|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, generally I agree, that us GM’s need to adapt the encounters based on how the PCs approach them. If they overcome part of the challenge with a skill check, fine. But I’d still, as a GM, prefer that the attempt to do so be somewhat challenging. Being able to roll less than a 5 and defeat the monsters when they roll a 20, that’s ridiculous (unless its just a mook encounter)
Sorry, I have to object to this.
My last PC death was, really and totally, in no way fun or enjoyable.
Surprise round, enemy moves up next to my PC.
Initiative: I rock out with a 20 on the die, to get a total 23. Sound good to you? NPC rolls something under a 20, and still has an initiative higher than mine.
Result? Full attack, three attacks on my squishie PC with sneak attack and a crit along the way. Even without the crit, though, my PC would have been dead in any case.
Squishie, not at the front of the party, maxed out my initiative, dead without doing a damn thing. Where is the fun in that?
No encounter is fun when your PC is either dead or down-and-dying in the first round without ever getting a chance to do anything.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both Thornkeep and Bonekeep have at least some encounters that as described there is no way to detect until triggered by certain conditions.
That said the high perception and taking 10 is likely causing you problems actually...
Not that I was here but here's the situation I imagine...
Even when a good judge prepares a scenario, and prepares it well, there are some things they will be better prepared for than others.
By coming in with a high perception and taking 10 and 20 everywhere you are saying "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things."
This rubs some GMs the wrong way, other just won't be prepared to deal with it, because they spent their prep time drawing awesome maps, or reading up on the feat chains, or practicing voices or painting minis or whatever instead of thinking about what happens when a player scouts ahead.
What is a gm to do? well in the case of perception an easy solution is just to ignore there. There's enough wiggle room in perception to declare things out of line of sight and thus not perceptible etc. This lets the GM run the game how they expect it to go without being confrontational or telling a player they aren't allowed to do something.
...
In summary GMs are probably doing it wrong, but given your frequent issues with how things are run I strongly suspect GMs sometimes feel that you are breaking the social contract in one way or another and the easiest way they find to deal with you is to ignore you.
A perfect GM would make any scenario awesome no matter how much a player's abilities trivialized all the encounters.
A less perfect (read:Human) GM may be stuck with the choice of give the players chronicle sheets and send them home early after and voiding all the prep-work they did or bending/breaking the rules in an attempt to make things fun.
The OP guide says they have to go with what the rules say, but it's a hard choice for many.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny perception story from Sunday.
Nightnarch spoilers ahoy!
(low tier example)
Bandits take ten on stealth, resulting in take 15. They take 10 on perception, resulting in a 9.
I ask whomever is on point (if scouting) or the party (if together) to roll me perception, before I set up the map. I then take their perception results and set out how far away the party is when they spot the bandits.
Sunday the ranger was scouting and rolled really high, like a 25 or somesuch. The net result was that the party started the encounter about 100' away. (meaning that the bandits effectively rolled a -1 to see them)
Sorcerer: How far do dancing lights and message reach?
End result is the party totally freaking out the bad guys by haunting them with whispering spooky will o wisps telling them to kill their friends, then a lucky shot from the ranger finishing off the last one standing.
Now, clearly their clever tactics combined with the ranger's really high perception roll 'trivialized' the encounter. The bad guys don't have spellcraft, all they know is they're being attacked by glowing balls of light whispering that their friends are demons and conjured them to kill them. Even if the ranger had just decided to snipe, the odds of her seeing her each round were slim. (stealth -20 vs perception -11, at best a 45% chance) Did the ranger/sorcerer 'ruin the party's fun?' Did they 'ruin the GM's fun'? four bandits, the sorcerer if he had sleep could have (once he saw them) snuck back 400' and just sleep spammed them. Would that have raised cries of no fun?
|
And if a GM keeps having to GM for these uber characters, they will burn out and stop GM'ing... and then nobody wins.I can't speak for other GMs, but I could not disagree more. When a character builds his character to excel at certain things e.g. Perception, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, I consider it enjoyable to see that player get a chance to use those abilities. More so if means the party gets an advantage in combat or other obstacles.
I would be happy to see all GMs who think there job is to decide what I find fun, to not bother GMing. I play PFS because I believe in the system. Not because I am expecting any individual GM to second guess what I or others at the table would prefer.
A point someone brought up in a related topic, when GMs start screwing with the rules this skews the feedback. If I were an author and a player comments about something, if the GM did not play per RAW and as written, then you've undermined a chance for me to get valid feedback.
Ok, I don't know if you just went off on a tangential rant, or if you are putting words in my mouth.
But... I never said that I try to tell a player what's fun.
I never said that I screw with the rules.
I said that "I" don't find it fun, and then made a generalized statement. I do know there are many other GM's who also don't find it fun if their job is relegated to just reading boxed text because the scenario represents no challenge.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By coming in with a high perception and taking 10 and 20 everywhere you are saying "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things."
Using a skill for its intended purpose says "I don't want to play the game"? Or do you think the Perception skill has some other purpose and a player trying to successfully perceive things is abusing it?
There's enough wiggle room in perception to declare things out of line of sight and thus not perceptible etc. This lets the GM run the game how they expect it to go without being confrontational or telling a player they aren't allowed to do something.
I guess it's arguable whether declaring a skill check automatically a failure is "not being confrontational", but telling them they don't succeed on an obviously-successful skill check doesn't count as "telling a player they aren't allowed to do something"? Do you hear yourself?
A perfect GM would make any scenario awesome no matter how much a player's abilities trivialized all the encounters.
Not getting ambushed trivializes all the encounters? That's an interesting notion of "trivialize".
