|
I'd still prefer it as a ability score. You can still have a tracking/ scouting skill (Modified by perception), and a default roll (1d20 plus perception mod) to spot hidden things. On top of that you could use it as the main ability score for psionics (mentalism) while keeping divine spell-casters under wisdom (except oracles). It's an all around win.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me three.That said, what DMs don't throw bad guys at their players who have perception maxed?*raises hand*
Also raises hand
- Torger
Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
If I have a stealthy character who has built a character in his area of expertise so well that it allows him to shine at appropriate, I am no more going to create EVERY single foe to be effectively "immune" to stealth than I am going to make every enemy immune to magic to stop an effective wizard, or make every enemy immune to weapon damage so that fighters have nothing to do. I am not going to effectively punish anyone for committing the "crime" of building a character concept well.
I am going to build SOME encounters where the stealthy character may not shine or will be challenged to contribute some other way, just as I will build other encounters where he will. If I need a specific foe to be very aware for story and challenge purposes, then he will be. But that should not be every single foe by a long shot.
And if I've got a stealth-specialized character, I also furthermore build scenarios where stealth is the obvious best solution to a situation, to even help me advance the story. For example when I ran my high level campaign where one of the party members was an enormously effectively stealthy shadowdancer, he decided to stealth about to gather information (ironically the local spellcasters were less likely to notice him than someone using scrying magic). I NEEDED the party to get the information (and misinformation) he collected, and his own area of expertise enabled that. He got to feel useful and I got to advance the plot. Win win.
Certainly in that campaign I did have to build a few encounters bearing his skills in mind--just as I did for the other party members--but other times, he got to excel, and every PC getting their moment to shine is part of the goal of playing. And it makes those moments where the usual plan doesn't work all the more challenging and dramatic. If you treat any one character's area of expertise as the "enemy" to ALWAYS defeat, you cause both unnecessary frustration for the player and you are probably screwing yourself out of drama and plot opportunities. The occasional challenge that can't be defeated by the usual route should be fine, but no one, stealth characters included, should ever feel useless. Finally, the party's strengths should be seen as yet another tool in the toolbox for the GM, not as a constant hindrance.
If you feel like stealth or any given party member's strength is "ruining" your game, I suggest varying encounters more and turning your view around so you can see how you might benefit story wise from this PC strength instead of always design against it. There should be no game where "maxing stealth guarantees victory" all the time but likewise there should be no game where maxing stealth does not assist, if not guarantee, victory some of the time--just like any other asset the party may possess.
I always have an appreciation for Fallout's SPECIAL:
Strength
Perception
Endurance
Charisma
Intelligence
Agility
Luck
Also, an easy counter for invisibility is a bag of flour...and/or a watch animal with Scent for anti-stealth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.Me three.That said, what DMs don't throw bad guys at their players who have perception maxed?*raises hand*
Also raises hand
- Torger
I have one player who is EXTREMELY good at building Rogues and other stealthy characters. Her current character is a Hunter (Fistfull of Denarii) who regularly rolls Stealth scores in the high 40s/low 50s (at level 12 with 2 Mythic tiers, without using Mythic Surge). She almost always gets the drop on enemies and the party regularly jests that if she got dominated she could wipe them all out since none of them have the Perception to spot her when she goes stealthing - and she has Hide In Plain Sight from her class as well as Hellcat Stealth. (She got suggestioned early in the game and caused the party's first PC death, so everyone's a little jumpy about it happening again.) She is extremely capable of sniping opponents, getting a ton of sneak attack in (and often using Vital Strike to add insult to injury), and then disappearing into the foliage once again thanks to Sniper.
And yet regularly despite her almost always getting the drop on enemies, she might nuke one or two but the rest are already charging the rest of the party and the fights are almost never curb-stomp victories for the PCs unless I intended them that way. She might be able to one-shot some enemies by pouring all her resources into them - Mythic power for extra accuracy and damage, using one of her alchemical arrows for a special effect, dumping all her activated feats into an attack, and so forth - but she can only really target one opponent at a time. I've never felt she was singlehandedly destroying an encounter because while she might get one or two guys very quickly, there's always more than that, and they generally have decent tactics unless designed not to. While she's focused on this guy, the rest of the party is having to deal with these four.
Which generally makes sense. The Samurai and Cavalier in my party are just as good at destroying enemies (that they can reach - both have access to flight either mundanely or magically so that's quite a lot) as said Hunter is, and neither of them has a drop of Stealth, just a lot of mobility and speed and they hit like Mack trucks. The Eldritch Knight has a ton of tricks up his sleeve. And the Oracle is mostly non-combatant/buffing/healing anyway, and occasionally plinking away at things with her Eldritch Bolt or casting one of her few combat spells (or dipping into Mythic Power to snag one she doesn't already know).
