Greater Invis vs Perception

Quintain,
The rules disagree with you. Per Invisibility in the PRD:

"If an invisible character picks up a visible object, the object remains visible. An invisible creature can pick up a small visible item and hide it on his person (tucked in a pocket or behind a cloak) and render it effectively invisible."

The only way to make a non-Invisible object "effectively invisible" is if it's small enough to be hidden in otherwise Invisible garb. I think Full Plate would fail to qualify as "a small visible item" that can be tucked in a pocket.

Gauss,
See my already posted explaination (which you quoted). There's no dodging of the question; it's all right there. If you want to play where each sense has a different set of rules, go ahead, but it's not in the rules for Perception (other than the previously noted difference for how Scent works). You're quite obviously ignoring my explanations and therefore, I see no further reason to respond on this matter to you.

Quintain wrote:

Quote:

If you want to say an invisible creature wearing visible Full Plate isn't effectively invisible, that seems like a reason way to handle the situation as a GM. I would likely do the same.

But an invisible creature wearing full plate isn't even in the same ball park as being able to react to an arrow that becomes visible after it has already been fired.

I wouldn't even do that. The rules for a picked up object remaining visible are for those that are essentially held in the hand. Armor is worn in his scenario. It would become invisible.

\\ Picking nits, I am :P

I think a fair argument can be made either way on that, honestly. The rules talk about items being picked up because that seems like a relatively plausible scenario. Putting on an actual suit of armor after becoming invisible just seems silly. It likely wasn't addressed because nobody would have considered it a reasonable possibility.

I don't think a very strong case could be made for this (okay, actually I don't think there is a case for this at all). If I cover an invisible creature by dumping a bag of flour over it, the flour doesn't become invisible despite the fact that the creature is not carrying the flour, but rather 'wearing' it. If you can somehow get that armor onto your body and hidden underneath your clothing your golden though.

I mean technically if I tie a visible rope around my waist I'm not 'carrying it in my hand' anymore either. But that doesn't make it visible. The RAW and RAI is plainly made clear from the "items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature". Armor is an item, and if you weren't holding it when you were turned invisible then you had to pick it up from somewhere. The actual RAW doesn't say a thing about it being in your hand or not.

Krith, At no place in your post (that I quoted) was there a quote of the line that enables you to know exactly where something is. If I have missed the rules quote, please highlight it so that we may all see it (use the [ quote ] formatting to highlight it).

Explanations are not rules quotes. You are the one that is claiming RAW here, so please quote it. Please do not create long explanations on some 'phantom' RAW which you refuse to quote.

Note, here is the rule you DID quote:

Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

Do you see a line that enables you to know exactly where something is? No? Neither did I.

So, if that is the basis of your explanation for knowing exactly where something is then you missed the mark. Please post the quote.

How does one determine if someone else is speaking? It isn't just the sounds being transmitted -- it is the visual cue of the mouth moving in specific ways that the listener recognizes as words he understands.

Watch a badly dubbed Chinese Martial arts film for examples.

That is not an answer to anything I asked. I have not seen you cite any rules either.

Once again do you or do you not get a free perception check to detect sound made by an invisible person?

If you say no, then I was not misrepresenting you earlier.

If you say yes then no move action is needed.

If you somehow feel like bowstring noise and other noise call for different rules then explain.

edit:Also linguistics, not perception is the skill used to read lips when you can't hear someone.

Note, however, that a successful DC 20 Linguistics check to read lips can still reveal what's said inside a zone of silence.

Even if you want to argue that line only applies to that spell, there is no rule allowing you to read lips in perception, not that it matters because I am asking about sound and invisible creatures.

Once again do you or do you not get a free perception check to detect sound made by an invisible person?

If you say no, then I was not misrepresenting you earlier.

If you say yes then no move action is needed.

If you somehow feel like bowstring noise and other noise call for different rules then explain.

edit:Also linguistics, not perception is the skill used to read lips when you can't hear someone.

You get a free perception check to notice the sound, yes. In other words, the answer is: You hear someone speaking. No more, no less. Just like you get a free perception check to notice that you are in combat, if you really think you need to make a roll to understand something so obvious.

Do you pinpoint based off that person speaking with your free perception check? No, you do not. In order to pinpoint, you are required to actively search, as pinpointing is an activity.

