3.5/Pathfinder: Divorcing Perception from the skill system

[Elder_Basilisk]

In 3.5, Concentration was a skill tax on casters. Pathfinder removed it essentially making it a class feature and based off of casting stat rather than con. The world didn't end and clerics and sorcerer's could now use both of their skill points each level.

So what about perception? What would be the consequences of perception were just a straight-up hit dice or character level+Wisdom (and relevant bonuses) check?

Or keeping the system the same if every class got 1 free rank in perception per level? (Same impact on characters but does not necessarily make high HD animals etc impossible to sneak by or remove skill focus: perception for people who want to be good at it).

[Kurald Galain]

The consequence is that the game gets less diverse and less interesting, with no apparent benefit.

Because despite all the forum talk about how amazing Perception is, it's simply not true that every character maxxes out Perception. If the underlying issue is that some classes have not enough skill points, just do the straightforward thing and give them more skill points.

[Wintermoot]

In 3.5, Concentration was a skill tax on casters. Pathfinder removed it essentially making it a class feature and based off of casting stat rather than con. The world didn't end and clerics and sorcerer's could now use both of their skill points each level.

So what about perception? What would be the consequences of perception were just a straight-up hit dice or character level+Wisdom (and relevant bonuses) check?

Or keeping the system the same if every class got 1 free rank in perception per level? (Same impact on characters but does not necessarily make high HD animals etc impossible to sneak by or remove skill focus: perception for people who want to be good at it).

So my experience with pathfinder 1e, I think, mirrors yours. In that every player puts a rank in perception every level. So what's the point.

After a while, I, as a player, tended to use this to my advantage by putting NO ranks in perception, using those skill points for other things and knowing that every time the DM said "roll a perception check" and everyone reached for their die, I could just sit back and wait because SOMEONE in the group was going to succeed at the roll. There were seldom any consequences for me not even bothering to make the roll. Perhaps a few times when I was alone and separated. Big whoop.

As a DM, I pretty much gave up on "roll a perception check" several campaigns ago and got back to the just telling the player who is interacting with any given scene what they see. Then more detailed searches went back to a more 1e/2e method of actually having to describe what part(s) of the room they are looking at and how.

I know several people on this forum are going to bleat on about how I'm making the game unfun this way, but my players and my experience disagrees.

[pabelfly]

The consequence is that the game gets less diverse and less interesting, with no apparent benefit.

Because despite all the forum talk about how amazing Perception is, it's simply not true that every character maxxes out Perception. If the underlying issue is that some classes have not enough skill points, just do the straightforward thing and give them more skill points.
Going to agree with this. Perception is a great skill, but sometimes you have a character that just wants other skills instead.

There's also an easier way of dealing with this, since you're the DM: emphasize other skill checks when running your game, and moreover, make them feel like they've missed out on something since they likely can't make these other skill checks. If your group always puts ranks in Perception, it might be because of how you run your game.

[AsuraKyoko]

Pathfinder 2e does this. Every class gets a built-in perception progression, and everyone starts out at at least Trained in it. This is important because of the way DCs scale in the system (roughly +1/level), and the way skills work: if you are at least trained in a skill, you add your level to the roll in addition to your training & ability modifier, if you aren't trained, you don't add your level.

Pf2e also makes Perception the standard way of rolling initiative, based on the logic that more aware people are going to be able to react first. It also allows you to use other skill for initiative if it makes sense; the most common other skill is Stealth, for ambushing someone.

Honestly, I could definitely see perception being divorced from the skill system in 3.5/Pf, and it might open up a little bit more flexibility; with less skills that feel "mandatory", you can put your points into other, more interesting things. That being said, I can also see the other side of the argument being worthwhile, too. By making perception require investment, you increase the value of Stealth, since you can more reliably evade detection.

There could be some value in splitting the difference - every even level, you get a free rank in Perception, or something to that effect. That way, you can keep the party's modifiers closer together between those who invest and those who don't, while still allowing people to spend points on the skill if they want to be excellent at it.

[arkangel111]

I tend to agree with it being a worthless tax on the player. I think perception should be something stock, even adopting the 5e passive perception, while bringing back the search skill for those who truly want to specialize in finding hidden things. As a DM, every time my players enter a room, even when I describe in detail what they see, they still insist on doing a perception check to see if they can find anything more out. Or worse when I have them actually looking for something I have 5 different numbers thrown at me but only one out of them will pass and it seems almost unreal to describe whatever it is to the whole group even though maybe the person who passed the check was actively doing something else until they heard me call for a check. Or that one player who's character is in another room, heard everyone's rolls were low and then insist on going in and checking behind them with her new roll, get a NAT 20 with a +42 total and now your like well you don't find anything...

