That, uh, is exactly what your bolded portion is saying.There's a difference between "can" and "always". If you're going to willfully ignore that, then I think we're done trying to have a fair-minded conversation.So a better roll, which is a more thorough search, doesn't set off the trap that the poor roll does? What?
And seriously, it's a house rule. Point to me where in the rules it says that a poor perception check sets off a trap.
if you're planning on checking multiple times just take 20.
|
However, I don't often have to deal with characters taking 20 though on searches. When I point out that a 2 minute search involves a 10' area that's relatively devoid of details, and when I figure out how much more than a move action it'll take to search an entire room/wall/whatever and remind them about the durations remaining on their buffs, they rarely want to take 20 times that amount.A Take-20 on Perception covers everything you can see, with appropriate distance penalties, so the 10' area isn't quite right. The space limitation was something that 3.5 had that was not kept in the changeover to Pathfinder.
Now, yes, some things take longer to go over, and you're not going to be able to look in/behind things with that first check, but if I'm in a straight corridor with a DC 30 pressure plate 100 feet away from me with nothing else in the way (and no lighting conditions to mess with vision) and I get a 40 on my perception check (which results in a 30 to see the plate, due to distance penalties), I see the pressure plate.
You've, near as I can tell, been talking about passive perception checks while I was talking about active checks. So yes, you're right with regards to the example you used.
I was, more to the point, talking about the amount of time it takes to actively search something. By default it's a move action, but can obviously take more time than that based on the area and number of nooks and crannies that require peeking/feeling into.
So a better roll, which is a more thorough search, doesn't set off the trap that the poor roll does? What?
Upon rereading my posts, I see it's possible to have misconstrued what I said as making the attempt at all might set off a trap no matter what you roll. That's a sort of "killer GM" tactic and not at all what I was saying. I hadn't thought it necessary to clarify but "obviously" if the searcher makes the DC to detect the trap, he shouldn't set it off despite having been poking/prodding/touching it.
As for:
Point to me where in the rules it says that a poor perception check sets off a trap.
Obviously no such rule is stated, because it's too much of a blanket rule. Some traps will go off if the triggered item is poked/prodded/moved/etc. Some won't. Such a rule you're challenging me to provide would ignore that. So, obviously, it doesn't exist.
What does exist is the responsibility of the GM to adjudicate the rules as presented. Rule Zero/Common sense is presumed. The rules are meant to be situationally flexible as appropriate. As another Perception example, it's not a flat DC of -10 to "hear a battle", it's presumed to be flexible as to what constitutes "a battle" and whether the DC always has to be -10.
Rules that detail magical phenomenae that don't exist in the real world need to be explicitly spelled out. If the rule for a spell, for example, doesn't allow something, then you can't do it. That standard does not extend to the entire corpus of rules. Phenomenae that do exist in the real world don't need to be explicitly written because we have reality to tell us what happens. So, just because Perception (and trap) rules don't say a failed check can set off a trap doesn't mean it's a house rule to say it might. Common sense says it can happen, and Paizo left common sense to the GM rather than attempting to codify it. The CRB is already over 500 pages, if they tried to state how the real world works as well, it'd have been not only futile but economocially unfeasible to make a book that enormous.
4's the biggest one to me. Too much stuff is "You're going to take this item or you're going to have a bad character".
Nearly every character with any degree of optimization has the same cloak. Everyone who uses a throwing weapon is going to have the same belt. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Course that also applies to feats.
There should really be a "If everyone who does X uses Y or underperforms, maybe Y needs to be different and baseline functionality should change?"
I hate the fact that I can ask someone what class and combat style they're going for and be able to guess half their feats and magic items from that alone with reasonable success.
|
|
It's a houserule (and IMO a bad one) because you are making up all sorts of limitations that don't actually exist in the game. For example:
"You can't search for secret doors without tapping on the walls. You can't search a desk without opening the drawers. You can't search a bookshelf without flipping through the books."
