Holmes in my D&D: dealing with Perception+Insight optimization?

[hirou]

One of my players made Sherlock Holmes-like PC, eladrin artificier (and yes, he's playing violin). He has heavily invested in Arcana-boosting options, and today, starting paragon, finally unveiled the combo he was building: by taking Arcana prodigy feat (sorcerer multiclass) and then Sorcerous vision (roll Arcana instead of Perception and Insight) he now has passive 40 in both Perception and Insight. Some things to consider:

• I've extensively checked the build, it is legal, skill substitutions apply to passive checks according to WotC forums consensus and RC definition of "passive check value";
• the rest of the party is not heavily optimized; we have tiefling feylock, changeling psion, eladrin fighter and elf avenger;
• the player explicitly skipped some damage optimization in favor on Arcana and Perception stuff, and he's heavily invested in his character flavor, and I definitely don't want to punish him for this;
• I don't think I have a Stealth or Bluff DC 41 written anywhere for the next 4 adventures at least (we're playing Zeitgeist adventure path BTW).

I'm mostly troubled that this removes a whole layer of the game; basically, no hiding monsters, no surprise traps, no Bluffing evil guys, no illusions. Any advice on how to deal with this? How would you challenge Holmes?

 

[Celebrim]

If you are playing the Zeitgeist adventure path, then you shouldn't challenge Holmes. You sound like a GM who has become invested in winning, and so feels that if they are cheated of scenes that they imagined happening, they should resort to metagaming to reestablish those scenes. Why are you so committed to surprising and ambushing the PCs? Avoid imagining how scenes should happen. Instead think of all the ways they could happen, and try to make as many of those ways interesting as you can.

If you were playing a free form game where Holmes was a character, of course you should occasionally challenge him in appropriate ways, but none of those ways involving hiding clues and stuff from him. Instead you are basically committed to providing all the clues and making the puzzle complicated and creative enough to be engaging. If that's what you are asking, then you are asking a question equivalent to, "How do I write a Sherlock Holmes story?"

A big distinction needs to be made between a player who invests resources in automatically winning certain challenges because he's not interested in them and so wants to handwave them, and a player who builds a character to succeed at certain challenges because he wants that to be the focus of play. Considering you are on an adventure path, I'd suggest the former is more likely. This player just doesn't want to miss information. He's sacrificed resources to make that happen. And that's perfectly fine.

 

[hirou]

You sound like a GM who has become invested in winning, and so feels that if they are cheated of scenes that they imagined happening, they should resort to metagaming to reestablish those scenes

...perhaps my English is worse than I thought or I just didn't clarify this enough: I certainly don't want to force the adventure into a set of predetermined scenes, which now do not work because of autosuccessful checks. But just removing (e.g. autosucceeding every check) the whole mechanic of stealth and bluff based obstacles from the game won't make the game more interesting
for this player or for the party as whole. I need ideas of how I can challenge this party, not for the sake of difficulty but for the value of the game.

EDIT: and I get your vibe of "give facts to make conclustions on, not answers", but I don't think that it's enough to solve the problem

 

[Celebrim]

But just removing (e.g. autosucceeding every check) the whole mechanic of stealth and bluff based obstacles from the game won't make the game more interesting for this player or for the party as whole.

I don't disagree, but that would appear to have not been this player's choice. This player has very carefully created a character so as to automatically succeed when faced with any obstacle regarding observation. In the player's eyes, this is a good thing. As the DM, you have to deal with that. Ideally, if you have a problem with a character build that allows automatic success on any challenge of observation, you fix that before the game begins by modifying the rules so that treating a particular sort of challenge as trivial isn't possible. But once a player has invested in a build, it's too late to deal with that and you must live with it.

I need ideas of how I can challenge this party, not for the sake of difficulty but for the value of the game.

I'm afraid I can't offer much advice beyond saying that there is more than one sort of challenge. The PC will not automatically succeed in tests of strength, in pursuit, in evasion, or combat, or negotiation. It's just simply effectively impossible to hide any fact from his observation. The player has made Sherlock Holmes or Dr. Who. Well and good. Now its your job to challenge him in something other than problems of observation, while allowing him to shine in his chosen role.

EDIT: and I get your vibe of "give facts to make conclustions on, not answers", but I don't think that it's enough to solve the problem

I think it is. The bigger problem is its far harder to craft intricate mysteries than it is to hide facts through obfuscation.

But I'm not even really understanding what the problem is here. You are running an adventure path. Keep running it. Your PC is going to shine in some scenes. Wonderful. Is the entire episode dependent on the PC's continually missing information? I doubt it, but if it is, then it's a rather poorly written adventure.

