| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In some ways, I miss the old 3.0 skill system. It would take forever to assign ranks but it gave so much flexibility. Every skill that is removed just further reduces players independence to make their characters as they want them.
I disliked the 3.0 system in that it was often pointless to invest in non-class skills.
In Pathfinder I can make a skill monkey good at a wide variety of what would normally be non-class skills. For example: my magus is good at Disable Device, Perception & Stealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some ways, I miss the old 3.0 skill system. It would take forever to assign ranks but it gave so much flexibility. Every skill that is removed just further reduces players independence to make their characters as they want them.
Gotta disagree, at least partially, here. Consolidation of some skills, notably Spot/Listen/Search into Perception and Hide/Move Silently into Stealth, actually improves things because a player who wants to make a character good at stealth no longer needs to invest in two skills to do the job that should have been accomplished with one. And opposing it with only one skill (perception) actually makes the opposed rolls system functional. Otherwise, with two opposed checks involved, the chance a PC envisioned as "stealthy" was quite unlikely to actually function in that capacity with any success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, a few things. First off, as a GM, I like to roll random encounters, even at night, and I also like to play my enemies intelligently, which means any enemy with a decent stealth modifier will likely be stealthing if they have cause to suspect they are under attack. I'm also about to run Rappan Athuk, and I can't imagine playing that one with at least a few people with strong perception, considering how many secret doors and traps are around. So I can safely say in my games, it's a boon to have Perception.
More than that, though, I'm a fan of splitting the party. I mean, even as a player, I like sessions where the party goes on individual quests of some sort- it adds a lot more flavor and narrative potential. Every other skill I can more or less get around in those situations by sticking to stuff I'm good at- don't volunteer to go alone into the Mage Tower if you don't know anything about Magic, for example. Don't go alone to the Noble's mansion if you haven't specced face skills (or sense motive). But Perception will ALWAYS come up. Perception is the always-present Danger Radar. Splitting the party is almost never ideal, but without Perception (and preferably Stealth too), it's potentially lethal.
Re: Swimming, Climbing. Not having these sucks. But the DCs are low enough that you can get by with only a few points, and they come up rarely enough that you can also get by with a few scrolls of Touch of the Sea, Jump, etc. Grappling Hooks often trivialize Climb checks. Magic doesn't work so well with Perception because it's in the nature of Perception that you don't know you need it until you need it, and at that point it's too late to use a spell. Acrobatics is nearly as important as Perception, but again, you can generally avoid having to use it by never standing near ledges, carrying grappling hooks and rope to avoid forced jumps, never tumble, etc. That doesn't mean it isn't a VERY attractive option, but it does mean that it's possible to avoid having to make acrobatics checks usually. Not so with Perception.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.
That's not a tax.
That's not what a tax is.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
Same with Power Attack, same with most prerequisite feats for any given feat tree,
Yeah, entirely the same except for, you know, being completely different.
A tax is something you have to pay for independently of what you are paying to get what you want -- it's an arbitrary increase in the cost of some capacity, usually by paying for something else that I neither need nor want.
Oh, you want this $200 tortellini polisher? Well, that will cost you the $200 price, plus $50 VAT. Oh, you want the Augment Summoning feat? Well, that will cost you a feat, plus another feat for Spell Focus. Oh, you want to be a Master Spy? Well, you will need to choose that as your next level class,.... plus you will need to take the Iron Will feat, despite the fact that you already have a +36 Will save, and so you neither need nor want it.
D&D 5e is fairly explicit about that in their multiclassing rules. "Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores. [...]For example, a barbarian who decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and Wisdom scores of 13 or higher. " [In other words, you need to pay a tax of being a better druid than a professional druid in order to dabble in first level druid spells.]
Perception is nothing like that. There's no tax involved. There's a capacity that you either want or you don't want, and you can pay the price or not, as you see fit. Furthermore, your complaint isn't that it's overpriced (as it would be if, for example, I charged a huge VAT on something, so that that $200 tortellini folder cost $600 out of pocket and no one in their right mind would pay for it); it's that you get so much capacity for so little investment that most people pay for it as a matter of routine.
I get a similar deal with my retirement account; the company matches what I contribute, which means that I get 100% return instantly for every dime I put into my retirement. As any investment advisor would tell you, that's a no-brainer, and I should pour every dollar I can into the match, eating rice and ramen if I need to. But that's not because my retirement account is taxed, it's because it's f--king subsidized. In Pathfinder, the Perception skill is equally subsidized over older editions precisely because it merges what were already valuable skills (Listen, Search and Spot) into a single, buy-one-get-two skill. That's a better deal than I can get on my retirement account.... small wonder people take it.
So it's the very opposite of a tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.That's not a tax.
That's not what a tax is.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
Same with Power Attack, same with most prerequisite feats for any given feat tree,Yeah, entirely the same except for, you know, being completely different.
A tax is something you have to pay for independently of what you are paying to get what you want -- it's an arbitrary increase in the cost of some capacity, usually by paying for something else that I neither need nor want.
Oh, you want this $200 tortellini polisher? Well, that will cost you the $200 price, plus $50 VAT. Oh, you want the Augment Summoning feat? Well, that will cost you a feat, plus another feat for Spell Focus. Oh, you want to be a Master Spy? Well, you will need to choose that as your next level class,.... plus you will need to take the Iron Will feat, despite the fact that you already have a +36 Will save, and so you neither need nor want it.
