Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZSutherland" data-source="post: 4278840" data-attributes="member: 7638">So far, having DMed 3 sessions of KotS, and played in one session with the full RAW, I am displeased with two facets of the perception skill.1) Only rogue and ranger can train this skill without blowing a feat on it.  So, assuming a 4 person party with all roles filled, if your striker is a warlock, the party is effectively blind and deaf.  Using standard point buy, the best you could do at 1st level, is have an elf cleric (18 Wis: +4, +2 racial) = passive perception 16.2) Stealth is heavily favored by the perception rules.  The goblin sharpshooter (highly appropriate for a 1st level encounter) has a +12 to stealth checks.  Attempting to find him after he moves to concealment and hides requires him to roll a 1, 2, or 3 on his check if you have the above best possible case when no one is trained in perception.  However, even if you do have someone trained in it (the cleric took Skill Training: Perception at 1st level), you've raised your passive perception to 21.  You can still only find the sharpshooter if he rolls less than 8 or less.  If he's more than 10 squares away from you, and he certainly wants to be, reduce his necessary roll by 2.In 3e, this wouldn't have been much of a problem, because we had a tendency to fight in 30'x30' rooms that were effectively barren.  In 4e, there's a lot more terrain and such.  I like that improvement immensely, but it makes it awfully easy for enemy stealthers to attack from concealment, move to concealment, hide, and repeat that every round.I suppose the same is true for our strikers (unless, again, you took a warlock striker instead of a rogue or ranger, who can both train Stealth w/o a feat), but it seems less advantageous.Are we doing something wrong?  Is there something missing?  We chased a sharpshooter for 8 rounds last night, and never had clear line of sight on him.</blockquote>

Verification