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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

15 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Starfinder Superscriber

In another thread, Mark Seifter wrote:

Quote:


Last time I saw the question, there was plenty of debate on both sides, since the rules in the CRB accidentally left out what the area is, which is viewed by a fair number as intentionally stating that there is no limit.

OK, I'm being a terrible internet person here, but I can't help but notice that Mark said that the CRB accidentally left out what the area is. The context is what area is searched when you search an area with Perception.

There's no doubt that the CRB left out the area... but this "accidentally" suggests to me that at least amongst the designer there is a well-known answer to the question "what is the area you can search with a Perception roll in a single move action"?

Inquiring minds want to know....

(Mind you, I could roll with a rules set where it's not spelled out and deliberately left vague. Of course, that's likely to be a much lighter-weight rules set than Pathfinder. If there is supposed to be a single ruling, it would save lots of debates and conflict in various games to know it.)


Cheapy also said in that same thread

Quote:
Oh yea, I was pretty happy with finally defining how much space you could search.

But he didn't say what it was.

So is there a rule for that in some of the new skill material in Unchained?

Sovereign Court

I'm unfamiliar with Unchained, but per the CRB:

You can search however much of an area in whatever time increment the GM says you can. It's wise to decline to codify such things, since a 10 x 10 cell with no furniture and nothing but bare stone on all 4 walls, ceiling, and floor can be thoroughly searched in a fraction of the time it takes to search a much larger room that has furniture, bookshelves, frescoes, etc.

Some people don't like examples from PFS, but here's one anyway:
There's a well-known scenario where the objective is to search a (multi-room) library within a very narrow window of time. Searching, and how long it takes to do said searching, is literally the make or break of the entire scenario.

In that scenario: searching a room up to 400 sq ft (20 x 20) takes a base time of 30 minutes. One up to twice that size takes a base time of 1 hour. Larger than that takes a base time of 2 hours. This is per attempt, but can be sped up by having multiple PCs working together.

Granted, that's PFS and one isn't shoehorned into that idea. A GM might instead go another direction entirely. You can break rooms, or features of rooms, into a series of move actions... and decide how many move actions it takes to canvass the entire room.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Not so much search, as "perceive what is out in plain sight". Anything that involves looking inside chests, under rugs, and etc will take longer than a move action. You know, generally any time you look for traps/secret doors/hidden loots.

But how much longer? However long the GM says it'll take.

The Exchange

The example posed by deusvult includes "searching", such as opening and reading books and card catalogues. Perception is actually not the skill used in that scenario.

Sovereign Court

Dr. Narsius Blote IV wrote:
The example posed by deusvult includes "searching", such as opening and reading books and card catalogues. Perception is actually not the skill used in that scenario.

True, but how often is Perception used to resolve whether or not a search of a room turns up a macguffin/clue/secret door/etc? Forget PFS.. I mean in ANY paizo adventure.

Saying it only takes a move action to "search" your entire LOS (not to mention inside every object that's in your LOS) is not just rules lawyering, it's bad rules lawyering because the rules are presumed to include the application of common sense. "Searching" anything on the scale of an entire room in a thorough manner in one half of a 6 second unit of time is NOT applying common sense.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
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.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


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.

I'll repeat what I said upthread:

It's wiser to leave the rules as is than attempt to codify how big an area a move action covers. Let the GM determine circumstance by circumstance, even if it ends up meaning the RAW IS LAW folks get confused from time to time.


It was never defined in 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I don't think it needs to be defined. If someone is 400(-40 to your perception check) feet away then you just have to deal with the -40, but 400 feet, about a 1/4 longer than a football field) is not so far away that you can't notice someone or something hiding.

Even in the environmental chapter it says you can see people hundreds of feet away.

Now someone will probably say something like, well what if someone is 9000000000 feet away. Well in that case the DC is likely so high that you won't notice them anyway, so it is a nonfactor.

edit: That max distance in the enviromental chapter is for detecting the presence of others, and even then I think it should be adjusted for the size of the person. A gargantuan giant should be spotted at a greater distance away than a halfing.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
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.

Mark, the DC modifiers are listed within the Perception skill.

There's a chart.

On that chart, we find that Perception DCs are modified at +1 per 10ft of distance.

Those DCs shouldn't have to be listed twice, in the same section.