D&D 5e is fairly explicit about that in their multiclassing rules. "Without the full training that a beginning character receives, you must be a quick study in your new class, having a natural aptitude that is reflected by higher-than-average ability scores. [...]For example, a barbarian who decides to multiclass into the druid class must have both Strength and Wisdom scores of 13 or higher. " [In other words, you need to pay a tax of being a better druid than a professional druid in order to dabble in first level druid spells.]
Perception is nothing like that. There's no tax involved. There's a capacity that you either want or you don't want, and you can pay the price or not, as you see fit. Furthermore, your complaint isn't that it's overpriced (as it would be if, for example, I charged a huge VAT on...
You could argue that it is a tax in this manner: Oh, you want your character to live past level 3? You'll need to max out your perception!
Yes, I am exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea. Perception can be considered a skill tax by some because they feel like it is a cost you have to pay in order for your character to live through a campaign.
'Tax' in this context normally means 'something you have to get that you don't want, in order to get something else you do want'. Which doesn't really apply here.
Perception is a problem in the slightly different category of 'mandatory choices for characters who want to be effective'. Precise Shot is mandatory feat for serious archers. Point-blank shot is a tax to get Precise Shot - though it is at least an OK feat in itself.
Perception is a nearly-mandatory skill rank at every level for most characters, varying quite a lot according to how much the GM handles suprise rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could argue that it is a tax in this manner: Oh, you want your character to live past level 3? You'll need to max out your perception!
Yes, I am exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea. Perception can be considered a skill tax by some because they feel like it is a cost you have to pay in order for your character to live through a campaign.
Yeah, in that regard it's similar to the concentration skill from 3.0/3.5. Sure, you could make a caster who doesn't take it ... if you want to constantly have your spells fizzle.
Perception is a really good skill to take in PFS, where you don't know if anyone else will have it.
In a group with three high perception characters, nobody cares if the sorcerer put his 2 skill points somewhere else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When making a character I basically consider myself to have 1 less skill point per level to freely divide between skills, because Perception is usually that vital to have.
Whether that fills the exact definition of a tax is something I don't really care about. I'm considering it a tax.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, it's closer to buying a warranty on items known to break. You don't really WANT to pay the extra money, but it's either that or risk having to buy a new character, so to speak, further down the road. Of course, "Skill Warranty" doesn't quite have the same ring.
When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.That's not a tax.
That's not what a tax is.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
You could argue that it is a tax in this manner: Oh, you want your character to live past level 3? You'll need to max out your perception!
Yes, I am exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea. Perception can be considered a skill tax by some because they feel like it is a cost you have to pay in order for your character to live through a campaign.
I'm not sure what wouldn't qualify as a tax under that unreasonably broad definition. If I were to drop a party of level 4 characters into the dungeon with only their WBL in the form of bar platinum (and perhaps a few modesty-preserving loincloths), survival would be a problem for everyone. Maybe the sorcerer and monk would make it out alive, but the fighter sure wouldn't. Is that because she didn't pay the plate-mail-and-greatsword tax? Are flasks of alchemist's fire an oh-Shelyn-no-one-told-me-there-were-swarms-in-here tax?
I guess part of the problem is that a lot of people are looking too hard at PFS and not enough at the team aspects. In PFS, I do need to buy alchemist's fire because I can't rely on the other people -- you know, like the idiot playing a Wis 8 cleric because he wants to subvert the dominant classist paradigm -- to be able to accomplish anything. But in a more stable (and IMHO more typical) game, you are able to survive better because of your teammates.
For example, Draconis Squishius, the sorcerer, can wander around wearing a Chippendale's costume precisely because he can rely on Aedefica Lateriba Doma, the fighter, to handle front-line melee. Similarly, Thingoliel Gondolfin-Jones, the half-elf druid, was rocking a +15 Perception check at first level, and with the keep watch spell can make sure everyone else is nestled, all snug in their beds, while visions of sugar plums dance in their heads -- and Squishius doesn't need it.
Seriously. Baval summarized Perception as follows:
What perception does is:Allows you to notice disguises
allows you to avoid ambushes
allows you to avoid traps
allows you to find hidden things/details
allows you to hear enemies when sleeping (arguably part of avoid ambushes)
allows you to eavesdrop on hidden conversations (including read lips if needed)
I, Squishius, don't need to do any of that -- Thingoliel is better than I am anyway. Or, to put it another way, I have people for that, and they/he will tell us when there is a trap or when someone is in disguise. Thingoliel keeps me alive by telling us when we're about to be ambushed, and I keep him alive by nuking the ambushers from orbit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When making a character I basically consider myself to have 1 less skill point per level to freely divide between skills, because Perception is usually that vital to have.
I agree that Perception is vital to have. I don't agree that it's vital for YOU to have. In fact, I'd argue that it's better for you to do something that you're good at rather that wasting skill points being mediocre at something. There's a very good chance that the druid can tell you who is about to ambush you, but won't be able to bamboozle the bandits out of attacking you. How about you put points into Diplomacy instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, in that regard it's similar to the concentration skill from 3.0/3.5. Sure, you could make a caster who doesn't take it ... if you want to constantly have your spells fizzle.
