Perception Checks

[Banecrow]

So how do people handle perception checks for things such as secret doors or hidden compartments? Do players get a free chance to spot them or is finding them something the players have to say they are doing?

[JohnF]

I'll generally tell players about anything they'd notice by "taking 10" (which is why I ask for their perception modifiers before start of play).

This will be modified (at GMs discretion) if the character is obviously paying far less attention than normal, or if they're proceeding slowly and cautiously.

EDIT: s/player/character/

[Adamantine Dragon]

The GM who chortles to himself whenever a player enters a room and "forgets" to make perception checks for traps or secret doors is one of my least favorite types of GM. I use taking 10 as a "passive perception" check most of the time, and if there is any reason to be more specific, I'll secretly roll checks for the player.

While I, as a real world player sucking down soda and munching on chips in a comfortable living room with friends might forget to check a door for traps, it is highly unlikely that my 18 intelligence rogue who makes his living sneaking around in the dark is going to forget to make HIS check.

So that's how I GM.

[Hakken]

"Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking"

so if everyone gets that chance--and the dwarf fighter happens to have a lower wis than the human cleric--than the human cleric could have a better "passive" perception to notice it than the dwarf who had it as a racial bonus? kind of unfair----shouldnt the dwarf get to take "20" than?

same as if you let everyone passively spot traps---what about rogues trap sense?

do you replace the rogues trap sense or the dwarves passive stonework perception with another trait of their choice? since everyone is getting their ability?

or maybe bump the dwarfs passive perception to notice such things up to +6 instead of +2? the extra +4 makes up for everyone else getting to notice something only he should and would still make him the most likely to notice--as it should be with his racial advantage?

[JohnF]

Everyone isn't getting the dwarven ability - the dwarf still gets the +2 (so they effectively get to "take 12" on the check). A +2 bonus to one particular sort of check is about right for a racial or class feature. (And If "Take 12" doesn't spot the door, I'll probably make an actual roll for the dwarf, anyway - I know what their perception bonus is).

I don't understand the eagerness to screw over the party by trying to have them miss a fairly obvious perception check. Anything hard to spot is going to need more than a "take 10" to find. It won't work, anyway - if you insist on making everybody roll every check then that's what all but the greenest players will do. So the end result is that it still averages out to just a little better than "take 10" (take 10.5), but wastes a lot of time.

(And if the human cleric has built a more perceptive character than the dwarf, they should be better at spotting things).

[Hakken]

it is not eagerness to screw the party---it is trying to prevent you from screwing the dwarf.

you do realize--the dwarf racial trait is +2 perception only to detect secret doors and traps---but he can use it passive

3 of the other 5 classes get racial traits of :keen sense---giving them +2 perception. so they all "take 12" also.

so if you give them the passive perception. all FOUR of those races now have +2 perception to detect secret doors and traps. BUT only THREE of them get the +2 perception at other times.

if YOU want to be fair---then let them all have the passive perception--but give the dwarf a full time +2 perception (usable any time) also.

and no---the human should not get to just be better---do dwarves in your campaign get a bonus feat like humans? why not? because that is part of human "flavor" and part of the benefit of being a human right?

so why give up the dwarven benefits--without giving something back to the dwarf in return?-----give that dwarf the same +2 perception to all things (ie keen sense). then everyone can have the passive perception--and the dwarf gets the +2 to his perception for other things also.

lets look at stats along with the racial traits---half elves has keen perception giving them +2---dwarf doesnt.

but dwarf has the passive benefit and +2 on that passive. him getting to roll it passively basically balances out only getting to roll it at those times.

but now you let both roll passively. the dwarf gets the +2 (but only in that particular time. the half elf gets the +2--and gets to use it other times.

both have 14 wisdom--so both get the same bonuses. +2 for perception, +2 for stat. both get the passive abilitly. so what exactly did the dwarf get???????? a MUCH more limited +2 perception than the half elf. He can only use his for one thing, the half elf for everything. the benefit he used to have over the half elf of using it passive?---now gone.

so to be fair---he should get the +2 perception at all times also. OR his passive perception should be raised to +6 (geater than the +2 that would be equaled by the other races having the built in +2 perception at all times)

Quote:

A +2 bonus to one particular sort of check is about right for a racial or class feature

or if that is how you feel--than limit the other races +2 perception bonus to only certain times also---ie only in woods, only to detect x things. but currently they all get +2 perception on EVERYTHING---including your passive check--which cancels out the dwarves specific +2 that he only gets to use for that.

