|
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.
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.
Seems weird to me.Mind you, that doesn't work by the rules. Search doesn't find stealthy creatures, that's Notice. Notice doesn't work by 10' sections. RAW, the question is whether you can use an action to Notice at all or whether it's strictly reactive.
I've seen some GMs take that initial reactive check and use it to determine at what distance you notice a thing. You only roll once, but you don't stop looking around as you move through the space.
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.
Passive as not an Intentional check, one of the two types of checks. [reactive or intentional].
Passive [from online dictionaries]: "without active response" "not involving, deriving from, or requiring effort or active participation". So not taking an action which isn't what an intentional act is which goes against your "Non-Reactive (or as I would say "Passive") Perception checks: All other Perception checks (those not made in response to some stimuli)." You can't passively search unless you are accidently opening drawer and coincidently flipping rugs.
|
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.
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.
Lovely thought and much like my own thinking, but not what I have encountered in PFS. Some judges do not see actions on the part of the PC as being triggering "stimuli". But never mind - clearly I am just a confused ("nonsensical") player and will retire now from the discussion.
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?
No, there were two, immediately prior to A's comment. A succeeded (reactively) in smelling smoke, B failed. When A mentioned it, B made a second (active) check to smell smoke, and apparently failed that, too. He then requested a third check, the second of his active checks. (Well done, my dear Watson! You make me look so competent!)
I've seen some GMs take that initial reactive check and use it to determine at what distance you notice a thing. You only roll once, but you don't stop looking around as you move through the space.
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.
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.
Seems weird to me.Mind you, that doesn't work by the rules. Search doesn't find stealthy creatures, that's Notice. Notice doesn't work by 10' sections. RAW, the question is whether you can use an action to Notice at all or whether it's strictly reactive.
That's not a bad rule, especially if you are using the take 10 rules. If your Perception bonus is +5, you have an effective 15 "passive Perception roll," which means that you will not notice a person standing 200' away under "typical" conditions (e.g., not optimal lighting, a normal but not excessive amount of other things around, and so forth.) The exact math works out to DC 0, +1 per 10 feet, so 200 feel is a DC 20 penalty. When the penalty is +16 (e.g. 160 feet), you still won't see that person, but you will finally spot the person 150 feet away (DC 15, which you make exactly).
Of course, Watson, with his -2 Wisdom modifier, will only spot the person 80 feet away.
That's not a bad rule, especially if you are using the take 10 rules. If your...
I've seen some GMs take that initial reactive check and use it to determine at what distance you notice a thing. You only roll once, but you don't stop looking around as you move through the space.
I like this application a lot -- passive perception = range of LOS.
Although I would modify this by the size modifier of the creature/object (*-10):
Fine: +8 = -80 feet
Diminutive:+4 = -40 feet
Tiny: +2 = -20 feet
Small: +1 = -10 feet
Medium: +0 = No Mod
Large (tall): -1 = +10 feet
Large (long): -1 = +10 feet
Huge (tall): -2 = +40 feet
Huge (long): -2 = +40 feet
Gargantuan (tall): -4 = +40 feet
Gargantuan (long): -4 = +40 feet
Colossal (tall): -8 = +80 feet
Colossal (long): -8 = +80 feet
|
|
In this context, "passive" is used as the opposite of "active". It means a perception check made without a character taking an action.
Quintain was referring to the "initial reactive check" in my post. A Perception check the GM rolls as the character enters a room, without the character taking an action to look around.
Doesn't everyone do this with passive perception anyways?I like this application a lot -- passive perception = range of LOS.That's not a bad rule, especially if you are using the take 10 rules. If your...
I've seen some GMs take that initial reactive check and use it to determine at what distance you notice a thing. You only roll once, but you don't stop looking around as you move through the space.
Apparently not, or this thread would be two posts long. A lot of GMs seem to have a real hate-on for the take 10 rules and take any opportunity they can to eliminate them. A number of participants on this thread seem simply to deny the possibility of passive perception.
"Passive perception" in the context Quintain was using it is essentially assuming you see anything that's within your Take 10 Perception check (adjusted for range/size and any other factors).
Particularly useful for determining the range you spot things at when approaching them.
Edit: An "active" perception check is one that takes a move action (or more in some cases), usually done at the player's request.
As opposed to the "reactive" check, which takes no action and is normally made at the GM's request, in response to some observable stimulus.
Yeah, this is how I define active, passive and reactive.
Passive would be entering a room and say "describe me the contents"...the perception check would be to determine if the tiny ring on the table is able to be seen from the doorway or if he would have to actually enter the room to see it.