 

[iserith]

One of my players made Sherlock Holmes-like PC, eladrin artificier (and yes, he's playing violin). He has heavily invested in Arcana-boosting options, and today, starting paragon, finally unveiled the combo he was building: by taking Arcana prodigy feat (sorcerer multiclass) and then Sorcerous vision (roll Arcana instead of Perception and Insight) he now has passive 40 in both Perception and Insight. Some things to consider:

• I've extensively checked the build, it is legal, skill substitutions apply to passive checks according to WotC forums consensus and RC definition of "passive check value";
• the rest of the party is not heavily optimized; we have tiefling feylock, changeling psion, eladrin fighter and elf avenger;
• the player explicitly skipped some damage optimization in favor on Arcana and Perception stuff, and he's heavily invested in his character flavor, and I definitely don't want to punish him for this;
• I don't think I have a Stealth or Bluff DC 41 written anywhere for the next 4 adventures at least (we're playing Zeitgeist adventure path BTW).

I'm mostly troubled that this removes a whole layer of the game; basically, no hiding monsters, no surprise traps, no Bluffing evil guys, no illusions. Any advice on how to deal with this? How would you challenge Holmes?

The player appears to have already overcome these challenges since the passive scores far exceed even the hard DCs by level. You'll have to challenge him or her with something else while making sure his or her investment isn't worthless. Holmes finds the trap, but what does it take to avoid or disarm it? Holmes senses the surprise attack coming, but what of his friends? Holmes detects the lie, but can he get the NPC to reveal the truth? Holmes see through the illusion, but can he convince others that it's not real? And so on.

 

[Umbran]

I'm mostly troubled that this removes a whole layer of the game; basically, no hiding monsters, no surprise traps, no Bluffing evil guys, no illusions. Any advice on how to deal with this? How would you challenge Holmes?

Simple. Take the GUMSHOE route. In GUMSHOE games, they assume that if there's information to be found, the PCs *will* find it. No die rolls are necessary to get the basic clues available. There is no question that the PCs will find the clues.

Figuring out what they mean, or what to do with them when they have them is the interesting bit.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

On the subject of traps, make the challenge in avoiding them or disarming them, rather than finding them. Perhaps it’s no surprise that the pedestal with the fancy gem is trapped. But how do they get the gem without falling victim to the trap?

Since the player has sacrificed damage optimization for a different build, I’d definitely allow them moments to shine with their unique abilities. But I’m with you, as a DM, even though we’re supposed to want our PCs to do awesome things, it kinda rankles that the character is so optimized that they don’t even need to roll to succeed.

If you want NPCs to give the PCs incorrect information, have someone else bluff the NPCs in the first place! If the NPC thinks that the red dragon in the mountains is a kindly gold dragon because that’s what the somewhat unscrupulous fellow told him, then the NPC is telling what they believe is the truth.

When it comes to working with mysteries in adventures, I love this blog entry so much:

http://blogofholding.com/?p=6649

 

[MichaelSomething]

you could just throw monsters at him? Isn't that was all DMs do to solve problems??

 

[delericho]

If you want NPCs to give the PCs incorrect information, have someone else bluff the NPCs in the first place!

This, or some variant on it. Have the bad guys use a cell structure for their organisation and compartmentalize information. That way, Holmes can't simply interrogate Random Goon #1 and unpick the entire plot, because RG1 doesn't know much - just enough to point Holmes to his superior... who points him to the next link in the chain, and so on...

And, as Ralif correctly points out, Insight will only help you spot when someone is lying to you; but if RG believes something, it's not a lie.

 

[The Fighter-Cricket]

I will go along with the other comments and say, that your problem this is not as bad as it looks. When a player builds a character that is highly specialized then he wants to shine in one particular field. And why not? That's okay. I bet that every scene where the Holmes character can make use of his otherworldly perceptiveness will be a blast for the player. He will grin his face off and have fun and maybe roleplay it out: "Of course I have sensed the faint lingering of the dutches' perfume in this chamber and have guessed rightly by the small twitching of her pinky finger that she is lying! Why? Because i am brilliant *hrhrhrhr*".
So don't despair! It will be fun for the player - maybe the problem is on the side of the other players. (Almost) every scene where perception is involved it will be the spotlight for Holmes. Now you have to find a balance between this kind of scenes and encounters where your other player's characters can shine.

If you are looking for challenges then use the input form Iserith. High perceptiveness does mean you sense a danger, clue, fishy situation etc. But that does not mean you can solve the case or trap in the same fashion.

As a side note: Maybe you can talk to the Holmes player and ask him what he expects from his specialization. If he just wants to be super perceptive and get all the clues then everything is fine. If he also expects his character to solve everything hust through his high skill he will be disappointed because that's not how the skill works (see also Iserith's remarks). I like to talk to my players about what they expect from their characters and how they want their charactes to be special.