| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
having slipped on a 8"x11" sheet of paper (white) on a green tiled floor before (in my home) - I can relate to this. Not exactly a "bright neon pink" or "beige-colored"... but close.IIRC, you can only detect a trap if you're actively looking for traps (or has the Trap Spotter Rogue Talent)... Which menas if someone places a bright neon pink bear-trap in your otherwise beige-colored dining room, you don't see it unless you're looking for traps on your own house.
Brilliant!
We all fail at Perception checks once in a while... That doesn't mean you can't see something unless you're specifically looking for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter what the FAQ says I will be ignoring the 10 foot area rule. All those rolls would just slow the game down too much IMO.
What do folks think of the distinction between "notice" and "search" found here?
Pathfinder Unchained: Consolidated Skills - Perception
"Notice" does not require an action and is reactive.
"Search" is a move action that allows you to search a 10'x10' area.
This seems like a fairly useful and sensible way to go to me, recently returned player and GM that I am.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do folks think of the distinction between "notice" and "search" found here?
Totally useless. You've replaced one undefined term with another undefined term.
I throw a rug over an elephant. Now it's "under rugs" and "blocked from line of sight" (as _Ozy_ put it), and therefore can't be "noticed," so you need to take a move action, literally, to perceive that there is an elephant in the room.
Oh, an elephant is noticeable, even if it's technically blocked from line of sight? Well, why not a bear trap? Why not a pressure plate under the loose floorboard? We're back in the exact same situation we were before.....
|
It makes sense with how humans work that you can't recognize some things unless you are looking for them.Not being able to recognize something should be a feature of failing your perception check, not hardcoded into the game though.
It makes sense that someone who's particularly observant might be able to notice something's wrong while walking normally. As is it's literally impossible, no matter how perceptive someone is or how low the perception DC on the trap is, unless you have a specific rogue talent and even that's not going to help you depending on the type of trap.
I totally agree that an observant person can notice abnormalities. I usually include those things in the room description though. Things like "grilles near the ceiling" or "oddly discolored stones" or a "clear footprint on the path and a broken twig" are the clues that PCs should take some time to examine their surroundings and discover the reasons for the abnormality.
Even if players move cautiously, you don't need to bog down roleplay by rolling dice every 10 ft. The rolls for empty hall don't matter. To preserve the sense of caution/danger, you roll once per room or hallway and apply that to the first if any important check the space may have.
What do folks think of the distinction between "notice" and "search" found here?Totally useless. You've replaced one undefined term with another undefined term.
I don't think it's really fair to state that they're undefined. There are a significant number of examples and their respective DCs provided for each category.
I throw a rug over an elephant. Now it's "under rugs" and "blocked from line of sight" (as _Ozy_ put it), and therefore can't be "noticed," so you need to take a move action, literally, to perceive that there is an elephant in the room.
If you look at the Notice... examples, you'll see a line of sight is not needed to notice something. You can "notice" something through a closed door or even a wall, albeit with a DC penalty.
|
|
I don't think anyone has linked to the Skills in Conflict section of Ultimate Intrigue in this thread.
There are two ways Perception checks happen in the game. The first way is automatic and reactive. Certain stimuli automatically call for a Perception check, such as a creature using Stealth (which calls for an opposed Perception check), or the sounds of combat or talking in the distance. The flip side is when a player actively calls for a Perception check because her PC is intentionally searching for something. This always takes at least a move action, but often takes significantly longer.
The core rules don’t specify what area a PC can actively search, but for a given Perception check it should be no larger than a 10-foot-by-10-foot area, and often a smaller space if that area is cluttered.
|
|
But now you're saying everyone always notices the abnormalities. Holmes and Watson are both told exactly the same thing. However high or low your perception, you get the same "grilles near the ceiling" or "oddly discolored stones" or a "clear footprint on the path and a broken twig".I totally agree that an observant person can notice abnormalities. I usually include those things in the room description though. Things like "grilles near the ceiling" or "oddly discolored stones" or a "clear footprint on the path and a broken twig" are the clues that PCs should take some time to examine their surroundings and discover the reasons for the abnormality.It makes sense with how humans work that you can't recognize some things unless you are looking for them.Not being able to recognize something should be a feature of failing your perception check, not hardcoded into the game though.