Perception is by far the most rolled skill in the game, most players want to roll and feel like a part of the game. By sacrificing your ability to roll for it (as suggested by some), it may not impact how the game unfolds but it can affect how involved a player is. It may be an ok playstyle for some but most people I think, like to get every chance to roll they can.

[Saintheart]

I think it's worth looking at Perception skills - and Hide/Move Silently - in a wider context, since unless you understand or at least have an inkling about what all of a change's effects are going to be, you're not really making a safe assessment of whether that change is actually detrimental while "just" removing some numbers.

Where did Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move Silently come from? They're legacy concepts which come down to us from the earlier editions of D&D. And it's immediately worth remembering that the way monsters, NPCs, and PCs were designed in third edition was that they were meant to follow similar rules. They were all measurable the same ways, more or less. Which meant they had to follow much the same criteria. On top of that, the designers decided that perception along with a number of other situations should be a contest rather than a flat DC or percentage chance. Hide opposes Spot, Move Silently opposes Listen when it involves a monster and a PC. This system also allowed skills to function for non-opposed checks, like hearing your conscience pointing out to you that killing things for treasure and XP is at least morally ambivalent, and so on.)

Compare earlier editions: more about DM fiat and (some say elegant, some say simplistic) straightforward mechanics. Move Silently was a thief-only ability, if a thief succeeded on his check, there was no chance he could be heard or not. And even if he failed that check, he was still considered to be moving quietly. Outside that, anyone could move quietly, and if they were, there was a flat chance whether they'd be heard or not by the monsters (around the 1-2 in 6 mark). If they weren't moving quietly, they'd be heard, end of story. So the thief was, at least in theory, a good forward scout if he succeeded on his Move Silently ability, because even if he moved silently, his clanking buddies might give the game away anyhow.

Hiding was all-or-nothing. Either you were hiding or you were in view. Thieves had an ability to hide in shadows - as opposed to hiding in darkness or behind objects. But notably, hiding and moving were mutually exclusive; if you were hiding you couldn't move, and vice versa. In short, there wasn't any granularity to one's stealth abilities unless you were in the thief class. So it was easier for a DM to foresee the outcomes.

The Spot/Hide/Move Silently/Listen quadrangle of 3.0 introduced unpredictability by virtue of being modifier-based. If you wanted to reliably sneak up on things, you probably would with a high modifier, but it wouldn't always be a lock. But you could have all the stealth of a 1980s lemon yellow T-shirt and you might catch a break because the monster failed its Spot check. Conversely, if you really had a thing for night watch, you could boost those skills so you'd see the Big Horrible Bag of Hit Dice trying to tiptoe up to the camp. In character build terms, Spot/Listen/Hide/Move Silently checks are usually most useful for getting sneak attack, avoiding flatfooted conditions, or picking up a surprise round, and that's really about it.

(Search is separated out from these in part so it continues to distinguish the rogue and the nonhumans, i.e. searching for traps. And the trapsearching mechanic admittedly is horribly whiffed, or at least, the DMG doesn't tell DMs how to use it to add something meaningful to the game experience. But that's a side issue. Search also leans towards the grid mechanic of a fully battlemapped room or dungeon rather than dealing more in the abstract, with all the requirements that you have to be within 10 feet of a surface to search it.)

The weak spot, to me, and I may be missing significant context, is that while Spot/Listen/Move Silently/Hide checks are granular in calculation, they don't deliver granular outcomes. They're still tied to the d20 system: above this number, you see the enemy; below this number, you don't. But it has to be equally remembered that given the designers were aiming the system at casual and run-of-the-mill weekend gamers rather than seasoned charop crunchers, this is an acceptable design choice. Cognitive load is a real thing, sometimes your plusses and minuses should just boil down to a binary outcome so the whole session isn't consumed with one fight.

(I should note, respectfully, in passing, that giving set increases in "perception" as the levels go by isn't actually granting the customisation or the optionality that is 3.5's biggest asset. You're not giving the guy who wants to play the coffee-blooded watchman a chance to use his skills for what they were intended. What if he wants to spend most of his points on Spot and Listen so the rest of the team can ignore those skills? Isn't that part of the team game D&D's meant to be? Or at least, the team game it was was until the advent of "Do Everything" handbooks for every class under the sun which seem aimed at soloing entire dungeons? Also, because 3.5 is premised on the characters being built similarly to the monsters, what benefits you give to the players, you're going to have to give -- or contemplate giving -- to every monster in the game. Or be prepared for some funny outcomes and having to retrofit other changes as unintended consequences flow in. And even if you do that sort of thing, the "set increases of Perception every level" is really just the AD&D system fixed chance of "30% chance of getting spotted," because the percentages are incrementing level by level, so there's no actual improvement in it in context.)