The difference is that no one else can cast your spells for you, but lots of people can check the chest for traps while you're safely down the hallway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.That's not a tax.
That's not what a tax is.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."
I'm glad we're now arguing semantics. :P
However you wish to call it, it still comes down to the same point. Take it or suffer for not having it when you need it.
And I suppose yes, it is something everyone pays because it is overpriced. It's so overpriced that even being mediocre at it has a much greater value than being mediocre at another skill, just because Perception rolls occur far more often than any other skill. It's a matter of cost effectiveness, and Perception always pays for itself in the end.
Let me propose another question, but more pointedly at GMs. If you don't have your enemies ambush more often, why not? Lots of NPC statblocks in adventures and monster statblocks have respectable Stealth bonuses or even simply middling Stealth bonuses that it would be feasible for them to make the attempt. Lots of monsters are based around ambushes (ropers, kingfishers, vampires, ghouls, wolves, ogres). Many classes benefit from it or do it really well (rogues, slayers, rangers, barbarians). And many intelligent creatures will approach from hiding rather than in the open. I have to wonder whether or not GM's are using their monster's ambush capabilities at all/to their fullest extent. So many classic monsters use these tactics that I am utterly baffled this doesn't come up more often? But apparently that's the case?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."I'm glad we're now arguing semantics. :P
However you wish to call it, it still comes down to the same point. Take it or suffer for not having it when you need it.
That's true of literally everything else in the game. If you don't take armor, you will suffer for not having it when you need it. If you don't put water breathing on your spell list, you will suffer for not having it when you need it. If you don't put enough attribute points into Strength, you will suffer for not having it when you need it. If you don't take levels in monk, you will suffer for not having them when you need them.
Congratulations! Literally everything in Pathfinder is a tax! Welcome to Form 1040, the RPG!
And I suppose yes, it is something everyone pays because it is overpriced. It's so overpriced that even being mediocre at it has a much greater value than being mediocre at another skill, just because Perception rolls occur far more often than any other skill.
As has been pointed out multiple times, this is just wrong. You don't need to be mediocre at Perception when someone else is actively good at it. There's no advantage to having two people find the secret door instead of just one of them. Even if you're trying not to be ambushed, you're better off having one good scout (and using her properly) than having six mediocre ones -- instead, have the scout,... er,... scout. ("Okay, people,.... there are six orcs on either side of the road about two hundred feet ahead, so start buffing now" is a lot better than four people shouting at once "hey, we're being shot at!")
The most common case where everybody really needs to make a perception check are ambushes. The surprise round is only one action. Beyond the first couple of levels, it's hard for a single shot to take anybody down. A save or suck spell might, but those usually are no different during the surprise round as any other round.
The most common case where everybody really needs to make a perception check are ambushes. The surprise round is only one action. Beyond the first couple of levels, it's hard for a single shot to take anybody down. A save or suck spell might, but those usually are no different during the surprise round as any other round.
Except when they have high initiative as well. In which case, you could have a spellcaster casting two spells in a row. Which is...almost always terrible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to Form 1040, the RPG!
You say that in jest, but if you've ever played a wizard...
Anyways, in single character theorycraftoffs, it basically is a requirement.
In parties, it's basically like a knowledge skill, or spellcraft. Someone needs to have a lot of it, but the others can sort of skimp a little if it's covered, and not everyone needs it.
Let me propose another question, but more pointedly at GMs. If you don't have your enemies ambush more often, why not? Lots of NPC statblocks in adventures and monster statblocks have respectable Stealth bonuses or even simply middling Stealth bonuses that it would be feasible for them to make the attempt. Lots of monsters are based around ambushes (ropers, kingfishers, vampires, ghouls, wolves, ogres). Many classes benefit from it or do it really well (rogues, slayers, rangers, barbarians). And many intelligent creatures will approach from hiding rather than in the open. I have to wonder whether or not GM's are using their monster's ambush capabilities at all/to their fullest extent. So many classic monsters use these tactics that I am utterly baffled this doesn't come up more often? But apparently that's the case?
If every encounter is an ambush then my players will think they have to have high initiative and perception or they will die by level 3 and now hate the game because it "taxes" them :)
In all seriousness, I ambush when it makes sense to do so. How often is really campaign dependent and also reliant on player actions. I do subscribe to moderation in all things RPG because I like variety. I don't like players building for my style because its that predictable. YMMV
Question-
In a game where you know before you start that there are going to be a lot of social encounters, would you consider diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate to be skill taxes? Likewise, if you knew there wasn't going to be much in the way of traps or hidden doors, and the only use of perception was to oppose stealth checks, would you consider perception as essential?
The most common case where everybody really needs to make a perception check are ambushes.
One slight emendation. "... are ambushes of tactically unsophisticated parties."
If your party are wandering along, single file, in adjacent five-foot squares, then you're taking unnecessary risks. Yes, in this case, you could easily be wiped out by a single group save-or-suck spells (or even a sufficiently large barrage of fireballs). But, as the old punch line has it, "... well, then, don't do that."