What? I certainly can - I can look for places where the masonry doesn't quite line up, or scuff marks on the floor indicating a swinging door, or feel for an errant draft etc. I can examine the desk drawers to see if there are any signs of traps (such as hidden keyholes or switches to bypass them) before opening the drawers. I can scan the spines of the books to see there are any that seem to have magic runes etc, and I might even notice something "tucked" into a book without opening the book itself.
If something is hidden inside a drawer, and you don't touch (or otherwise open or see into) the drawer, you should logically have zero chance to find it on your perception check.
Taking 20 is game-speak for being as thorough as possible. If there are things that cannot be seen into/under without being manipulated, you're manipulating them to see into/under them if you're being thorough as possible, aka taking 20.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that your conception of the perception skill is pretty problematic if your understanding of "I take 20 perception to search for traps on the desk" turns into "I start grabbing...
Never said and never implied that searching for traps precludes a sensible "once over" without touching it. Assuming you succeed on the check, you probably saw signs of the trap at that stage. Or felt the tension of the tripline as you began to pick it up and aborted before you triggered. And so on.
But, that "once over" and then thorough searching are rolled into one check. So, presuming you don't see anything suspicious, a thorough search then necessitates the physical manipulation.
|
|
I hate to break it to you, but that's the a house rule. Taking any position not explicitly stated to be the case in the rules is a house rule. House rules aren't (inherently) bad, and everyone uses various house rules. But saying that you can trigger a trap just by looking for it is still a house rule.
I would actually LOVE to continue this with you for a PFS context, but in the context of this thread (PFRPG in general) we can agree to disagree about what's a house rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree on the Big 6 and SoS/D stuff.
One I haven't seen yet: Swarms. I like the concept of swarms, but hate the execution.
Swarms are a big contributor to the "required items" thing that makes every experienced player's first level character look like he's carrying a round a flea market on his back.
Swarms are an item or prepared spell check, nothing more. No Alchemist's Fire? No Burning Hands?
Well, suck it level 1 dudebros, this guy is invincible to you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can disagree all you want, which is probably why the game designers decided to include:I hate to break it to you, but that's the a house rule. Taking any position not explicitly stated to be the case in the rules is a house rule. House rules aren't (inherently) bad, and everyone uses various house rules. But saying that you can trigger a trap just by looking for it is still a house rule.I would actually LOVE to continue this with you for a PFS context, but in the context of this thread (PFRPG in general) we can agree to disagree about what's a house rule.
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not so much going to disagree with you as try to share some perspective with you.
8)Taking control of characters away from players.
Yeah, it's always annoying when you don't get to do what you want to do. Like how being knocked prone makes it so you can't move. And how being below 0 hit points means you don't get to act at all. Hyperbole, yes, but the premise of the game is adversity. Some rounds you don't get to do what you want to do, and it's no different from any other game that has rules.
7) "Required items."
The game, for historical reasons, bases its story design on the idea of having a classic party of four, one of which being a wizard and another being a cleric. If you've got those, you don't need wizard-in-a-bottle or cleric-in-a-bottle. The fact that you've got character class options you can take other than wizard and cleric is a good thing. "Required" items enable that to be viable, if difficult.
6)The perception skill.
A very similar argument could be made for the Knowledge skills. Knowing what your opponents' weaknesses are is immensely, supremely useful. Fact is the skill system is designed so players get to choose who has crucial skills. That there are skills you really, really should have isn't a flaw.
5)Stuff you can't fix (at your level)
This is by design. Most of the time, the idea is that challenges should actually exist. If you've got the fix for every impediment immediately at hand, that reduces the dramatic storytelling potential of the system. Just as fly coming available changes the game, mooting a lot of Climb checks, the idea is to have a time before that happens, when there is struggle and difficulty. Having cures come around before afflictions would change that, for the worse.
4)Required magic items
Again, nothing is mandatory. Also, you are given sufficient wealth to acquire recommended-for-balance items. You get to choose if you want to max out those static bonuses or maybe keep them one or two lower than you could, and add variety to your gear. Remember too that you can add magic effects. There's nothing stopping you from having a cloak of resistance +2 and elvenkind. Again, options are good. Building in these bonuses removes choice. Which would be bad.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
You know, a lot of this list is turning into "I don't want this game to be hard."