There are a couple of solutions I've seen and tried and which work. At least for my games. And others. And they don't necessarily require an additional set of modifiers or a new set of overlaid rules on top. They come down to two decisions and they're laid back on DM adjudication of what happens when those numbers are rolled.

(1) Rules apply unless the reality of the presented situation would dictate otherwise -- as the DM in his absolute discretion sees it.

Also see: Order of the Stick #3 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html). Also also see: what Rule Zero was actually about.

Don't think I need to expound further on that one.

(EDIT: But hey, I will. Look, poor DMs are a dime a dozen, amiright? Everyone's got a story, hell, lots of posters named noobmaster69 come around here carrying out character assassinations of their DMs and looking for validation from anonymous nobodies like us on the internet, which we freely give because we're all silly people at core and think we can judge like gods when looking through someone else's colour-blind eye. Of course, the moment we always hope for is noobmaster69's DM showing up in the thread and arguing the point, which event propheseys the descent of Red Text and thread "review". Good times, good times.

But DMs are special. Like it or not. Morning or night. They're not just another player. You can usually run a game of D&D minus one player for the evening, but it's a lot tougher to run a game of D&D minus one DM. And ultimately it's the DM's job to put aside all that silly, silly desire by WOTC to make the monsters work like PCs do, all that further silliness about "collaborative storytelling", sack up, take a deep breath and say 'I don't care if you rolled 19 with a modifier of +24, you can't walk up in front of the dragon and steal his heart out of his chest, with or without lines by Cyrano de Bergerac, played by Peter Dinklage or anyone else.' Rule Zero is there for a reason. And is only useable by the DM for a reason.

Maybe DMs abuse it. I doubt they do. Not any more regularly than any other miserable human being makes poor judgments. And if there're too many poor DMs around, that's because (1) WOTC never taught them how to do their job right, (2) most D&D forums don't help past puerile basics, and (3) most internet D&D forums seem determined 24/7 to find ways to actually make DMs' jobs harder. Which is a great pity, and a phenomenon I have contributed to in my time, and a phenomenon that will, slowly, eventually, crush the TTRPG hobby. But hey. Until then: DMs, the rules are fine until it gets to the point of stupid. At that point, you decide the wider reality in the game, not the rules. Be brave, be prepared to get it wrong, rule on it and leave the arguments with players until out of session.)

(2) Video game "passive/searching/active" modes can work for PCs and monsters.

Video game UX is lightyears ahead of RPG design in some areas. Certain modern stealth-ish games (my experience with it was Sniper Elite, doubtless many others have it too) have this one down to a T. In such games, if the player is detected by an enemy from any reasonable distance, the enemy doesn't go from casually strolling to berserk fury in a microsecond, they go to an "investigating, but not on full alert" mode first. Their status bar goes to yellow, they come walking cautiously over towards the player's position, and you've got a few seconds either to retreat (or better line up your shot, heh-heh-heh.) Let's call this state "intermediate mode".

This intermediate mode isn't well-covered by the 3.5 combat resolution rule package (for want of a better expression). 3.5 presumes two separate and non-interfacing modules that cover all of play: non-turn-based, "exploration" mode, or turn-based fight mode. And in fight mode, parties start either surprised or not, which implies someone completely got the drop on the other, i.e. implying that people always go from smelling daises to death-or-glory in a microsecond.

In the Hide/Move Silently realm for PCs, intermediate mode is a chance to give players more choice. They've failed a Move Silently check, the enemy heard something over in your direction, what do you do now? Here more decision points are good for the game because they encourage players to think of a way to resolve the problem before them in more than just the pull swords/unleash dogs of war ones.

Maybe - maybe - if you have the cognitive space available as a DM, and it interests you, degrees of success or failure on a Hide/Spot/Move Silently/Listen roll can determine the orc's response. Party narrowly fails the Hide check, a rock's dislodged which makes the orc frown and look their way for a few moments, but doesn't leave his position. Party heavily fails the Move Silently check, the orc comes looking to see who had an unfortunately loud methane emission at that moment. This use makes it more mathematically justifiable for the superscout to boost his stealth skills, because degrees of mastery make a difference. Someone highly trained can make a small mistake but it won't (always) hurt. His high modifier helps him not only in most normal situations, but where the result's in the balance, his skills make a difference.

