Also, aside from traps, you don't need to announce that you're looking for anything. Eyes are always open, ears always work.
If the player than says "I take 20 and get XX" - this means the PC took one minute (20 move actions) to scan the room.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
I believe it usually takes 2 minutes, not 1.
Also, aside from traps, you don't need to announce that you're looking for anything. Eyes are always open, ears always work.well... depends on the judge.
Often if something is "in Stealth" a judge will not give you a perception check to perceive it. Or if something has a DC listed in the scenario, many judges will not mention it if you don't say "I'm doing a Perception Check".
Which is a new york times to the head level doin it wrong.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with trying to get the players more involved beyond rolling dice, but not all of your conclusions about the skill.
Here's an article from Paper and Pencil dot com from 2012 that discusses (at length) the Perception skill in PF.
I doubt there is any skill quite so divisive as perception. I hardly feel qualified to assess it. So many dozens or hundreds of men and women much more experienced than I have spent so many forum threads and blog posts debating back and forth over the issue of perception that I feel presumptuous even attempting to resolve it. But that’s what I signed up for when I said I was going to begin this series of posts, and I’m not going to back out now, so here we go.
If you recall from earlier in this series, I believe disguise and escape artist are two skills which should be house ruled out of the game because they are needed so incredibly infrequently as to be useless. Well, if those skills commit the sin of a deficient frequency, then perception commits the sin of excessive frequency. The skill is so frequently called for, and so necessary, that -C uses the term “Skill Tax” to describe it. Putting points into perception is more of a requirement, than an option. And if something is a requirement for effective play, why clutter up the skills list by giving players the illusion of a choice?
But I’m getting ahead of myself. If you’d like to have perception torn to pieces in front of your very eyes, read -C’s two posts linked above. He’s done a superb job highlighting the problems with this skill, and I feel no need to repeat that task. As daunting as it is to attempt to resolve the problems with perception, I have no qualms about stating quite firmly: perception does have problems.
Pathfinder uses perception in two different ways: one which I’ll call active, another which I’ll call passive. Active perception checks are generally requested by the player. “I’d like to make a perception check to search this room,” or “I’d like to listen intently for someone sneaking up on me.” Active perception checks occur when the character is primarily engaged in the act of looking, listening, smelling, feeling, or tasting. Passive perception checks (sometimes called “reactive”) most often occur without the player’s knowledge. They are rolled by the GM, in secret, to determine whether or not a character is able to perceive something. This might happen when there is a faint scent of cooking coming from behind a door, or if someone is attempting to move without the player’s noticing them. Passive perception checks are useful for information which the players might not be looking for specifically, but which the characters might nevertheless notice and find useful if they’re alert.
Pathfinder is actually pretty vague about when a perception check should be rolled, and what information a player should be able to gain from it. As such, we can’t exactly blame the game for the fact that many GMs and players use it as a substitute for creating & interacting with an actual environment. However, the game would function better if it presented a more focused version of this skill. In the hopes of correcting this oversight, I've broken perception down into its component parts. Below are the various uses I've seen for perception, and my attempts to work out what the skill should apply to, and what it shouldn't.
Active Perception: Primarily used to find hidden treasure, discover secret doors, and avoid traps.
If a room contains treasure, that treasure is either obvious, or not. Obvious treasure, such as that found in a chest, on the body of a foe, or simply laying on the floor, should never require a perception roll to find. So long as the players say they’re searching the body, or opening the chest, they should be allowed to find the treasure.I would hope that was self evident. If a treasure is not obvious, then the players ought to be forced to look for it if they want to find it. The GM should describe the environment the players are in, and if they feel there may be treasure present, they can describe to the GM where they look for it.
What could possibly be gained by having the players roll to discover non-obvious treasure? If their roll succeeds and they find the treasure, then it’s not functionally different from obvious treasure. It simply required the extra step of rolling a die. If, on the other hand, their roll fails and they don’t find the treasure, then the treasure effectively does not exist, because they can’t find it. It’s not as though it’s fun for a player to simply be aware that treasure was hidden before they found it. What is fun is the process of finding that hidden treasure. Coming up with the idea to search for loose bricks on the wall, and being rewarded by finding a bag of 30 gold is a lot more fun than entering a room, rolling a die, and being told you found 30 gold behind a loose stone.