2)"Save or suck"
Uh. Previous comment applies here too.
1) Save or die
Well. It turns out that 1, 2, 3, and 8 are all pretty much the same. Sounds to me like you want a game where it's all martials, all the time, and no magic, and you get to always swing a sword, and hitpoints are the only resources that exists. I don't mean this as criticism, but that's kind of what you're describing, when the flaws of Pathfinder are removed.
This is by design. Most of the time, the idea is that challenges should actually exist. If you've got the fix for every impediment immediately at hand, that reduces the dramatic storytelling potential of the system. Just as fly coming available changes the game, mooting a lot of Climb checks, the idea is to have a time before that happens, when there is struggle and difficulty. Having cures come around before afflictions would change that, for the worse.
This does not make the game more difficult in a good way.
Having a 3rd level Cleric hit you with Blindness at any level between 1st and 4th is grounds for retirement. You're essentially gimping the character for a good two months or so of real time with a single Standard action.
Having Cure Blindness/Deafness come in at 3rd as well doe snot negate challenge, it merely negates the annoying after effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...
8) Taking control of characters away from players.
I feel like this is essentially an argument for, "If I'm not winning, then I'm not having fun," which is a nonsense point of view, IMO. (Applies equally to GM or Players). D&D/Pathfinder is a simulation storytelling game. It's about telling exciting stories and overcoming challenges. Sometimes those challenges involve putting characters into situations where they do what the sheet says they do, instead of what the player says they do. If you don't like that, then there are TONS of video games where you don't have to deal with such consequences.
7) "Required items."
This really isn't an issue unless your GM is being bad. As someone mentioned earlier, "theme" should be a very important part of a game, and your in-game foes are no exception. Sure, you *can* just throw random unrelated encounters at your players, but that's just lazy storytelling.
6) The perception skill.
I disagree that this is a problem. I actually think it was a mistake to combine the old Search/Spot/Listen skills, honestly. Yes, from a power-gamer's pov, it's a godsend, but maybe my character has great eyesight but lost a lot of their hearing from *insert backstory.*
I think there's a lot of flaws in PF Skills (some class lists are bad, no one really has enough points to make a 'real' person, etc.), but, "Perception isn't free" isn't one of them.
5) Stuff you can't fix.
I'm not totally convinced that this is such a problem, but I'll admit I do see the merit of your argument. Probably a much bigger issue for PFS than for home games.
4) Required magic items.
Totally agree. "Required" magic items are stupid, and the Devs are bad for designing encounters with the assumption that you *will* have certain items in favor of others. This is probably the biggest reason I hesitate to play PF these days instead of other games, like DDN.
3) Monsters with debilitating abilities on every attack.
Much like #5, I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is, but if someone came along and added rules like, "if you make your save you're immune to this creature's whatever for the rest of combat," it wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
2)"Save or suck"/1) Save or die.
This one. Oh man, this one. I will NEVER understand the community and their tears about this one!
So it's totally fair and okay for the Rage-Pouncing Barbarian to one-shot the enemy, but if a Wizard does it with waggly fingers the rules are somehow broken and unfair?
Oh please, such hypocrisy!
Look, we all know that Magic is stronger than Melee, but the fault doesn't lie with magic being too good - it lies with melee having too many senseless restrictions, based on the framework of the game.
"I can move and still cast a spell, but if I move I sacrifice most of my attack potential." That's not magic's fault, it's the fault of faulty combat rules.
Look, no one likes getting one-shot (and I will agree with the idea that SoL are much preferable to SoD), so let's at least be honest about the argument yeah? The problem isn't SoS/D, the problem is one shot mechanics. And in that vein- Pouncing Barbarians, Charging Cavaliers, Smiting Paladins, etc. are all also equally part of the problem.
Either that, or there is no problem, and people should quit griping over magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That settled it.
Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.
No problem. I've got it bookmarked because it's a pet peeve of mine AND it seems to come up frequently.
