One of the PCs in my campaing claims that to make a perception check he only needs to roll once when he enters the room to know everything there is to know.
Tonight he entered a room and rolled a high perception check but didn't specify what he was loking for. He recons that with this one roll he should have seen both the secret doors, the trap at the fake door and any bonus details (what do I see/hear/smell/feel?)
I beleve that he should have to roll seperately for each one (mabey not for the smell but certainly the others) as while looking for a monster you may miss the trip wire or pressure plate. While looking for a secrete door you may not notice the secrete message in the mural ect.
This is potentially difficult to adjudicate and is partly caused by the combining of two skills from v3.5. Previously an individual would have spotted something and searched for something.
Technically, RAW, each PC should be rolled in secret for each item. In practice, at the table this is slow and boring. Pre-rolling may be an option, but then there's a risk of deux-ex-machina as you already know whether the PCs will discover something or not and subconsciously play the game with that result in mind. Alternatively, you could get the PCs to roll but then they will know there is something to look for that they have missed, they will also know if they've rolled well or not. Again rolling for each item would also be tedious. You could take the view that a Take 10 is automatically taken, but this falls back into deux-ex-machina again, you will know ahead of time whether something will be spotted or not and be tempted to adjust DCs accordingly.
I give every hidden item a spot and a search DC. To give your example the trap at the fake door might be DC40 to spot, but only DC20 if actively searching in that area. I also allow each PC to roll once per round to spot (I do this at the start of the round and announce during their turn). If a player says they are searching an item or area, I roll in secret. In practice I've found the regular rolling has diminished the impact of high/low rolling.
I would say it's probably best to talk through with your group how they would like to play perception and between you agree on a method that works for your group.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does rolling the die five times instead of once make the game more enjoyable?
probably 10 minutes per square).
What kind of search are you doing that takes ten minutes to search a five-foot square? And how does this make the game more enjoyable?
(In 3.5, searching a 5-foot square explicitly took one full-round action. You're off by a factor of 100 here.)
probably 10 minutes per square).What kind of search are you doing that takes ten minutes to search a five-foot square? And how does this make the game more enjoyable?
(In 3.5, searching a 5-foot square explicitly took one full-round action. You're off by a factor of 100 here.)
He is taking 100 I think (take 20 is only 20 rounds).
Since he takes 20 x minutes (each minute is take 20).
One of the PCs in my campaign claims that to make a Perception check he only needs to roll once when he enters the room to know everything there is to know.
Tonight he entered a room and rolled a high Perception check but didn't specify what he was looking for. He recons that with this one roll he should have seen both the secret doors, the trap at the fake door and any bonus details (what do I see/hear/smell/feel?)
I believe that he should have to roll separately for each one (maybe not for the smell but certainly the others) as while looking for a monster you may miss the trip wire or pressure plate. While looking for a secrete door you may not notice the secrete message in the mural etc.
That seems simple and intuitive to me. My players and I do something similar, though it usually begins with one or more of my players specifically asking me if anything stands out, and then making their Perception checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perception works on a simple obvious basis. Anything that is intentionally hid requires a direct interest with the object/area in question. for example.
You walk into my spacious study, and note several floor to ceiling book shelfs, an area rug over polished hardwood floors, a bright fire in a small fireplace to chase away the damp, and two fluffy chairs turned to face the fireplace. Over the mantle is a landscape scene, and a family portrait brackets the exposed chimney on the left, with several family portraits on the right. The air smells strangely of clove, though other subtler aromas are noticable.
no perception check. that is what you see, hear, feel entering the room.
Now, You need to go to the wall, remove the family painting to find the wall safe. you would have to go to the book shelves and inspect them to note that the center one is subtly higher than the rest, and slides back and to the side on a ceiling track, exposing a walk-in closet.
Furthermore, an extensive, detailed search (and a knowledge: local/history check may be in order as well) to note that the family portraits are out of order, a sequence that indicates the wall safe's combination.
now, there is always the passive check perception check. Rogues are specifically trained for this stuff, etc. If you don't, I suggest you play with at least 4 perceptions for each character behind your screen (they roll it, 3x5 notecards work well for this, and initiative as well to lubricate combat, especially the surprise rounds) to make the check for your characters without cluing them in that there is something to look for.
It sounds like the player is just looking to get himself the edge against you, thus you can't 'surprise' him.
And as for Roberta Yang, I know several player types that pursue perception and other skills to be challenged and successful. If you glom over that part of the game, or simplify something to just one check for everything, you are actually removing the enjoyment for characters pursuing that exact effort in their character build.
In the above example, I would give a group the room description, including overt sensory information. If they just 'nothing here.' and walk out, their loss. They may figure they missed something later in which case, maybe they learn their lesson.
I would then single out rogue/roguish characters, and use one of their passive perceptions. They know what to look for, far more than other classes.