A less perfect (read:Human) GM may be stuck with the choice of give the players chronicle sheets and send them home early after and voiding all the prep-work they did or bending/breaking the rules in an attempt to make things fun.
So a GM is allowed to be "less than perfect" and bend the scenario around his desire for things to go as he expected, but a player's desire for things to go as he expected - even if he doesn't bend anything like the GM does - is breaking the social contract?
The OP guide says they have to go with what the rules say, but it's a hard choice for many.
In any other tabletop game, a person for whom it's a hard choice to avoid bending the rules so that his plans aren't foiled is called a child. Yet if we put that same person behind a GM screen, suddenly you think it's legitimate behavior and/or it's everyone else's fault?
-----------------------------------
Look, I get the sentiment of feeling annoyed by really powerful PCs. I've felt it too. I sympathize with Andrew Christian, but I also know that despite what he's saying here he runs fair games that I really enjoy. But your (Pirate Rob's) post goes way beyond the borders of reasonable.
|
Matthew, you know for a fact it's not just the GM's fun being ruined when the BBEG falls to a single slumber hex one round into combat. Don't give us this nonsense about GMs being selfish or arbitrary.
I don't understand why a Sorcerer's Color Spray is OK (or the Oracle Sorcerer all levels color spray), but somehow a Witch's Slumber Hex is not.
I have been at tables where the entire group of players are OK with the Slumber Hex being used, but the GM is telling the player not to use it. For my witch, I took Extra Hex to get Slumber Hex, so in effect the GM is preventing me from using my feat.
There are plenty of times with games with undead, constructs or elves that the hex will not apply.
(when a slumber hex prevented a Prismatic Spray - or maybe a Heighten Prismatic Spray from nailing the whole party - there was a great sigh of relief - and that GM was okay with it)
|
|
I think that you guys are missing my point. You are assuming I'm against all skill checks winning, and that I actually don't allow them.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
You also seem to be putting the assumption in my actions that I don't allow certain things or that I change the rules or whatever.
That also couldn't be further from the truth.
To the best of my ability and memory, I use the rules as written. I also let the characters use the skills and abilities they have.
One poster posted that in a home game they design encounters specifically to allow certain character's to shine. I do the same. But in a home game, I can modify things on the fly to make sure they are challenging (or if I accidentally make them too challenging, dial it back so that its just right). Would you design a series of encounters with Perception DC's set at 18, when you know that the characters will auto succeed on them all the time? Probably not. But putting it at about 50/50 or even 70/30 success, is about right. Lets them succeed most of the time, but still a chance of failure.
What happens in PFS, is that you can't modify encounters on the fly or not, to accommodate the ridiculous numbers some characters can pump out.
So you have that Diplomacy, Sense Motive, or Perception guy who will auto succeed on all the DC's in a scenario. So why bother playing it out if there is no challenge?
An auto success does NOT equal challenge. And auto successes over and over and over, are not fun for ME, and I'd wager most GM's. Heck, I don't have fun with auto successes that are supposed to be challenging as a player. If there is no sense of possible failure, I don't have fun at either side of the table.
|
|
Matthew, you know for a fact it's not just the GM's fun being ruined when the BBEG falls to a single slumber hex one round into combat. Don't give us this nonsense about GMs being selfish or arbitrary.I don't understand why a Sorcerer's Color Spray is OK (or the Oracle Sorcerer all levels color spray), but somehow a Witch's Slumber Hex is not.
I have been at tables where the entire group of players are OK with the Slumber Hex being used, but the GM is telling the player not to use it. For my witch, I took Extra Hex to get Slumber Hex, so in effect the GM is preventing me from using my feat.
There are plenty of times with games with undead, constructs or elves that the hex will not apply.
(when a slumber hex prevented a Prismatic Spray - or maybe a Heighten Prismatic Spray from nailing the whole party - there was a great sigh of relief - and that GM was okay with it)
The main issue with Witches is that their Hex's are Supernatural, thus not provoking AoO's and defeat spell resistance (and can completely get past a Golem's magic immunity). Additionally, they can spam them indefinitely.
Sorcerers have limited spamability, have to worry about AoO's, and worry about SR (and their spells won't work against Golems.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
By coming in with a high perception and taking 10 and 20 everywhere you are saying "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things."
Using a skill for its intended purpose says "I don't want to play the game"? Or do you think the Perception skill has some other purpose and a player trying to successfully perceive things is abusing it?
I'm not attempting to speak for Pirate Rob or justify his position; I'll leave that to him.
I've not had nosig at my tables, but I have had others who have sky-high Perception skills. I can tell you what I find problematic.
It's very understandable to want to have a good Perception score. Perception is one of the 2 or 3 most important skills in the game. But if someone has a +25 or +30 to Perception, it means that at some point, they had a +15 bonus and said, "clearly, this is inadequate." And kept adding to the bonuses. Skill Mastery. Masterwork tools.
And I've seen players who do this with all their characters. A superbly-perceptive rogue, a superbly-perceptive cleric of Abadar, a superbly-perceptive barbarian ...
That removes them from an element of the game. Even with distance modifiers and intervening doors, a +25 bonus to Perception checks finds everything except those things hidden by GM fiat. "You hear something sheft as you tilt the chest. Judging from the noise it makes and its heft, you would say it's a toaster. Probably avacado green."
I've also seen players who invest enough resources to get their PFS character a +30 in Sense Motive, believing it should work like telepathy at that level, and +39 in Diplomacy. ("Even with a -10 penalty, I'll try a full-round action to make the hobgoblin chief my friend.")
It's not the dedication to a skill I question. It's the continuing contribution to a skill after it is already formidable, in an effort to turn it into a superpower.