Only thing I hate about pathfinder is it's not the perfect TTRPG.
I still enjoy the hell out of it, though.
(Snip)
First I will address the original post.
- 8. This one is kind of like Decking in Shadowrun. In that it causes serious problems, but it such in important/archetypical part of the genre that I don't want to remove it from the game.
But yeah, dominate is just no fun.
- 7. I never had much of an issue with this is my games, but that's because most players I know look to find ways that they can overcome those issue with class features, or brute force their way past them.
- 6. The perception skill is something of a problem. Most games do have a single perception skill, but it seems particularly troublesome in Pathfinder for some reason.
- 5. Yep, this is bad design.
- 4. Yep, this is bad design because it's so boring that every character needs the same stuff
- 3. Status effect attacks are fine because they help make battles more interesting. The real issue here is with your no. 2 and no 1. problems.
- 2 & 1. As others have said, the binary nature of D&D saves make these a real problem. You either pass the save and (usually) have absolutely nothing happen to you, or you fail the save and get to be bored for an hour.
My three biggest problems with 3.X is probably:
- 1. Feat Bloat in even the Core system. All of those feats that give a +2 bonus to two skills need to go away. Skill focus, improved initiative (as currently written), and weapon focus wouldn't be missed either. Feats that simply give you static bonuses that you forget the source of, or, if you're unlucky, situational bonus that you'll forget about are simply uninteresting. Power attack? Rapid Shot? Extend spell? Those give you more choices as players. Those feats are interesting, but there are too few of them, compared to the huge amount that are just numerical bonuses.
Speaking of numerical bonuses...
- 2. The never-ending barrage of +1 and +2 bonuses, especially when so many of them are completely unnecessary. I'll keep this short: They're finicky, often situation specific, and create time consuming math. Not "hard", not "difficult," time consuming.
- 3. Completely passive defenses. You know what I've found very fun when I've played other systems? Getting to roll dice against someone trying to hit my combat specialist character to see how well I can block/parry/dodge incoming attacks. I find it so much more satisfying than being told whether or not I was hit and how much damage I took.
- 4. Binary resolution. Hey look, it's the core problem of d20. You roll a 20 sided dice, and the number you roll doesn't actually matter. All that matters is whether or not it's in the range of numbers you want. Failed a save by 1? Sorry, but you're just as f~@&ed as the guy that failed by 20. Surpassed an ememy's AC by 15? Neat, you're just as accurate as the guy who needed a natural 20, but you don't get a chance at a critical hit.
Yeah, on a whim I decided to start running Mutants and Masterminds last week because I'd heard good things about it, and one of the things that struck me on a first reading of the rules was degrees of succes and failure.
Pathfinder could benefit from that, I think. As-is attacking an AC 16 foe a result of 30 is as good as 16, and a result of 15 is as bad as a result of 5. After a while it just makes your bonuses seem kinda arbitrary. Like my Barbarian. I hit everything on a 5 or less (for the low attacks), so I'm basically just searching for things that give me penalties to attack for benefits because it doesn't even matter besides criticals and instant fails.
I don't get why this forum values Perception so highly. I could see it being a good skill to have in a dungeon crawl for traps and detecting bad guys and such, but I'd much rather have bluff or diplomacy.
@Rynjin
M&M <3
Agree on the Big 6 and SoS/D stuff.
One I haven't seen yet: Swarms. I like the concept of swarms, but hate the execution.
Swarms are a big contributor to the "required items" thing that makes every experienced player's first level character look like he's carrying a round a flea market on his back.
Swarms are an item or prepared spell check, nothing more. No Alchemist's Fire? No Burning Hands?
Well, suck it level 1 dudebros, this guy is invincible to you.
This is why I ALWAYS have an area spell if I cast spells. Even alchemists/investigators have them (firebelly). One too many times I've had to "suck it" because my starting character picked some other kind of spell.
To OP:
8: As long as it isn't a constant, I'm cool with it.
7: I don't find this too much. A bit of it adds to the game but much like 8, too much and it gets old quick.
