Hi, I was curious if and how many out there also have taken some of the good ideas of 4th edition and adapted them to your Pathfinder game?
I am not talking about the power system, but some of the things they did to solve issues that Pathfinder did not cover like "Passive perception" & "Passive Insight," for example.
Me,
I use the passive rules for those two skills (in the case of PF: "Passive Sense Motive"), movement rules (so movement is 1 square no matter if it is diagonal, but terrain still counts with us) and no confirming critical hits (I always found that kind of mean, so a critical is just a critical). I also don't use random charts (encounters or anything really. Too random ;)
The Pathfinder Society books have you pick from Character Ability arrays and give you a set amount of hit points each level, so there was no need to cross that over (thank you guys for doing that by the way) and the Hero points are way better than the action points (though, the rules are a little more conservative than I like, but it's easy to not be so stingy ;)
I liked their attempt to make non-combat encounters interesting by using Skill Challenges, but in the end found it was a little too meta gaming (or artificial) to the story. I am working on easy rules for social conflict similar to how Savage Worlds does it, but have yet to test them in play (on some social skills rolls, it is not very in depth to just use one roll, especially if you are interrogating someone or trying to convince the village elder to listen to your character about the Ork threat coming their way).
I am not trying to get people to trash D&D because if you are reading this it is obvious which game you like better, but for anyone who had read 4th Ed (especially the essentials line), there was some cool ideas & advice that would work just as well with Pathfinder (I am sure they will get rid of all that in 5th edition ;)
passive sense motive, perception, bloodied condition, and diagonals count as 1 square always.
Diagonals count as one square.
I use minions although have always used the idea that monsters are not built like PCs (so I guess that counts, even though I did it playing 3.5 as well).
I also use skill challenges, although not in social situations.
I'm trying to work out a good way to use inherent bonuses, but it's a little complicated for me.
We also use the shift maneuver in place of a five foot step, but also allow iterative attacks with a standard attack action, so that's combination 4E and houserule, I suppose.
i dont use minions but i do use the organized groups so that my goblin encounters may have 2 guys with bows, 2 with melee weapons and 1 guy on a warg with maybe a spell or two (as an example)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the GMs I game with uses the "bloodied" condition reference now. Passive perception and sense motive seem like they might be useful ideas.
The "movement is always 1 per square" rule-- no. The diagonal rule found in PF and D&D 3.0/3.5 is not bad as an approximation while keeping everything on a square grid-- close enough that you'd have to go around 10 squares to close in on being 1 square off if you went for precise math... I really don't find the PF & 3.5 system to be complicated or hard to deal with in play, and I very strongly dislike the urge to reject basic geometry and simple math in game play.
Passive sense motive and passive perception are givens. I don't use skill challenges as written persay, but I do build a little more structure into social encounters than I did before experiences with 4e. Kind of a hybrid. I don't roll for hit points, but I stopped doing that about eleven seconds after I started running 3rd, so that's not really a 4e import. I also use the "make a perception check at the beginning of your watch shift" rule; I don't even know if that's new for 4e, but I never noticed it before.
I'm toying with a "magical healing scaling with a character's total HP in some fashion" conversion, but I'm not sure the best way to make the numbers work out.
While it's not an explicit import, many custom items I design have per-encounter abilities, rather than per-day abilities. Similarly, any monsters I design import tons of features and the general design ethos of 4e monster design, because 4e monster design makes 3.5/PF monster design look like a festering pile of bland, samey, indistinct failure.
There's other things that I wish PF had that 4e has - dramatically more careful writing on abilities (to be fair, a lot of the lousy stuff in PF is rotting 3.5 material just pasted in and 4e is far from perfect), that every standard combat style can be made to work from the get-go, rather than requiring you to burn through half your career accumulating feats that lift the penalties on it (I'm looking at you, crossbows), mechanical monster design where the monsters are built for a game where humans are having fun and not for a blandness competition, better incentives for pursuing a theme, a simpler and better way of handling combat advantage ("combat advantage"), a team-focused design ethos, a more encounter-based resource system that doesn't so strongly encourage (though doesn't satisfactorily eliminate) the 15-minute work day, etc., - but nothing else directly importable springs to mind. 4e's skills are divided up in a way that works better at makes it easier for more characters to contribute interestingly in more kinds of scenarios, but that'd require more of a skill system rebuild than I want to bother with.
