Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with that. If a town is having routine break-ins, the towns people aren't going to be like 'oh well' and keep using the same mundane locks - they're going to invest in better and better locks, traps, security, and neighborhood watches and so on.
That sounds like common sense. The CR calculation does not have common sense as an input.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with that. If a town is having routine break-ins, the towns people aren't going to be like 'oh well' and keep using the same mundane locks - they're going to invest in better and better locks, traps, security, and neighborhood watches and so on.So wait a minute. Are some of you saying that if the DC is, say, 17, and your character ha a +4 on the roll, AND you decide those odds are not to your liking, you will invest in a character improvement that raises your modifier by +2, and when you have done that you fully expect that from that point on the DC should never increase, making the investment you made worth while?Sort of. The DC for the same task should never increase just to match then new abilities of the character. Also, the DC for the average lock in the town should not suddenly become higher just to spite the character. Sure DCs should be higher if the character goes after bigger challenges, but the world should not randomly get harder just because the character got better.
That is a bad anology. The game is not a town, and the game has rule for DC's.
I was going to say a better comparison would be a BBEG(end of game) who notices all of his traps are being bypassed and decides to increase his traps lethality in the HQ of his lieutenants.
However, the game already handles that by making things more difficult as you progress(level up).
It also fails because whether the party succeeds the traps by a value of +1 to +35 the BBEG doesn't know that. He only knows the traps are being defeated. So as far as the in-game rational there isn't one.
PS: Even that town example doesn't work. The townspeople don't know the skill of the person breaking in, nor how easily he bypassed the locks so they have no way of knowing how much to raise the ability of their locks to keep people out.
Really the best thing to do is talk to the player about what type of game you both want to run and play, and decide what to do from there. I would rather a GM say "don't do this", than just negate my resources. <-----Communication solves problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most towns aren't setting up fireball and glyph of insanity traps.
And the kind of LVL15.Super Lockpicker going around towns and snatching stuff has better things to do than steal shiny cups from a noble in town.
But this thread has essentially boiled down to "But characters should always have a chance of failure! It doesn't matter if they built a huge portion of their character around doing that thing and their character concept is Bad Ass Vault Plunderer."
In my opinion folks should worry less about traps. It's not like they're particularly interesting anyways. Roll two dice and move on. Oh you failed? Take some damage or worse. Now move on to the actually interesting bits of the game like the developing plot or the upcoming battle with the BBEG's lieutenant.
Now Puzzle Doors are where it's at! The Rogue disables the trap that springs if you fail and still feels useful whilst also getting to employ riddles or weird runic combinations with cryptic clues around the room.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a bad anology. The game is not a town, and the game has rule for DC's.
I was going to say a better comparison would be a BBEG(end of game) who notices all of his traps are being bypassed and decides to increase his traps lethality in the HQ of his lieutenants.
However, the game already handles that by making things more difficult as you progress(level up).It also fails because whether the party succeeds the traps by a value of +1 to +35 the BBEG doesn't know that. He only knows the traps are being defeated. So as far as the in-game rational there isn't one.
PS: Even that town example doesn't work. The townspeople don't know the skill of the person breaking in, nor how easily he bypassed the locks so they have no way of knowing how much to raise the ability of their locks to keep people out.
Really the best thing to do is talk to the player about what type of game you both...
Actually it isn't a bad analogy. They don't need to know how easily the locks were bypassed - the only thing they need to know is that the lock was defeated - therefore they get a better lock than the previous one. When that one is defeated, they get an even better one - and so on. Basically as the player's skill grow, so does the renown of some unknown burglar who defeats any lock - as that renown grows, so does the lock making business. The scaling in this case reactive - not automatic.
If my house was broken in, I would up security. I probably would have no idea how easily the thief broke in, but that isn't going to stop me from getting strong doors, better locks, and better windows.
As to the BBEG of a dungeon - I'm sure as you clear one dungeon after the next, the renown of your party will grow, word will spread, and BBEGs of their respective dungeons will scale up their security - and as each tougher and tougher BBEG gets dropped, the renown of the group grows. There is nothing wrong with a campaign world re-actively scaling due to growing renown of legendary...
What I was talking about was the post you responded which said the player getting a +2 to bypass ____ was countered by the GM raising the DC by +2. In order to put in the exact measure needed the town would have to know the measure used, so yes the example is bad.
You may be saying that if the town has problems they will try to get rid of the problem by installing better locks, but going that route in game the town could add +10's while the thieves only added a +2 because they(the town) don't know exactly how much better they need to be in order to stop the thieves.
