If he fails his perception check and is ambushed and his nearest ally is 110 feet away, I feel like the odds are not in his favor.
If he fails his perception check and is ambushed and his nearest ally is 110 feet away, I feel like the odds are not in his favor.
No. If he fails his Perception and Stealth checks, and his nearest allies are 110 feet (one range increment with a longbow) away, then he may have cause for concern, especially if he dumped AC and the ambushers are all archers (because if they're melee then they're not attacking him that round).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading through all the posts in this thread I think it is reasonable to summarise the situation as follows:
Perception is like an investment, and a good investment most of the time because there is a good return for a relatively small cost in skill points. And like an investment it is optional, it is possible to build effective characters without investing in Perception at all.
Perception is nothing like a tax, as taxes generally speaking are mandatory and yield little or no benefit.
This is more of a summary of one of the sides of the topic than the topic as a whole. I think where things break down is the bolded line, because I would disagree with that line in many cases.
And I think that's the crux of the matter. If you think Perception is nigh-mandatory, as I do, then you're going to consider it closer to a tax (again, tax isn't the right word, but it gets the general sentiment across). If not, you're going to disagree. And it's entirely dependent on GM, but I like planning for the worst-case scenarios when building characters. Which is usually something like:
"Can this character survive an ambush, in a split party scenario, while low on resources".
I like to assume such scenarios are possible, because in my experience they are, and they tend to be the ones that kill players. And in such a situation, Perception is a deal-breaker.
(It's not the only deal breaker though. I also value self-sufficiency, resource efficiency (does the character have a fallback plan when they're all out of spells/rage/whatever), and methods to escape bad situations. )
It seems like most of the discussion is about how to avoid such situations to begin with (send the scout in first), but that's just not always possible depending on the GM and the scenario. Sometimes you're all you have. Sometimes there's a time limit and scouting takes too long. Sometimes you don't want to send the scout ahead because that always slows down the game and you don't have that much time to play. Etc. So I like to assume such situations can and will come up.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
This is more of a summary of one of the sides of the topic than the topic as a whole. I think where things break down is the bolded line, because I would disagree with that line in many cases.And I think that's the crux of the matter. If you think Perception is nigh-mandatory, as I do, then you're going to consider it closer to a tax (again, tax isn't the right word, but it gets the general sentiment across). If not, you're going to disagree. And it's entirely dependent on GM, but I like planning for the worst-case scenarios when building characters. Which is usually something like:
"Can this character survive an ambush, in a split party scenario, while low on resources".
I like to assume such scenarios are possible, because in my experience they are, and they tend to be the ones that kill players. And in such a situation, Perception is a deal-breaker.
(It's not the only deal breaker though. I also value self-sufficiency, resource efficiency (does the character have a fallback plan when they're all out of spells/rage/whatever), and methods to escape bad situations. )
It seems like most of the discussion is about how to avoid such situations to begin with (send the scout in first), but that's just not always possible depending on the GM and the scenario. Sometimes you're all you have. Sometimes there's a time limit and scouting takes too long. Sometimes you don't want to send the scout ahead because that always slows down the game and you don't have...
While I agree that it's very GM dependent, that makes it an issue of playstyle, not game design. So Perception is not mandatory/a tax unless you or the GM make it one?
That's fair, and I'd agree with that- I'd just also say that it's a fairly common playstyle that turns it into a tax.
The kicker, for me, is that you don't always know your GM. If it's PFS, for example, or just a GM that you've never played with. In such a situation, I feel that if you want to make sure you survive, it's best to err on the side of caution and make sure you have a decent Perception score. If you're more optimistic than I am then I can see skipping Perception, but to me it's a glaring hole that I'd never feel comfortable with.
So I guess, to me it's a tax until the GM proves it's not a tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that it's very GM dependent, that makes it an issue of playstyle, not game design. So Perception is not mandatory/a tax unless you or the GM make it one?
Bingo :)
As a GM, I generally am not out to kill my PCs. Challenge, torment and entertain? Absolutely! But I'm not looking for cheap kills, as all it does is end the story before it was actually finished.