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells. If you want to be a little more professional about it, put scouting elements in front of the main group (and make sure the scouting elements know something about Perception). Yes, sure, that's a possibly high-risk location.... but I'd rather have a whole bunch of BBEG minions jump the ranger (possibly killing him) than jump everyone at once and possibly wipe everyone out. (Especially since, if we're putting the ranger in that position often and she knows it, she can kit herself out for that particular role).
If you want to up your game even further, you can actually adopt anti-ambush formations and tactics. Using fairly simple techniques like "bounding overwatch" can minimize the likelihood of being surprised while preserving the ability to respond in force.
.... or, I suppose, you could just waddle forward in adjacent five foot squares.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me propose another question, but more pointedly at GMs. If you don't have your enemies ambush more often, why not? Lots of NPC statblocks in adventures and monster statblocks have respectable Stealth bonuses or even simply middling Stealth bonuses that it would be feasible for them to make the attempt. Lots of monsters are based around ambushes (ropers, kingfishers, vampires, ghouls, wolves, ogres). Many classes benefit from it or do it really well (rogues, slayers, rangers, barbarians). And many intelligent creatures will approach from hiding rather than in the open. I have to wonder whether or not GM's are using their monster's ambush capabilities at all/to their fullest extent. So many classic monsters use these tactics that I am utterly baffled this doesn't come up more often? But apparently that's the case?If every encounter is an ambush then my players will think they have to have high initiative and perception or they will die by level 3 and now hate the game because it "taxes" them :)
In all seriousness, I ambush when it makes sense to do so. How often is really campaign dependent and also reliant on player actions. I do subscribe to moderation in all things RPG because I like variety. I don't like players building for my style because its that predictable. YMMV
Something else to add is that ambushes are actually extremely difficult to pull off. To ambush someone successfully, you need to know, first, that they are out there are all. Second, you need to know both where and when they are going to approach, and you need to find appropriate ambush terrain along that path. You need to be able to get an ambush force there at the right time -- too late, and the opportunity is missed, but too early and your force will lose focus (it's very hard to sit there in a duck blind for hours on end waiting for something to happen).
Let's spec it out for an instant. My party is riding along a road through the forest, and Little Red Robin Hood might want to rob us. How does she know where we are? Maybe she just got lucky,.... but that's kind of unrealistic. More likely, she had some scouts out herself who spotted us a mile away from the ambush site, and they came back and reported our presence. Why didn't my ranger spot the scouts? If he had spotted the scouts, we could have moved off the road and avoided the whole encounter -- or trapped the trappers. (Which is what most of my players are likely to try.)
Oh, the ranger rolled poorly? All right, I'll accept that. Fair enough. But how is the scout going to get to LRRH and tell her to get the ambush team together and move to the site? I guess the ranger missed the roll to spot the scout returning to base? That figures. But we're moving at a reasonable long-term pace ourselves; the scout and the team need to cover at least the same distance we have to (since we all end up at the same place at the same time). Whups.... we all end up at the same place at the same time, which means that the ranger sees them setting up, and we can move off the road and avoid the whole encounter -- or trap the trappers.
Oh, I guess the road curved and the scout took a short cut. And LRRH has absolutely marvelous discipline among her Perky People, so they can get ready at a moment's notice and actually be there at precisely the right time. But now we come to the ambush site itself. Again, why doesn't the ranger see what a marvelous ambush site this is? The same skills that LRRH used to pick this site are what lets my ranger know that this is a good spot to use extra care, and maybe do some scouting of our own. We can move off the road and avoid the whole encounter -- or trap the trappers.
If every encounter is an ambush then my players will think they have to have high initiative and perception or they will die by level 3 and now hate the game because it "taxes" them :)
In all seriousness, I ambush when it makes sense to do so. How often is really campaign dependent and also reliant on player actions. I do subscribe to moderation in all things RPG because I like variety. I don't like players building for my style because its that predictable. YMMV
I totally agree with moderation, and I think that's just fine. I totally don't advocate having enemies use it ALL the time. But from what I'm hearing, the occurrence of ambushes sounds far lower than it should be? What I'm saying is that many iconic monsters are written to utilize ambush tactics, and many humanoids will probably opt to use them when possible. So I have to ask why it isn't as frequent as it could be.
Question-
In a game where you know before you start that there are going to be a lot of social encounters, would you consider diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate to be skill taxes? Likewise, if you knew there wasn't going to be much in the way of traps or hidden doors, and the only use of perception was to oppose stealth checks, would you consider perception as essential?
I would say having one of those skills high would be nice for each character, because you can actually very easily get away with one character having high social skills (a bard or an investigator both do just fine for any single attribute based skill checks, with CHA and INT skills possibly being covered almost exclusively by both respectively). The problem there comes from it being really boring when you just have that one guy doing all the work for the party, since that leaves out a lot of narrative involvement :P
Perception is radically different. You cannot have someone rolling Perception checks for you on locating and finding creatures for you, as an example. A successful Perception from the scout doesn't, RAW, grant you the ability to see a hidden creature yourself. You have to make the check yourself. Though the scout could tell you the general location or even the square they are in.