After reading "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action", if the question becomes "What area does that include?", all we need to do is move our eyes outside of that sentence to find the answer.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Mark, the DC modifiers are listed within the Perception skill.

There's a chart.

On that chart, we find that Perception DCs are modified at +1 per 10ft of distance.

Those DCs shouldn't have to be listed twice, in the same section.

After reading "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action", if the question becomes "What area does that include?", all we need to do is move our eyes outside of that sentence to find the answer.

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!


The characters see in a 360 degree field of vision*. Unlike 3.5 you do not have to choose specific squares to search anymore. If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.

*I am aware that perception is more than vision.

I don't know what is in that unchained book but from what I understand it is all houserules. Unless something says "unlike the rest of the book this is official rules.....", I don't think it will be treated any differently.

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.

While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!


Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!

Thanks. :)

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
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.

Mark, the DC modifiers are listed within the Perception skill.

There's a chart.

On that chart, we find that Perception DCs are modified at +1 per 10ft of distance.

Those DCs shouldn't have to be listed twice, in the same section.

After reading "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action", if the question becomes "What area does that include?", all we need to do is move our eyes outside of that sentence to find the answer.

So whats the modifier to find the 2nd false bottom of the barrel 20 ft away in 6 seconds?


Seriously?

I've always known it to be whatever is within line of sight with the given penalties for distance.

If you need to search drawers, bookshelves and chests that takes more time since you have to open them up and junk. It's probably best if it's left vague. Putting rules to something as variable as a 'so and so ft area' seems ineffective and contrary to the simulation.

Just as an example...

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
Bookshelf takes 3 minutes, the Desk 2 minutes and the Chest 1 minute. Books are leafed through, the Desk's papers are riffled through and the drawers are opened and the Chest just need to be opened.

vs

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
All takes 3 minutes because they're in their own 5 ft squares.

How to put this...hmm

Unless the clue/stimuli is hidden, Perception shouldn't really apply to the situation.


burkoJames wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Mark, the DC modifiers are listed within the Perception skill.

There's a chart.

On that chart, we find that Perception DCs are modified at +1 per 10ft of distance.

Those DCs shouldn't have to be listed twice, in the same section.

After reading "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action", if the question becomes "What area does that include?", all we need to do is move our eyes outside of that sentence to find the answer.

So whats the modifier to find the 2nd false bottom of the barrel 20 ft away in 6 seconds?

You can't make the roll because it's not within line of sight.


Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!

I don't suppose we could "remove the confusion" by just say explicitly pointing to the +1 per 10 ft. of Distance. I mean Perception works really well as is now. Having such a large search range might *sound* amazing, but if you are using the move action to intentionally search for stimuli generally speaking you are looking at an enclosed area that is not covered under the reactive section of the skill. To wit:

Large open area - most of this going to be covered under reactive uses of Perception.
Small area that needs searched say a desk/closet/bookshelf - move action. Sure if you have a great perception you could search a 100 ft. Bookshelf in one move action, but really how many 100 ft. bookshelves are there?

If you absolutely *must* pin search down to a set range at least make it a 10 ft. cube based on your current location aka a non-ranged version of the Bard/Inquistor 0 level spell Sift.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

^^ this.

(darnit, Anzyr! You Ninja'd me by 36 seconds =P. I meant to confirm Scavion's post)


Nefreet wrote:

^^ this.

(darnit, Anzyr! You Ninja'd me by 36 seconds =P. I meant to confirm Scavion's post)

Feel free to confirm mine as well, since I'm pretty sure we're on the same page!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Despite being someone who wants as minimal table variation as possible when it comes to the rules, I agree with others that suggest the Perception rule works fine. As someone who has GM'd PFS on few occasions and played it on many more, I've had zero problems with the current Perception rules when it comes to searching an area. In fact, I think the Paizo rule is superior to the 3.5 which identified a specific area.

It may have been an omission not to state a distance, but in my opinion it was a fortuitous one. Based on what you've said, I fail to see why it's even something that needs to be addressed. I regret I have not read anything from Unchained and would appreciate someone quoting what it says.


Scavion wrote:

Seriously?

I've always known it to be whatever is within line of sight with the given penalties for distance.

If you need to search drawers, bookshelves and chests that takes more time since you have to open them up and junk. It's probably best if it's left vague. Putting rules to something as variable as a 'so and so ft area' seems ineffective and contrary to the simulation.