Passive perception and sense motive?
By that do you mean it is always on, the characters are always looking around for dangers, all directions, up and down simultaneously, and do not have to state where they are looking and what they are looking or listening for? Are they also passively searching for traps without taking the movement penalty?
On sense motive, are they trying to sense the intent behind any and all conversations around them, without a requirement of participating in the conversation or focusing on one target?
Now just imagine, someone trying to do all of those things, at one time, while doing other actions, like walking or keeping their guard up, or interacting with people. I really do question if they have any actions left apart from a 5ft if they are constantly making perception and sense motive checks against any and everything. Really against this passive idea.
Done some checking up, perception is reactive if there is something to sense or a part of the scene to pick up. If you are actively using it to search or constantly making the check around you, it is a move action. Sense motive takes a whole minute with a target, and, as it states "you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you" (Core: 104). One is a move, one takes a turn, you can't do them both in the same round and have them passively on all the time because there are requirements. If it is under a minute that you have been with a target, can't make the sense motive yet. If you are also constantly making perception checks, you are also continually burning a move. If you are taking the full turn to suss them out, you don't have any more actions apart from talking. So you can hear something loud that happens around you (reactive), but you can't actively make perception checks on say behind and around you, while making a minute-long sense motive check on a target.
Which means gentle rogues, a distraction that talks to the party, bluffs, gets their suspicion up and their attention on the lure, is a good set-up for an ambush or backstab. They get a reactive check as the sneak attack is about to be made, but don't get a passive always on every round perception check. One also can't make double moves, and other full round actions while making a perception check.
What did you bring back?
I don't use 4th ed, but remain quite interested in many types of rulesets and modified house rules.
|
|
Seems that someone out there has suggested that you shouldn't be able to notice anything unless you've stopped and are doing nothing else but looking and listening, or some similar such set of notions.
Now just imagine, someone who is deaf, dumb, and blind, unless they are specifically looking for something in particular... who doesn't see, hear, or notice anything except when they're concentrating on looking for that thing. I find that more ridiculous, by far, than the idea that people will often notice things going on around them whether they're paying attention to it or not, and that more observant people will notice more, even without specifically searching for something, than less observant people will.
Passive perception and passive sense motive-- is a pretty good idea, for determining how much a character will notice going on around him/her without specifically dedicating his/her time to searching an area; and to how well he/she will "read" another person's intentions in their speech and actions without concentrating on interrogation techniques and methods of profiling another person.
While I recognize that one will tend to notice more when one stops and concentrates on just observing and/or searching an area or a person, or closely examining an object; I'm really against this idea that you won't notice anything unless you specifically set aside an "action" to look.
Starting characters all start with the same amount of gold, and diagonals as one square.
The original HD value for classes, cover rules, dual wielding requiring the Ambidexterity feat, and an "expanded" skill list, mostly.
And the various "Animal's Ability" (eg. Bull's Strenght) back to a randomly determined value.
Hells yeah. I stick with the pre-pathfinder hit die values, been thinking of bringing in the old cover rules, prefer them. I see I am not forever alone guy.
Hey Finn, there is a reactive element to perception, and of course it exists as the counter to stealth. I want the players involved and telling me what they focus upon, not give all for free and assumed. As for sense motive, passive is really not how that works. It is 1 minute on one target remember? Although I do allow hunches and such after a bit of interaction, to gauge some character if an npc does something or speaks for a bit (which I suppose is about 1 minute of time). Players don't have to roll sense motive, they can choose to do something else. There is something being missed about sense motive though, if you are really making the check, it can set off alarm bells in that actor and they can get defensive or refuse to answer questions (if they sense motive your sense motive or it is really obvious). So always being alert for deception seems a little odd to me. How strained the relationships with non pcs must be!
So to be clear, you do run searching for traps as a passive perception check?
My group uses the bloodied condition. Not mechanically, but to denote that a monster is nearly defeated or a player needs healing without tossing around numbers.