EDIT - Ninja'ed by Andrew.
|
|
It's not overly powerful. A lot of monsters are immune and the witch can only cast it once per monster. It does however make combat very repetitive and causes GMs to single out the witch.
|
|
@Andy - I think sometimes people see "I don't like X" and read it as "I do whatever it takes to stop X". I appreciate the fact that despite us sometimes disagreeing on the messageboards, when I sit at your table I feel like I can relax and have a good time.
Good, I'm glad to hear it. I would hate for a player to feel stressed when sitting at my table. I'd rather them have a good time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Replying to derail
Range, 30' When you're slumber hexing someone, you're taking the risk that if he fails the save, your nice squishy caster is in charge range. Heaven help you if it's something with pounce.
Also from a scneario I played.
NPC witch, being grappled by my fighter: "Slumber!"
My character: "Half-elf."*knocks witch unconscious*
Skills as superpowers.
Chris, specialization is encouraged. Is someone who takes spell focus and greater spell focus 'not wanting to play the game'? Attempting to squeeze every point of damage is 'not wanting to play the game'?
In <redacted> there's a BBEG that has a +28 bluff, potentially against first level characters. Did the writer 'not want to play the game?'
A diplomancer is a bad example, since GM fiat is clearly written into the system. "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)." and "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
SO yes, that +39 diplomat can make the Hobgoblin his special friend, Though I am missing the 'full round action rule' in the Pathfinder CRB. If the Diplomat can take 10 rounds of hostility and make his check, then let him. He's not 'not wanting to play the game' he's wanting to build a character that plays the game in a way that's fun for him.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
It's very understandable to want to have a good Perception score. Perception is one of the 2 or 3 most important skills in the game. But if someone has a +25 or +30 to Perception, it means that at some point, they had a +15 bonus and said, "clearly, this is inadequate." And kept adding to the bonuses. Skill Mastery. Masterwork tools.
And if I keep adding to those bonuses, it's by spending feats, gold, magic item slots, etc. on doing it. If I decide I want to be the best at some skill or ability, and I spend my limited resources on pumping it up as high as I can, I should expect to see some payoff. If instead, a GM declares that my bonus is too high and I can never succeed no matter what, then it hurts my fun as a player because I feel like I've wasted all that investment.
For instance, I have a halfling ninja who, at level 5, has invested 2 feats, 2300 gp, and a magic item slot on being a master of bluffing and disguise. So when we got to the final encounter in one mission, and a squad of Aspis agents tells us to hand over the MacGuffin, I tried to bluff them into thinking that some useless piece of junk WAS the MacGuffin. But because there was supposed to be a combat, the NPC auto-succeeded against my 37 Bluff check. It's as if I'm being punished for trying to solve problems by any tactic other than killing.
|
|
You are missing the point.
Nobody is saying that specializing in something is bad.
Being really good at something is fine. Taking a feat progression that is naturally assumed, is fine. I don’t begrudge anyone taking Improved Precise Shot (if you are playing an archer, why wouldn’t you?). I also don’t begrudge anyone taking skill focus (or playing a half-elf) or taking Improved and Greater versions of the various combat maneuver feats.
But being specialized and good at something can cross a line.
Where is that line? I suppose depending on your level, it moves about. Its hard to nail down.
But if you find that you auto succeed on all Perception checks at level 6, then stop putting ranks or spending resources on your Perception until you hit a point where you are failing more than you’d like to. Then start expending resources for it again.
The other problem isn’t necessarily the high score, but as Chris pointed out, expecting that rolling a 40 or 50 does equal automatic success or that it grants you abilities that the skill does not grant (i.e. as Chris pointed out, a superpower).
I do remember a 7-11 game at sub-tier 10-11 when a guy rolled a 45 Sense Motive, and he failed the check because I rolled well and the bad guy’s Bluff was really high. He was flummoxed and looked at me suspiciously. I shouldn’t ever have to reveal what a badguy’s bonus is. Just because you have been god at whatever skill and auto-succeeded your whole adventuring career, does not mean you will always do so. And questioning my integrity because you were suddenly challenged is not just unfair to me, it is unfair to the scenario and the other players. It is also unfair to the game itself.
So my advice: specialize. Have a great score, but don’t go overboard with it. If you ever find you have gone overboard with it, stop spending resources on it.
|
Both Thornkeep and Bonekeep have at least some encounters that as described there is no way to detect until triggered by certain conditions.
That said the high perception and taking 10 is likely causing you problems actually...
Not that I was here but here's the situation I imagine...
Even when a good judge prepares a scenario, and prepares it well, there are some things they will be better prepared for than others.
By coming in with a high perception and taking 10 and 20 everywhere you are saying "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things."
This rubs some GMs the wrong way, other just won't be prepared to deal with it, because they spent their prep time drawing awesome maps, or reading up on the feat chains, or practicing voices or painting minis or whatever instead of thinking about what happens when a player scouts ahead.
What is a gm to do? well in the case of perception an easy solution is just to ignore there. There's enough wiggle room in perception to declare things out of line of sight and thus not perceptible etc. This lets the GM run the game how they expect it to go without being confrontational or telling a player they aren't allowed to do something.
...
*snip*wow... just... wow.
I don't know what to say to this...
I know what to say, I love you Pirate Rob!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, Rainy Day Ninja, it's as if the GMs believe they are doing their best to run the encounters as written.
That could comes off as snarky, but it's not intended to be. Some GMs understand "run the encounters as written, no really, otherwise leave the campaign" to mean that, if the encounter says that it starts under certain circumstances, that's how it ought to start. They feel it's okay to adapt NPC tactics in a fight, as appropriate, but not effect wholesale changes to the encounter.