[Hakken]

I do understand you wanting to give the party the passibe ability. but to take that advantage the dwarf had over them away? without giving something in return? that is part of his race

their keen sense gives them the same +2 bonus to detect the things he specializes in with stone cunning---plus they get to use it at other times now. his only advantage was the "passive" thing.

now three other races get the same "take 12" and they get to apply their +2 perception at other times also

you owe your dwarves something back. either the same keen senses all the time instead of just for stone cunning. or (to keep a racial flavor) +6 on stone cunning.
with the +6 he still remains racially better at detecting stone things.(instead of just having the same +2 bonus they all had due to their always usable keen senses)

[setzer9999]

Players have to choose to use a skill, and Perception is a skill. The player makes the check. If you read the rules on skill use in general:

Skills wrote:

When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.

Each skill rank grants a +1 bonus on checks made using that skill. When you make a skill check, you roll 1d20 ...

However the rules in Perception also say:

Perception wrote:

Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.

immediately followed by

Perception wrote:

Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Notice the word "Most" in the action rule. Well, that seems to not leave us with squat in terms of a RAW answer to this, because that is entirely up to interpretation now. Technically, anything you could notice is "observable stimulus"... that's what it means for something to be something you can notice... its like they defined observable stimulus actually. The second half of the action rule is to give you a way to roll a Perception check at any time, even if your GM didn't prompt you for one, that is all.

The key is, that the GM is the one who describes the world. Therefore, it is up to the GM to notify you if anything is "observable stimulus" or not. There is no perfect RAW answer, because the object "observable stimulus" doesn't exist for the RAW to modify until the GM says it exists. GMs also, by controlling the game world's description, can completely define the parameters governing the DC of any check.

So, the GM very much can just tell you if you did or didn't notice something without even bothering with a Perception check really... but if they do use the check, letting you know there is a reason to make a check breaks the metagaming barrier. This is why GMs will often roll passive checks.

So, after all that, what it comes down to is this:

Do you want to balance how Perception is actually run at a table (instead of trying to parse all the gook above like a computer) based on one Dwarf racial trait... or balance it against everything else in the game world. I'd have to say the Dwarf racial trait unfortunately loses out.

Feel free to house rule it a +4 for Dwarves to notice stonework stuff, if that makes it better.

[Hakken]

the dwarf should have some higher bonus----to equate after all that he has stonework cunning----otherwise the other races keen senses just cancel out his specific use only +2 and he has no special abililty with stonework vs the other races.

that is like having a superhero type game and telling all 6 players you all have a +2 power.

five of you can use your power 24 hours a day but you have to concentrate.

the sixth one gets his power only 2 hours a day--but to balance out he doesnt have to concentrate.

then later the gm says--ah well--you can all have your power without concentrating.

the sixth player says "so do I get mine 24 hours a day or is it at least +6 for those two hours?"

and the gm saying no---you still only get yours 2 hours a day at +2 still

[Vendis]

I have lots of issues with this. I dislike asking for rolls for secret stuff, because it hints at something being noticeable.

I also dislike using 10 for passive Perception, because that means that 45% of the time, a character's active Perception skill is worse than his passive one.

Also, the oddity that Taking 10 has built in anyway - that is, on any given check, if the result of the Take 10 is equal to the DC, then only increasing the DC by -just- 1 makes the chance of success go from 100% to 50% - bothers me.

[setzer9999]

Hakken wrote:

the dwarf should have some higher bonus----to equate after all that he has stonework cunning----otherwise the other races keen senses just cancel out his specific use only +2 and he has no special abililty with stonework vs the other races.

that is like having a superhero type game and telling all 6 players you all have a +2 power.

five of you can use your power 24 hours a day but you have to concentrate.

the sixth one gets his power only 2 hours a day--but to balance out he doesnt have to concentrate.

then later the gm says--ah well--you can all have your power without concentrating.

the sixth player says "so do I get mine 24 hours a day or is it at least +6 for those two hours?"

and the gm saying no---you still only get yours 2 hours a day at +2 still

But it is still balancing the entire rest of how the game works in terms of Perception against only one trait, for one race. Ruining things with metagaming and not following the actual rules for the GM defining what is "obeservable" for the sake of one thing for one race isn't acceptable to me. Maybe it is to you, but its not a balanced trade off to me.

I see what you are saying, but you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and then crushing the rest of the game's Perception checks with that mountain.

I mean, what is the alternative? If no players out here in the real world ever asks to roll Perception, the characters just walk around with their fingers in their ears and blindfolded?

Technically, you should never be able to fail to notice anything as long as you aren't in combat anyway:

prd wrote:

Try Again: Yes. You can try to sense something you missed the first time, so long as the stimulus is still present.

So, let's just all roll perception repeatedly over and over before we ever step one more foot into the room. Dwarf stone noticing doesn't really amount to much when no one can actually ever fail a Perception check outside combat by RAW, and you can't use passive checks inside combat anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Hakken]

then if passive perception is a given----give the dwarf a +6 perception on the stonework only. after all the dwarf is "the stonework master"

heck a 20" movement slows the whole game down too---maybe give the dwarf 30' movement like the human, half orc, half elf and elf?

it used to be---outside---keen senses ruled---dwarf got nothing, but inside in stone--the dwarf got the +2 AND got the passive. the others only got the +2 when actively searching.