6: To an extent I agree, but #1 most times, only one person needs to find something, #2 take 20 solves most issues and #3 traits gets anyone it as a class skill.
5: That can bite but most times I find the DM will leave a way to fix it with a helpful NPC, a scroll drop or something of that nature.
4: I'll agree. I'd like to have items because I found them cool not because I needed them to stay relevant.
3: see 8
2: see 8
1: it's rare for me to see these so they haven't been an issue.
You can disagree all you want, which is probably why the game designers decided to include:I hate to break it to you, but that's the a house rule. Taking any position not explicitly stated to be the case in the rules is a house rule. House rules aren't (inherently) bad, and everyone uses various house rules. But saying that you can trigger a trap just by looking for it is still a house rule.I would actually LOVE to continue this with you for a PFS context, but in the context of this thread (PFRPG in general) we can agree to disagree about what's a house rule.Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).Please note that perception checks while searching for traps IS EXPLICITLY AND SPECIFICALLY called out as exactly the kind of thing you can take 20 on.
Disable device is one? Wait, that's just for locks. Still can't take 20 on disabling traps because there is a penalty for failing by 5 or more.
This is by design. Most of the time, the idea is that challenges should actually exist.
Challenges are good.
"You can't cure that for a few more levels so enjoy not having a character to play until then" isn't a challenge though. You roll too low on a d20 and then are done.
Again, nothing is mandatory. Also, you are given sufficient wealth to acquire recommended-for-balance items. You get to choose if you want to max out those static bonuses or maybe keep them one or two lower than you could, and add variety to your gear. Remember too that you can add magic effects. There's nothing stopping you from having a cloak of resistance +2 and elvenkind. Again, options are good. Building in these bonuses removes choice. Which would be bad.
Removing choice would be bad.
But things that are so good not taking them is hazardous to your character's health is not a meaningful choice. You will get a cloak of resistance or you will eat a SoD and lose. If you want to use throwing weapons. You will get a blinkback belt. Period.
That's the opposite of choice.
System math is built under the assumption that you have certain things and certain combat styles require given items to function.
Those aren't choices you get to make.
|
|
Disable device is one? Wait, that's just for locks. Still can't take 20 on disabling traps because there is a penalty for failing by 5 or more.
It's a little tricky, since something goes wrong no matter what you were attempting if you fail your disable device check by 5 or more. Obviously that's hazardous in the event of trying do disarm a trap, but even picking a lock has "something going wrong" if you fail by 5 or more.
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that a list of examples of what "can go wrong" is actually an exhaustive list of the only things that can go wrong. For example, breaking one's lock picks isn't on the list of things that can go wrong. But then again, there isn't any example given of what might constitute "going wrong" on disable device when picking a lock.
Take 20 is particularly inelegant on disable device and perception, but it does have the explicit call-out with regards to perception and traps, as pointed out upthread. I suppose you can take 20, but you can still have something go wrong.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
"You fail many times", but will any of the failures ever be by 5 or more? It's a question the GM will have to answer.
|
It's a little tricky, since something goes wrong no matter what you were attempting if you fail your disable device check by 5 or more. Obviously that's hazardous in the event of trying do disarm a trap, but even picking a lock has "something going wrong" if you fail by 5 or more.
I don't see that in the Disable Device description.
"Open Locks: The DC for opening a lock depends on its quality. If you do not have a set of thieves' tools, these DCs increase by 10."
"Try Again: Varies. You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less. You can retry checks made to open locks."
So you can try opening the lock again and again, which is the definition of taking 20.
|
|
I don't see that in the Disable Device description.
I quoted it. Here it is again, bolded for emphasis.
The DC depends on how tricky the device is. If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you trigger it. If you're attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
The bolded portion is relating to the skill in general terms and not just specifically when used to disable traps. It even gives an example of how it can "have something go wrong" when using disable device in a manner that is not disarming a trap.
|
|
Alright, so there are no described penalties for failure, so the GM can rule in any accidents that happen, but does not mean the character cannot take 20. They just suffer the consequences, much like taking 10 can incur something going wrong.