That's not my understanding, but I'm sympathetic to the position.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I know what to say, I love you Pirate Rob!
Note to self: It's ok to kill Hairy Rat's characters. After all, his character has hit points, clearly he doesn't want to play the game. So it's fine to one shot his character with a kobold with a butter knife. After all, if that didn't work, he is clearly min-maxing hitpoints...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you what I find problematic.
It's very understandable to want to have a good Perception score. Perception is one of the 2 or 3 most important skills in the game. But if someone has a +25 or +30 to Perception, it means that at some point, they had a +15 bonus and said, "clearly, this is inadequate." And kept adding to the bonuses.
And I've seen players who do this with all their characters. A superbly-perceptive rogue, a superbly-perceptive cleric of Abadar, a superbly-perceptive barbarian ...
That removes them from an element of the game.
Interestingly, I've never made a Perception monkey PC before. I've considered trying it for a change, but so far I haven't, largely just because I'm afraid my one Perception focused PC will get picked on as though all my PCs were like that, just as you describe.
Even with distance modifiers and intervening doors, a +25 bonus to Perception checks finds everything except those things hidden by GM fiat. "You hear something sheft as you tilt the chest. Judging from the noise it makes and its heft, you would say it's a toaster. Probably avacado green."
I've also seen players who invest enough resources to get their PFS character a +30 in Sense Motive, believing it should work like telepathy at that level, and +39 in Diplomacy. ("Even with a -10 penalty, I'll try a full-round action to make the hobgoblin chief my friend.")
I'm starting to get the impression that some of the GMs in this thread who are complaining about high Perception skills aren't aware that the Perception rules allow for differentiating between senses, up to and including auto-failures if there's no sensory input available for that sense.
For example, the blinded condition says that you auto-fail "Perception checks based on sight", and the deafened condition says you auto-fail "Perception checks based on sound". That tells us three things about the Perception skill:
1) It's possible for a check to only involve sight
2) It's possible for a check to only involve sound
3) It's possible to auto-fail a check if the PC is incapable of receiving the necessary sensory stimulus.
To use your green-toaster-in-a-box example (yes, I know it was hyperbole; just go with it), if a DC 13 check lets you hear the toaster slide around in the box, then that's all there is to it. Getting a check result of 193 doesn't give you any visual data if it's in a closed box, doesn't give you any smell data if it doesn't have an odor, doesn't give you any sound data if it's silent... you get the idea. Sometimes something is straight-up impossible for a given skill, no matter how high a check you get.
But if a GM is unaware that there are hard limits to what a Perception check can do, then yeah, really high mods do become more troublesome. :/
EDIT: All kinds of ninja'd....
|
|
But if a GM is unaware that there are hard limits to what a Perception check can do, then yeah, really high mods do become more troublesome. :/
You post was well thought out and useful until you decided to slide this rude comment on the end.
You undercut yourself like this often, Jiggy. I want to listen to your advice but you make it hard.
|
stuff about taking 10 on perception
I have a real hard time with the idea that GMs are assuming that by taking 10 on Perception, that is equal to "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things." Here's the reason why:
I have a drunk monk.* I built him like a toolbox, with most of those tools being alcohol. Over time, purely by accident, he has become the character that I play when I have already read the mod because I've GMed it before, so he's been geared to make it easier not to metagame. I also built him to be good vs. humanoid opponents because PFS, but he's turned into my dungeon-delving character. So I spent a little money increasing his perception so he could help contribute in dungeons. However, I realized partway through one level of Thornkeep that I was starting to search in all the right places subconsciously. I realized that was wrong and I needed to do something to correct it. So now I tell GMs this when my drunk goes into a dungeon:
"As we're going through the dungeon, Prisen moves his full speed - 15 feet - and then looks around. He will take 10 for a 30."
That way, I protect myself from metagaming and don't accidently ruin it for the rest of the party. I have totally taken 10 when I know it's not going to find something or when there is nothing there. It's my safety catch.
Why do I bring this up?** I find it pretty insulting when GMs assume things about me because of the characters I build, especially when I decided how I was going to act based upon the exact opposite reason. As a GM, I certainly hate some characters, but I try not to judge the player based upon why I think they built the character that way. That's just setting yourself up for a bad time.
And Chris, as long as there are traps with a DC in the 30's, a +15 perception isn't enough. I don't fault anyone for getting perception in the high 20's. It's not hard to do at higher levels, and it means that you will see magic traps with much more reliability.
*
**
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But if a GM is unaware that there are hard limits to what a Perception check can do, then yeah, really high mods do become more troublesome. :/You post was well thought out and useful until you decided to slide this rude comment on the end.
You undercut yourself like this often, Jiggy. I want to listen to your advice but you make it hard.
How is it a rude comment? The rules I cited are in a whole different chapter, and could be missed.
It's easy for a GM who's used to "common sense" rulings to not be aware that the same things he's been doing are in fact part of the rules already, just hidden away in a weird spot (there's a lot of that in the CRB, actually). So then when PFS comes along with "run as written", a GM might grudgingly drop some practices that he doesn't know were in the rules all along, and the system starts to not work as well.