One square, regardless if diagonal or not, is one square. We did this before 4th Ed for simplicity. I've been meaning to incorporate measuring tape/sticks on some Warhammer terrain that I have lying about, but haven't had the chance just yet.
I'm toying with the idea of making the 5' step a swift action that can be used with a standard and move actions, but haven't tested it yet with charging rules (where it might be too good).
A lot of people use the reach ruling from 4Ed as this makes the second square on a diagonal 10ft with reach or a reach weapon.
In pathfinder the second square is actually 15ft away. Thus in Pathfinder you have gaps which according to RAW allow an enemy to close on a player with reach using the diagonal and not provoke an AoO.
3.5 Loyalist: what Fin had said about the passive rules, but let me take it a bit further in what their theory was:
It is an attempt to streamline the idea that your character just might spot something they were about to walk into or might have not spotted without looking. It is a low number compared to what you would get if you were actively looking, but for people like me who don't want people to constantly roll on the small details, it's clever and useful.
The Sense motive part is similar to give players clues if they were not thinking that the person at the door of the inn was looking at theme strangely for some reason (tho, I might just tell them that anyway).
It solves the issue of the "Me too" rule. "John, roll perception," then everyone at the table starts to get suspicious or asks "me too, I want to roll per." It also raises suspicions if you roll for the players on some of these because then they know something is up.
Now, common sense does trump these rules, but those were the problems I had that these two passive rules solved.
I liked the +1 to two stats at stat boosting levels. So I took that and at at level 8 and 16 characters get to add +1 to two stats.
I like the passive perception and sense motive concept but haven't implemented it. I think I should.
|
|
It is an attempt to streamline the idea that your character just might spot something they were about to walk into or might have not spotted without looking. It is a low number compared to what you would get if you were actively looking, but for people like me who don't want people to constantly roll on the small details, it's clever and useful.The Sense motive part is similar to give players clues if they were not thinking that the person at the door of the inn was looking at theme strangely for some reason (tho, I might just tell them that anyway).
It solves the issue of the "Me too" rule. "John, roll perception," then everyone at the table starts to get suspicious or asks "me too, I want to roll per." It also raises suspicions if you roll for the players on some of these because then they know something is up.
Now, common sense does trump these rules, but those were the problems I had that these two passive rules solved.
If I'm recalling 4E aright-- been quite a while since I quit the 4E games I was in, haven't played it since-- the passive rules essentially were a "take 10" as far as the effective rolls they gave you. To actually make it a low number, compared to what you'd get on average when actively looking would take a little more alteration, I think (unless the thought was that one could make multiple active perception checks to scan an area until you found what you were looking for or were certain it wasn't out there).
I'm not sure what the best way is to handle the concept that you should notice things without actively looking or actively 'interrogating' someone (as opposed to just casually chatting), but that you should be better at noticing things when you are specifically concentrating on looking for it (with perception and sense motive both). The two thoughts I have on this would be to either limit some things (such as subtle traps) to being found on active checks only, or make the passive 'check value' x+skill bonus, with 'x' being some value less than 10, instead of the '10+skill bonus' that 4E uses.
Haven't implemented either of them (yet) since I'm not the one running the two PF games I'm currently in (though I am one of the people in the group who is consulted on ideas for house-rules, so I may suggest these).
The only things I have thought about using are the Skill Challenges, because the d20 is so fickle...or, modified minion rules, not 1HP, but minimal HP. Because 1HP giants are stupid...But an 8d+16=24HP giant is easy without being a stupidly easy kill...kind of like the troll in Lord of the Rings.
BBEGs ALWAYS have Max HP
Lts/Mini Bosses have 75% max
regular guys have average
minions have minimal
|
|
The only things I have thought about using are the Skill Challenges, because the d20 is so fickle...or, modified minion rules, not 1HP, but minimal HP. Because 1HP giants are stupid...But an 8d+16=24HP giant is easy without being a stupidly easy kill...kind of like the troll in Lord of the Rings.
BBEGs ALWAYS have Max HP
Lts/Mini Bosses have 75% max
regular guys have average
minions have minimal
Xaaon--
Minions were thought up and used in 'Mutants & Masterminds' (as well as other games) before 4E ever got hold of the idea...
