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

[nosig]

This last weekend I went to a CON and gamed way too much. Six slots, for a number of different judges (5 or 6 I think) and ran the same PC the entire CON. Most of the games were with the same core of players (myself and 3 friends). I noticed some major differences in the way the judges ran the skill Perception. (I ran the Trap finder, so I had a high Perception, and was the team Trap Detector).

side note on PFS Judges:

Each of my judges were great, really. Very good, and a lot of fun to play for. That's kind of normal at PFS events - most PFS judges are really good, a few are new and learning and make mistakes (don't we all!), but poor judges are kind of rare (so we tend to remember them more). And over all I think everyone I played with had a lot of fun.

but back to the Perception skill...

Some time back I posted a thread about judges who still use the 3.5 Search/Spot rules. I only noticed this with one judge at this CON. In fact, it has gotten so rare for a judge to still be using the Search/Spot rules that this one cought me by surprise. My "rogue" did the Perception thing and spotted a trap, disarmed it, and another PC moved past me into the room - hitting another trap just past the first, in the next 5' space. I told the other player "sorry about that! must have been a hard one to see!" and the judge pointed out that I had "not checked that 5' square".

[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n12p?Perception-Why-do-DMs-still-use-the-35-Search#1]Older thread about Perception[/url].

I paused the game long enough to discuss with the judge how she did Perception and "checking for traps". Thanked her for the explaination and adapted to the older rules (basicly started checking every 5' square - taking 10), and (respectfully) asked her to check the rules after the game if she could - as I was sure the rules were different for this.

In all other cases the judges ran the Perception rules for locating traps as I beleave PFS has them.

But for detecting monsters? I'm not so sure. My 'toon had a 20+ bonus in perception. In the 'crawl I would regularly take 20 on a room (getting a 40+ Perception skill check) while standing in the doorway. I seldom detected a monster. They were "hidden". My PC wouldn't see the monsters laying in ambush - so the party would move into the room and (with some judges) suffer a surprise round, or just step right into Init. It was common enough that my girl would take 20 on perception, and the party would send the HP spunge forward to suffer the first attacks, as we knew there was a monster we weren't detecting in the room, waiting to swing at the first of us who moved in. The encounter would proceed from there... Having a 40+ perception ... didn't seem to help in detecting ambushes. FOr one judge, at one point, my PC did detect movement in a pile of debris (10' square) - from which (during the surprise round) something like 6 creatures emerged and attacked (there were two piles, and 9+ monsters came out of them). Felt like we were standing outside a clown car and watching the monsters pile out - while we just stood there and let them run up on us.

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...

[Lab_Rat]

The way I run perception checks is this:

A player makes a perception check. I then apply that check to the DC of EVERYTHING in view, modifying the DC for distance from the player at the time the check was made. Anything with a DC that the players perception check meets/beats is seen.

This means that a single High perception check can notice everything hidden.

[Rogue Eidolon]

If the judges had the monsters act polite enough to wait for you to finish taking 20 (I probably would have had them attack midway myself, when they saw you scanning the room, since you don't get any result of the T20 until after your 1 minute of searching is over--T10 seems a safer bet to me), you absolutely should have detected all of them when you were done unless they rolled even higher on stealth. Were they invisible to you and standing perfectly still for the +40? Since my monk has over +30 to perception, if she doesn't hear an enemy in a very suspicious-looking room, she sometimes buffs for imperceptible foes that match the dungeon's theme like incorporeals in the walls (using abundant ammunition on her ghost salt quiver). So far, it's mostly been a waste of charges though.

[GM Lamplighter]

Opposed perception versus stealth, -1 on perception for every 5' of distance, plus other mods as appropriate. If the monster is behind hard cover, that's like being invisible and gives +20 to its stealth. Even if you can't see or id it, you could hear it using perception and thus not be surprised.

EDiT: but if you were taking twenty, you would have been attacked 9 times before you finished...

Am I missing something about this post, though? Why is this a public post instead of a private conversation with the GM after the game?

[nosig]

Scott Young wrote:

Opposed perception versus stealth, -1 on perception for every 5' of distance, plus other mods as appropriate. If the monster is behind hard cover, that's like being invisible and gives +20 to its stealth. Even if you can't see or id it, you could hear it using perception and thus not be surprised.

EDiT: but if you were taking twenty, you would have been attacked 9 times before you finished...

Am I missing something about this post, though? Why is this a public post instead of a private conversation with the GM after the game?

Actually it's "Distance to the source, object, or creature +1/10 feet" so the DC goes up by +1 per 10 feet rather than -1 to the Perception check per 5 feet.