Well if you consider those two examples to be the exhaustive list of everything that can go wrong, you'd right.
Either way, the writers screwed up. Take 20 can't be used when there is penalty for failure. Disable Device always carries penalties for failure (even if they neglected to say what that penalty is, mechanically, for picking locks). Take 20 uses Disable Device as an explicit example of what you can use Take 20 on.
It's a "does not compute" that the GM has to wrangle.
Yeah, on a whim I decided to start running Mutants and Masterminds last week because I'd heard good things about it, and one of the things that struck me on a first reading of the rules was degrees of succes and failure.
Pathfinder could benefit from that, I think. As-is attacking an AC 16 foe a result of 30 is as good as 16, and a result of 15 is as bad as a result of 5. After a while it just makes your bonuses seem kinda arbitrary. Like my Barbarian. I hit everything on a 5 or less (for the low attacks), so I'm basically just searching for things that give me penalties to attack for benefits because it doesn't even matter besides criticals and instant fails.
I've been playing Shadowrun, and that's also the first thing that struck me about the system. Having your attack tests directly affect the damage you can do is a nice touch.
That, and the fact that as your abilities get better, your results become much more predictable because you're rolling more dice.
|
|
Well if you consider those two examples to be the exhaustive list of everything that can go wrong, you'd right.What examples? I just said that any accidents happen, and then the character continues taking 20.
I didn't realize it at first, but after re-reading your post I replied to I think we actually are on the same page.
Potentially, a GM may say that a PC using take 20 on disable device or perception can get both a success result AND suffer some failure on the same Take 20. Obviously it wouldn't make sense to say disable device jammed the lock permanently unopenable and then you succeeded to open it, or to say that perception triggered a trap if the take 20 result finds the trap. But a GM is within his rights to improvise some logically coherent "failure" to go along with a potential success on disable device or perception Take 20. If he found it beneficial to the game to bother to do so, obviously. As opposed to doing it solely to justify a "gotcha".
Alright, so there are no described penalties for failure, so the GM can rule in any accidents that happen, but does not mean the character cannot take 20. They just suffer the consequences, much like taking 10 can incur something going wrong.Well if you consider those two examples to be the exhaustive list of everything that can go wrong, you'd right.
Either way, the writers screwed up. Take 20 can't be used when there is penalty for failure. Disable Device always carries penalties for failure (even if they neglected to say what that penalty is, mechanically, for picking locks). Take 20 uses Disable Device as an explicit example of what you can use Take 20 on.
It's a "does not compute" that the GM has to wrangle.
It makes sense if not EVERY lock has a failure penalty. I think it should read "If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong IF POSSIBLE." I don't think you're required to go find/invent something to go wrong if it's not in place already. It's an opportunity if there is something unusual with the lock like a trap/it's fragile/ ect.
EDIT: I see you said something similar right before I posted. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why this forum values Perception so highly. I could see it being a good skill to have in a dungeon crawl for traps and detecting bad guys and such, but I'd much rather have bluff or diplomacy.
@Rynjin
M&M <3
Depends on the GM. Some GMs do not let you see basic things without a roll.
Depends on the GM. Some GMs do not let you see basic things without a roll.I don't get why this forum values Perception so highly. I could see it being a good skill to have in a dungeon crawl for traps and detecting bad guys and such, but I'd much rather have bluff or diplomacy.
@Rynjin
M&M <3
I find bluff and diplomacy always get me out of ambushes, traps and finds hidden things...
To be serious, bluff and diplomacy can be important for one (or two) people in the group. Most times however, you don't have everyone rolling it unlike perception.
|
|
Depends on the GM. Some GMs do not let you see basic things without a roll.I don't get why this forum values Perception so highly. I could see it being a good skill to have in a dungeon crawl for traps and detecting bad guys and such, but I'd much rather have bluff or diplomacy.
@Rynjin
M&M <3
Paizo's module and scenario writers are my boogeymen to blame for the overvaluing of perception. Maybe the blame is more fairly laid at their editorial/creative staff. Either way, perception is used all the time to recognize plot clues.