It really cannot be explained any simpler. I have repeated this time and again, and if you cannot understand this plain english, well, then there is really no reason why this discussion need continue.

Does the creature stuck have to take a move action to gain this knowledge? No. (Foiling that knowledge by afterwards taking a 5' step isn't really a part of this discussion, it doesn't change the fact that at the time the attack was made the defender did know where the attacker was).

Being struck with a weapon isn't even in the same class as hearing a bowstring or a person yelling. It is actively taking a hit in combat. It's the same false analogy as saying a human has eco-location on the level of a bat.

I can't quote rules when you are freely modifying the definitions of words that are stated in those rules. You are simply re-defining the meaning of these words to suit your viewpoint.

Once again, words have meaning and circumstances matter even in a game.

When you notice something, it is a re-action. When you pinpoint something, it is an action you take. One is reactive (notice a bowstring being drawn back, hearing someone yell that you have no idea where they are). Pinpointing requires a move action because it a action, not a re-action. It requires effort.

ake 20 is always an active perception. Take 20 is taking time and patience to look for something. Take 20 is the investigative officer who goes over a murder scene with a magnifying glass. Take 20 also cannot be done in combat.

You misunderstood. I was speaking of the difference between De jure Take 20 and De facto Take 20.

I'll try to clarify.

If you are re-actively making perception checks as something that doesn't even consume a free action (for what that is worth), then you look at the Try again rules which state that as long as the stimulus exists you get to try again. And you know every player will always argue that *some* stimulus always exists because they have the knowledge that an invisible person is present, then you might as well De facto give them Take 20, as they will allow themselves enough perception checks given an always present stimulus coupled with *reactive* perception rules to pretty much role the perception check until they get a 20.

That is the logical conclusion of allowing reactive perception checks based on whatever micro-analysis the player can come up with (such as listening for a bow being drawn back, or the attacker *breathing* -- which someone who has a +50 perception bonus can detect with their bat-like echo-location).

The only way to prevent this conclusion from occuring is to ensure that the character has to devote effort -- aka move actions -- to their perception checks.

Incidentally, this is the reason why being struck in combat allows for automatic pinpointing of the attacker -- a De facto Take 20 whose circumstances prevents modifiers from applying.

The only way to make a non-Invisible object "effectively invisible" is if it's small enough to be hidden in otherwise Invisible garb. I think Full Plate would fail to qualify as "a small visible item" that can be tucked in a pocket.

No, but it is pretty much automatically covered by a cloak. Which is standard adventuring garb.

Being struck with a weapon isn't even in the same class as hearing a bowstring or a person yelling. It is actively taking a hit in combat. It's the same false analogy as saying a human has eco-location on the level of a bat.

You've ignored the point. How does magically enhanced perception work? Please find me the rules that describe that. If you cannot then you can't state that a human cannot have eco-location, or a sixth sense unknown in the real world, that would allow such a pin pointing.

I can't quote rules when you are freely modifying the definitions of words that are stated in those rules. You are simply re-defining the meaning of these words to suit your viewpoint.

Once again, words have meaning and circumstances matter even in a game.

Which words am I changing the definition of? Point out my ignorance please :).

You quoted the following rule:

Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Now which part of that mentions combat? Which part of the combat rules refer back to this? I understand the definitions of all the above quoted words quite well, thank you very much.

I agree that intentionally searching for a stimulus is a move action. I don't agree that being in combat makes perception checks to pin point something require a move action. That is the rules reference I am asking you to produce. I'm asking you to provide the link that 'being in combat' requires any specific types of perception checks to be intentional ones.

On take 20, where do the rules define a "De jure Take 20 and De facto Take 20" difference? They do not. There is no de jure and de facto take 20. There is only "take 20" which is clearly defined as taking your time to accomplish the associated task. This argument you are putting forth is a straw man. (Aside from the fact you ignored that you can't take 20 in a combat situation).

I have repeated this time and again, and if you cannot understand this plain english, well, then there is really no reason why this discussion need continue.

BTW, suggesting wraithstrike doesn't understand plain English has no place on these forums. He understands it just fine. You may have problems expressing your view point clearly, but this is your problem, not his. (I don't even think you have a problem with that really, what your failing to do is support your view point with rules quotes).