And while I agree, a monster behind TOTAL cover should count as invisible and get a +20 - except that does not seem to apply to adventurers, as Sir Clanksalot in the full plate armor seems to warn the monsters in the next room even when he has total cover... the skill actually lists these two things
Through a closed door = +5
Through a wall = +10/foot of thickness
SO maybe I've been doing it wrong.

This post is not a ment to zing my judges - they were all very good. It is the fact that each of them did perception differently from the way I understood it to work, so I figure I'm doing it wrong, and came here to see what's up. If everyone is doing it different from me, perhaps I need to learn the "common usage" and adapt my judge/player style to the way everyone else is doing it. The only judge doing something differently (the one check = 1 square) I spoke to and I feel sure she will review it and make her judgement. She was one of the best I played with this weekend.

For those persons saying that my PC should have been attacked before she got to take 20... well, that was sort of the way we expected it to work. SOP for her is to T10 at the door, and if nothing is detected to T20 before proceeding into the room. This was modified for this weekend to be. T10 at the door, and if nothing is detected to T20 before letting the HP Spunge into the room.

[Rogue Eidolon]

nosig wrote:

And while I agree, a monster behind TOTAL cover should count as invisible and get a +20 - except that does not seem to apply to adventurers, as Sir Clanksalot in the full plate armor seems to warn the monsters in the next room even when he has total cover... the skill actually lists these two things

Through a closed door = +5
Through a wall = +10/foot of thickness
SO maybe I've been doing it wrong.

This is unambiguously how it is, which is one of many weirdnessness introduced in Pathfinder vis-a-vis Stealth and Perception caused by collapsing the skills from five to two, since those listed adjustments are meant to apply to sound (Listen vs Move Silently) whereas the invisible condition's +20 is meant to make sight much harder (Spot vs Hide). But these modifiers were just all adopted wholesale into one catch-all, leading to weird results. I mean, right now we have the case that an invisible creature behind total cover has much higher stealth than a visible creature behind total cover, even though it shouldn't matter at all. However, that's a topic for other threads (and it's been discussed on other subforums before several times).

[Eric Clingenpeel]

The way I look at it, perception is not just being able to see something or not. Perception is about using all five senses. Sure having total cover might mean you can't "see" something, but that shouldn't prevent you from hearing him breathing, or seeing a shadow, smelling his BO, etc. Things have stealth scores for a reason. The stealth section has modifiers to DCs for a reason. Allowing total cover to count as invisibility is simply a house rule, and doesn't really have a place in PFS (unless I missed it in the CRB for some reason).

[Relixander]

Listening at the door was an old tried & true method for getting at least some idea (in most cases) if anything or what was lying in wait for you behind the door, panel, curtain, etc. In Society play this tactic as well as stealth scouting seems to be an abandoned tactic. To be fair as a GM I have seen scouting being attempted by less than ideal scouts in less than ideal situations, often. As a player I have seen GMs take a situation that seems ideal for scouting and make it impossible (yes I knew the situation from the GM side and realized what changes were made). It does make the GM work a little more to figure out what could be heard and what it might sound like other than what it actually is...

[nosig]

This is just a guess on my part...but it seems like it's working like this...

... the write up says something like:
"Moster attacks when the PCs enter the room." and many Judges just go with just that. The encounter doesn't start until the PCs enter, so the "scouting" is lumped into stuff that happens between encounters... the players get the boxed text (which doesn't mention the monsters) when they enter the room and place thier PCs on the tactical map. They move figs until the first figure gets to the X on the floor and then the judge places the Mooks out and we roll Init. Some judges even say "Place your first guy here, and the rest of you back of that and roll INIT.

Admittedly my view of this is kind of colored by the last 6 games I played (Dungeon Crawls all and a good part of those were the first 4 levels of Thorn Keep). And it might just be "judgeing style" for the judges I had...

But how do I change this?

My scout does (or trys to do) the following:

1) Darkvision - sometimes the entire party has darkvision. I've tried moving ahead of those persons with lights, but that just means I'm 30+ feet from the party when the judge calls for Init.

2) Stealth - my current scout is weak in stealth. She has a +11 at 6th level, and normally I would take 10... so a 21? But I'm not sure if this would help... as the monsters just seem to start at combat range, and I seldom if ever seem to get a stealth check to work even with my other scouts (who have 20+).

3) Perception - Over 13+Lvl or more, so at 2nd level she's getting 25+ on her Take 10, and by 7th level she's over 30 (35?). I would have picked up Eyes of the Eagle, but it seems more perception isn't going to help...

4) Something else? Fishing for suggestions here...