However, I don't think any of them have thought of handling minions through bosses, hit-points-wise, quite the way you have. Excellent idea-- Think I'll borrow yours if you don't mind. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also like the idea of critical hits do max damage. at higher levels, it's really useful.
Passive perception and sense motive?
By that do you mean it is always on, the characters are always looking around for dangers, all directions, up and down simultaneously, and do not have to state where they are looking and what they are looking or listening for? Are they also passively searching for traps without taking the movement penalty?
On sense motive, are they trying to sense the intent behind any and all conversations around them, without a requirement of participating in the conversation or focusing on one target?
Now just imagine, someone trying to do all of those things, at one time, while doing other actions, like walking or keeping their guard up, or interacting with people. I really do question if they have any actions left apart from a 5ft if they are constantly making perception and sense motive checks against any and everything. Really against this passive idea.
Done some checking up, perception is reactive if there is something to sense or a part of the scene to pick up. If you are actively using it to search or constantly making the check around you, it is a move action. Sense motive takes a whole minute with a target, and, as it states "you could spend a whole evening trying to get a sense of the people around you" (Core: 104). One is a move, one takes a turn, you can't do them both in the same round and have them passively on all the time because there are requirements. If it is under a minute that you have been with a target, can't make the sense motive yet. If you are also constantly making perception checks, you are also continually burning a move. If you are taking the full turn to suss them out, you don't have any more actions apart from talking. So you can hear something loud that happens around you (reactive), but you can't actively make perception checks on say behind and around you, while making a minute-long sense motive check on a target.
Which means gentle rogues, a distraction that talks to the party, bluffs, gets their suspicion up and their attention on the...
Most people are under the assumption that adventurers don't wear two eye patches when they're passively looking at things.
Well you can try and make my position look ridiculous, but I want to convince you otherwise.
I have heard people try and defend always on passive checks before. Often they will use a wonderful little division of their actions and the character, which is actually in the world and is doing situationally sensible actions all the time. So, if say, they weren't paying attention or giving any indicating that their characters was searching, they like to claim, oh my character is actually doing what I didn't say they were doing. This comes up for traps, ambushes, missed opportunities etc. I have seen players try to jump back in time, and argue that they should be able to do so, so that they can get something or into a more advantageous position.
Of course I was searching for traps, I didn't say it, but my character was doing it. This presents a problem, because this isn't a computer game with a world that you are looking at all around you, in front of your eyes. Your characters goes and does what you say you are doing, to the dm. So if they say, I walk down the road, with no indication of anything else. That doesn't mean they are carefully walking and checking everything that they pass. The dm should describe a bit, but they have not said they are making constant perceptions for anything of note. If they do so and are wasting their time, the dm can inform them of such. Or really launch into a description of the region and its people (yay!).
As you can see, I really want my players involved, and I don't want to give them much for free, apart from general description, some details. Certainly nothing hidden, and I do like to hide a bit for the pcs to discover. Now the "roll perception" can be over-played. I have been involved with a dm that used it all the time. It got tiresome fast, especially when you literally want to know what is right in front of you. If a character does truly want to check every nook and cranny, and slow down, they should probably roll a check every hour or so, and not every six seconds, that would just get tiresome. If they don't slow down, they are on penalties to detect traps even with your passive ruling on perception. In dungeons of course players should slow down and be smart about their delving.
Now the skill section talks about modifying checks, if a player gives no indication of actually paying attention, or to any detail in particular, I would allow a passive check for anything closing in or so, but they really should be on a penalty. Their character they are piloting is not alert. They are giving no indication that they are. They can try and say their character is doing something advantageous after the fact, but they actually were not. Perhaps put them on a -2. If they are doing something else, perhaps even more penalties. As I write this, I am not looking behind me or checking for traps as an example.
Adventuring is dangerous and fraught with peril. If the player aren't being careful they shouldn't be rewarded for this and protected from negative consequences. If they do want to really check their surroundings for any traps while listening for outer movement, they are slowed down. A dm can help them see the merits, by showing the benefits of taking it easy and hearing out foes, finding traps, if they have the time to spare to take it slow. If they want to get to the heart of people they have to stop and do this, take the time and unfortunately, act a bit like a suspicious detective.
