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.
So if you wanted to try to listen for something, you'd have to pick a 10'x10' area to listen in, since that's a active move action, not a reactive check? Or can you never do that?
Spot & Listen could be both reactive or active. Searching was just active.
Searching is a distinct thing, not just active vs reactive. At least that's my take.I'm still not clear where the distinctions lie. If there's something in a room that's in line of sight, but difficult to notice - say a corner of a piece of paper sticking out from under a crate - Do you get a reactive check to notice it when you enter? And another chance if you decide to search that particular square?
I am not saying you can only hear noise from a 10 by 10 area. I am saying that if you apply the 10 by 10 rule to the reactive check that is what would happen.
I am saying that certain perception checks are automatic. Hearing noise is one of them. GM's just dont make you roll the dice for every check because it would be rediculous and just slow the game down.
Basically the only thing limited to the 10 by 10 area are your move action perception checks, but I still dont like the rule, and I will likely ignore it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone remember the Free Action FAQ?
Is this going the same way?
I think its going to make things more complicated than they need to be.
|
Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.
PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).
One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.
After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.
Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.
5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.
5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.
And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?
So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.
Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).
But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.
I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.
Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.
PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).
One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.
After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.
Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.
5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.
5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.
And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?
So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.
Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).
But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.
I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.
More reasons for me to pretend this errata does not exist once it becomes official.
Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.
PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).
One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.
After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.
Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.
5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.
5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.
And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?
So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.
Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).
But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.
I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.
I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.
Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.
Then again I'm all for moving the game along.
You can't really avoid errata in PFS.
I know. That is part of the reason why I have yet to GM or play PFS. I am not saying it will never happen, but the odds are not high.
You're still missing what I'm saying.I am not saying you should apply the 10 by 10 rule to reactive checks. I'm saying that it shouldn't apply to all move action perception checks.
Back in 3.5, Search was always an active check, but Listen and Spot could be either active or reactive. The same logic applies now, even though they're all the same skill.
I see what you mean now, and I agree, but depending on how that rule is written some will run it that way. Hopefully Paizo is reading this.
|
|
I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.
Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.
Then again I'm all for moving the game along.
I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.
Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.
Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.
Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.
Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.
So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.
I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.
Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.
Then again I'm all for moving the game along.
I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.
Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.
Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.
Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.
Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.
So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.
Yeah, so? 24 minutes to do the best search you can possibly do in a 30x40 room, enabling you to thoroughly search for secret doors? That seems pretty decent to me. It's about time Paizo got on the stick with a search check that's not so abusable as taking 20 and searching the whole room from the doorway.
Yeah, so? 24 minutes to do the best search you can possibly do in a 30x40 room, enabling you to thoroughly search for secret doors? That seems pretty decent to me. It's about time Paizo got on the stick with a search check that's not so abusable as taking 20 and searching the whole room from the doorway.I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.
Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.
Then again I'm all for moving the game along.
I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.
Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.
Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.
Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.
Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.
So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.
I think the problem is the real life time it is taking up, more than the game time. As someone mentioned up thread it can take a lot more time.
I (as the GM) say 'what's everyones modifier' - and apply take 20 rules if they start doing that.
Entire thing is over in 2 minutes and the players don't get to roll.
Then again I'm all for moving the game along.
I don't think you understand what taking 20 means.
Taking 10 doesn't increase the time of a check.
Taking 20 means making 20 checks, taking 20 times as long.
Under this new proposal, searching one 10ft square is a move action.
Taking 20 would mean 2 minutes, per 10ft square.
So taking 20 on this particular room would be 24 minutes, using this Unchained idea.
Well, you can use both your standard and move actions to search, meaning you can search the square in 1 minute.
But I think he was actually talking about it taking 2 minutes of real time, not 30. Using Take 10 and 20 to speed up the game.
Exactly this. My point is that '5 players making 12 rolls each' is exactly what 'taking 10' and 'taking 20' is about.
Scenario 1: each player makes 1 roll per search area and accepts what they roll each time for 12 rolls.
