| 17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems as though there is going to be an FAQ or errata to the rules saying that a 10 by 10 area is the limit for move action perception checks.
Some interpret that to mean you need them to pick up on things that a reactive check is used for "observable stimulus", may not notice.
The question is "what counts as observable stimulus"?
I understand that a complete list can't be given but examples would help.
Would a hidden door that is in line of sight count?
Would a hidden door count that is behind a curtain?
Would you get a reactive check to notice someone hiding by using stealth and/or invisibility?
Press the FAQ button please. If they are going to errata perception I think it makes sense to get as many questions out of the way at one time instead of having one FAQ/errata spawn more FAQ's.
As indicated in the other thread, I'm not sure I see a real need for clarification—looks to me like it'll just come down to GM discretion, which I'm fine with—, but maybe enough folks feel otherwise that this will count as a frequently asked question. Dotting for interest.
I think GM discretion was fine before the 10 by 10 rule, but now people will argue that by the rules ____ is free and ____ is not. Those in PFS probably care a lot more than I do however. :)
Honestly I think the rest of the text in the same section that has a defined search area in the new book clears it up.
Paraphrasing:
the move action search is to find hidden doors, secret doors, hidden objects, and traps or anything like the above. Opposed checks (stealth) or anything that is not deliberately obfuscated is a called check with modifiers for distance - this includes things you see, hear, or feel (i.e. breeze on your face from a draft).
From that I would gather something specifically hidden is a search action. Something not specifically hidden but not obvious - would not be a search action. (like say a partially burnt page in the fireplace).
Outside of that I'd say there will be a bit of judgement call, but I think that covers the big instances of what is/isn't really a search action. That said I hit the FAQ for you as it's obvious that not all people take searching with the same (non)seriousness that I do.
Well I remember some foggy old rule from old D&D that 'searching' an area was a 10 x 10 region and it assumed thorough investigation and 10 minutes of time. Thorough investigation assumed moving objects as needed, checking behind/under furniture, using appropriate kits to find air ways indicating secret panels, etc.
Observable stimuli (to me) would be something that could be readily observed through normal attention to surroundings and environment.
Anything that is purposefully hidden or obscured in some fashion, with an appropriate amount of time and resources for the act of doing so, would require a search of the appropriate area to find it.
Thus something hidden 'hastily' under the rug your standing on could be spotted by a reactive perception but it's DC my be significantly higher than spotting the rug your standing on itself for example.
Where as an actual search of that area would be needed to find that something hidden well under the rug your standing on.
Would a hidden door that is in line of sight count?
Since it is a hidden door I would say no. Something has been done to HIDE it so it is not immediately observable, recognizable or visible, per se.
Would a hidden door count that is behind a curtain?
Again no. Still a hidden door. How it's hidden may change but the fact that it has been purposely hidden idicates not immediately recognizable.
Would you get a reactive check to notice someone hiding by using stealth and/or invisibility?
I believe this is already covered by the stealth and perception rules. The answer is yes.
Note it is always possible players could describe their characters doing actions that will end up discovering things that are hidden automatically. It will heavily depend on the situation and the details of the events. That sort if thing is handle by a GM, which is why they are there.
Because there is no way to write a games rules to handle everything can can happen in an RPG. One could view the GM as the rule that handles all the stuff the others rules do not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems as though there is going to be an FAQ or errata to the rules saying that a 10 by 10 area is the limit for move action perception checks.
Some interpret that to mean you need them to pick up on things that a reactive check is used for "observable stimulus", may not notice.
The question is "what counts as observable stimulus"?
I understand that a complete list can't be given but examples would help.
Would a hidden door that is in line of sight count?
Would a hidden door count that is behind a curtain?
Would you get a reactive check to notice someone hiding by using stealth and/or invisibility?
Press the FAQ button please. If they are going to errata perception I think it makes sense to get as many questions out of the way at one time instead of having one FAQ/errata spawn more FAQ's.
I've seen situations where examples are unfortunately taken as the complete list (I'm looking at you, Efficient Quiver). I'm also concerned about getting into nitpicky details: for example, someone hiding behind a curtain would technically be "not observable", but we have all seen the "feet sticking out from the bottom/large lump in the curtain" shtick in movies/cartoons/games of hide and seek. (And I since I play PFS almost exclusively, this is very important to me.)
