wizard will have good stats, is the result of a calculation error.
They do use 15pt buy characters to test AP's, but that's because they're trying to balance them to be playable by people who are way worse at the game than the devs are and it's easier to nerf their capabilities than just to pretend they're brand new players.
The devs aren't the cream of the crop but they certainly have more game knowledge than the absolute beginners AP's are written to be a reasonable challenge to.
One day, Paizo will write an AP with their usual excellent stories and characters as well as a difficulty level designed for the competent table in mind... One day.
The devs aren't the cream of the crop but they certainly have more game knowledge than the absolute beginners AP's are written to be a reasonable challenge to.
One day, Paizo will write an AP with their usual excellent stories and characters as well as a difficulty level designed for the competent table in mind... One day.
I just hope that competent table will write excellent characters with competent stories to play that AP. ;)
I just hope that competent table will write excellent characters with competent stories to play that AP. ;)The devs aren't the cream of the crop but they certainly have more game knowledge than the absolute beginners AP's are written to be a reasonable challenge to.
One day, Paizo will write an AP with their usual excellent stories and characters as well as a difficulty level designed for the competent table in mind... One day.
If they weren't planning on it they'd be happy with the grindy dungeon crawls that make up most (all?) of the "this is really hard, bring your A game" AP offerings.
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
Sure, it seems like I am actively trying to go after the players,
But I guess its worth mentioning that I am running a gestalt game, for rise of the runelords.
Gestalt by itself is already a high powered variant, and If I stuck SOLELY on the AP, then the AP collapses.
Not to mention that my players enjoy making HIGHLY specialized character builds, say +20 to grapple at the lower levels and such.
In that regard, I can't really set up too many encounters of one big enemy vs all the PC's.
Hell, and example of adjusting was when the party encountered a certain flying Villan with fast healing. The party was lv3 and had no way to attack such villain. I let them roleplay it out, and eventually they taunted such villain to melee range where they could successfully grapple the creature.
I play creatures smart, but not absolutely brutal.
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
What's with the negativity?
I have seen at least two situations where this approach works well.
#1 With new players and players with low system mastery.
#2 With players who focus on the role playing that are not particularly interested in the mechanics.There are plenty of right ways to play the game.
Because Fernn just said that character choices don't matter.
What's with the negativity?
This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Discernment, reason, and good judgment.
I have seen at least two situations where this approach works well.
#1 With new players and players with low system mastery.
#2 With players who focus on the role playing that are not particularly interested in the mechanics.
The problem is that this method both destroys player agency and negates character development, both of which actually harm roleplaying.
As a simplified demonstration: Lord X. Ample, human fighter, has a 75% chance of hitting an orc at his current level, and will (via expected damage) kill the orc in three hits, meaning it takes him four rounds to kill it.
At the next level, he takes a feat giving him +1 damage, and he gains +1 BAB. However, the GM decides that the next dungeon contains "elite" orcs, who have three more hit points and one more point of armor class. X. Ample now has ... a 75% chance of hitting, and will kill in three hits, so his fight against "elite" orcs is literally, die roll for die roll, the same as his fight against normal ones at the previous level.
Now, he finds a +1 cheese grater (his weapon of choice). In the next dungeon, he faces "extra elite" orcs, who have another point of AC and three more hit points. Ample now has ... a 75% chance of hitting, and will kill in three hits, so his fight against "extra elite" orcs is literally, die roll for die roll, the same as his fight against normal ones way back when.
Now, at the next level, he's fighting "superelite" orcs who have, again, one more point of AC and a defensive ability that exactly negates whatever abilities he took as a feat (or as...
I suppose that is one way to counter a High Attacking character.
But If a character can reliably do high damage, and hit consistenly, I am not going to Put higher AC monsters to compensate.Why? Because as you stated poor nimblefingers is going to get boned.
How I would handle such a high powered fighter?
1. More enemies
2. Lower Enemy AC
3. More Enemy HP
4. balanced Damage
So what does that equate to?
The fighter can go willy nilly and charge up to a a "elite orc" and most likely deal a sizeable amount of damage, maybe even take it down. But guess what? He just rushed head first into a pile of orcs and now has to worry about flanking, and aoo's.
Characters who are highly optimized, especially in combat are all well and fun, but risk making encounters boring for the rest of the party.
Fighting should be a group effort.
And skill should to a degree be a group effort.
What is the point of a rogue sneaking past some monsters in a dungeon with crazy high stealth, if the other party members can't do it?
I have a Mindchemist in my group who consistently gets high knowledge checks because of double int mod.
And I reward him with knowledge and foresight.
But if he ever rolls low, then luckily there is a monk/inquisitor who uses his monster lore as a backup.