So if a character is alone (happens a lot when I GM, I like splitting parties) and has negligible Perception (happens a lot when I GM), even if I do ambush them, I don't do so with an army of snipers, so all that happens is that the bad guys get to move out of cover and near the PC in the surprise round, then Initiative is rolled.
Maybe there are demands for surrender (especially if the PC is outnumbered). Maybe the PC legs it. Maybe they set the ambushers on fire. Maybe they 5-ft-step and Great Cleave their faces in. It varies, but the presence or absence of Perception isn't going to kill any character in any game I run, unless absolutely no one has it and they are going through a trap-filled nightmare dungeon.
Other GMs I know actively try to kill as many PCs as they can and will exploit every loophole and weakness in the character design to do so. This is also a valid gaming style (even if not one I actually enjoy), but even then I wouldn't say that Perception is "a tax", so much as one of many things the GM will try to kill you with if you don't have that angle covered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Perception were a save we could give it to Wisdom and then move Will into Charisma. I would consider that a bonus.
It's not necessary, just a bonus.
I like this idea, however, I just felt a million min/maxers crying out at once at the thought of CHA not being a dump stat :)
I like this idea, however, I just felt a million min/maxers crying out at once at the thought of CHA nto being a dump stat :)If Perception were a save we could give it to Wisdom and then move Will into Charisma. I would consider that a bonus.
It's not necessary, just a bonus.
On another note... I get called a power gamer by a lot of people I know and game with (most, thinking about it). Usually not in the sense of being a complete munchkin, but more the fact that I tend to carefully plan and craft my characters to be as effective as I can make them at what I want them to do. Part of this is being an engineer and liking to play with numbers.
I've played two characters who had a Charisma of less than 10. Both in 2nd edition with stats rolled in order; A dwarf whose highest stat was Con (at 11) and a human fighter with Wisdom 7, Charisma 6 and Comeliness 5.
Charisma is handy. Indeed, if your game involves any modicum of intrigue or social interaction, it may well be the most powerful stat in the game.
Maybe there are demands for surrender (especially if the PC is outnumbered). Maybe the PC legs it. Maybe they set the ambushers on fire. Maybe they 5-ft-step and Great Cleave their faces in. It varies, but the presence or absence of Perception isn't going to kill any character in any game I run, unless absolutely no one has it and they are going through a trap-filled nightmare dungeon.
I've just started running a Rappan Athuk game, so that maaay have flavored my opinion on Perception a little. Besides that, I play a lot of PFS where you just can't be sure anyone has Perception. I mean, it's likely someone does, but it's not a smart wager to make.
Let's start out with some simple advice -- spread out. If the party members are at least twenty feet from each other, you can't be killed by most AoE spells.I've seen more characters die or nearly die due to being too far from their allies than from being too close.
Absolutely. We always for a semi tight 2x6 formation so that if ambushed anyone that gets rekt can at least 5 foot step behind others, get himself some cover, or easily benefit from touch spells and effects without making others waste a move action to reach him. If the GM wants to open an encounter with 10 fireballs on the party and kill them all one shot... congratulations for ending your own campaign? On the other hand if the enemies all ambush from one direction, and the PCs are spread out, then odds are they will have no choice but to focus 1 PC and outright kill him. Gee, fantastic.
Ambushes aren't really all that fun to suffer. In my game the PCs have ambushed way more often than they have been ambushed.
I've just started running a Rappan Athuk game, so that maaay have flavored my opinion on Perception a little. Besides that, I play a lot of PFS where you just can't be sure anyone has Perception. I mean, it's likely someone does, but it's not a smart wager to make.
Maybe there are demands for surrender (especially if the PC is outnumbered). Maybe the PC legs it. Maybe they set the ambushers on fire. Maybe they 5-ft-step and Great Cleave their faces in. It varies, but the presence or absence of Perception isn't going to kill any character in any game I run, unless absolutely no one has it and they are going through a trap-filled nightmare dungeon.
One of the two campaigns I play in is RA.
Three out of six players are invested in stealth. The other three tend to stay at the rear of the party.