Sometimes I see things without looking for them. I think that's the point.
Although my actual argument would go "does passive perception make the game run quicker? Is there less dice rolling? Is it roughly comparable in terms of how much stuff gets seen?....yes to all that?...Then it's a good thing."
If you don't use passive perception, you make it correct to have to always note that you're looking around for anything suspicious. That gets wearisome after about an hour or two of non-theoretical play. My tack is this: the characters are adventurers who are often in dangerous situations. Their default is probably that they're being careful. Making the player append "and I'm looking around for suspicious stuff" to every description of an action rapidly becomes - in actual play - more of a joke than anything else. A character isn't a mindless lemming that walks blindly into danger unless the player specifies otherwise. You don't deny a player a reflex save because he didn't say "I try to get out of the way of the worst of the fireball". If a character wears armor every single adventuring day and there wasn't any particular rush at wake-up time, you assume the character put on his armor in the morning even if the player doesn't mention it. I guess my group sees the player character relationship as more of "the player makes the decisions the character makes, and if the player says the character is doing something, everyone assumes the character is doing it in a way that makes reasonable sense given the situation, not behaving like some kind of mindless overly-literal automaton" rather than "the player puppets the character completely, and the character is an inert mass except for actions the player specifically specifies." I want my players to be careful about their decisions, not about whether they're remembering to say the magic words frequently enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea from "Trail of Cthulu" that if you have a skill and you are looking in the right place or asking the right questions and it's an important clue, give it to them (tho, to be fair, I believe that rule was also in Spirit of the Century before ToC came out).
I noticed D&D Essentials had the same concept on their skill challenges and I welcomed that crap whole heartedly! (lol)
I would allow passive checks, but not using their skill bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely agree that you shouldn't be able to find traps with a passive perception check and that you should take penalties.
If you apply penalties too broadly, you don't fix any of the issues. You still make it correct to append "and I'm searching carefully enough to get my full perception bonus" to every action. Players follow mechanical motivations. If you mechanically motivate something silly, players will in general do it. (At least players who care about their characters and who understand the rules you're using and their implications.) It's the Guidance Cantrip issue, but writ into every action the characters take.
|
|
If you don't use passive perception, you make it correct to have to always note that you're looking around for anything suspicious. That gets wearisome after about an hour or two of non-theoretical play. My tack is this: the characters are adventurers who are often in dangerous situations. Their default is probably that they're being careful. Making the player append "and I'm looking around for suspicious stuff" to every description of an action rapidly becomes - in actual play - more of a joke than anything else. A character isn't a mindless lemming that walks blindly into danger unless the player specifies otherwise. You don't deny a player a reflex save because he didn't say "I try to get out of the way of the worst of the fireball". If a character wears armor every single adventuring day and there wasn't any particular rush at wake-up time, you assume the character put on his armor in the morning even if the player doesn't mention it. I guess my group sees the player character relationship as more of "the player makes the decisions the character makes, and if the player says the character is doing something, everyone assumes the character is doing it in a way that makes reasonable sense given the situation, not behaving like some kind of mindless overly-literal automaton" rather than "the player puppets the character completely, and the character is an inert mass except for actions the player specifically specifies." I want my players to be careful about their decisions, not about whether they're remembering to say the magic words frequently enough.
+1. Excellent post, Joyd.
For my part-- I'd add an extra comment on this, regarding how I might define the difference between passive and active checks, and what you can tell with each one:
The characters (presumably) are talented, reasonably experienced adventurers... one can presume that they are usually alert and like any good soldier on patrol, maintaining good situational awareness. They are keeping track of their surroundings and what's going on around them. They probably are looking up and looking at the ground in front of them (at least occasionally). Things happening around them will get noticed, if it's not too subtle and/or well-hidden to be picked up. These things are basic reflexes to a soldier, a cop, a hunter... and IMO should not need to be spelled out every step, as some people seem to require in their games-- because adventurer PCs ought to be up to at least the standard of "Pvt Joe Snuffy, just graduated from basic training". Maintaining good situational awareness is a basic survival skill-- IMO, that's what passive perception is supposed to represent. Yes, I would agree that your 'passive perception' ability, such as it is in game terms, should be impaired (just as it is for regular humans in RL), if you're concentrating particularly hard on a particular task or action-- that tends to take away from your 'situational awareness' for the rest of your surroundings, even for trained and justifiably paranoid individuals such as adventurers (or cops, or soldiers...).