Locating secret doors is somewhat different from finding non-obvious treasure in two important ways. First, the hiding place of even the most well hidden treasure ought to be mentioned in the room’s description. If it’s not, then the players have no way to know where to search That doesn't mean you need to drop obvious hints, simply that it’s not fair to hide treasure under a bed without telling the players that the room contains a bed. On the other hand, secret doors are most commonly built directly into the walls or floors. Since those are present everywhere, there’s no good way for players to search for secret passages intelligently. The second difference is that treasure is an end unto itself. It, along with experience points, is how players are rewarded for successful play. Secret doors, on the other hand, exist only as a means to an end. That end being whatever lies beyond the door. Though the joy of discovery shouldn't be discounted.
Given those differences, I think it is reasonable to allow players to roll perception checks to discover hidden doors. The area for such a perception roll should be relatively small–perhaps 15ft square, centered on the character. Some characters could even be allowed to find hidden doors with a passive perception check, if they passed within 10 feet of it. Traditionally this is an ability which was given to elves, but perhaps it would be better if anyone with 5 ranks or more in perception was given the chance to automatically discover hidden doors. Reducing the act of finding a hidden door to a roll does come with a danger, however. If the entirety of the interaction is rolling to look for a door, finding a door, opening the door, and going through the door; how is that any different from rolling to find non-obvious treasure?
I would propose that a perception roll allows players to, as -C puts it “learn the location of the secret door but not how to open it.” Once they know the door is there, the players are free to attempt to bash it down if they wish. Though in some cases that may be pretty difficult. Alternatively, the players can search for the mechanism within the room which opens the door. Perhaps a loose stone needs to be pushed in, or three worn-down keys on a piano need to be pressed simultaneously. And if the players notice the loose stone or the worn-down keys before they find the door in the first place, then the discovery of a secret passage will be made all the more exciting.
Using perception checks as a means of finding traps is something I've struggled with as of late. My party’s rogue has frequently complained of the tediousness involved in searching every door, every chest, and every trigger that they find in order to avoid the handful of traps in each dungeon. And I have to agree: it is tedious, and not at all fun. I suppose I could make it less tedious by simply adding more traps to my dungeons, but that seems like a lazy solution. The problem is not that there’s an insufficient amount of things to find, it’s that excessive rolling is boring.
Pathfinder has a rogue talent called Trap Spotter, which allows rogues to make an automatic, passive perception check whenever they are within 10ft of a trap. I propose that this be removed as a possible rogue talent, and instead, this effect be made part of the Trapfinding class ability which rogues receive at level 1. Additionally, any character with 5 ranks or more in perception could also be granted the ability to notice traps using passive checks.
Judgement: In general, active perception checks seem to sap potential fun from the game. I propose eliminating active perception checks from the game, except when it comes to searching for secret doors or traps within a 15ft square area centered of the player.
Passive Perception: Primarily used in opposition to a sleight of hand and stealth checks or to notice fine details in an environment.
Sleight of hand may be the single most well-designed skill in Pathfinder, and rolling perception against it is a reasonable method of conflict resolution. There is no need to alter the way in which perception interacts with that skill.The stealth skill, on the other hand, has a number of problems, which I will detail once I write my overview for that skill. Speaking strictly on how perception interacts with stealth, however, I can find no fault. If the stealth roll is being utilized properly, then rolling perception against it makes perfect sense.
That only leaves a roll for noticing fine details in the environment. This is anything which the character’s might not notice right away. A faint smell from two rooms over, an Orc's knee sticking out from behind the barrel he’s hiding behind, or a crack in a stained glass window across the room. I think this application of the skill works well enough. Whenever I go to use it, though, I ask myself one important question: is there any reason to withhold this information?
Using the examples above, it makes sense to roll a passive perception check to see if the players notice the Orc's leg sticking out from behind a barrel. The creature is obviously attempting an ambush, and their success or failure in that attempt will hinge on whether or not the players notice him first. That’s a good use of a roll. It also makes sense to make the roll to determine if the players notice the faint smell of cooking from two rooms over. If they notice it, they have an opportunity to prepare to enter the evil cult’s mess hall, if they don’t then they’ll be surprised when they walk into a room filled with enemies. The crack in the window, however, is essential information if the players are going to figure out the room’s puzzle. If they fail their spot check, then the puzzle becomes unsolvable unless one of them decides (out of the blue) to examine the window for cracks.
Note that you’re not rolling perception based on the type of information, you’re rolling it based on how that information will be used within the game. That may seem silly and unrealistic, and it is. But realism does not equal good game play.
Judgement: Passive perception is mostly fine. Just don’t use it to hide information the players ought to have.
Overall Judgement: I think perception has a valuable place in the Pathfinder game. However, the game benefits significantly from reducing this skill’s importance drastically.