Why not take 10 and move along - on average you'll have more consistent results from the search, as some of those rolls will be less than 10.
Scenario 2: each player makes multiple rolls per search area until they roll a 15 or higher to ensure 'they see everything'
Why not take 20 and move along - yes it eats up buff time - that's intentional - if you don't have time to search right now note it and come back later so you make use of your buffs. Otherwise say 'I take 20' and search - game time is sped up the GM notes if you can see 'whatever' and lets you know what you find - you literally can't roll better than a take 20 result unless you are using a house rule for critical skill checks. Outside of that if you really want to be in a hurry you do the following....
5 players - player with best perception takes 10. Player 2 takes 10 to assist - etc. so you have a 10+2+2+2+2 = take 18 on the entire room for the same time frame as a normal take 10. In 99% of any case I'm aware of (especially in published material) that should be more than enough to spot something hidden.
Before anyone says it - yeah I know you can't take 10 for assists... it was just a point and it ran away with me :P
Even still assisting is a single roll that given any investment in perception a DC 10 should be possible - meaning you just need a single confirm per player to make the assist roll. This still shouldn't be that much of a time consuming action.
The only time this really bogs the game down is if you have a player that has to find something on their own without the groups help.
|
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).The only question I see with the single roll method is what if there are multiple things to find? Obviously, you can still have the one roll applied to all of them, but it makes a little less sense.
That's the one wrinkle. But that doesn't strike me as a real problem, and even if it does impose a minor cost it's nothing like the entirely pointless time-suck, fundamental change to the pace of play, that some posters are imagining.
(i) Players search a large room. GM eyeballs the room, notices two hidden objects spaced far apart, and asks for two Perception checks from each player searching. Quick enough.
And I imagine many GMs already run it about like this. Searching a large room, on one side there's a hidden cache of treasure and on the other side there's a secret door. I know in my games I would ask for two separate Perception checks for the two independently hidden objects. That's not universal practice, but it seems reasonable and hardly a huge expenditure of time. If the two items are next to each other, a single Perception check will suffice.
(ii) I agree with you that it's within your reasonable discretion as GM to use a single roll for the "do we find anything question," as representing the average attentiveness of the search effort. Even though you're right that "it makes a little less sense" under the specified search rule, it seems okay if folks want to run it that way.
(iii) The specified search rule does give us a clear baseline answer to the "how long does a search take" question. And in that sense it represents a clear gain for the ruleset. I don't see too much downside here, once folks get used to the specified rule and the best way to run it.
|
|
Just had this exact conversation derail a PFS game tonight.
PCs entered a room with 2 secret doors on opposite walls (which they were aware of OOC).
One player proceeds to move his figurine 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, then move 10ft, declare a search area, roll for Perception, wait for my response, and continue to examine the entire room in the same way.
After a couple such rolls everyone starts doing the exact same thing.
Normally, I'd ask for one Perception check from everyone, and modify for distance. It was just a 40ftx30ft room. Max penalty for Perception would be -3 for any one character.
5 players making 5 rolls total is no problem.
5 players making 12 rolls each is a problem.
And if they didn't declare that they were searching the particular square with the secret door, then they wouldn't find it, under these new "rules". Right?
So I told them they'd never have to worry about it (or at least at my tables), because there's no way we could ever possibly fit all that needless dice rolling in a 4-5 hour scenario.
Tonight's scenario was an older Season 1, and most of its content was Faction Mission material. It took us a total of 2.5 hours (Core game, everyone's played/GMed it before).
But nearly 30 minutes of that was discussing Perception.
I'll reiterate how absurd I think this is.
That does sound like a pain. But you don't have to run it that way. The problem here isn't the rule, it's how the GM in this example ran it. You made it needlessly burdensome for yourself. The answer to your question that I've bolded is—"No, that's not right. You don't have to do it that way." Here's why:
Players walk into the room. "We search the room!" You, the GM, notice that there are two hidden items, on different sides of the room and more than 10 ft. apart. "Okay, give me two Perception checks."