It makes sense that someone who's particularly observant might be able to notice something's wrong while walking normally. As is it's literally impossible, no matter how perceptive someone is or how low the perception DC on the trap is, unless you have a specific rogue talent and even that's not going to help you depending on the type of trap.
I didn't say everyone always notices everything. I said I put it in the room description. I know my characters' perception modifiers, so it is "Holmes notices grilles near the ceiling and some unusual stonework."
What do folks think of the distinction between "notice" and "search" found here?Totally useless. You've replaced one undefined term with another undefined term.
I throw a rug over an elephant. Now it's "under rugs" and "blocked from line of sight" (as _Ozy_ put it), and therefore can't be "noticed," so you need to take a move action, literally, to perceive that there is an elephant in the room.
Oh, an elephant is noticeable, even if it's technically blocked from line of sight? Well, why not a bear trap? Why not a pressure plate under the loose floorboard? We're back in the exact same situation we were before.....
|
|
I don't think anyone has linked to the Skills in Conflict section of Ultimate Intrigue in this thread.
There are two ways Perception checks happen in the game. The first way is automatic and reactive. Certain stimuli automatically call for a Perception check, such as a creature using Stealth (which calls for an opposed Perception check), or the sounds of combat or talking in the distance. The flip side is when a player actively calls for a Perception check because her PC is intentionally searching for something. This always takes at least a move action, but often takes significantly longer.What's odd is that "Notice" rolls are apparently always reactive - automatically rolled with no action in response to something.
And yet you can retry them. How does retry work when you can't intentionally take an action to do it?
You can intentionally search, but that's only a 10' square.
I think we're at:
GM: Roll Perception
Player A: 27!
Player B: 12.
GM: A, you see someone moving at the edge of the forest. B, you see nothing.
A: Hey B, look over there, do you him? <points - Aid Another +2>
B: I'll retry. With the +2 and a decent roll, that's a 22.
GM: Which 10' square are you looking in?
The relevant one?
In seriousness, if Player A spotted something, they can accurately describe the location Player B needs to search.
I think that a lot of people are trying to make problems for themselves regarding how Perception works. It may be different from how you are used to playing, but that doesn't mean it is problematic. If you approach with the mindset that it can work, you usually find the ways that it does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's really fair to state that they're undefined.What do folks think of the distinction between "notice" and "search" found here?Totally useless. You've replaced one undefined term with another undefined term.
Shrug. You're wrong.
There are a significant number of examples and their respective DCs provided for each category.
... which would be relevant if examples were definitions. Unfortuately, they're not.
For example....
I throw a rug over an elephant.
Okay.... what's the DC from the table of examples for an elephant under a rug?
There isn't one. It's (by definition) not "visible," since it's under a rug. It's not "walking," it's just standing there. It's not burrowing, and it's certainly not using Stealth.
So,.... now we have the argument about whether it can even be "noticed" in the first place.
You've replaced one undefined term with another undefined term.
What about using them together. You notice that there are scorch marks on the ground in front of the chest, or you notice that your wine has an acrid smell. Then you would use your search. Give your players a visual cue that might indicate that a trap is nearby. If you are constantly a descriptive judge, this would be a good way to warn them of a trap in the "spidey sense" sort of way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to your question.
While Orfamay's example is a bit hyperbolic the trouble is this isn't an ambiguity in the rules. This is something we have people on record saying is intended.
If you have a +19 to perception and there's a pit trap in front of you, you will never fail to notice it if you spend a move action to search for it and you will never succeed in noticing it if you don't spend a move action and that's RAI. Completely binary and frankly feels kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game too.
Sure, there are lots of ways to streamline or improve it suggested in this thread, but that doesn't change the problem either.
The answer to your question.While Orfamay's example is a bit hyperbolic the trouble is this isn't an ambiguity in the rules. This is something we have people on record saying is intended.
