|
... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
Synonymous = "(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language."
Reactive = "showing a response to a stimulus."
Passive = "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."
ah... sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Passive is the opposite of reactive. (IMHO)
That definition of "passive" is not appropriate for its use in the sentence. The definition "existing or occurring without being active" is much closer.
Both words refer to a check that occurs without being actively called for by the player.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
bolding above mine: Please realize that some judges will not allow one to Take 10 on Perception checks when checking for Traps and will require a die roll on...There have been plenty of arguments based on logic to determine the answer to the original question, but given the rules as written, as well as the clear RAI, I feel it's pretty clear that you need to explicitly be checking for traps to attempt to spot them in the current rule set. This is as simple as stating that you are checking for traps, and taking 10 on the perception check. Doesn't slow the game down at all, but it does slow you in-game, making there be an actual opportunity cost; do you give the enemies further in the dungeon more time to prepare, let buffs run out, and so on, or push on without checking for traps. Keep in mind that if you're taking two move actions in a round, you're moving as fast as you do in combat to run to save a friend, or something similarly dramatic. It makes perfect sense to me that if you're rushing that quickly through a dungeon, you'd miss the finer details of something like a trap - they're traveling at over 3m a second, which seems very fast.
Either way, whether or not it's what you consider logical, the current rules imply:
1: You don't automatically get a Perception Check for a trap
2: Rogues (and people with access to rogue talents, such as Archaeologist Bards, Slayers, Sanctified Slayer Inquisitors, Nature Fang Druids and so on) have access to the Trap Spotter talent, that allows them to move at full pace and still automatically get a check for a trap.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.
Bolded is not true. T10 in no way affects how long it takes to preform the acton.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.Bolded is not true. T10 in no way affects how long it takes to preform the acton.
Moving 6x slower means 6x longer; taking 10 has nothing to do with it.
|
|
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.Bolded is not true. T10 in no way affects how long it takes to preform the acton.
Nobody said or implied that T10 takes longer. Bolded what you missed.
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.
Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.
Nobody said or implied that T10 takes longer. They said taking six move actions to move and six move actions to search six 10x10 areas takes six times longer than a taking two move actions to move 60ft.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.Bolded is not true. T10 in no way affects how long it takes to preform the acton.
My mistake then.
|
|
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted [you may take 10] ... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
The rules on taking 10 are explicitly said for when you're threatened or distracted. If you don't know something is there (such as when you're doing a perception check to determine if a trap is present), you clearly aren't threatened or distracted by the trap's presence. Of course it's up to each individual GM, everything is. But you can't be in 'danger' of an object for the purpose of distracting you if you don't know it's there.
|
|
bolding above mine: Please realize that some judges will not allow one to Take 10 on Perception checks when checking for Traps and will require a die roll on...There have been plenty of arguments based on logic to determine the answer to the original question, but given the rules as written, as well as the clear RAI, I feel it's pretty clear that you need to explicitly be checking for traps to attempt to spot them in the current rule set. This is as simple as stating that you are checking for traps, and taking 10 on the perception check. Doesn't slow the game down at all, but it does slow you in-game, making there be an actual opportunity cost; do you give the enemies further in the dungeon more time to prepare, let buffs run out, and so on, or push on without checking for traps. Keep in mind that if you're taking two move actions in a round, you're moving as fast as you do in combat to run to save a friend, or something similarly dramatic. It makes perfect sense to me that if you're rushing that quickly through a dungeon, you'd miss the finer details of something like a trap - they're traveling at over 3m a second, which seems very fast.
Either way, whether or not it's what you consider logical, the current rules imply:
1: You don't automatically get a Perception Check for a trap
2: Rogues (and people with access to rogue talents, such as Archaeologist Bards, Slayers, Sanctified Slayer Inquisitors, Nature Fang Druids and so on) have access to the Trap Spotter talent, that allows them to move at full pace and still automatically get a check for a trap.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.
Requiring a roll instead of T10, still doesn't require you to roll a physical die for every 10ft your character moves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.