I must be somehow coming off as suggesting that everyone should fill the same roll for Perception. No, I'm saying that while you should have a character with exceptionally high Perception for environmental checks and locating creatures (a rogue, a monk, a divine caster that uses WIS), everyone should be investing into Perception however they can. Just sinking ranks into it each level is good enough. And while lots of classes have trouble with that (trust me, I've played my fair share of martials), it helps protect the party as a whole for some really nasty 'what if' scenarios. And protects YOU in these same scenarios.
(likewise, I suppose I'm particularly paranoid as a player, given that all my characters purchase pack animals, carry every piece of equipment we could feasibly require in our journey, and always have 10 foot poles on hand. But I will also argue that when my paranoia peeks, I'm usually glad I have the tools on hand, and often my paranoia is substantiated in some way)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.
I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.
Scouts get caught, scouts miss one trap. They die. And their friends never even find out until it's too late. Just saying. Scouts are kind of rubbish outside of being on-point to check traps roughly 20-30 feet ahead of a party, and should always be in sight of everyone else.
Also, I believe there was a whole thread not too long ago about the importance of not being separated from the party, least you suffer the wrath of some rather agitated pixies.
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.
Yeah, I'd much rather have half the party get hit by a fireball than have the party get split in half by a battlefield control spell.
Plus one of the other statements that comes up a lot is that one person can handle Perception for the whole party. Not going to work if everyone's spread out and separated.
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.Yeah, I'd much rather have half the party get hit by a fireball than have the party get split in half by a battlefield control spell.
Plus one of the other statements that comes up a lot is that one person can handle Perception for the whole party. Not going to work if everyone's spread out and separated.
This is why we need to tie ourselves together with silk rope. If we are always within tugging distance, we can't possibly be beaten!
I would say having one of those skills high would be nice for each character, because you can actually very easily get away with one character having high social skills (a bard or an investigator both do just fine for any single attribute based skill checks, with CHA and INT skills possibly being covered almost exclusively by both respectively). The problem there comes from it being really boring when you just have that one guy doing all the work for the party, since that leaves out a lot of narrative involvement :P
Perception is radically different. You cannot have someone rolling Perception checks for you on locating and finding creatures for you, as an example.
Part of the issue though is that if an intrigue game was going to send the players to a lot of say, fancy parties, then the party won't necessarily all be hanging out together at these parties (that's odd cliquish behavior that will make people nervous/suspicious). So in these sorts of situations then everybody is likely to end up isolated having to talk to an important NPC occasionally.
So if you knew in advance "I may need to befriend more than one high ranking NPCs at a garden/costume/whatever party" would anybody consider, for that specific campaign, that diplomacy was a skill tax?
I think "that perception is necessary" is more due to a standard shape of campaigns (everybody is together, there are many things hidden from sight you may wish to roll to find) than the rules themselves. When you think of it, the standard adventuring party as the A-Team where only Peck (and maybe Smith) talk while Murdock and Baracus stand there silently is pretty weird. There were all kinds of B-stories for Mr. T and Mr. Schultz on that show!
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.Scouts get caught, scouts miss one trap. They die. And their friends never even find out until it's too late. Just saying. Scouts are kind of rubbish outside of being on-point to check traps roughly 20-30 feet ahead of a party, and should always be in sight of everyone else.
Also, I believe there was a whole thread not too long ago about the importance of not being separated from the party, least you suffer the wrath of some rather agitated pixies.
Scouts getting caught have crappy Stealth or abilities to remain undetected, so that's the fault of the Scout not investing in enough Stealth or what have you.
Scouts missing traps (or related to the above point, not finding threatening obstacles) means they don't have high enough Perception to notice the trap (or creature lurking within his midst). Scouts failing to disarm traps is because their Disable Device isn't high enough (or lack the Trapfinding class feature to disable Magical Traps).
Scouts die like any other character. It's a part of the game. Complaining that Scouts can die is no different than complaining about any other character being able to die. Quite frankly, if there was no threat of death (or at the very least, some sort of special consequence of failure), then a lot of people (probably) wouldn't enjoy playing the game.
Also, that one example of a player who, by my reading and understanding, clearly wanted an excuse to not play at that table anymore (as he wasn't playing extremely stupid or volatile until that point), isn't really much of a solid example, nor is it common in a game that specifically promotes working as a team to defeat obstacles set by the GM. More likely than we think, sure, but logically speaking, it defeats the purpose.
Outliers such as that don't compare to the consistent requirement of Perception checks across the multitude of APs and other campaigns.
I would say having one of those skills high would be nice for each character, because you can actually very easily get away with one character having high social skills (a bard or an investigator both do just fine for any single attribute based skill checks, with CHA and INT skills possibly being covered almost exclusively by both respectively). The problem there comes from it being really boring when you just have that one guy doing all the work for the party, since that leaves out a lot of narrative involvement :P
Perception is radically different. You cannot have someone rolling Perception checks for you on locating and finding creatures for you, as an example.
Part of the issue though is that if an intrigue game was going to send the players to a lot of say, fancy parties, then the party won't necessarily all be hanging out together at these parties (that's odd cliquish behavior that will make people nervous/suspicious). So in these sorts of situations then everybody is likely to end up isolated having to talk to an important NPC occasionally.
