Perception - different when playing for different judges....

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I think it is a logical leap to call an automatically passed Perception or Disable Device check equal to an APL minus 10 challenge.

The caveat is, it isn't just an automatically passed challenge.

Read my caveat above. Its zero challenge prior to expenditure of resources.

With "resources" actually meaning "resources which provide only temporary bonuses". It sounds like if one person bought a magic item with a permanent +X to a skill, while someone else spent the same cash on a number of consumables that each provide a temporary +X to the same skill, that one of them is spending resources and the other isn't.

By getting a permanent item instead of a sack of potions/scrolls, the first guy gained the equivalent of 10 levels.

EDIT: And we can only guess the purpose of replacing the phrase "auto-pass a skill check" with the phrase "zero challenge", since there doesn't appear to be any material alteration of meaning being offered for those terms.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Adam Mogyorodi wrote:

I think it is a logical leap to call an automatically passed Perception or Disable Device check equal to an APL minus 10 challenge.

The caveat is, it isn't just an automatically passed challenge.

Read my caveat above. Its zero challenge prior to expenditure of resources.

Andrew, I'm not picking sides here (you know I posted before and tried to explain your ideas in a way I hoped would make more sense for some people), but let me try to explain what they are saying in another way, in response to the above post--

Say you have two characters--one of them spends 2500 on Eyes of the Eagle whereas another buys a partially-charged wand of acute senses from a chronicle sheet with 20 charges for 2400 (which grants +10). In their Pathfinder careers, let's say the wand-user doesn't ever fully expend the wand because they don't come across that many trap-filled dungeons. The other posters are wondering why the wand-user is OK and not the eyes-user, when both spent similar amounts of money on perception (and indeed, the wand-user gets even more of a bonus for their price, so the eyes-user is not even getting as high of results).

EDIT: Ninjaed by Jiggy, but I hope my example makes it a little clearer.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Trying not to sound harsh, though I admit it's hard to say that something doesn't pass the "common sense" test (as opposed to pointing out an objective fact) without it potentially sounding more "charged" than it's meant to be.

Go up and read my example above and tell me that zero challenge before expending resources is equal to 20% of a level.

If you say that's common sense, then our conversation is over, seriously.

I agree that "zero challenge" is not worth 20% of a level.

I disagree that pumping up a skill mod creates the "zero challenge" circumstance in the first place.

I also disagree that gold is not a resource that gets expended.*

*This is actually even more true in PFS than in a home campaign. Wealth By Level guidelines are designed to be a constant, such that spending a bunch of cash on a raise dead or similar expense gets compensated for so that you're back up to WBL within a level or two. In PFS, you stay behind (unless you play up, and let's not go there in this thread). So no, someone who invested their limited gold into static rather than consumable bonuses does not fit the "before expending resources" clause of your statement.

I don't see how you can agree on the first point, and then disagree on the 2nd.

If zero challenge is not worth 20% of a level, then how does any static bonus (regardless of how you got it), suddenly give you the right to earn 20% of a level if it also creates a zero challenge situation?

And how much fun would you have as a player, if I told you I was going to reward you for your diligence in creating the ultimate trapsmith, by having you go through several evenings worth of dungeon crawl where all the challenge was traps you could automatically defeat. And by the end you'd go up 2 levels.

(and don't say there aren't published dungeons out there that are primarily traps--Kenzer & Company put out the Tomb of Kruk Ma Kali (sp?))

The point is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't be so good at something, that that something provides you no challenge, and expect to get XP for it (why do you think Anderson Silva, for you MMA fans, looks so bored in his fights lately?)

And please, let me remind everyone, we are playing the "zero" sum game here. Not the, "well I'm hardly ever challenged as I can roll a 4 and get most traps" or "If I drink my potion of and use my ability of or cast my spell of, I always succeed at most traps."

I'm saying that if your static skill bonuses ensure you zero challenge, then that is not fair to organized play. A Home GM can make things happen in their campaign to mitigate this. Organized play cannot.

[thunderspirit]

I disagree. If your static bonus to traps permits you to roll a 4 and get most traps, you've spent some resource (even if it's at the build level) to achieve that, which means you didn't have that same resource to contribute somewhere else.

[Jiggy]

Andy, re-stating your position over and over again doesn't move a philosophical discussion forward. Answering other people's questions directly and responding to the points raised does.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

CRB, pg 399, bottom of left column wrote:

...regardless of the level of the party in

relation to the challenge, although you should never bother
awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more
lower than the APL.

This is what I'm using as precedent for zero challenge equals zero XP.

As Jiggy states, I think you've completely misappropriated one guideline in the book.

It is not a logical extension that someone who invests a tremendous amount of their build on one or s few skills deserves even reduced XP if said character is able to roll a 1 and still succeed.

The rule being abused and twisted here, was put in place to prevent characters at 10th level from killing hordes of low level CR1 or CR1/2 for creatures for advancement. And possibly to spare the DM/GM from tedious XP tracking when high level characters have to wade through scores of low levels (like when storming a cave or stronghold).

Since Andrew claims to play scenarios as written, I won't direct this at him, but other GMs:

GM as written.

The cornerstone of Organized Play, is fairness and rules consistency. The GMs are not authorized to ignore the rules in the name of "fun," not for themselves or for other players. The PFS Guide leaves no room for equivocation. The holy grail of "Fun" is not justification for breaking the rules.

If, a scenario is easily "broken" by certain builds, then provide honest and accurate feedback to the authors and the scenarios will evolve to address these concerns.

As a player, I plead with GMs who can't abide by the "GM as written" rules to stick to Adventure Paths. But when you sit down with a table of players, you've made an implicit agreement to honor the rules and spirit of PFS-OP = no home brew/no shenanigans.

@Andrew,

You're entitled to your opinion, but in Organized Play, I absolutely do not want you trying to compensate by ignoring rules. I don't need you to reinterpret the rules or impose your value system. I need you to play the scenario as written, along with the rules of PFS. I put my trust in Paizo and the PFS authors to make the game fun and challenging. I will gladly sit through 10 tables of trivialized traps than concede one iota of DC changing power to a GM.

If you can't have fun as a GM without stressing your party members at a level you've arbitrarily decided is sufficient, I highly recommend you try Adventure Paths. Just tell your players you're going to shift the goal posts if they are too good at any particular thing.

@Jiggy, I don't feel you're being too harsh, but that's probably because you and I feel the same way about this.

[nosig]

well,... what if the skill involved wasn't Perception?
Say the skill is Climb.

I mean if I have a -1 on Climb and the DC is 5 (knotted rope) then I would fall with a roll of 1.

Situation:
Dungeon Entrence - "The PCs must climb down the sink hole into the Cavern 40 feet below. This will require a DC 20 Climb check.".

Player 1a: "I've got a rope I bought just for this. I tied knots into it so that it's a knotted rope. DC 5. I drop a rope and take 10 climbing down."

Player 1b: "I've got a rope I bought just for this. I tied knots into it so that it's a knotted rope. DC 5. I drop a rope and roll a '3', opps No Progress!, a '17' and a '5' no progress again!, a '10' and a '20'! 5 rounds climbing down."

Player 2: "I cast spider climb and climb down the wall..."

Player 3: "Ha! I use my ring of feather fall and just jump in!"

Player 4: "I have a +20 in Climb, so I just Climb down... rolling a '3', a '17' and a '5'."

Player 5: "I have a +2 in Climb, so I just Climb down... rolling a '3', a '17' and a '5'."... "Dude, you fell with the '3'... 4d6 damage, take 14 HP."

Now... are we saying that some of these players DON'T get the XP?

[Jiggy]

nosig wrote:

Now... are we saying that some of these players DON'T get the XP?

Not "don't", just "shouldn't" according to Andrew's belief of how XP is supposed to work. (@NN959 - I don't think anyone in this thread is in need of the "GM as written" imperative; we're talking theory at this point.)