There's no reason at all to roll for the "empty" areas because no matter how well the players roll they don't find anything. And since die rolls are independent events, having them roll out all those futile rolls accomplishes nothing other than wasting everyone's time. Instead, have the futile parts of the search happen "offscreen" and have them actually roll only once for each hidden item that's spaced far apart.
Two rolls each, not 12. Problem solved. Let me repeat: the problem in your example wasn't the rule at all, it's how you ran it.
Now, maybe even that seems too burdensome to you, and you really prefer only one Perception check per room per player. In that case, it seems to me well within your discretion as GM and a reasonable adjudication of the rules for the sake of streamlining play to accept a single Perception check as the approximation of the complete search effort. Use that result to adjudicate "do you find anything" and use the timing rule to adjudicate the question of "how long it takes," in the rare case that that matters.
The specified search rule doesn't impose a real cost here, once folks get used to running it, and it does offer a clear benefit in setting a standard approximate baseline for how long searches take. It strikes me as a helpful addition to the ruleset.
So again: the possible problem here doesn't have to do with the rule, it has to do with how the rule is adjudicated at the table. You're imagining worst-case GM practice, but there are far better ways to do it that are still perfectly in accordance with the rule. And there are also reasonable ways to streamline adjudication of the rule if even that minor increase in number of rolls is more than you would prefer.
|
|
That does sound like a pain. But you don't have to run it that way. The problem here isn't the rule, it's how the GM in this example ran it. You made it needlessly burdensome for yourself. The answer to your question that I've bolded is—"No, that's not right. You don't have to do it that way." Here's why:
Players walk into the room. "We search the room!" You, the GM, notice that there are two hidden items, on different sides of the room and more than 10 ft. apart. "Okay, give me two Perception checks."
We were "playtesting" this new idea, to see how it worked.
You're already proposing houserules, which is fine.
I'm sticking with mine, as well.
But that doesn't detract from the point that, assuming this new idea is the new "rule", the bolded part is a terrible way to run Perception.
|
|
That does sound like a pain. But you don't have to run it that way. The problem here isn't the rule, it's how the GM in this example ran it. You made it needlessly burdensome for yourself. The answer to your question that I've bolded is—"No, that's not right. You don't have to do it that way." Here's why:
Players walk into the room. "We search the room!" You, the GM, notice that there are two hidden items, on different sides of the room and more than 10 ft. apart. "Okay, give me two Perception checks."We were "playtesting" this new idea, to see how it worked.
You're already proposing houserules, which is fine.
I'm sticking with mine, as well.
But that doesn't detract from the point that, assuming this new idea is the new "rule", the bolded part is a terrible way to run Perception.
We agree that the way you ran it was a terrible way to run Perception. Great! My point is that there's nothing in the rule that forces you, encourages you, or asks you to run it that badly. Again:
There's no reason at all to roll for the "empty" areas because no matter how well the players roll they don't find anything. And since die rolls are independent events, having them roll out all those futile rolls accomplishes nothing other than wasting everyone's time. Instead, have the futile parts of the search happen "offscreen" and have them actually roll only once for each hidden item that's spaced far apart.
I *also* proposed a "houserule," or a streamlined adjudication, in case even a minor increase in the number of rolls made is something you'd rather avoid. But the bolded part above is in no way a "houserule," it's just a best-practice way to run the specified search rule-as-written.
The problem you're worried about isn't the rule, it's bad GM practice.
|
|
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?I don't agree that there is a new system. This could be due to not having the relevant text to read, so we'll see if my opinion changes on Wednesday.
This. I think we're all on the same page, generally, about how to run Perception at the table.
But we're disagreeing about the implication of the specified search rule. What I'm insisting on here is that the specified search rule, as-written, does not lead to the "absurdity" you're (rightly) complaining about. That's not the rule itself at all, that's bad GM practice in how to handle the rule.
|
|
There is a reason to do so. It might not be a good reason, but it is a reason. With your system, once you tell the players to roll twice, they know there are two things to be found. Hopefully good players will ignore that meta knowledge, but there are reasons it's often suggested such rolls be made secretly.