Quote:

Once again do you or do you not get a free perception check to detect sound made by an invisible person?

If you say no, then I was not misrepresenting you earlier.

If you say yes then no move action is needed.

If you somehow feel like bowstring noise and other noise call for different rules then explain.

edit:Also linguistics, not perception is the skill used to read lips when you can't hear someone.

You get a free perception check to notice the sound, yes. In other words, the answer is: You hear someone speaking. No more, no less. Just like you get a free perception check to notice that you are in combat, if you really think you need to make a roll to understand something so obvious.

I know most GM's handwave this to keep the game moving. I just needed an answer for the sake of this discussion.

Do you pinpoint based off that person speaking with your free perception check? No, you do not. In order to pinpoint, you are required to actively search, as pinpointing is an activity.

There is no rule saying a free perception check has less validity than one with a move action. If so quote the rule. If I get a 85 perception check and the invisible creature only has a DC of 56 then it does not matter if it was free or if I used a move action.

You seem to keep posting real life examples and how you think they should work, but that is just someone's opinion. I have opinions that don't mesh with how the rules work, so you have to realize that opinions are not rules.

Gauss: The rules allowing you to pinpoint an invisible creature by beating the perception DC by 20 has been posted at least 5 times now, yet you continue to ignore it.

Quintain: I see you also ignored the last post I made about frequency of perception checks. I do agree that if you give a perception check on every little possible stimulus, eventually they're going to roll a 20. This is why I advise only giving a passive check on significant discrete events, or once per round otherwise. I also think it's FAQ worthy.

Again, I want to emphasize that most normal people will not have above a +10 perception modifier. That level 5 expert with 18 wisdom that spends a lot of time practicing hearing things (skill focus) will only have a +12 modifier, and that's an extreme case.

When you throw around modifiers like +50, we're no longer talking about ordinary humans. It's quite likely that such a creature could instantly hear your heart beating from across the room.

To make this even more evident just look at the perception modifiers. A roaring dragon is only +5DC... and I'm sure that's multiple times louder than a roaring tiger... and that's loud! So please don't belittle that +20 Invis modifier - it's MASSIVE. The game just happens to have some incredibly superhuman, magically aided, individuals in it.

It really cannot be explained any simpler. I have repeated this time and again, and if you cannot understand this plain english, well, then there is really no reason why this discussion need continue.

You can repeat it again but without any rules quotes nothing you are saying matters.

Now give me a rule that says you need to intentionally search for stimulus, since my book says no move action is needed when observable stimuli is involved.

Admittedly sound gets a free check by your own admission so it is observable stimuli.

To keep this simple everything you claim should be supported by a rule.

If you want to question me I can find a rule for everything I am saying. That is the difference between us.

edit:I understand you perfectly well. I just don't think you know what you are talking about which is why I keep asking for a rules quote. There is a difference between "not understanding" and "not believing".

Wraithstrike, his complaint is that if someone draws 5 arrows in their turn, draws their bow 5 times, takes 5 breaths, etc, do they get 15+ passive perception checks? Come up with enough possible passive stimuli, and eventually they'll roll a 20 on one of them.

I agree that this is not the intent of the rules, and requires some GM adjudication.

Wraithstrike, his complaint is that if someone draws 5 arrows in their turn, draws their bow 5 times, takes 5 breaths, etc, do they get 15+ passive perception checks? Come up with enough possible passive stimuli, and eventually they'll roll a 20 on one of them.

I agree that this is not the intent of the rules, and requires some GM adjudication.

I agree that many checks is extreme, but my point was not so much about the bow string, as the made up rule that free perception checks are not as valuable as move action perception checks.

He also said something about combat requiring a move action check, but never cited any rules to back it up.

Personally I think that silly bowstring rule should not even exist. That is why I used the idea of an invisible person talking or yelling, which is actually covered under the invisibility section.

Those are the things I am calling him out on.

Admittedly, if I am running a game I am not giving anyone a check for a bowstring anyway. Almost everything you do makes some noise so if I give a perception(not just hearing based) check for every condition that realistically makes noise it will be too much. The player will never stop rolling dice.

Which reminds me that I now need to add a condition for that bowstring in my stealth house rules, some of those other ones also.