But as said, this use of the mechanic doesn't need more math. And it doesn't have to be restricted to monsters. It can be used by the DM on PCs. It's 3.5, remember, the monsters are built on the same chassis as PCs are. You simply reverse the mechanic: when the PC makes a Spot check and the monster's failed a Hide check by a narrow margin - or even succeeds by a narrow margin - then the PC notices something but doesn't suddenly see the monster revealed in all its glory 5 feet out from the campfire. The PC notices movement. Then you ask the PC what they do. Do they wait for the enemy to get a bit closer, faking that they're unaware? If so, great: now at least you have a Bluff vs Sense Motive check. Does the PC go out to investigate? Also interesting, separates the party member from the rest of the group if only by a moment. The only difference, and what makes it more interesting, is that you give the player a decision point: whether they go on "intermediate mode" or whether they coffee-jag onto full alert (and possibly be disappointed as the monster immediately slinks away into the darkness for a better opportunity later.)


Nothing of these two tactics require further rules. You don't ever have to announce there's anything called "intermediate mode" or the like. You don't need to produce a table setting out that a +5 is a stupendous success and -5 just a bad day at the stealth office. You just adjudicate actions with something other than the binary "Above 15, the enemy pops onto the map like a badly-rendered texture; below 15, you see nothing." You even keep your encounters where the monsters get the full drop on the PCs, or vice versa; that's called the surprise round.

If there's any one rule I'd bring in from an earlier edition, it would likely be the mutually exclusive nature of Hide and Move Silently. You can do one or the other, not both at the same time.


There's also that Spot and Listen checks matter more, or are more significant anyway, if you're actually using random encounters and in particular attacking the party while in camp. This doesn't necessarily happen with all DMs. Random encounters get a bad rap, but generally only when seen on their own, not in context, and especially when the DMs who skip random encounters also seem to be the ones who throw out encumbrance, food and water gathering, and abstract distance in overland journeys without quite knowing what and why those rules were in there. I'm not saying Tweet, Williams, and Cook were geniuses, they're cool enough now to admit how little actual math there was behind CR and even cooler enough to admit that 3.5 was an intentional cash grab, not a measured repair or real upgrade to the system, but sometimes a mechanic has more effects and benefits than are immediately apparent.

[gijoemike]

Concentration wasn't an opposed or balanced skill. It was set against a flat DC for most uses. It was easy to fold into certain existing class.


But perception is a complete different story. It is opposed and every single creature has it. How do you handle stealth if everyone has max perception? How does the rich lord hide a safe behind a sliding wall panel? The idea of maxing out perception directly hurts rogues and rangers that wanted to invest in stealth ( Please note I am not saying specialize). Basic investment becomes completely worthless.


By altering perception in the way suggested you MUST also address stealth, craft, and certain spells that would have dealt with those categories. That is a major overhaul and the real issue is you don't like how D&D deals with any of this. I don't blame you it is rather binary. There are other games that have a different approach and varying levels of success.

[Blackhawk748]

In 3.5, Concentration was a skill tax on casters. Pathfinder removed it essentially making it a class feature and based off of casting stat rather than con. The world didn't end and clerics and sorcerer's could now use both of their skill points each level.

So what about perception? What would be the consequences of perception were just a straight-up hit dice or character level+Wisdom (and relevant bonuses) check?

Or keeping the system the same if every class got 1 free rank in perception per level? (Same impact on characters but does not necessarily make high HD animals etc impossible to sneak by or remove skill focus: perception for people who want to be good at it).

It was? Most of my casters have no ranks in Concentration. Im playing a Cleric right now who doesn't have any. Because why do I need it? Like, It comes up so incredibly rarely that it unnecessary.

Now, I agree with ditching it as a skill, but not because it was a tax, but because it was a useless skill for most classes. Granted you could make Concetration have more uses, and I can think of a few, or you can ditch it. Personal choice.

For Perception, some people don't wanna have Perceptive characters. Our Party Sorcerer is blind as a freaking bat right now.

[Kurald Galain]

Now, I agree with ditching it as a skill, but not because it was a tax, but because it was a useless skill for most classes. Granted you could make Concetration have more uses, and I can think of a few, or you can ditch it.

Yeah, that. It's clearly not true (and another example of forum-based groupthink) that all 3E casters always max out concentration.

[Blackhawk748]

Yeah, that. It's clearly not true (and another example of forum-based groupthink) that all 3E casters always max out concentration.