On passive sense motive-- most people, except the truly dense, socially-impaired, and those totally lacking in empathy-- generally are able to pick up on social cues that give them some idea of another person's mood, maybe a little bit about their motives, a basic idea if someone's trying to sell them a line-- without needing to consciously think about these things, and if something does trigger a thought in them, can usually be reflexively considered without changing anything in their outward behavior unless their realization of the other person's state and actions disturbs them. In short, we can and do (try to) read other people all the time, without needing to take action to do so. It's basic, passive observation and the brain's natural ability to process what we observe, based on our past experiences. So-- yeah, "passive sense motive" is IMO called for in the game, for that natural sense of what others may be up to and whether someone is trying to sell you a line. Distractions will also hinder your ability to pick up on the feelings of others (besides the person distracting you, if it's an individual providing the distraction).
Now, active perception-- IMO, is what happens (in civvy life) when you've lost a set of keys and are very carefully searching a room for where you might have lost them-- or going back along the sidewalk where you thought you dropped them, carefully scanning every step; or perhaps you're supposed to meet someone in a crowded square, and you're concentrating on scanning the crowd, trying to spot your friend... In a mode much like the modern military example, active perception is when you're very carefully scanning the next treeline, trying to spot the hidden enemy fighting positions you suspect are over there; or the very careful, literally searching every inch of ground in front of you as you proceed very very slowly, perhaps using other senses as well (especially touch) because you suspect you're entering a minefield and you want to find that mine without setting it off (I'd call this, the direct equivalent to the party rogue intentionally searching for traps); or it's dark, and you've stopped your night patrol's movement to take a moment and concentrate on listening for any noises/sounds out of the ordinary in your surroundings. I'm still not sure of the best way to work these mechanics in PF, but while you should be able to pick up on a lot of things (and be better at it the more observant a person you are) without concentrating, you should be better still at noticing things when you are deliberately concentrating on looking/listening for them (and/or concentrating on your other senses, depending on what you're trying to notice)-- for instance, the 'mines' example above: if you know what to look for and you're deliberately, carefully looking, you're likely to spot the disturbed ground, tripwire, fuse pins, whatever-- the very subtle (but noticeable to the trained eye) signs that the mine is there-- but even if you know exactly what to look for and would see it easily on a careful search, you'd still probably walk right past it (or set it off) if you didn't slow down and go into "careful search mode" before getting up to it.
"Active" use of sense motive is trickier-- we tend to be better at detecting someone's motivations, whether they're bluffing or not, if we're being lied to-- when we're suspicious and explicitly thinking about what the other person is saying and/or doing... but it's still more passive observation than actually doing something. Sense motive IMO is more like an analytical "knowledge" skill, than it is a skill that represents any sort of physical activity. However, if you are concentrating on what someone else is doing or saying like that-- yes, someone else might apply "sense motive" (active or passive) to notice what you're focusing on. However, truly 'active' use of sense motive, such as questioning someone you think might have been lying to you, IMO combines 'sense motive' with the use of another social skill (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate-- depending on how you approach that other person and ask your questions). Likewise, perhaps that means that if you're simply observing someone else to try to figure out what they're up to, maybe that should be perception + sense motive.
|
|
I absolutely agree that you shouldn't be able to find traps with a passive perception check and that you should take penalties.
I wouldn't say "no chance" of finding traps with passive perception-- just much less of a chance than if you're actively and carefully searching for them (depending on the trap and how well it's hidden, too)-- it's much easier to find a large hidden pit trap (the cover is inherently going to be easier to see, due to size and area that may be distinguishable from the surrounding ground), than a single caltrop (which is still not too hard to spot), than a very very thin, nearly invisible to the naked eye, trip-wire (that is going to be very easy to miss if you don't already suspect its presence and are doing the careful search-- but even this should have a small chance that you will notice it "passively").