Challenge: Notice the significance of the house crest on the NPC's signet ring. Perception DC X.
WTF? Perception? That's a knowledge/nobility test right there if there ever was one. They misuse Perception to "see" clues that are better served by other skills when the test is actually about recognizing the importance/relevance rather than actually perceiving.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I hate skill checks that act as gatekeepers to plot information, especially the use of Perception for so many of them.
I didn't realize it at first, but after re-reading your post I replied to I think we actually are on the same page.
Holy s!+!, I think we are! :D
|
I know it's against RAW, but I've thought of taking 20 as using the extra time to be extremely careful while attempting the act, not flailing about.
For example, if I was picking a lock in real life, I would get a benefit from calmly going about it in a methodical way instead of trying to do it as fast as possible. Since it's a skill that requires training to use, I'm by definition trained, and it's unlikely that I would blindly go about my work making 20 tries, instead of 1 or 2 really good ones.
For perception, if I'm taking the time to carefully search a desk, or what have you, I'd notice the string attached to the paperweight before I moved it a centimeter, it's not me going around dumping everything on the floor.
These things take more time, and you can adjust that as a GM. Probably a better way to model this would be a rule system by which you gain a stacking circumstance bonus for each additional iteration of time per attempt that you use. Ie. take a minute to do the the standard action, get a +10 on your roll.
I'd even allow it for dangerous situations. Hey rogue want to try to disable the deadly trap while the rest of the group holds off the bad guys? Go ahead. That gives the players a choice to make about the time to bonus/trade off, and provides a very cinematic moment.
I know it's against RAW, but I've thought of taking 20 as using the extra time to be extremely careful while attempting the act, not flailing about.
Take 20 is about repeatedly doing it until it works. "Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding."
You can; there's no penalty for rolling a 1 on a perception check. It's disabling the trap that you can't take 20 on.I think you can't take 20 to look for traps.I agree.
I was thinking about disabling traps. I use take 20's myself to find traps.
Okay, so you can't take 20 on something with a big failure state (like falling from a climb). Wouldn't failing the perception check to notice a trap potentially include triggering the trap? I think that's a valid, by rules reason to disallow Take 20 on a trap search.
No. Just because you dont find a trap that does not mean you will set it off. Your failing a skill has to lead directly to the penalty. As an example, if I fail a knowledge I might not notice that monster X has DR cold iron and therefore it may last long enough to kill me. As you can see an indirect result of me failing has led to my death, just like me not finding a trap might lead to me activating the trigger.
However there is no guarantee that failing that knowledge check or failing the perception check will lead to either of the situations above.
Well, okay, I'm very wrong in my approach if the book calls out perception specifically. I accept defeat.
Moving on, I'll actually comment on things I dislike about pathfinder. My biggest thing is the whole magic item thing. The whole system is a bit wonky. Between the need to increase saves, defense, attack, etc., you find yourself shoehorned into certain items. I'd much rather some of these things be given more oomph from regular character progression. Especially defense, considering the game of rocket tag things can turn into.
And, really, that's my only real gripe. I don't really mind most other things.
Neo2151 that Rage-Pouncing Barbarian(paladin smiting BBEG into oblivion also) vs the spell has been explained. If you do not agree with the assertations then explain why.
Alright, so there are no described penalties for failure, so the GM can rule in any accidents that happen, but does not mean the character cannot take 20. They just suffer the consequences, much like taking 10 can incur something going wrong.Well if you consider those two examples to be the exhaustive list of everything that can go wrong, you'd right.
Either way, the writers screwed up. Take 20 can't be used when there is penalty for failure. Disable Device always carries penalties for failure (even if they neglected to say what that penalty is, mechanically, for picking locks). Take 20 uses Disable Device as an explicit example of what you can use Take 20 on.
It's a "does not compute" that the GM has to wrangle.
I think "does not compute" is because you are thinking about take 20 from the wrong angle.
Take 20 can be used anytime you aren't under distraction - it typically takes 2 minutes (or longer) and means you roll the following array: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 on your skill check.
