Exploiting the Vulnerabilty of Strengths [4e]

[Shatteredtower]

The rule books argue that you should not punish players for maximising particular talents. I don't dispute this. I do, however, believe that maximised talents can deny players opportunities. Do we play for the challenge or not?

Take Perception, for example. It takes no great effort to get that modifier high enough to track invisible foes with passive checks, easy pickings for area or burst effects. Scaling the DC on checks higher may bring challenge back to this player, but puts it well beyond those who focused on other talents, sometimes so punitively that the party feels it must all achieve high Perception modifiers.

But what if, every once in awhile, the heightened Perception worked against you? Imagine haunted places, in which the more sensitive individuals are constantly barraged with mad, hateful whispering weakens their defenses. There should be ways to neutralise the effect, of course, ones rarely so drastic as the need for deafness.

Thoughts?

[Jay R]

There are easier ways to accomplish the same goal. Just as infravision doesn't work when you're in a party using torches, heightened perception doesn't work when overwhelmed by stronger sense impressions.

Player: "I'm on guard, using all my heightened senses. What do I detect?"
DM: "The dwarf in your party snores like a buzzsaw, the rogue wears way too much perfume, and you're getting a headache from the fact that the fighter hasn't bathed today."

[Tengu_temp]

It's an interesting thing when used well and very annoying when not used well. You're also bound to piss your players off if you constantly use their strengths against them, so exert moderation.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd be hard-pressed to find any other examples than perception. Even with perception, it would be rather weird (and potentially annoying) if it is ruled that only people with a lower perception can notice something.

[Grogmir]

"It takes no great effort to get that modifier high enough to track invisible foes with passive checks, easy pickings for area or burst effects"

Can you take passive scores in combat? I don't use the Passive scores anyway - I might as well decided if the party see's it or not - as I know what the highest score is - so its just working out the same - Role and lets see how the story goes.

- - -

As for the idea itself I like it - though as others said - this seems to be a unique to perception case.

But can be used in a few different flavours - for example a Cuthulu take would be - role perception please - everyone that succedded - you see *Indiscribable horror* Attack Vs Will to see if take any 'pyshic damage' or some such thing. But it would be a trick i would use ofther. Maybe once every dungeon tops.

[Kylarra]

I'm kind of curious which ones other than perception you'd use with this.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, here's one I used years ago. The party was hungry and decided to go hunting. Since none of the party was proficient in archery, they decided to use evocation magic for this purpose.

Um, yeah.

I ruled that if you do several times its max HP in magical explosive damage to a little rabbit, then there won't be enough left of it to cook for dinner.

[Suedars]

But what if, every once in awhile, the heightened Perception worked against you? Imagine haunted places, in which the more sensitive individuals are constantly barraged with mad, hateful whispering weakens their defenses. There should be ways to neutralise the effect, of course, ones rarely so drastic as the need for deafness.

Thoughts?

If this is done sparingly and isn't crippling it'd probably be ok. I'd tack on some benefit too (maybe the hauntings give clues in to whatever the party is investigating) so that it doesn't seem vindictive.

There are easier ways to accomplish the same goal. Just as infravision doesn't work when you're in a party using torches, heightened perception doesn't work when overwhelmed by stronger sense impressions.

Player: "I'm on guard, using all my heightened senses. What do I detect?"
DM: "The dwarf in your party snores like a buzzsaw, the rogue wears way too much perfume, and you're getting a headache from the fact that the fighter hasn't bathed today."

This isn't really the way above average senses work though. A master chef with an extremely refined palate will be able to taste minuscule things that most people would never be able to. That doesn't mean that their palate is overwhelmed by every dish they taste though. Above average senses are about noticing the .5s on the 1 to 10 scale, not magnifying everything 10x so that the .5s becomes noticeable 5s and the 10s become 100s and knock you out from sensory overload.

[Gwillednt]

I'm kind of curious which ones other than perception you'd use with this.

DIPLOMACY!!!

"You rolled so well that Dippy the Diplomatic Diplodocus showed up and well, everyone got really distracted and annoyed."
\


In other words, I would avoid doing this.