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
I can't say I've ever seen a situation where it does, regardless of the NPCs'/enemies' Perception scores good or bad, unless I've designed the encounter to be easy (intentionally or otherwise - most of the time the group's curbstomped my enemies it's because I made them too weak individually or didn't put enough enemies in the group to challenge them).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Characters that use Stealth effectively should be rewarded for doing something different from the standard 'hit it with a sword' or 'magic it into oblivion' tactics!
(I can't believe that I'm seeing 'Stealth is OP' on these boards, where Rogues are generally considered the weakest class around)
Most of the time the Stealth of any focused PC is kinda ruined anyway because of the clunky armor of the rest of the party. Almost all stealthy characters I've ever seen were fragile and very hesitant to scout ahead on their own. One lucky spot check or something similar and the character is dead.
In addition, I've yet to see a Big Bad completely shut down by one stealthy character. Especially in a way that a caster couldn't do each and every turn (sneak attack doesn't scale as well as say... a fireball does)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i would keep perception as a counter to stealth. but i would make a lot of perception checks now rely on other skills. is that really a statue or a monster - appraise. how about that stalagmite, is it a monster? - dungeoneering. Or that vine- nature....
as fore stealth, my druid is good at it, being an apex predator of the world and all. stealth is a good way to not take damage, i can see how it would have been useful in my last Skulls and Shackles game were we were nearly TPKed. I could have sneaked up on the caster with blend or it was night i might not have needed it.
Im working on a split with perception in my homebrew that brings back search, but the perception equivalent is always "on" passively, with rolls being made by players on their own for specific minutae at their whim.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For searching for specific things, I use the appropriate "deal with it" skill. So, for example, searching for mechanical traps uses Disable Device; searching for hidden rooms might use Craft (Construction); etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
Tell me more about my games, O great oracle!
You assume much, to think that maxing stealth guarantees victory. And you suggest that we do not like to have our players challenged to boot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For searching for specific things, I use the appropriate "deal with it" skill. So, for example, searching for mechanical traps uses Disable Device; searching for hidden rooms might use Craft (Construction); etc.
I do similar, but generally in addition to Perception rather than in its place. So someone who's keen-eyed might spot that slight gap that signifies the hidden door just through being perceptive, or hear the slight whistling of the air passing through. But someone who's an engineer or builder by trade might notice that something in the construction is off, there's supports where there shouldn't be or something otherwise is out of place, and find the secret passage that way.
Almost all the time I ask for a Perception check that's not directly opposed by Stealth, I'll also add "and/or (insert appropriate skill here) check if you want".
Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
Tell me more about my games, O great oracle!
You assume much, to think that maxing stealth guarantees victory. And you suggest that we do not like to have our players challenged to boot!
In judging my games you are making exactly the same amount of assumptions.
I was saying that a perception system based off character advancement wouldn't really affect the outcome of the game if stealth was a mechanic like this also. Hell, stealth could be the rogues smite, add level to this check.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In judging my games you are making exactly the same amount of assumptions.Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
Tell me more about my games, O great oracle!
You assume much, to think that maxing stealth guarantees victory. And you suggest that we do not like to have our players challenged to boot!
Curious, you'll have to explain to me how he's judging yours. All I see is him asking you to justify your claims.
Orthos, kirth, some interesting stuff that I may steal/modify. Interesting stuff indeed. ...
Enjoy =)
Curious, you'll have to explain to me how he's judging yours. All I see is him asking you to justify your claims.In judging my games you are making exactly the same amount of assumptions.Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
Tell me more about my games, O great oracle!
You assume much, to think that maxing stealth guarantees victory. And you suggest that we do not like to have our players challenged to boot!
Yeah, I'm a bit puzzled too. This is the conversation I followed:
master marshmallow: what GMs don't have their foes' perception maxed?
Orthos: I don't.
TOZ: I don't.
Me: I don't.
Other people: I don't.
master marshmallow: You're wrong!
Responders: We're just saying we don't and there are reasons why.
master marshmallow: Quit judging me!
What did I miss?
If anything, I'm the one who made the suggestion that GMs who struggle with stealth should reconsider aspects of how they run their games... and even there I'm not saying that master marshmallow or anyone else is a bad GM... just saying there's other ways to look at the situation. But I can see how someone might take it personally, even if that wasn't my intent.
So... thanks for taking the flack for me, TOZ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay! A distraction! I might get to live!
Yay! A distraction! I might get to live!
*crossbow bolt to the face*
Noooo-kkk X_X
Curious, you'll have to explain to me how he's judging yours. All I see is him asking you to justify your claims.In judging my games you are making exactly the same amount of assumptions.Well then you've never had many munchkin players who do shenanigans with stealth by the sounds of it.