If your GM uses that FAQ to punish players with grueling slogs of rolling dice rather than enhance tense moments with a bit of risk, you have more problems than Perception checks.
|
|
... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...Synonymous = "(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language."
Reactive = "showing a response to a stimulus."
Passive = "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."
ah... sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Passive is the opposite of reactive. (IMHO)
That definition of "passive" is not appropriate for its use in the sentence. The definition "existing or occurring without being active" is much closer.
Both words refer to a check that occurs without being actively called for by the player.
"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." And some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive.
The "made in response to observable stimulus" is to clarify what most Perception checks are reactive too... they are in response (reactive) to observable stimulus.
SO, this means (IMHO) that Passive (or Non-Reactive) Perception checks (which are stated to be < 50%, or "not most") are those checks NOT made in response to observable stimulus.
When these are checks are taken is (at least partly) in the control of the GM. As I posted earlier...
The players (and the GM is a player of the game too) need to sit down together and determine a procedure for how traps are dealt with in the game. When Perception checks are taken and HOW. There is enough YMMV in the Perception rules, enough differences in the perception of rules on Perception, that the best way to reduce "hard feelings" would be to work out how the rules work - and stick with that.
The players perceive the game thru the GM - the GM provides the players with what they see/hear/feel/etc. and they need to be "talking the same language"... or problems will occur.
...bolding above mine: Please realize that some judges will not allow one to Take 10 on Perception checks when checking for Traps and willThere have been plenty of arguments based on logic to determine the answer to the original question, but given the rules as written, as well as the clear RAI, I feel it's pretty clear that you need to explicitly be checking for traps to attempt to spot them in the current rule set. This is as simple as stating that you are checking for traps, and taking 10 on the perception check. Doesn't slow the game down at all, but it does slow you in-game, making there be an actual opportunity cost; do you give the enemies further in the dungeon more time to prepare, let buffs run out, and so on, or push on without checking for traps. Keep in mind that if you're taking two move actions in a round, you're moving as fast as you do in combat to run to save a friend, or something similarly dramatic. It makes perfect sense to me that if you're rushing that quickly through a dungeon, you'd miss the finer details of something like a trap - they're traveling at over 3m a second, which seems very fast.
Either way, whether or not it's what you consider logical, the current rules imply:
1: You don't automatically get a Perception Check for a trap
2: Rogues (and people with access to rogue talents, such as Archaeologist Bards, Slayers, Sanctified Slayer Inquisitors, Nature Fang Druids and so on) have access to the Trap Spotter talent, that allows them to move at full pace and still automatically get a check for a trap.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.
Why not the rules say I check a 10'x10' area per check so that's a dice roll for each of those by the rules. Which is what this whole thread is about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem to me that if most Perception checks are reactive, and reactive is the opposite of passive, then (IMHO) most Perception checks are NOT passive. Or am I missing something here?
The opposite of "passive" is not "reactive," but "active." Your dictionary is misleading you here, I'm afraid. In this context, a "passive" Perception check is one that does not require an action on your part. For example, when someone opens a door, you get a (passive) Perception check to notice that there is an assassin sneaking into the room with you (in this case, it would be opposed by the assassin's Stealth check value, with a substantial penalty imposed by the door).
An active Perception check is one that you have to take an action to initiate. For example, I need to open a drawer to figure out what's in it; I need to open a book to read it. That is roughly the distinction that a number of people have attempted to draw upthread between "notice" and "search," although the proposed ruleset draws that distinction very badly.
You're also confusing "a stimulus" to "something happening." Lots of stimuli are not events, but merely presences. For example, you walk into a room and notice the stench of rotting meat. That's not "something happening," but merely something that exists. It is, however, a stimulus. It's also passive -- you don't need to say "do I smell anything in the room?" You will more or less automatically get a Perception check to notice the odor, a classic example of a passive check. This may lead you (and would lead Sherlock) to do an active search of the room, and perhaps to find the victim's dead body in the locked trunk inside the wardrobe.