Sure. :-)
But that's not a uniquely terrible cost, and there are of course ways to adjust for it. If I were running for players who didn't handle meta-knowledge well, I'd probably ask for three search checks per room and then roll a die to determine which one is the relevant check. This is pretty standard sort of practice. E.g., Players Sense Motive an NPC, roll a d20 even if the NPC isn't bluffing so they don't get meta-information; Players enter a dark room and roll Perception, roll a handful of d20s even if the room is empty "just in case there's something hiding in there."
There are ways to handle that sort of thing, and it's not really a uniquely terrible cost to a specified search rule. And they only come up in specific table situations where that sort of counter-meta tactic is necessary. And of course an even simpler counter-meta tactic is just to go with the streamlining proposed above and have a single Perception check cover "do I find anything" and only use the specified search rule to adjudicate the "how long does it take" question.
|
|
OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
Which is why this new proposal worries me.
If there are two established camps on how to run the most used skill in the game, that's a huge issue of table variation.
So, it'll likely come down to one or the other. Officially.
If it's this new system, then houseruling your tables as the old system, would be frowned upon.
There would likely be *someone* at the table that would be upset, and you, as the GM, would be in the wrong.
I would not look forward to that sort of occurrence.
OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
|
|
OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing could you see in this particular room with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion.
Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine what features of the room are such that they could notice it with a reactive Perception check ("observable stimulus" from the Perception rules), and what features are hidden well enough that they would have to intentionally search for it.
It's a Spot v. Search distinction—which function of the Perception skill are you using? But that's fine as a matter of GM discretion.
OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
Again, isn't that covered by reactive perception checks v move action search checks?
The cops walk in (Perception +5) and fail their reactive perception checks to notice the blood stain. They T10 to make a cursory search of the murder scene, and again find nothing. They prepare to call in the murder scene technicians who will T20 with a circumstance bonus for masterwork gear, almost certainly discovering the statue.
In the meantime Holmes walks in, rolls a 23 on his Perception check, and uses Inspiration to add another d6, which brings his roll up to a total of 27.
He spends a few minutes making sardonic comments on the qualification standards for the policeman aptitude tests at Scotland Yard, then grabs the statue and holds it up for inspection.
Edit: Added a quote to make it clear who I'm replying to, since Joe beat me to the punch!
Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing can you find with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion. Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine if the secret door or trap or whatever is of such a sort that they could notice it or if it's well-enough hidden that they have to search for it.OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.
|
|
Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing can you find with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion. Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine if the secret door or trap or whatever is of such a sort that they could notice it or if it's well-enough hidden that they have to search for it.OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.
I'm not sure that the "spot v. search" question would benefit from further specification. It strikes me as the sort of thing that will always come down to GM discretion, and my guess would be that any attempt to further specify wouldn't help too much. But I'll follow the thread if you throw one up!
OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
That was me :) Or at least one of them was.
I still have no idea how the reactive check and "search a 10'x10'" area interact. For it to make any sense at all, I think I have to assume that they find entirely different things. But what is unclear.
Makes no sense to me to give you a reactive Perception check to notice the hidden door when you first enter the room, but then require you to search 10'x10' areas if you miss it the first time. Especially if you're in the habit of Taking 10 on both.
In 3.x, Spot was for hiding creatures and Search was for stuff. So there really wasn't the same kind of overlap.
I think the 10 by 10 search should only be needed if things are not currently observable, but I don't know if that is what the rule will be. The trap door hidden under the rug would fall into that category.
The reason for the move action as a rule is so players can't keep rolling perception checks also. Even in 3.5 it was a move action to use listen or spot on your own if you missed something the first time, and it was not limited to a 10 by 10 area.