This town does not have the knowledge the GM does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with a campaign world re-actively scaling due to growing renown of legendary characters.
That is a matter of opinion just like it is matter of opinion that things should not scale.
But like I said before the best thing to do is talk to the player. If the player knows the game pretty well he will catch on that he is being countered, and that may not end well.
Of course if you talk to him he may leave the game, but people tend to take things better when you tell them vs them finding out on their own.
He may also ask to just get a redo on the resources since they are being negated, which I think is fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But like I said before the best thing to do is talk to the player. If the player knows the game pretty well he will catch on that he is being countered, and that may not end well.
I've found the easiest way to convey this kind of info is with the following blanket statement: "All rules are guidelines. The GM is free to ignore a rule or make up his/her own rule(s) in order to facilitate better gameplay."
That way someone expecting a RAW-only game will know to steer clear or at least adjust their expectations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts on this topic go like this:
The DC to climb a particular wall is a fixed number. It doesn't matter if you're a 20th level rogue with max ranks in climb, or a 3rd level fighter in full plate with no ranks at all. The DC is fixed. If I put that wall into an encounter, I'm not going to fiddle the DC just because one character has optimised for climbing. Nor am I going to change the DC 5 levels from now when the PCs return with better gear and higher climb skills. Same wall, same DC.
NPC intervention is the one thing that can change that assessment. If the kobolds saw how easily Roguey McRogueface climbed the wall, they might put some work in to make it tougher in the future.
The same goes for all other skills: that lock has a fixed DC to open. That trap has a fixed DC to perceive and a fixed DC to disable. If it changes between times it's encountered, someone has changed it, and they have a reason to do so (which I will know, it's not arbitrary).
I literally could not care less what the PC skill modifiers are in relevant skills for an encounter. The only thing that matters is whether the players are engaged, challenged, and having fun. So what if they spot every trap? I don't only use traps. So what if they can climb any wall? The kobolds on top pouring alchemist's fire on their heads don't care. So what if the bard is a charming bastard? He won't stop the witch poisoning the party in the swamp.
If a player makes a particular type of challenge trivial because they invested in it, then they'll have trivial encounters. Good for them. I have lots of ways to make other encounters a challenge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player makes a particular type of challenge trivial because they invested in it, then they'll have trivial encounters. Good for them. I have lots of ways to make other encounters a challenge.
You probably have even more ways to make other encounters challenging, because the resources needed to trivialize traps could instead have given the character, you know, a BAB that lets him hit his plate with his fork, or enough hit points to participate in a snowball fight without an ambulance ride afterwards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But like I said before the best thing to do is talk to the player. If the player knows the game pretty well he will catch on that he is being countered, and that may not end well.I've found the easiest way to convey this kind of info is with the following blanket statement: "All rules are guidelines. The GM is free to ignore a rule or make up his/her own rule(s) in order to facilitate better gameplay."
That way someone expecting a RAW-only game will know to steer clear or at least adjust their expectations.
This isn't a rules issue so that wont work. This is an issue of the GM negating resources.
I'm surprised nobody brought this up from what I read: Perception only allows you to see the trap. You need Disable Device to, well, Disable it.
If the player sees the trap, fine, he sees the trap. It will still pose a threat, especially if it's convoluted properly. Some traps might not even be able to be disabled except by a switch or something on the opposite side of a corridor.
If you're really stumped on traps that are effective, then look at the Tomb of Horrors. Players from the original will tell you how absolutely brutal those traps were, and that even if they did find out they were traps, they had a hell of a time overcoming them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're really stumped on traps that are effective, then look at the Tomb of Horrors. Players from the original will tell you how absolutely brutal those traps were, and that even if they did find out they were traps, they had a hell of a time overcoming them.
Many of the ToH traps are/were illegal under Pathfinder rules. One improvement that has been made since the mid 70s (at least in my view) is a better attempt to separate player-knowledge from character-knowledge. Most of the ToH traps required the character to take specific actions dictated by the player (for example, touch objects in a precise order) and no clues were provided as to what that order was.
It's not reasonable for me to present an inscription written in Euskara and expect players to understand it, which is why the Linguistics skill exists. It allows a someone who doesn't speak Euskara to run a character who does, and similarly allows someone who doesn't speak Abyssal to run a character who does. Similarly, I don't need to be able to turn cartwheels myself to play an acrobat, or to be able to shoot a bow to play an archer.
But in ToH, it was expected that if the player did not know how to disable a trap, the character couldn't, either.
The Pathfinder rules specify that "All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect." That is to say, all traps must be capable of being disarmed if your character's DD skill is high enough.