I am not saying you can't home rule that everyone can passivly search. but you have now made it so outside dwarves still get nothing--and inside---the other races keen senses cancel out the dwarves +2---so what is he a master of anymore?

you should bump his passive perception up to +6. still wont help him outside with a snare trap or ambush. but in the dungeon--he should still have the benefit.

that lets you speed up the actions AND still leave the dwarf as the master of indoor stone work.

as for there being nothing in RAW against making passive checks to notice non-moving traps (ie just that the rock doesnt look right)

there is nothing in RAW against summoning eidelons either---but the fact that they choose to allow only one class to do it and specifically spell it out that that class does it? kind of like stonework and specifically stating that dwarves can roll passively---it kind of hints that it wasn't intended for other races to do it and it was a special dwarf thing. by taking it away (and once again in interest of speeding up the game-I can see that)--you took something away from the dwarf that you should replace----bump his passive plus up to a 6--to reflect his greater skill with rock.

if the gm is willing to make the passive call--he should be fair and make the +6 call also. otherwise as I said above--just make 30' movement standard also.

[JohnF]

Go back and read my first couple of posts. I said

• I'll generally tell players about anything they'd notice by "taking 10"
  
• I later added that I'd probably make an actual d20 roll for the dwarf if simply taking 10 (+ bonuses) wasn't good enough.
  

There's nothing there that says I won't allow any other kind of active perception check - just that I don't want to waste everybody's time having them roll all the time to see if they spot obvious things.
If the character has a plausible reason to make an active check (and that does not include a player knowing that another player just rolled a '1'), that's fine. I don't insist on making all perception checks for the players, but I do try and keep metagaming out of the equation.

If I had a player who felt it was really important that it was his character who found the secret door, rather than just being glad that somebody in the party found it, I'm sure we could work something out (probably by my doing the check for his character first, and only going on to other characters if the dwarf failed). But generally it's not a contest - players work together, not in competition with each other.

[Hakken]

observable is--there is movement in the back of a room, the clang of a shield hitting a rock---ie something that changed from one round ago.

NOT--that rock right there has striations just a little off. or the stone pattern at this wall is off as if it is hiding something--when nothing changed.

another solution--take 20-means take 20 times as long.

take 10 should not mean 10 times as long--but I may say--it takes 3 times as long. so anyone but a dwarf taking 10 passively--takes 3 times as long to go through an area. ask your group if they are willing to take the time. if so--give them the take 10. if not--they have to guess where the best places to check are.

that dwarf just passivly walking by mismatched stonework just notices it quicker.

[Hakken]

JohnF wrote:

Go back and read my first couple of posts. I said

• I'll generally tell players about anything they'd notice by "taking 10"
  
• I later added that I'd probably make an actual d20 roll for the dwarf if simply taking 10 (+ bonuses) wasn't good enough.
  

There's nothing there that says I won't allow any other kind of active perception check - just that I don't want to waste everybody's time having them roll all the time to see if they spot obvious things.
If the character has a plausible reason to make an active check (and that does not include a player knowing that another player just rolled a '1'), that's fine. I don't insist on making all perception checks for the players, but I do try and keep metagaming out of the equation.

If I had a player who felt it was really important that it was his character who found the secret door, rather than just being glad that somebody in the party found it, I'm sure we could work something out (probably by my doing the check for his character first, and only going on to other characters if the dwarf failed). But generally it's not a competition - players work together, not in competition with each other.

not sure if I completely understand you John. but if you are saying the dwarf gets a passive check just like everyone else ie 10 + their perception check---and then if all failed it, you go back and roll a d20 passively (for a chance at higher than a 10) for the dwarf to give him a second chance?

yeah I would be good with that also---it at least recognizes the dwarf is better at it---ie some recognition of him being the stone master as outlined in his racial profile.

so if I understand you

party with elf-perception 8
half elf perc 6
human perc 4
dwarf perc 4
gnome perc 6
half orc perc 5

the elf, half elf and gnome have keen senses figured in--hence higher than dwarf.

on a dc 15 snare trap---everyone but the dwarf and human would find it--since the dwarf doesnt get to add his +2

on a dc 15 stone pit trap---everyone but the human would find it--since the dwarf does get to add his +2

on a dc 20 snare trap--no one would auto find it passively

on a dc 20 stone pit trap--no one finds it automatically---BUT you then roll a d20 for the dwarf and add his +6(4+2)---if he gets a 14 or higher he finds it?

I could live with that.

[JohnF]

Hakken wrote:

Take 20-means take 20 times as long.

take 10 should not mean 10 times as long--but I may say--it takes 3 times as long.

This is one of the most common failings I see when take 10/20 is being discussed - incomplete understanding of the underlying mathematics.