He keeps repeating the "intentional checks for stimuli require a move action rule" which I don't disagree with. I do disagree that it translates into "you must use a move action because the free perception checks do less for certain things".

My free action check of 85 allows me to notice someone invisible is around.

A move action check of 85 is needed if I want to pinpoint someone who is invisible.

PS: I know tone of voice is hard to convey online. I am not getting snippy/sarcastic/etc with you. <---Clarification before this is read the wrong way.

Gauss,

I disagree. Nothing in Invisibility states hearing them pinpoints them. It does reference using Perception to pinpoint them. I'm not arguing that.

What I'm saying is:
1. Invisibility doesn't effect hearing.
2. Hearing a bow being drawn is a hearing-based Perception roll.
3. Nothing in RAW says hearing only allows "pinpointing" to a 5' square
4. Therefore, it works just like any other perception check and you are aware of exactly where the bow is.

Jodokai,
Since the above scenario allows the knowing of exactly where the bow and arrow are, regardless of the archer being invisible, there is an ambiguity in the RAW regarding Hearing Perception being effected by Invisibility as hearing should not, by RAW, be effected by Invisibility.

Also, see the Blinded condition which states:

"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

At no point do we learn from RAW what can or cannot be overcome while being blinded when accustomed to being blind, but certainly we can assume the RAI for this statement is that the other senses compensate for the loss of sight and negate (at least in part) the negatives of not having sight.

I know it's not RAW, but I'd go with a +36 Perception as being at least the level of perception of your average blind person who's adjusted to being blind.

Ok, I feel the need to weigh in on this one. I'm blind and have been for about 15 years, and I can tell you with 100% accuracy that your other senses do not compensate for your lack of vision. That is a massive misconception.

Quote:

Scent is a specific rule that changes how Smell works. Saying you're going to play with Hearing working like Smell is fine, but it would be a house rule.

Saying that sound allows for precise perception checks like vision for humanoid characters is just as much a house rule.

I can guarantee that for humans, hearing is in no way shape or form as precise as vision.

Being blind, I can guarantee that you are irrevocably
And unequivocally wrong in this regard. In its own way, it is just as precise as vision.

Gauss: The rules allowing you to pinpoint an invisible creature by beating the perception DC by 20 has been posted at least 5 times now, yet you continue to ignore it.

Byakko, apparently, you are not reading the thread. I know exactly what the rules on pinpointing are. So does everyone else. However, it is Krith's position that you do not need them to "know the location". I want him to show where the line in Perception enables someone to do that. His position is that you can use the DC25 "hear a bow being drawn" to know exactly where the bow is.

It was Krith's example in this post that my question was based off of. The question that Krith still has not answered.

Valantrix,
Remember we're talking about Pathfinder here, not real life. In Pathfinder characters have 360 degree awareness, which is not the case with real life.

I think we're all in agreement that a +36 Perception is above anything we're actually able to do, which is all the more reason not to compare Pathfinder with real life.

As for being blind and other senses compensating, I didn't mean to make a reference to real life. I was just going off the rules for being Blind in Pathfinder, which state:

"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

Now how this works, we don't know. We also don't know which drawbacks can be overcome, because they don't say. As for whether or not the other senses become "better," I have no clue, though I imagine one would get used to relying on them more.

For those arguing Perception checks and when you get them, keep in mind you technically need to pass a DC 0 Perception check to see something right in front of you, or hear someone talking to you. Since it's DC 0, it's an auto pass for the vast majority of characters.

Again, you would need at least a -2 Perception adjustment to have any chance of failing DC 0 rolls, so there's usually no reason to roll each check.

Now for the character that has that -2, they would absolutely need to make their rolls to see visible characters they are in melee with according to RAW. If you're ignoring these rules, you're not doing justice to the character's skills and abilities.

If you're playing that you need to take a move action to make Perception checks in combat than you would always need to sacrifice said move action, which is clearly not what the rules intend.

For those who want the Perception rules on this, form the PRD:

Notice a visible creature DC 0
Hear the details of a conversation DC 0
Detect the smell of smoke DC 0
Hear the sound of battle DC -10
Notice the stench of rotting garbage DC -10

Again, all of these are auto passes for the vast majority of characters and don't require rolls.