Just as an example...

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
Bookshelf takes 3 minutes, the Desk 2 minutes and the Chest 1 minute. Books are leafed through, the Desk's papers are riffled through and the drawers are opened and the Chest just need to be opened.

vs

I walk into the room and look for anything of interest.
Bookshelf, Desk, Chest.
All takes 3 minutes because they're in their own 5 ft squares.

How to put this...hmm

Unless the clue/stimuli is hidden, Perception shouldn't really apply to the situation.

OTOH, Sherlock Holmes walks into the room, looks around and tells you to check the 3rd book on the second shelf because the disturbance of the dust suggests it's handled most often. And he's right, because he's Holmes.

Perception includes search. It teaches you what to look for and trains you to notice patterns.
Your 3 minute search is Taking 20. If you're good enough, you don't need to do that.


N N 959 wrote:

Despite being someone who wants as minimal table variation as possible when it comes to the rules, I agree with others that suggest the Perception rule works fine. As someone who has GM'd PFS on few occasions and played it on many more, I've had zero problems with the current Perception rules when it comes to searching an area. In fact, I think the Paizo rule is superior to the 3.5 which identified a specific area.

It may have been an omission not to state a distance, but in my opinion it was a fortuitous one. Based on what you've said, I fail to see why it's even something that needs to be addressed. I regret I have not read anything from Unchained and would appreciate someone quoting what it says.

Very much agreed that at present I find Perception to be better written then 3.5's search.

I would also very much like what know how unchained handles searching an area. I don't need a quote, but if someone could provide a quick summary I'd appreciate it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am interested as to what the intent is but if it makes things a lot more complicated I will be ignoring it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, that does sound like a needlessly complicated addition to the game.


This really, really needs to be explicitly addressed, especially as many players and DMs come from 3.5e where the Search skill explicitly stated the area searched was a maximum of a 5 ft. square. Can we please have an FAQ on this?

Does anyone have the information from Unchained that Mark Seifter is referring to? Can they assist in clarifying this point?

Liberty's Edge

Some people just need to have every little detail spelled out.

To the OP, since a round is considered to be 6 seconds and you can perform 2 move actions in that time, you could estimate a move action to take approximately 3 seconds. How much area could you search in 3 seconds?

What if it was an empty 10'x10' wall?
What about an empty bookcase?
What about a full bookcase?

As a few people commented above, the outcome of a search really depends on the area being searched. An empty wall can be scanned pretty quickly. An empty bookcase may take a full round if you wanted to check each corner and underneath each shelf. A simple search of a full bookcase may take several rounds if you just toss the books to the floor to see what lies behind them or several minutes if you take the books out and stack them nicely and even longer if you want to page through each book.

There are many times in this game where a GM will need to take their own experience and (oh my gosh) adjudicate a situation on the fly and make a call that is beyond the written rules.


Mark Seifter wrote:

It generally goes something like this (note that the Taking 10 is not important in the question): "Can a character with +40 perception who takes 10 or rolls a 10, search a ~283,000 square foot field covered in hay for a well-concealed needle (DC 20 Perception check to find) as a single move action." Last time I saw the question, there was plenty of debate on both sides, since the rules in the CRB accidentally left out what the area is, which is viewed by a fair number as intentionally stating that there is no limit.

But let's take that to its own thread if you like, rather than threadjacking more here!

PRD wrote:

Perception

Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

Perception would allow you to possibly catch the glint of metal or notice that some of they hay was arranged slightly differently (and a character with a +40 modifier would be able to notice something so slight, if close enough). Of course, this would involve figuring distance modifiers based on a fixed vantage point. Conversely, if the character wanted to make a "search pattern", you'd determine how long it takes to walk around making continuous perception checks looking for the glint based on an average distance modifier. But if you're doing this anyway, you can just say you're taking 20 on the check while walking around since you're making one check per 6s and moving at 300 feet/minute (it would take 7 minutes to walk the perimeter if it's a roughly square area, or 6:45 to walk both diagonals). If you're talking about actively sifting through each square, I'd say it takes 6s per square which means nearly 19 man-hours of searching. Of course, a clever Rogue would just tie a piece of lodestone to a stick and start waving it around the hay, no checks needed, just walking time. But the wise man would know that when you want to hide a needle, don't hide it in a haystack; hide it in a pile of needles.