If you have a +19 to perception and there's a pit trap in front of you, you will never fail to notice it if you spend a move action to search for it and you will never succeed in noticing it if you don't spend a move action and that's RAI. Completely binary and frankly feels kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game too.
Sure, there are lots of ways to streamline or improve it suggested in this thread, but that doesn't change the problem either.
Traps were designed with the assumption that the party would include a rogue, and rogue's were given Trap Spotter as a 2nd level option.
In game settings where traps are actually dangerous, operating without the Trap Spotter talent can be a disaster. Fortunately, there are quite a number of classes with access to rogue talents these days.
Unless your argument is "My party does not want to fill the rogue roll and does not want to be penalized for it."
|
|
The answer to your question.While Orfamay's example is a bit hyperbolic the trouble is this isn't an ambiguity in the rules. This is something we have people on record saying is intended.
If you have a +19 to perception and there's a pit trap in front of you, you will never fail to notice it if you spend a move action to search for it and you will never succeed in noticing it if you don't spend a move action and that's RAI. Completely binary and frankly feels kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game too.
Sure, there are lots of ways to streamline or improve it suggested in this thread, but that doesn't change the problem either.
The obvious parallel is Sense Motive, which also has active and passive checks. Characters automatically get Sense Motive to oppose a Bluff check, but if they want to figure out an NPCs motivations or allegiances, they need to spend a minute actively observing and thinking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Characters may not be able to notice it's an elephant that is hiding, but the giant bulging rug is visible. It just takes a move action to lift the edge of the rug and find the elephant.
Yeah, because there are just so many Huge quadrupedal animals with large trunks that could be under the rug....<roll eyes>.
The fundamental issue here is that far too many people, on this thread alone, are insisting that you can't visually perceive something to which you don't have line of sight. That's patent nonsense. Almost any fool can distinguish a suspicious-looking shape behind a curtain (and often do, in mystery stories). Similarly, the rug-over-a-pit-trap is technically invisible if you don't have line of sight, despite the fact that a perceptive person will notice the unusual sagging, just as a perceptive person will notice the shape of a pile of leaves that hides a bear trap, et cetera.
The other issue is that these are all things, to use the terminology suggested upthread, that you simply "notice" if you are sufficiently perceptive. You don't need to "search" for a suspicious bulge in the curtain or an unusual pile of leaves, any more than Sherlock needed to "search" to see how many stairs were in "the steps which lead up from the hall to this room." [A Scandal in Bohemia.] Sherlock is, in fact, famous for seeing things "at a glance" precisely because he is so perceptive.
The fundamental issue here is that far too many people, on this thread alone, are insisting that you can't visually perceive something to which you don't have line of sight. That's patent nonsense. Almost any fool can distinguish a suspicious-looking shape behind a curtain (and often do, in mystery stories). Similarly, the rug-over-a-pit-trap is technically invisible if you don't have line of sight, despite the fact that a perceptive person will notice the unusual sagging, just as a perceptive person will notice the shape of a pile of leaves that hides a bear trap, et cetera.
Well, it depends now, doesn't it? The elephant hiding under the rug may be noticeable at a glance and without a direct line of sight to the elephant itself, but the loaded crossbow trap behind the portrait across the room probably shouldn't be. The issue here is there will need to be judgment calls on what might be noticeable as a reaction and what requires investment of time, effort, and even location.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Characters may not be able to notice it's an elephant that is hiding, but the giant bulging rug is visible. It just takes a move action to lift the edge of the rug and find the elephant.Yeah, because there are just so many Huge quadrupedal animals with large trunks that could be under the rug....<roll eyes>.
The fundamental issue here is that far too many people, on this thread alone, are insisting that you can't visually perceive something to which you don't have line of sight. That's patent nonsense. Almost any fool can distinguish a suspicious-looking shape behind a curtain (and often do, in mystery stories). Similarly, the rug-over-a-pit-trap is technically invisible if you don't have line of sight, despite the fact that a perceptive person will notice the unusual sagging, just as a perceptive person will notice the shape of a pile of leaves that hides a bear trap, et cetera.