Two of the characters with high perception also have maxed their stealth, can disable traps, and have HIPS.
I don't know about AP or modules or home games, But I know in PFS, if it says the players are getting ambushed then the players are getting ambushed and everyone gets the perception to be in the surprise round or not. And it's common enough that surprise rounds like this are set off on the party that I see where people say that perception is almost required on everyone. Because it is needed far more often than just having 1 guy good at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, whether it's lazy GMing, or lazy AP writing, the 'PCs get ambushed' is generally too attractive for a GM to allow a single character with an ultra-high perception to just invalidate the encounter setup for the entire party.
Spotting the ambush does not invalidate the encounter; instead, it reverses the ambush into a counter-ambush by the PCs. The players love to outsmart the enemy. A counter-ambush uses more skills and teamwork than most encounters, so is more memorable. And all I have to do to give them the opportunity is provide an ordinary Perception check for the scout.
Yeah, whether it's lazy GMing, or lazy AP writing, the 'PCs get ambushed' is generally too attractive for a GM to allow a single character with an ultra-high perception to just invalidate the encounter setup for the entire party.
Not allowing the scout to detect an ambush with a good perception roll is a GM problem, not a rules problem.
If there is no way to spot an ambush using perception and ambushes are common then max ranks in perception is a waste of points. A better tactic is to be a diviner wizard.
|
|
Yeah, whether it's lazy GMing, or lazy AP writing, the 'PCs get ambushed' is generally too attractive for a GM to allow a single character with an ultra-high perception to just invalidate the encounter setup for the entire party.Not allowing the scout to detect an ambush with a good perception roll is a GM problem, not a rules problem.Er, yeah, which is the main point of my post that you replied to. However, if it's common enough among GMs to spring ambushes without a proper 'RAW' perception chance, as seems to be the case, then you can either change all of those GMs, or adapt the rules.
In any case, it's because of this common GM behavior that I will never, ever not put full ranks in perception in any of my characters. It's just asking for trouble.
So its more of a GM tax then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there is no way to spot an ambush using perception and ambushes are common then max ranks in perception is a waste of points. A better tactic is to be a diviner wizard.It's not a waste if you get to act in the surprise round.
Diviner wizards automatically act in the surprise round. High perception does not provide the same guarantee.
In my experience GMs scale difficulty against the perceived power of the PCs. Usually for good reason because players like to be challenged. The perceived power of a party is typically based on the strengths of the most powerful characters because that is what is most obvious to the GM. If you raise perception to ridiculous levels then you start an arms race that encourages the GM to raise the difficulty to match and encourages the other players to waste points maxing out their perception.
One exception to this is if you have a GM who sticks strictly to published adventures. In which case maxing out perception is overkill and therefore a waste of points anyway.
Or, one character wants to be known as the perception guy for roleplaying reasons. They are like the Balin of the group. Most GMs will respect that and let the perception guy shine at perception. Therefore the other players don't need to worry about wasting valuable points in perception.
Unless the GM specifically tells you to, I can see no reason for the whole party to pre-emptively decide to max out perception.
As I said already. To act in the surprise round. The fact that it's 'no guarantee' doesn't mean that getting to act is not actually related to a high perception, and the higher your perception, the less often you'll get surprised.
It's not rocket science.
No, it's not rocket science, but it is also not universally applicable, because that isn't how the rules of the game work - it's a simplification and abstraction on the GM's part to create the effect they wanted.
If that's what they (and their players) want, then it's totally cool.
I've played with GMs who insisted that each 5 foot square of movement provoked a separate attack of opportunity from a character with Combat Reflexes. This meant that Tumble (it was 3.5) was obscenely powerful, and any character that could get it as a class skill should max it out whenever taking levels in that class, because to do otherwise was to face AO death.
But I wouldn't argue as a general principle (i.e. in games with different GMs) that characters should always max out Tumble/Acrobatics. Because it's a GM specific quirk.
As I said already. To act in the surprise round. The fact that it's 'no guarantee' doesn't mean that getting to act is not actually related to a high perception, and the higher your perception, the less often you'll get surprised.