Another example of a passive Perception check is to "notice" that there are pictures on the wall, and perhaps even to "notice" that there is a slightly differently-colored spot where a picture used to hang but hangs no longer. When the (attempted) murder victim walks into the dining room and notices that the table does not have a place set for her, that's another passive Perception check, from which Sherlock would infer (also as part of the Perception check) that the person who set the table did not expect her to show up for dinner, and therefore probably had a hand in the planned murder.
Watson, of course, wouldn't only notice that people were having dinner. That's the difference between a low and a high Perception. Sherlock saw, literally, at a glance that there were three people, three settings, and no vacant place. He didn't need to walk over to the table and count settings (as a move action).
If your GM uses that FAQ to punish players with grueling slogs of rolling dice rather than enhance tense moments with a bit of risk, you have more problems than Perception checks.As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.
I agree but as the the various T10 threads have shown they can and do exist. And for some people that might be your only chance to play a face to face game.
|
|
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.The rules on taking 10 are explicitly said for when you're threatened or distracted. If you don't know something is there (such as when you're doing a perception check to determine if a trap is present), you clearly aren't threatened or distracted by the trap's presence. Of course it's up to each individual GM, everything is. But you can't be in 'danger' of an object for the purpose of distracting you if you don't know it's there.When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted [you may take 10] ... Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
LOL!
well... there are a lot of threads that address this. In most of those I am getting beat up for expressing the view you have stated here. I was just pointing out that different Judges (in PFS) will run this differently - and you need to be prepared for YMMV.
I do agree with you on many of the posts you make! :)
I agree YMMV is a good thing to keep in mind, but from a RAW perspective this one just seems relatively clear-cut to me.
Why not the rules say I check a 10'x10' area per check so that's a dice roll for each of those by the rules. Which is what this whole thread is about.
Because if there's nothing there, the GM really shouldn't be mean enough to force you to roll a dice for it! They can roll in secret when you actually are near a trap to see if you spot it; that's much faster and easier for the same in-game result.
|
|
It would seem to me that if most Perception checks are reactive, and reactive is the opposite of passive, then (IMHO) most Perception checks are NOT passive. Or am I missing something here?The opposite of "passive" is not "reactive," but "active." Your dictionary is misleading you here, I'm afraid. In this context, a "passive" Perception check is one that does not require an action on your part. For example, when someone opens a door, you get a (passive) Perception check to notice that there is an assassin sneaking into the room with you (in this case, it would be opposed by the assassin's Stealth check value, with a substantial penalty imposed by the door).
An active Perception check is one that you have to take an action to initiate. For example, I need to open a drawer to figure out what's in it; I need to open a book to read it. That is roughly the distinction that a number of people have attempted to draw upthread between "notice" and "search," although the proposed ruleset draws that distinction very badly.
You're also confusing "a stimulus" to "something happening." Lots of stimuli are not events, but merely presences. For example, you walk into a room and notice the stench of rotting meat. That's not "something happening," but merely something that exists. It is, however, a stimulus. It's also passive -- you don't need to say "do I smell anything in the room?" You will more or less automatically get a Perception check to notice the odor, a classic example of a passive check. This may lead you (and would lead Sherlock) to do an active search of the room, and perhaps to find the victim's dead body in the locked trunk inside the wardrobe.
Another example of a passive Perception check is to "notice" that there are pictures on the wall, and perhaps even to "notice" that there is a slightly differently-colored spot where a picture used to hang but hangs no longer. When the (attempted) murder victim walks into the dining room and notices...
an interesting view - but not one that I am in agreement with.
Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.
|
|
Why not the rules say I check a 10'x10' area per check so that's a dice roll for each of those by the rules. Which is what this whole thread is about.
I think some people confused what this thread has come to be about.
GMs are allowed to be smart. If the PCs are going to search the whole 60x20ft room and there is only one thing to find, the GM doesn't need to roll 12 times for each PC. Eleven of those rolls won't find anything no matter what you roll and aren't necessary. The PCs are going to take the time to search the area either way.
If PCs are moving cautiously through a dungeon, GMs can use a similar method to roll once for each hall or room whether there is a trap or not, then mark off the time used.
|
|
graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
so, where do I get ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.
graystone never used the word "some"...
