What *is* the area you can search wtih Perception in one move action?


Rules Questions

151 to 177 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Correct.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Assuming this is made into a FAQ isn't PFS obligated to follow the FAQ?

I would surely hope it's not made into the FAQ.

Things that aren't broken don't need fixing.

If it is, I would seriously have to reconsider my involvement in PFS.

And, yes, that's speaking as an experienced GM, not just a casual comment.


Jeff Merola wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Where did you get that information from?
Blog post. Only the new classes are being made PFS legal, nothing else from the book is.

The blog post does not say that as far as I can tell.

Many of the new additions will not be introduced into PFS. The blog did not say that only classes are making the transition. The FAQ/errata regarding perception was not specifically mentioned one way or the other.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm also, clearly, not alone in my assessment.

Many experienced posters and GMs, in this thread, have similarly concluded that this new suggestion is terrible.

I would hope that fact isn't ignored, if an FAQ is being considered.

Grand Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Where did you get that information from?
Blog post. Only the new classes are being made PFS legal, nothing else from the book is.

The blog post does not say that as far as I can tell.

Many of the new additions will not be introduced into PFS. The blog did not say that only classes are making the transition. The FAQ/errata regarding perception was not specifically mentioned one way or the other.

Lemme quote it for you:

Quote:
As intriguing as the many new skill options look, imposing consolidated skills, grouped skills, or background skills would just be too disruptive for a campaign in its seventh year.

Edit: Now, I don't have the book, so I suppose the Perception thing might not be part of the skill options, but that seems highly unlikely.

And the entire blog post was about how "These things all looked neat, but we aren't going to use them."


Nefreet wrote:

I'm also, clearly, not alone in my assessment.

Many experienced posters and GMs, in this thread, have similarly concluded that this new suggestion is terrible.

I would hope that fact isn't ignored, if an FAQ is being considered.

Well, I think the perception rules, in general, are terrible. I'm not at all sure this makes them worse, though I'm not sure it's an improvement.

They seem fine at first glance, but the deeper you look, the uglier they seem.


Jeff Merola wrote:

Edit: Now, I don't have the book, so I suppose the Perception thing might not be part of the skill options, but that seems highly unlikely.

And the entire blog post was about how "These things all looked neat, but we aren't going to use them."

I also don't have the book, but I don't see how Perception would factor into any of those listed skill groups. Consolidated? Grouped? Background? Sounds like a major revamp to how the skill system works, rather than just a FAQ/errata to how the current perception skill is supposed to work.

Here's what was said about the skill section:

Quote:
As intriguing as the many new skill options look, imposing consolidated skills, grouped skills, or background skills would just be too disruptive for a campaign in its seventh year.

Does that sound like what we've been told about perception? In what way would altering the perception mechanics be disruptive to long-running campaigns (other than some people not liking it)? It appears they are talking about much more significant changes to how skills themselves work.

Grand Lodge

From earlier in the thread, the new rule on Perception is explicitly found in the Consolidated Skills section.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

One move action searches everything within line of sight, with DCs modified for distance.

It wasn't left out of the Core Rulebook at all. It's defined under the Perception skill.

That's not quite what Perception actually says. It says
Perception wrote:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
with an absence of what area is covered by said move action to intentionally search for stimulus.

It also leaves out any idea of what isn't an observable stimulis. Technically the rogue trap-spotting talent does nothing because reading this you should be able to reactively see the trap.


Jeff Merola wrote:
From earlier in the thread, the new rule on Perception is explicitly found in the Consolidated Skills section.

Thanks, found it. Guess it all depends, then, if it shows up in a FAQ.


I'll be honest - I am happy that in my games the definition of how large a move action search actually takes isn't a big deal.

As a GM I'm happy that I have an easy way to calculate how long it takes to search a room.

As a player I'm glad that I'm not subject to arbitrary and vastly different rules on how long it takes, as we have now.

As a PFS player I'm doubly glad for the last part if it gets an official FAQ. The biggest issue I have with PFS right now is when you sit down at a table and find that GM#1 dose it different than GM#2. I'm pretty sure based on the number of PFS threads trying to get rulings on weird edge cases I'm not alone in this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, if it becomes a FAQ on consolidated skills in Unchained, then it will not effect PFS, as they are not using those rules.


Considering that the reasoning they mentioned in the blog post doesn't seem to apply to this tweak, I wouldn't be surprised if PFS eventually started using the new search rules.


Jeff Merola wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Where did you get that information from?
Blog post. Only the new classes are being made PFS legal, nothing else from the book is.

That thing about perception is not considered to be a new rule however because it is not a house rule like the rest of the book. It is an old rule that has yet to be printed. If this was just some new suggestion on how to run perception then this thread would not even be needed.

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.

[/thread]

Where did you get that information from?
Blog post. Only the new classes are being made PFS legal, nothing else from the book is.
That thing about perception is not considered to be a new rule however because it is not a house rule like the rest of the book. It is an old rule that has yet to be printed. If this was just some new suggestion on how to run perception then this thread would not even be needed.