I get why people think that, but even in normal optimization, if you're gonna take Combat Casting (which you will in a variety of cases) you don't need to max it out to make it work. You need to hit 15. Combat Casting and a Con of 14 give you a +6, dump 4 points in there at first level and Congrats, you have a +10 and can now ignore it.

Yes you could stick more points in to get that sweet +14, or you could get a +5 Item later for dirt cheap if its that concerning.

Sneak Optimization this s not.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Wait a minute. Is someone seriously discussing optimization strategies and combat casting in the same post? Even in 3e and 3.5, combat casting is a loser feat and the only reason to take it is because you need it as a prerequisite for a prestige class. If you feel like skill points+con bonus don't get you enough concentration, skill focus is far more optimal because it helps with the "damaged while casting" concentration checks which can actually be difficult (and which are the real reason that many casters maxed concentration).

One of the more stupid parts of the Pathfinder 1e change was keeping combat casting the same while removing concentration as a skill. Removing the skill focus option was probably inadvertent but they should have at least made combat casting apply to damaged while casting checks.

[Blackhawk748]

Wait a minute. Is someone seriously discussing optimization strategies and combat casting in the same post? Even in 3e and 3.5, combat casting is a loser feat and the only reason to take it is because you need it as a prerequisite for a prestige class. If you feel like skill points+con bonus don't get you enough concentration, skill focus is far more optimal because it helps with the "damaged while casting" concentration checks which can actually be difficult (and which are the real reason that many casters maxed concentration).

One of the more stupid parts of the Pathfinder 1e change was keeping combat casting the same while removing concentration as a skill. Removing the skill focus option was probably inadvertent but they should have at least made combat casting apply to damaged while casting checks.

I was saying that, if you are concerned about casting defensively, you're probably taking the feat anyway because you're on the frontline. And if you're up there, you're probably in a PrC that requires it.

Otherwise, the hell are you casting defensively for? Just take a 5ft step back or tell your damn frontline to do their job.

[Arkain]

It was? Most of my casters have no ranks in Concentration. Im playing a Cleric right now who doesn't have any. Because why do I need it? Like, It comes up so incredibly rarely that it unnecessary.

Now, I agree with ditching it as a skill, but not because it was a tax, but because it was a useless skill for most classes. Granted you could make Concetration have more uses, and I can think of a few, or you can ditch it. Personal choice.

For Perception, some people don't wanna have Perceptive characters. Our Party Sorcerer is blind as a freaking bat right now.

Indeed, I'm one of those. I like characters having traits and flaws that may also be expressed mechanically. For instance a naive character may not get any points in sense motive, an oblivious one may not get perception. And sometimes you just have, say, a Druid in the party whose base score is already a good roll for you and maybe there just aren't enough points anyhow and you'd rather be good at singing and dancing instead.
Having these options taken away doesn't have to be bad though, I could be good at hiding, but not at sneaking in 3.5. Or have very keen hearing, but bad eyesight. And yet I'm not fond of the three perception skills and the two stealth skills. If I recall correctly, PF2 does away with perception as an active skill, but also lets it behave as a skill anyhow, with different proficiencies and whatnot, so some classes are going to outperform others there anyway, which can be used for all kinds of things. For instance, the lord wishing to hide his valuables might employ someone skilled in finding and hiding stuff to help him out with the safety of his treasures. Then it's back to a challenge for your party to search for and find things and some sense of versimilitude may be kept.

[Epic Legand]

CAN you remove it as a skill? Yes. Does that make it more like PF2 or 5th? Yes. If you want to play those games, great....but since anyone playing 3.0 3.5 and PF1 is doing so long past the end of the game, that's probably because they WANT those choices not available in the latest version. In the game we are about to start, the party cleric was asking me about skipping perception to have more available skill points. Meaning he saw value in having the choice. He could, as you suggest, get it for free. Meaning the skill monkey will shine less, but hay, skill monkeys are always outshining teir 1 classes, right?

I hate the lose of choice path some many games are going for, yes its easy, but its not for me. I think most 3.xxx players prefer choice...and that means sometimes you have to choose between 2 important things.

[DigoDragon]

It was? Most of my casters have no ranks in Concentration. Im playing a Cleric right now who doesn't have any. Because why do I need it? Like, It comes up so incredibly rarely that it unnecessary.

Playing a wizard in 3.5, I think I've had to make just one Concentration check in the 10 or so sessions we've had in our local group (I passed that one, BTW).

I feel that there's a bit of mileage varying depending on the GM with concentration checks. When I run games, I often had intelligent enemy NPCs ready actions to attack spellcasters when they try to cast a spell, so concentration did come up enough to warrant a little investment.