[Fortuna]

Knowledge skills are another potential problem, since if something is not what it seems then having a firm idea of what it must be can be a liability. But other than those and Perception, I can't think of anything that could be turned backwards like that.

[erikun]

Why not allow the strengths to be strengths, just not as all-encompassing as the player might like? To use your Perception example, why not have, rather than one invisible opponent, a dozen invisible minions? Sure, the one character can determine where they are, but that won't help the rest of the party in fighting invisible opponents - they'll need to rely on the hyper-perception party member to point out where all the opponents are.

Perhaps you could even grant mechanical benefits if the character decides to spend their time watching for invisible threats rather than fighting. Such as: if the character chooses to spend their Standard action telling his allies where the invisible opponents are rather than attacking, all allies can ignore the -5 penality for fighting invisible opponents.

[Kurald Galain]

if the character chooses to spend their Standard action telling his allies where the invisible opponents are rather than attacking, all allies can ignore the -5 penality for fighting invisible opponents.

Considering talking is normally a free action (or at worst a minor), it seems to me that, rather than allowing strengths to be strengths, this is allowing strengths to arbitrarily remove your attack action.

[Suedars]

Why not allow the strengths to be strengths, just not as all-encompassing as the player might like? To use your Perception example, why not have, rather than one invisible opponent, a dozen invisible minions? Sure, the one character can determine where they are, but that won't help the rest of the party in fighting invisible opponents - they'll need to rely on the hyper-perception party member to point out where all the opponents are.

Perhaps you could even grant mechanical benefits if the character decides to spend their time watching for invisible threats rather than fighting. Such as: if the character chooses to spend their Standard action telling his allies where the invisible opponents are rather than attacking, all allies can ignore the -5 penality for fighting invisible opponents.

The problem with the minion solution is that you want to be using bursts to take out minions and bursts ignore penalties for invisible foes (assuming the burst isn't limited to enemies you can see like many of the weapon based close bursts).

[OracleofWuffing]

Actually, here's one I used years ago. The party was hungry and decided to go hunting. Since none of the party was proficient in archery, they decided to use evocation magic for this purpose.

Um, yeah.

I ruled that if you do several times its max HP in magical explosive damage to a little rabbit, then there won't be enough left of it to cook for dinner.

Well, years later from that, you can just declare that killing blow knocked out but didn't kill the little rabbit.

Though, why you'd do that is beyond me, everyone knows how dangerous those things are.

[erikun]

Considering talking is normally a free action (or at worst a minor), it seems to me that, rather than allowing strengths to be strengths, this is allowing strengths to arbitrarily remove your attack action.

Talking is a free action, but keeping your eyes on twelve foes and letting each party member know when one is nearby and from what side is not. At least, I don't forsee many DMs allowing all the penalities associated with invisibility to be cancelled simply because one character has True Seeing and a big mouth. (There is a difference between just mentioning what is happening, and giving a constant up-to-date report for every ally throughout the turn.)

Plus, the one character is effectively giving a +5 to hit (ignore invisibility penality) and a +2 to defenses (ignore CA granted by invisibility) to all party members for their standard action. Plus, if spending a standard action effectively negates the opponents' invisibility, then classes like the Fighter can still fight at full effectiveness. How valuable is this? Warlords are the only class who can grant such bonuses, and they are considered the best leaders because of it.

Of course, it should simply be an option for the uber-perceptor. Are they the party Wizard? Then they would probably be better with just AoEing the invisible minions, as Suedars points out... unless the minions snuck up on the party are nearby allies. Then, suddenly, dropping area spells isn't such a good idea and pointing out invisible targets to allies is.

[Shatteredtower]

Suedar, that's exactly the sort of idea I had in mind: rarely used, and always with the idea of operating other doors to opportunity. Thanks.

Erikun, that suggestion is far too generous. You just need to compare it to aid another to see why.

As for other skills, consider how dangerous Insight can be around Lovecraftian horrors. Awareness of a cultist's self deception is fine, but listening to the ravings of someone claiming to channel Tharizdun, for example, can be devastating if you can discern that both the claim and the ravings are true.