"Take 10" simply replaces a single roll of the die with an average roll (actually slightly worse than average, but this makes up for the fact that you don't get the penalties a very low roll would incur).

"Take 20" is ruled to take 20 times as long as a single roll because, if there is no penalty for failure, the expected number of times you will need to roll a d20 before it comes up with a 20 is twenty rolls.

If you do the same calculations for "Take 10" you'd actually find that on average it would take (just under) twice as long as a single skill check. So in my home game while I'd support the position that "take 10" should take longer than a regular check, it would take twice as long, not three times. (In a PFS game, though, I'd have to go with RAW). But that 2x time factor would apply to both active and passive checks.

[JohnF]

Hakken wrote:

not sure if I completely understand you John. but if you are saying the dwarf gets a passive check just like everyone else ie 10 + their perception check---and then if all failed it, you go back and roll a d20 passively (for a chance at higher than a 10) for the dwarf to give him a second chance?

Yep. (Except I'd quibble over the use of the word "passively" - I'd be rolling a d20, so it's almost an active roll, but I'd be doing it behind the screen). And I'd be adding the situational "+2 for secret doors" to both checks, in addition to whatever full-time perception bonus the dwarf had.

"Take 10" gets all the same bonuses that rolling a die would be eligible for - it's supposed to work exactly as though a d20 was rolled, and came up with a 10.

[setzer9999]

"Observable Stimuli" can be anything. It doesn't require the object to be moving or making sound per se. Something just being there is an observable stimulus if it is reflecting or producing a vibration (like light or sound). The light is moving, constantly. If you can see something, it is an observable stimulus.

By RAW, GMs can't actually roll checks for their players. The rules clearly state that "you" roll checks. This leads to characters not doing something that they absolutely would have though, just because a player is distracted. Now, technically, this is a failing at all times of the game... that a player may not be as "good" as his character at the adventure. It's not RAW, but a GM can roll for his players if that's how he wants to run it.

Passive checks are not rolled. So, a GM can, even by RAW, give you a passive check and have you take 10. All you do is add modifiers to a value of 10, the skill isn't used, it's passive. When you take 10, you still add your modifiers, so the races with a +2 to their modifier would get this added during a passive also, because there is no text that says they DON'T get it on a passive check. It's just a modifier to their Perception, so yes, it is added.

Perhaps the Dwarf ability IS weaker than the other races perception modifiers. Why is that hard to believe? The Dwarf is only as good at perception when stonework is involved, and doesn't get the bonus when it's not, and other races are just better at perception in general. So? Is it so hard to believe that it actually is a lesser ability? Not all racials are equal.

I understand what Hakken is saying, but for the purposes of running a game at the table, I don't even really see the problem here. I'd not be willing to base my entire decision on how to run Perception checks around one trait for one race for such a limited subset of those checks.

[Hakken]

then I as a dwarf player at your game would expect you to give me some of the other races benefits---maybe immune to sleep spell or something. Otherwise you have changed the game and since Paizo gave it just to dwarves--kind of like just giving summon eidelon just to summoners it is obviously meant just for dwarves.

Quote:

Stonecunning: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.

had paizo meant to just say---dwarves receive a +2 perception checks on unusual stonework---that is what they would have said. the fact that they added the bold part means---"hey this is something we added--something that is not otherwise available"

so RAW is with me in that only dwarves would get it. Now you can do what you want as a GM---but if you are deliberatly taking things from my race and giving them to EVERY race--and not giving anything back?---I would find a different GM.

I wonder how humans would like it if a GM ruled that EVERY race gets the extra feat at first level and an extra skill at each level?

Now--John's rule--I can live with that. Because the dwarf still has the stonecunning advantage--ie the extra role over everyone else.

[Hakken]

I dare everyone to FAQ this and see what the developers say.

[Corbin Dallas]

Going back to Banecrow's original question. The answer is both. Players have a passive chance, and they may also search for it intentionally as a move action or take twenty and get a maximum perception if they want to spend the time.

[setzer9999]

Hakken wrote:

then I as a dwarf player at your game would expect you to give me some of the other races benefits---maybe immune to sleep spell or something. Otherwise you have changed the game and since Paizo gave it just to dwarves--kind of like just giving summon eidelon just to summoners it is obviously meant just for dwarves.

Quote:

Stonecunning: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.

had paizo meant to just say---dwarves receive a +2 perception checks on unusual stonework---that is what they would have said. the fact that they added the bold part means---"hey this is something we added--something that is not otherwise available"

so RAW is with me in that only dwarves would get it. Now you can do what you want as a GM---but if you are deliberatly taking things from my race and giving them to EVERY race--and not giving anything back?---I would find a different GM.

I wonder how humans would like it if a GM ruled that EVERY race gets the extra feat at first level and an extra skill at each level?

Now--John's rule--I can live with that. Because the dwarf still has the stonecunning advantage--ie the extra role over everyone else.