As for perception, I house rule it as a class skill for everyone and leave it at that. Not all players in my experience max out perception. Usually I see a few ranks invested and it's "good enough" for most. The scouts in the party will probably invest more. The spellcasters... tend to use spells instead. ^^

[farothel]

There is an optional rule to give each character 2 skillpoints/lvl to put in certain Background skills (things like profession, craft, some knowledges, etc.) which is often used in PbPs on the forum. That way you can have your characters invest in certain skills while using their regular skillpoints to put in skills like perception.

[Elder_Basilisk]

There is an optional rule to give each character 2 skillpoints/lvl to put in certain Background skills (things like profession, craft, some knowledges, etc.) which is often used in PbPs on the forum. That way you can have your characters invest in certain skills while using their regular skillpoints to put in skills like perception.

For that kind of thing, I would prefer to have a beefed up trait that grants one ranks of relevant skills (4 if using 3.5 skill system). Let's imagine a shepherd starts adventuring, becomes the kings champion, kills a giant, becomes a warleader, then an outlaw and finally becomes a legendary king. So he leveled up to 12 or 20 or whatever. That should make him a great warrior, warleader, and king, but it shouldn't mean he becomes the world's greatest shepherd in the bargain.

The advantage of the 3.x/p skill system is that you can acquire a wide range of skills which are ideally useful at all levels. 1/4 ranks in swim means you can swim through a narrow and calm lake--20 ranks lets you do the kinds of things Beowulf bragged about. But you don't need to max it for it to be useful. (Well, that's one thing I like about it. The other is that even in low levels, skills have more influence than stats on how good you are at something. In many other systems (5e, Traveller, 2e (non-weapon proficiencies), the guy who just has a good ability score in the relevant attribute tends to be as good or better than the guy who has a mediocre score and training.)

I think the problem primarily comes from skills that require max ranks to be useful which takes away the advantage of the skill system that should enable you to get a wide range of skills. The other problem comes up with spot/listen/hide/move silently/perception/stealth and maybe some others where the roll rapidly becomes binary: the guy with +0 can't succeed even on a 20 and the guy with h +26 can't fail even on a 1. I'm not a fan of bounded accuracy in most contexts, but I don't think that dynamic has a healthy effect on gameplay. I'm inclined to think that integrating the 1e/2e "thief skills" into the broader skill system should be handled differently than just turning them into skills. (Also, I think it may have been a mistake to integrate search into perception in Pathfinder. It reduces the skill burden but it tends to turn perception into a super skill).

[Elkad]

As a DM, I pretty much gave up on "roll a perception check" several campaigns ago and got back to the just telling the player who is interacting with any given scene what they see. Then more detailed searches went back to a more 1e/2e method of actually having to describe what part(s) of the room they are looking at and how.


This.

Search/perception/spot/listen is for the invisible guy or the actual secret door. Not to notice the wand hidden in the basket of kindling by the fire, or the army of orcs 20 miles away in the valley.

[Tzardok]

I think the wand hidden between the kindling is exactly what Search is made for. I mean, if you notice it without doing anything, is it hidden?

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think the wand hidden between the kindling is exactly what Search is made for.

That and traps. Ok, if the player wants to be more specific, we can work with that, but nothing is more annoying than the kind of pixel bitching encouraged by "players who specifically search to see if the third brick behind the second tapestry on the upper tier of the south wall find the hidden treasure--otherwise they're SOL." I said "my dude searches the room. That includes the third pixel from the left, behind the other pixel."

[Akal Saris]

In 3.5, I had a DM that asked for Spot checks for EVERYTHING, so one time my friends and I played a trick on him by making our characters with 0 ranks and taking a flaw for -6 to spot checks. It was absolutely priceless seeing look on his face when he asked for a Spot check to see the caravan coming down the road towards us and the entire party reported Spot checks in the negative numbers :D

For the OP, if you can't tell, I think Spot checks are generally overused by DMs, but they serve a purpose. I think it's better to give the PCs a free skill rank or 2 for craft/profession/knowledge skills rather than give them all free perception.

[Elkad]

I think the wand hidden between the kindling is exactly what Search is made for. I mean, if you notice it without doing anything, is it hidden?

No. I describe the room. You tell me where you are looking. If you say "I check the desk drawers for a false bottom", you find the scroll there. If you say "I look through the kindling pile", you find the wand. "I cut the ogre's stomach open" and you find the gems he swallowed.

[Tzardok]

If you argue that way, why even have Search? False bottom and secret door are close enough.