Diplomacy? Sycophants and other stalkers. Knowledge skills? The unsettling realisation that this particular owlbear devoured a prominent hero, or prophecy declared this given demon's to be one with that of a great kingdom. The result can be a small combat penalty, but the significance of revelation can lead to bigger things. Bluff? What's the line about lies that get halfway round the world? Intimidate? Informant with bad heart, involuntary shriek, or weak bladder.

[Shatteredtower]

Sorry, reached message size limit. Here are a few more.

Stealth: Allies may also lose track of you. It's hard to find advantage in this, but let's not rule that out. Ah, right... it's less likely they'll know where to drop area spells, but you needn't worry about dominated allies attacking you or anyone giving away your position.

Athletics: seldom an issue, and overjumping is too likely to be punitive instead. Ditto injuries caused to those you aid or displays of perfectionism that extend a move action to standard. All are possible, but only if it leads to open doors.

Acrobatics: See Athletics. Both can be exploited to encourage the highly talented to take a normally unpassable route, rather than the faster, more accessible one, changing the flow and nature of further challenges for good and possibly bad.

Thievery: You have me there. Streetwise could occasionally oblige you to stay for a few more drinks, but this may earn you favours in the long run, should you play it right. (out of space)

[Jay R]

This isn't really the way above average senses work though. A master chef with an extremely refined palate will be able to taste minuscule things that most people would never be able to. That doesn't mean that their palate is overwhelmed by every dish they taste though. Above average senses are about noticing the .5s on the 1 to 10 scale, not magnifying everything 10x so that the .5s becomes noticeable 5s and the 10s become 100s and knock you out from sensory overload.

Don't be silly. Try tasting a subtle wine right after a swig of bad whiskey. A master chef cleanses his palate of other tastes before sampling a fine dish.

You can't hear an elven footfall fifty feet away if your companions are talking, and you can't smell the approaching monster if you're in the middle of a cesspool. The solution I was proposing is to have distractions at the moment that you need to frustrate the super-senses for plot purposes.

[Kurald Galain]

Erikun, that suggestion is far too generous. You just need to compare it to aid another to see why.

That's not such a great comparison, considering Aid Another is pretty much always a waste of your action. You should compare suggestions to average options, not to way underpowered options.

[Shatteredtower]

That's not such a great comparison, considering Aid Another is pretty much always a waste of your action. You should compare suggestions to average options, not to way underpowered options.

I knew you'd be the one to make this observation. Please be assured that it's not an insult.

My point is, whether or not you consider it a bad option, it is among the core defaults. Any action that exceeds what it does without involving at least a class power or feat cannot be recommended. Anything of the sort that exceeds what it does by 150% of benefit, for more allies against more enemies, within a wider range, is clearly broken in comparison to the default options.

[Cog]

Don't be silly. Try tasting a subtle wine right after a swig of bad whiskey. A master chef cleanses his palate of other tastes before sampling a fine dish.

Yes, the whiskey imposes a circumstance penalty when you're tasting the wine, but I don't see why the penalty should be any greater for the master chef versus the average joe.

[Suedars]

Yes, the whiskey imposes a circumstance penalty when you're tasting the wine, but I don't see why the penalty should be any greater for the master chef versus the average joe.

Exactly. Both the chef and the average person will be hindered at picking up subtle notes (if the average person even could in the first place), but the chef will still be much better off.

[Kurald Galain]

I knew you'd be the one to make this observation. Please be assured that it's not an insult.

I don't mind.

But I do disagree. When you create e.g. a new Ranger at-will, you shouldn't compare it with Careful Attack to check if it is balanced, and it doesn't follow that it's "broken" if it's much more powerful than Careful Attack. This is because CA is one of the weakest at-wills in the game.

Conversely, when you create a new feat, you shouldn't compare it with Staff Expertise to check if it is balanced, and it doesn't follow that it's "useless" if it's much weaker than Staff Expertise. This is because SE is one of the strongest feats in the game.

Outliers do not make a good baseline.