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't see how you can agree on the first point, and then disagree on the 2nd.

Jiggy may have a different answer, but I'll provide one that is essentially a rephrasing of something that has been said to you over and over and to which I have not seen (though maybe I missed it) you provide any counterpoint.

Your entire argument is balanced on an oversimplification of the situation. You're trying to assert that because a character can "trivialize" one aspect of a scenario, the system is broken. Yet, you completely ignore the opportunity cost involved. Because that player has given their character x-ray vision, they've had to forgo a ton of other things that would have helped in other situations. The battles that the characters do get into are going to be more dangerous because said character has given up the ability to do damage, or combat maneuvers, or boost crowd control spells, etc. While said characters may have eliminated or reduced one set of obstacles, they ultimately leave themselves and the group more vulnerable to other sets of challenges. And here is the most important message I hope you internalize:

A player has the right to choose which type of challenges he wants to account for and which type he will ignore. Nosig has decided he does not want to be ambushed. He has made sacrifices to achieve that. It is in appropriate for a GM to invalidate that choice. When such builds undermine the enjoyment at a population level (Synthesis Summoners), then let PFS address that.

And if some scenario where in fact objectively "trivialized" by ONE character with a high Perception (a premise I flatly reject), then that is a problem with the scenario. In that case, that author and other authors reading the reviews need to get accurate feedback about what not to do when building a challenging scenario. It is not the GMs role in PFS to try and redesign the scenarios. That is exactly what PFS does not want you to do.

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

(@NN959 - I don't think anyone in this thread is in need of the "GM as written" imperative; we're talking theory at this point.)

The comment is not directed at Andrew or those actively posting.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

@Andrew,

You're entitled to your opinion, but in Organized Play, I absolutely do not want you trying to compensate by ignoring rules. I don't need you to reinterpret the rules or impose your value system. I need you to play the scenario as written, along with the rules of PFS. I put my trust in Paizo and the PFS authors to make the game fun and challenging. I will gladly sit through 10 tables of trivialized traps than concede one iota of DC changing power to a GM.

If you can't have fun as a GM without stressing your party members at a level you've arbitrarily decided is sufficient, I highly recommend you try Adventure Paths. Just tell your players you're going to shift the goal posts if they are too good at any particular thing.

Dude! I always run scenarios as written.

Having a philosophical discussion about something, and expressing my dislike of something, does not automatically equate to me doing any kind of manipulating of a PFS scenario.

And yes, I will continue to champion the cause of building reasonable characters, so that you essentially don't break PFS scenarios.

If that runs counter to what you like, I can't do anything about that.

And I do run/play AP's. PFS is not my only roleplaying outlet.

All that being said... the preponderance of tables I run, do not have these problems.

This is more or less, for me, a philosophical discussion and I wish people treated it as such instead of assuming a lot about me, my GM style, and whether I'm right for PFS or not.

But every once in awhile, I do run into a player who just stomps all over every challenge. For me, that is not fun as a GM.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andy, re-stating your position over and over again doesn't move a philosophical discussion forward. Answering other people's questions directly and responding to the points raised does.

I have directly responded to your questions. And I've expounded on my answers. I even went so far, on my lunch, to open up a PDF of the Core Rule Book to give you the quote I was looking for.

Not sure how much more direct you want my answers to be.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't see how you can agree on the first point, and then disagree on the 2nd.

Jiggy may have a different answer, but I'll provide one that is essentially a rephrasing of something that has been said to you over and over and to which I have not seen (though maybe I missed it) you provide any counterpoint.

Your entire argument is balanced on an oversimplification of the situation. You're trying to assert that because a character can "trivialize" one aspect of a scenario, the system is broken. Yet, you completely ignore the opportunity cost involved. Because that player has given their character x-ray vision, they've had to forgo a ton of other things that would have helped in other situations. The battles that the characters do get into are going to be more dangerous because said character has given up the ability to do damage, or combat maneuvers, or boost crowd control spells, etc. While said characters may have eliminated or reduced one set of obstacles, they ultimately leave themselves and the group more vulnerable to other sets of challenges. And here is the most important message I hope you internalize:

A player has the right to choose which type of challenges he wants to account for and which type he will ignore. Nosig has decided he does not want to be ambushed. He has made sacrifices to achieve that. It is in appropriate for a GM to invalidate that choice. When such builds undermine the enjoyment at a population level (Synthesis Summoners), then let PFS address that.

And if some scenario where in fact objectively "trivialized" by ONE character with a high Perception (a premise I flatly reject), then that is a problem with the scenario. In that case, that author and other authors reading the reviews need to get accurate feedback about what not to do when building a challenging scenario. It is not the GMs role in PFS to try and redesign the scenarios. That is exactly what PFS does not want you to do.

...Nosig has decided he does not want to be ambushed...

actually, nosig (when running the "scout" PC) wants to find the traps before the party stumbles into them. Detecting some of the ambushes would be nice too... But for example, Shadows, Specters, etc. are not detected with Perception.

Just a minor correction.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Andy, re-stating your position over and over again doesn't move a philosophical discussion forward. Answering other people's questions directly and responding to the points raised does.

I have directly responded to your questions. And I've expounded on my answers. I even went so far, on my lunch, to open up a PDF of the Core Rule Book to give you the quote I was looking for.

Not sure how much more direct you want my answers to be.

Well, either you missed some questions/points, or I missed your answers to them, so here's what I'm waiting on:

1) You based pretty much your entire position on an "extrapolation" from a "rationale" for the APL-10 rule; turns out, this rationale is not actually printed anywhere. The APL-10 rule is all we have. I'd like to hear your assessment of what impact it has on your belief to have its central fact turn out to be false.

2) Relatedly, the only fact remaining that even hints toward your position of XP reduction is the APL-10 rule itself; this means (as both I and Adam have pointed out) that to base your position on fact requires you to consider auto-pass skills to be equivalent to adding 10 levels to the entire party. This leaves you with the options of (A) showing other facts upon which to base your position; (B) showing auto-pass skills to in fact be reasonably analgous to 10 levels; or (C) amending or abandoning your position.

3) As both I and Rogue Eidolon asked, what's the difference between someone spending X gold for a static +Y to a skill, versus someone else spending X gold for a pile of potions of +Y to a skill? Your stated position thus far labels one of these hypothetical players as more deserving of his XP than the other, despite being nearly identical to each other. We're still waiting for an explanation of how anything (other than your own preference, since as you said, "It isn't just my preference, its the way the game designers designed the game") could lead to that conclusion.

Clearly and directly addressing those three points would a long way toward real discussion. If any of those has already been addressed and I missed it, referencing which post it was so I can go back and re-read it would be sufficient.

Thanks!

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Dude! I always run scenarios as written.

Yes, I already acknowledged that in my response.

Quote:

Having a philosophical discussion about something, and expressing my dislike of something, does not automatically equate to me doing any kind of manipulating of a PFS scenario.

And I have not asserted anything to the contrary. But there are GMs who don't feel the rules apply to them and will use the justification of "fun" to do what they want. I'm hyper-concerned about that.

Quote:

And yes, I will continue to champion the cause of building reasonable characters, so that you essentially don't break PFS scenarios.

If that runs counter to what you like, I can't do anything about that.

Your opinions as a person on what people should do with their builds is of no concern to me.

Quote:

This is more or less, for me, a philosophical discussion and I wish people treated it as such instead of assuming a lot about me, my GM style, and whether I'm right for PFS or not.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm responding to your direct complaints. My statements suggesting APs are in direct response to your repeated use of the "it's not fun" mantra. You've stated over and over again that you think the party should face some arbitrary (because you offer no scientific method for determining it) level of challenge and you link that rationale to statements about fun. Well, AP's allow you do what you want and get that level of fun, so I'm trying to offer you a solution.