Except that, and someone who has the book can correct me if I'm wrong, the rule is included only in the "Consolidated Skills" alternate system rules. It is not yet a rule that exists outside of that system.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Except that, and someone who has the book can correct me if I'm wrong, the rule is included only in the "Consolidated Skills" alternate system rules. It is not yet a rule that exists outside of that system.

You seem to be latched onto that "consolidated skills" thing.

Clearly the dev quote was saying that it's too much of a re-write to COMBINE (consolidate) multiple skills into new versions of the entire skill system, forcing every character to ret-con their existing skills into a new way of doing things.

That doesn't in any way preclude them from saying "But, this CLARIFICATION and/or INCLUSION of an accidental oversight that happens to be in this section but has nothing to do with SKILL CONSOLIDATION[I] will actually be used as [i]it was originally intended when we accidentally omitted it in the CRB - so let's make an official FAQ for it."

I'm not saying they will or won't. I'm only saying that an official remark that they won't force an entirely new consolidated skill system on a 7-year-old campaign has NOTHING to do with them creating a FAQ or errata to fix a 7-year-old accidental (and non-consolidating) oversight.

It's sometimes a mistake to rules-lawyer printed rules, but it's far more often a mistake to rules-lawyer someone's casual comments on a blog or forum post.

Grand Lodge

DM_Blake, an FAQ or Errata to the core (or PFS) rules is completely separate from what's being discussed, which would be the forced inclusion of a rule from an optional book. Some people felt that PFS would directly include such a rule outright, as is, without an FAQ. I'm saying that until such time as an FAQ (or another blog post, or a post by John or Mike) is made, it's not being included in PFS.

I will also go on the record to state that a "clarification and/or inclusion of an accidental oversight" of the core rules in an alternate rules system in a book 6 or so years down the line is actually a really bad place to put it if it's intended to be a general change to how the CRB works. That should be at least an FAQ, and then shifted to errata for the next printing.

Edit: Also, PFS blog posts are printed rules for PFS, as are messageboard posts by John Compton and Mike Brock.


Jeff Merola wrote:

DM_Blake, an FAQ or Errata to the core (or PFS) rules is completely separate from what's being discussed, which would be the forced inclusion of a rule from an optional book. Some people felt that PFS would directly include such a rule outright, as is, without an FAQ. I'm saying that until such time as an FAQ (or another blog post, or a post by John or Mike) is made, it's not being included in PFS.

I will also go on the record to state that a "clarification and/or inclusion of an accidental oversight" of the core rules in an alternate rules system in a book 6 or so years down the line is actually a really bad place to put it if it's intended to be a general change to how the CRB works. That should be at least an FAQ, and then shifted to errata for the next printing.

Edit: Also, PFS blog posts are printed rules for PFS, as are messageboard posts by John Compton and Mike Brock.

No rule clarification is official until it is an FAQ or errata. Nobody is denying that. What I am saying is that the rule in the unchained book was supposed to be in the CRB, so it is the official intent. Once it is made into an FAQ or errata it will be officially a core rule.

In other words this is not an unchained rule. It is a core rule that we just has not been printed.

When it shows up it will not be in the Unchained book FAQ list it still be in the CRB FAQ list.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
In other words this is not an unchained rule. It is a core rule that we just has not been printed.

I'm skeptical of that.

They've had many years, and multiple printings of the Core Rulebook, to address it. Or, heck, even mention it, in a forum post, or a blog.

But now, with the release of a new book, they finally decide to change the most used skill in the game?

I don't buy it.

This would be a flat out change of the rules. Pure and simple.


Nefreet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In other words this is not an unchained rule. It is a core rule that we just has not been printed.

I'm skeptical of that.

They've had many years, and multiple printings of the Core Rulebook, to address it. Or, heck, even mention it, in a forum post, or a blog.

But now, with the release of a new book, they finally decide to change the most used skill in the game?

I don't buy it.

This would be a flat out change of the rules. Pure and simple.

That is hardly unprecendented. The Paragon Surge change was a very clear errata masquerading as a FAQ for example.


Nefreet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In other words this is not an unchained rule. It is a core rule that we just has not been printed.

I'm skeptical of that.

They've had many years, and multiple printings of the Core Rulebook, to address it. Or, heck, even mention it, in a forum post, or a blog.

But now, with the release of a new book, they finally decide to change the most used skill in the game?

I don't buy it.

This would be a flat out change of the rules. Pure and simple.

It would not be much different than them seeing us make the "wrong" monk with the flurry of blows rules, and never stepping in.

We might see it as a change in the rules, but they dont see it that way, and the bonus to ability scores not stacking has some crazy unwritten rule we were supposed to understand, and that just came about last year.