[Shatteredtower]

Aid another isn't an outlier. It is one of the basic actions available to everyone. Making a Perception check to locate an invisible foe is another, because it can be done untrained. It is unlikely, but it's possible. If that doesn't exceed the benefit of aiding another in combat by negating a -5 penalty (and letting your allies target something if you can meaningfully communicate location), then a particularly good Perception modifer shouldn't be enough to do that either, especially against groups. It's enough that it can let you offer directions for someone else's area attack.

[Kurald Galain]

Aid another isn't an outlier. It is one of the basic actions available to everyone.

It's an outlier because it is so rarely used in practice; in fact, I've never seen anyone use it in combat. This is because it's a really bad tradeoff.

There are rules that are so rarely used that people tend to forget they exist, and that might as well not be there because they don't add anything to the game. This is an example thereof, and that's why it's an outlier. How would the game play differently if the Aid Another action wouldn't exist? The answer is that it wouldn't.

[Shatteredtower]

If my character is weakened and blinded for a turn, I'd rather have aid another as an option than a lot of other choices.

If the rogue has no surges left and the cleric can't get over there, but can provide surgeless healing with a successful attack, my fighter is going to take an option that makes that more likely to happen. It's better to waive an attack than leave another player sidelined, no matter what some people claim about tactical priorities.

If we need the wizard back on that ledge, aid another. If we need the cleric revived, aid another. If the rogue wants to draw the opportunity attack to trigger the fighter's combat challenge while moving for a flank, aid another.

There are no better choices. There are just different ones that do different things.

[tcrudisi]

Take Perception, for example. It takes no great effort to get that modifier high enough to track invisible foes with passive checks, easy pickings for area or burst effects.

Thoughts?

Yep. I did a quick search for all instances of the word invisible and I didn't catch this, so if someone's already said it, my apologies.

Tracking invisible foes is incredibly easy to do in combat. Take a Fighter with a Perception modifier of -1. Heck, let's say he's been blinded and the DM wants to throw some arbitrary penalty at you. For purposes of argument, I'll say the DM is especially mean and gives you a -9 because of some arbitrary house rule. That gives you a Perception score of -10 and a Passive Perception of 0. Now, how hard is it for the Fighter to find the invisible foe in combat?

It's still easy. You succeed automatically. Congrats, you know what square the invisible creature is in automatically!

What you are talking about is the hidden condition. That is far, far different than simple invisibility. It is a bit complicated, so rather than try to explain it here, I'll cheat and give a link to the charop thread which explains the differences.

[byers2142]

My DM took a rather unique approach to this problem in our face-to-face game; make personal DC modifiers to the skills that target those characters that are highly proficient, because they are highly proficient. The example was my half-elf Warlord, whose Diplomacy score was frankly obscene. I used this to my advantaged for 12 levels, and the DM was helpless to stop it. Lovecraftian horrors? I schmoozed them. Invading hordes? Followed my lead when I pointed out tastier targets. It was impressive.

And then he got the idea that people would notice this. Huron (my character) was a smooth talker, and because of that in situations that mattered I started getting penalties because everyone knew it. You can take this as an personal attack, but I didn't. It was a natural extrapolation of how things had gone. If everyone knew I could talk my way out of murder, they would start to doubt they could trust everything I said when the next body showed up.

The same can apply to any skill, really. High Perception? Then the Big Ba knows what character he needs to pay special attention to when hiding things. Insight? People know what character to play to. Thievery? People learn the patterns of the rascal and take precautions against his specific tendencies. As long as you're clear to the players that these reactions are because people are responding to in-game actions their characters have taken, they shouldn't be upset. Personally, when I started getting nerfed Diplomacy rolls, I saw it as a challenge. And talked a king into giving up part of his country to me by sending an envoy whom I instructed in exactly what to say.

[Shatteredtower]

Now, how hard is it for the Fighter to find the invisible foe in combat?

It's still easy. You succeed automatically. Congrats, you know what square the invisible creature is in automatically!

Stealth is part of movement. The invisible target, having total concealment, can make a Stealth check even if it doesn't move. It can only do this on its turn and with a move action is available, but if it turns invisible next to the fighter and has a move action left, a successful Perception check is needed to determine if it moved.