I agree that, depending on what it is, the passive perception check should be distinctly less effective than the active, concentrating perception check.
Good discussion. A dm friend of mine put it this way (he is running the warhammer fantasy rpg) when we are in a dungeon, he is going to give us a lot of indicators the environment. Smells, hints etc. Really take us there and then let us react. Far less of the make the check solution (which can get so tiresome). Allow us to navigate the area less with skills and more with taking in what our senses tell us.
Too much rolling can be just terrible at times, especially if a dm won't give up anything unless you pass a high dc. Blank room after blank room as I found in a recent game.
Off perception for a second, the worst examples of make a roll I've come across were as follows. Meet an npc, he talks a bit. HE is not hostile at all. My char ask him a simple question. Dm says roll a diplomacy, I say, "I'm not trying to be his friend, I just ask him a question. What does he say?". "Roll the dice". "Eh? I ask him a question, how does he respond?". So not taking the minute to make him my buddy, but yes, he did want me to roll the "give simple advise or directions" check... Although the guy was already talking to us... But he stopped like a bot that had an error till I passed the check... infuriating.
On the passive business, now that I think about penalties, I actually usually do not apply them that often. They are searching or they are not, if not, it goes to reactive rules mostly with a lot of stuff that can be missed.
On sense motive I really give a lot, once a player followed and examined a sad peasant, and since he got a natural 20, I gave him a geo-political synopsis of the problems of the region, from body language alone! Ha ha. Anyway, since it is so useful I want my players to ask for it and get into discussions (or watch and observe) to really get the benefits. Try and aid their checks and draw out who someone is through roleplaying. If a blackguard kicks a dog, you don't need a sense motive to work out his view of dogs.
Cool! I was a little hesitant to have posted this question at first, but I am glad I did because this is a good discussion! I have nothing more to add, but I am enjoying reading all this :)
We use minions. Same stats as the regular counterparts except that they have 1 hit point and there's twice as many of them. Makes for some harrowing battles but lets the characters really feel 'heroic'.
Next game I run I'm going to try passive perception and Sense motive, but I think I'll have it calculated as modifier+8 instead of taking 10.
Also thinking about allowing exchanging standard and move actions for swifts a la 4th's trading down for minor actions.
My group does not incorporate any of the 4th ed rules in our pathfinder games. However, the next time I run Saga Edition Star Wars i will use the Minion rules. I mean what kind of a Storm Trooper can take 3 hits and keep firing back. It just should not happen!
|
On sense motive I really give a lot, once a player followed and examined a sad peasant, ...
In 4E, this would be an "active" sense motive. You'd roll for it. Same as in Pathfinder. For my money, the best use of passive sense motive is as opposed to a Bluff check. If I, as a DM, make a Bluff check and the player doesn't think to oppose it, then I can compare the result to their passive sense motive. A PC can always ask, but if they don't think to ask, I don't have to cue them to do so, because everyone knows "make a sense motive check" means "this guy is lying." All the same, I hate to say, "of course he was obviously lying, and your character would have picked up on it, but you didn't think to ask. Maybe you should learn to play the game."
I do bring over the idea of truly "passive" checks: they are a minimum number when a minimum of effort is needed. If the player wants to spend more effort, spend the move action or the minute looking or listening, then they can choose to roll. This can, of course, backfire ("If I'd been passively listening, I'd have figured it out, but I was nodding my head and thinking about swords like it was my wife talking, so I failed the check.").
Passive isn't strictly a minimum, though. It's a baseline I can use when making the players roll would automatically twig them, meta-game-wise, to what's going on. Too often, "make a perception check" is the same as "there's something out there." I do give automatic successes on any roll with a DC lower than the skill's associated ability, but that's a houserule, not a 4E import.
Other 4E imports: bloodied, combat advantage and shift terminology, as well. Also, when characters get magical healing they heal from 0, not from negative whatever. I'm considering the "max damage on a crit" rule, but only if it goes with the "magic weapons do extra dice on a crit" rule, as a way of making magic weapons cooler in my lower-magic campaign. I use modified skill challenges (none of this 10-before-3 nonsense: there is a max number of efforts, over an unspecified amount of time, treated like regular skill checks, and each successful check provides an incremental benefit (thank you Know Direction podcast)).