But advocating your opinion is tantamount to advocating for a change to how PFS should be played, I disagree with those philosophies and more so based on your justification for those philosophies. But more important to me than convincing you to adopt a different perspective is reminding GMs that PFS scenarios are not a place for idiosyncratic GMing. It's not meant as a personal attack on you.

[Matthew Morris]

Andrew Christian wrote:

NOTE: If expending consumables and using resources, like spells or daily limits of Bardic Inspire Competence, is what gets you to the ZERO chance of failure, then I'm not worried about it, because you are expending resources for your success. I'm only concerned about someone who has ZERO chance of failure because their score before any spells or consumables are used gives them auto-success.

I wanted to touch on this...

So?

The only reason a skill can go to zero is because the 'fail on a 1' doesn't apply to skills. If XP = challenges overcome, you're saying that you don't think the guy who invested feats/stats/gear who doesn't fail shouldn't get XP, but the guy who just happens to be one point short of an auto-success should get XP since he *might* roll a one?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

nosig wrote:

well,... what if the skill involved wasn't Perception?

Say the skill is Climb.

I mean if I have a -1 on Climb and the DC is 5 (knotted rope) then I would fall with a roll of 1.

Situation:
Dungeon Entrence - "The PCs must climb down the sink hole into the Cavern 40 feet below. This will require a DC 20 Climb check.".

Player 1a: "I've got a rope I bought just for this. I tied knots into it so that it's a knotted rope. DC 5. I drop a rope and take 10 climbing down."

Player 1b: "I've got a rope I bought just for this. I tied knots into it so that it's a knotted rope. DC 5. I drop a rope and roll a '3', opps No Progress!, a '17' and a '5' no progress again!, a '10' and a '20'! 5 rounds climbing down."

Player 2: "I cast spider climb and climb down the wall..."

Player 3: "Ha! I use my ring of feather fall and just jump in!"

Player 4: "I have a +20 in Climb, so I just Climb down... rolling a '3', a '17' and a '5'."

Player 5: "I have a +2 in Climb, so I just Climb down... rolling a '3', a '17' and a '5'."... "Dude, you fell with the '3'... 4d6 damage, take 14 HP."

Now... are we saying that some of these players DON'T get the XP?

Please bear with me as I type stream of thought here…

Obstacles aren’t typically rated with a CR, unless there is some mitigating circumstance that requires it to be more than an obstacle that can be solved by using a 10gp item. Mitigating circumstances could be various things from environmental (wind, ice, water, slimy algae) to combat or a trap at the top of the climb or making sure you keep someone alive who can’t otherwise protect themselves against the obstacle.

The average character is not going to get XP for climbing down a cliff face. Regardless whether they have a -6 to climb, or a +40. The assumption is that the party is prepared and has rope, thus mitigating the challenge of the obstacle.

Climbing up, on the other hand, can be a significant challenge, because you need someone to toss a grapple, free climb, whatever first, and truly experience the challenge of the obstacle.

Or climbing down when there is nothing to secure a rope to (and for whatever reason even the grappling hook has nothing to secure against) and so you have a guy up to holding the rope making strength checks while the rest climb down.

These type of challenges are more “puzzle” challenges in how to traverse the obstacle, than straight up CR danger/damage encounters. Yes, falling can present a real danger and damage. But that is the result of failing to figure out the puzzle where the puzzle is everyone working as a team, using everyone’s abilities to their max, and getting everyone safely past the obstacle.

All skill checks are not created equal in this philosophical discussion. I mean frankly I could care less if you have a Performance check of 92, unless you are a Court Bard with Versatile Performance and the Serpent Style feat which allows you to roll Performance for Sense Motive and block any single attack in a round.

Every once in awhile, having a ridiculous skill check is epic. “Hey Bob, remember that time when I couldn’t roll higher than a 2, and we all almost died trying to kill the slim moths… and then I roll a natural 20 and got a 42 vs. that one wall trap that saved the day and let us complete our mission successfully? Wasn’t that epic?!”

But let me ask you a question:

From a design standpoint:
(if you are an author for a publisher, you have a wordcount and a CR budget—which covers all the challenges and treasure)

Why would you waste your author resources (wordcount and CR budget) on creating an obstacle that you know will not be a challenge to that level party (a cliff face could potentially be a huge challenge to a level 1 character… but if it is to a 9th level character, shame on the 9th level guy, seriously)?

Even if you are writing for a home game, and you don’t have a publishers limitations on wordcount or CR budget, we all still have limited time. Why would you waste your time creating a simple challenge for a high level or uber powerful group?

Think of it this way…

I’m not invalidating someone’s choice to become ridiculously good at something. I’m just giving them a challenge that they can be proud of because they became that ridiculously good. Young and inexperienced Ran the Ripper is only a passable trapsmith. Due to his dislike of having poisoned darts hit his fingertips or stones falling on his head (and of course at the urging of his irritated friends who also were tired of this) decided to become better… no, the best trapsmith in the land.

So he spent hours training his trapsmithing skills and days adventuring in dank dungeons to hone his talents against real and challenging traps. He spent all his hard earned treasure on buying new equipment and magical items to assist in his endeavor to become the best trapsmith in the land.

Pretty soon, Ran the Ripper was better than any other trapsmith in the land, and eventually, finding traps wasn’t fun anymore, and they became boring to him, until he found the secret door to the “Tomb of Kuresh”. It was the most complicated puzzle trap he’d ever come across, and truly worthy of his skill. He’d be epic, nay, nigh unto the very God of Thievery he prayed to every night, if he could just figure out this trapped door. The challenge was, it was underwater with a swarm of blink-eels guarding it and was in a no-magic zone, so he couldn’t use magic to breath. So while holding his breath, either battling or avoiding the eels, and trying to solve a somewhat sentient puzzle that played back at him (e.g. Delirium’s Tangle), he manages to disable the trap and unlock the door. Truly epic, and worth every penny of the treasure behind the door and every amount of XP earned.

But does Ran the Ripper really care about what’s behind that CR 10 trap or whether he gets his 9,600 XP? Not really, because the trap presented no challenge.

Now bringing this back to Organized Play. Organized Play does not have the ability to let Ran the Ripper truly be epic, if Ran the Ripper continually trains even when nothing challenges his prowess. And so if Ran the Ripper overcomes the challenges of the encounter for his party of adventurers, without any chance of failure, the XP and gold, wasn’t really earned by any of them, and yet, for overcoming the scenario, they get the rewards anyways.

In a home game, a GM can tell a player to choose a different feat or skill or if the player refuses to be a “team player” with that particular gaming group, disinvite them.

In PFS, we can’t do that either.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

NOTE: If expending consumables and using resources, like spells or daily limits of Bardic Inspire Competence, is what gets you to the ZERO chance of failure, then I'm not worried about it, because you are expending resources for your success. I'm only concerned about someone who has ZERO chance of failure because their score before any spells or consumables are used gives them auto-success.

I wanted to touch on this...

So?

The only reason a skill can go to zero is because the 'fail on a 1' doesn't apply to skills. If XP = challenges overcome, you're saying that you don't think the guy who invested feats/stats/gear who doesn't fail shouldn't get XP, but the guy who just happens to be one point short of an auto-success should get XP since he *might* roll a one?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

Although in a home game, it is rarely ever at that point. Players most often create complimentary characters rather than playing all the same guy. And as a GM, you know what your characters are capable of, and you know what types of challenges your players enjoy.

So wrapping all that up in a neat little bundle, you create challenges the players enjoy, that will challenge the characters, and it rarely comes down to Character A would have failed on a 1, but Character B succeeded on the nuts on a 1. If it is automatic success, it is likely they would have succeeded by at least 4 or more, while the guy who failed would have failed by at least 5 or more.

Additionally, in a home game, you have the luxury of making sure that there never is an issue like you just presented.