[Doug Miles]

A lot of GMs get comfortable on the rails--running the scenario as it is intended to flow--and can resist when a player has an unexpected ability that nullifies the monster's advantage. Often we GMs have an oppositional stance in relation to the players. We have to suppress our need to 'win' by challenging or even defeating the players. Some players enjoy NOT getting challenged. It's hard for everyone to appreciate that. What I read into nosig's story is he had some GMs who wanted the monster to have a surprise round despite his PC's quasi-extra-sensory-perception ability. He made an investment in pumping up the Perception skill and it was getting ignored. That's my take. I'd be disappointed if I were him, too. How much more fun would he have had if he knew where the monster was hiding and the party turned the table on the monster? But instead the GM announces the monster jumps out of the pile of trash and let's all roll initiative (and try not to roll our eyes).

[nosig]

Doug Miles wrote:

A lot of GMs get comfortable on the rails--running the scenario as it is intended to flow--and can resist when a player has an unexpected ability that nullifies the monster's advantage. Often we GMs have an oppositional stance in relation to the players. We have to suppress our need to 'win' by challenging or even defeating the players. Some players enjoy NOT getting challenged. It's hard for everyone to appreciate that. What I read into nosig's story is he had some GMs who wanted the monster to have a surprise round despite his PC's quasi-extra-sensory-perception ability. He made an investment in pumping up the Perception skill and it was getting ignored. That's my take. I'd be disappointed if I were him, too. How much more fun would he have had if he knew where the monster was hiding and the party turned the table on the monster? But instead the GM announces the monster jumps out of the pile of trash and let's all roll initiative (and try not to roll our eyes).

I think you hit the nail on the head Doug. You perhaps understood the problem even better than me.

I had built my PC with the intention of fielding the traps for the party (which she does very well) and giving the rest of the party an advantage going into a combat. It's the second part that seems not to be working... and I'm not sure what I can do to boost it.

Another of my scouts took a level in Diviner Wizard just to go in the surprise round, but I don't really want to do that with this lady. And even at that, it's a cast of "Hay, Nosigs rogue just vanished - that means we're fixing to be attacked!"... basicly I get to go in the surprise round before the monsters, but I have no idea what those mosters are or what they are going to be doing.

Is there any way in a PFS game to increase a scouts effectiveness that I have missed?

[Doug Miles]

As you identified, there's a lot of table variation out there. What's more likely to change, your tactics or the GM's style? You should just give up and play like I do. Have your PC marinade themselves and run into the room a-la Monty Python's "Being Eaten By A Crocodile Event". I make the GMs work to not kill my characters.

[nosig]

Doug Miles wrote:

As you identified, there's a lot of table variation out there. What's more likely to change, your tactics or the GM's style? You should just give up and play like I do. Have your PC marinade themselves and run into the room a-la Monty Python's "Being Eaten By A Crocodile Event". I make the GMs work to not kill my characters.

well... I guess that would be another approach. Maybe I'll look into it.... nah.

[Lab_Rat]

It works out well with my barbarian. You can actually take up a few roles that way. You scout out the room first, discover hidden monsters by being stabbed in the kidneys, and then you get to play the role of the bucket of HP and tank the encounter.

He's a well trained bull in a china store. You just tell me when and I will provide all the chaos required.

[N N 959]

Doug Miles wrote:

A lot of GMs get comfortable on the rails--running the scenario as it is intended to flow--and can resist when a player has an unexpected ability that nullifies the monster's advantage. Often we GMs have an oppositional stance in relation to the players. We have to suppress our need to 'win' by challenging or even defeating the players. Some players enjoy NOT getting challenged. It's hard for everyone to appreciate that. What I read into nosig's story is he had some GMs who wanted the monster to have a surprise round despite his PC's quasi-extra-sensory-perception ability. He made an investment in pumping up the Perception skill and it was getting ignored. That's my take. I'd be disappointed if I were him, too. How much more fun would he have had if he knew where the monster was hiding and the party turned the table on the monster? But instead the GM announces the monster jumps out of the pile of trash and let's all roll initiative (and try not to roll our eyes).

Bingo.

I will add that I think many of the scenarios I have read do not connect the dots on skill checks. As you have identified, GMs often have trouble contemplating outcomes that aren't explicitly anticipated in the scenario. I can imagine this is even more true at higher levels where you have so many feats/abilities/spells interacting that it can be difficult to sort through.

If I were in this situation, I would ask the GM to walk me through how a creature who is in the room could have been detected with a Perception check. If the GM is forced to go through the actual process of a successful detection, that will more accurately reveal how they are approaching it.

Since you know this problem exists, prior to starting the module, I would try and cover this problem with each GM. "Hey, I have run into this problem before and I want to get your take on it..."