So if you knew in advance "I may need to befriend more than one high ranking NPCs at a garden/costume/whatever party" would anybody consider, for that specific campaign, that diplomacy was a skill tax?
I think "that perception is necessary" is more due to a standard shape of campaigns (everybody is together, there are many things hidden from sight you may wish to roll to find) than the rules themselves. When you think of it, the standard adventuring party as the A-Team where only Peck (and maybe Smith) talk while Murdock and Baracus stand there silently is pretty weird. There were all kinds of B-stories for Mr. T and Mr. Schultz on that show!
Right. That's expanding the play expectations and is really giving those skills a greater level of importance. So you are totally on the mark with campaign expectations and I hadn't really given that as much due as I should have. In fact, I would point out that Diplomacy has codified rules in Intrigue that provide for that sort of thing, and with the Intrigue rules, they are actually as important as Perception because you are rolling them WAY more and it becomes so much more important.
So you know what? Yes, I would call it another tax XP
Everyone in that situation should have (as I mentioned) something to contribute and have some ability to talk fast. It comes with the expectations of that campaign and the systems it is using. Because you're right. The A Team should all be involved equally. And I think that's why everyone being involved with similar tasks, even if you're not the absolute best person at doing it, is important if those tasks are important. It's about ensuring everyone can contribute rather than putting it on one person, because if they matter than much it shouldn't be down to a single character all the time. Outside of that, you should be okay because the game is far more accommodating with just having one 'face', but far less accommodating when you're all looking for the same hidden creature or being attacked from the stonework (and sometimes literally).
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.Scouts get caught, scouts miss one trap. They die. And their friends never even find out until it's too late. Just saying. Scouts are kind of rubbish outside of being on-point to check traps roughly 20-30 feet ahead of a party, and should always be in sight of everyone else.
Also, I believe there was a whole thread not too long ago about the importance of not being separated from the party, least you suffer the wrath of some rather agitated pixies.
Scouts getting caught have crappy Stealth or abilities to remain undetected, so that's the fault of the Scout not investing in enough Stealth or what have you.
Scouts missing traps (or related to the above point, not finding threatening obstacles) means they don't have high enough Perception to notice the trap (or creature lurking within his midst). Scouts failing to disarm traps is because their Disable Device isn't high enough (or lack the Trapfinding class feature to disable Magical Traps).
Scouts die like any other character. It's a part of the game. Complaining that Scouts can die is no different than complaining about any other character being able to die. Quite frankly, if there was no threat of death (or at the very least, some sort of special consequence of failure), then a lot of people (probably) wouldn't enjoy playing the game.
I don't like dead characters because I enjoy long-lasting character narratives. There is nothing wrong with both increasing my effectiveness to do scouting, but also take further precautions because, well, this game uses random chance to determine success and I enjoy minimizing risks because often that means accepting you have flaws you need allies to help fill up or improve. I suppose that makes me a powergamer. :P
'What if X happens when we do Y' is an important question to ask. The appropriate response should always be 'well, just in case we do encounter a situation where X happens we can do Z, which helps mitigate that a bit'. Having friends nearby is always the simplest solution to most problems. Recognizing that some things just don't work mechanically as you would like is another. Flagrantly disregarding precautions or acknowledging that even if you do invest heavily into something does not prevent failure due to human error is entirely your prerogative but also entirely on you when that backfires and you didn't have a plan B. And plan B is usually from everyone else investing in something moderately and getting lucky, because that's multiple rolls to get lucky on and improves your chances overall.
'What if X happens when we do Y' is an important question to ask. The appropriate response should always be 'well, just in case we do encounter a situation where X happens we can do Z, which helps mitigate that a bit'.
Oh, absolutely. "If you don't have a plan B, you don't have a plan."
But with that said, I disagree strongly with this:
And plan B is usually from everyone else investing in something moderately and getting lucky, because that's multiple rolls to get lucky on and improves your chances overall.
That's generally a terrible plan B. A much better plan B involves doing something different rather than repeating something that you already know was a failure the first time. Part of the reason, of course, is simply that once you've already failed, you've made the job that much harder for yourself ("Oh, Shelyn, our scout was made! Now they're on to us!")
But a bigger reason is that if the best scout in your party couldn't pull it off, then you know (or at least should suspect) that these particular bad guys are really good at making scouts.
This applies more broadly. If I cast my best Will-save-or-suck spell at the BBEG and it gets shrugged off, why follow up with my second best Will=save-or-suck spell? Wouldn't it make more sense to try a Fort-save-or-suck spell? Or some sort of no-save spell that to force the BBEG to change plans? If the monster is immune to my first fireball, should I try another fire spell, or change it up with a cold spell? If it's got DR infinity against my mace, should I try again or switch to a battleaxe?
So, yeah, scouts get made and scouts miss traps. So plan A should be to make the scout as effective as possible, and plan B should involve something different, something like pulling the scout out of the meat grinder and fighting at a stand-off distance. Remember that if you know the scout has been made, the ambush of the main party has already failed, so you actually "won" by using the scout. I'm sure that will make him feel better when he regains consciousness after the fight.
If I cast my best Will-save-or-suck spell at the BBEG and it gets shrugged off, why follow up with my second best Will=save-or-suck spell?Because he might have rolled an 18 and would actually fail on a 10 or less? A d20 is a very large variance.