If the player than says "I take 20 and get XX" - this means the PC took one minute (20 move actions) to scan the room.Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).I believe it usually takes 2 minutes, not 1.
2 move actions / 1 round = 1 look per 3 seconds *20 seconds= 1 minute.
If the player than says "I take 20 and get XX" - this means the PC took one minute (20 move actions) to scan the room.Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).I believe it usually takes 2 minutes, not 1.
How long does a Perception check take?
Normally it is a move action.
Is a skill that takes a move action to use a "skill that takes 1 round or less to perform"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I'm always (usually? I'm only human, after all) careful to obtain clarity on what my players want to do with Perception.
If they say "we'll search the room", then I calculate how many squares they are searching, divide by the number of characters involved to calculate the number of rounds it will take, and ask for a roll from each of them
If they say "we thoroughly search the room", same process, but 1 minute per square, no roll because they're taking 20.
If they say "we look around the room", I ask if they're searching, or just looking. One roll per character, one round, they might get lucky on the dice and spot something hidden.
Generally speaking, though, unless something is actively hidden, I'll tell them about it without even needing a roll. Nothing drags down a game like concealing information that the PCs should have just from walking through the room.
I also make a distinction between something that is "hidden" (tucked out of plain view) and "concealed" (in plain view, but either disguised as something else, or one of many similar objects).
A hidden compartment in a desk drawer cannot be spotted by someone standing by the door, no matter how good their Perception skill. Even someone right by the desk won't spot it - they have to search. But a secret door that looks like the rest of the wooden paneling in the room is a different matter: a good enough perception roll could identify it. Likewise, a door behind a bookcase that you have to move out of the way requires searching, but spotting the ledger amongst the encyclopaedia on the bookshelf can be seen from across the room.
That distinction saves me a lot of worries.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this thread.
If a player does not intend to search each 5ft square of a room and a GM interprets that he does, and said GM says "that will take a very long time", that player can simply say "that's not what I'm asking to do".
In fact, any time there is misunderstanding at the table, anybody can go ahead and clarify their intentions.
So what's the issue?
Spotting is a legitimate quick use of the Perception skill. Searching is a legitimate lengthy use of the same skill. Both have their place and the purpose and their mechanism.
I don't know who you're trying to ream here, nosig.
This is why passive perception rules.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this thread.
If a player does not intend to search each 5ft square of a room and a GM interprets that he does, and said GM says "that will take a very long time", that player can simply say "that's not what I'm asking to do".
You do not have to search every 5 foot square of the room. There is no intent to do that because there is no NEED to do that. The search skill is dead. LOOK at the perception skill. Do you see ANYTHING there about squares? No.
Clarifying your misconception is exactly what the post is about.
There is no need to search the squares. You take 20 and search the entire room, in 1 minute. Done.
You can take 20 and search the entire room from where you're standing in one minute. Range penalties still apply, of course, so if the room is large enough for this to be a potential issue then you may wish to spend a few minutes doing so from multiple vantage points.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are misconceptions on both sides of this discussion.
Keep in mind that taking 20 on Perception lets you find anything you have line of sight* to, with one roll. There's a penalty for distance, but that is it. One roll searches everything you can see.
Note that the flip side of this means, you need line of sight. Taking 20 on a Perception check does NOT find stuff in desk drawers or behind cupboards, because you'd have to open those things first. So, not every room can be thoroughly searched in 1 minute.
* technically line of effect, but in this case you're probably searching a room using mostly visual senses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could hand-wave all that stuff and make it one roll instead of:
I search the floor.
I search the floor behind the door.
I search the floor behind the bed.
I search the floor behind the chair.
I search the floor behind the desk.
I search the floor behind the couch.
I search the floor behind the other chair.
I search the floor behind the table on the wall.
I search the floor behind the dresser.
Then I search the wall.
I search the wall behind the door.
I search the wall behind the bed.
I search the wall behind the chair.
I search the wall behind the desk.
I search the wall behind the couch.
I search the wall behind the other chair.
I search the wall behind the table on the wall.
I search the wall behind the dresser.
Unless you like that sort of thing * each player * each room.
4 players x 10 rooms = only 720 checks.
Or you could hand-wave all that stuff and make it one roll instead of:
I search the floor.
I search the floor behind the door.
I search the floor behind the bed.
I search the floor behind the chair.
I search the floor behind the desk.
I search the floor behind the couch.
I search the floor behind the other chair.
I search the floor behind the table on the wall.
I search the floor behind the dresser.Then I search the wall.
I search the wall behind the door.
I search the wall behind the bed.
I search the wall behind the chair.
I search the wall behind the desk.
I search the wall behind the couch.