Active and Automatic Perception: 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. For instance, in an intrigue-based game, it is fairly common to look through a filing cabinet full of files. Though the cabinet itself might fill only a 5-foot-by-5-foot area, the number of files present could cause a search to take a particularly long time.
Intrigue distinguishes between Active checks and Automatic (aka reactive or passive) checks.
GMs are allowed to be smart. If the PCs are going to search the whole 60x20ft room and there is only one thing to find, the GM doesn't need to roll 12 times for each PC. Eleven of those rolls won't find anything no matter what you roll and aren't necessary. The PCs are going to take the time to search the area either way.
If PCs are moving cautiously through a dungeon, GMs can use a similar method to roll once for each hall or room whether there is a trap or not, then mark off the time used.
Then what's the f$#@ing point of limiting it to 10x10 ft? You're effectively making it a single Perception check for the whole area anyway!
This limitation is one of the most nonsensical, counter-intuitive and game-slowing rulings I've seen Paizo make in a long time. It does literally nothing but add a "voice and patience tax" to the players so that crappy GMs can "GOTCHA! You didn't say you were looking for traps IN THIS SPECIFIC SPOT OF THE CORRIDOR! AHA!".
|
|
GMs are allowed to be smart. If the PCs are going to search the whole 60x20ft room and there is only one thing to find, the GM doesn't need to roll 12 times for each PC. Eleven of those rolls won't find anything no matter what you roll and aren't necessary. The PCs are going to take the time to search the area either way.
If PCs are moving cautiously through a dungeon, GMs can use a similar method to roll once for each hall or room whether there is a trap or not, then mark off the time used.
Then what's the f~@$ing point of limiting it to 10x10 ft? You're effectively making it a single Perception check for the whole area anyway!
This limitation is one of the most nonsensical, counter-intuitive and game-slowing rulings I've seen Paizo make in a long time. It does literally nothing but add a "voice and patience tax" to the players so that crappy GMs can "GOTCHA! You didn't say you were looking for traps IN THIS SPECIFIC SPOT OF THE CORRIDOR! AHA!".
Don't blame Paizo for crappy GMs.
As has been repeated several times already, the 10x10 rule for Perception means that parties who are moving cautiously (10ft/rd) can thoroughly search for traps at the expense of game time for buffs or objectives. Alternatively, parties can move full speed to preserve time at the risk of hitting traps.
Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense, is very intuitive and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
Genius!
Not true.
The difference between a hole and a pit trap is, someone has taken the effort to conceal one of them.
Without the concealment you have an obstacle, you don't have a trap.
That is not really true. Time still passes normally. Most GM's just don't track it down to the move action. They just count rounds or minutes if buffs are up, and if not they just tend to look at whether or not you called for a check. They will also count it if the PC's are on a timer until ____ happens for Team Evil.Going back to the original question
Is it correct that the rules for searching for a trap, hidden door and similar things require a move action, and limit you to checking a 10 foot area?
After reading this thread, rules linked to in this thread, and other rules material, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is YES.
I can see why some people might not like this answer and might want the rule changed, but I really don't see how the rules, in their current form, can be read any other way. I should note that this has been a useful discussion which has allowed me to be very clear to myself on how to handle this sort of thing while GMing, so thanks to all involved.
The counterpoint is, you don't move down empty hallways or travel while tracking time in rounds.
Once you leave combat, the concept of move actions becomes moot as the mechanic is no longer in use.
Time may pass normally, but move actions, standard actions, etc. do not exist outside of combat.
And just think of those times when you have a huge area to search and have a real world time limit like PFS. Well we know the BBEG is at the end of the 200' Hall do we want to check every 10' or chance it since we only have 30 mins left.Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
GM's call.
If he wants to insist I roll for each 10' square, I'll take the time to roll for each 10' square.
If he wants to give me one perception check to search the entire hall, maybe we'll get to the actual encounter.
Under no circumstances am I going to just run blindly forward, real world time constraints or not. I spend too much time in RA to make that mistake.
