In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.
If you are asking for the wording from the unchained book which would give us a hint while we are waiting, the reason is that the book is not allowed to be quoted until the pdf is up for sale. They have been deleting direct quotes from the book.So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.
To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."
Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.
If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."
Right, which is kinda my point. The reason he is being coy is because Paizo intends to charge for a rule that was "accidentally omitted" in the first place. It tastes bad.
Or they aren't doing that, which means that the rule wasn't meant to be included all along.
From what I understand the rule will be officially made into an FAQ or errata so it should not cost anything extra. The rule in the unchained book is just part of the equation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Any actual announcement is the PDT account's post to make, not mine, and that's why I didn't make it. We had a period back in time with no PDT account where they just had one member (Sean) post such things on his own account, and it led to people thinking that it was Sean's ruling, rather than the PDT's as a whole.
Right, which is kinda my point. The reason he is being coy is because Paizo intends to charge for a rule that was "accidentally omitted" in the first place. It tastes bad.
Or they aren't doing that, which means that the rule wasn't meant to be included all along.
"To charge for"? By which you mean, include as an option in a book along with a whole bunch of other rules, which will also be available for free in the SRD.
And, should be intended as an actual change to the official rules (for PFS and suchlike), probably addressed in a FAQ or possibly errata. Which will also be free.
Then why wait for the Unchained PDF?
If you are asking for the wording from the unchained book which would give us a hint while we are waiting, the reason is that the book is not allowed to be quoted until the pdf is up for sale. They have been deleting direct quotes from the book.So why be so coy about it here? Why not state right here in this thread what the intention is? If it was accidentally left out, why not tell us now?If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!I am guessing it has to be worded a certain way, and him saying it wont make it official, and if he does not have the final wording it might cause more problems than waiting.
To me, that sounds like more than an "accidental omission," and more like a "decision."
Edit: ie, it is an accidental omission to leave out "10 ft cube," which is unlike the decision to not develop a rule, not plan for the word count of a rule, not account for the pagination of that rule, and ultimately not publish a rule.
If the answer is more than 10 words then I have a hard time believing it was an "accidental omission."
Right, which is kinda my point. The reason he is being coy is because Paizo intends to charge for a rule that was "accidentally omitted" in the first place. It tastes bad.
Or they aren't doing that, which means that the rule wasn't meant to be included all along.
Really? For a company that gives away every rule they've ever printed that's a pretty unreasonable and unjustified statement to make.
Considering the only rule they have is 'no rules text before the official book is released to the public' I have a hard time finding it unreasonable, unfair, or even that much of a bother.
It's not unfair in light of the claim that the rule was intended to be in the CRB.
Honestly, 10 ft. by 10 ft. is fine I guess. Non-ranged Sift is a good call if it must be tied to a set area. And again, most non-reactive searches are going to be pretty confined spaces anyway so this doesn't change to much.
This is one of those things that's better left undefined, or we risk making it too restrictive... Same goes for the term "wielding".
|
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.
If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.
That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
|
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.[...] That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
Not necessarily—depends on how the GM runs it. Makes perfect sense to say, "we search the room," roll once, and the GM just applies that roll to the relevant area (maybe eyeballing the room to say the search took a round or two more if exact timing matters). All told, just as quick as ever.
|
|
I feel the need to emphasize, that if this "suggestion" is being implemented as a new "rule", that'll fundamentally change the game.
Don't fix what isn't broken.
It's not like a cool new option for the Rogue, or a new feat, or a way to tame Eidolons.
Perception is the most used skill in Pathfinder. Everything from surprise, to searching, to noticing a disguise, revolves around its use.
I cannot endorse such an idea. I'm sorry.
|
|
I feel the need to emphasize, that if this "suggestion" is being implemented as a new "rule", that'll fundamentally change the game.
What are you worried about? I'm not sure I see any parade of horribles that might follow from specifying the search function of Perception.
It might help bring folks around to your way of seeing things if you spelled out your concerns a bit.
I feel the need to emphasize, that if this "suggestion" is being implemented as a new "rule", that'll fundamentally change the game.What are you worried about? I'm not sure I see any parade of horribles that might follow from specifying the search function of Perception.
I also don't see anyone stopping you from limiting the search range of the Perception skill... So why make the game more needlessly complicated? I've never seen or even heard of this being a problem in any table.
What's the average dungeon size?
36 squares by 24?
That's 864 squares.
And, with this new idea, you can only search 4 at a time?
That's over 200 die rolls.
I don't feel the need to spell out a concern greater than that.
You enter a room (60x60)
player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
Player: "take 20"
GM: "alright it takes you 2*6 = 12 minutes to search the room"
When do you ever use dice to search a room? I get rolling to be surprised or notice something off - but on a search? In a hurry - take 10 the above becomes:
player: "I search"
GM: "take 20 or take 10?"
player: "take 10"
GM: "alright it takes you (2 move = 1 round = 20x20 = 3 rounds for 60x60) = (3*6 seconds) 12 seconds to sweep the room ....