I was sympathizing with the issues that can be caused by that phenomenon. What's rude about sympathy?
|
|
stuff about taking 10 on perceptionI have a real hard time with the idea that GMs are assuming that by taking 10 on Perception, that is equal to "I don't want to participate in the finding things game, I just want to see all the things." Here's the reason why:
I have a drunk monk.* I built him like a toolbox, with most of those tools being alcohol. Over time, purely by accident, he has become the character that I play when I have already read the mod because I've GMed it before, so he's been geared to make it easier not to metagame. I also built him to be good vs. humanoid opponents because PFS, but he's turned into my dungeon-delving character. So I spent a little money increasing his perception so he could help contribute in dungeons. However, I realized partway through one level of Thornkeep that I was starting to search in all the right places subconsciously. I realized that was wrong and I needed to do something to correct it. So now I tell GMs this when my drunk goes into a dungeon:
"As we're going through the dungeon, Prisen moves his full speed - 15 feet - and then looks around. He will take 10 for a 30."
That way, I protect myself from metagaming and don't accidently ruin it for the rest of the party. I have totally taken 10 when I know it's not going to find something or when there is nothing there. It's my safety catch.
Why do I bring this up?** I find it pretty insulting when GMs assume things about me because of the characters I build, especially when I decided how I was going to act based upon the exact opposite reason. As a GM, I certainly hate some characters, but I try not to judge the player based upon why I think they built the character that way. That's just setting yourself up for a bad time.
And Chris, as long as there are traps with a DC in the 30's, a +15 perception isn't enough. I don't fault anyone for getting perception in the high 20's. It's not hard to do at higher levels, and it means that you will see magic traps with much...
Part of the problem of these message board discussions, is that they often get derailed by someone assuming that because they "might" fit the profile, they feel they have to defend themselves (or express how insulted they are.)
a +20 is fairly easy to get at level 8. As a Monk I'm assuming you have at least a 16 Wisdom, with 8 ranks and class skill, that's still a 14. Getting another 6 only requires a small investment (of which some are ancillary--Headband of Wisdom also helps many other Monk things.)
So rather than derail this into, "you said I am having badwrongfun" and me saying, "na! ah!" and going back and forth.
Lets have a frank discussion about what's too much?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you guys are missing my point. You are assuming I'm against all skill checks winning, and that I actually don't allow them.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
You also seem to be putting the assumption in my actions that I don't allow certain things or that I change the rules or whatever.
That also couldn't be further from the truth.
To the best of my ability and memory, I use the rules as written. I also let the characters use the skills and abilities they have.
One poster posted that in a home game they design encounters specifically to allow certain character's to shine. I do the same. But in a home game, I can modify things on the fly to make sure they are challenging (or if I accidentally make them too challenging, dial it back so that its just right). Would you design a series of encounters with Perception DC's set at 18, when you know that the characters will auto succeed on them all the time? Probably not. But putting it at about 50/50 or even 70/30 success, is about right. Lets them succeed most of the time, but still a chance of failure.
What happens in PFS, is that you can't modify encounters on the fly or not, to accommodate the ridiculous numbers some characters can pump out.
So you have that Diplomacy, Sense Motive, or Perception guy who will auto succeed on all the DC's in a scenario. So why bother playing it out if there is no challenge?
An auto success does NOT equal challenge. And auto successes over and over and over, are not fun for ME, and I'd wager most GM's. Heck, I don't have fun with auto successes that are supposed to be challenging as a player. If there is no sense of possible failure, I don't have fun at either side of the table.
The quoted comment above is the problem I have with your argument. the only thing making auto-successes not fun is YOU. As I learned in one of the recent scenarios.
If you describe the scene as just "You step into a room, give me a perception check. you get a 55? you find x,y & z. Moving on..." then yes it's boring for everyone. IF you change that to a real description on how cleverly concealed that x,y & z were and how they just barely managed to find them then the party feels good about having that character involved, you get to have fun stretching your improv skills and the player feels justified in their expenditure to get that skill so high. Total cost to you as a GM to increase everyone's enjoyment, 10 seconds to come up with a descriptive statement.
It really comes down to whether you enjoy creating an immersive scene that gets your players thinking like their characters or if you just like the tension of random dice rolls.
|
|
Just a note on deathwatch--Mike has clarified that you can't use it to find creatures you don't already know about; it only lets you know the info on creatures you already perceive (this clarification came due to an incredibly inexpensive eye slot item that grants constant deathwatch that some players were trying to claim would allow them to beat invisibility, stealth, and everything else).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lets have a frank discussion about what's too much?
Sounds good!
So let's have a look at my kitsune Arcane Duelist's acrobatics skill (I don't have anyone with uber Perception, and don't want to pick on other people's PCs). He just hit 3rd level, and has the following:
+3 from 3 ranks
+3 from class skill
+4 from DEX
+2 from race
------------------
+12 at 3rd level without even making any investment.
To soften a fall or move at half speed along a 2-inch-wide ledge, I only fail on a 1 or 2. If I'm tightrope-walking (moving half-speed along a surface less than 2 inches wide), I only need to roll an 8, which also means I can auto-succeed if I'm not threatened or distracted. In fact, I could still auto-succeed the non-threatened tightrope walk even with the +2 DC that the rules attach to several possible circumstances.
So if my 3rd level PC is in the crows nest of a ship, watching the sun rise over the placid waters, and the cook rings the bell for breakfast; I can skip climbing and just scurry down a line of rigging (even at up to a 45-degree angle) without breaking a sweat.
And all I did was put 3 ranks in the skill.
Of course, those are all static DCs. What if I'm use acrobatics against something that scales, like to tumble past an enemy? The minimum CMD I beat is 13, which is nothing special against a 3rd-level PC. An average roll, though, gets me a 22, which I imagine will keep me safe against the majority of my CR3-5 enemies (just guessing, though).
An NPC Warrior3 with heroic stats is going to have something like a 17-18 CMD (10 + 3BAB + 3STR + 1-2DEX). To tumble past him, that means I need no more than a 6 on the die. What if I had invested a feat in Skill Focus? Now I only need a 3 to tumble past a level-appropriate baddie (three of them would be a CR5 encounter).