As far as I'm aware, they're explicitly changing the game from the written rules, and so I don't think it's particularly fair to justify alternate interpretations of the written rules based on some judges running the rules incorrectly.Nope PDT has stated that the GM decides when T10 is allowed based on their belief of what constitutes danger.
Taking 10 or 20 on Perception checks to find traps is explicitly permitted in RAW.
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And trap spotter can be pifered as well or just use the spell find traps, available to a multitude of classes.
The point is not not to just give away class abilities for free because byou don't like the rules.
sorry, I had to respond to this...
the spell find traps is only available on the Cleric/oracle, witch, inquisitor and occultist lists. Not (IMHO) what many people would call a multitude of lists... (there are at least 25 different spell casting classes).
This includes the hunter and the warpriest.
I never heard the clerical list being considered niche, or somehow difficult to access, typically a spell only on the ranger or bard list would be niche.
At worst carry around a wand, 4500gp, which is about the going price for getting a feat via gold/magic item.
Aram zey's focus is even better at replacing a rogue entirely.
graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
so, where do I get ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.
It's from the perception skill, under action. it's a DIRECT quote. "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." So it's not some but MOST.
|
|
... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...Synonymous = "(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language."
Reactive = "showing a response to a stimulus."
Passive = "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."
ah... sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Passive is the opposite of reactive. (IMHO)
That definition of "passive" is not appropriate for its use in the sentence. The definition "existing or occurring without being active" is much closer.
Both words refer to a check that occurs without being actively called for by the player.
"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." And some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive.
The "made in response to observable stimulus" is to clarify what most Perception checks are reactive too... they are in response (reactive) to observable stimulus.
SO, this means (IMHO) that Passive (or Non-Reactive) Perception checks (which are stated to be < 50%, or "not most") are those checks NOT made in response to observable stimulus.
When these are checks are taken is (at least partly) in the control of the GM. As I posted earlier...
The players (and the GM is a player of the game too) need to sit down together and determine a procedure for how traps are dealt with in the game. When Perception checks are taken and HOW. There is enough YMMV in the Perception rules, enough differences in the perception of rules on Perception, that the best way to reduce "hard feelings" would be to work out how the rules work - and stick with that.
The players perceive the game thru the GM - the GM provides the players with what they see/hear/feel/etc. and they need to be "talking the same language"... or problems will...
here we go, my post that appears to be the one in question.
and first line is a quote from graystone....
the line "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." is from the CRB on Perception, but what I was questioning is the second sentence..."So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ..."
First sentence (from the CRB): "Most Perception checks are reactive,..."
greystone then states: "So most checks are passive..."
and as I feel that there are Reactive check (most) and Passive check (some) I think that these two statements are in conflict. (IMHO) it is like saying "Most Clouds are white..." and "So most clouds are grey...".
The first sentence (which is a rule) does NOT (IMHO) lead to the second. In fact, it is in direct conflict.
But enough of this, clearly we have a difference of opinion about what constitutes a Reactive and a Passive Perception check.
(IMHO: Reactive Perception checks are taken in response to stimuli, Passive checks are all perception checks taken that are NOT in response to something.)
|
|
It's from the perception skill, under action. it's a DIRECT quote. "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." So it's not some but MOST.graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
so, where do I get ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.
sigh...
CRB: "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."
greystone: "So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ... "
Muse.: "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."
Reactive =/= Passive. (IMHO)
Edit: this post is coming out to snarky. Sorry. If we are both at a gaming table we will need to work this out. WHEN do/can I as a player perform Perception checks. That's all that really matters. Just tell me when, and we can play, we'll go with whatever the judge/GM says... sounds good to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's from the perception skill, under action. it's a DIRECT quote. "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." So it's not some but MOST.graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
so, where do I get ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.
sigh...
CRB: "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."
greystone: "So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ... "
Muse.: "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."
Reactive =/= Passive. (IMHO)
Edit: this post is coming out to snarky. Sorry. If we are both at a gaming table we will need to work this out. WHEN do/can I as a player perform Perception checks. That's all that really matters. Just tell me when, and we can play, we'll go with whatever the judge/GM says... sounds good to me.
