Never seen someone try to use search for that in either edition.
RAW everyone should have trap spotter for free. I can't find anything saying traps are different than anything else for trying to find them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why do some DMs use the 3.5 rules for spot and search? For the same reason some folks still call Game Masters "DMs". Because its an old, comfortable habit that works.
The situation you describe isn't using Spot or Search as they're written in 3.5 rules, either. It sounds like a referee that didn't want his player characters to find the sniper.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For reference, for everyone reading or about to read this thread:
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Anyway, getting back to nosig's troubles: no idea how it worked in 3.5, but according to the above, every time the sniper did something (like attacking you), he'd be providing an observable stimulus against which you'd get a freebie Perception check. If you hadn't found him yet, then between shots you could spend a move action to look for him.
For searching a room, well, I don't see anything saying that a move-Perception only searches a single square. Although distance modifiers apply to the DC as normal, there's nothing saying you can't search every visible part of the room by taking a move action to look around from where you are.
I'm not sure I can go with the "trap spotter for free"
Well, i don't either, its not RAI (otherwise why does trapspotter exist?) Its just one of those things people are supposed to know that got lost in translation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you spend a single move action to look around, then you make a single Perception roll.
You then notice any perceptible stimulus that your Perception check is sufficient to notice.
For stealth'd critters, you need to beat the stealth check.
The invisible zombie is going to have +40 to his stealth, so good luck on that.
The previously-mentioned paper underneath a rug is effectively invisible (not to mention silent), so good luck on that one too.
A secret door will be whatever its DC is plus distance modifiers.
A door behind a curtain might be entirely imperceptible if the curtain covers it completely, making it effectively invisible (again, in addition to being silent). If some part of the door is visible, then it'll just have a really high perception DC.
So as far as hidden things go, you'll get remarkably little using a single move action from the doorway, unless you have a great Perception bonus and roll high.
|
Does the character make more than one roll (one for each or what), or only one?
In my opinion, this goes back to what Jiggy quoted above, and since few of these are stimuli-checks, you're going to have to limit it to a topic, at least.
You open the door and look in the room. Your check gives you as much detail as is available until the DC gets too high to meet what's rolled.
So, from the list a, b, c, d, and the existence of h (not the content) are probably all possible.
e wouldn't be believable without moving the curtain, and you're not within reach of it. Same goes for f. g isn't even an option because your attention is turned towards the room. You're going to have to rely on opposed checks for that one. And honestly, I'd probably treat d the same way. You get to check if/when it moves or makes a noise. Or if you're moving around the room.
RAW? Not that I know of - but there is support in RAW for limits on what one can reasonably accomplish without moving inside six seconds.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I'm not sure I can go with the "trap spotter for free"Well, i don't either, its not RAI (otherwise why does trapspotter exist?) Its just one of those things people are supposed to know that got lost in translation.
But - if my character takes a move action to use Perception from a door way of a room - what does he get? what can he detect (depending on the result of his Perception Check)?
Possibles
a) monster "hiding" (using stealth) above the door (intending to drop on first person to enter).
b) Pit trap in front of the door.
c) Glyph of Warding on the doorway.
d) Invisible Zombie 20' in the center of the room.
e) Concealed doorway (behind a curtain) 40' away on the back wall.
f) Secret Door in the side wall.
g) The rogue "hiding" behind him in the hall (outside the room).
h) Note on the desk, 30' away against the side wall of the room.I am sure there could be other things.
Does the character make more than one roll (one for each or what), or only one?
I think this is largely up to the GM.
The GM would have to interpret things like the lighting of the room, if the PC is looking for something specific, which way the PC is looking (if actively looking for something), etc.
Using your list above, most of those things could be noticed if the Perception roll meet or beat the respective DC. However, if the PC was looking into the room, I would probably rule that he did not see option a (unless the PC indicates he looks up), e (door has total concealment and is a long way away), f (Secret doors aren't something that a casual observer would notice, especially if he's not looking for it), or g (the PC is looking in the room, not behind him). Each of these would require a separate roll from inside the room.
Note that this is my interpretation, but I believe it is RAI. Otherwise, Stealth and Concealment aren't worth much if anyone who passes by a room can notice every single hidden person/object in it with a quick glance.
YMMV
Why do some DMs use the 3.5 rules for spot and search? For the same reason some folks still call Game Masters "DMs". Because its an old, comfortable habit that works.