Of course, since I'm a finesse bard, I'm going to be upping my DEX, so by 8th level it'll likely be 22 (18+2level+2belt), and that's just standard for most PCs' primary attribute. That means that by then, if I've made no specific investment in Acrobatics besides ranks, I'll have a +21.
A +21 at 8th level with no investment besides ranks.
So if my 8th-level PC can get a skill to +21 without even trying, then what's "too much"? Taking Skill Focus? Buying a +5 magic item (i.e., boots of some kind)? Given that both of those options are Core, it would seem silly to say that taking them is "overdoing it". But those would put me at a +29 at 8th level.
For one feat and one magic item, my Acrobatics skill would be at about the range people are saying is too much.
Something seems wrong with that, or maybe I misread something earlier...?
|
|
The original post on this asked the following questions:
"How does Perception work when a PC stands in a doorway and checks? What can you detect? I covered that in the other thread, but I think I need a refresher, 'cause I don't seem to be doing it right. The monsters always detect me, and I hardly ever detect them..."
Please,let us not turn this into a Take 10 or Take 20 issue... I get enough flack over that now.
I just want to know how PCs can detect monsters and how to prevent monsters from detecting the PCs... if it is possible. (the term "monsters" is used in a generic sense to include all creatures that will be a challange to the PCs).
Thank you for your time and trouble.
Nosig, there are 3 issues at state here:
1) What do you feel, as a player, being able to get a 40 or 50 should get you?
If you feel you should just automatically be able to see everything in the room because your perception score is ridiculous, even when you take 10, then the problem lies in your expectations. You don't have the scenario sitting in front of you. You don't know what all the mitigating factors might be. In general, I think you accept this, so please don't feel like I'm putting words in your mouth.
2) Wherever you are standing, whether its a door, cliff edge, wide open plains, or amongst heavy underbrush and trees, you can perceive everything within range based on the penalties of +1 DC per 10 feet distance, +10 for a wall, et. al. As Jiggy noted, some things you flat out cannot perceive, no matter how high your perception roll might be. If there is no visual stimuli, and based on the mitigating circumstances a 40 doesn't get the audible or olfactory stimuli, then you will perceive nothing outside the ordinary. Its been said before, by both Chris and myself, just because you can get a 40 or 50, does not mean you get extra-sensory perception. It does not give you x-ray vision. It does not mean you can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel tactically things that don't give off that stimulus. You won't know the color of something inside a box, even if you might hear something moving inside the box.
3) If a GM doesn't allow for someone to "scout ahead" because the encounter says, "when they enter the room" then they are doing a disservice to you, the scenario, the other players, themselves, and the game. Of course, I don't know what mitigating circumstances might have blocked all chances at perception from the doorway. There might have been. Additionally, some GM's require you to state what you are trying to perceive. If you are looking for monsters, you won't see the traps. If you are looking for traps, you won't see the monsters. I can see the former, but not the latter. If you are looking specifically for movement or signs of creatures, you might easily miss the pressure plate. But if you are looking specifically for that pressure plate, and a monster is hiding behind something right next to you, it seems dubious that you wouldn't be able to see that monster too (assuming your perception beat their stealth.) Player actions often mess encounters up, and it is the GM's job to adapt the encounter to what the PC's do.
Now, if you choose to stand in the doorway and take 20, and there are monsters hiding awaiting to ambush your team, I would probably handle it as such:
If taking 20 gets you a really high and ridiculous score, then I would determine (unless you state otherwise) that you are visibly scanning the room, specifically trying to find "something."
I'd give the creatures a sense motive at about DC 5 to notice this. If they do, they might choose to trigger the encounter early so as to still get the surprise and not be found out. (remember, Perceiving on a take 20 takes 1 minute of time, you might not have scanned the area the monsters are in yet--I'd ask you which side of the room you are starting in).
If the creatures decide to attack, I'd have you all roll initiative. If you started on the side of the room the monsters are on, then your take 10 Perception (or I'd let you roll) would go against the monster's Stealth. If you started on the other side of the room, then I'd give you another Perception roll (unless you had an ability that lets you take 10 in combat, you'd have to roll this one). If you beat their Stealth, you get to go on the surprise round with them.
Then combat ensues. With the monsters approaching you at the door, instead of waiting for you to come into the room. Could be slightly to their disadvantage than getting a full-on ambush. Your action at the doorway was helpful to some degree.
If the monsters think they are really awesome at hiding, they might wait out your obvious perceiving glare. In which case your take 20 would go against their Stealth. Based on your reaction, they might get a Sense Motive to notice you saw them, or you could shout and then they would know. Regardless, if you notice them, again, your scouting was successful. If you did not, the ambush goes off as written in the scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jiggy asks: what's too much?
I'd go back to something Ansrew mentioned: if you're doing cool things (moving through enemy squares) 70% of the time or more, without spending any per-use resources (like spells or rounds of rage), that's probably enough.
At any given level n, a fighter probably has a 1.5*n advantage over a wizard on her melee attack bonus. That should be a good benchmark between the skill bonus of a character who is rocking out any given skill and a colleague who is letting it slide.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The original post on this asked the following questions:
"How does Perception work when a PC stands in a doorway and checks? What can you detect? I covered that in the other thread, but I think I need a refresher, 'cause I don't seem to be doing it right. The monsters always detect me, and I hardly ever detect them..."
Please,let us not turn this into a Take 10 or Take 20 issue... I get enough flack over that now.
I just want to know how PCs can detect monsters and how to prevent monsters from detecting the PCs... if it is possible. (the term "monsters" is used in a generic sense to include all creatures that will be a challange to the PCs).