Once again in this case both reactive and passive mean no action is being taken to make the roll. Not that the words are synonymous. What graystone and others are sayings is that a reactive or passive perception check is the same thing from a standpoint of being not an action.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
CRB: "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."
greystone: "So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ... "
Muse.: "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."
Reactive =/= Passive. (IMHO)
Yes, you've stated this several times, and have been wrong each time. You are focusing on the wrong opposition.
Here are Paizo's actual words on the subject:
Active and Automatic Perception: 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.
Ignore, for the moment, the word "passive." This passage makes it clear that most Perception checks are automatic and do not call for a player action. In opposition ("the flip side"), some (but not even most) checks occur "when a player actively calls for a Perception check," a process that takes a move action.
There are therefore two types of checks, "reactive," which do not take an action, and "active," which do. "Passive" is not in the standard Paizo rules, but is being used in this thread in opposition to "active"
So in this context, a "passive" check is, by abuse of terminology, what Paizo calls a "reactive check." There is no other alternative, because the only other choice would be what Paizo calls an "active check," and that's specifically what "passive" opposes in this discourse.
So, no, you're wrong. On this thread specifically, and in most of the board, a "passive" check" is, in fact, a "reactive check." They are synonymous.
|
|
It's from the perception skill, under action. it's a DIRECT quote. "Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action." So it's not some but MOST.graystone wrote:... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
so, where do I get ? from the line from graystone's post that I quoted.
sigh...
CRB: "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."
greystone: "So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ... "
Muse.: "some (less than "most") Perception checks are passive."
Reactive =/= Passive. (IMHO)
Edit: this post is coming out to snarky. Sorry. If we are both at a gaming table we will need to work this out. WHEN do/can I as a player perform Perception checks. That's all that really matters. Just tell me when, and we can play, we'll go with whatever the judge/GM says... sounds good to me.
As much as I question your use of the dictionary, I can agree that Perception is something to cover in session 0, and as long as everyone knows how the GM is going to run, we can have fun together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm not fond of in this new regime is the division into "notice" and "search" where "notice" == "reactive" and "search" == "active".
That any move action perception check is implied to be a search and thus must be confined to a 10' area. Back in the old 3.x days, Search was always an action and always limited to an area (5' square then, IIRC), but Spot could be either reactive or active, but still had no area limits. IMO, losing that is a problem.
Can you Take 20 on a reactive check? "I open the door and spend a minute looking for hidden creatures?"
Well, I believe I'm on record upthread as saying that the "notice"/"search" distinction was very badly phrased.
But I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to say here. In direct answer to your questions, no, I don't think you can take 20 on a reactive Perception check, because at that point you are deliberately taking an action, and a repeated action, which makes it not-reactive. I also don't have any particular issue with the idea that your visual Perception check is limited to the area that you are actually looking at, so, yes, it should take longer to look (systematically) for a single person hiding in Westminster Abbey rather than in a hotel bathroom.
|
|
So we're actually just arguing over the term "passive", which isn't actually used in the Perception rules?
Most people here are using it to mean the same as reactive. The opposite of "active checks", done using a move action.Regardless of local board terminology, we all agree that the rules say "Most perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus" and thus a smaller number are made at the player's request using a move action, right?
yeah, looks like you got it.
My disagreement was with the use of the term "Passive" to be equal with the term "Reactive"...
If these two terms are equal (IMHO they are not) then the statement by greystone is correct.
To me, passive checks are those Perception checks taken when there is no "observable stimulus"... normally taken when the player states his PC is "Taking a moment to look around. Something is not right ... it smells like a trap to me." Nothing is happening, the PC is being "Passive" and just looking for what might be there... and would not be restricted to a 10x10 area.
|
What I'm not fond of in this new regime is the division into "notice" and "search" where "notice" == "reactive" and "search" == "active".
That any move action perception check is implied to be a search and thus must be confined to a 10' area. Back in the old 3.x days, Search was always an action and always limited to an area (5' square then, IIRC), but Spot could be either reactive or active, but still had no area limits. IMO, losing that is a problem.