I personally would go a middle way. If you say "I search the room", you roll for search. If you say "I look into this specific thing", well, I decide wether it is still hidden or disguised enough that you need to roll or not.

[Telonius]

Wait a minute. Is someone seriously discussing optimization strategies and combat casting in the same post? Even in 3e and 3.5, combat casting is a loser feat and the only reason to take it is because you need it as a prerequisite for a prestige class. If you feel like skill points+con bonus don't get you enough concentration, skill focus is far more optimal because it helps with the "damaged while casting" concentration checks which can actually be difficult (and which are the real reason that many casters maxed concentration).


Playing a wizard in 3.5, I think I've had to make just one Concentration check in the 10 or so sessions we've had in our local group (I passed that one, BTW).

I feel that there's a bit of mileage varying depending on the GM with concentration checks. When I run games, I often had intelligent enemy NPCs ready actions to attack spellcasters when they try to cast a spell, so concentration did come up enough to warrant a little investment.


Digo's experience matches up much more closely with mine. In almost 20 years of gaming, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen a caster take damage while casting. Either they take a five-foot step (or otherwise move) to get out of range of the dangerous thing, preventing the attack of opportunity, then cast; or they have a high enough Concentration bonus that they don't need to bother rolling for it, and cast defensively where they are. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen a Concentration check called for in other circumstances. I know this is just one person's experience, but Concentration tends to act like an all-or-nothing skill in that regard. Skill Focus gives a bonus to a situation that almost never comes up; Combat Casting gives a higher bonus to the parts of Concentration that the caster's going to care about.

(Not to say that either feat is a particularly great choice anyway. Lots of better options than either one. But in a low-level Core-only game, it might see some use).

[Elder_Basilisk]

Digo's experience matches up much more closely with mine. In almost 20 years of gaming, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've seen a caster take damage while casting. Either they take a five-foot step (or otherwise move) to get out of range of the dangerous thing, preventing the attack of opportunity, then cast; or they have a high enough Concentration bonus that they don't need to bother rolling for it, and cast defensively where they are. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen a Concentration check called for in other circumstances. I know this is just one person's experience, but Concentration tends to act like an all-or-nothing skill in that regard. Skill Focus gives a bonus to a situation that almost never comes up; Combat Casting gives a higher bonus to the parts of Concentration that the caster's going to care about.

(Not to say that either feat is a particularly great choice anyway. Lots of better options than either one. But in a low-level Core-only game, it might see some use).

Readied actions are the usual reason for damaged while casting checks. Not in every encounter, but it's not uncommon either. Two sessions ago, our wizard lost his acid fog when six drow with readied actions unloaded their crossbows into him when he cast it. Earlier in the combat, one of the drow clerics lost her spell when the party's archer paladin critted her with a readied action. Of course concentration couldn't have saved that spell since the crit killed her. I play a battle cleric in another campaign and because it's Pathfinder, defensive casting isn't automatic. Because my cleric has a good AC, sometimes I'll just elect to take the opportunity attack rather than cast defensively and when the enemy hits, I have to make a damaged while casting check too.

In Pathfinder, skill focus concentration isn't an option but step up is core and I've used that to force a lot of concentration checks from bad guys.

In 3.5 I agree that neither combat casting nor skill focus concentration is a good choice but since casting defensively becomes automatic very quickly even with a +3 bonus and skill focus helps when enemies decide to make your life difficult with h readied actions, I think it's a better choice.

[Telonius]

Readied actions are the usual reason for damaged while casting checks. Not in every encounter, but it's not uncommon either. Two sessions ago, our wizard lost his acid fog when six drow with readied actions unloaded their crossbows into him when he cast it. Earlier in the combat, one of the drow clerics lost her spell when the party's archer paladin critted her with a readied action. Of course concentration couldn't have saved that spell since the crit killed her. I play a battle cleric in another campaign and because it's Pathfinder, defensive casting isn't automatic. Because my cleric has a good AC, sometimes I'll just elect to take the opportunity attack rather than cast defensively and when the enemy hits, I have to make a damaged while casting check too.

In Pathfinder, skill focus concentration isn't an option but step up is core and I've used that to force a lot of concentration checks from bad guys.

In 3.5 I agree that neither combat casting nor skill focus concentration is a good choice but since casting defensively becomes automatic very quickly even with a +3 bonus and skill focus helps when enemies decide to make your life difficult with h readied actions, I think it's a better choice.