It's not rocket science.
Sorry pressed FAQ by mistake.
Not rocket science, psychology.
Those GMs who are ambush happy are the type of GM who engage in the perception arms race. You might as well save your points because the GM can easily raise the difficulty to match.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surely you've read the several posts that
1) acknowledge that yeah, by RAW having 1 character with a very high perception should be able to shield the need for the party most the time
and
2) in the real world, many GMs and many PFS scenarios just don't run it that way.
At this point, I'm not even sure what you're arguing. That people haven't had the experiences they've directly said they have had?
Sadly I have encountered those ambush happy GMs before. And I found that investing in perception was pointless because the enemies just became more stealthy. If on the hand you have a more reasonable GM perception is a good investment but hardly mandatory.
Surely you've read the several posts that
1) acknowledge that yeah, by RAW having 1 character with a very high perception should be able to shield the need for the party most the time
and
2) in the real world, many GMs and many PFS scenarios just don't run it that way.
At this point, I'm not even sure what you're arguing. That people haven't had the experiences they've directly said they have had?
One of the downsides with posting before drinking coffee, is that sometimes you miss the context; in this instance, Boomerang's posts. Apologies for that.
In the specific instance of GMs who prefer the "SURPRISE! MONSTERS!" scenario, or authors (which to me feels like lazy writing), then your point is sound - Perception is worthwhile on everyone due to the effects of rocket tag. This goes double if said GM/Scenario also contrives a way for the ambushers to partial-charge in the surprise round, which they normally shouldn't due to the obstructions granting them the ability to hide.
In the broader sense (as we've previously agreed), it isn't normally necessary or even that worthwhile by simple virtue of how the game is intended to function.
I think you're misunderstanding the value of perception in my explanation.
It doesn't let you spot the ambush from afar, but it does let you 'not be surprised' when the ambush happens.
There have a been a few players who don't put points in perception. They are usually surprised. I usually am not.
It sounds like my experience was slightly different. It started the same, ambushes were unavoidable and a perception roll was required to react in the surprise round. But over time it became harder and harder to react in the surprise round due to the DCs going up faster than we could boost our perception.
The GM who nerfed perception so we couldn't avoid ambushes eventually nerfed perception to the point where it was totally useless.
I've just started running a Rappan Athuk game, so that maaay have flavored my opinion on Perception a little. Besides that, I play a lot of PFS where you just can't be sure anyone has Perception. I mean, it's likely someone does, but it's not a smart wager to make.
Maybe there are demands for surrender (especially if the PC is outnumbered). Maybe the PC legs it. Maybe they set the ambushers on fire. Maybe they 5-ft-step and Great Cleave their faces in. It varies, but the presence or absence of Perception isn't going to kill any character in any game I run, unless absolutely no one has it and they are going through a trap-filled nightmare dungeon.
One of the two campaigns I play in is RA.
Three out of six players are invested in stealth. The other three tend to stay at the rear of the party.
Two of the characters with high perception also have maxed their stealth, can disable traps, and have HIPS.
My party has only one guy that has invested in stealth at all, and two people with negative stealth modifiers. Perception is the only thing keeping this party alive, lol.
I expect the second party will be a bit more savvy >_>
Perception in my games is rarely used in combat except for the odd ambush. Where perception gets used a lot in out of combat situations like noticing things. Average DC 15. So no skill you have a 30% chance to notice things with no ranks and no wisdom bonus. Some DCs are a low as 5 in some cases. The higher DCs are meant to thwart someone with a most basic perception. So that just makes sense. Secret doors shouldn't be noticed by the average Joe with no perception ranks as they walk by.
So Perception isn't really a skill tax as you don't need it unless you want to be skilled in perception.
Yeah, whether it's lazy GMing, or lazy AP writing, the 'PCs get ambushed' is generally too attractive for a GM to allow a single character with an ultra-high perception to just invalidate the encounter setup for the entire party.Not allowing the scout to detect an ambush with a good perception roll is a GM problem, not a rules problem.Er, yeah, which is the main point of my post that you replied to. However, if it's common enough among GMs to spring ambushes without a proper 'RAW' perception chance, as seems to be the case, then you can either change all of those GMs, or adapt the rules.