This isn't a rules issue so that wont work. This is an issue of the GM negating resources.
The rule is in regards to challenge rating. Some individuals are saying that you can't increase the Perception DC because that would increase the CR, and players are only expected to face challenges within a particular CR range.
If you, like me, think CRs are simply guidelines and can be ignored if the GM chooses, then players won't have the expectation that by hitting a certain + Perception mod all traps become auto-succeed.
This isn't a rules issue so that wont work. This is an issue of the GM negating resources.The rule is in regards to challenge rating. Some individuals are saying that you can't increase the Perception DC because that would increase the CR, and players are only expected to face challenges within a particular CR range.
If you, like me, think CRs are simply guidelines and can be ignored if the GM chooses, then players won't have the expectation that by hitting a certain + Perception mod all traps become auto-succeed.
You are missing my point.
The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.
It not about autosucceeding.
Using myself as an example if I have a +40 to perception at level 12, and a trap has a perception DC of 53 I will know that the GM artificially inflated the DC.
As a GM I have no problem with a GM changing things, but at the same time I would also know he did it to that extent just because I had a high modifier, I would have preferred he told me "don't waste too many of your resources trying to do ____ because I will just inflate the DC's".
He could also say "I would really like if you toned back on the perception checks/(insert other thing as needed)".
That way instead of putting a trait, 3 feats, and 35000 gp into X, I could have just toned back on X, and done something else.
Do you get what I am talking about now?
The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.
It's not about not wanting PCs to do something. It's about recognizing that no matter how good an individual PC is, somewhere there's someone better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im imagining the dungeon boss hiring the greatest trap hider in the multiverse, then running out of money so he has to use some s#++ 1d2 dex poison from discount bobs poison utopia.
Are you here for the sale today? 50% off all Dex poisons for the next hour!
There's no better time to buy some second hand poison! But buy quick, because when it's gone, it's gone!
Discount Bobs, you can trust us!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.It's not about not wanting PCs to do something. It's about recognizing that no matter how good an individual PC is, somewhere there's someone better.
That does not do anything for your player feeling like his resources have been wasted, which is why I was telling your before that rule argument was not a factor.
You can try to frame it as "someone is better" but the player will know that if he didn't have a +40 that the trap DC would not be a 53 at level 12.
And also there is not always someone better. There are people who are the best at things. At your table you may want to let the PC's know that someone is not them, but that type of thing could also be covered before the game starts.
"Guys it does not matter how good you are at ____ to some extent. Yes you will do better than if you spenn no resources but someone can counter you and he will likely be doing work for Team Evil".
This gets your point across, and it avoids the player find things out on his own.
I think being transparent solves more problems than it causes, and it can be done while still not giving the story(spoilers) away.
Tangent:
I've been running Frog God Games' "The Black Monastery" for one of my groups. This thing is very 1st-edition in terms of content. My players have excellent Perception and Disable Device. But... because the environment is so darned interesting and creative, they are very casual about optimizing their actions. As a result, they fiddle with things a smart adventurer never would. They let things happen because they want to know what interesting results will ensue.
There's nothing inherently interesting or worthwhile in Yet Another Pit Trap. But unique traps they WANT to fail against.
To that end, I'd also recommend Goodman Games' "Grimtooth's Compiled Traps" mega-book. I just got my Kickstarted copy a week ago. Amazing stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.It's not about not wanting PCs to do something. It's about recognizing that no matter how good an individual PC is, somewhere there's someone better.
So this trap maker who is the best ever is an actual NPC they can murder, right? And when they do, the traps become easier again, correct? And, it should go without saying, the NPC is someone you actually built as a character, within the rules, rather than arbitrarily raising the DCs?
Because if the answer to any of those three things is "No", this fails as justification more than it already does (largely because telling someone "You will never be the best at anything, an NPC will always better you" defeats the entire purpose of leveling).
The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.It's not about not wanting PCs to do something. It's about recognizing that no matter how good an individual PC is, somewhere there's someone better.So this trap maker who is the best ever is an actual NPC they can murder, right? And when they do, the traps become easier again, correct? And, it should go without saying, the NPC is someone you actually built as a character, within the rules, rather than arbitrarily raising the DCs?
Because if the answer to any of those three things is "No", this fails as justification more than it already does (largely because telling someone "You will never be the best at anything, an NPC will always better you" defeats the entire purpose of leveling).
I was thinking that but I was 99% sure he didn't really exist, but you were fair enough to ask. I should have done the same.
Of course that would have let into "why haven't the PC's killed him yet".
I am guessing it will be because he can't be found or he is a much bigger badass than the BBEG so the players/PC's know not to mess with him.