Also, yes, there are a lot of stimuli out there, but I'm not sure what the "eventually you'll roll a 20" statements are about. The auto pass on a natural 20 only applies to attack rolls and saving throws, not skill checks. If you have a Perception score of +4, even a 20 won't let you hear a bow string being drawn.

Valantrix,

Remember we're talking about Pathfinder here, not real life. In Pathfinder characters have 360 degree awareness, which is not the case with real life.

I think we're all in agreement that a +36 Perception is above anything we're actually able to do, which is all the more reason not to compare Pathfinder with real life.

As for being blind and other senses compensating, I didn't mean to make a reference to real life. I was just going off the rules for being Blind in Pathfinder, which state:

"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

Now how this works, we don't know. We also don't know which drawbacks can be overcome, because they don't say. As for whether or not the other senses become "better," I have no clue, though I imagine one would get used to relying on them more.

I know perfectly well that this game is not real-life. I have been playing D and D and its derivitives for over 35 years. I was replying to the statement you made "I know it's not RAW, but I'd go with a +36 Perception as being at least the level of perception of your average blind person who's adjusted to being blind".

I am that average person, therefore the reason for my post. An average person in the context of Pathfinder is about a 3rd level NPC class... let's say about a perception modifier of 7 to 10 depending on feat and stat selection. Therefore in Pathfinder and in real-life, your assessment of the quoted text above is very incorrect.

Finally, the way a person overcomes blindness and the shortcomings attributed to them is through training and specialized equipment. In the Pathfinder universe, magic would be the obvious fix.

Valantrix,
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying a +36 Perception would be above the average blind person's Perception, which you state is about +7 through +10? In which case we're agreeing and I'm not sure what would be incorrect about my post.

The rules under the Blinded condition state

"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

Again, this is all relative to Pathfinder, I'm not saying anything on what occurs in real life. In Pathfinder, the rules state you can overcome some of the drawbacks of being Blind and do not require magic, per the RAW.

If I'm mistaking what you're saying, please explain.

You've ignored the point. How does magically enhanced perception work? Please find me the rules that describe that. If you cannot then you can't state that a human cannot have eco-location, or a sixth sense unknown in the real world, that would allow such a pin pointing.

Echo location in Pathfinder is called Blindsense:

DIRE BAT CR 2
XP 600
N Large animal
Init +2; Senses blindsense 40 ft.; Perception +12

Unless the magically enhanced perception includes the description of blindsense, then you cannot logically state they have echo-location.

I can't quote rules when you are freely modifying the definitions of words that are stated in those rules. You are simply re-defining the meaning of these words to suit your viewpoint.

Once again, words have meaning and circumstances matter even in a game.

Which words am I changing the definition of? Point out my ignorance please :).

I already have, but you are being obtuse, so I'll repeat:

Noticing is reactive

Pinpointing is active -- applied holistically, this means "searching for stimulus" in order to locate the invisible archer (in this scenario).

This is where you are re-defining the words. Again, pin-pointing is a deliberate action. This is no different than searching for traps -- which is not a passive action (unless you have the rogue talent).

Are you really going to go with an invisible creature not requiring a move action to pinpoint (considering the level of difficulty beating someone's stealth score + the enhancement bonus afforded to invisibility) is inherently easier than noticing a trap?

This is essentially what you are saying.

You quoted the following rule:

Quote:

Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Now which part of that mentions combat? Which part of the combat rules refer back to this? I understand the definitions of all the above quoted words quite well, thank you very much.

I agree that intentionally searching for a stimulus is a move action. I don't agree that being in combat makes perception checks to pin point something require a move action. That is the rules reference I am asking you to produce. I'm asking you to provide the link that 'being in combat' requires any specific types of perception checks to be intentional ones.

On take 20, where do the rules define a "De jure Take 20 and De facto Take 20" difference? They do not. There is no de jure and de facto take 20. There is only "take 20" which is clearly defined as taking your time to accomplish the associated task. This argument you are putting forth is a straw man. (Aside from the fact you ignored that you can't take 20 in a combat situation).

You see, this is where you and Wraithstrike are being deliberately obtuse. It doesn't have to mention combat, I'm referring to combat because of the OPs scenario. I'm stating that it is required in this scenario due to the combination of being in mortal danger coupled with an invisible attacker.