Thank you for your time and trouble.
If your Perception is being stymied by GM fiat ("You didn't see him, because the tactics say he gets a surprise round"), then I don't see how you can do anything about it other than confront the GM. Unfortunately, it's hard to do that while seeming non-confrontational.
Lets have a frank discussion about what's too much?
A bonus is "too much" when the character invests so much into that bonus that they are too weak in other areas. But the punishment for that isn't that they arbitrarily fail skill checks where they should have succeeded; the punishment is when they have to sit on the sidelines during combat, or fail a different skill check, or even die, because they failed to invest enough to stay viable when their specialty doesn't apply.
|
|
The quoted comment above is the problem I have with your argument. the only thing making auto-successes not fun is YOU. As I learned in one of the recent scenarios.** spoiler omitted **Having encounters where there really is no chance of failure...I think that you guys are missing my point. You are assuming I'm against all skill checks winning, and that I actually don't allow them.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
You also seem to be putting the assumption in my actions that I don't allow certain things or that I change the rules or whatever.
That also couldn't be further from the truth.
To the best of my ability and memory, I use the rules as written. I also let the characters use the skills and abilities they have.
One poster posted that in a home game they design encounters specifically to allow certain character's to shine. I do the same. But in a home game, I can modify things on the fly to make sure they are challenging (or if I accidentally make them too challenging, dial it back so that its just right). Would you design a series of encounters with Perception DC's set at 18, when you know that the characters will auto succeed on them all the time? Probably not. But putting it at about 50/50 or even 70/30 success, is about right. Lets them succeed most of the time, but still a chance of failure.
What happens in PFS, is that you can't modify encounters on the fly or not, to accommodate the ridiculous numbers some characters can pump out.
So you have that Diplomacy, Sense Motive, or Perception guy who will auto succeed on all the DC's in a scenario. So why bother playing it out if there is no challenge?
An auto success does NOT equal challenge. And auto successes over and over and over, are not fun for ME, and I'd wager most GM's. Heck, I don't have fun with auto successes that are supposed to be challenging as a player. If there is no sense of possible failure, I don't have fun at either side of the table.
You are still missing the point.
If the player smugly says to me, "I take 20 for a 53, so what do I see." And the encounter is set up to be an ambush with DC's ranging from 18 to 30 to see the badguys, then he auto succeeds and ruins the encounter.
And his smugness is like also kicking me in the balls.
I don't think my players have ever complained about my ability to ROLEplay or make things sound interesting by my description.
But there does come a moment when too much, is too much.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If the player smugly says to me, "I take 20 for a 53, so what do I see." And the encounter is set up to be an ambush with DC's ranging from 18 to 30 to see the badguys, then he auto succeeds and ruins the encounter.
How about, instead of "ruining the encounter," he "used his specialty to turn the tables on the villains, and took the encounter in an unexpected direction"?
|
|
Jiggy asks: what's too much?
I'd go back to something Ansrew mentioned: if you're doing cool things (moving through enemy squares) 70% of the time or more, without spending any per-use resources (like spells or rounds of rage), that's probably enough.
At any given level n, a fighter probably has a 1.5*n advantage over a wizard on her melee attack bonus. That should be a good benchmark between the skill bonus of a character who is rocking out any given skill and a colleague who is letting it slide.
This.
If you are wrecking entire scenarios (not just encounters) because your Perception, Sense Motive, or whatever skill is so high, that you can't fail no matter what you roll, and you refuse to stop investing in that skill, then you are going overboard.
If you autosucceed at everything at level 6, wait until you fail on a 4 before you start investing anything more in that skill.
That might be at the tail end of level 7 as you play some 7-11's or 5-9's up. So at 8, you add another rank to that skill.
But before we get too far into what's what... lets discuss what skills this actually matters for. I'm not so sure Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, etc. really are all that big a deal.
Usually its Perception, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff that wreck entire scenarios let alone encounters.
|
|
At any given level n, a fighter probably has a 1.5*n advantage over a wizard on her melee attack bonus.
I just picked level 5 off the top of my head. A typical wizard will have between +0 and +2 in melee attack bonus (+2 BAB, -2 to 0 Strength). A not-so-optimized fighter with minimal gear will have Weapon Focus, Weapon Training, and MW weapon with 18 Strength for a total of +12. So I think a fighter probably has at least a 2n advantage on attack bonus versus a wizard. Still, it's easier to get skill bonuses than attack bonuses, so maybe we'll call the "letting it slide" bonus for skills to be +5 (1 rank in a class skill with 12 stat or maybe a MW tool) at more-or-less all levels. Then maybe being super high in a skill would be more than 2n higher than +5. So at level 5, that's more than +15. This still comes out pretty low when we consider that things exist like a Lore Oracle revelation that grants +20 on top of everything else available starting at level 1, but it might be a place to start.
|
|
Jiggy: to help clarify,
I was trying to answer nosig's question on why he wasn't able to see the monsters, and I think it has to do with social factors more then mechanics. So I was trying to explain to nosig what I thought was happening, not tell others how much perception to put on their characters, sorry if I offended you.
I'm not suggesting using high perception is an abuse or shouldn't be done. I'm suggesting the GM may expect the game to play one way and the player may expect the game to play another and that's causing friction.
It's okay not to want to play the finding things game, it's not a game I particularly enjoy, leading to most of my characters either having a very high perception score or a very low perception score. With the high perception I tend to run into one of three situations:
2: GM doesn't tell me where some of the things are no matter how high my perception is, preserving their fun but reducing mine.