[Jiggy]

Doug Miles wrote:

A lot of GMs get comfortable on the rails--running the scenario as it is intended to flow--and can resist when a player has an unexpected ability that nullifies the monster's advantage. Often we GMs have an oppositional stance in relation to the players. We have to suppress our need to 'win' by challenging or even defeating the players. Some players enjoy NOT getting challenged. It's hard for everyone to appreciate that. What I read into nosig's story is he had some GMs who wanted the monster to have a surprise round despite his PC's quasi-extra-sensory-perception ability. He made an investment in pumping up the Perception skill and it was getting ignored. That's my take. I'd be disappointed if I were him, too. How much more fun would he have had if he knew where the monster was hiding and the party turned the table on the monster? But instead the GM announces the monster jumps out of the pile of trash and let's all roll initiative (and try not to roll our eyes).

+Lots

I often cringe when I see someone post about dealing with PCs who "trivialize" encounters/challenges, as half the time it seems like "trivialize" is code for "successfully overcomes in exactly the manner the challenge is intended to be overcome".

[RainyDayNinja]

I notice the same kind of thing with Bluff. It seems some NPCs have an amazing ability to auto-succeed Sense Motive checks (even without a roll!) just because "you're supposed to fight them."

[Jiggy]

I've considered doing an experiment: take notes when encountering illusions, then compile them (probably sorted by GM) and use them when casting my own illusions. Maybe do the same with enchantments.

;D

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

I’ll agree with you Jiggy, except for one thing:

There is a huge difference between having a +19 at level 12 to Perception, and being pretty good at it even with a 7 Wisdom, and having a <+20 at level 6.

Having a chance to overcome a challenge, or make an encounter easier, because of a good Stealth or Perception is great. I enjoy that as a GM.

Having everything in the scenario meaningless because someone has a ridiculous Perception or Stealth is skirting the lines into over-optimization.

Perception PC: I rolled a 15 and get a 45 Perception, do I see anything?
GM: Yes, you see movement over yonder.
Perception PC: Great, I shout, “Guys, there be monsters in there.”
GM: Ok, roll Init
Machine Gun PC: Ok, I got a 40 Init and shoot 20 arrows, and with my improved precise shot, all their cover and concealment bonuses mean squat.
GM: Ok, they are all dead, you win.

So not fun.

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)

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

So not fun.

For who?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

I've considered doing an experiment: take notes when encountering illusions, then compile them (probably sorted by GM) and use them when casting my own illusions. Maybe do the same with enchantments.

;D

Please don't do that. Throwing things back from 3 scenarios ago into a GM's face is kinda a jerk move.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

So not fun.

For who?

For the GM. They deserve to have fun too.

I enjoy providing a fun time for players.

I also enjoy providing a challenge for players.

If I’m just there to read boxed text and narrate how they defeat the monsters, I’ll just stop bothering to show up.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I've considered doing an experiment: take notes when encountering illusions, then compile them (probably sorted by GM) and use them when casting my own illusions. Maybe do the same with enchantments.

;D

Please don't do that. Throwing things back from 3 scenarios ago into a GM's face is kinda a jerk move.

I know, it's more of a "chuckle inside my head" idea, not something I'd actually do. ;)

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I also enjoy providing a challenge for players.

What makes you think you're not providing a challenge for Uber-Perceiver and Machine-Bow?

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I also enjoy providing a challenge for players.

What makes you think you're not providing a challenge for Uber-Perceiver and Machine-Bow?

If the encounter starts, and they sneeze and the enemy falls over. That isn't a challenge. And its not fun.

I hate the witch class for that reason.

It isn't fun playing the badguys when I'm at negatives to everything, have to roll twice and take the lowest roll, and have crap AC.

Why even bother playing it out? Sure, I might roll a 20. And many players who've sat at my table would agree that the chance of that is actually quite higher at my table than many others, but...

Its not fun.

Play a character that's good at what he does, is versatile, and has a good chance at beating most challenges.

But don't play a character that can rock every encounter without blinking. It isn't fun for the GM, and potentially some of the other players.

And if a GM keeps having to GM for these uber characters, they will burn out and stop GM'ing... and then nobody wins.

[N N 959]

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I also enjoy providing a challenge for players.

What makes you think you're not providing a challenge for Uber-Perceiver and Machine-Bow?

If the encounter starts, and they sneeze and the enemy falls over. That isn't a challenge. And its not fun.

I hate the witch class for that reason.

It isn't fun playing the badguys when I'm at negatives to everything, have to roll twice and take the lowest roll, and have crap AC.

Why even bother playing it out? Sure, I might roll a 20. And many players who've sat at my table would agree that the chance of that is actually quite higher at my table than many others, but...

Its not fun.

Play a character that's good at what he does, is versatile, and has a good chance at beating most challenges.