The difference between you and I is that when I read the rules, I see what is written and attempt to apply them holistically. To make the balanced and playable. You and the other RAW Message board warriors (aka Wraithstrike) are rules-parsing lawyers attempting to score points on a message board.

So, Ok, I'll admit that there is no specific reference to combat in the perception/stealth rules that mandates a move action to make a perception check.

Here's a virtual cookie.

Congratulations.

On take 20, where do the rules define a "De jure Take 20 and De facto Take 20" difference? They do not. There is no de jure and de facto take 20. There is only "take 20" which is clearly defined as taking your time to accomplish the associated task. This argument you are putting forth is a straw man. (Aside from the fact you ignored that you can't take 20 in a combat situation).

You see this is where you are again being deliberately obtuse.

Are you truly misunderstanding the difference between De Facto and DeJure? Really?

Remove the reference to Take 20 out of it. I want to know if you really have a grasp of what I am saying (or whether I'm simply wasting my time).

Give me the definition of de facto as opposed to De jure, please. On anything.

Admittedly, if I am running a game I am not giving anyone a check for a bowstring anyway. Almost everything you do makes some noise so if I give a perception(not just hearing based) check for every condition that realistically makes noise it will be too much. The player will never stop rolling dice.

HALLELUJAH!~!!! This is what I'm talking about. The requirement of the move action prevents this "de facto" Take 20 from taking place. Without having to make up your own house rules.

Quintain: I see you also ignored the last post I made about frequency of perception checks. I do agree that if you give a perception check on every little possible stimulus, eventually they're going to roll a 20. This is why I advise only giving a passive check on significant discrete events, or once per round otherwise. I also think it's FAQ worthy.

I didn't ignore your post, it got lost in the TLDR.

A simpler solution is to make it a move action. It's already there, in the rules. The Rule-Gods simply need to make it more explicit because of all the rule-warriors on this message board.

If you're playing that you need to take a move action to make Perception checks in combat than you would always need to sacrifice said move action, which is clearly not what the rules intend.

You read RAI differently than I do. I see this as a logical application of the entire ruleset, holistically.

For those of you who want to continue to "call me out on specific rules", forget it. That is not my purpose, my purpose is applying these rules, which are admittedly less than perfectly written for the budding internet lawyer/warriors in a way that works and is less prone for abuse and moronic argument.

bbangerter,

I want you to counter the argument from this type of player:

I have a +36 Perception -- if you follow the attempts to describe the level of fine detail in this thread of what a Perception skill of this level can notice -- this individual has the ability to notice that an invisible person is breathing from at least 30' away, even while being mortally threatened.

How do you prevent 10,000+ reactive perception checks being made by said perceptive character until such time as he rolls a 20? All he needs to do is give a somewhat plausible description of some noise that the attacker is making.

Here's a hint: Given the way you are parsing RAW, you cannot. Because with every breath the invisible character makes, the perceptive character gets a check. Then, ultimately, a 20 is rolled, and the invisible archer is now pinpointed, location known.

Moreover, despite movement specifically being mentioned as a way to foil pin-pointing -- hell, he'll be able to hear the footsteps, he will ultimately always know the location as long as the DC is reachable by a skill check of 20, due to the multitude of passive checks that will be made, given what your parsing allows.

Except... even on a natural 20, a normal person won't be able to make the check to pinpoint an invisible person.

Only some superhuman/magically enhanced being can make the required check. And in that case, it kinda makes sense that they can do what us mere mortals can't.

But yeah, as I've said above, limit passive checks to significant discrete stimuli, or if none, once per round. Problem solved. (and probably RAI)

Except... even on a natural 20, a normal person won't be able to make the check to pinpoint an invisible person.

Only some superhuman/magically enhanced being can make the required check. And in that case, it kinda makes sense that they can do what us mere mortals can't.

But yeah, as I've said above, limit passive checks to significant discrete stimuli, or if none, once per round. Problem solved. (and probably RAI)

The character has a +36 perception. So on a natural 20, he can do it.

The problem with "limiting passive checks to discrete stimuli" isn't in the rules any more than my statement of requiring a move action to make a perception check while in combat.