The situation you describe isn't using Spot or Search as they're written in 3.5 rules, either. It sounds like a referee that didn't want his player characters to find the sniper.
That's what it sounds like to me.
As to the original question, I don't know anybody playing Pathfinder who isn't using Perception as written in Pathfinder. Just one guy ruining one game for you does not constitute a plague of people doing so to all their games.
I have a problem with this. this is one of the first differences in the rules I noticed between 3.5 and PF.
Perception does not work like Search. Right? is there a rules someplace that says I have to "Search" a room one 5' square at a time? I have had a judge tell me that my character could only check 1 square per move action TO LOCATE A SNIPER WHO WAS SHOOTING AT THE PARTY! egads! (rolls eyes). One of the other players "Corrected" this by saying - "no, that's Search, he's trying to Spot the shooter"... I was at a lose for words. That's ok, later in the mod I needed to "search" a room - (sigh).
Is there anyone out there doing the Perception skill as RAW?
In the case of searching the room for a sniper, I think the search rules rather ridiculous. But after a room is cleared, I require the PC's to tell me where they search and then roll a perception check.
If there is an amulet hanging on a rack I will allow the move action PER check to find it. If however the Amulet is behind a book, I will not allow a high Per check to find it unless they tell me they search (The area with the Bookcase.) Then I give them the perception roll.
Here's how I would rule it:
Fighter wants to peek inside a room from the doorway: Perception check. Rolls a 19 for a total of 27. I'll read the boxed text describing the desk, the three chairs, the plush carpet, the chest in the corner of the room, and the tapistry that covers part of the wall behind the desk. I'll even add, that since he rolled so high, that he spots a tripwire crossing the room in front of the door, as well as some sheets of paper on the desk and some tiny srcaps of what looks like shredded paper on the floor, next to the desk.
After the rogue dissarms the trap in the doorway, the group decides to search the small office.
The fighter stands guard in the doorway.
The rogue SEARCHes the chest, and discovers that not only is it locked, but it's trapped as well.
The wizard SEARCHes the desk area, but rolls poorly. Of course, he finds the obvious; The sheets of paper on the desk, the afore-mentionned scraps of paper next to the desk, as well as the writting equipment (ink pot, quills, and more sheets) in the desk drawer.
The cleric SEARCHes the tapistry on the far wall. Rolls high, but finds nothing.
Having opened the chest and finding a pile of coins, the rogue decides to SEARCH it. Rolls a 20 and finds a false bottom containing three scrolls, a masterwork dagger, and a crystal ball. Having found these the wizard casts Detect Magic. Of course, the scrolls emit a magical aura, as does the crystal ball. But although the dagger is masterwork, it remains quite mundane. To the wizards' surprise though, the carpet under the desk radiates strong magic (it turns out to be a flying carpet!).
For me, a perception check is what you can see at a glance. You can see a lot, if you're perceptive. A search is a closer inspection, more tactile... Like openeing drawers, lifting carpets (to find keys beneath them), quickly going through books, etc...
Ultradan
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you using Perception as it is written in Pathfinder?
Thing is, people generally don't learn the rules by reading them. They learn by playing. If someone asks how something works at the table, the other players answer.
If anyone answers with a sense of confidence in their voice and is not challenged by an equally-confident-sounding person, then no one even opens the book.
Add to this that sometimes people "learn" the rules back in 3.5 (or earlier), you might get people playing Pathfinder according to an incorrect version of a 3.5 rule simply because no one forced them to look it up.
This is especially likely with people who have been playing for a very long time, and even more so if they've mostly played with the same group(s) the whole time. You get this type of thing happening:
Alice: If I try to do X, how does that work?
Bob: Oh, it works like thus-and-so.
Everyone else: Okay, thanks!
Charlie: I do X.
Alice: Okay, [do whatever Bob said 15 years ago].
Charlie: Uh, that's not how that works.
Alice: Sure it is. Trust me, I've been playing 15 years and you just started. But don't worry, you'll learn.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
wow... I must be playing with the wrong Judges. I play in PFSOP, and I travel a lot. In my last 12 judges I think I have 2 that DID NOT require me to Search each 5' square. One of those is my son, so I am not sure he counts. One was at my 4th table at Gen Con (I think).Why do some DMs use the 3.5 rules for spot and search? For the same reason some folks still call Game Masters "DMs". Because its an old, comfortable habit that works.