I'm wondering if it might be better to use broad concepts like line of sight, line of effect, concealment, and cover for this. Something like:
1) An item that is in line of sight is always observable. So a hidden door could be observable if there's nothing in front of it, but the DC is going to be higher. Likewise, a creature with camouflage is observable as long as it's not hiding behind something.
2) An item that not in line of sight but is in line of effect might be observable, but not to all senses or maybe with cover penalties. So a door (hidden or not) behind a curtain would not observable to sight, but it could potentially be observable to scent (if creatures are behind it) or touch (if the air is colder near it), etc. (Of course, removing the curtain or coming around the side of it changes that.) A creature hiding in the grass could be observable to sight unless it has total cover. (There's at least one PFS scenario where a hiding creature has improved cover for a +8 Stealth bonus.)
3) An item that is line of sight but in an area of concealment might be observable. For example, an item underwater is in line of sight, but depending on how murky the water is, it might have concealment, and weather-based concealment penalties apply. (This should be obvious, but having all the applicable rules at least mentioned/referenced would help a lot.)
4) An item that is not in line of effect is not observable at all.
This is just a rough, pre-coffee first pass, just to make a starting point for discussion. Where does something like the break down? Under what circumstances will it not work? Is it relying on rules that are themselves not clear?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would define 'observable stimuli' as follows:
If the subject can be seen/heard/touched/tasted/smelled (no matter how unlikely, that's what the DC is for) without the observing character needing to interact with the environment or move from their current location.
So, you can hear invisible creatures, you can spot a secret door that's in plain sight, you can smell the fart from the Orc hiding behind the desk, you can see the key lying on the desk. But if the door is behind a curtain, or the key is in a drawer, you need to search.
I've always broken things down into three categories: in view, concealed, and hidden. The key on the desk is in view. That's observable (and easy). The invisible creature, the hidden Orc, and the bookshelf/secret door is concealed. That's observable (and harder). The key in the drawer requires searching (move action, and as per the new rules, covers a 10x10 area).
I've never had a problem using those (very soft) guidelines to Perception.
Pathfinder Unchained actually tells us what observable stimuli is. It is basically the list in the CRB that includes bow string noises, smells, sounds, invisible creatures etc.
The move action search would be for things that you could not directly observe with moving to the square in question such as a trap door under a rug, something hidden inside of a book on a bookcase, and so on.
I have always assumed those searches were done like that anyway while estimating the time. I just did not require multiple rolls for the entire room.
Side note on "searching" (I'll start a new thread if it's too digressive or a difficult answer):
Is there any distinction between "sweeping" a location and "tossing" a location?*
So if skilled thief or spy comes into the room and does a careful sweep, they will make note of where everything is, carefully move things out of the way/open them/etc., and then take pains to put everything back where they found.
If a low-end burglar or Sczarni thug tosses a room, they won't study it in advance, will throw all the drawers open, turn things over, slash open furniture, etc., and then walk out leaving the room trashed.
Clearly, sweeping takes longer than tossing, but I have never seen anything that distinguishes the two in the rules. When I read people's descriptions on how long search takes, it sounds like people are up and down the sweep-toss scale without realizing they are talking about two completely different activities.
*Or whatever cop/spy/mystery genre vernacular you prefer to use.
I am on my phone because my computer is down so I wont be responding to everyone individually as I would like to.
Assuming I did not understand what Mark said about the perception rules in the unchained book they were supposed to be in the core book. That FAQ I linked is so that we can get it in FAQ form now while waiting for the errata. Basically hiding characters prompt a reactive check and searching for things such as hidden doors or traps wouls require the move action perception check.
As for giving multiple perception checks the rules are silent. When the stealth rules were errata'd Jason proposed as a suggestion that the GM compare the perception roll to the perception DC at its greatest point and keep doing so as the perception DC changed. As an example if the DC to notice a creature is 30 and I roll a 29 I may not see him, but if I get closer the penalty from distance should go away meaning I can see him now. The enviroment chapter does list greatest range at which you see/notice another creature however.
Taking all of this together it is a reactive check to see a hidden creature. Since the check can be made well outside of combat there it is possible to take 10 unless someone has another reason as to a creature that does not even know you are around and is to far away to harm you can actually qualify as a distraction or threat.