But in PFS, you don’t have that luxury. And so, the guy who auto-succeeds at all the trap-finding checks essentially negates the challenge for the entire team. And as a GM you don’t have the luxury of doing anything to mitigate that.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Andy, re-stating your position over and over again doesn't move a philosophical discussion forward. Answering other people's questions directly and responding to the points raised does.

I have directly responded to your questions. And I've expounded on my answers. I even went so far, on my lunch, to open up a PDF of the Core Rule Book to give you the quote I was looking for.

Not sure how much more direct you want my answers to be.

Well, either you missed some questions/points, or I missed your answers to them, so here's what I'm waiting on:

1) You based pretty much your entire position on an "extrapolation" from a "rationale" for the APL-10 rule; turns out, this rationale is not actually printed anywhere. The APL-10 rule is all we have. I'd like to hear your assessment of what impact it has on your belief to have its central fact turn out to be false.

You yourself agreed that zero challenge did not deserve a 20% to next level XP reward. And yet, you then try to discredit my extrapolation argument (yes I fully agree that my argument is fully based on extrapolating and precedent and that nowhere in the book does it seem to say exactly what I'm saying), because it isn't RAW. So how do you justify the disconnect in your two stances?

Do you agree that zero challenge should get 20% XP toward a new level?

Or do you agree that zero challenge should mitigate XP rewards?

Jiggy wrote:

2) Relatedly, the only fact remaining that even hints toward your position of XP reduction is the APL-10 rule itself; this means (as both I and Adam have pointed out) that to base your position on fact requires you to consider auto-pass skills to be equivalent to adding 10 levels to the entire party. This leaves you with the options of (A) showing other facts upon which to base your position; (B) showing auto-pass skills to in fact be reasonably analgous to 10 levels; or (C) amending or abandoning your position.

Neither A, B, or C are correct. They don't apply. The only thing that should be considered, is whether the challenge is automatically succeeded against or not, before expending of consumables and other limited resources.

I do not consider permanent static bonuses, whether purchased with past gold or not, as an expendable resource when you are in the moment of solving that challenge.

jiggy wrote:

3) As both I and Rogue Eidolon asked, what's the difference between someone spending X gold for a static +Y to a skill, versus someone else spending X gold for a pile of potions of +Y to a skill? Your stated position thus far labels one of these hypothetical players as more deserving of his XP than the other, despite being nearly identical to each other. We're still waiting for an explanation of how anything (other than your own preference, since as you said, "It isn't just my...

I need more time to formulate my thoughts on this. At work and stream of thought discussion is not the correct place. This is a valid point and I want to give this the time and attention its due rather than firing off a half-cocked response that will probably not make any more sense of my position.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Organized Play does not have the ability to let Ran the Ripper truly be epic, if Ran the Ripper continually trains even when nothing challenges his prowess. And so if Ran the Ripper overcomes the challenges of the encounter for his party of adventurers, without any chance of failure...

If Ran the Ripper were in my party and he knocked out every trap in a scenario that was notorious for traps, I'd consider that pretty epic. I would make a point, as a player, to give him Kudos. That fact that he could have succeeded on a 1 is irrelevant to me. Not to mention the fact that as a player, I should never know what Ran needed to succeed. So for I all I know, he barely made his DC's.

The mistake, imo, is for the GM to not have Ran roll (or not roll Ran's secret checks such that everyone knew you were rolling). If the GM just hand waives the obstacle, then the GM is the one lessening the significance of Ran's accomplishments. There's nothing that stops the GM from convincing the players that Ran pulled off the nearly impossible.

EDIT:
And if I saw Ran do this after rolling nothing but 1's, that would be even more epic. I'll leave it to the person playing Ran to decide when he's put enough skill points into Disable Device.

Quote:

...the XP and gold, wasn’t really earned by any of them, and yet, for overcoming the scenario, they get the rewards anyways.

As others have said, the gold was earned before the encounter began. Your position and your argument is severely undermined by imposing a manner in which the obstacle must be overcome. It just comes across as another "you're doing it wrong" approach to GMing.

As I read your responses over and over, it appears you have a box for how players should operate. If the choices by the players don't fit in the box, you don't acknowledge them as valid. In a nutshell, this comes across as vanilla is better than chocolate. You're entitled to your opinion.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

You yourself agreed that zero challenge did not deserve a 20% to next level XP reward. And yet, you then try to discredit my extrapolation argument (yes I fully agree that my argument is fully based on extrapolating and precedent and that nowhere in the book does it seem to say exactly what I'm saying), because it isn't RAW. So how do you justify the disconnect in your two stances?

There is no disconnect in "my two stances". There would be, if I subscribed to your idea of how little it takes to get categorized as "zero challenge". But I don't.

I agree with the authors of the game that it's not until you're in a situation as severe as APL-10 that XP reduction should be considered. At that point, it becomes "zero challenge", and you get no XP.

To put it another way, if we define "zero challenge" as meaning the CR is (at least) 10 levels beneath you, then "zero challenge doesn't get XP" becomes a verifiably true statement, perfectly in line with any and all data we have regarding both the text and intent of the game.
If instead we define "zero challenge" as a function of whether or not you can fail a skill check, then we have to either consider that definition to be equivalent to 10 levels, or acknowledge that it's not in line with what the CRB says. (And hey, if you want to say you'd prefer for XP to be based on how hard something was to overcome, that's totally fine; but you said we're talking about what's in the book.)

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

2) Relatedly, the only fact remaining that even hints toward your position of XP reduction is the APL-10 rule itself; this means (as both I and Adam have pointed out) that to base your position on fact requires you to consider auto-pass skills to be equivalent to adding 10 levels to the entire party. This leaves you with the options of (A) showing other facts upon which to base your position; (B) showing auto-pass skills to in fact be reasonably analgous to 10 levels; or (C) amending or abandoning your position.

Neither A, B, or C are correct. They don't apply.

Why?

Andrew Christian wrote:

The only thing that should be considered, is whether the challenge is automatically succeeded against or not, before expending of consumables and other limited resources.

According to/based on what? You said we're talking about how the designers built the game, so where can I find any indication (even an implicit one) that the game was designed upon any premise reasonably similar to what you're stating?

Andrew Christian wrote:

I do not consider permanent static bonuses, whether purchased with past gold or not, as an expendable resource when you are in the moment of solving that challenge.

And you believe this idea was built into the game by the designers?

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Organized Play does not have the ability to let Ran the Ripper truly be epic, if Ran the Ripper continually trains even when nothing challenges his prowess. And so if Ran the Ripper overcomes the challenges of the encounter for his party of adventurers, without any chance of failure...

If Ran the Ripper were in my party and he knocked out every trap in a scenario that was notorious for traps, I'd consider that pretty epic. I would make a point, as a player, to give him Kudos. That fact that he could have succeeded on a 1 is irrelevant to me. Not to mention the fact that as a player, I should never know what Ran needed to succeed. So for I all I know, he barely made his DC's.

The mistake, imo, is for the GM to not have Ran roll (or not roll Ran's secret checks such that everyone knew you were rolling). If the GM just hand waives the obstacle, then the GM is the one lessening the significance of Ran's accomplishments. There's nothing that stops the GM from convincing the players that Ran pulled off the nearly impossible.

Quote:

...the XP and gold, wasn’t really earned by any of them, and yet, for overcoming the scenario, they get the rewards anyways.

As others have said, the gold was earned before the encounter began. Your position and your argument is severely undermined by imposing a manner in which the obstacle must be overcome. It just comes across as another "you're doing it wrong" approach to GMing.

As I read your responses over and over, it appears you have a box for how players should operate. If the choices by the players don't fit in the box, you don't acknowledge them as valid. In a nutshell, this comes across as vanilla is better than chocolate. You're entitled to your opinion.