But don't play a character that can rock every encounter without blinking. It isn't fun for the GM, and potentially some of the other players.

And if a GM keeps having to GM for these uber characters, they will burn out and stop GM'ing... and then nobody wins.

Bear with me as I try to articulate something that's still vaguely forming in my head, was interrupted by a longer-than-normal commute home, and is now being spilled out in a too-hot apartment:

To me, the length of the combat is not indicative of challenge level. That's because there's more than one way to overcome a challenge, and not all of them involve a long combat.

One person might overcome a challenge by roleplaying their way out of a situation, having no combat.

Another might overcome it by using phenomenal tactics and making the right in-combat decisions.

Another might overcome it by having just the right spell prepared/known (having answers for darkness, invisibility, grapple/swallow whole, etc) to take away the enemy's advantage.

Another might overcome it by being really creative with what's at hand (taking Craft [carpentry] to make some crude battlements before a fight, casting a fire spell into a body of water to produce some fog cover, etc).

And another might overcome it by bringing a PC built to put out really high numbers in DPR or skills.

The point is, some methods will "look" challenging from the GM's side of things because the fight was long, but that doesn't mean the challenge was any different for the people whose method of overcoming the challenge happened at home when they were concocting their build.

Just by running the scenario and running it well (which you typically do) you provide a challenge, whether the overcoming of that challenge was set in motion on the fly or before the session. But by presenting the obstacle that is the very reason that a person made that uber-DPR or uber-trapsmith PC, you have challenged them.

A runner making a really good time (especially when compared to, say, a bodybuilder) may look trivial, but the fact that he had to train so hard to do it proves it was a challenge.

A bodybuilder lifting 250lbs (especially when compared to, say, a runner) may look trivial, but the fact that he had to train so hard to do it proves it was a challenge.

In the same way, I submit that although a PC dedicated to DPR or trapfinding or whatever may put out such high numbers that it looks trivial, the fact that they chose to invest so heavily into their specialty proves that you are providing a challenge.

Maybe that won't resonate with everyone, but when I think of it that way, I find it a little easier to feel okay about the bad guys getting creamed. :)

Note: This all changes if one PC is crowding out all the others throughout the session.

[Ximen Bao]

N N 959 wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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 go a step further, and in my home games I build encounter so they get to excel in the areas they built their PC to excel in.

Are you a crazy melee fighter? How about you take point in this room full of bestial undead which would obviously shred a typical character of your level, but which you (with aid from your party) can heroically triumph over.

Are you a smooth talking, money grubbing, son-of-a-b$!!$? Then don't be surprised to see encounters you can talk your way out of and maybe make a profit in the process.

Divination-focused build? I've got an imponderable mystery inaccessible all who have tried thus far that you can surely crack your mystical magic mojo.

It's what you obviously want to do, since that's how you built your character. Why would I not give you the chance to be the hero you want to be?

Now, I don't claim I always do it WELL, but I think it's worth trying. eta: More on topic, I think players shouldn't be discouraged from excelling in the areas of their builds in scenarios which weren't designed with them in mind, but which they can still rock out in according to their concept.

[KestlerGunner]

As a GM I experience variation with players using the Perception skill. Many automatically assume that their perception check to detect everything in the room is a single free action taking about 1 second. When scenarios explicitly state that it takes a number of minutes to properly search a locale they fall into a mixture of being flabbergasted and outraged.

Also, can we please, please PLEASE not call our PFS characters 'toons?'.

[Matthew Morris]

I have to agree with nosig.

Through luck of the draw I've played Ksenia in a number of scenarios where she's facing undead, constructs, and other "things at which I reduced to thowing rocks, like I was peasant.'

When I'm facing a target vulnerable to her hexes. I don't care if the GM has run 75 scenarios where they've been slumbered. I want my hexes to work. I don't care if the BBEG going down in one shot down ruins the GM's fun. She does one thing, does it very well. For the GM to get irritated at my character dropping a target on one role, it ruins my fun and invalidates the character. His next scenario might have all martials in it. My next scenario might be "Ksenia goes to Zombietown." You roll with it.

If I'm playing Kroaten, I want to burn things. If I'm playing Mayim, I want to bluff/seduce things. If I'm playing Dex, I want to socialize things, etc.

nosig's issue seems to be he's built a character that's a scout. He's running into situations where his character should excel, and he's finding it hampered not by mechanics, but by GM fiat.

[KestlerGunner]

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.

[Matthew Morris]

No Kestler, I don't. I do know that if I get off a slumber, and the BBEG rolls a 1 and the GM ignores it because it's not 'fun' He's ruined the point of my character, to use hexes.

It's the exact same as if I arbitrarily had the BBEG 'escape' sir grabs a lot, or if nosig's perception build doesn't detect the hidden person when he 'Sherlock Scans' a room on a 35 perception check.