That does not do anything for your player feeling like his resources have been wasted, which is why I was telling your before that rule argument was not a factor.
I think it does. Assume a player expects, based on having run mathematical calculations regarding CR, that a +20 Perception check should equal auto-succeed in any traps he encounters. Then my telling that player that I don't feel required to follow CRs as a GM informs them that there is no level they can achieve to ensure auto success.
And also there is not always someone better. There are people who are the best at things. At your table you may want to let the PC's know that someone is not them, but that type of thing could also be covered before the game starts.
This is saying what I said in different words. Of course there is a best somewhere, but it is never a PC. And yes, I specifically mention this in all games I've run. I find it helps to attract the kind of players that will enjoy my GM style.
I think being transparent solves more problems than it causes, and it can be done while still not giving the story(spoilers) away.
Yes, I'm all for transparency. I find that often times when transparency is lacking, it is because someone never imagined that someone else could view a rule or idea in the way they do.
(largely because telling someone "You will never be the best at anything, an NPC will always better you" defeats the entire purpose of leveling).
I disagree completely. If your goal as a player is for your character to become the best x in the entire multiverse, then you'll want to find a GM that likes playing in God-level games. Not my cup of tea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That does not do anything for your player feeling like his resources have been wasted, which is why I was telling your before that rule argument was not a factor.I think it does. Assume a player expects, based on having run mathematical calculations regarding CR, that a +20 Perception check should equal auto-succeed in any traps he encounters. Then my telling that player that I don't feel required to follow CRs as a GM informs them that there is no level they can achieve to ensure auto success.
No, because you don't tell them WHEN upping the skill is pointless. If CR dc's mean nothing then what perception is so good you're not going to get any better since the GM will start upping the DC's. Because unless you tell him when he resources will start to be wasted he can feel they are wasted because in the end they wont be doing anything for him.
Example, having a +40 disable when he'd have the same effect as a +30 disable, those last 10 are wasted. But unless you let him know that +30 is the limit of success you're letting him waste resources.
No, because you don't tell them WHEN upping the skill is pointless. If CR dc's mean nothing then what perception is so good you're not going to get any better since the GM will start upping the DC's. Because unless you tell him when he resources will start to be wasted he can feel they are wasted because in the end they wont be doing anything for him.
Example, having a +40 disable when he'd have the same effect as a +30 disable, those last 10 are wasted. But unless you let him know that +30 is the limit of success you're letting him waste resources.
Two points. 1st: upping a skill is never pointless, as there's always someone better.
2nd: The requirement to tell a player when they've reached the critical optimization level for their character comes from the mindset of needing to have every character resource optimally spent or else a character isn't as powerful as he could otherwise be.
I'm not interested in gaming with people of that mindset, and I attempt to make that clear with my recruitment post. I seem to have been fairly successful with that strategy thus far.
You are missing my point.The point I was trying to make was not about any rules, but that if you are going to not want players to do X because you don't like as a GM it is better to let them know, than to try to do it "behind the scenes" and hope they don't notice because if they notice on their own it won't likely end as well as if you tell them up front.
It not about autosucceeding.
Using myself as an example if I have a +40 to perception at level 12, and a trap has a perception DC of 53 I will know that the GM artificially inflated the DC.
As a GM I have no problem with a GM changing things, but at the same time I would also know he did it to that extent just because I had a high modifier, I would have preferred he told me "don't waste too many of your resources trying to do ____ because I will just inflate the DC's".
He could also say "I would really like if you toned back on the perception checks/(insert other thing as needed)".That way instead of putting a trait, 3 feats, and 35000 gp into X, I could have just toned back on X, and done something else.
Do you get what I am talking about now?
This sounds reasonable to me. A frank conversation or steer may be all that is required to take improved iron will instead or buy that Ioun stone they were thinking about getting. Info agree that auto setting DCs to five higher than the characters skill doesn't really solve the problem. If that character goes down the rest of the party is then screwed as discussed earlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, because you don't tell them WHEN upping the skill is pointless. If CR dc's mean nothing then what perception is so good you're not going to get any better since the GM will start upping the DC's. Because unless you tell him when he resources will start to be wasted he can feel they are wasted because in the end they wont be doing anything for him.
Example, having a +40 disable when he'd have the same effect as a +30 disable, those last 10 are wasted. But unless you let him know that +30 is the limit of success you're letting him waste resources.Two points. 1st: upping a skill is never pointless, as there's always someone better.
But if there's always someone better, and as the implication has been, that "better" rises every time YOU get better at something, an never otherwise...raising a skill IS entirely pointless.