I resently ran the PC that kicked this thread off in a scenario and would like to discuss one of the traps.

My PC, as the scout in the party, detected a trap in the center of the room. The judge informs me of this. I ask if my check result is high enough to get some idea of what kind of trap? and if I may take 20 to be sure there are no secondary traps triggered if I try to disarm this one. The judge says it's a magic trap, triggered when a PC enters one of "these squares". SO ... my girl moves up, pulls her tools out (I mime pulling out lock picks with a pen) and gets set to "work". The rest of the players state they are leaveing the room ("leaving the blast zone"), and my girl gets the strongest PC to hold a rope tied to her "in case you need to pull my smoldering body from the room". Another PC chips in "Guidance for you!". And, after the figures are moved, I state - "Taking 10, with the Guidance, she has an XX to removed the trap." The judge checks the notes..."and that's all you've got?" Me checking PC and notes..."ah... yep. That's it." Judge: "you think it's disarmed." Everyone breaths a sign (not the least person me), I thank the guy for the Guidance and we go on with the game. "I check Perception again to see if there are any others, or if I missed anything on this one."

I like to think the other players enjoy the fact that my PC:
A) removes the traps without them (other PCs) takeing damage (or dieing) from them.
B) does it fast, so there is little game time "lost" to my turn.
C) and (a little thing here) - I think the some of the players feel a part of the "trap removeal" process - with spells, or even just holding the rope.

I enjoyed this encounter. It was fun. It tested my build, - it didn't test my "ability to roll dice".

edit: Was my PC challenged? I really have no idea, except that I know I spent a lot of time building the PC, working on getting her skills to be as good I can to be sure that the challenge of the trap - whatever it might be - is overcome by my PC. Because that is what my PCs role is. Just like the guy with the swords role is to kill the monsters, and the guy in the pointy hats' (wizard) role is to "Know" things. The challenge was defeated when I was at home, late one night, when I decided to buy the Goggle of Minute Seeing for my girl, rather than spending that money on beefing up her AC.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

The game is a modification of, but largely still a game built upon the foundation created by Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. I don't like it when Jaimes Maissen keeps coming onto our boards saying that, but its a true statement. The entire game system chassis is DnD 3.5.

As such, from an encounter design standpoint, you can still look at some of the rules created for DnD 3.5, and theoretically and mechanically they still apply.

Pathfinder was not built from the ground up Jiggy.

The implicit statement that I’m using is the one you have discarded.

I can’t answer your question any more directly. If you discard my reasoning, we really don’t have anything more to discuss on the matter.

If a level 13 party overcomes a CR 3 encounter, by RAW, they should get no XP. But if for whatever reason, that level 13 party has no ability other than magic to hit an incorporeal undead creature, the CR 3 Shadow can actually present a fairly daunting challenge. Now I agree, the likelihood that the only way a level 13 party has to affect a Shadow is a magic weapon, is probably slim. But lets say they were challenged, and maybe the Wizard went down and became a Shadow. Should I give XP for the encounter, even though RAW I shouldn’t?

If a level 6 party overcomes a CR 10 encounter, without using any currently expendable resources (which include hit points). Should they get 20% of a level in experience? By RAW they should.

Two extreme situations, yet opposite ends of the spectrum.

In a home game, you can ensure that neither happens. That you can make sure that you present an appropriate challenge for your players regardless what they can do.

In PFS, you go with what the campaign staff develops. Now I trust that in most cases, the first situation won’t occur. But the 2nd has and does. Not because of bad development though.

But rather because the players are extremely good at building uber characters.

Essentially I think while your logic seems sound from a RAW standpoint, you are depending too much on that logic. Essentially this is not a 1+1 = 2 equation. It is more complicated than that.

Strictly logically, yeah, an always succeed on 1 skill check does not automatically equal an APL-10 situation as far as XP goes.

But just like the developers who run RPG Superstar say, that pricing magic items is an art, not a science. You can’t always use the magic item creation guide. You sometimes just have to go by gut feel that something is either priced correctly or wrongly, or that something is too powerful or not powerful enough (either in relation to price or not).

Encounter design and XP rewards is similar. The straight XP chart and RAW for how XP is divvied out is not a science. It is more an art. To some parties an Ogre can TPK them, while other parties you might need 3 Shadows and vice versa.

So if you are unwilling to entertain that they set a precedent for no challenge equals no XP, and if a skill check equals no challenge, then no XP, we really are at an impasse.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

N N 959 wrote:

As I read your responses over and over, it appears you have a box for how players should operate. If the choices by the players don't fit in the box, you don't acknowledge them as valid. In a nutshell, this comes across as vanilla is better than chocolate. You're entitled to your opinion.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I love it when players think outside of the box and try to use their skills and abilities and spells in unique ways to solve the problems presented during a scenario.

But if they aren’t challenged, there is no need for them to be creative, now is there?

And I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it. I've never said my opinion is 100% correct.

However, I'm being severely misread, misrepresented, and attacked for expressing my opinion.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

The game is a modification of, but largely still a game built upon the foundation created by Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. I don't like it when Jaimes Maissen keeps coming onto our boards saying that, but its a true statement. The entire game system chassis is DnD 3.5.

As such, from an encounter design standpoint, you can still look at some of the rules created for DnD 3.5, and theoretically and mechanically they still apply.

Pathfinder was not built from the ground up Jiggy.

Which then means that if a certain chart existed in 3.5, and was removed when Pathfinder copied stuff over, then that tells us quite a bit, doesn't it?

Andrew Christian wrote:

So if you are unwilling to entertain that they set a precedent for no challenge equals no XP, and if a skill check equals no challenge, then no XP, we really are at an impasse.

I'm willing to entertain that APL-10=0XP is a precedent or guideline rather than a hard rule. I'm not willing to entertain that an auto-pass skill is anywhere remotely close to the caliber of disparity for which that guideline sets a precedent.

If the rule/guideline/precedent was that APL-2=0XP, then yeah, I could see auto-pass skills as being arguably comparable. But to suggest that auto-pass skills are even in the same ballpark as APL-10? To suggest that putting auto-pass skills in the same challenge category as a 10-level gap could possibly be the spirit of the design, the idea that the designers were going for?

That goes past logic, art, AND common sense.

I agree that APL-10 should not be taken as an exact and exclusive threshold, and that it sets a broader precedent that could allow other obstacles to be beneath XP rewards without being fully 10 levels down. But your claims about the game's design, about skill bonuses being anywhere in the ballpark of a 10-level gap, go beyond the bounds of any plausible interpretation of intent.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

So you agree with the concept that zero challenge should get 20% towards a level?

[Chris Mortika]

Insofar as this discussion is moving to Pathfinder RPG game in general -- and not about Pathfinder Society Organized Play -- do you think it would be better taken up in another forum?

I think that, as the discussion continues, with "Venture-Lieutenant" attached to Andrew's posting name here, the thread runs the danger of confusing people who stumble into things here and don't realize that the topic has moved to theory-craft.

[Jiggy]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Insofar as this discussion is moving to Pathfinder RPG game in general -- and not about Pathfinder Society Organized Play -- do you think it would be better taken up in another forum?

If we were to establish that the Core game intends X, and that OP removes something pivotal to X such that things that aren't an issue in the Core game become an issue in OP, then we could discuss ways to address the issue in OP. Thus, I find it very relevant.

Chris Mortika wrote:

I think that, as the discussion continues, with "Venture-Lieutenant" attached to Andrew's posting name here, the thread runs the danger of confusing people who stumble into things here and don't realize that the topic has moved to theory-craft.

Anyone who jumps in at the 7th page and makes assumptions about context deserves what he gets. ;)

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Insofar as this discussion is moving to Pathfinder RPG game in general -- and not about Pathfinder Society Organized Play -- do you think it would be better taken up in another forum?