I'm not sure that the "spot v. search" question would benefit from further specification. It strikes me as the sort of thing that will always come down to GM discretion, and my guess would be that any attempt to further specify wouldn't help too much. But I'll follow the thread if you throw one up!Sure, and then the only question is what sort of thing can you find with a reactive check? And that's firmly in the realm of GM discretion. Players enter the room and make a reactive Perception check for what they notice, you as the GM determine if the secret door or trap or whatever is of such a sort that they could notice it or if it's well-enough hidden that they have to search for it.OTOH, many people consider the ability to find anything in a large room with a single check while standing in the doorway kind of absurd too.So do I.
So, you guys agree with me, that this new system is needlessly absurd?
I don't, and someone else already use Sherlock Holmes as an example of that, and he not only notices things he can almost reconstruct an entire crime scene.
Now if a part of the room is out of line of sight, and then you may be required to move, but if you can find these things with a reactive check, which is basically a free action, then I see no reason why a move action is that hard to believe.
"Observable stimulus" does need to be better defined. Since I have free time I will go ahead and start an FAQ for that. If the secret door is behind a curtain or under a rug then I would say it makes sense to go through more trouble to find it but otherwise I think it just slows things down.
I was speaking of observable stimuli not so much spot vs search since those don't exist anymore.
In any event the new thread is here.
You can't really avoid errata in PFS.I know. That is part of the reason why I have yet to GM or play PFS. I am not saying it will never happen, but the odds are not high.
Most of the PFS GMs I've played under (about 7 or so at various Cons) very rarely seemed to have a good grasp of the game's basic rules. PFS abiding by the letter of the law is a farce.
Most of the PFS GMs I've played under (about 7 or so at various Cons) very rarely seemed to have a good grasp of the game's basic rules. PFS abiding by the letter of the law is a farce.You can't really avoid errata in PFS.I know. That is part of the reason why I have yet to GM or play PFS. I am not saying it will never happen, but the odds are not high.
I have never played so I don't know, but I also think intent is the rule, not the letter. RAW does not work by itself.
With that aside it would annoy me to no end if a I had a GM who did not know the rules well, and I would not ignore rules.
|
thejeff,
Thanks for the clarification - looks as though I have been erroneously "charging 10x" time increments for taking 10. Now I'm all bothered that I have been doing this for years! Gah! (As an opinion, taking 10 should probably take twice the time...).
Anyhow,
The 10x10 box thing isn't a big deal. It's the ratio of time to area that is important!
You can condense rolls while simultaneously factoring in the amount of time (clocked against spell durations or what-have-you). It's a simple ratio. Instead of rolling dice for each box just roll once and multiply time for number of boxes. PCs who want to do a more thorough search can simply roll and clock again. If they want to search the room without moving about it (say, out of paranoia for stepping on a pressure plate), you can factor in distance penalties, asking them where they stand. Or want to further save time? Roll once for the party and check against each PCs Perception (or just the highest PC - amounts to the same thing unless you have rogues stealing from the party).
|
|
Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.
[/thread]
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!
Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.
[/thread]
Assuming this is made into a FAQ isn't PFS obligated to follow the FAQ?
Good news: the new suggestions for Perception are not being implemented in PFS.
[/thread]
Where did you get that information from?
thejeff,
Thanks for the clarification - looks as though I have been erroneously "charging 10x" time increments for taking 10. Now I'm all bothered that I have been doing this for years! Gah! (As an opinion, taking 10 should probably take twice the time...).
Why should it? Taking 10 represents you doing the same routine you do every day, doing the thing that you're trained to do, etc.
Why should that take more time? You specifically are not trying more than once. I honestly don't understand the hostility towards taking 10. What's so wrong about with relying on skill instead of luck for relatively easy stuff? And if you've invested enough resources to get good enough at a skill that you can even take 10 and succeed on really hard stuff, why should you be punished for that?
And yet, if the devs go make a FAQ about perception and time intervals and put it in the Core Rulebook section of the FAQs, it becomes a rule for PFS too, right?