What's the average dungeon size?
36 squares by 24?
That's 864 squares.
And, with this new idea, you can only search 4 at a time?
That's over 200 die rolls.
I don't feel the need to spell out a concern greater than that.
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.
Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...
That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...
You don't have to - the only thing having a defined area does to search is give the GM the ability to *reliably* and *consistently* determine the time it takes to search a given area. Without the definition you get various interpretations - which is exactly why PFS should have this kind of definition - because it tries to eliminate table variance at all opportunities.
It does however stop the players from searching a 200x200 warehouse top to bottom taking 20 in 2 minutes... so it has the 'makes search a bit more realistic' thing going for it also.
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.
That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
As long as you don't have the "you can't take 10 on perception checks due to immediate danger" GM's when there is no combat you should be fine. However some people do like to roll instead of taking 10, so in that case things could slow down.
I will most likely stick with the old rule.
|
|
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.
That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
As long as you don't have the "you can't take 10 on perception checks due to immediate danger" GM's when there is no combat you should be fine. However some people do like to roll instead of taking 10, so in that case things could slow down.
I will most likely stick with the old rule.
My 15th level Trap Spotter never took 10 once.
Occasionally I have a character that does, but that shouldn't be the point.
Taking 10 is the alternative to the normal rules of rolling dice.
It shouldn't be the default.
And what happens when someone takes 10, and they don't find anything?
They roll anyways.
On the other hand, you have to take just as long to search the nearly bare room as the cluttered one, so realism is still stretched a bit.That's of course assuming that for some reason for a big bulk job you've decided to roll every time instead of just taking 10.Saying "I take 10" two hundred times isn't very entertaining either...You don't have to - the only thing having a defined area does to search is give the GM the ability to *reliably* and *consistently* determine the time it takes to search a given area. Without the definition you get various interpretations - which is exactly why PFS should have this kind of definition - because it tries to eliminate table variance at all opportunities.
It does however stop the players from searching a 200x200 warehouse top to bottom taking 20 in 2 minutes... so it has the 'makes search a bit more realistic' thing going for it also.
Sure - but one one hand you have players that want to search the grand canyon to 'visible range' with one take 20 - on the other you have GM's that want to make you specify each drawer you open.
In the middle is a defined area - that a roll covers - regardless of what's inside that area - it would be assumed if you are taking 20 on a 10x10 of empty (save for the floorboards) area you are going to check for hidden\loose boards and empty spaces - or trick doors etc...
Any system that attempts to simulate reality via a dice roll is going to loose to credibility somewhere - I don't see why it isn't a bad idea to have a defined area as a middle ground.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so one of the main concerns is with table management. For that concern, why wouldn't this work (reposting from above)?
Makes perfect sense to say, "we search the room," roll once, and the GM just applies that roll to the relevant area (maybe eyeballing the room to say the search took a round or two more if exact timing matters). All told, just as quick as ever.
Since die rolls are independent events, there's absolutely no reason for the GM to make you roll for each section to find the one trap door. No matter how well you roll in an empty section, you don't find anything. So roll once, and apply that roll to the area where the roll matters—the time it takes to search everywhere else is only relevant for timing purposes, if it matters and there the rule seems mostly a positive to help the GM when if the question ever comes up.
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.
That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
As long as you don't have the "you can't take 10 on perception checks due to immediate danger" GM's when there is no combat you should be fine. However some people do like to roll instead of taking 10, so in that case things could slow down.
I will most likely stick with the old rule.
My 15th level Trap Spotter never took 10 once.
Occasionally I have a character that does, but that shouldn't be the point.
Taking 10 is the alternative to the normal rules of rolling dice.
It shouldn't be the default.
And what happens when someone takes 10, and they don't find anything?
They roll anyways.
It's not alternative - it's a 'you can use this' rule that a GM has to houserule out if they don't like it. Once you houserule take 10 then why even bother caring what the book says about searching - talk to your GM to see what he's making rules up about that on. A player that is in a *hurry* takes 10 - a player who isn't takes 20 - the only difference is time - time that eats at a players running buff spells - time that might prompt the GM to roll the random encounter table - time that lets a GM track about how long the efforts of the party are taking to play into the background plot or if they are on a timer keep the clock ticking.
Besides - what does a player do that rolls a 1 on their search do - they roll again. That's the point of take 20 to begin with. At some point the person rolling is either going to be happy with a number between 10 and 20 - or he'll roll a 20. I'd say the guy that forces the table through tons of rolls instead of saying 'I take 20' is the one slowing the game down.