The other issue is that these are all things, to use the terminology suggested upthread, that you simply "notice" if you are sufficiently perceptive. You don't need to "search" for a suspicious bulge in the curtain or an unusual pile of leaves, any more than Sherlock needed to "search" to see how many stairs were in "the steps which lead up from the hall to this room." [A Scandal in Bohemia.] Sherlock is, in fact, famous for seeing things "at a glance" precisely because he is so perceptive.
As opposed to those who argue they should be allowed to automatically roll for everything without declaring they are looking. Despite the fact that searching an area is defined as a move action.
The middle ground is the rare and elusive qualify called common sense. If something is obvious, you can see it without making a perception check. If something is not obvious, a perception check is required and making that perception check may required you to expend an action searching.
As for the elephant hiding under the rug, there are rules for that. It's called stealth, which is always an opposed roll. I doubt the elephant is going to successful unless he rolls very well (-8 on stealth rolls) and the searcher is a drunk wizard with zero ranks in perception.
*elephants are much better at climbing. They should have little difficulty with trees and cliffs, auto succeeding if there is a rope available.
|
|
Characters may not be able to notice it's an elephant that is hiding, but the giant bulging rug is visible. It just takes a move action to lift the edge of the rug and find the elephant.Yeah, because there are just so many Huge quadrupedal animals with large trunks that could be under the rug....<roll eyes>.
The fundamental issue here is that far too many people, on this thread alone, are insisting that you can't visually perceive something to which you don't have line of sight. That's patent nonsense. Almost any fool can distinguish a suspicious-looking shape behind a curtain (and often do, in mystery stories). Similarly, the rug-over-a-pit-trap is technically invisible if you don't have line of sight, despite the fact that a perceptive person will notice the unusual sagging, just as a perceptive person will notice the shape of a pile of leaves that hides a bear trap, et cetera.
The other issue is that these are all things, to use the terminology suggested upthread, that you simply "notice" if you are sufficiently perceptive. You don't need to "search" for a suspicious bulge in the curtain or an unusual pile of leaves, any more than Sherlock needed to "search" to see how many stairs were in "the steps which lead up from the hall to this room." [A Scandal in Bohemia.] Sherlock is, in fact, famous for seeing things "at a glance" precisely because he is so perceptive.
You keep conflating the method used to hide something with the thing being hidden. Most characters don't have x-ray vision.
For most characters, it is in fact impossible to see through a curtain to the statue behind it. Characters are welcome to notice that the curtain is bulging, though.
You don't need search to see the pile of leaves, you need search to find the bear trap beneath it.
You don't need search to notice the sagging rung, you need search to see if there is a pit or sagging floorboards beneath.
You don't need search to see the pile of leaves, you need search to find the bear trap beneath it.
But do you have to 'notice' the pile? And is that an independent roll? Do you expect multiple 'notice' rolls to get to a search check?
You don't need search to notice the sagging rung, you need search to see if there is a pit or sagging floorboards beneath.
Pretty much as above. HOW does someone notice? DM fiat? Multiple passive rolls? Something else? If it's fiat and a search roll why not bypass the fiat and allow the 'notice' check instead?
|
|
So how does this work?
Do you set a DC to notice something odd about the pile of leaves, the rug or the curtain? And then, once the characters make that and decide to search, they roll again against the trap's DC?
Are those automatically in the description? Does the GM tell only the PCs he thinks are Perceptive enough?
Do I still have to search once I decide to investigate the sagging rug? Does that really make any sense? Once you've decided to "search" the rug, finding out it covers a gaping pit should be pretty obvious.
The ultimate answer is whatever works best for your group and in the context of the challenge.
I don't use the phrase "notice something odd." What you are describing is basically a reactive check against the trap. So, no.
Details of the room are free to give out to either perceptive characters or characters with related interests. It's up to players to puzzle out what is "odd." If I am feeling generous, or my players are being stupid (or worse, uninterested!), allow a reactive Survival (for leaves), Know(engineering) (for saggy floors), or other appropriate check to get a hunch that something's off. If you are playing consistently, your players should know how to look for clues in descriptive text. They might also fall for red herrings, but that can be fun too if it is an expected part of your playstyle.