I've heard people argue that this fighter would be blind with respect to the target, but what matters is that he's not blind to the target's passage. Circumstances may change that, but you can't even bet on staying still for so much as a -2 on the check. Also, anyone that does locate you should be able to do so for the team. It still doesn't remove the -5 penalty on ranged or melee attacks.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The rule books argue that you should not punish players for maximising particular talents. I don't dispute this. I do, however, believe that maximised talents can deny players opportunities. Do we play for the challenge or not?

This never ends well.

Players maximize their abilities to be very good at something. If the DM continually contrives situations where they are not very good at that one thing then they get annoyed. The Player (rightly) sees the DM as using his Fiat to invalidate a Player choice - i.e. his autonomy; maintaining Player autonomy is key for most - if not all - forms of game play.

ADVICE

Spoiler

Show

For D&D4 in particular, I find the system works best if you let maximized Players have some "gimmes" - but limit the amount of times those gimmes are very important. For example, if you have a Max Perception Player, don't design your games around finding secret doors and avoiding ambushes; throw in the occasional secret door or "it's a trap" but spend more of your time using challenges that require other skill checks to succeed.

The distinction is subtle.

A game where the Party is trying to locate secret doors in a haunted mansions to find the Lost Treasure is going to either be boring or frustrating for the Party with a Max Perception Player. It will be boring if you play by the RAW and none of the door are really "secret" 'cause they can be found via Passive Perception - finding secret doors was the main challenge in this scenario, after all. But it will be frustrating for everyone if you either buff the DCs so that only the Max Perception Player can hope to find anything (no one else can even help) or if you have some situational effect that prevents the Max Perception Player from using his Perception; it's like sending a melee-only party against flying enemies in an open field.

Now, what if you did the same game but rather than having a lot of secret doors to find, the problem with the haunted mansion is that you need to figure out how to break the haunting. Sure there are secret doors and hidden clues, but the party will need to use a variety of skills to actually solve the mission. The Max Perception Player has fun being told "hey, you notice that one of the bricks on the wall is loose" but everyone else can contribute to solving the real adventure.

In short: as long as you give the Maximized Player opportunity to "flex his muscles" from time to time he'll be happy. Just don't design your encounters to cater to his strong suit all the time.

On a related note: the true problem with skills is defining the limits of what can be done with them. Never assume that a skill lets you do anything given a sufficiently high check; that just allows maximized Players to ruin campaigns (see Diplomancers).

ADVICE

Spoiler

Show

For Insight and Perception checks, the main issues arise with liars and traps. Liars because a sufficient Insight basically destroys any whodunit and most double-cross stories; traps because noticing a trap exists is usually enough to negate the trap. My earlier advice still applies, of course: if you must do a "whodunit" make it more a matter of gathering evidence than fingering the liar; for traps, make them traps that must still be bypassed even when you notice they're there - or traps that may be triggered in the course of combat.

But even here, some RAI may be helpful. My personal RAI is that Insight will merely tell you whether someone is lying or not - not what they are lying about or even what the truth may be. It gives impressions, not certainties. Unfortunately, I still don't have a way to deal with Insight v. Illusions - by RAW, practically any Illusion will be noticed by a Max Insight Player.

For Perception, I only allow Perception to notice things - not give answers. So you may notice that there is a pressure plate in the hallway, but not know what that means. I usually swap the "Perception for identifying traps" entry on the Trap Card with a Dungeoneering or Arcana check. Likewise, you can't use Perception to see the imperceivable; my party was recently foiled by a tapestry that completely obscured a close door because nobody thought to look behind it - much less physically search the room.

Also: Don't worry about Max Perception foiling invisible opponents in combat. As that helpful link notes, they still have Total Concealment. If you don't like your party being able to pick out Invisible Opponents so easily, equip some enemies with "flashbangs" - attacks that Blind & Deafen a single target (Save Ends). After all, the Max Perception fellow needs to point out the Invisible guy to his allies - making him a prime target for an assassin to neutralize