If a character is built to excel, let them. To nerf them in the name of 'fun' is to defeat te purpose.

[nosig]

KestlerGunner wrote:

...snipping for the part I'm addressing in this post.....

Also, can we please, please PLEASE not call our PFS characters 'toons?'.

ah... why not? She's my PC...

but whatever. I am sorry if it offends you, and will try not to use the term on the board again.

by the way, why does it offend you?

[N N 959]

KestlerGunner wrote:

Also, can we please, please PLEASE not call our PFS characters 'toons?'.

I've seen a number of posters get all bent out of shape when this word is used. Personally, I think it's funny. Back when I used to play D&D Online, people started using the word "rouge" to refer to rogues. Kind of how people would use "teh." THAT was annoying because it was an intentionally misspelling of an actual word. I felt the usage and proliferation of rouge in place of rogue celebrated ignorance. I don't get that feeling with toon. For me it's just a quicker way to refer to one's character.

whatever.

[nosig]

perhaps it will cast my questions in a different light if I point out that the most of the games that caused me to create this thread were BoneKeep and most of Thornkeep (the first 4 parts)? The group of PCs my friends and I crafted were the core of a balanced band, lacking mainly a Max Damage - but able to play even when lacking that.

So I am pretty sure that even if my girl had detected something about the encounters before the monsters were dropped onto the mat, we would have been hardpressed to finish the combats. Mostly it just seemed to drag the game out... my PC was wasting valuable game time trying to do things that didn't work, and I would have been better served by running another DPR clone. At one point, another player actually commented to that effect - though the rest of my team pointed out that I had cleared traps to more than make up for the time "lost".

[N N 959]

KestlerGunner wrote:

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 know for a fact that if someone in my group knocks out the BBEG with one shot, I'm going to high five that player...like six times. If it happened every single adventure, okay...maybe I might start wanting to play up...but I'll be happy to cross that bridge when I get to it.

It is beyond me how someone can say their fun is ruined as a GM when a player delivers a 1-shot knockout. Yeah, sure, maybe someone else at the table wanted to get their licks in, or is secretly annoyed they didn't get to show off their trip master or heightened fireball. I think those players will get over it. But last I checked players are not in competition with one another.

This discussion seems to circle back to this persistent mindset among GM's that they are somehow smarter than all of PFS and Paizo staff combined and that but for their intervention, Pathfinder would be unplayable and everyone would quit. I really wish PFS would punish GMs who pull shenanigans with scenarios. If you want to pull house rules, do an Adventure Path.

[nosig]

N N 959 wrote:

KestlerGunner wrote:

Also, can we please, please PLEASE not call our PFS characters 'toons?'.

I've seen a number of posters get all bent out of shape when this word is used. Personally, I think it's funny. Back when I used to play D&D Online, people started using the word "rouge" to refer to rogues. Kind of how people would use "teh." THAT was annoying because it was an intentionally misspelling of an actual word. I felt the usage and proliferation of rouge in place of rogue celebrated ignorance. I don't get that feeling with toon. For me it's just a quicker way to refer to one's character.

whatever.

I actually picked up the habit back in LG days... though I don't use it alot, and had not really realized it offended people. I liked it because I had played Toon back in the early '90s and it reminded me of those fun times.

The following is from the wiki on TOON:
In Toon the players characters never die. As in many role-playing games, characters have hit points, which are deducted when the character is injured (usually in combat, or by having anvils fall on them). When a character is reduced to zero hit points he does not die or fall unconscious, but falls down. Since cartoon characters never actually die, and always return in time for the next scene, a fallen down character returns to play a set time later, with all hit points restored.

This lack of true "character death" is also designed to encourage players to deliberately abandon the skills and reflexes they learned in other games, namely to have their characters able to solve problems and fight enemies while staying alive. According to the game's rules, the two prime directives for Toon players to follow are "Forget Everything You Know" and "Act Before You Think".

I find the bolded sections most enlightening in this thread...

[N N 959]

nosig wrote:

I actually picked up the habit back in LG days... though I don't use it alot, and had not really realized it offended people. I liked it because I had played Toon back in the early '90s and it reminded me of those fun times.

I used to play City of Heroes. Superheroes are comic book characters and are often portrayed in cartoons. "Toon" was used a lot on the CoH forums. Never bothered me there. Doesn't bother me here.

Now if people started referring to them as "caractors," that would probably be annoying to me.

[Matthew Morris]

I think pathfinder #11 is going to be named Toon.

And a gnome.

[N N 959]

rofl

[nosig]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I think pathfinder #11 is going to be named Toon.