Reactive would be if the person entering the room sees someone jump behind the curtain in an attempt to hide as the door is opened. -- the quick movement being the "observable stimulus" as the curtains drop back to their original position.
Active would be pulling back the curtain to find someone he is specifically looking for.
Doesn't everyone do this with passive perception anyways?
Most of the time, passive perception is hand-waved, until important things happen. Then the arguments start.
Apparently not, or this thread would be two posts long. A lot of GMs seem to have a real hate-on for the take 10 rules and take any opportunity they can to eliminate them. A number of participants on this thread seem simply to deny the possibility of passive perception.Doesn't everyone do this with passive perception anyways?I like this application a lot -- passive perception = range of LOS.That's not a bad rule, especially if you are using the take 10 rules. If your...
I've seen some GMs take that initial reactive check and use it to determine at what distance you notice a thing. You only roll once, but you don't stop looking around as you move through the space.
Take 10 and take 20 are explicitly permitted for perception roles to detect traps.
It is the example given in the core rulebook for a common use of take 20.
A lot of GMs seem to have a real hate-on for the take 10 rules and take any opportunity they can to eliminate them. A number of participants on this thread seem simply to deny the possibility of passive perception.Take 10 and take 20 are explicitly permitted for perception roles to detect traps.
It is the example given in the core rulebook for a common use of take 20.
Take 10 is only permitted if the GM rules that you are not "distracted." All the GM needs to say is that you're "distracted" by the thought that you might be missing something important, and you can't take 10 any more.
The PDT has been very explicit in this: "The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies," meaning that if the GM doesn't want you to do it, the example in the rulebook is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.
I try not to play the game in fear of antagonistic GMs. The PDT trusts GMs to use sensible discretion. You could, too.
I could, but I'm not going to. If the PDT wants to "trust" in such an obviously counterfactual assumption, the more fool they.
It's not, actually, a question of "trust." It's a question of fact. I wrote "a lot of GMs seem to have a real hate-on for the take 10 rules and take any opportunity they can to eliminate them," and I stand by that, because I've met a number of such GMs and you can find many more for yourself with the forum's search function. While I may not like such people -- and I don't -- I'm not going to pretend that they don't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try not to play the game in fear of antagonistic GMs. The PDT trusts GMs to use sensible discretion. You could, too.
LOL I've had THAT trust betrayed more times than I can count. It's one thing if you can pick a single full time DM but if you have DM's that change on a regular basis, you're going to see the extremes where "sensible discretion" go out the window.
I stand by that, because I've met a number of such GMs
Me too. They aren't some 'rare animal' that's hard to find.
I try not to play the game in fear of antagonistic GMs. The PDT trusts GMs to use sensible discretion. You could, too.LOL I've had THAT trust betrayed more times than I can count. It's one thing if you can pick a single full time DM but if you have DM's that change on a regular basis, you're going to see the extremes where "sensible discretion" go out the window.
I stand by that, because I've met a number of such GMsMe too. They aren't some 'rare animal' that's hard to find.
Thirded
|
|
I try not to play the game in fear of antagonistic GMs. The PDT trusts GMs to use sensible discretion. You could, too.I could, but I'm not going to. If the PDT wants to "trust" in such an obviously counterfactual assumption, the more fool they.
It's not, actually, a question of "trust." It's a question of fact. I wrote "a lot of GMs seem to have a real hate-on for the take 10 rules and take any opportunity they can to eliminate them," and I stand by that, because I've met a number of such GMs and you can find many more for yourself with the forum's search function. While I may not like such people -- and I don't -- I'm not going to pretend that they don't exist.
I used to be, not an antagonistic GM, but one who did not understand the take 10 rules.
I now use them for a rogue's trap spotting. Saves me time as GM.
Official Rules Response
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
That's why the barbarian always takes point.Cause they have the hitpoints to spare?
That's why you hire expendable guides? At least we can get rid of the overland movement speed chart if we're meant to only move at 10'/round. I'm sure those time sensitive missions will still be there if we move 1/6th normal speed...
Wow, now the best traps ever will be covered pit traps on wilderness trails, or really any trap in the wilderness. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to be searching every 10' when they have to travel 10 miles to the next town.