The situation you describe isn't using Spot or Search as they're written in 3.5 rules, either. It sounds like a referee that didn't want his player characters to find the sniper.
That's what it sounds like to me.
As to the original question, I don't know anybody playing Pathfinder who isn't using Perception as written in Pathfinder. Just one guy ruining one game for you does not constitute a plague of people doing so to all their games.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
It's there, it's just a little more subtle than it should be.
If something is moving/ stealthing/ whatever, it's a free action. If you are searching for something that is hidden it is a move action.
Doesn't really specify how big an area is covered, I think most people assume it's the same as 3.5 which absent any other guidance is a reasonable interpretation.
|
For reference, for everyone reading or about to read this thread:
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.Anyway, getting back to nosig's troubles: no idea how it worked in 3.5, but according to the above, every time the sniper did something (like attacking you), he'd be providing an observable stimulus against which you'd get a freebie Perception check. If you hadn't found him yet, then between shots you could spend a move action to look for him.
...
To be precise, the sniper is automatically spotted unless he is successful at an opposed stealth roll stay hidden
Stealth
...
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
It worked the same way in the 3.5 edition.
@ Nosig:
Note: Magic traps such as glyph of warding are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Perception skill to find the glyph and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 28 for glyph of warding.
No, it is not going back to 3.5, it is Pathfinter. Based on lather clarifications, only trapfinding allow you to find magic traps.
Are you using Perception as it is written in Pathfinder?Thing is, people generally don't learn the rules by reading them. They learn by playing. If someone asks how something works at the table, the other players answer.
If anyone answers with a sense of confidence in their voice and is not challenged by an equally-confident-sounding person, then no one even opens the book.
Add to this that sometimes people "learn" the rules back in 3.5 (or earlier), you might get people playing Pathfinder according to an incorrect version of a 3.5 rule simply because no one forced them to look it up.
This is especially likely with people who have been playing for a very long time, and even more so if they've mostly played with the same group(s) the whole time. You get this type of thing happening:
So true. Since I started DM'ing a Pathfinder PBP game, I've been looking up every relevant rule, and found several of them to be different from how my RL-group plays 3.5, figuring it was just another little thing that changed between editions.
However, in many of those cases, when I've looked up the 3.5 rule later, I've discovered the rule was actually the same. I'd just never had a reason to challenge what my friends (and much more experienced 3.X-players at the time) said about the rules of the game.
|
|
wow... I must be playing with the wrong Judges. I play in PFSOP, and I travel a lot. In my last 12 judges I think I have 2 that DID NOT require me to Search each 5' square. One of those is my son, so I am not sure he counts. One was at my 4th table at Gen Con (I think).Why do some DMs use the 3.5 rules for spot and search? For the same reason some folks still call Game Masters "DMs". Because its an old, comfortable habit that works.
The situation you describe isn't using Spot or Search as they're written in 3.5 rules, either. It sounds like a referee that didn't want his player characters to find the sniper.
That's what it sounds like to me.
As to the original question, I don't know anybody playing Pathfinder who isn't using Perception as written in Pathfinder. Just one guy ruining one game for you does not constitute a plague of people doing so to all their games.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.It's there, it's just a little more subtle than it should be.
If something is moving/ stealthing/ whatever, it's a free action. If you are searching for something that is hidden it is a move action.
Doesn't really specify how big an area is covered, I think most people assume it's the same as 3.5 which absent any other guidance is a reasonable interpretation.
Assumptions must be approached carefully. Not everyone who plays Pathfinder has played 3.x and thus will not auto read in that it is the same as 3.5.
I would state that since it was not in the rules, that this was a rule that was changed to streamline play and allow the GM more flexibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spoilers for the Upcoming Sherlock Holmes movie... Ok just kidding, but a witty look at the question nonetheless...
I think this illustrates a perfect example of both the literary and realistic way Perception works. Note under the rug? I'm fairly certain it can be found by a high enough (+40 and the like) Perception check.... Attribute it as you like, but if it were Holmes he would be admonishing Watson for not noticing how the rug was slightly moved and a miniscule dust line was disturbed leading him to believe the rug had been moved recently, revealing the note. Personally I always kind of assume thats how the abstraction of the rules work.
wow... I must be playing with the wrong Judges. I play in PFSOP, and I travel a lot. In my last 12 judges I think I have 2 that DID NOT require me to Search each 5' square. One of those is my son, so I am not sure he counts. One was at my 4th table at Gen Con (I think).[..]