I search the wall behind the other chair.
I search the wall behind the table on the wall.
I search the wall behind the dresser.Unless you like that sort of thing * each player * each room.
4 players x 10 rooms = only 720 checks.
You could certainly hand wave the rolls (which you're doing anyways with take 20) but shouldn't time be a factor? Admittedly I haven't studied the perception rules (at least not recently) but a thorough search of the room should take longer than a thorough glance around the room.
So, Search = Overtly precise detailed list that requires an immense amount of time?
Simplifying search is a sin now?
What is the "proper" way, and what does it contribute to the overall fun of all?
I'm not saying a player should have to list every nook and crany but I do feel a search should take longer than a glance.
You can take 20 and search the entire room from where you're standing in one minute. Range penalties still apply, of course, so if the room is large enough for this to be a potential issue then you may wish to spend a few minutes doing so from multiple vantage points.
Yep. Makes trapfinding a breeze too.
Who said it was too simple? I thought this was a question of how much make believe time it takes to search a pretend room.
|
Is a skill that takes a move action to use a "skill that takes 1 round or less to perform"?If the player than says "I take 20 and get XX" - this means the PC took one minute (20 move actions) to scan the room.Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).I believe it usually takes 2 minutes, not 1.
How long does a Perception check take?
Normally it is a move action.
hmmm.... Interesting.
So it would be your understanding that it would take two minutes? Ok, I could except that. Though, I would question why it says "...would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform)....". instead of "(..would take (2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform)" dropping the usually.
I think I will use 2 minutes for a skill that only be taken once a round. and use one minute for a skill that can be performed twice a round.... and heck, maybe a round for a skill that can be done 20 times in a round.
As I see it, it would normally take 2 minutes because you are not immobile, you will be moving around to check what is not normally visible from the door.
If you want to stop by the door frame and check the room only from that position, it should take only 1 minute.|
|
Which is a new york times to the head level doin it wrong.Also, aside from traps, you don't need to announce that you're looking for anything. Eyes are always open, ears always work.well... depends on the judge.
Often if something is "in Stealth" a judge will not give you a perception check to perceive it. Or if something has a DC listed in the scenario, many judges will not mention it if you don't say "I'm doing a Perception Check".
I try never to argue with the judge during a game. it upsets some of them, and often just wastes the time of the other 5 players at the table.
If I recognize that this is the way the judge wants it - I'm ok with that. I just adapt and work with it.
Like in my last game with the (very experienced) judge responded to my request to take 20 on a perception check from the door of a room filled with books and stuff by saying "you know how long that will take?! Hours! checking every 5'square and you have duration buffs going that will expire!" ... talking right over my objection that it would only take a minute... so when I said "all I want to do is take a minute to look around..." "fine you look. And see a bunch of books."
no need to argue... but I feel bad because we are teaching people WRONG. The other people at the table learned that Taking 20 on a Perception check is the same as searching a room and takes hours. And this will happen again, and again at each table that judge runs - and at each table those players play at or run...
The problem is that we have both extremes. People that want to search each nook and cranny, including the drawers content, in 2 minutes without ever entering the room, and GM that will have you spend 2 minutes for each 5' square.
I think that both interpretations are wrong, but I am sure there is people that disagree with me and feel that they are following the rules.
On the bolded comment? I think you're being pedantic to the point that i have no idea what you're saying. A synonym swap that you seem to take great meaning in and assign great importance to you doesn't seem to change anything at all to me.
The problem is that we have both extremes. People that want to search each nook and cranny, including the drawers content, in 2 minutes without ever entering the room, and GM that will have you spend 2 minutes for each 5' square.
I think that both interpretations are wrong, but I am sure there is people that disagree with me and feel that they are following the rules.
I think it's entirely fair to require 1 minute per 5' square that has anything complex to it, basically meaning any feature that would need more than a remote visual scan to search thoroughly. A desk, a wardrobe, a chest, a case of books, whatever. It is obviously impossible to thoroughly search any of these from the entrance to the room. You might notice that the chest is really a mimic that way, but you can't find the hidden compartment in a desk drawer without going to it and searching it close up.
If you were to insist that you could, I'd be imposing some of the modifiers from the Perception list, including the invisible modifier for anything not visually detectable from your vantage point.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On the bolded comment? I think you're being pedantic to the point that i have no idea what you're saying. A synonym swap that you seem to take great meaning in and assign great importance to you doesn't seem to change anything at all to me.
