|
we play pathfinder not 3.5 everything gives XP even the CR 1s
No idea what the rule was in 3.5, but if you're giving exp for encounters 10 or more CR below the APL that's your own house rule and not RAW.
...you should never bother awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more lower than the APL.
It's about halfway down the page, under the Awarding Experience header.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a note: Remember to apply the distance modifiers of +2/10 feet on perception checks.
Also note that sight is affected by illumination. Unless everyone is trotting around with Darkvision, toting around a light source should have other implications...and you can't take 10 while distracted or in combat.
It should also be noted that one of the best ways to use traps is to have the enemy trigger them, not wait for the party to see them.
And if his Perception shuts down invisible enemies...he invested more into it then the enemy from a cast spell or potion did.
==Aelryinth
|
|
And if his Perception shuts down invisible enemies...he invested more into it then the enemy from a cast spell or potion did.==Aelryinth
An excellent point, if an enemy invests even a remotely similar amount it quickly becomes far less likely he'll spot them. At the level they're at say 15 ranks, class skill, +2 dex is +20 Stealth, add a potion of Invis for a d20+40 stealth check to beat, before any penalties and suddenly he's on equal ground. Perfectly basic set up for someone who wants to sneak much and giving him a challenge that shows not every Perception check is an auto pass, thus keeping a sense of the unknown alive for the player.
Also with regards to "awarding XP" the solution is immensely simple and will simplify your game immeasurably: Ad-hoc experience.
When do the PCs level up? When you say they do. It's that simple.
Forget worrying about experience for cr, its paperwork for the sake of it, level your players when it feels right (or at set times in the adventure you are running). In my experience this makes for better stories as I can throw challenges at my players and not worry about level creep...
I feel that DC's should both relate to the game world I.e. Be set at a a level that is reasonable; and occasionally offer a challenge. Part of that is forward planning. Make sure to allude to legendary challenges in advance for example. In the case of traps, most should match established DC rules and be a walk through, but there should be a place where they still challenge, just once in a while...
It makes you're player feel good if they know they can deal with ease traps that would kill a normal individual and still not be dull because they know that they are one of a very few capable of attempting to get through the dungeon made by, say Nethys.
Only you know your players. Does the player enjoy auto success at finding all traps? Does he want to face more challenging traps?
I think a trap designed by a god is a good enough reason to jack up the Perception DC dramatically.
I might also think of layering traps in a god-built, trap-focused area. I'm envisoning something like an entire mini dungeon that is one large trap. If you start disarming one part of it, a timer is started. If you don't disable all six parts of the trap before a certain amount of time elapses, the entire dungeon is flooded in negative energy or a collection of dangerous enemies.
Good luck.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't this a specific case of the more general "should you change an adventure to suit the PCs?"
"If the PCs are so good at finding traps, should you make the traps harder?" is just the other side of the coin to "If there is no trap-finder, should you remove the traps?"
Personally, I like to run as is, and let the PCs rise to the challenge of producing a well-balanced party that can deal with everything, not just be brilliant at some things and rubbish at others.
Richard
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good rule of thumb for GMs considering making compensatory changes such as inquired about by the OP:
Imagine you go ahead and make the change (such as jacking up Perception DCs on traps), and then picture a conversation where you're explaining this decision to the player.
Say this out loud:
"I'm doing so that . But don't worry, the you spent on your ability will still be worthwhile, because you still ."
So in this case, you would be saying this:
"I'm increasing the Perception DCs of traps so that you'll stand a significant chance of missing them. But don't worry; the ranks, class skill, ability score investment, magic items, multiple feats, and race selection that you spent on your Perception score will still be worthwhile because..."
...and then you explain what advantage he's getting for having spent those resources.
Now, if you can imagine saying that to the player's face without feeling like an ass or starting a fight, then your solution is probably reasonable. If you can't, then you've lost track of something important somewhere along the way.
Something I'd add to Jiggy's statement is that what they can now do also shouldn't be harder than what you're banning.
Example
"I'm increasing the Perception DCs of traps so that you'll stand a significant chance of missing them. But don't worry; the ranks, class skill, ability score investment, magic items, multiple feats, and race selection that you spent on your Perception score will still be worthwhile because you can still spot invisible enemies easier"
Seeing invisible things should be harder than traps.
Good rule of thumb for GMs considering making compensatory changes such as inquired about by the OP:
Imagine you go ahead and make the change (such as jacking up Perception DCs on traps), and then picture a conversation where you're explaining this decision to the player.