Take 20 can be used anywhere but you always accept the penalty for failure if there is one. Don't forget that you can also take 20 on a stat check (to say break open a door) - and your allies can take 10 on the assist (all assuming no one is under distraction).
My players still hit traps for several reasons:
[list]
What take 20 does do (from my perspective) is expect that a reasonably cautious party will find most traps and find most items if they are willing to take the time to do so, and instead of having lots of rolls it speeds up the game. On the occasion that I have old school adventures converted I tell my players up front (we'll be doing secret doors differently in this dungeon - some of them open in odd ways and you need to tell me how you attempt to open the door). You can create traps where there is a small amount of damage (say a auto-reload magic missle per round) which keeps the player from taking 20 - tomb of horrors is a great inspiration for traps :)
This does not make the game more difficult in a good way.
It does. That's a fact. While attempting to remove these things was not the only reason why DnD 4E managed to do the impossible and lose the throne of the King of RPGs, it was one of significant reasons.
Having a 3rd level Cleric hit you with Blindness at any level between 1st and 4th is grounds for retirement.
Or maybe for coughing up enough money for a scroll of Remove Blindness/Deafness. 375 gp (even double that to compensate for a failure chance) is not exactly a big sum.
PF is already allows PCs to incredibly easily recover from anything short of a TPK. Even death is, in practice, reversible from levels 5-6, in exchange for a relatively small handicap of having less money in the future. There is simply no way to make the game any easier without making the difficulty into a completely binary switch between "TPK" and "Perfectly Fine". This binary switch sucks.
I'd say the issues with 4e are more systemic and "being less likely to ruin your character permanently with a bad roll" doesn't even enter the equation. At all
Seems a tad weird too to decry the game being too binary after just arguing to defend binary win/lose effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does. That's a fact. While attempting to remove these things was not the only reason why DnD 4E managed to do the impossible and lose the throne of the King of RPGs, it was one of significant reasons.
This does not make the game more difficult in a good way.
No, that's your opinion.
When I say "I don't like this", it's kind of silly to counter with "You're wrong, that's a fact".
Or maybe for coughing up enough money for a scroll of Remove Blindness/Deafness. 375 gp (even double that to compensate for a failure chance) is not exactly a big sum.
It is beyond your means at 1st, over a third of your wealth at second, and still a solid 10th at 3rd.
But, if it's so simple to you, then that's just hypocrisy considering you were saying that easily removable conditions were bad for the game.
PF is already allows PCs to incredibly easily recover from anything short of a TPK. Even death is, in practice, reversible from levels 5-6, in exchange for a relatively small handicap of having less money in the future. There is simply no way to make the game any easier without making the difficulty into a completely binary switch between "TPK" and "Perfectly Fine". This binary switch sucks.
That shows a distinct lack of creativity on your part.
As-is not having access to "Remove X" does not lead to a TPK, and having it does not make you "perfectly fine". You're still f~*!ed for at least a combat, which is how debuffs SHOULD be, not permanent additions to your character dependent on a single die roll.
Here's an easy way to keep that niche:
-Make Remove Blindness/Deafness a 2nd level spell.
-Increase the casting time to 1 minute.
Easy peasy. It's still a problem in combat since it can't be removed then, and you suck for 24 hours until your Cleric can prepare it, but you don't suck for several levels because you can't leave the dungeon mid-adventure to tromp 50 miles back to the village and hope they have a scroll or someone who can cast it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because "perception" is not "search."Ever since 3.5, yeah, searches are Perception checks.
As for:
And because there's nothing in perception that says a failed check sets off a trap on its own.That's that player empowerment paradigm I don't agree with. It's a roleplaying game, not a video game. Common sense still applies. If you pick up an object to check out the underside, but whoops it was on a trigger and you didn't realize this as part of your search, you just set off the trap.
No, it doesn't. "Common sense" is a horrible, horrible way to ruin a game that has objective, clearly understood rules by interjecting subjectivity into it because it's "common sense". The game is an abstraction of a fantasy world. There's nothing at all even remotely "common sense" about it.