And a gnome.

wouldn't that be a problem? I mean, there's already a RPG named Toon.

("Toon" was designed by Greg Costikyan and developed by Warren Spector, and first published in 1984 by Steve Jackson Games)

[KestlerGunner]

I didn't know about the 1980s cartoon game.

I did know the internet for the past five years, and thusly, I wince when I hear characters described as toons. If you want to sound like a 12-year-old playing WOW, hey, it's a free country, reach for it with both hands. I'll keep calling my characters characters, or in certain cases, 'those unbelievably naive fools' or, sometimes, 'my imaginary family.'

And yeah, GMs shouldn't cheat or start bringing house rules into PFS.

But experienced players should also know that Paizo developers stuff up quite frequently, and exploiting those stuff-ups to play PFS on easy mode can and will elicit eye-rolls from players and GMs that like their fights to actually be dangerous.

[Caderyn]

You might possibly have missed the point that what Matthew is refering to is that his 11th PC will be a gnome called Toon.

What I find confusing is how he only has 11 PCs? I have 16 now and end up creating a new one most months.

Regardless on Perception its a very different thing for different judges, at my tables taking 20 in a doorway to detect monsters is generally ineffective as there are three types of perception check,

1. Line of sight, if the monster is in clear sight of the door, you automatically see them.

2. Line of effect but no line of sight, Its an opposed stealth vs perception check.

3. If you do not have line of effect and you do not have line of sight to the creature then you start applying obstacle modifiers (+5 for doors, +10/foot of wall) between you and the target along the shortest straight line path. This means if you are just outside the door generally the opponent is looking at a +10-40 from the walls beside the door.

Generally why a Sir-Clanks-alot fails his stealth checks is he is moving at full speed (thus taking a -5 penalty on stealth) coupled with his -5 for ACP +1 for dex he is looking at a -9 + obstacles (usually the door but sometimes the wall instead) + roll vs the opponents perception roll.

[nosig]

KestlerGunner wrote:

I didn't know about the 1980s cartoon game.

I did know the internet for the past five years, and thusly, I wince when I hear characters described as toons. If you want to sound like a 12-year-old playing WOW, hey, it's a free country, reach for it with both hands. I'll keep calling my characters characters, or in certain cases, 'those unbelievably naive fools' or, sometimes, 'my imaginary family.'

And yeah, GMs shouldn't cheat or start bringing house rules into PFS.

But experienced players should also know that Paizo developers stuff up quite frequently, and exploiting those stuff-ups to play PFS on easy mode can and will elicit eye-rolls from players and GMs that like their fights to actually be dangerous.

well, where do I start...

I guess I might sound like a 12-year-old playing WOW, but I wouldn't know, never having played WOW (I assume this is World of Warcraft?), and when I was 12 Nixon was President and ... PFS didn't exist (not even as that other RPG).

why do you assume I am not one of the "experienced players"? Because I do not talk like you? Or is it that building a character with a high perception is "exploiting those stuff-ups to play PFS on easy mode"? I often have PCs that have few combat abilities... one of my 10th level PCs has never done a HP of damage to anything other than herself.

I think that you are reading much into my posts that are not there...

I do not understand this comment: "...and will elicit eye-rolls from players and GMs that like their fights to actually be dangerous", could you please expand on this view?

[nosig]

Caderyn wrote:

You might possibly have missed the point that what Matthew is refering to is that his 11th PC will be a gnome called Toon.

Thank you! yeah, I missed that.

Caderyn wrote:

What I find confusing is how he only has 11 PCs? I have 16 now and end up creating a new one most months.

I actually only have only a dozen PCs, though I expect to be starting another 2 or 3 soon. Though I have almost nothing left to play - only 3 or 4 scenarios left... so maybe I'll hold off starting another (anything I create now will have to advance mainly with Judge credits).

Caderyn wrote:

Regardless on Perception its a very different thing for different judges, at my tables taking 20 in a doorway to detect monsters is generally ineffective as there are three types of perception check,

1. Line of sight, if the monster is in clear sight of the door, you automatically see them.

As you say, this is dependant on the judge - and there is always "the monster is behind the piller/desk/trash pile/etc". This is basicly what I am wanting to address with this thread. Is there any way to address this (the judge differences), or do I just need to give up trying to detect the ambushes because some judges don't allow it?

Caderyn wrote:

2. Line of effect but no line of sight, Its an opposed stealth vs perception check.

Line of Effect is normally used as part of spell casting, but I can see it here. Though I would think that it would not be a "line", having to exit my building past the smokers around the corner, I often can detect them, yet there is a building in the way. A strait line is not involved. It's more of a spread in this case.