Can you Take 20 on a reactive check? "I open the door and spend a minute looking for hidden creatures?"
Well, I believe I'm on record upthread as saying that the "notice"/"search" distinction was very badly phrased.
But I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to say here. In direct answer to your questions, no, I don't think you can take 20 on a reactive Perception check, because at that point you are deliberately taking an action, and a repeated action, which makes it not-reactive. I also don't have any particular issue with the idea that your visual Perception check is limited to the area that you are actually looking at, so, yes, it should take longer to look (systematically) for a single person hiding in Westminster Abbey rather than in a hotel bathroom.
Player "I listen at the door, Perception 18."
GM: "Faintly, you hear a rumble... but you can't quite make out what it is."Player: "I take a minute to listen... can I take 20?"
Gm: "sure..."
Player: "I get a 35 with the T20"
GM:"Sounds like a something large breathing... a bit like snores."
But your contention is that you can only Take 20 on a search of a 10' square, correct?
That, in fact, you can't and shouldn't be able to use a move action to make a Perception check for anything other than a search of a 10' square.
That was not, in fact, my contention. I think it's patently ridiculous that, for example, if I stop and take a moment to listen, I should be able to confine what I'm hearing to a specific 10' square. I can't listen "to my left," because ears don't work that way. Similarly, I can't taste an entire 10' long buffet using a single move action, because tongues don't work that way either.
But I have no problem with the idea that I can only look a certain limited volume of space (perceptual psychologists as well as computer graphics specialists call this the "frustrum of vision") and I can certainly understand the desire to simplify complex 3D calculations down to a simple area. So I don't particularly object to the idea that active searching of the area the size of a cathedral nave would need to be done section by section, and 10x10 seems a reasonable size for the amount of area you are able to see at any given instant.
|
|
So we're actually just arguing over the term "passive", which isn't actually used in the Perception rules?
Most people here are using it to mean the same as reactive. The opposite of "active checks", done using a move action.Regardless of local board terminology, we all agree that the rules say "Most perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus" and thus a smaller number are made at the player's request using a move action, right?
yeah, looks like you got it.
My disagreement was with the use of the term "Passive" to be equal with the term "Reactive"...
If these two terms [b]are[\b] equal (IMHO they are not) then the statement by greystone is correct.
To me, passive checks are those Perception checks taken when there is no "observable stimulus"... normally taken when the player states his PC is "Taking a moment to look around. Something is not right ... it smells like a trap to me." Nothing is happening, the PC is being "Passive" and just looking for what might be there... and would not be restricted to a 10x10 area.
Are you making a threefold distinction: "reactive" - no action, some new stimulus, automatically get a check, unlimited area, etc.
"passive" - move action, unlimited area
"search" - move action or more, 10' areaI think that's the distinction I've been trying to make too, though I'm too fond of your "passive" term.
"Search" finds traps and hidden doors and the like.
The others find stealthy creatures and details.
I do not like linking search with perception see the following
old thread Perception-is-not-Search.so, I would have to say, no I am not "Are you making a threefold distinction:" -
I'm making a twofold distinction.
Reactive Perception checks: made in response to some stimuli
and
Non-Reactive (or as I would say "Passive") Perception checks: All other Perception checks (those not made in response to some stimuli).
|
|
What I'm not fond of in this new regime is the division into "notice" and "search" where "notice" == "reactive" and "search" == "active".
That any move action perception check is implied to be a search and thus must be confined to a 10' area. Back in the old 3.x days, Search was always an action and always limited to an area (5' square then, IIRC), but Spot could be either reactive or active, but still had no area limits. IMO, losing that is a problem.
Can you Take 20 on a reactive check? "I open the door and spend a minute looking for hidden creatures?"
Well, I believe I'm on record upthread as saying that the "notice"/"search" distinction was very badly phrased.