Are you using Perception as it is written in Pathfinder?
Note that, at the very least, there are penalties for range (-1 per 10'). So taking 20 on a search of a 20' room from the doorway would really be more like "taking 20" on the first 10' square and "taking 19" on the rest of the room.
I would also rule that total concealment means that you can't make sight Perception checks to detect an object (e.g. no reading a letter inside a desk drawer without opening the drawer). It's obliquely mentioned in some places (e.g. "Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character" -- as opposed to non-invisible but still concealed objects, I presume).
Does the character make more than one roll (one for each or what), or only one?
Not only can you take more than one roll, you can take 20 (if it's a static threat like a trap that just waits for you to do something to trigger it).
There is no more 'search' aspect of noticing things. You can use perception from a doorway to notice hidden things in a room. Perception is a 'try again' skill, and since failing a perception check doesn't trigger anything, you can roll perception over and over, which means you can take 20. You inspect your surroundings for 1-2 mintues, and you percived anyhting with a DC equal to your perception +20 or less.
Distance modifyers can still come into play and the GM can specifically key something as only decernable with a pysical search (like say it's something hidden under something else you can only detect by removing the coverying),
...but generally speaking "I search the room" in Pathfinder can be done from the doorway, and if not in a combat timeframe, done with a take 20.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Assumptions must be approached carefully. Not everyone who plays Pathfinder has played 3.x and thus will not auto read in that it is the same as 3.5.
I would state that since it was not in the rules, that this was a rule that was changed to streamline play and allow the GM more flexibility.
I agree (at least with the first bit).
The question is, if something isn't specified how do you make a ruling?
Is it a move action to search a 5' square area, a 100' square area, a 10,000 square foot warehouse? A 3 square mile meadow?
It's left to the discretion of the GM. Which comes back around to GMs being informed by prior versions. One answer is as good as another.
Well last track I had of the new Stealth rules a concealed creature IS effectivebly invisible. Take that as you may.
As for the rug and paper scenerio earlier, I have thought it over more and it's not that as a GM I'd say "You find a hidden letter under a rug" I'd say "You notice the rug seems to have been moved recently" and then if they moved said rug "You find a letter" but that's grasping at straws...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
hogarth, are you saying a character cannot make Perception checks to notice CONCEALED creatures who are not invisible? that would be say, someone concealed by fog?
Note that he said "sight" perception checks. I think he's meaning that if you can't even see the space where the object is, then you can't see it no matter how good your perception is. You might notice it by sound (or other senses, if applicable), but not by sight.
Which goes back to what I suggested earlier about a paper underneath a rug. Impossible to notice by sight, and the object is silent and therefore impossible to notice by sound as well.
|
|
wow... I must be playing with the wrong Judges. I play in PFSOP, and I travel a lot. In my last 12 judges I think I have 2 that DID NOT require me to Search each 5' square. One of those is my son, so I am not sure he counts. One was at my 4th table at Gen Con (I think).[..]
Are you using Perception as it is written in Pathfinder?
Note that, at the very least, there are penalties for range (-1 per 10'). So taking 20 on a search of a 20' room from the doorway would really be more like "taking 20" on the first 10' square and "taking 19" on the rest of the room.
I would also rule that total concealment means that you can't make sight Perception checks to detect an object (e.g. no reading a letter inside a desk drawer without opening the drawer). It's obliquely mentioned in some places (e.g. "Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Perception checks to notice the location of an invisible character" -- as opposed to non-invisible but still concealed objects, I presume).
If something is totally concealed from your position and don't produce any sound/smell/other non visual input (and that can include a normal door hidden behind a corner of a L shaped room) you have no chance to perceive it.
Sadly the current system lack information about what you can perceive with other senses beside sight.
I am currently reading a on line comic where the main character is, substantially, an awakened wolf. In the above mentioned room she could probably detect a piece of paper hidden under a rug from its smell.
In the Pathfinder game a creature with scent can detect ..... ?......
Someone argue that she could detect almost anything in range, I am in the field that she would need to make perception rolls with the appropriate modifiers (invisibility doesn't matter and so on).
Currently the rules are fuzzy enough that any interpretation is valid.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The question is, if something isn't specified how do you make a ruling?
Keep in mind that Pathfinder (despite the affectionate nickname of "3.75") is not an update to a previous edition of the same game.
It is its own game. The fact that there is a lot of overlap with another rules system is irrelevant. D&D is not Pathfinder.