Caderyn wrote:

3. If you do not have line of effect and you do not have line of sight to the creature then you start applying obstacle modifiers (+5 for doors, +10/foot of wall) between you and the target along the shortest straight line path. This means if you are just outside the door generally the opponent is looking at a +10-40 from the walls beside the door.

So... if someone is around a corner from the scout 40 feet away, (20' north and 20' east) you would calculate the DC as being what? >+40 for >4 feet of stone wall? or +4 for 40 feet of distance? Perhaps with a +20 for being Invisible? Please realize that this is a real question, I am not being sarcastic. If the modifier is +40, wouldn't it apply to the monsters detecting Sir Clanksalot? So the scout, when he reached the corner and could peek around would get his perception check without the +40 (being only 20 feet away he would have +2 right?), and would get his stealth and the monsters would be at +2 for detecting the scout, and +40 for detecting Sir Clanksalot... right? Well, maybe the Scout would also get a +10 for a foot of wall he is behind, if he uses a mirror to peek around the corner...

Caderyn wrote:

Generally why a Sir-Clanks-alot fails his stealth checks is he is moving at full speed (thus taking a -5 penalty on stealth) coupled with his -5 for ACP +1 for dex he is looking at a -9 + obstacles (usually the door but sometimes the wall instead) + roll vs the opponents perception roll.

Actually, Sir Clanksalot is more likely to me moving at "dead slow", as the scout is scouting... and may have more than a -5 for ACP... but even with his -9 that you figure him at, with the bonuses the way you seem to have them figured above ("...the opponent is looking at a +10-40 from the walls beside the door") he has a stealth of +31, not counting distance. Even Sir Clanksalot can often pull that stealth check off...

But the important thing here is that the judge never seems to even checks these... he just goes strait to the combat. "Place your lead character here, and everyone else after them in place, then roll Init...". It's just easier. (sarcasm alert) After all, everything else just slows the combat down, and detracts from the fun of rolling dice, which is why we're here right? (end sarcasm, and sorry for that...)

(edited to correct spelling)

[Caderyn]

Pillars are covered pretty much in part 2, where the opponent has total concealment, due to how the lines work the line passing through the least amount of pillar would move through an infinitesimally small section of wall thus amounting to no change in perception modifiers (unless the pillar is directly in front of the door then of course the whole pillar applies)

Invisible actually references the spell (plus that would be +40 as they are not moving not +20), and the obstacle modifiers are clearly listed in the perception table (considering the average wall is usually between 6 inches and 2 feet thick you might be looking at average DC increase of less than +10), sight based perception automatically fails as you do not have line of sight. By using the shortest line I am applying the smallest possible penalty for the walls to the PC's but if you have no clear line your going to get a penalty as that is how the perception rules work, you do not want a penalty for obstacles, then move so the obstacle is not in the way and you can get an easier roll.

I will allow the PC's to make stealth checks when they are trying to get the drop on opponents, just like I allow monsters stealth checks when they are trying to get the drop on PC's, sometimes they pass and sometimes they fail, I apply all penalties equally to monsters and PCs as per the tables. I find though that PC's rarely get a surprise round as their lowest stealth check even with bonuses for obstacles is frequently less than the monsters perception modifier meaning it does not even need to roll.

Note that every encounter I also make perception checks for the monsters in the next room vs the sounds of combat with standard distance and obstacle penalties.

Exceptions are when the scenario specifically calls out a DC of the perception check required then I will use the scenario value.

[Caderyn]

Using a mirror would change back to line of sight rules, you would automatically see the monster if it is in clear view around the side, and the monster would be rolling a perception check vs the mirror (DC16, 0 for in clear view and +16 for diminutive), you would however have to pick one direction for the mirror to look in first and if you picked the wrong way the monster would get its check before you see it, triggering a surprise round if it passes.

[Jiggy]

Sometimes I wonder whether at some tables a PC who hits a 25 on a natural 19 will achieve greater results than one who hits a 40 on a natural 3.

[nosig]

Jiggy wrote:

Sometimes I wonder whether at some tables a PC who hits a 25 on a natural 19 will achieve greater results than one who hits a 40 on a natural 3.

and both will do better than the girl who gets a 50 taking 10... ;)

[Caderyn]

Its the problem with systems like perception and stealth in which while there are many tables denoting modifiers the base system itself is not actually spelled out.

My three scenarios will probably be different that Jiggy's or nosig's however we base both of them on the same tables and listed rules, (its just the unlisted parts that are different). Some GM's will use the invisibility modifiers, some GM's wont use any modifiers, some GM's will use obstacles like I do, some GM's will use obstacles in other manners.

Perception (except for the trap spotter rogue talent) is the very essence of table variation, the only thing you can hope for is that the GM is consistent and fair in the rulings he makes.