Hiding an open pit under a rug is a pretty poor job. Failing that perception check is equally poor, but you can use your roleplay to describe how that works. Investigating doesn't have to mean they lift the edge. The blind wizard taps the rug with his staff and declares it solid, for instance. More likely there is a trapdoor or other element so the Perception check is more than DC 5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Details of the room are free to give out to either perceptive characters or characters with related interests. It's up to players to puzzle out what is "odd."
So, you expect the player playing the Ranger to actually have a detective-like ability to spot clues.
Do you also expect the player playing the Cleric to be able to set bones?
|
|
But do you have to 'notice' the pile? And is that an independent roll? Do you expect multiple 'notice' rolls to get to a search check?
You don't need search to see the pile of leaves, you need search to find the bear trap beneath it.
That depends on whether it is difficult to notice. DC 0? No need to roll.
You don't need search to notice the sagging rug, you need search to see if there is a pit or sagging floorboards beneath.Pretty much as above. HOW does someone notice? DM fiat? Multiple passive rolls? Something else? If it's fiat and a search roll why not bypass the fiat and allow the 'notice' check instead?
Again, that depends on your game and just how obvious that sagging is.
Believe it or not, some people don't play their characters as constantly on alert. And characters notice many things about a room. Who is to say they search the sagging floorboards over the holes in the wall, or the suspiciously lumpy curtain? Overall, you get a lot more interesting interaction and character agency when you don't force automatic checks on every character (with the right attitude, it doesn't seem punitive).
|
|
Details of the room are free to give out to either perceptive characters or characters with related interests. It's up to players to puzzle out what is "odd."So, you expect the player playing the Ranger to actually have a detective-like ability to spot clues.
Do you also expect the player playing the Cleric to be able to set bones?
If you take the time to point out that the players 'noticed' a pile of leaves, you're essentially calling it out as something to be searched.
Same with the sagging rug.
So, if a pit trap has a 'search' DC of, say, 20, what's the DC to 'notice' the sagging rug that hides it?
Lolling a bit at these comments back-to-back. Is distinguishing Spot and Search giving players too much or too little? Can you agree on a problem please?
You cut off where I mentioned how to address players not being as astute as their characters. Some people actually enjoy being the detective, though. Not everyone wants the character to do all the work.
And _Ozy_, that means you need to be more descriptive in your rooms. Crack the Gamemaster's guide and add some detail!
|
|
As already mentioned, you also don't insist that players have all of the skills and knowledge of their characters.
If a character would notice something out of the ordinary, you don't pretend to the player that there is nothing wrong and expect them to automatically be as suspicious as their character would be.
We went over this at length in the other thread. Humans can notice details without realizing their significance, or completely miss obvious things when focused on other tasks. Ever see the gorilla video?
Perception is not a spidey-sense. Most of the time, players are much more suspicious than their characters would be. It is possible to strike a healthy balance if everyone works at it. You don't seem to want to try.
|
|
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.
The only reason you think of it as being 'tricked' is that you are not used to the paradigm. Stop thinking of this system being used by evil GMs against their players. When players and GM buy into it equally, this system doesn't have the tragic flaws you keep imagining.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.
I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
That you find players playing the game to be fundamentally bad suggests we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
Players always have a choice of character action. Rolling everything automatically reduces agency more than it enhances it.
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
? Heavens, who would imagine a pile of leaves in the forest suspicious?
Everyone can come up with ridiculous examples of game logic when RAW is over zealously applied.
What I don't understand is the desire to pillage even more abilities from the already under powered rogue.
The 10ft search rules are new to me as well, that would translate into a move speed of 1 mile an hour, which is pretty slow and would be a significant issue in dungeons with spell buffs that are 1 minute a level.
I'm in the camp that I give players a move action to notice traps as they move, the underwritten assumption there was a base speed of 30, should this be true for higher base speeds? A fly speed of 120? Works the same while using earth glide, or swimming? What about the vacuum of space?
The devs should probably rewrite the trap rules.
|
|
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
That you find players playing the game to be fundamentally bad suggests we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
Players always have a choice of character action. Rolling everything automatically reduces agency more than it enhances it.