If something isn't in the Pathfinder rules, then it isn't in the Pathfinder rules. Fill in the gaps with common sense when applicable, and apply GM fiat when that doesn't help.
|
|
Assumptions must be approached carefully. Not everyone who plays Pathfinder has played 3.x and thus will not auto read in that it is the same as 3.5.
I would state that since it was not in the rules, that this was a rule that was changed to streamline play and allow the GM more flexibility.
I agree (at least with the first bit).
The question is, if something isn't specified how do you make a ruling?
Is it a move action to search a 5' square area, a 100' square area, a 10,000 square foot warehouse? A 3 square mile meadow?
It's left to the discretion of the GM. Which comes back around to GMs being informed by prior versions. One answer is as good as another.
I agree in the fact that it is left the discretion of the GM, which is why I do not follow the 3.5 version. Some areas are going to take more then a move action per 5' and others are going to take less. If the player says that they are searching from the door, then I would only take a move action to do it, but they are only going to get stuff that I feel would be noticeable (by any of the senses) from that doorway. While searching a 5' tall x 15' long x 5' deep shelving unit full of junk is going to take longer then a move action per 5' (heck, if it is crazy enough, I would call it a move action per shelf, per 5').
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am not sure I would except the "Impossible to notice by sight", but that just opens the question - is Perception ONLY sight? when did this happen? if I am blind do I auto fail Perception checks?
If you're blind, you auto-fail sight-based perception checks. From the "blinded" condition:
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
It's true that we don't have separate Perception skills for each of the senses (spot, listen, etc). However, that doesn't mean that a specific check can't make use of only one of the senses.
If something is silent, odorless, and too far away to touch or taste, then your perception check to notice it will be sight-based. The perception skill is still defined as using all applicable senses, but for this one check the only applicable sense is sight. If you're blinded in such a situation, you fail your check.
As for the rug and paper scenerio earlier, I have thought it over more and it's not that as a GM I'd say "You find a hidden letter under a rug" I'd say "You notice the rug seems to have been moved recently" and then if they moved said rug "You find a letter" but that's grasping at straws...
I'm not sure that it's grasping all that much. If something is put there for the players to find, why not help them along?
See, my GM style allows for this exact scenario, where I'd tell them the reason they might want to look under the rug, provided they make the effort and the check. I also use this as a lure, so they might follow it, or fall into a trap.
In other words, help your players interact in an easier way with their environment, as you are the environment. Picking nits just gets frustrating, especially for players who are new, or simply not so into the rules system that they enjoy such distinctions.
Maybe my group would seem noobish to some of you guys, but I think I run perception RAW.
I am not sure I would except the "Impossible to notice by sight", but that just opens the question - is Perception ONLY sight? when did this happen? if I am blind do I auto fail Perception checks?
As noted, I'm not just making up the idea of "sight-based Perception checks" and "hearing-based Perception checks" -- those are concepts found in the rules. The problem is that the rules are pretty flaky in general when it comes to Perception; sometimes they make no sense unless you really break it into Perception (Spot), Perception (Listen), Perception (Taste), etc., each with its own common-sense rules.
I mean, there's nothing in the rules that says you can't taste a potion from 100' away, right?
|
I am not sure I would except the "Impossible to notice by sight", but that just opens the question - is Perception ONLY sight? when did this happen? if I am blind do I auto fail Perception checks?As noted, I'm not just making up the idea of "sight-based Perception checks" and "hearing-based Perception checks" -- those are concepts found in the rules. The problem is that the rules are pretty flaky in general when it comes to Perception; sometimes they make no sense unless you really break it into Perception (Spot), Perception (Listen), Perception (Taste), etc., each with its own common-sense rules.
I mean, there's nothing in the rules that says you can't taste a potion from 100' away, right?
*frantically searches the core rulebook for rules on breathing and thinking*
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Some judges require more than one roll for more things - or catagories of things. for example: one roll for Traps, one for Creatures in Ambush, one for Loot, one for Secret doors, etc. Each of these in turn (for this judge) requires a 2 minutes to T20, and in turn most had to be for each 5' square. It felt like the Judge was trying to insure that the party (or at least my rogue) would stop looking for things, and just get on with the fight.
The judge required you to take 20? Or you were trying to take 20 on every search check and he was suggesting that taking 20 takes 2 minutes?
Taking 20 to troll along corridors looking for traps should be painfully slow.