Say this out loud:
"I'm doing so that . But don't worry, the you spent on your ability will still be worthwhile, because you still ."So in this case, you would be saying this:
"I'm increasing the Perception DCs of traps so that you'll stand a significant chance of missing them. But don't worry; the ranks, class skill, ability score investment, magic items, multiple feats, and race selection that you spent on your Perception score will still be worthwhile because..."
...and then you explain what advantage he's getting for having spent those resources.
That's very good except for the word "still."
It's one thing to say that I paid 100% of list price and I get 100% of the promised product. That's cool.
It's another thing to say that I paid 100% of list price and I only get 50% of the promised product, but I also get something else that's worth 50% of the price. That at least shows you're trying to deal fairly with me, even if we disagree over value. I paid for an ocean view room, and I understand that you don't have any left, but you're giving me some complimentary excursion tickets.
It's entirely different, though, to say that I paid 100% of list price but I'm only getting 50% of what I thought I was buying. (Hey, but it's "still worthwhile," because at least I'm getting something instead of nothing, right?) No ocean view, no scuba excursion, but you still expect me to give you lots of stars on Travelocity, right?
That's why I have a problem with this:
"I'm increasing the Perception DCs of traps so that you'll stand a significant chance of missing them. But don't worry; the ranks, class skill, ability score investment, magic items, multiple feats, and race selection that you spent on your Perception score will still be worthwhile because you can still spot invisible enemies easier"
Well, yeah. I was getting that already; that's part of the package deal I already bought. How about the rest of the package? What additional advantage do I get for the fact that you're arbitrarily screwing me out of most-but-not-all of the benefits I got from a rocking Perception score?
Or, as I phrased it earlier in this thread, "what else are you giving me to replace the 20,000 gp I spent on the ring of invisibility you just arbitrarily deprived me of?"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's very good except for the word "still."
It's one thing to say that I paid 100% of list price and I get 100% of the promised product. That's cool.
It's another thing to say that I paid 100% of list price and I only get 50% of the promised product, but I also get something else that's worth 50% of the price. That at least shows you're trying to deal fairly with me, even if we disagree over value. I paid for an ocean view room, and I understand that you don't have any left, but you're giving me some complimentary excursion tickets.
It's entirely different, though, to say that I paid 100% of list price but I'm only getting 50% of what I thought I was buying. (Hey, but it's "still worthwhile," because at least I'm getting something instead of nothing, right?) No ocean view, no scuba excursion, but you still expect me to give you lots of stars on Travelocity, right?
That's what this part was for:
Now, if you can imagine saying that to the player's face without feeling like an ass or starting a fight, then your solution is probably reasonable. If you can't, then you've lost track of something important somewhere along the way.
So if adding a trap with a higher Perception DC that's not in the book can be equated to cheating a player that invested in Perception, can it also be said that adding monsters with higher AC/To Hit/Spell DC abilities that are not in the book is cheating players that invested in the opposing mechanics?
If so, it sounds like this is really a simple argument of "I'm making my character based on what is in the book, you can't add anything that is stronger than something in the book, otherwise that negatively impacts my character build."
AKA I only want to play APs/published modules.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So if adding a trap with a higher Perception DC that's not in the book can be equated to cheating a player that invested in Perception, can it also be said that adding monsters with higher AC/To Hit/Spell DC abilities that are not in the book is cheating players that invested in the opposing mechanics?
If so, it sounds like this is really a simple argument of "I'm making my character based on what is in the book, you can't add anything that is stronger than something in the book, otherwise that negatively impacts my character build."
AKA I only want to play APs/published modules.
Depends:
Are you talking about adding a special trap (or monster, etc) here and there that has an unpublished level of challenge?
Or are you talking about jacking up the DCs/AC/saves across the board so that the PC's typical performance hovers at a new average?
The latter was the situation I was talking about in my post, and I imagine others as well; in contrast, your response only really makes sense in regard to the former.
It would probably be good to clarify what you meant, lest it look like you were attempting an argument of hyperbole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the way people are saying "he spent all those resources to be really good at something, so let him be really good at it." Okay, so what does "really good at it" mean?
It seems fairly self-evident to me. There are rules for how Perception works, and rules for how traps work, and the rules define the relationship between your Perception score and how often you miss a level-appropriate trap.
Note that the phrase is "level-appropriate," not Perception-score-appropriate -- if you're 7th level, a CR 7 trap is by the rules a challenge and you should get experience for it. (And you'll probably need experience for it, because with all the resources you spent on maximizing your anti-trap abilities, you're probably less capable of pulling your weight in a normal creature encounter.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Terquem, you don't fail skill checks on a 1. That's only attack rolls and saves.