In Pathfinder Unchained's section on consolidated skills, it lists all the skill functions and tasks of the various skills. Under Perception, one section is on Search Locations, and it says it takes a move action to search a 10 ft by 10 ft area.If that's the case, I don't want Unchained made legal in PFS.
That's a ridiculously small area, and it'll make dungeon crawls grind to a complete stop.
As long as you don't have the "you can't take 10 on perception checks due to immediate danger" GM's when there is no combat you should be fine. However some people do like to roll instead of taking 10, so in that case things could slow down.
I will most likely stick with the old rule.
My 15th level Trap Spotter never took 10 once.
Occasionally I have a character that does, but that shouldn't be the point.
Taking 10 is the alternative to the normal rules of rolling dice.
It shouldn't be the default.
And what happens when someone takes 10, and they don't find anything?
They roll anyways.
I normally take 10, but I do get your point, which is why I mentioned those who prefer to roll. Some people just dont like to take 10.
I will admit this might be another block to me avoiding PFS.
|
|
This discussion of Take 10 may be beside the point, since it came up as a question of saving time at the table. But again, there's not really much in this rule that requires the players to roll more dice at the table or Take 10 more often. "We search the room" can still be handled, in most cases, by a single roll or Take-10 (because there's no point in rolling for areas where you won't find anything). The only thing changed by the rule is that the GM now has a useful standard estimate of how long a search will take (in the rare case that matters).
I have seen movies where people stepped into room and immediately noticed several things. I think it should be an optional rule.
I don't see how this rule prevents that.
If the room is larger than 10 by 10, then you can only search that size area at once.
My last post saw saying that the character could case the entire room at once in the movies.
Yeah, but reactive Perception checks when you walk in a room don't fall under searching, do they?
Nevermind. I somehow missed that this was just for move action based perception checks.
Ya, this shouldn't change reactive perception checks. This change only impacts situations where you actually have to search something. Assuming that is the case, this change isn't really that bad as most things you need to search (a desk, a chest, a bookshelf, etc.) probably aren't bigger then 10 ft. by 10 ft. in most cases.
Yeah, but reactive Perception checks when you walk in a room don't fall under searching, do they?Nevermind. I somehow missed that this was just for move action based perception checks.I don't think that's the distinction. At least I hope not.
Even back in 3.x with Spot and Search, you could take move action Spot checks. It wasn't just spot was reactive and search was active.
It has to be the distinction. Otherwise you can't hear someone coming around the corner since you did not choose that area as an example.
Perception is also not just for the old spot search. It also covers listen.
|
As I see it, Spot/Listen is general and reactive, Search is specific and active.
I like the clarification. It uses base 10. What would be super clever would be if there was a chart that indexed size of room (as approximate # of 10x10 squares) by three time stamps: the time it takes to search it's entirety with a single roll, a take 10, and a take 20. Then you could read that to the players, ask them how much time they want to spend searching, roll dice (if necessary), and give results.
Ex. Given a 40x30 room
DM: (Looks up 12 on the chart) Asks: "How long are you going to search? It'll take about half a minute to roll once, five to take 10, ten to take 20."
PCs: (Weigh cost of keeping magic spells up) "2 minutes or until we find something."
DM: (Rolls 4d20, uses best, adds highest PC's Perception bonus) Says "You don't find anything."
Game: (Carries on)
As I see it, Spot/Listen is general and reactive, Search is specific and active.
I like the clarification. It uses base 10. What would be super clever would be if there was a chart that indexed size of room (as approximate # of 10x10 squares) by three time stamps: the time it takes to search it's entirety with a single roll, a take 10, and a take 20. Then you could read that to the players, ask them how much time they want to spend searching, roll dice (if necessary), and give results.
Ex. Given a 40x30 room
** spoiler omitted **
Most of a 40x30 room is reactive perception and requires no searching. Unless there are chests/desks/bookshelves/piles/etc. you don't need to search at all.
|
|
Anzyr,
Are you driving a hard line between what constitutes an 'area' and an 'object'?
Lets say the party rogue walks into the 40x30 room. Does whether or not there are 'objects' in the room determine whether or not he has to declare that he is (actively) searching as opposed to merely (reactively) sensing? And/or does the placement of the 'objects' matter (say, a desk covering a wall with a secret door switch)?
I'm of the opinion that the PCs do not reactively get a roll to detect secret doors and other hidden things unless they say so (or, have the Trap Spotter rogue talent or Stonecunning trait), regardless of how cluttered or clean the room is.
What do others think? Am I being too mechanical in my thinking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that for hidden things such as secret doors and traps that intent is for the player to call out for a perception check. At least that is how I have played it. If a hiding character is in the room some GM's consider that to be a free check and some do not. We may need a perception blog, just like we had a stealth blog by the time this is done.