I think that, as the discussion continues, with "Venture-Lieutenant" attached to Andrew's posting name here, the thread runs the danger of confusing people who stumble into things here and don't realize that the topic has moved to theory-craft.

Probably not a bad idea. Folks are already getting the wrong idea that I'm some bitter and jaded and despondent GM who hates all players because of the nature of Organized Play.

Which couldn't be further from the truth.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

So you agree with the concept that zero challenge should get 20% towards a level?

I'm trying really hard to assume the best on your part Andy, but a post like that leaves me wondering. You've already brought up the concept (of "zero challenge gets 20% of a level") and I've already replied in detail, and rather than reply to any of my points you instead choose to literally just ask whether or not you can attach me to the statement?

You say you want to discuss, but you've just turned down an opportunity to discuss actual ideas in favor of requesting permission to label/categorize.

If you're actually interested in discussion, prove it: discuss.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Folks are already getting the wrong idea that I'm some bitter and jaded and despondent GM who hates all players because of the nature of Organized Play.

I'm aware of only one folk getting an idea anything like that, and even he didn't say anything about hating all players - you made that up yourself.

No one's really attacking you, that I'm seeing. One guy says he doesn't like your idea and is overzealously cautioning the air around him to GM as written, I'm asking you to back up claims that aren't just your opinion (and repeatedly acknowledging that what IS your opinion is totally fine), one has pointed out a logic jump that you haven't really directly addressed, another has asked a question that you said you'd get back to, another is popping in occasionally to make sure everything's okay, and one poor sod occasionally tries to get us all on-topic.

I think you might be taking things more personally than is warranted, to be honest.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

That couldn’t be further from the truth. I love it when players think outside of the box and try to use their skills and abilities and spells in unique ways to solve the problems presented during a scenario.

Stating you love creative solutions does not disprove my observation. Case in point:

Quote:

But if they aren’t challenged, there is no need for them to be creative, now is there?

For some, the challenge occurs when putting the build together in the first place. The challenge is deciding what things they will forgo and which things they can live without. Some people aren't good at being creative and would rather make a character that is better at rolling than role-playing.

You aren't acknowledging any challenge but what you consider valid. As I said, you have a box. If the behavior doesn't fit in the box, you dismiss it. Labeling that box "creative solutions" doesn't make the box any bigger or more comprehensive. Many builds are extremely creative. The more I look at people's character sheets, the more stuff I see that I never thought of. Much of that effort is to min/max some aspect of their build.

Quote:

And I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it.

That statement is a little worn out. You've gone beyond simply expressing an opinion and are attempting to justify it based on how you think it impacts players fun, your fun, the intent of the designers, etc. As such you've implicitly (if not explicitly) asked people to examine and critique it, and that's what I'm doing.

But as I've stated, your underlying assumption, imo, makes the discussion mostly moot. You still haven't acknowledge any consequences to the player who invests heavily in one skill. You haven't acknowledged that a comprehensive view of the situation might, in fact mean such builds make scenarios more challenging, on average, due to the character shortcomings in many other areas. Without such an acknowledgement on your part, there can be no meaningful exploration of the topic.

[nosig]

Back in 1st ed. days, where the rules for changing the XP for a monster dependant on the level of the PC comes from there where actually two tables (if memory serves me on this).
Table one gave a multiplier for how much you changed the XP for a monster, depending on the PCs level that killed it. A 1st level guy would get full XP for an Orc (1 hit die monster), and more XP for killing a Giant (something like 3x). Then a 8th level guy would get less for the lesser monster, reducing the XP down to 0 pts at some point. A 10th level fighter didn't get any points for killing an Orc, but would get extra for killing Orcus. Almost no one used this table at that time.

There was another table by the way, where you totaled up the Rating your DM gave you for how well you played your PC. This was sort of like a Report Card, and you would get a rating (from 1 being good, to 4 being very poor), which was reflected in how long it would take you to train to get the next level. (1 to 4 weeks, with anything over 2 weeks requireing a money expendature). Again, almost no one used this table either.

By the way, at that time, the only things that gave XP were killing monsters and getting treasure (money). OH! and everything other than PCs was called a "Monster" - so you'd get jokes about killing the sheep and cows and peasents, etc. to make a level.

Overcomeing traps on the other hand, did not give XP. which is why a thief needed 1250xp to level to 2nd when a fighter needed 2000, and a wizard needed 2500.

Should we play this game this way still? then a Rogue would need to get 2 xp to level and a wizard would need 4xp.... fighters would still need 3xp. But then Rogues would get fewer xp for each scenario, perhaps 2/3 xp?

[N N 959]

Jiggy wrote:

One guy *** is overzealously cautioning the air around him to GM as written...

Guilty as charged! :)

[BigNorseWolf]

This is how I do it. It might marginalize the rogue trapfinding talent a bit but it certainly speeds things up

Rule 1: The group consists of quasi trained, semi professional almost competent tomb rob..erm.. archeologists who aren't dead yet. Unless you are on a time limit or tell me you are sprinting through the dungeon I assume you're looking around for traps, odd fungi, weird idols, loose flag stones etc.

If you are, for some reason, on a time limit I think its a move action to look around for non reactive stimuli (a catagory which i think consists entirely of traps) . Since I really don't want to have to count out 30 foot movements of increment through the dungeon, I consider this move action to happen while the party is moving so you just functionally move at half speed. You search your entire line of sight this way.

You have eyes. You have ears. They are always on. You do not have to tell me this. I might make you make a few perception checks at empty doors for paranoias sake, but if there is something standing behind the door with claws raised overhead waiting with baited breath to devour something opening the door you'll get a perception check to hear it.

Re: doors. Every time you open one I assume the party is ready for anything on the other side. none of this carefully opening the door and then "GASP! I'm surprised there's a monster in this abandoned dungeon!" dross.

[N N 959]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Re: doors. Every time you open one I assume the party is ready for anything on the other side. none of this carefully opening the door and then "GASP! I'm surprised there's a monster in this abandoned dungeon!" dross.

Are you kidding? During a dungeon crawl, if players don't actively remind me, I assume they've taken off their armor between encounters.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

One guy *** is overzealously cautioning the air around him to GM as written...

Guilty as charged! :)

Jiggy wrote:

and one poor sod occasionally tries to get us all on-topic.
...

Wait... am I the "poor sod"?

8)
Nah, can't be. I gave up on keeping on-topic a hundred posts or more ago.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

So you agree with the concept that zero challenge should get 20% towards a level?

I'm trying really hard to assume the best on your part Andy, but a post like that leaves me wondering. You've already brought up the concept (of "zero challenge gets 20% of a level") and I've already replied in detail, and rather than reply to any of my points you instead choose to literally just ask whether or not you can attach me to the statement?

You say you want to discuss, but you've just turned down an opportunity to discuss actual ideas in favor of requesting permission to label/categorize.

If you're actually interested in discussion, prove it: discuss.

Straight up BS! I've written 1000's if words trying to discuss and back up my point. You keep refusing to back this particular hole in your argument. You agreed with me once up thread that zero challenge should not get 20% experience, then go on to say my argument is beyond reason and common sense.

The crux of my entire argument with you lies in whether you feel that is true or not.

Because if you think no challenge should not get 20% if a level, but you don't feel equating an APL-10 to auto success on a skill check, in my mind those two are mutually exclusive. Don't ask me why. Read my thousands of words up thread that explain it.

[Rubia]

Quick question:

Does this zero challenge = zero XP opinion of yours therefore necessarily mean that a fighter (who could always roll a natural 1 and fail) and a wizard (whose opponents could always roll a natural 20 and resist) are never broken?

It is therefore just the skill specialist who satisfies the "unfun" behavior? Because in my experience, it is the former two that are far more of a problem in PFS than the latter one.