It is not the same thing as giving every race a bonus feat. You are assuming that this particular dwarf racial is supposed to be better than or equal to other racial traits. This is a wild assumption, because some racial traits are just better than others, and some are worse. On the whole, the races could be balanced, but this issue aside, they already aren't balanced.

For your human feat example, it isn't the same thing. To make an analogous circumstance with that trait, you would have to instead say this: Humans get a bonus feat. Other races get a bonus feat, when they are in (insert your condition here, such as "when they may make an AoO" or "When they fight with a two-handed weapon", etc.). The human gets it at all times. The other races get the feat only under certain conditions. This is analogous to the Dwarf perception. The Dwarf perception bonus IS less good than the other races, because it only works on stonework, whereas other races bonuses are better because they work all the time.

You can't just assert that the trait is SUPPOSED to be better than another trait. It blatantly isn't better, it's worse. So what?

The line about making the check passive is redundant to the existing rules for the game. A passive Perception check is made as a take 10, with perception modifiers added to it. You don't define that one part of the rules adding language about exception indicates that the rest of the game is governed by this exception... the exception only governs the excepted part of the rules. In general, you add a character's Perception modifier to their perception checks. If a character has a +2 to their perception, you add it.

Other people should be leaving the table if they were as high strung about it as you are if they didn't get their +2, because they very much have that +2. The dwarven racial is just not as good as the other perception racials. I don't know why you think you are entitled for every one of the racial traits for your race selection to be equal to or greater than another race's... that's not how it works.

[Hakken]

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=324?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#16169

james Jacobs---creative director said on Feb 27th 2012

Quote:

2) The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps.

dwarves are given this ability on stone traps.

[Winter_Born]

No non-Dwarf is getting a Passive take 10 for secret doors at my table. It's paramount to giving them all the racial ability. They don't ask, they don't use the skill.

Which is fine as a GM if you're ok with skewing the balance, it's your game. But it's a house rule, at best.

Hakken's James Jacobs quote wraps this one up quite nicely.

[setzer9999]

Yes, we've established that RAW you have to tell your GM that you want to make a check... I already agreed... hell, I pointed that out in my first post here. Not all RAW really works at the table, however... if you really want to make characters be idiots at noticing things because players are distracted, then you should also have the decency to remind them to make the perception rolls you are constantly asking them to have to consciously make.

Running it that you make players always have to ask to use Perception:
RAW yes.
Metagaming beyond acceptability? Yes.

If I were playing at a table where I knew that was the case, I'd just ask to roll perception every second out of combat. I can try again after all, at no penalty. If the GM complains or tries to swat me down for it, I'd kindly remind him that he created this circumstance by forcing me to ask when to roll instead of being balanced enough to either tell me when there is observable stimulus to roll against, or make checks for me.

If that wasn't agreeable, I'd have no interest in that table, because having to constantly metagame when to roll perception checks instead of my character, who is an adventurer far beyond my skills, should get the use of his perception skill, and not have it yanked away from him because I didn't ask to make a roll. It just doesn't make any sense in practice.

[Hakken]

so if you treat every other character as having the exact same abilities as the dwarf and rogue have? What is the advantage of the rogue and dwarf in having those?

I may decide that I want every character to have a "favored enemy" cause after all wouldn't every character have an enemy they hated more?

if you want to go against RAW--at least do it like John did----let them all have passive--but then give the rogue and dwarf over and above that---to once again make their "traits" be important. Then you can speed up your game as you want---AND still make the rogue and dwarf traits relevant.

In my game---I would let the players tell me---we are always searching for traps and secret doors unless we tell you different. Then I would assign either 2 or 3 times the length to go through the dungeon. You don't have to always say it then---but you actively looking for those traps or doors is slower than a rogue or a dwarf could do by simply walking by them. There is SOME benefit to having those traits after all.

[Winter_Born]

Like I said feel free to house rule it. But you are giving players a dwarf racial without compensating any dwarf players.

And I'd say if you are constantly searching for secret doors, your meta gaming is set to 11, and I'd not allow that form of punitive behavior. There's no reason to always think that there are such rare things as secret doors everywhere you are. If you've hit a dead end, and have a reason to think there may be one, that would be different.

This being the rules forum, RAW is all we were looking for anyway.

[setzer9999]

Again... no, I would not detail my entire approach to a basic game mechanic around a specific ability for a particular race or class. That's what I called throwing the baby out with the bathwater previously.

I don't think metagaming is set to 11 for someone who is in a creepy underground cave in a world where it is common knowledge that there is magic, horrible monsters, and the like... I'd say it's pretty damned ridiculous if a character were not looking about himself under such conditions. If you are a professional adventurer, you really think that you shouldn't be looking for traps and secret doors as you explore a ruin or a cave looking for evil beings to slay and/or treasure/secrets to unearth?