I fail to see how actively looking for a trap is in any way different to actively looking for an invisible creature.

Both have a Perception DC of 20+. Why should a character that says "I'm searching for traps" be told "Okay, which square?" when a character that says "I'm trying to find an invisible creature" gets to roll a single check for their entire line of sight.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Sherlock Holmes walks into the room, looks around and tells you to check the 3rd book on the second shelf because the disturbance of the dust suggests it's handled most often. And he's right, because he's Holmes.

Perception includes search. It teaches you what to look for and trains you to notice patterns.
Your 3 minute search is Taking 20. If you're good enough, you don't need to do that.

This reflects both the rule as I understand it currently to actually be, and the flavor I would like a searching rule to ideally carry. One move action, plus one move action per object that needs to be manipulated to carry out the search (for example, if you are in a locker room and need to open ten lockers, ten more move actions).

Scotland Yard grunt walks into the room with the DC 30 secret door activated by pulling that one fake book on the bookcase, and never even notices it. Doing a really thorough search for these guys takes a lot longer than even just normal taking 20 - they have to take 20, arrange a lot of aid anothers, maybe have some masterwork equipment delivered to them from the lab, and do it all from multiple vantage points to make sure they aren't taking distance penalties. All that extra time spent scraping for bonuses is necessary because their own modifier is low.

Scotland Yard veteran might be able to work more on hunches and his own abilities, but he still needs time and a thorough search to find the first clue. He can do it just by taking 20, possibly from several vantage points to avoid penalties, but he might not need to wait for all the backup.

Sherlock walks in, takes 10 once, and spends the rest of the time trolling the detectives before finally pointing out the bookcase catch.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

^^ I approve of this analogy.


Coriat wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, Sherlock Holmes walks into the room, looks around and tells you to check the 3rd book on the second shelf because the disturbance of the dust suggests it's handled most often. And he's right, because he's Holmes.

Perception includes search. It teaches you what to look for and trains you to notice patterns.
Your 3 minute search is Taking 20. If you're good enough, you don't need to do that.

This reflects both the rule as I understand it currently to actually be, and the flavor I would like a searching rule to ideally carry. One move action, plus one move action per object that needs to be manipulated to carry out the search (for example, if you are in a locker room and need to open ten lockers, ten more move actions).

Scotland Yard grunt walks into the room with the DC 30 secret door activated by pulling that one fake book on the bookcase, and never even notices it. Doing a really thorough search for these guys takes a lot longer than even just normal taking 20 - they have to take 20, arrange a lot of aid anothers, maybe have some masterwork equipment delivered to them from the lab, and do it all from multiple vantage points to make sure they aren't taking distance penalties. All that extra time spent scraping for bonuses is necessary because their own modifier is low.

Scotland Yard veteran might be able to work more on hunches and his own abilities, but he still needs time and a thorough search to find the first clue. He can do it just by taking 20, possibly from several vantage points to avoid penalties, but he might not need to wait for all the backup.

Sherlock walks in, takes 10 once, and spends the rest of the time trolling the detectives before finally pointing out the bookcase catch.

Pretty much, though it depends on the DCs involved.

And if there weren't any detectives around (or even Watson), Holmes wouldn't have to waste time trolling. :)

It's just that's what a good Perception skill/roll means - you know what to check first, you see the subtle clues that lead you to look in the right place.
Taking 20 is the careful kind of search that opens and checks everything. And if that doesn't work, breaking the cabinet into splinters usually finds the secret compartment - though it won't find the message scratched into the door.


Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!

So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?


BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.


wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

And I don't see why there needs to be a "final word".

How does the chart, found in the Perception skill, not cover this already?

I'm honestly flabbergasted at what is trying to be said, or what Mark thinks was "omitted".

Because if there *is* a predefined area that's meant to be searched, there's nothing in the rules currently that even hints at what that area is supposed to be.


JDLPF wrote:

This really, really needs to be explicitly addressed, especially as many players and DMs come from 3.5e where the Search skill explicitly stated the area searched was a maximum of a 5 ft. square. Can we please have an FAQ on this?

Does anyone have the information from Unchained that Mark Seifter is referring to? Can they assist in clarifying this point?