Then comes the "we search the room." statement, giving them all a roll, and I'll usually divvy up each hidden point of the room with an arbitrary DC. Say the wall safe is pretty standard shtick, 15, hanging bookshelf 19, pictures a 21 or 22 with an immediate knowledge check to identify the family order. (if that fails I would tell them the arrangement looks odd, with children over elderly couples, along side young men and women.)
That way the group all works together, they all get a shot, and instead of one character always 'seeing' everything, you can give parts of the puzzle to each player, rewarding them for being successful too.
And that, is enjoyable for everyone, on several levels.
For rolling in secret, do you roll once for each PC (adding their bonuses to each of their rolls), or do you roll once and apply each PC's bonus to that one roll and then check the individual totals against the DC?
For example, you know that Matt has a +3, Jon a +6, and Mike a +9 perception, and the DC of a secret door they are passing is 15.
Do you roll 1d20+3, 1d20+6, 1d20+9 and see if any of them hits 15, or
Do you roll 1d20, take the total (let's say 10 in this case) and look at 10+3, 10+6, 10+9?
The latter seems much more time-efficient, but some might view it as being unfair, since one low roll on the part of the DM would hurt everybody. The chance of at least one person spotting the secret door on a single d20 roll is going to be lower than the chance for at least one person to spot the door with 3 rolls. How do you handle this? Do you do something completely different?
|
It's a bit like wanting to open a chest with 3 locks with 1 disable device check.
Perception isn't different.
You get a "general view" as one roll.
You get a "specific view" as one roll (whether it's an object, a search of the room, or whatever else; a search is not the same as the general view - this might be where the confusion is).
It's not always commonly understood in D&D/Pathfinder that players have to specifically say they want to take a closer look at something before the character is actually doing it. Clarify this; it might fix the problem to some degree.
Perhaps this will help show how it was meant to be played out?
(as shown in the Core Rulebook)
The GM is running a group of four players through their latest adventure. They are playing Seelah (a human paladin), Ezren (a human wizard), Harsk (a dwarf ranger) and Lem (a half ling bard). The four adventurers are exploring the ruins of an ancient keep, after hearing rumors that there are great treasures to be found in its musty vaults. As the adventurers make their way toward the crumbling edifice, they cross an ancient stone bridge. After describing the scene, the GM asks the players what they want to do.
Harsk: Let’s keep moving. I don’t like the look of this place. I draw my crossbow and load it.
Seelah: Agreed. I draw my sword, just in case.
Ezren: I’m going to cast light so that we can see where we’re going.
GM: Alright, a flickering glow springs up from your hand, illuminating the area.
Lem: I’d like to keep a lookout, just to make sure there are no monsters nearby.
The GM consults his notes about this part of the adventure and realizes that there are indeed some monsters nearby, and that the PCs have walked into their trap.
GM: Lem, could you roll a Perception check?
Lem rolls a d20 and gets a 12. He then consults his character
sheet to find his bonus on Perception skill checks, which turns out
to be a +6.
Lem: I got an 18. What do I see?
GM: As you turn around, you spot six dark shapes moving up behind you. As they enter the light from Ezren’s spell, you can tell that they’re skeletons, marching onto the bridge wearing rusting armor and waving ancient swords.
Lem: Guys, I think we have a problem.
GM: You do indeed. Can I get everyone to roll initiative?
...
For a plethora of other examples, read any adventure module published by Paizo. There are countless instances where the adventures instruct the GM to either make Perception checks for the players, or otherwise have the players make Perception checks.
|
For rolling in secret, do you roll once for each PC (adding their bonuses to each of their rolls), or do you roll once and apply each PC's bonus to that one roll and then check the individual totals against the DC?
For example, you know that Matt has a +3, Jon a +6, and Mike a +9 perception, and the DC of a secret door they are passing is 15.
Do you roll 1d20+3, 1d20+6, 1d20+9 and see if any of them hits 15, or
Do you roll 1d20, take the total (let's say 10 in this case) and look at 10+3, 10+6, 10+9?The latter seems much more time-efficient, but some might view it as being unfair, since one low roll on the part of the DM would hurt everybody. The chance of at least one person spotting the secret door on a single d20 roll is going to be lower than the chance for at least one person to spot the door with 3 rolls. How do you handle this? Do you do something completely different?
It depend on how they are going around doing it. Generally I prefer the aid another option when most of the party members are searching a location unless they are doing wildly different things, like one checking the desk drawers for traps and another searching the far wall for secret doors or other interesting stuff.
Against hidden enemies it is always a individual roll.
This has all been very useful and proved to be very helpful for me. I will be bearing this all in mind for my next session.
One of the PCs in my campaing claims that to make a perception check he only needs to roll once when he enters the room to know everything there is to know.
Tonight he entered a room and rolled a high perception check but didn't specify what he was loking for. He recons that with this one roll he should have seen both the secret doors, the trap at the fake door and any bonus details (what do I see/hear/smell/feel?)