You certainly aren't guaranteed to see such things, and I wouldn't like playing at a table where I felt like I had to roll over and over and over... I'd like the GM to actually only allow me one check until the circumstance changes, even though that's not RAW... but always let me have my check.

[Winter_Born]

Sorry you cannot assume any player actions because they are trained adventurers. That just sets up all kinds of ridiculous arguments of "well a well trained adventurer would have known that"

You do what you say you do. The end. You have to roll over and over to see if you hit as well.

[Knight Magenta]

How I understand it:

PCs enter a dungeon, and say "we are moving carefully." Everyone gets perception checks to spot anything interesting, like traps or secret doors. They can choose to take 10, or I will ask them to roll periodically. They also move at half speed.

PCs are wandering through a town. they pass under the Arch of Victory. Unknown to them, the arch has a trap built in that will trigger then the PCs walk under it (They made enemies of a powerful wizard). Here, only the dwarf and the rogue with Trap spotter would get a perception check.

[setzer9999]

With the exception that "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."

Based on this, everyone should always get a take 10 on anything that is even possible to notice. Otherwise, this means the GM is ruling that the thing wasn't actually an observable stimulus, in which case NO ONE should be able to perceive it at all.

[Heaven's Agent]

Winter_Born wrote:

And I'd say if you are constantly searching for secret doors, your meta gaming is set to 11, and I'd not allow that form of punitive behavior. There's no reason to always think that there are such rare things as secret doors everywhere you are. If you've hit a dead end, and have a reason to think there may be one, that would be different.

This being the rules forum, RAW is all we were looking for anyway.

Ah, but being able to constantly search for doors is within the RAW. You cannot have it both ways: disallowing that behavior, metagaming or no, is also a violation of the RAW. So how do you propose the situation be rectified?

[Winter_Born]

Heaven's Agent wrote:

Winter_Born wrote:

And I'd say if you are constantly searching for secret doors, your meta gaming is set to 11, and I'd not allow that form of punitive behavior. There's no reason to always think that there are such rare things as secret doors everywhere you are. If you've hit a dead end, and have a reason to think there may be one, that would be different.

This being the rules forum, RAW is all we were looking for anyway.

Ah, but being able to constantly search for doors is within the RAW. You cannot have it both ways: disallowing that behavior, metagaming or no, is also a violation of the RAW. So how do you propose the situation be rectified?

I require my PCs to not meta game. This is a house rule. They can roll all day long RAW.

I readily admit that. The poster above was going to roll constantly to spite his GM which would get no love at my table for violating Wheton's Law.

[Heaven's Agent]

Winter_Born wrote:

I require my PCs to not meta game. This is a house rule. They can roll all day long RAW.

I readily admit that. The poster above was going to roll constantly to spite his GM which would get no love at my table for violating Wheton's Law.

But as you stated, this is the rules forum. The RAW is all that matters here. So, how would you deal with someone who desired to roll a Perception check for traps and doors every 5 feet?

EDIT As an aside, how would you deal with a dwarf PC who doesn't actively look for traps in a dungeon because they have their racial ability. That's metagaming as well.

[setzer9999]

Again... how is it metagaming for someone who is a professional adventurer/tomb raider to make a perception check more than once? Why can't I be cautious in such a dangerous situation?

Not making multiple perception checks is basically saying that you enter the crazy chamber in the cave where you just fought some nasty monster... a cave which you have been told is full of some cult's foul taint from ancient times or some other form of madness... and even though there are creepy columns, spooky dead ends, strange carvings all along the walls, statues, pits, and other things which are observable at a 0 DC... that my savvy adventurer character should spend all of 6 seconds looking about the room before being satisfied that nothing could possibly be amiss here?

Come on... that's not metagaming. Maybe if I was playing a character that was supposed to be a buffoon, I'd be violating that rule. If I'm supposed to be a successful adventurer, not rolling a couple of times when entering a clearly dangerous place would be metagaming of a sort... to speed things along for us comfortable, attention-span-challenged players out here at the expense of our character's safety and caution that he would not forgo so easily.

[darkwhisper]

I generally prefer to handle Perception checks as such:

Everyone is assumed to be taking 10 all of the time. Most of the time, people aren't very alert, so the DC's for their Perception checks increase by 5, although I usually just simulate this by giving the Perception check a -5 penalty instead. This assumes an average level of alertness that people maintain in everyday activity.

If they have a decent reason to be alert (guards on duty and not bored, adventurers moving through an area that is reasonably dangerous i.e. a dungeon, and so on), then that distraction penalty disappears. This represents a heightened level of alertness. The subject is trying to be aware of their environment, but there is nothing immediately threatening that would force them to a higher state of alertness. This is a state that most creatures can maintain for extended periods of time, but eventually need to drop to a lower level to rest.