This is correct.

From the 3.5 SRD

Search
"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."


Xah Doom wrote:
JDLPF wrote:

This really, really needs to be explicitly addressed, especially as many players and DMs come from 3.5e where the Search skill explicitly stated the area searched was a maximum of a 5 ft. square. Can we please have an FAQ on this?

Does anyone have the information from Unchained that Mark Seifter is referring to? Can they assist in clarifying this point?

This is correct.

From the 3.5 SRD

Search
"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."

They are not bring that rule back from what I understand. I am sure the devs have said before that you do not have to choose a square(5 by 5 area).

I will see if I can find a link.


Nefreet wrote:

And I don't see why there needs to be a "final word".

How does the chart, found in the Perception skill, not cover this already?

I'm honestly flabbergasted at what is trying to be said, or what Mark thinks was "omitted".

Because if there *is* a predefined area that's meant to be searched, there's nothing in the rules currently that even hints at what that area is supposed to be.

Because they apparently accidentally omitted it, probably in the process of merging the Spot, Search and Listen skills into Perception.

Which suggests it's most likely meant to be the same as in 3.5. Unless they intended to change it and that didn't make it into the final draft. Does seem strange to only notice this 7 years later though.


Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

Please. They weren't developing rules when they put the CRB together. They were editing an existing set of rules. Easy enough to miss something in the process of merging 3 skills into Perception.

Harder to belief it hasn't been noticed until now. Easier to believe they couldn't figure out how to errata it within existing word count.


Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?


I can't find it, but I am sure it(the omission) is more complicated than the old 3.5 search rule.


thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?

Sent PM - with very little time left on the 'embargo' I'm trying to behave and not invoke the anger of the staff ;) We are allowed to PM stuff so that is what I did.


Ckorik wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I haven't bought Unchained, and unfortunately if it's not made legal for PFS I won't be purchasing it.

All I do is PFS, and I have to budget my spending on hobbies accordingly.

I think what Mark is trying to say - is that they cemented it with Unchained (they did - it has exact area searched in a move action) - but they can't quote exact rules text before the 'official' release date. I would imagine the exact search area was agreed on by the entire dev team and as such this will be answered in a FAQ (making it not just unchained - honestly the exact area searched was not and did not impact the new rules mentioned, it was more of a way to put it in print). I expect them to put the information up as soon as Mark is able to quote the rule and thus make it standard for all of Pathfinder.

All that said I could be wrong - but that's how I interpreted it - which means regardless of PFS and the status of unchained - for this particular question I doubt you will need the book to answer it.

I base this on the quote from Mark in this thread and others that hint some of the longer standing 'nuance' questions about skills were intentionally answered in the new skill section - which honestly was a good move to make.

What is the rule in Unchained?

Sent PM - with very little time left on the 'embargo' I'm trying to behave and not invoke the anger of the staff ;) We are allowed to PM stuff so that is what I did.

Thanks. Given the amount of discussion already, I wasn't aware there was a restriction. Sadly, that means I shouldn't add it to the discussion.


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

Please. They weren't developing rules when they put the CRB together. They were editing an existing set of rules. Easy enough to miss something in the process of merging 3 skills into Perception.

Harder to belief it hasn't been noticed until now. Easier to believe they couldn't figure out how to errata it within existing word count.

Which only addresses half of my statement, and the half directly related to wraiths post.

So if we accept that it was a simple omission, then why the coy attitude? Why not just post in this thread, right now, for all to see, what the intended rule was.


BigDTBone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?

I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.

To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."

Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.

If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."

If you are asking for the wording from the unchained book which would give us a hint while we are waiting, the reason is that the book is not allowed to be quoted until the pdf is up for sale. They have been deleting direct quotes from the book.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Please. They weren't developing rules when they put the CRB together. They were editing an existing set of rules. Easy enough to miss something in the process of merging 3 skills into Perception.

Harder to belief it hasn't been noticed until now. Easier to believe they couldn't figure out how to errata it within existing word count.

Which only addresses half of my statement, and the half directly related to wraiths post.

So if we accept that it was a simple omission, then why the coy attitude? Why not just post in this thread, right now, for all to see, what the intended rule was.

If it just got lost in the transition, they probably don't have finalized rules text sitting around. Likely it never reached that stage.

1 to 50 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.