3: GM tells me where the things are and uses the extra time saved to describe adventure background/sights in detail to go along with the high perception so that we learn more about the story.
1 or 2 causes me to back off. (Well probably not always or as much as I should, but it's hard not to try and shine at the thing my character is supposed to shine at.)
Even though it's something I want to do and something the rules allow me to do, clearly the GM doesn't like it.
Just like it's okay not to want to play the negotiating game or even the stabbing monsters with pointy sticks game.
Another subgame I hate playing is Shoppings & Savings. I absolutely hate in character shopping sessions, they drive me up the wall.
|
|
If the player smugly says to me, "I take 20 for a 53, so what do I see." And the encounter is set up to be an ambush with DC's ranging from 18 to 30 to see the badguys, then he auto succeeds and ruins the encounter.How about, instead of "ruining the encounter," he "used his specialty to turn the tables on the villains, and took the encounter in an unexpected direction"?
He's ruining the encounter because he's being smug and expecting that he auto-succeeds because his score is ridiculous.
I can do my best to salvage fun despite the player being a jerk.
But I'm not going to spend a ton of extra time making an encounter extra special if the character was not challenged.
But if the Fighter rolls a Natural 20 on Diplomacy and gets his 25 and makes someone indifferent... then yeah, I'll play the heck outta that one up.
But if the Bard steps in and says, "Ok, I got guidance from the Cleric, and I'm going to change my performance to Inspire Competence, and I cast spell X that gives me an N bonus to Diplomacy, and my natural score is +22, and i get to double my Charisma because of Y... so I get a 53 before I roll the dice... should I bother rolling or is the guy my minion now?" Just kinda turns my stomach.
Now if everything is failing, and the Bard decides, well I have all this buff stuff I could try out and see if I can calm the guy down before he TPK's us, and he wins on it?
Heck yeah, that's epic, and I'm going to play the heck outta that up.
But if he rolls through every encounter making it pointless to even be there that day? Boring.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How about, instead of "ruining the encounter," he "used his specialty to turn the tables on the villains, and took the encounter in an unexpected direction"?
RainyDayNinja, once a PC has diplomanced the first three encounters of a scenario. Then persuading the next encounter that he's their friend is no longer 'an unexpected direction.'
If you'd grant me the power as a GM to have a scenario react to this, to have word that there's somebody with nigh-on-supernatural powers of observation or persuasion, or armor class for that matter, and have later encounters adapt acordingly, then we'd all be cool.
But I'm not allowed to do that in organized play, and have five other players at the table. When one player has build a character who can auto-succeed and knock out encouter after encounter, I'm tempted to just hand him a Chronicle sheet, tell him he won, ask him to leave, and then proceed with the adventure.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
@Andrew: Then it sounds like your issue isn't high bonuses, but rather players' attitudes.
EDIT:
@Chris: I can't think of any scenarios where you can use Diplomacy (or Bluff/Perception/whatever) to bypass all the encounters. Have you seen that happen? If that's an issue, it sounds like that lack of variety is a flaw in the scenario, and you should point that out in a review.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Andy, if we want to talk about how much is too much (which you said you did), then can we separate it from an assumption of the player being a total dickhead? Because that doesn't really have much bearing on how much of a Perception bonus (or anything else being discussed) is too much.
Let's assume that a player is as pleasant and friendly as anyone else at the table. You're going along having a jolly old time, and the party together decides that a room looks suspicious. The players all agree that they should do a quick scan for a possible ambush (just like Westly slowing down when he reached the rocks where Fezzik was hiding).
You say "Okay, everyone roll Perception."
P1: "Crap, 4."
P2: "Alright, 22 for me!"
P3: "I got an 11."
P4: "Sweet, natural 20! That's a 48!"
The players rejoice communally at the high check result.
You look down at the scenario and see that the monsters are hiding, and it says they can be spotted with a DC 30 check.
Does this ruin the encounter? If so, how?
|
|
If the player smugly says to me, "I take 20 for a 53, so what do I see." And the encounter is set up to be an ambush with DC's ranging from 18 to 30 to see the badguys, then he auto succeeds and ruins the encounter.
And his smugness is like also kicking me in the balls.
I don't think my players have ever complained about my ability to ROLEplay or make things sound interesting by my description.
But there does come a moment when too much, is too much.
A) Is it OK if he isn't smug about it?
B) Would be OK if he only just made the DCs? Say his Take 20 was a 31?
C) It's a Take 20. Unless he's also uber-stealthy or invisible or something, they can spring the ambush while he's standing there looking.
D) Should this also apply to looking for Traps? Should the character build to be a trapspotter/disabler be missing ~30% of traps?
All very valid questions.
A) depends on the circumstances, as always. I can't give a yes or no answer to this. I just know that sometimes its ok, many times it is not.
B) If you take a 20, because you are afraid you might fail the check, then you are doing 2 things: Recognizing that there is a challenge, and hoping that take 20 is enough.
C) If you read my long post above specifically to Nosig about this very topic, you'll see that I've covered this. The answer to this question is yes, they can spring the ambush while he's scanning the room (and they probably should.)
D) If all challenge in an encounter, including traps, is negated entirely, because they can't fail, then what's the point? For example, there is a specific scenario with like 5 or 6 major traps in it. They are almost all magical. As such, the DC's are fairly high. My wife was playing her trapsmith rogue, and she disabled all the traps, allowing the puzzles to be solved by brute force. But she did fail on one when she rolled a 4, and everyone affected by it took that damage. She was the star of that scenario, by far. She obliterated some of the largest dangers in that scenario. But she had a chance to fail, which made subsequent checks a tense moment. So whether 30% is the number, or 5%, if there is no chance of failure, then whats the point?