Why bother with covering it; that's just needless work. Just dig uncovered pits in the middle of the road, it's not like anyone can see them unless they only move 10' and search... 10' holes now have become invisible to the naked eye unless you go out of your way to look for them... Just make sure there are NO creatures because you get a roll vs them: you get a roll vs a normal ant in the hole but not the 10' hole itself...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
While I thank the team for the clarification, I just have to sigh and shake my head at the results. I'll add it to the ever growing list of FAQ's I hope my DM's never see and use. :(
As a side note, this means a trapper ranger or Alchemical Trapper could set up a trap right in front of you and it vanished from sight, even though you haven't taken your eyes off of it so it doesn't matter what the DC of the trap is: it's like you have to daze yourself to figure out that the trap is still there...
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
le sigh...
one of the great changes Pathfinder made to the game, was no more search checks every 5' because players are extremely paranoid about traps being in weird places.
This FAQ just brought us back to GMs dealing with players wanting to make Perception checks every 5'.
Boring and unnecessary. As a GM I don't want to deal with making secret checks for the PCs all the time and I don't want to deal with the player as a GM or another player who wants to bog down game time by perceiving every 5'.
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
While I thank the team for the clarification, I just have to sigh and shake my head at the results. I'll add it to the ever growing list of FAQ's I hope my DM's never see and use.
Not only that but not that now we are looking at GM's able to limit you to smaller spaces if cluttered and make the check take longer than a move action, (in fact they often are longer than that per the FAQ)
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
Couldn't you have answered the question of do traps require an active search more directly? Instead you answered it inferentially in a parenthetical expression.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
Haha, great April Fools you guys!
Uh, guys?
Aw, F#&%.
The answer is simple: Don't play with jerk GMs.
And for PFS: Don't let them write scenarios. PFS scenarios should state how long searches take, if it's more than a move action.
It's always been possible to screw the players over with traps in strange places. It's a little easier now, but it's still a jerk move. Don't do it. Don't play with people who do.
Or of course, just have a trapspotter. :)
It'd be great if they wore nametags that had "jerk GM" on it but they don't. I play pathfinder online and it's rare to have the same DM on a consistent basis. As such, rulings that embolden what you call "jerk DM's" is seen by me as a bad thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
le sigh...
one of the great changes Pathfinder made to the game, was no more search checks every 5' because players are extremely paranoid about traps being in weird places.
This FAQ just brought us back to GMs dealing with players wanting to make Perception checks every 5'.
Boring and unnecessary. As a GM I don't want to deal with making secret checks for the PCs all the time and I don't want to deal with the player as a GM or another player who wants to bog down game time by perceiving every 5'.
The last sentence of the FAQ deals with that. You just say they move 10 feet per round instead of their normal speed, they roll Perception once (or you roll it for them in secret), and only apply that roll if the space they're looking actually has something to find. The end result is that it doesn't take that much more game time to resolve the party moving slowly and carefully to search for traps, you handwave it away with a single roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I use Perception as a move action to search for traps or other secrets, how wide of an area can I search? The Core Rulebook doesn’t say, and Pathfinder Unchained mentions a 10 by 10 area, but it’s part of an optional consolidated skills subsystem.
As per Ultimate Intrigue, 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 is the relevant type of Perception used to find traps, unless you have the trap spotter rogue talent, which makes it reactive). 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.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
Oh, look! Yet another ill-thought FAQ/errata to ignore! You guys are on a roll!
This is how I figured it would be. I have always had people use a move action or more to do an actual search(for traps, etc etc) anyway, but I wont be making them choose a 10 foot area. I will just apply the perception penalties for distance from where they are, like I have always done.
I started the FAQ to get an answer more than anything else.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, look! Yet another ill-thought FAQ/errata to ignore! You guys are on a roll!
I dislike the 10 foot search as well, but perhaps you could up the substance to grarg ratio a bit?
...
Oh, look! Yet another ill-thought FAQ/errata to ignore! You guys are on a roll!
To be fair, AFAIK this is how traps worked in 3.5, and traps are pretty crappily done in general (also 3.5) so this ruling is consistent with their general terribleness.
What would be really nice is for traps to be overhauled completely (and perception too while we are at it), but that is well beyond the scope of an FAQ. As such, there are only really two options that aren't blatant rules expansion through FAQratta:
1. Traps are automatically rolled for, with no penalty for not being specifically on the lookout for them. Effectively trivializes them unless the trap is hard to spot or the party has bad perception.
2. Traps require active searching. Has weird implications for perception, and means that even demigods can't spot a pit unless they actively look for it, but at least traps aren't totally neutered. *Was* the way it used to work in 3.5.
Neither is particularly good. I would have leaned towards the first option, but the second isn't a *totally* terrible choice either.