Finally, if there is some reason that a creature is actively trying to search their environment, either for threats or something difficult to notice, I have them roll checks. At this point, they're actively scanning the environment with their senses, trying hard to find something out of place or unusual. This is also where instinctual mechanisms such as 'fight or flight' kick in and the subject has perceived some danger and is attempting to react to it. This level of alertness is the highest for most creatures and cannot be maintained for very long, as it is tiring. Without constant input from a source of perceived danger, eventually any creature will slip down into a lower state, no matter how much it is trying to keep actively searching.

For the question of dwarven stonecunning, I'd let the dwarf take the better of the take 10 or a roll. Most of the time, traps aren't seen with passive perception, so the roll is going to make the difference, but at least they don't feel like they have to risk being less perceptive compared to a non-dwarf.

However, I rarely use traps, as unless they're incorporated into a combat encounter or a large and intricate, they usually just boil down to a skill check for the party member that might've specialized in it, the spellcaster casting a spell to bypass it, or someone eating it. After that the party either moves on, or spends time dealing with the effects of the trap for a lot longer than is really entertaining.

[JohnF]

So why is everybody getting so bent out of shape about speeding up game play?

PRD wrote:

DC 20 for a typical secret door to DC 30 for a well-hidden secret door

So nobody is going to find even an average secret door with a "take 10" passive perception check unless they have at least a +10 perception modifier (including any situational bonus). If it's a well-hidden door, they're going to need +20. Active checks can achieve that (especially with the help of 'Guidance', 'Aid Another', and similar modifiers), but it's not really likely that a passive check will (or at least not until the characters have got to a level where they should have better things to challenge them than searching for a secret door).

A Pathfinder session is ideally a co-operative exercise involving the GM and the players. A GM who insists on treating his players' characters as idiots unless explicitly directed otherwise so that he can impose penalties on them when the players forget to do something seems to be instead treating the session as "GM vs. players".

[darkwhisper]

Quote:

A Pathfinder session is ideally a co-operative exercise involving the GM and the players. A GM who insists on treating his players' characters as idiots unless explicitly directed otherwise so that he can impose penalties on them when the players forget to do something seems to be instead treating the session as "GM vs. players".

Just read through a Dungeoncraft article in an old issue of Dungeon, Issue 118, written by Monte Cook. He spoke about two styles of DM, the Referee and the Guide, and their combination, the Compromise. He speaks about how the Referee is more than just an impartial master who lets the players move about the world, affected by their choices and they must deal with the outcomes. It's not necessarily about punishing players for not searching for secret doors everywhere they go. It's about letting the players feel some level of real accomplishment for achieving what they did or didn't do. I'm not saying that I think this is the best type of DMing style, nor is it mine, but rather that it is one and a valid one at that.

Not saying that Monte Cook is the god of roleplaying arbitration or anything, just that I had just read the article and this made me think of it.

Besides, well-done dungeon construction and sensical placement of things such as secret doors, traps, and other such features can be used to encourage players to search in such areas rather than forcing them to go room by room looking for things. I prefer a system using 'take 10' for things because it works more for my way of thinking rather than expediency.

[JohnF]

darkwhisper wrote:

Just read through a Dungeoncraft article in an old issue of Dungeon, Issue 118, written by Monte Cook. [ . . . ] It's about letting the players feel some level of real accomplishment for achieving what they did or didn't do. I'm not saying that I think this is the best type of DMing style, nor is it mine, but rather that it is one and a valid one at that.

Not saying that Monte Cook is the god of roleplaying arbitration or anything, just that I had just read the article and this made me think of it.

Thanks for the reference. My subscription to "Dungeon" lapsed around issue ninety-something, so I can't actually read the whole thing myself. But I'm sure Monte Cook had some interesting things to say. I might not agree with him 100% of the time, but he's usually worth reading.

On the particular point you quote I would agree with him. But I just don't think that a challenge that can be overcome by something as trivial as a "take 10" perception check is going to lead to much of a sense of real accomplishment, so I'm not going to worry too much about how that particular obstacle is surmounted.

[darkwhisper]

Quote:

On the particular point you quote I would agree with him. But I just don't think that a challenge that can be overcome by something as trivial as a "take 10" perception check is going to lead to much of a sense of real accomplishment, so I'm not going to worry too much about how that particular obstacle is surmounted.

The thing is, I doubt that there is much feeling of accomplishment to be earned at all in finding a secret door, no matter the DC. The idea is not about generating accomplishment for minor actions, but rather major ones.

On a slightly different note for a moment, why ever use a DC sufficiently low to be overcome by such a check? I've found that the same reasoning is found when throwing NPCs of low power at the players. Yes, they'll mop them up quickly, but every adventure needs ups and downs. Otherwise, everything is constant challenge and the PCs don't feel like they've become more powerful and everything becomes a slog-fest, or they seek to always throw those thoroughly trained in the skill or ability to overcome it. I've found it massively annoying that as the party progresses in level, that people are reluctant to speak to NPCs because they might have to make a Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc. check. The same goes for other skills, it's just most noticeable to me in social situations.