Thanks,

Rubia

[nosig]

Rubia wrote:

Quick question:

Does this zero challenge = zero XP opinion of yours therefore necessarily mean that a fighter (who could always roll a natural 1 and fail) and a wizard (whose opponents could always roll a natural 20 and resist) are never broken?

It is therefore just the skill specialist who satisfies the "unfun" behavior? Because in my experience, it is the former two that are far more of a problem in PFS than the latter one.

Thanks,

Rubia

wait, you forgot the healer!

You know, the guy who sits in the back and is never challanged by anything, just there to heal people up...

[Shisumo]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

So you agree with the concept that zero challenge should get 20% towards a level?

I'm trying really hard to assume the best on your part Andy, but a post like that leaves me wondering. You've already brought up the concept (of "zero challenge gets 20% of a level") and I've already replied in detail, and rather than reply to any of my points you instead choose to literally just ask whether or not you can attach me to the statement?

You say you want to discuss, but you've just turned down an opportunity to discuss actual ideas in favor of requesting permission to label/categorize.

If you're actually interested in discussion, prove it: discuss.

Straight up BS! I've written 1000's if words trying to discuss and back up my point. You keep refusing to back this particular hole in your argument. You agreed with me once up thread that zero challenge should not get 20% experience, then go on to say my argument is beyond reason and common sense.

The crux of my entire argument with you lies in whether you feel that is true or not.

Because if you think no challenge should not get 20% if a level, but you don't feel equating an APL-10 to auto success on a skill check, in my mind those two are mutually exclusive. Don't ask me why. Read my thousands of words up thread that explain it.

They are not mutually exclusive, because Jiggy and others in this thread have made it clear that they do not consider auto-success on a roll equates to not being a challenge. As one previous poster wrote, "The challenge was met before the scenario began." Just because you cannot fail a roll at a given moment doesn't mean it's not challenging you - you have, in fact, spent a substantial portion of your adventuring career preparing yourself to meet that challenge, and there aren't many people other than you who could do so.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Straight up BS!

If you're getting this worked up, then you probably need to go take a breather before continuing. Trying to discuss this topic while agitated is not going to get us anywhere useful. Everything (including the rest of this post) will still be here once you've cooled down.

---------------------------------

Quote:

I've written 1000's if words trying to discuss and back up my point. You keep refusing to back this particular hole in your argument.

For what it's worth, I feel like I could say this right back to you. So let's both be gracious and try to be really clear in our own points and specific when asking about each other's. (That's why earlier, I requested that you refer me to any posts of yours that it might seem like I missed. Seriously, even if it's just saying "my third post on page X" or whatever - if the thing that you believe answers a question I ask has already been written, I'm totally fine with you sending me back instead of rewriting it.)

Quote:

You agreed with me once up thread that zero challenge should not get 20% experience,

Yes.

Quote:

then go on to say my argument is beyond reason and common sense.

Okay, this is important, so I want to be as clear as possible. I didn't say your argument was beyond reason and common sense. Your argument, as I understand it, is approximately this:

PREMISE: The APL-10 rule denies XP if there's a 10-level gap.
PREMISE: The APL-10 rule is a guideline and/or precedent, not an exhaustive and exclusive "always this and only this" type of rule.
CONCLUSION: Anything that approximately matches the precedent set by the APL-10 guideline should not garner XP.

I agree with that argument. The first premise is provable (right there in black and white). Some might argue the second premise, but I personally agree with it. The conclusion clearly and obviously follows from the premises.

So all that, I agree with. None of it is what I said was beyond common sense.

What I said was beyond common sense was the notion that having an auto-pass skill sufficiently comparable to 10 levels that the above argument would even apply to it.

There are other things to which the argument applies just fine: for instance, the party facing an APL-8 challenge for which they're especially well-suited; or maybe somehow they all got epic gear at 9th level or something: they wouldn't get XP, because the capability is comparable to a 10-level gap, so you treat it in a comparable way.

The argument is fine. Any situation that's comparable to being 10 levels ahead, and you don't get XP. Totally agree.

I just don't agree that a high skill bonus falls under that umbrella. Auto-succeeding on Perception and/or Disable Device (or really any other skill) checks is anywhere near the same tier of advantage as being 10 levels higher (or the other examples I gave).

For some perspective, remember running the 12+ tier table of Race for the Runecarved Key for those 13th-level post-retirement guys? For them, APL-10 is First Steps.

Yes. Imagine that group saying "Actually, instead of Race at 12+, could you run us through First Steps, with these characters?"

Treating the APL-10 rule as a guideline means that my 10th-level guy who was along for the ride doesn't get XP either, even though he's only at like -8 or whatever, because he's still essentially in the same boat because the party's at 13th. He doesn't get to snag XP on a technicality. I'm with you on that.

What I can't accept is you looking at a PC who auto-succeeds with his trapfinding, and thinking it's about the same idea as that APL 13 table playing First Steps. I cannot believe that when the designers said those guys wouldn't get XP for First Steps, that they were also thinking of auto-pass skills as being pretty much the same type of situation.

Claiming that to be the intent or spirit of how the designers envisioned the game - that pumping up a skill is about the same as a table of Seekers playing a 1st-level Welcome to Noobville adventure - just doesn't make any sense.

[JohnF]

This thread has been useful; it's made me think about what I do when I'm running my home group through an Adventure Path. I'll adjust the CR of an encounter to compensate for the fact that the group is larger than the four characters assumed in the AP design, but that's about the limit of what I'll do in-game.

I just don't like the whole idea of tweaking of the DCs, etc. on the fly. If I'm going to be doing that for a character I consider to be too powerful, then logically I should really also be tweaking the DCs for an under-optimised character as well so that they can't auto-fail.

At that point I might just as well award the XP for turning up at the table; if I'm micro-managing the encounters to provide the right (perceived) challenge level for the party, I'm getting perilously close to defining anything other than my idea of a correctly built character as badwrongfun.

Needless to say, I think this is the wrong approach. I don't mind characters auto-succeeding at something. But the players don't necessarily need to know their characters are auto-succeeding; I should be able to create suspense or atmosphere from how I describe what is happening.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy, lets use a less extreme example.

A level 10 Half-Elf Rogue with a 16 Dex and 12 Wisdom,

Perception vs. Traps of: 25 (10 ranks + 3 class skill +1 Wisdom +5 Rogue +6 Skill Focus (half-elf) = 25) with no magic or purchased investment.

Disable Device vs. Traps of: 27 (10 ranks + 3 class skill +3 Dexterity +5 Rogue +6 Skill Focus (3rd level Feat) = 27) with no magic or purchased investment.

Do you feel a CR 10 trap, with no mitigating circumstances (combat, environmental conditions, et. al.) with a DC of 25 to perceive and disable, is a challenge to this character?

If so, why?

He hasn't purchased anything, so the argument that he has used expendable resources is not valid.

He automatically succeeds at finding and disabling the trap. And he probably took trapspotter, and so automatically succeeded in finding the trap just because he walked within 10 feet of it (he didn't even have to actively look for it or indicate to the GM that he thought there might be a trap there so he was looking).

So a CR 10 trap is an APL challenge for a level 10 character.

And yet, there was no challenge. It was succeeded at essentially off-screen as it were.

This is without any traits or extra feats to enhance either skill, and ability wise is a rather average Rogue.

So how much XP would you give out for succeeding in this fashion?

Full: 9,600?
Half or less: 4,800? (there is no precedent RAW for doing this)?
None: There is some precedent that if a GM determines something is not a challenge, that no XP is gained. Something that should be a CR 10 encounter, for this character, is essentially a CR 0 encounter. And thus creates the APL-10 situation.

I don't know how much more succinctly than that I can put it. If you don't agree with that reasoning, that's fine. But don't use RAW to back yourself up, and don't impugn my reasoning ability because my logic differs from yours.

Because you agreed that zero challenge should equal no experience.