Exactly. Plan B might not be the best way of describing it. I'm saying that you should try to mitigate failure. And the cost for doing that is fairly low, all things consider. You don't have to even take feats or specific class features. Just sink a rank into Perception every level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the cost for doing that is fairly low, all things consider. You don't have to even take feats or specific class features. Just sink a rank into Perception every level.
Shrug. A few posts ago, you were complaining that a rank in Perception for everyone at every level is way too expensive. When I point out an even cheaper way to succeed, simply by putting those ranks into making sure the party is actively good at a variety of things instead of everyone being mediocre at the same thing, now all of a sudden it's low-cost?
If I cast my best Will-save-or-suck spell at the BBEG and it gets shrugged off, why follow up with my second best Will=save-or-suck spell?Because he might have rolled an 18 and would actually fail on a 10 or less? A d20 is a very large variance.
Exactly this. Usually the scout getting caught or otherwise getting in trouble isn't a matter of them not having enough stealth or perception, it's them getting a bad roll and/or an opponent getting a good one. It seems like some people assume every single roll can get a Take 10 despite the many limits on that.
And the cost for doing that is fairly low, all things consider. You don't have to even take feats or specific class features. Just sink a rank into Perception every level.Shrug. A few posts ago, you were complaining that a rank in Perception for everyone at every level is way too expensive. When I point out an even cheaper way to succeed, simply by putting those ranks into making sure the party is actively good at a variety of things instead of everyone being mediocre at the same thing, now all of a sudden it's low-cost?
It's low cost, but a cost you have to pay. I also said a few posts ago that it's value to cost was very efficient, with each rank being valued much higher than other skills. In itself, it's not expensive. But not paying the cost is going to screw you over in the long run.
You wanted a better example? Think of Perception as insurance. Danger insurance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through all the posts in this thread I think it is reasonable to summarise the situation as follows:
Perception is like an investment, and a good investment most of the time because there is a good return for a relatively small cost in skill points. And like an investment it is optional, it is possible to build effective characters without investing in Perception at all.
Perception is nothing like a tax, as taxes generally speaking are mandatory and yield little or no benefit.
And the cost for doing that is fairly low, all things consider. You don't have to even take feats or specific class features. Just sink a rank into Perception every level.Shrug. A few posts ago, you were complaining that a rank in Perception for everyone at every level is way too expensive. When I point out an even cheaper way to succeed, simply by putting those ranks into making sure the party is actively good at a variety of things instead of everyone being mediocre at the same thing, now all of a sudden it's low-cost?
It's low cost, but a cost you have to pay. I also said a few posts ago that it's value to cost was very efficient, with each rank being valued much higher than other skills. In itself, it's not expensive. But not paying the cost is going to screw you over in the long run.
You wanted a better example? Think of Perception as insurance. Danger insurance.
But danger insurance is so much cheaper when message is at-will and there's an invisible half-elf inquisitor in the party, who at 10th level had a Perception of over +35 and a Stealth of over +30 before applying the +20 from invisibility while moving, and being able to roll twice and take the higher result 4 times a day.
Sure, I could have my magus take max ranks in Perception for a +10, or the wizard could take max ranks for a... +10. Or the bard could go max ranks for a +13... but the Inquisitor will have already spotted the ambush 200 feet before we stand a chance to, and usually, well before they can spring it. So are those skill ranks well spent? Well.... no, not really.
It's highly GM dependent. Neither of the GMs I play with generally let you spot ambushes until they are triggered, and then it just lets you act in any surprise round if you make it.
Most players I know wouldn't let their GMs get away with this very much (if at all), on the general principle that for the ambushers to know when the PCs were close enough to trigger the ambush, they had to be able to see the PCs. And if the bad guys can draw line of sight to the PCs, the PCs must be able to draw line of sight to the bad guys, and that means there's a Perception DC.
Having a really high DC due to Improved Cover (+8), distance and sneaky bad guys taking-10 is something that is generally accepted. Stonewalling the PCs and refusing to let them roll at all until they've blundered point blank into an ambush is generally not, and absolutely not on a repeated basis.
Or in short: Perception checks are normally used to determine the encounter distance.
After reading through all the posts in this thread I think it is reasonable to summarise the situation as follows:
Perception is like an investment, and a good investment most of the time because there is a good return for a relatively small cost in skill points. And like an investment it is optional, it is possible to build effective characters without investing in Perception at all.
Perception is nothing like a tax, as taxes generally speaking are mandatory and yield little or no benefit.
Yeah I think 'tax' is still a clunky and inaccurate way of phrasing it so yeah, not a tax but
It's highly GM dependent. Neither of the GMs I play with generally let you spot ambushes until they are triggered, and then it just lets you act in any surprise round if you make it.
Honestly yeah definitely this. If all those things people mention work in their games, why on earth would it matter? This works for you, and that's totally cool, but also there is some disparity how Perception is handled? Clearly this is a YMMV situation.
But danger insurance is so much cheaper when message is at-will and there's an invisible half-elf inquisitor in the party, who at 10th level had a Perception of over +35 and a Stealth of over +30 before applying the +20 from invisibility while moving, and being able to roll twice and take the higher result 4 times a day.