I would love to find a way to combine rituals and words of power to get rid of Vancian magic, but that's a much larger project than I want to undertake right now.
|
I really like Passive Skills - basically they can be used any time the GM would ask a player to make a check as a free reaction - so if the players are walking into an ambush and don't specify that they are actively looking the GM can roll the foes' Stealth against the PC's Passive Perception.
In terms of finding traps, if its something that could potentially be spotted without activelu searching (e.g. spotting a trip wire across a hallway) then Passive Perception can be used and compared to the DC of the trap.
Basically in any situation where in Pathfinder you would call for a player to make a Perception or Sense Motive check, and if the player asked to take 10 you would allow it, you could use Passive Perception and Passive Insight (or Passive Sense Motive in PF).
A lot of people use the reach ruling from 4Ed as this makes the second square on a diagonal 10ft with reach or a reach weapon.
In pathfinder the second square is actually 15ft away. Thus in Pathfinder you have gaps which according to RAW allow an enemy to close on a player with reach using the diagonal and not provoke an AoO.
Actualy people use the rules for reach from 3rd/3.5 rules which was the one exception.
My problem with passive perception and passive sense motive is that I can actively try them and get a lesser result than if I am just sitting there. It bothers me.
I can't think of any 4th ed rule that I would want to use personaly in PF.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with passive perception and passive sense motive is that I can actively try them and get a lesser result than if I am just sitting there. It bothers me.
I take it you aren't fond of the Take 10 rule in general then, as that is all Passive Perception and Insight is really.
Personally if an active roll rolled lower than taking 10 (i.e. Passive) then I could simply explain that as the person by specifically looking for something, they focused on the wrong thing and ended up looking the wrong way completely - whereas if he hadn't tried to focus on anything in particular he may have had a better chance of noticing.
|
|
Personally if an active roll rolled lower than taking 10 (i.e. Passive) then I could simply explain that as the person by specifically looking for something, they focused on the wrong thing and ended up looking the wrong way completely - whereas if he hadn't tried to focus on anything in particular he may have had a better chance of noticing.
I was concerned with that dilemma of potentially doing worse when you're trying than when you were doing something else and 'passively' noticed something.... Presented this way, it makes sense.
TY, DM-- Good post. :)
Personally if an active roll rolled lower than taking 10 (i.e. Passive) then I could simply explain that as the person by specifically looking for something, they focused on the wrong thing and ended up looking the wrong way completely - whereas if he hadn't tried to focus on anything in particular he may have had a better chance of noticing.
This is a great explanation of the Take 10 vs. Active Roll mechanic. In fact, I fell in love with the Passive Skill concept the moment I saw it. It was a total epiphany I'd never even considered before, dispite all the time I spent listening to the rogue player in my Age of Worms game say "I move five feet and search for traps." Lord that was tedious.
There are other things from 4e that I'd like to bring into a Pathfinder game, but haven't or don't know how to. I love healing surges, fer instance, and the 'marked' ability for defenders.
I also love the way monsters get special little abilities which promote a unique style of play for each one. Little stuff like bonuses to damage when next to an ally or a free step if missed in melee. I haven't added any of those abilities to PFRPG monsters, but I certainly use them as cues to roleplay battles enough to make each monster more characterful.
My problem with passive perception and passive sense motive is that I can actively try them and get a lesser result than if I am just sitting there. It bothers me.I take it you aren't fond of the Take 10 rule in general then, as that is all Passive Perception and Insight is really.
Personally if an active roll rolled lower than taking 10 (i.e. Passive) then I could simply explain that as the person by specifically looking for something, they focused on the wrong thing and ended up looking the wrong way completely - whereas if he hadn't tried to focus on anything in particular he may have had a better chance of noticing.
You should not assume...you know what they say. Taking 10 is a world of difference than a passive roll...as taking ten is being active and just being careful.
So it makes sense to you that about half the time it is better to passively observe than to say actively observe? Maybe if it was 5 plus the total bonus it would make sense...10 is a little to high in my opinion to be passive.
I don't think passive rolls for perception and such is a bad idea...I just think it should not be equal to taking ten.