But your argument is that the only thing that equals no challenge is if something can be defined as APL-10.

And my argument is, that many things can be defined as no challenge, whether it is APL-10 or not.

You argue that succeeding automatically at a skill check does not equal APL-10.

I argue that you don't need to define it that way and that automatically succeeding at a skill check is equal to no challenge. If you need to define it narrowly as APL-10, then yes, I would say that automatically succeeding at a skill check is equivalent to APL-10, because the CR isn't really what's listed, but 10 less because it offers no challenge.

The reason I'm using traps as an example, rather than a Creature encounter, is because there are so many variables that go into a creature encounter, that it is never this black and white. It is also often opposed checks. And the APL-10 calculation is most appropriately used for creature encounters. Traps are black and white. If you fail at the check badly enough, you can set it off, and if you fail at the check but don't set it off, you can still set it off by meeting the trigger conditions. You take the effects of the trap. If you succeed, the trap is defeated. Creatures are rarely that simple.

But if you do not equate this example as a no challenge skill test, tell me why? What would you consider it?

I've told you why I feel it is.

And if you do not feel that a no challenge skill test (assuming you feel this is a no challenge skill test) should get no XP, how much XP would you give it, and why? Can you back your decision up with the rules? If not, why would you choose to not use the rules to make your ruling?

And if you would choose to go against the rules for how you grant XP, how do you justify busting my chops for using a precedent you don't agree with, with only RAW to back up your argument?

[tenieldjo]

So, let's say a monster is 30 ft away (+5 to the DC from distance), hiding behind a wall or half-wall. It has total concealment, total cover, some stone between you and it. An invisible creature gets +40 to its stealth if it is immobile, which the creature effectively is because you can't see it. Let's say a creature expected you to come, and had time to situate itself in a nice hiding spot, effectively taking 20 on stealth. If a GM were to be very harsh with the rules for stealth, there is no way anyone could fail to be ambushed. The point is, just because you got a 50 on your perception doesn't mean you're going to perceive monsters that are actively hiding.

Also, I very seldom see groups attempting to be stealthy. If you are a group tromping around, causing combat, I feel like it's not unreasonable to expect that at some point someone has heard you. Particularly for higher level scenarios or combats where the tactics rely heavily on the monsters getting the jump on people, I prefer GMs not to softball it and hand the players an easy victory just because they cheesed their perception score.

Also also, when someone is "taking 20" while perceiving a room, I've always pictured that as going through with a fine-tooth comb, feeling the walls, etc, not standing in the doorway, concentrating really hard on the room for a minute. For traps, you're looking for tiles that don't quite match, feeling for seams, etc, it's not just looking and listening. I can't point to a rule that says that actively perceiving requires you to be... well... active, but it's not really in the spirit. Also, it is sort of awkward to handle in game if you get attacked while taking 20. Are you flat-footed? You hadn't finished perceiving, so I guess so. Kind of defeats the purpose of taking 20.

[BigNorseWolf]

tenieldjo wrote:

et's say a creature expected you to come, and had time to situate itself in a nice hiding spot, effectively taking 20 on stealth.

There's no rule for doing this, and i doubt you would let the players do the same thing. If you think taking 20 perception isn't kosher, then why would you allow it for stealth?

Having a perception score beat a stealth check is no cheesier than having a hit beat somethings armor. You have a perception score precisely to screw up the monsters desire to ambush you.

If the monster is hiding behind a wall that renders it invisible (ie, a solid wall) it cannot pop out and move towards the party to attack on the same round. If it wants to charge the party it needs to wait until there is line of effect between himself and the party. At that point the pcs do get perception checks, and can also be poking their heads around corners, using mirrors and the like to negate the -40 wall penalty.

[tenieldjo]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

tenieldjo wrote:

et's say a creature expected you to come, and had time to situate itself in a nice hiding spot, effectively taking 20 on stealth.

There's no rule for doing this, and i doubt you would let the players do the same thing. If you think taking 20 perception isn't kosher, then why would you allow it for stealth?

Having a perception score beat a stealth check is no cheesier than having a hit beat somethings armor. You have a perception score precisely to screw up the monsters desire to ambush you.

If the monster is hiding behind a wall that renders it invisible (ie, a solid wall) it cannot pop out and move towards the party to attack on the same round. If it wants to charge the party it needs to wait until there is line of effect between himself and the party. At that point the pcs do get perception checks, and can also be poking their heads around corners, using mirrors and the like.

Taking 20 on perception is totally kosher, but it doesn't work in every situation and you shouldn't expect it to. If you had plenty of time to set up an ambush, and you knew someone would be coming through in the next few minutes, I would absolutely allow PCs to take 20 on stealth. Once you break stealth, you get your single action during the surprise round, then regular initiative begins.

[BigNorseWolf]

tenieldjo wrote:

Taking 20 on perception is totally kosher, but it doesn't work in every situation and you shouldn't expect it to. If you had plenty of time to set up an ambush, and you knew someone would be coming through in the next few minutes, I would absolutely allow PCs to take 20 on stealth. Once you break stealth, you get your single action during the surprise round, then regular initiative begins.

And what do you do with a surprise round when you have a wall in between you and your target?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

What I can't accept is you looking at a PC who auto-succeeds with his trapfinding, and thinking it's about the same idea as that APL 13 table playing First Steps. I cannot believe that when the designers said those guys wouldn't get XP for First Steps, that they were also thinking of auto-pass skills as being pretty much the same type of situation.

Claiming that to be the intent or spirit of how the designers envisioned the game - that pumping up a skill is about the same as a table of Seekers playing a 1st-level Welcome to Noobville adventure - just doesn't make any sense.

I wanted to address this specifically, because I feel this is the largest part of our disconnect.

You are making a logical leap of what I'm trying to say, based on what the rules specifically say.

The game rules are not perfect for what actually presents a challenge. There are some CR 3 creatures that are supposedly a good APL challenge for an APL 3 party, that an APL 3 party would find it really, really difficult to defeat, and it would be more like an APL+4 encounter. Consider the Shadow. Conversely, that same APL 3 party would find it fairly easy to defeat a single Dire Wolf depending on the party make-up of course.

Blakros Matrimony:

Consider that the final combat for sub-tier 3-4 gave the Young Template to a Shadow Demon, which consequently actually made the Shadow Demon more difficult for the lower tier. Even though the Young Template supposedly lowered its CR. They mitigated this by making the Shadow Demon run away once someone made it outside the tent.

Traps are the biggest culprit of being an insufficient challenge for the CR they supposedly represent. A CR 10 trap is not supposed to be an auto-succeed for an average rogue of equal level, moderately optimized for finding and disabling traps. And yet it is.

Because of this failing in the CR system, you can't take sacrosanct the APL-10, and sometimes what should be an equal APL challenge is effectively the same as an APL-10. If you auto-succeed, you do so, regardless whether it should or shouldn't be a challenge.

There is no effective difference between that Rogue succeeding at a CR 10 trap or a CR 1/2 trap.

[tenieldjo]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

tenieldjo wrote:

Taking 20 on perception is totally kosher, but it doesn't work in every situation and you shouldn't expect it to. If you had plenty of time to set up an ambush, and you knew someone would be coming through in the next few minutes, I would absolutely allow PCs to take 20 on stealth. Once you break stealth, you get your single action during the surprise round, then regular initiative begins.

And what do you do with a surprise round when you have a wall in between you and your target?

You have a few options: if you are a ranged characters and you are adjacent to the corner of your cover, you can make an attack around the corner; if you are a melee character and you are adjacent to the corner of your cover and so is your target, you make your attack from around the corner (giving the PC a +2 bonus to AC) or ready to attack them when they enter the room; or, if you can't do either of those, you move into a position where you can attack when your regular turn comes up. All of these actions will break your stealth, and put you into regular initiative once you have completed them.