Sure, I could have my magus take max ranks in Perception for a +10, or the wizard could take max ranks for a... +10. Or the bard could go max ranks for a +13... but the Inquisitor will have already spotted the ambush 200 feet before we stand a chance to, and usually, well before they can spring it. So are those skill ranks well spent? Well.... no, not really.
Casters do caster things and solve all the problems. I suppose I can't argue against that since casters already completely disregard the system limitations most of time. I think we've brought up how DUMB invisibility is, but that's beside the point.
That said, that also assumes your party is okay waiting while a single character metal gears their way through a whole dungeon like some Lesser Arcane Eye. so that goes back to playstyle stuff. And that's just not everyone's play-style. Speaking of Arcane Eye, that's another way casters game the system. Divination make all of this irrelevant.
If we start asking the question of 'Why do X when we have a caster who can solve that' we might as well ask why even bother playing anything but spellcasters if they can solve all these problems so well while their mundane brethren just have to accept that they are going to be mincemeat. :P
But danger insurance is so much cheaper when message is at-will and there's an invisible half-elf inquisitor in the party, who at 10th level had a Perception of over +35 and a Stealth of over +30 before applying the +20 from invisibility while moving, and being able to roll twice and take the higher result 4 times a day.
You wanted a better example? Think of Perception as insurance. Danger insurance.
Shrug. Insurance is almost always a bad investment (which is why MetLife lives on 6th Avenue, Manhattan, and I don't). More accurately, it's a bad investment if you have other ways to deal with the risk you're insuring against, and you want to make sure that you pay as little as possible for the insurance you do need to buy -- that's simple common sense.
Maxing your ranks in Perception, like maxing your ranks in Diplomacy, will let you try again when the person who is actually good at in in the party fails. That's a risk mitigation strategy, but I already outlined why it's not a very good one.
Sure, I could have my magus take max ranks in Perception for a +10, or the wizard could take max ranks for a... +10. Or the bard could go max ranks for a +13... but the Inquisitor will have already spotted the ambush 200 feet before we stand a chance to, and usually, well before they can spring it. So are those skill ranks well spent? Well.... no, not really.
Yeah.
Boomerang Nebula had it right. If you can't think of anything actually useful to do with your skill points, Perception is often a good spot to put them. But if there's something that you actually want to do with the skill points, it's far from a mandatory expenditure. In that regard, it's like everything else in the game; there are good options, there are bad options, and so forth -- Spell Focus (conjuration) may not be the best use of my monk's feats, but heavy armor proficiency may not be the best use of my wizard's, either....
Buy the capabilities that you need and use those capabilities intelligently.
Casters do caster things and solve all the problems. I suppose I can't argue against that since casters already completely disregard the system limitations most of time. I think we've brought up how DUMB invisibility is, but that's beside the point.
Smart casters bring skills to the table and save resources for problems that cannot be solved without magic.
And if you're that worried about invisibility, I recommend Blindfight and one of a half-dozen ways to acquire Scent. If you're a martial, I recommend both anyway - magical darkness and other methods of blocking sight is a thing in Pathfinder.
And if you're that worried about invisibility, I recommend Blindfight and one of a half-dozen ways to acquire Scent. If you're a martial, I recommend both anyway - magical darkness and other methods of blocking sight is a thing in Pathfinder.
FYI, unless I am missing something, Scent+Blindfight is a pretty bad solution to invisibility. It is a move action to find the direction of the caster, another move action to walk up to them, and nothing stops the caster from shifting location next turn because you can't AoO them (and god help you if the caster has a >30ft move speed). The only thing you can do is act as a spotter for another party member. The alternative is wandering around for a turn and hoping you come within 5ft of the caster (yay for dubious reliability).
Don't worry though, because I am sure your local arcane caster can glitterdust your problems away in a jiffy.
This is why we need to tie ourselves together with silk rope. If we are always within tugging distance, we can't possibly be beaten!
I have never ever seen the 'tie us together' trick work.
I remember doing it once, and someone in the rope line was swallowed whole. It was... awkward.
emember that if you know the scout has been made, the ambush of the main party has already failed, so you actually "won" by using the scout. I'm sure that will make him feel better when he regains consciousness after the fight.
Shouldn't that be "will make him feel better if he regains consciousness after the fight"?
emember that if you know the scout has been made, the ambush of the main party has already failed, so you actually "won" by using the scout. I'm sure that will make him feel better when he regains consciousness after the fight.Shouldn't that be "will make him feel better if he regains consciousness after the fight"?
I wrote what I wrote. If your contingency plan doesn't include ways to return him to consciousness, it's not a very good plan, is it?
If he's caught on his own, he's dead unless you have a kindly GM. Low level parties don't have a cure for that.
If he's caught on his own, he's dead unless you have a kindly GM. Low level parties don't have a cure for that.
If he's out of message range (medium), then that could be a problem.
If he's in message range, then help is very, very close behind.
And in Pathfinder, where a 1st level message is 110 feet, and thus a -11 to enemy Perception checks to see the rest of the party... even the fighter in scale mail's Stealth isn't so shabby against low level enemies.
The scout doesn't need to be miles ahead, just far enough that the Perception check makes his clodhopping allies a little less noticeable.