I think what he's saying is that when someone announces a Perception check, the listener makes a certain set of assumptions about what's happening based on the rules for the Perception skill; but when someone says they search the room, the listener (i.e., the GM) typically doesn't think about the rules for the Perception skill and instead declares that your PC has just spent an hour walking all over the room, opening doors/drawers, rifling through wardrobes, flipping through books, setting off traps, triggering encounters, and a whole bunch of other things that people visualize when you say "search the room" but that are NOT part of a series of back-to-back Perception checks.
You can charge without charging. You can use two weapons without two weapon fighting. You can use three weapons while two weapon fighting.
The perception skill is used to determine the outcome of your search. True, perception is not search but you can't search without perception.
And clearly the players are not going to state, I try to perceive the desk.
What is the hang up on the word?
Since you FIND concealed doors, hidden doors and traps with Perception, which is what one did with search for quite a long time, I think it is safe to say Perception COVERS Search.
And like all things, the devil is in the details. If it is impossible for the player to perceive something without moving, ask him if he wants to move to get a closer look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about searching for traps or secret doors with Perception is that, as the article upthread points out, a successful check gives you an idea of what triggers the device and, if you're lucky, some suggestion of how it works. Ex:
The party is coming to a corner in the hallway and the GM knows there's a burning hands trap built into the smoldering wall sconce. If any of the players get close (I'd say within 30' but whatev) if they're looking for those kinds of things I'd have them roll Perception. The trigger on this trap is Proximity (Alarm) meaning anyone who approaches within range of the spell is getting burnt. Therefore successful rolls might indicate only the presence of a weird hum of white noise which grows louder as you approach the trap range. I'd be quick to add though that these PCs don't necessarily "hear" it so much as "feel" the hum adding to the mysterious nature of it all.
Now if someone beat the DC by 5 or more they might also notice very old and faded scorch marks on the walls. These marks seem to indicate a cone of flame originating from the sconce's general vicinity however there's not enough evidence to fully define the exact volume of fire or intensity. Alternatively I might have singed bones laying on the floor or perhaps melted slag and ash in the corner.
Bottom line, they've detected SOMETHING. I don't come right out and say trap or secret door so there's still an element of RP there. Now if the party's trap disarmer has the ability to disarm magic traps and so chooses to step up and attempt to disarm the device I might just compare their take 10 to the trap's DC and describe what happened; alternately I'd have them roll for it and hope for the best.
But if they DON'T try to disarm it, don't have the relevant ability or want to just roleplay it out, let 'em is what I say. I've had players use 10' poles or summoned monsters to set stuff off; I've had other players describe HOW they're inspecting the area and given bonuses or rewarded them with bypass switches. One time I had a player walk up to an open clearing in the woods, roll a Perception check and I told her the clearing floor was covered in dead leaves except for a patch 30' ahead, right in line with the trail.
She asks how much weight she can lift with mage hand, I tell her 5#. She says she grabs a 5# stone, holds it over the spot 15' in the air, then lets it drop to the ground. The trap was a net trap meant to pull victims up into the trees, so I give it to her. She never made a single disarm check and was rewarded for thinking on her feet.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Now if someone beat the DC by 5 or more they might also notice very old and faded scorch marks on the walls. These marks seem to indicate a cone of flame originating from the sconce's general vicinity however there's not enough evidence to fully define the exact volume of fire or intensity. Alternatively I might have singed bones laying on the floor or perhaps melted slag and ash in the corner.
Bottom line, they've detected SOMETHING. I don't come right out and say trap or secret door so there's still an element of RP there.
If that's all they've got, then how does the trap guy know whether or not to try to disarm something? How does that even look in-character?
"Hm, there's some burned stuff around here and I can feel a magical humming; maybe if I throw my thieves' tools in that general direction, something good will happen!"
If the guy doesn't know, in-character, that (1) there's definitely a trap, and (2) roughly how said trap works, then what the heck is going on in that character's mind when the player announces "I'll try to disarm the trap, if there even is one"?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So according to these approaches, to thoroughly search anything you would have to Take 20 (at least 1 minute, possibly 2) Perception check standing motionless in enough different places to get visual coverage of every side of it.
Anything you wanted to open and look inside (drawers, cupboards, small closets,etc) would require another Take 20 Perception check. Lifting rugs? Under the bed?
And you'll have to describe each of these things, so the GM knows where you're looking.Hopefully, this doesn't extend to a separate check for every book you want to flip through. After all, you can't see inside them all at once from where you're standing. :)
The character knows how much time they're spending, and they don't have to T20 at every juncture. So if you walk into a room full of containers of every sort, they're going to have to decide the relative importance of thoroughness versus speed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All searches are perceptions.
Not all perceptions are searches.