But I'm not entirely clear what you're trying to say here. In direct answer to your questions, no, I don't think you can take 20 on a reactive Perception check, because at that point you are deliberately taking an action, and a repeated action, which makes it not-reactive. I also don't have any particular issue with the idea that your visual Perception check is limited to the area that you are actually looking at, so, yes, it should take longer to look (systematically) for a single person hiding in Westminster Abbey rather than in a hotel bathroom.
Player "I listen at the door, Perception 18."
GM: "Faintly, you hear a rumble... but you can't quite make out what it is."
Player: "I take a minute to listen... can I take 20?"
Gm: "sure..."
Player: "I get a 35 with the T20"
GM:"Sounds like a something large breathing... a bit like snores."** spoiler omitted **
I believe the argument is that you can't Take 20 on a reactive check because it's made in reaction to a specific stimulus. If you fail the roll, you can't keep trying.
It might extend to "You can't Take 20 on any...
but if "...you can't Take 20 on a reactive check because it's made in reaction to a specific stimulus.", what if the stimulus continues for more rounds?
A:"I smell smoke... do you?"
B:"Nope... sniff-sniff..."
A:"You sure?"
B:"ok, let me roll again..."
A:"Just take 20."
B:"Can't, I can't Take 20 on a reactive check, and it's being made in response to either your request, or the smoke in the air..."
But when I step in to the Cathedral, I get a reactive roll (with appropriate distance penalties) for any hidden creatures in it. If I fail that, I have to check one 10' square at a time.
But your contention is that you can only Take 20 on a search of a 10' square, correct?
That, in fact, you can't and shouldn't be able to use a move action to make a Perception check for anything other than a search of a 10' square.That was not, in fact, my contention. I think it's patently ridiculous that, for example, if I stop and take a moment to listen, I should be able to confine what I'm hearing to a specific 10' square. I can't listen "to my left," because ears don't work that way. Similarly, I can't taste an entire 10' long buffet using a single move action, because tongues don't work that way either.
But I have no problem with the idea that I can only look a certain limited volume of space (perceptual psychologists as well as computer graphics specialists call this the "frustrum of vision") and I can certainly understand the desire to simplify complex 3D calculations down to a simple area. So I don't particularly object to the idea that active searching of the area the size of a cathedral nave would need to be done section by section, and 10x10 seems a reasonable size for the amount of area you are able to see at any given instant.
Yeah, that's it exactly.
Seems weird to me.
Maybe, but it's the way people actually seem to work.
Mind you, that doesn't work by the rules
I don't consider the Search/Notice distinction as phrased to be RAW; as a badly broken optional ruleset, I simply disregard it.
but if "...you can't Take 20 on a reactive check because it's made in reaction to a specific stimulus.", what if the stimulus continues for more rounds?
A:"I smell smoke... do you?"
B:"Nope... sniff-sniff..."
A:"You sure?"
B:"ok, let me roll again..."
A:"Just take 20."
B:"Can't, I can't Take 20 on a reactive check, and it's being made in response to either your request, or the smoke in the air..."
As soon as you request a roll (see highlighted bit above), it's no longer "reactive."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's part of the issue isn't it? Do you get a Reactive Perception check when you first enter an area? Without "taking a moment to glance around"? Some judges (not myself) would say no. Their reasoning (I think) would be because there is no triggering stimuli to give you a Reactive check.
This is nonsensical. Of course there's stimuli -- you now see something that you didn't see before, the inside of the cathedral nave. Please don't confuse "triggering stimuli" with "triggering event." Not all stimuli are actions.
|
|
but if "...you can't Take 20 on a reactive check because it's made in reaction to a specific stimulus.", what if the stimulus continues for more rounds?
A:"I smell smoke... do you?"
B:"Nope... sniff-sniff..."
A:"You sure?"
B:"ok, let me roll again..."
A:"Just take 20."
B:"Can't, I can't Take 20 on a reactive check, and it's being made in response to either your request, or the smoke in the air..."As soon as you request a roll (see highlighted bit above), it's no longer "reactive."
LOL! so there was no reactive check at all? The first check was from a request.
A mentioned smoke, B asked for a Perception check (which he failed)...