Length of time is not a barrier. We even have a dev basically saying "that was the intent all along". Him replying to my post is was based on "intent" not a "rules change".

Read this post if you missed it


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why this seems to be intentional:

Marks post

Text:

Quote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Quote:


Belafon wrote:
Quote:


Cheapy wrote:

I seem to recall that was the consensus like 3 years ago when this came up before, huh.

Consensus represents the majority viewpoint. It doesn't prevent a vocal minority from continuing to advocate an opposing view.

On that note I kinda wish this FAQ had addressed the other "take 10" class feature that some posters are passionate about - whether the Skill Mastery Advance Rogue Talent allows you to take 10 on UMD checks. Would be nice to reduce the list of contentious skill questions to "how long does a perception check take."

Logan managed to get in some helpful text for that last one into one of the Unchained skills section, since he had to rewrite a bunch of skill text anyway, if I recall correctly. Yay Logan!

And...

Mark Seifter wrote:

That is certainly one perspective on the matter, but the existence of distance modifiers is necessary for a variety of other things (like noticing someone trailing you from a distance), so it takes a leap to assume that this is meant to imply an unlimited area (particularly since the -1 per 10 feet of distance originally came from the description of the Spot skill in 3.5, which wasn't even about search areas). Now, granted, it takes a much stronger leap to choose any particular area, since such was left out of the skill accidentally. I suggest that you check out Logan's skill sections in Unchained for a more thorough treatment of this aspect of the Perception skill; it should help clear things up, hopefully!

Regardless of if there is an official FAQ - that would depend on the number of people who click the FAQ button (to my understanding this isn't the first post to ask the question for some reason I recall the last one actually having quite a few clicks - I may be wrong).

Regardless - the search area based on these comments seems to be a 'non-unchained rule' as the extra text was pointed to as a general answer to the same question twice.

*edit*

And as other posters have mentioned - if this is a general answer to a CRB issue then it really *does* need to be a FAQ - PFS can adopt or ignore it all they want but as others mentioned earlier in the thread - there shouldn't be a clarification to a CRB rule that requires an extra book to buy - and this isn't being offered as an optional rule - but a clarification of the existing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It seems to me that defining the amount of time IC a skill check requires (by area searched) is not a bad thing.

I use 1 roll (or take 10, or take 20) for a room, regardless of how many 5 ft. squares or 10 ft. squares it has. The definition simply provides the length of time that search/perception check took.

Having someone roll ten checks for each 10 ft. square in a hallway as they walk down it would be madness. But knowing that a move action covers a 10 ft. square, I can say that it takes 10 rounds (1 minute) to search the hallway. 20 minutes to take 20 for the hallway.


Nefreet wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
In other words this is not an unchained rule. It is a core rule that we just has not been printed.

I'm skeptical of that.

They've had many years, and multiple printings of the Core Rulebook, to address it. Or, heck, even mention it, in a forum post, or a blog.

But now, with the release of a new book, they finally decide to change the most used skill in the game?

I don't buy it.

This would be a flat out change of the rules. Pure and simple.

Pretty much this, if it was a simple oversight then why have we made it to 6 printings of the CRB without hearing hide nor hair of it?

Particularly with the number being tossed about being different from the 3.5 OGL search skill.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

The sift spell enables you to search for fine details at a range of 30 ft. (chests, traps on doors, etc.) with a -5 penalty, in a 10-foot cube area.

Therefore, I surmise that the regular use of Perception does not allow you to search for fine details unless you are with 10 feet of the object.

Anything beyond 10 feet would be limited to spotting creatures and the like.

You can't search a sock drawer unless you open the bloody sock drawer, I'm sorry... common sense should prevail. Similarly you can't use Perception to frisk someone unless your frisking someone.

Sovereign Court

I think in PFS it would be a change for the better if an FAQ spelled out clearly how long it takes to search something.

Now and then you have situations where you go "ok, we'll search that 20x20 room". And then you find out that it took two hours, and you're like "whaaaaat... where are you getting this?!"

It should just be clear how long it takes to search something. It matters less to me how long it takes, than that I don't get blindsided by some surprise interpretation of how long it takes.

Because the typical argument for it taking longer than a move action (or a move * 20) is "nah, that's for just looking, you're searching".

We shouldn't be surprised by the rules in the middle of a game with strangers.


Could swear the rule was a move action to search a 5' square. Though that may be going back to 3.5. So if a person wants to search a square thoroughly it takes 1 min (2 move actions x10) = 20 times as long.

In 3.5 they had this

3.5 PHB wrote:
Action: It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.

So that would make it 2 min to take 20 in 3.5.

Now the Core rule book says

Core Rule Book wrote:
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

Combining the two (since I don't think pathfinder specifies an area) would bring us to 1 minute as I had originaly thought.

So unless someone finds something specific for the area we have to combine 3.5 rule with pathifnder rules.

151 to 177 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What *is* the area you can search wtih Perception in one move action? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.