So it's unlikely that he succeeds on a 2 and fails on a 1 (I'm assuming you're under the mistaken impression).
I believe what the player wants, is to have a high enough skill that by taking 10 in perception he never risks missing a trap.
With as much investment as he's made, it's pretty reasonable.
Remember roleplaying games don't demand that they be rollplaying games.
And, he's not going to "never roll the dice". He might not ever roll dice for perception checks, but he's probably going to roll plenty of them in combat or at other skills.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, so what does "really good at it" mean? You never fail, you only fail when you roll a 1, you never have to roll at all, you only fail when you roll less than 10, you find traps, on the roll of a 16, that no other trap searching character in the history of the kingdom has ever found. What does it mean to be "really good" at something in the game.
Sounds like a great thing to ask the player, yeah?
If you never roll the dice, what are playing exactly?
Um, a roleplaying game?
If you're portraying your character as being really good at X, and when it comes time to actually do X, you're always (or nearly always) succeeding, then that's good roleplaying. Same as how the -2 Diplomacy face-smasher shouldn't be giving eloquent speeches.
The less difference there can be between two different PCs (such as due to smaller differences in success rates), the less opportunity there is for real roleplay. The closer you come to mechanical equality among allegedly-differing characters, the less of a roleplaying game it is.
So if adding a trap with a higher Perception DC that's not in the book can be equated to cheating a player that invested in Perception, can it also be said that adding monsters with higher AC/To Hit/Spell DC abilities that are not in the book is cheating players that invested in the opposing mechanics?
If the GM is doing it systematically with intent to screw over the PC, yes.
I had one GM, for example, who decided to give everything in the module five extra points of Will save because I built a save-or-suck spellcaster and he considered hit point attrition to be the only way that things were allowed to die.
Neither of us really enjoyed that particular module. And, yes, I'd say he cheated.
|
Sometimes you have to just accept that the character is awesome and let the player revel in the character's awesomeness. "As you walk along the dungeon, you come across a pressure plate that would unleash a hail of poison darts on the party... you've seen this kind of thing before and disable it without trouble."
But keep in mind the other good advice that has been given in this thread:
1. traps that are incorporated into combat encounters are great. The player moves forward to attack some orcs and spots a hidden pit trap that they were trying to lure him into. So, does he jump over it or pull out a bow? Or does he stop what he is doing and disable it in combat? Just because the player can find the trap--and could disable the trap if he chose to do so--does not mean that it has no effect.
2. Non-trap uses of perception are good too and scale much better. Remember that rogue with 15 ranks of hide and a 20 dex, giving him a +40 stealth when invisible? Perfectly fair encounter. Sometime, you can have him go up against the legendary assassin with that kind of hide skill. Spotting the ordinary ambushers is one thing, but guys who are as awesome at hiding as he is at spotting are another thing entirely. They should show up every now and then. And when they show up, you should let the players know how awesome they are. (Even if it's just a knowledge: Local check when the invisibility spell finally wears off the bad guy's charred corpse).
3. Remember, there are other things that characters can do besides just disabling traps. The disable device skill has a footnote: to do it without leaving a trace, add 5 to the DC. Have a scenario where the party wants to do that--for example, they need to sneak into a location and plant evidence (or a scrying/teleport focus) without anyone knowing that they were there. Now rather than the player saying, "I paid for all this stuff and don't get to use it because the DM is arbitrarily increasing the DC", the player says, "good thing I paid for all this, otherwise people would notice that I'd disabled the traps."
There's also the +10 DC, you and your allies can bypass the trap without disabling it. That could be useful if you want to lure a monster into a trap without suffering from it yourselves.
4. The DCs for locks are (for some inexplicable reason) a lot harder than the DCs for traps. A good quality lock with Arcane Lock cast on it is DC 50. The character will need to bust out all his bonuses for that--especially if there's a reason not to just break the door down (like needing to sneak in without anyone realizing that you were there) or the chest containing delicate potions (or poisons) which you would rather not break.
4. The DCs for locks are (for some inexplicable reason) a lot harder than the DCs for traps. A good quality lock with Arcane Lock cast on it is DC 50. The character will need to bust out all his bonuses for that--especially if there's a reason not to just break the door down (like needing to sneak in without anyone realizing that you were there) or the chest containing delicate potions (or poisons) which you would rather not break.