Because Fernn just said that character choices don't matter.This is one of the most horrible things you can do. Oh you got weapon focus? all enemies AC goes up by 1. Got skill focus? All skills got harder by 3. No one has stealth? who cares, the GM will just play storytime with us and the game will go as he plans regardless of our choices or skills.Thanks for the feedback everyone - very helpful information! Sounds like I should definitely pump Perception continuously, but possibly consider something else for the Skill Focus. Thanks!As A dm, I scale creatures and challenges according to my player's builds to be relatively challenging.
I just found out that No one in my party has invested in stealth!
So my enemy Perception checks will not be quite as strong to compensate.If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus.
ETC ETC.If you outshine all of your fellow PC's in perception checks, then It can be unfortunately fortold that the DM will subconsciously feel that what he has is too easy, and scale things higher, so if you fail, then that might make your other members have a hard time.
putting a rank every level?
Go for it.Skill focus? eh, I suppose. If you can get it for free (such as a half elf) do it, but otherwise be warned that DM's try to accommodate for such high rolls.
What's with the negativity?
I have seen at least two situations where this approach works well.
#1 With new players and players with low system mastery.
#2 With players who focus on the role playing that are not particularly interested in the mechanics.There are plenty of right ways to play the game.
Sure you can view it as
"Make a suboptimal character and the DM will compensate!"
or you can view it as I am not going to exploit purposefully low skill ranks to screw over the players.
Secret Doors wont be harder to find if I have a character with highly optimized perception. I'll just roll it in with congrats, your 90% of finding the secret treasure room has rewarded your party!
and less I remind everyone, that a normal pathfinder game, my actions might be considered "questionable" but I am running a Gestalt Game. Characters are going to be optimized far more than other characters VASTLY but that is not reason to penalize the PC's who are not as strong in certain skill sets.
I tend to recommend either not having ranks in the skill at all, or maxing the ranks.
Taking skill focus is usually not a good idea.
If your GM is fair, having a decent WIS and maxed ranks in the skill should be enough.
If you are playing a Rogue/trapfinding scouty-type, MAYBE putting more resources into it is a good idea... MAYBE.
If you are playing a Rogue/trapfinding scouty-type, MAYBE putting more resources into it is a good idea... MAYBE.
If your the party scout/trapfinder in Rappan Athuk ... go nuts. No number is too high.
Your character's life does depend on it.
Non-scouts are still encouraged to invest in perception, unless they are okay with failing to spot random encounters while standing watch.
If a character can reliably do high damage, and hit consistenly, I am not going to Put higher AC monsters to compensate.
Why? Because as you stated poor nimblefingers is going to get boned.
Well, you did say that "If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus. / ETC ETC." So poor Nimblefingers is going to get boned anyway if Lord X. Ample decides to invest in armor class instead of to-hit bonus.
If Ample's character concept is to be an unhittable cockroach (e.g., the Armor Master archetype), who can charge into a horde of orcs without fear because he can't be touched except on a 20, you've just announced, first, that you're deliberately invalidating his concept, and, second, totally boned all of the other members of his party who don't have ACs in the 40s, but who are nevertheless going to be facing combat with monsters with attack bonuses in the 30s.
If a character can reliably do high damage, and hit consistenly, I am not going to Put higher AC monsters to compensate.
Why? Because as you stated poor nimblefingers is going to get boned.
Well, you did say that "If they have High AC, then there will be monsters with a higher atk bonus. / ETC ETC." So poor Nimblefingers is going to get boned anyway if Lord X. Ample decides to invest in armor class instead of to-hit bonus.
If Ample's character concept is to be an unhittable cockroach (e.g., the Armor Master archetype), who can charge into a horde of orcs without fear because he can't be touched except on a 20, you've just announced, first, that you're deliberately invalidating his concept, and, second, totally boned all of the other members of his party who don't have ACs in the 40s, but who are nevertheless going to be facing combat with monsters with attack bonuses in the 30s.
Well, not to assume... but if I had monsters with normal Atk bonuses attacking Mr.Nimblefingers, he is still going to get boned, because Mr.Nimblefingers is not stacked up on AC (in the 40's).
Plus, Having on person tank the hits, while rogues get into position seem to be the corner stone of most Pathfinder Fights, unless there is a new meta floating around...
I also stated before
"1. More enemies
2. Lower Enemy AC
3. More Enemy HP
4. balanced Damage"
enemies would be more likely to hit armored Fighter #1, less consistently than Mr.Nimblefingers, But it wouldn't make sense to have "rocketTag" mechanics as most people wish to play as and have monsters also scale up on damage. I character with high AC should feel invisible, but should also feel the thrill of battle instead of just standing there.