A suggestion as to what qualifies as observable stimulus is that which you can perceive even with your worst Perception check possible.
So, Gwen, if the guy who is hiding behind the curtain's Stealth skill cannot possibly beat your worst Perception check roll, then that is an "observable stimulus".
The same guideline applies to the hidden door, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wheres the other thread?
I hope they clarify it to be 10 by 10.. by 10, so that you don't have to declare looking at the floor, each wall, the door, the ceiling, under the table, on top of the table...
Wheres the other thread?
I hope they clarify it to be 10 by 10.. by 10, so that you don't have to declare looking at the floor, each wall, the door, the ceiling, under the table, on top of the table...
BNW check my thread on taking 10 and immediate threats. I detailed the information there.
edit: It also seems I crossposted into the wrong thread when I made the above post.
bump
From Ultimate Intrigue
The Core Rulebook doesn’t specify what area a PC can
actively search, but for a given Perception check it should
be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a
smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an
intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a
filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might
fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present
could cause a search to take a particularly long time.
This is mildly relevant.
From Ultimate Intrigue
This is mildly relevant.The Core Rulebook doesn’t specify what area a PC can
actively search, but for a given Perception check it should
be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a
smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an
intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a
filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might
fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present
could cause a search to take a particularly long time.
Unchained says the same thing, but many might see it as an alternate rule, and this text doesn't call out a move action as a requirement. I am hoping the give something concrete.
From Ultimate Intrigue
This is mildly relevant.The Core Rulebook doesn’t specify what area a PC can
actively search, but for a given Perception check it should
be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a
smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an
intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a
filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might
fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present
could cause a search to take a particularly long time.Unchained says the same thing, but many might see it as an alternate rule, and this text doesn't call out a move action as a requirement. I am hoping the give something concrete.
It doesn't need to call out move action, since that's covered in the CRB:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
"Intentionally searching" is given as an alternative to "reactive" checks, and from context that can only mean proactive, which it is completely reasonable to shorten to "active". In other words, the term "intentionally searching" is synonymous with "actively searching" (technically "proactively searching" as opposed to "reactively searching"), which is what the text from UI says.
From Ultimate Intrigue
This is mildly relevant.The Core Rulebook doesn’t specify what area a PC can
actively search, but for a given Perception check it should
be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a
smaller space if that area is cluttered. For instance, in an
intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a
filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might
fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present
could cause a search to take a particularly long time.Unchained says the same thing, but many might see it as an alternate rule, and this text doesn't call out a move action as a requirement. I am hoping the give something concrete.
It doesn't need to call out move action, since that's covered in the CRB:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."Intentionally searching" is given as an alternative to "reactive" checks, and from context that can only mean proactive, which it is completely reasonable to shorten to "active". In other words, the term "intentionally searching" is synonymous with "actively searching" (technically "proactively searching" as opposed to "reactively searching"), which is what the text from UI says.
The core rules do not specifiy when a move action is required.<---That is what I was trying to say.
As an example you can take a move action if you think someone is hiding, but the book never says you have to take a move action to locate a hidden object/trap/etc.
The core rules do not specifiy when a move action is required.<---That is what I was trying to say.
As an example you can take a move action if you think someone is hiding, but the book never says you have to take a move action to locate a hidden object/trap/etc.Why is this even a question? Automatic reactive searching applying to everything makes the game not a stupid slog of the rogue saying "I check for traps and secret doors" a thousand times every effing dungeon. "But you have trap spotter," the fighter says. Because the fighter is stupid. And the rogue replies "But I have to check for secret doors every ten feet frakking anyways so I might as well double check for traps too since it doesn't change the action required."
No. That's stupid and any GM that rules that way is unenlightened. Either they were taught by a sadistic jerk and never realized there were other options or they are themselves a sadistic jerk or they've never run or thought about the ramifications of running a game with traps and secret doors.
It is a question because it was never the intent for traps to get automatic searches. However the rules don't make it clear.
What I do is just allow the one perception(move action-search check) to cover the entire room to save time, and that is what every GM I have ever played under those. However some people are sticklers for the rules* and then you have PFS who are supposed to follow the rules.
*They will actually have you rolling for every 10 square foot section.