Back to the focus for the moment, in this situation, I find it more important to have a system that helps to simulate the ability of characters, not just PCs, to perceive and react to the world around them. The quote from Monte Cook is directed at the notion that making people follow the rules exactly is not necessarily derived from a desire to force a Player vs. DM mentality, but rather to generate a system of the rules that allows the players to shine on their own with or die trying. This is just one of the little nuances that helps to reinforce that the world follows certain immutable rules rather than generating a sense of accomplishment itself. While I do not necessarily agree with the entirety of the approach he outlined, I still find it a valid method of running a game.

[Jiggy]

*sigh*

James Jacobs, Creative Director:"The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps."

[setzer9999]

Jiggy wrote:

*sigh*

James Jacobs, Creative Director:"The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps."

This was already linked above. We are aware of the RAW.

It doesn't change the fact that Perception checks are an issue hugely impacted by metagaming if you have to tell the GM you want to make them all the time. By RAW, Perception is also supposed to grant you a reactive check (meaning you DON'T need to ask for it, per the nature of it being reactive) to observable stimuli.

If you rule that someone can't get their reactive check, then you are ruling that traps are not observable stimuli... which would mean that NO ONE could ever perceive it. The only way any of this makes sense is if you rule that only rogues and dwarves can even spot traps AT ALL because to anyone else, they are unrecognizable as traps, so they are not observable stimuli.

So, taken to its logical conclusion, you either have to rule that a trap or unique stonework element could never be percieved by anyone but a rogue or dwarf (respectively) (even on a rolled check!), or you have to allow anyone to get their reactive check... anything else is contradictory unto itself.

You can say its metagaming to ask for perception checks... but it is equally metagamey on the part of the GM to not grant a character a reactive check because the player didn't ask to roll.

[Chemlak]

My take on it is that characters effectively get passive Perception to notice things that are not actively hidden (exception: Stealth, depending on circumstances).

To detect things that are hidden, they either need a racial or class ability that lets them automatically check for the right type of hidden item (traps, stoneworked traps, whatever) or they have to actively search.

[Hakken]

I recognize the two different arguements going on here.

first--RAW vs not
second--even if recognizing it is not RAW wether all should be treated as getting passive and the rogue and dwarf advantage is just thrown away

for the first--I see it as RAW, but I won't argue with a GM who decides that traps are "observable stimulus" that will be his call to interpret

On the second--if the GM has determined that traps are observable stimulus and decides that they can be passively observed and gives everyone the same roll? I would argue that. now if they took JohnF's model and then at least acknowledged that yes dwarves and rogues should be better and therefore get an additional roll or bonus, then I would be ok also. But just to say---everyone has the same exact passive chance to notice traps or secret doors? no, I would argue. you want to make the raw rule on observable vs not--fine. But to totally throw out RAW and say the dwarf or rogue passive advanatage is completely nulled is BS. that is part of the advantage of being that class or race. Like I said---give everyone the extra feat or extra skills advantage of humans. Or give every single race Keen senses. then the races that had those are like "hmmm guess it wasnt a racial feature that was special after all"

so the take 10 passive perception could be ruled as the players telling the GM, instead of saying we are searching for doors and traps all the time can we just assume that we are unless we say different---then instead of rolling each time---he assumes they role a 10. ok fine---BUT the dwarf or rogue should have an advantage still. It is part of what they are.

[JohnF]

Jiggy wrote:

*sigh*

James Jacobs, Creative Director:"The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps."

If you're going to quote a rule, at least quote the whole thing.

PRD wrote:

Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.

(emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, that's not conclusive here. While it is definitive support in RAW for the GM making a perception check for the player, there are two possible ways this could be argued

• A rogues Trap Spotter and the Dwarven Secret Door detection are so similar that rules for one indicate how the other should be handled.
  
• Because there is an explicit mention of the GM rolling for the player in Trap Spotter, but no such statement about Secret Door detection, the GM can not roll for the player.
  

So at present it's still probably going to be handled different ways at different tables.

[Banecrow]

Wow my question started a big debate lol.

First off Hakken wow you must really love dwarfs. I can understand likeing a race and getting behind them but wow lol. There is also no way you can get away with saying that by giving others a take 10 it makes dwarves weaker than other races. Dwarves are the only 11pt standard race, the others are all 8-10.

From reading this discussion what I decided to do is go with the passive perception check but ONLY for secret doors and hidden objects such as treasure and such, but give dwarf players a d20 roll if passive fails as long as it is in stone. Passive checks will not do any good vs traps as there is a specific rogue talent for that.

The idea is to not have the players miss so much if they are involved in role playing vs ROLL playing. Should cut down on the dice rolls unless players think there is something there and decide to take the time to actually look.