It's two different solutions to the same problem. However, mine is at least mentioned in the rules and can't be abused by argumentative players.

Moreover, it's internally consistent, placing invisibility/stealth on par with traps.

The character has a +36 perception. So on a natural 20, he can do it.

A +36 perception is near deity level. Consider that a level 20 character with 20 wisdom and skill focus(perception) has a +34. Yes, it's certainly possible to get higher, but via magic and superhuman powers.

The problem with "limiting passive checks to discrete stimuli" isn't in the rules any more than my statement of requiring a move action to make a perception check while in combat.

Okay, so the second sentence strongly implies the first is talking about what happens when you aren't spending a move action to search for a stimulus. It says right there most perception checks are "reactive,(aka not something you have to actively do; aka passively) made in responsive to an observable stimulus". I don't know how you can possibly read it differently.

Edit: I know you're partially just saying that there's nothing that limits the number of passive checks in a round. But as passive checks clearly are in the rules(and the most common type), I'd wager the the designers expect GMs to limit the number of checks to a fair, reasonable number. I would argue that my suggestion is a fair and reasonable number, although YMMV.

You see, this is where you and Wraithstrike are being deliberately obtuse. It doesn't have to mention combat, I'm referring to combat because of the OPs scenario. I'm stating that it is required in this scenario due to the combination of being in mortal danger coupled with an invisible attacker.

I was not being deliberately obtuse. I thought you were speaking of combat in a general sense. I really had gotten off the topic of the OP's post and was speaking of invisible creatures making noise.

The difference between you and I is that when I read the rules, I see what is written and attempt to apply them holistically. To make the balanced and playable. You and the other RAW Message board warriors (aka Wraithstrike) are rules-parsing lawyers attempting to score points on a message board.

First of all if you were not new around here you know I go by RAI more than RAW, but I also know not to make rules up because I want them to work a certain way. Personally I don't care too much what the rule is because if I come to an interpretation I really don't like I will just change it*, since I am normally the GM.

*As an example, I am not giving anyone a perception check every time a bow is fired.<---I also posted this upthread.

I also don't see anything in the rules even suggesting what you are saying. Now I am assuming your opinion is that like some other rules Paizo did not write them well enough. If that is the case I would suggest you show precedence, which I have had to do when the RAW did not match RAI, or start a new post asking for an FAQ.

edit:removed unneeded sarcasm since it added nothing to the discussion.

The difference between you and I is that when I read the rules, I see what is written and attempt to apply them holistically. To make the balanced and playable. You and the other RAW Message board warriors (aka Wraithstrike) are rules-parsing lawyers attempting to score points on a message board.

Understand my reason for arguing RAW first, then you can come back and attribute a reason for my doing so, but the above is patently false.

I argue RAW for two reasons:
1) I learn a lot about the game system by doing so.
2) I believe it is important to understand the RAW first, so that you can understand why the rules are the way they are, and when you have that understanding you can make adjustments to fit your own needs without creating problems elsewhere. (If you stick around on the rules forum for a while you will see me make this statement from time to time).

To often people come to the boards with a preconceived notion of how they want something to work, and when the RAW is shown to them, rather than saying, "Oh, I guess it does work that way, but I'm going to adjust for my own games" they instead dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge what the rules actually do (or do not) say.

Quintain,
I see you quoted my line:

"If you're playing that you need to take a move action to make Perception checks in combat than you would always need to sacrifice said move action, which is clearly not what the rules intend."

That was the end of an argument regarding the DC 0 Perception check to see a visible creature. As it's still a Perception check, do you really play that in order to make a melee attack against a visible opponent each round you need to first sacrifice your move action to make that attack without having the Blinded condition?

Valantrix,

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying a +36 Perception would be above the average blind person's Perception, which you state is about +7 through +10? In which case we're agreeing and I'm not sure what would be incorrect about my post.

The rules under the Blinded condition state

"Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them."

Again, this is all relative to Pathfinder, I'm not saying anything on what occurs in real life. In Pathfinder, the rules state you can overcome some of the drawbacks of being Blind and do not require magic, per the RAW.

If I'm mistaking what you're saying, please explain.

Sorry, I think I got my wires crossed somewhere, because I'm basically saying the same thing you are apparently. At least, now I think we are. Sorry for the misinterpretation.