DC 30 with a skill of 20 and a DC 40 with a skill of 30 and so on are exactly the same thing.
And really, this justification doesn't even apply to all skills.
"Sorry, your 40 Acrobatics can't hit the DC to jump 10 feet any more, there's someone better".
But if there's always someone better, and as the implication has been, that "better" rises every time YOU get better at something, an never otherwise...raising a skill IS entirely pointless.
Better rises at the speed of plot. I.e., if the characters learn of a secret tomb created by the gods, the traps in the tomb are going to be incredibly difficult to spot/disable. The exact DC is not going to be shared with the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(largely because telling someone "You will never be the best at anything, an NPC will always better you" defeats the entire purpose of leveling).I disagree completely. If your goal as a player is for your character to become the best x in the entire multiverse, then you'll want to find a GM that likes playing in God-level games. Not my cup of tea.
It appears in your games a PC being "average" at everything is just as effective as a PC being "really good" at something. Sounds like there isn't much incentive for a character to excel at anything.
It appears in your games a PC being "average" at everything is just as effective as a PC being "really good" at something. Sounds like there isn't much incentive for a character to excel at anything.
There's a bit of a range between average and best in the multiverse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good question would be: How do I challenge a player with an insanely high [insert name of skill]?
The game does ramp up challenges as you progress. AC gets higher; accuracy gets better; damage gets higher. So, in a way, the system itself "negates" player's improving because it is trying to continue to provide a challenge. You get more bonuses "to hit", so I'll have higher AC on enemies. You have more HP, so I'll do more damage. Etc., etc.
It's not unreasonable to up the DC occasionally. But even if you do, you're not doing something the system doesn't already do in other areas all the time.
I don't see traps as free XP. It's no different than a Fighter taking out a mook with out scratch, free XP there too. Or better yet a wizard taking out 50 mooks with single spell, sure it used a resource but it's 50 mooks.
|
I think a good question would be: How do I challenge a player with an insanely high [insert name of skill]?
The game does ramp up challenges as you progress. AC gets higher; accuracy gets better; damage gets higher. So, in a way, the system itself "negates" player's improving because it is trying to continue to provide a challenge. You get more bonuses "to hit", so I'll have higher AC on enemies. You have more HP, so I'll do more damage. Etc., etc.
It's not unreasonable to up the DC occasionally. But even if you do, you're not doing something the system doesn't already do in other areas all the time.
Except for traps. By the normal rules, sample traps hit DC 34 as early as CR 10 but never go higher.
The trap creation rules are pretty wonky. It's like they were written without taking the scaling of perception and disable device into account. What's really wierd is that it has stayed basically unchanged since 3.0.
But traps are best integrated into other encounters anyway. "I roll perception/I see at trap/I roll to disable the trap/I disable the trap" is not really interesting regardless of whether there is a 5%, 0%, 25%, or 50% chance of failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost as if some people are saying they WOULDN'T want to game the "SAW," movies.
I believe yes, that's whats most of us are saying.
It's not fun to play that game, just as the movies weren't enjoyable to watch (after the first 1).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two points. 1st: upping a skill is never pointless, as there's always someone better.
Okay...the relevant questions here are:
How likely am I to meet such a person?
Does that likelihood change as my skill increases?
Because, while someone might always be better, you'd expect the number of such people to get smaller and smaller the better you got, and thus your likelihood of running into them randomly getting smaller and smaller. If that's not the case there may be a fairness and/or realism problem here.
2nd: The requirement to tell a player when they've reached the critical optimization level for their character comes from the mindset of needing to have every character resource optimally spent or else a character isn't as powerful as he could otherwise be.
That doesn't follow at all. That's one reason someone could feel that way, but not the only one.
It could just as easily be as simple as
"I bought Skill Focus to succeed more often. That isn't happening, since you just upped all the DCs. Why did I buy this Feat in that case?"
It's not about optimization as much as it is wanting your choices to have some sort of relevance.
I'm not interested in gaming with people of that mindset, and I attempt to make that clear with my recruitment post. I seem to have been fairly successful with that strategy thus far.
The problem is that those aren't the only sort of people effected negatively by arbitrary DC increases.
It's almost as if some people are saying they WOULDN'T want to game the "SAW," movies.
I certainly wouldn't.
Perhaps a subversion, where someone captures us through some underhanded means and then is astounded when our characters who AREN'T level 1 Commoners bypass all of his traps without the proper "sacrifice", or as something we swoop in to save previously mentioned Commoner 1s from, but that sounds like a pretty unsatisfying RPG experience at a base level.