When I make games, I like to have my encounters challenge my players in some way, and if a stealthy character completely shuts down any chance that the players may have to actually play the game to succeed, then I feel the need to have at least one bad guy have ranks in perception at least to make the PCs sweat a little.
If maxing stealth guarantees victory, then what kind of game are you running?
Tell me more about my games, O great oracle!
You assume much, to think that maxing stealth guarantees victory. And you suggest that we do not like to have our players challenged to boot!
Yeah, I'm a bit puzzled too. This is the conversation I followed:
master marshmallow: what GMs don't have their foes' perception maxed?
Orthos: I don't.
TOZ: I don't.
Me: I don't.
Other people: I don't.
master marshmallow: You're wrong!
Responders: We're just saying we don't and there are reasons why.
master marshmallow: Quit judging me!What did I miss?
If anything, I'm the one who made the suggestion that GMs who struggle with stealth should reconsider aspects of how they run their games... and even there I'm not saying that master marshmallow or anyone else is a bad GM... just saying there's other ways to look at the situation. But I can see how someone might take it personally, even if that wasn't my intent.
So... thanks for taking the flack for me, TOZ?
This started because I said something along the lines of:
"Your players must not try and abuse stealth like mine do."and everyone took it as:
"OMG stealth is so broken; like evAry DM evAr needs to max perception on evAry NPCs cuz BR0KeN!!!!"
I am flat out saying right now that my players have a habit of trying to abuse stealth, and that we use perception so much that it's making our game dull. The house rule suggestion here is for anyone else who's gaming experience is similar to mine, as with any house rule YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps then the question should be less whether Perception should be a non-skill and more whether your players are breaking the rules in their "abuse".
Perhaps then the question should be less whether Perception should be a non-skill and more whether your players are breaking the rules in their "abuse".
Indeed, if the problem is abuse of Stealth, the solution would be to fix Stealth--or at least figure out the source of the abuse and find out whether it's a rules or interpretation issue--not Perception. Otherwise you're basically trying to step around a hole rather than fill it in--a solution of sorts, but not one that really eliminates the problem.
And if you de-skilled Perception, but did not de-skill Stealth, you would actually make Stealth abuse worse, because you can increase Stealth more than you could Perception via the Skill Focus and Stealthy feats (presuming that by de-skilling Perception, you could no longer improve it via Skill Focus and Alertness).
perception is just fine as a skill
perception is a skill tax, since you know your players and NPCs alike are going to take it and max it anyway
why not just give everyone 2 additional skill points per level. this way, they can afford the perception tax, and 2 additional skills of their choice.
i mean, the only time PCs worry about surprise, is when it's a martial PC searching for an invisible foe.
perception is just fine as a skill
perception is a skill tax, since you know your players and NPCs alike are going to take it and max it anyway
If Perception is really that much of a skill tax, shouldn't that be symptomatic of an issue worth addressing?
If Perception is really that much of a skill tax, shouldn't that be symptomatic of an issue worth addressing?perception is just fine as a skill
perception is a skill tax, since you know your players and NPCs alike are going to take it and max it anyway
Deskilling perception requires you to Deskill Stealth, Disguise, and Sleight of hand, which requires you to adjust DCs for all 3 accordingly
too much work
the simple solution is to give 2 additional skill points per level to everyone, so they can afford perception and 2-4 additional skills of their choice. now, fighters or barbarians can have a social skill or two if they desire, i'd also recommend giving rogues and monks, real Full BAB and full martial weapon proficiency as compensation
If Perception is really that much of a skill tax, shouldn't that be symptomatic of an issue worth addressing?perception is just fine as a skill
perception is a skill tax, since you know your players and NPCs alike are going to take it and max it anyway
Deskilling perception requires you to Deskill Stealth, Disguise, and Sleight of hand, which requires you to adjust DCs for all 3 accordingly
too much work
the simple solution is to give 2 additional skill points per level to everyone, so they can afford perception and 2-4 additional skills of their choice. now, fighters or barbarians can have a social skill or two if they desire, i'd also recommend giving rogues and monks, real Full BAB and full martial weapon proficiency as compensation
I don't think I'd give skill points to everyone, but I've always felt Perception should be a class skill for Fighters and they and a few other 2 + Int classes should get 4+Int instead.
I don't think Perception is that big a skill tax (and not the way Concentration was) -- SOMEONE in the party needs it, but I've never had an experience, across several games, where the party as a whole all needed to build it--usually whoever doesn't have it very high just gets told what's going on by the party scouts. I stand by my statement earlier that if you feel like EVERYONE MUST have it, you're overusing the skill and underusing others. And I also stand by my statement earlier that I myself have fallen into the trap of asking too often for Perception checks when it really should be for certain things, and am working on changing that tendency for when it's really important to make the die roll.