In any case, it's because of this common GM behavior that I will never, ever not put full ranks in perception in any of my characters. It's just asking for trouble.
Yeah, you will just run into GM's that don't care. You got a 40 on your check? Well, you only rolled a 2. So, you rolled bad and didn't see anything.
In my experience the GM's who are more likely to ambush you without a roll, are also the ones who prefer the swinginess of the d20 and don't care if you invested resources into maintaining a predictable result.
That's why I almost never tell the GM what I rolled, just the final result. ;)
Most GMs want their players to roll where they can see the dice. Plus the one or two GMs I've (briefly) played with who disregard mods and only care about the RNG will just refuse to continue until you tell them what you rolled on the die, no matter how many times you tell them the final total.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who plays a lot of PFS, I see the whole "Perception to act in the Surprise Round" come up every now and then. Maybe once per scenario on average. Noticing important details out of combat can vary wildly in DC, but some writers seem to bank on at least half the party having ranks, and law of averages giving those 3-4 characters at least one great result between them.
I have found Perception to be second only to Diplomacy when it comes to the frequency of "succeed this roll or suffer a major setback" skill checks. Add that with the fact that tables are assembled by whatever mishmash of characters the players can fit into the level range. Skills can vary. Add the fact that no-skill, Int dumping martials tend to be at least decently popular in many local scenes, and it becomes even more important.
Perception is most certainly a skill tax. But it has one HELL of a tax return.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not more "a tax" than having good initative is. Having Improved initiative is good, universally good in fact. Everybody wants to have more initiative, just like everybody wants to have more perception. It's not the end of the world if you choose not to, and you can spend those resources somewhere else if you like.
It's not more "a tax" than having good initative is. Having Improved initiative is good, universally good in fact. Everybody wants to have more initiative, just like everybody wants to have more perception. It's not the end of the world if you choose not to, and you can spend those resources somewhere else if you like.
Waste of a feat on my kensai.
Lets face it, when your initiative is already 20 points higher than every else, Improved Initiative does absolutely nothing for you.
It's not more "a tax" than having good initative is. Having Improved initiative is good, universally good in fact. Everybody wants to have more initiative, just like everybody wants to have more perception. It's not the end of the world if you choose not to, and you can spend those resources somewhere else if you like.Waste of a feat on my kensai.
Lets face it, when your initiative is already 20 points higher than every else, Improved Initiative does absolutely nothing for you.
True, but at that point it's less that having initiative isn't good, and more that you've already got so much invested in it that there's low marginal returns in further investment.
It's not more "a tax" than having good initative is. Having Improved initiative is good, universally good in fact. Everybody wants to have more initiative, just like everybody wants to have more perception. It's not the end of the world if you choose not to, and you can spend those resources somewhere else if you like.Waste of a feat on my kensai.
Lets face it, when your initiative is already 20 points higher than every else, Improved Initiative does absolutely nothing for you.
The kensai in my game thought the same.
Until the BBEG "wasted" Moment of Prescience in the initiative roll.
If Initiative is the most important statistic in the game (especially towards maximum level, where rocket-tag is a thing), then quite frankly that ability wasn't "wasted" in the slightest, especially if he could one-round one PC (or even your entire party if he's big and bad and evil enough).
|
The worst case being they're spellcasters (at which point invisibility may well come into play and your Perception means squat) or rogues sniping (which doesn't bother the barbarian).
While not exactly a barbarian, I've seen a Bloodrager walk into a building first, fail the perception check to spot the hidden character, go just far enough in to trigger the encounter (10') and receive a 5' step+ sneak attack, followed by a low initiative roll and a flurry of blows sneak attack (Monk/Assassin NPC) that KO'd him and nearly killed him (2hp shy of death) before he ever had the opportunity to react. And in this circumstance the NPC was 5 levels above the Bloodrager, so even being a barbarian would not have saved him from the sneak attack dmg, just would have given him a little more HP.