Not inexplicable. The assumption is that you will take 20 when using Disable Device to open a lock, in part because, let's face it, prisoners don't have a lot else to do when they're sitting in durance vile chained to the wall.
And before you ask, yes, you can take 20 on Disable Device; in fact, it's actually called out for that purpose in the take 20 rules themselves. There are also, explicitly, no penalties for failure to pick a lock -- picks don't break, you can't jam a lock shut, or any of the other spurious reasons GMs often give for disallowing this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point IS to remove that aspect from the game. It's saying, "I don't want traps to matter, and the GM said there'd be lots of traps"
The effect on the game is to not have traps be part of the game.
If the GM said he doesn't use traps then maybe the player wouldn't have been super great at traps.
I think what is being suggested Terquem, is some kind of congratulatory back slap exercise where everyone smiles and describes how awesome a character is because the creator happened to chose some stacking skills, feats, racial abilities, equipment and class features that make rolling the dice to find and bypass traps unnecessary (as if that actually required some form of achievement or challenge rather than just typing "Perception Pathfinder" into Google.)
I think the expectation is the DM continue to spend time designing and thinking these up despite them being a colossal waste of effor and that anyone who criticises this behaviour is depriving players of fun and a generally bad DM.
Did I sum that up right guys?
If the GM is doing it systematically with intent to screw over the PC, yes.
I had one GM, for example, who decided to give everything in the module five extra points of Will save because I built a save-or-suck spellcaster and he considered hit point attrition to be the only way that things were allowed to die.
Neither of us really enjoyed that particular module. And, yes, I'd say he cheated.
Right, the GM choose to passively-aggressively react to the situation rather than have a conversation with you that he did not enjoy SoS PC spellcasters. I'd agree with you that doing so is poor GM form.
But if the GM says "I want to create a trap-filled area created by the gods," isn't creating traps beyond the book more than appropriate?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, either, there are no traps that are a challenge to the character, or there are traps that are a challenge to the character, right?
Level-appropriate is not character-appropriate.
If there are no traps that are a challenge to the character, then it is the same as not having traps at all (unless the DM somehow manages to challenge other members of the party with traps in some way, I don't know, when that character isn't looking I guess) - so in this situation the effort to build all those resources into the character is a waste - he is really good at something that doesn't have any effect on the playing of the game
No, he's so good at it that it substantially affects the playing of the game, by making traps not-a-threat to the party, despite the fact that they'd ordinarily be a rather serious threat to a party of his level.
And that's called "player agency." The gameplay is different because the player has opted to change it. And it's a good thing.
The dude has invested 25% of his 8 Feats and his 2 traits into that skill. Let him succeed in this thing he is good at. A lot.
Do not just have him spot traps, but ambushes with really well disguised enemies, the footsteps of invisible assassins etc.
I also have a ridiculously high perception character, and I WANT to be Sherlock Holmes who spots the extra clues and provides additional information. The guy who can walk into the room and tell you how many people were in it, who was smoking the cigar, and who the pipe.
He now has a 28 Wisdom, so while others make INT checks to determine if they remember things, he makes Wisdom checks at +9 to gain intuition regarding things, or he uses Sense Motive to figure out what the social situation is (Sense Motive isn't a lie detector, rather it gives gut assessment of the social situation, and possible motivation of someone.)
But I could instead have created the character to be the Diplomacy guy, making friends of everyone and making requests, even getting better prices (depending upon the DM). Oh wait, I have another character in a different campaign who is exactly that. Gathering information is quite effective and we don't get partial information or incorrect rumors.
In both cases the PC is "door opener" to opportunities the group might miss. This way I can not only pull my weight within the party, but also provide the party with some unusual benefits.
Some players want to play a character with lots of internal psychodrama, I'd rather have a well adjusted guy who is simply "amazing" at some things.
Excelling in something for a player like myself is a blast. I've only fallen for one magical trap that our Rogue missed, and one "mechanism" that our rogue didn't spot. (I now don't trust his searches.) I always take 10 using perception so that the DM and other players don't have to stop wile I search for my dice, and shake my hand "just enough times" so that the roll will actually be random. Sure, sometimes the DM tries to trick my by asking me if I'm "sure" that I don't want to roll, but only in a few circumstances where most characters would miss something completely anyway have I missed it by one or two due to the range penalty. Often I'm the only one who "could" have spotted it, and this has protected the group.
BUT TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM
1) Let his perception pick up clues to provide two or more possible narratives, each with supporting details.
2) Build traps where activating the trap (not disabling it) is the requirement for entry/progress.
3) Create traps that are more than just "traps," let them be important "tricks."