The game has mechanics that you are subverting.
Again, would you base a hit/miss off of how well a player can describe how he swings his sword? No? Then according to you you're reducing player agency.
I'm the one arguing that we should make use of the rules as they are printed...
I don't roll attack rolls for my players as soon as they meet NPCs either. I'm not basing anything on how well players talk, players determine their own success by how well they reason in a fair game. If that's not one they want to play, okay. I've also described ways I would run a game to fast-forward through the search mechanic described in the rules. The cautious/slow move versus fast move is an example of that kind of compromise.
I did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
? Heavens, who would imagine a pile of leaves in the forest suspicious?
The devs should probably rewrite the trap rules.
Take a walk though the woods and look at how leaves pile and then compare it to you making a pile of leaves to cover something. I promise it's gonna look different
I've been on plenty of hikes, depending on numerous factors there will be piles of leaves that are utterly undistguisable. But again, how many forests filled with manticores, unicorns, dragons, fairies, portals to other planes, have either of us walked through?
? Heavens, who would imagine a pile of leaves in the forest suspicious?
Someone that made a perception check maybe?
Everyone can come up with ridiculous examples of game logic when RAW is over zealously applied.
A bear trap covered in leaves is a "ridiculous examples of game" now?
What I don't understand is the desire to pillage even more abilities from the already under powered rogue.
How is it taking ANYTHING from the rogue? HE benefits the most by getting a passive roll.
I'm in the camp that I give players a move action to notice traps as they move
So you are, in essence, allowing a passive check as long as they only move their speed per round. See, even you are 'pillaging" that poor, poor rogues abilities! :P
The devs should probably rewrite the trap rules.
Couldn't hurt.
I've been on plenty of hikes, depending on numerous factors there will be piles of leaves that are utterly undistguisable. But again, how many forests filled with manticores, unicorns, dragons, fairies, portals to other planes, have either of us walked through?
Or have people with +30 perception scores? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't understand is the desire to pillage even more abilities from the already under powered rogue.
Actually, I think that's part of it.
The iconic party (going back to the 70s) is, of course, Fighting Man, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief. And the iconic cleric is a healbot (and does nothing else) and the iconic thief is a trapfinder (and does nothing else), and they're both relatively unpopular, because they are so limited.
Later editions fixed that for the cleric -- for example, with semi-spontaneous casting, and with energy channelling to heal, there is no reason for the cleric to be a walking wand of cure wounds any more. In fact, they arguably overcompensated and produced a cleric that could out fight the fighter, out wiz the wizard, out drag the dragon (CoDzilla), but at least they recognized the problem.
The chained rogue is simply terrible, and unchained helped, but didn't actually help that much. The bard and investigator are both better rogues than rogues generally are, and most people consider them more fun to play as well.
So we're reproducing one of the major flaws of AD&D here -- a player wants to play a bard, but because of the way the GM interprets the Perception rules, that player is de facto forced to play a rogue. That's pretty much the definition of reducing player agency -- no, you can't play the character concept you want to play because the rules demand that someone play this specific concept, and you drew the short straw.
Take a walk though the woods and look at how leaves pile and then compare it to you making a pile of leaves to cover something. I promise it's gonna look differentI did not miss your meaning, but I think you've missed mine.I don't think he did. You are, in essence, removing the results of a perception check and instead playing a fantasy game of 'where's Waldo' instead. Instead of allowing the skill to actually perceive things you instead are relying on the PLAYERS, not the characters, to figure things out. You are relying on out of character action to allow/disallow in character perceptions. That seems wrong IMO.
My character should be able to notice a pile of leaves is suspicious: I shouldn't have to MAKE her suspicious to make the roll.
? Heavens, who would imagine a pile of leaves in the forest suspicious?
The devs should probably rewrite the trap rules.
What would you say the DC is to notice a snake slithering across an otherwise unobscured section of trail? Yes, slithering, not just stationary basking.
And yet, I've been present when someone stepped on a rattlesnake. Their attention was focused on catching up with the rest of the group instead of watching the ground in front of them.
It was almost 15 minutes before the rest of the group noticed she was missing.