I beleve that he should have to roll seperately for each one (mabey not for the smell but certainly the others) as while looking for a monster you may miss the trip wire or pressure plate. While looking for a secrete door you may not notice the secrete message in the mural ect.
In my opinion, and the way I would run it. His initial perception would give him the overview of the room, and if high enough any "hidden" monsters, or trap right in front of the door. The things he is obviously looking for initially. If he beat the DC by 10 or double he would notice the something odd with fake door, and whatever is hiding the secret doors.
Next time he complains, for the next room just start describing everything in the room, and then start making up stuff like stains on the floor, cobwebs in the corners, a mouse scurrying around, beetles scattering from the light, dust on the table, and on and on and on, do this before you get to anything of interest. spend five to ten minutes describing things.
If the first room doesn't annoy them, the second should.
|
The way I run it, perception can be used reactivity when the GM asks a player to check if he can see or hear something, or it can be used pro-actively when a player announces they want to actively search a room or something similar.
Never allow a player to roll dice without first announcing an in-game action. "I search for hidden doors" is an in-game action. "I make a Perception check" is a meta-game action. Let your players know that if they do the latter the roll is invalid. The player announces the in-game action; the GM determines the corresponding meta-game action. In the above example, the GM might have a good in-game reason to rule that Knowledge (Engineering) is more appropriate than Perception for an unusually designed building. The GM should ask for a particular check before any dice get rolled. You are well within your right to say "I haven't called for a die roll, I'm ignoring what you just did".
Nice thread, and some very good advice being given, here.
Generally speaking, I allow some generic information as a "reactive" Perception check - the things you notice when you first look in a room. Such a check also covers immediately noticing anything that is actively hiding (which is pretty much just creatures using Stealth). For items and objects that are difficult to see (secret doors, traps and the like), proactive Perception rolls are used (exception: racial abilities that allow automatic rolls) if the players say that they are searching the room.
Things I bear in mind:
A 10x10x10 room takes 8 PC-rounds to search (traps exist in ceilings too). If each PC is searching one area (and if they specify that area), they may check once for that area. (For the purposes of this, an "area" is any number of 5x5x5 cubes, contiguous or not). These are unmodified Perception rolls by each PC. This takes an amount of time equal to the number of 5x5x5 cubes in the room divided by the number of PCs.
If the party as a whole just "search the room", I assign a -1 penalty to the rolls per full 20 foot of any dimension in the room. The party are looking all around, fairly quickly, and may get in each others way a little. The normal -1 per 10 feet applies if you're tracking the precise positions of the characters in the room - when ad hoccing to account for unmapped movement, the penalty reduces but is not eliminated entirely in larger rooms. This takes an amount of time equal to the number of 5x5x5 cubes in the room divided by the number of PCs.
If each member of the party searches the whole room, a check is made unmodified by distance, but takes the full time (equal to the number of 5x5x5 cubes in the room), regardless of the number of PCs involved.
At the end of the day, for any single room, at most 2 Perception rolls are needed for each character. The option to Take 20 exists, with the commensurate increase in time to complete the search.
Should a player decide to investigate a single object or 5x5x5 cube in more depth, they always have the option to roll for that space alone, but will never learn less than they did in the holistic search.
[Edited to clarify time taken]
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all you've done is open the door and looked into a room, there is a lot you might notice. The dagger in a desk drawer is not one of them. I'm fairly certain you have to open that specific drawer to even have a chance of noticing there's a dagger in it.
In general, anything and everything that is noticeable, even if disguised or hidden (but still in LOS), can be spotted on a single Perception check. Anything else requires a specific attempt at searching, and some of those things may involve multiple rolls. If a player says he wants to search the entire room, I'll only ask for a single check. If there are multiple items hidden, each with a different DC, I'll let that single check have a chance to find everything, unless for some reason one of those items couldn't be found the same way as the others. For example, you searched the room and found the dagger in the desk drawer, but would need to examine the dagger specifically to notice the family crest on the pommel is unusual.
Also, a strict reading would imply one check per stimulus:
Most perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.For those not familiar with latin-root words, "stimulus" is singular, "stimuli" is plural.
I will usually allow a single reactive Perception for everything I think is "obvious".
If you want to find something that's intentionally hidden & doesn't give off obvious evidence of its presence, you must specifically search for it. Or at least spend time doing an exhaustive search (say at least a minute per square, probably 10 minutes per square)
Now while I agree with what you what you said about the Perception Checks to find Obvious vs non-Obvious things, I do have a complaint about your interpretation of the Latin version of that the PFC. Well, Sort of.
The Word MOST at the beginning of that sentence basically means "Not ALL" and therefor it really doesn't matter what comes after because there are exceptions to it. Its not 100% of the cases, and you're talking about it like it is. Most can mean 50.1%. So there is alot of possible wiggle room in there.