- A trap that enlarges you, where your head now pops up through an exclusionary ceiling. Or the opposite, above the PCs is an illusion only seen when looking down, such that there is a map laid out on the floor, you just have to have your head above 8' to see it. Detect magic on the ceiling simply confuses the players as they see the real ceiling.
- A trap the creates a 5 pit below you (expeditious excavation) that clears the way to the trap door to the secret room.
Right, the GM choose to passively-aggressively react to the situation rather than have a conversation with you that he did not enjoy SoS PC spellcasters. I'd agree with you that doing so is poor GM form.If the GM is doing it systematically with intent to screw over the PC, yes.
I had one GM, for example, who decided to give everything in the module five extra points of Will save because I built a save-or-suck spellcaster and he considered hit point attrition to be the only way that things were allowed to die.
Neither of us really enjoyed that particular module. And, yes, I'd say he cheated.
Less poor form than novice form, but, as I said, we didn't enjoy it.
Presumably the same would apply to a spell caster, say enchanter, that had saving throw DCs so high that enemies couldn't pass except on a 20. Drop a confusion and shut the door. next encounter.
Is that player agency as well?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably the same would apply to a spell caster, say enchanter, that had saving throw DCs so high that enemies couldn't pass except on a 20. Drop a confusion and shut the door. next encounter.
Is that player agency as well?
Yes. Or a monk with an unhittable AC, for that matter.
Presumably the wizard PC wants to be able always to land enchantment spells or he wouldn't have put all of his resources into that. Also presumably, the wizard PC knows that this limits his other options -- there are certain things he's not going to be able to do because all of his feats, traits, discoveries, and whatnot went into making sure his enchantment spells rock, and also knowing that in the ordinary course of play, he will be running into monsters that can't be affected by enchantment spells.
He's basically helpless against a vampire, for example, and that's part of the tradeoff that is obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with the rulebook.
But for the GM then to say "well, all of the giants in this dungeon are also immune to mind-affecting spells" is poor GM form, as Tormskull put it. If you are playing Giantslayer, players will bring a different set of expectations to the table than if you're playing Carrion Crown, and the GM shouldn't deliberately violate those expectations. If you're doing a homebrew, you've still received a very strong hint from the character that he wants his character to be awesome at enchantments and it's poor form to deny him that opportunity by stuffing the dungeon full of undead and constructs.
is there any point to the rest of the party in that situation? When save or suck is automatic. Is there any point to having a DM? Why not just go read the AP book and act it out in your head?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
is there any point to the rest of the party in that situation?
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I though that if there was a consequence to failure then you were not permitted, by the rules, to take 10 or 20, on a Disable Device Skill Check.
There is no consequence to failing to pick a lock using Disable Device.
is there any point to the rest of the party in that situation?Yes.
Being your janitor doesn't count
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adventures with Characters built specifically to make the threats or challenges of the adventure moot, are not fun games for me to run
That's quite all right. Adventures with monsters built specifically to make my character's abilities moot are not fun games for me to play in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being your janitor doesn't countis there any point to the rest of the party in that situation?Yes.
Lack of imagination on your part is not an issue on mine. I'd just like to point out in passing that enchantment spells will not detect or disable traps.
Giving someone a 65% chance of success is not making something moot.
Giving something a 5% success chance does make something moot to all intents and purposes. All I have ever argued for is some element of heroism and risk. Never unbeatable skill DCs or immunity.
It is some of the posters on this thread arguing for auto success not me.
(For reference Terquem. Our group uses the optional "natural 1 equals -10" rule. It seems to work quite well.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
well yeah, that makes sense, so if I created a dungeon of traps so that your character has to always roll something between a 7 and a 14 for success, cause I think that is a challenge, but you want to have a rogue who doesn't have to roll at all because even a 1 will always succeed, we should have talked about this before we stated playing, cause one of us isn't going to have as much fun as we wanted to.
See when you say this what I hear is
"well yeah, that makes sense, so if I created a dungeon of traps so that your character choices don't matter, cause I think that is a challenge, but you want to have a rogue who wants to use his choices to make a difference on the game, we should have talked about this before we stated playing, cause one of us isn't going to have as much fun as we wanted to."The other thing it translates to is
"well yeah, that makes sense, so if I created magical story time, cause I think that is a challenge, but you want to have agency in the game, we should have talked about this before we stated playing, cause one of us isn't going to have as much fun as we wanted to."
which, yes, both of those are true. You should definitely talk about things with your party if you're wanting to vary from the assumed base state of the game.