That was a lvl 4 playing low tier in a 3-7 PFS Scenario. So it wasn't even a character playing out of tier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The worst case being they're spellcasters (at which point invisibility may well come into play and your Perception means squat) or rogues sniping (which doesn't bother the barbarian).While not exactly a barbarian, I've seen a Bloodrager walk into a building first, fail the perception check to spot the hidden character, go just far enough in to trigger the encounter (10') and receive a 5' step+ sneak attack, followed by a low initiative roll and a flurry of blows sneak attack (Monk/Assassin NPC) that KO'd him and nearly killed him (2hp shy of death) before he ever had the opportunity to react. And in this circumstance the NPC was 5 levels above the Bloodrager, so even being a barbarian would not have saved him from the sneak attack dmg, just would have given him a little more HP.
That was a lvl 4 playing low tier in a 3-7 PFS Scenario. So it wasn't even a character playing out of tier.
Two issues with this example:
1) Uncanny dodge doesn't work like that. You are never flat-footed so cannot be subject to sneak attack unless the attacker flanks you. The attackers level does not affect uncanny dodge, only improved uncanny dodge.
2) A monk/assassin who is 5 levels higher than you is 4 CRs higher, and by design should beat you senseless.
Or in fewer words: Your GM stuffed up, and the encounter was supposed to be overwhelming.
If Initiative is the most important statistic in the game (especially towards maximum level, where rocket-tag is a thing), then quite frankly that ability wasn't "wasted" in the slightest, especially if he could one-round one PC (or even your entire party if he's big and bad and evil enough).
That's why I used the "". :)
While not exactly a barbarian, I've seen a Bloodrager walk into a building first, fail the perception check to spot the hidden character, go just far enough in to trigger the encounter (10') and receive a 5' step+ sneak attack, followed by a low initiative roll and a flurry of blows sneak attack (Monk/Assassin NPC) that KO'd him and nearly killed him (2hp shy of death) before he ever had the opportunity to react. And in this circumstance the NPC was 5 levels above the Bloodrager, so even being a barbarian would not have saved him from the sneak attack dmg, just would have given him a little more HP.
A 4th level bloodrager has uncanny dodge, he should not have been flat-footed.
|
|
Two issues with this example:
1) Uncanny dodge doesn't work like that. You are never flat-footed so cannot be subject to sneak attack unless the attacker flanks you. The attackers level does not affect uncanny dodge, only improved uncanny dodge.
2) A monk/assassin who is 5 levels higher than you is 4 CRs higher, and by design should beat you senseless.
Or in fewer words: Your GM stuffed up, and the encounter was supposed to be overwhelming.
Correct on both parts. I haven't played with uncanny dodge much myself so I didn't catch the mistake, the GM running that session is always very quick to call out that "if you don't know how to play your character that's not on me." So even if he realized it wouldn't work, the person playing the Bloodrager pregen didn't bring it up so he rolled on.
Finally there are definitely some Scenario encounters that are not very balanced by sheer numbers, which they try to counter by poor/specific tactics. In this case the only real difficult part was the amount of sneak attack damage, the party had the guy boxed in so he wasn't able to set up flanks, so without that he quickly became a punching bag.
I've run another scenario (with the same GM sadly) Where the big bad has abilities that give him maxed out Scorching Ray at will and ability to cast quickened scorching ray x/day at a level where it should only be able to do 2xRays per cast, and doesn't have high enough spell levels to cast quickened. But the tactics say he focuses on the targets that engage him in melee and use 1 quickened ray and a full attack. GM decided rather than doing that and trying to hit the heavily armored fighter in melee he'd just run Scorching Ray + Hastened Scorching ray at whatever character he felt would not have cover. That makes it increasingly more difficult as you're dealing with 6 touch attacks per round against targets that aren't as beefy as the front liners.
I've seen many homebrew DMs use kind of a "surprise by fiat" style which renders Perception null and void for many encounters. Typical examples include, "You couldn't see them in advance because they came from around the corner" or "The mage brought them in with D Door, so you had no way to know they'd arrive"
This can lead to some oddball situations when some of the PCs have Lookout and a way to always act in the surprise round.