If the caster gets hit with a readied attack, it's usually a "never mind" in the other direction (at least for my groups). DC 10+damage gets into "can't pass the check even on a 20" territory pretty quickly, assuming they survive the readied action. Either way, I don't think it's quite as obvious of a pick as the conventional wisdom puts it. Game style and the tactics the DM decides to use are big considerations.

I think the relatively easy auto-pass on casting defensively (however you got there, whether it's feats or skill points or items) was the real design issue.

[Kurald Galain]

Readied actions are the usual reason for damaged while casting checks.
Oddly, readying actions against casters is standard operating procedure in some groups, but completely unheard of and never used in other groups. I'm not sure why; it's one of those things that people just don't use.

[Blackhawk748]

Oddly, readying actions against casters is standard operating procedure in some groups, but completely unheard of and never used in other groups. I'm not sure why; it's one of those things that people just don't use.

I think its a difference of overall tactics. My group tends to go with overwhelming force and as such, any action that isn't inflicting damage isn't worth it, for the most part. So Casters just get nuked first.

Others choose to deny the enemy choices and as such ready actions.

[Elder_Basilisk]

The opportunity costs of readying actions depend on level and group/character.

For my archer paladin (13th level) in the game I'm currently playing, if I would otherwise have a full round attack, the opportunity cost of readying an action is usually 80 to 180 damage depending on the target's AC and active buffs, whether smite is active etc. That opportunity cost means I don't do it too often. On the other hand at 5th level, the opportunity cost was only forgoing rapid shot which was a 30-40% expected damage reduction and most significantly was not typically enough to kill the target. So, for archers, the opportunity cost scales pretty dramatically as the character increases in level. On the other hand, the damage is often high enough that the concentration check is impossible. (On the other hand, NPCs may be lower level and/or have fewer damage enhancing abilities so even at high levels, readied archery from NPCs may not always generate impossible DCs. Even just assuming that the NPC doesn't have a smite type ability or enough attack bonus to reliably hit a PC's AC with Deadly Aim active knocks the damage down to 15-25 per hit and the lower end of that range is pretty manageable for level 13 casters--especially if they have skill focus. "Won't save your spell from the BBEG readied action but will provide meaningful help against minion readied actions" is a value proposition even if it's not always/usually compelling).

On the other hand since they don't depend on full round attacks, the opportunity cost for spellcasters tends to be a lot lower. If you're going to hit the enemy with fireball or magic missile, you can often ready an action and have the exact same effect plus disrupt a spell. And that is where concentration checks are sometimes relevant. At 5th level, a magic missile does an average of 11 damage so the DC to keep the spell is 21+spell level or so. Not easy, but a 3.5 character of 3rd to 8th level (depending upon encounter construction, and whether they are a PC or NPC, it's quite possible for characters in that range to eat a 5th level readied magic missile--thr 3rd level is probably an NPC eating a 5th level PC magic missile, and the 8th level is probably a PC eating an NPC magic missile but other permutations are easily possible) with max ranks and a 14 con has +8 to +13 depending upon level so there's a chance of success--maybe even a good one and it is improved by skill focus. Fireball averages 17.5 damage at the same level so success is pretty hard on a failed save but entirely possible if the wizard made the reflex save and only took 8 damage. At higher levels, the saving throw dynamic tends to come into play more heavily (if you blow the save, disintegrate will ruin the spell--and quite likely kill the caster--but if you make the save, the concentration DC is probably within the realm of possibility), as well as the question of whether the readied action is an attempt to get extra value from a spell you were going to cast anyway (holy smite for example isn't really a good tool for disrupting spells but you might ready it anyway because, why not?) or if it is a really hardcore attempt to shut the spell down (disintegrate or finger of death as a readied action is a lot more likely to succeed than magic missile, but maybe the character was trying to save resources).

[InvisibleBison]

No. I describe the room. You tell me where you are looking. If you say "I check the desk drawers for a false bottom", you find the scroll there. If you say "I look through the kindling pile", you find the wand. "I cut the ogre's stomach open" and you find the gems he swallowed.

Wouldn't this just result in everything being found all the time? Since there's a finite number of things you can describe, I'd just say that I looked in all of them, and then I'd find everything. Yes, sometimes there'd be time constraints which prevent that much searching, but not always.

Also, this is moving searching fully into the realm of player skill, which is not everyone's preference.

[Saintheart]

Wouldn't this just result in everything being found all the time? Since there's a finite number of things you can describe, I'd just say that I looked in all of them, and then I'd find everything. Yes, sometimes there'd be time constraints which prevent that much searching, but not always.

That's why there's wandering monster chances, trapped items, and rooms that have absolutely nothing in them. The first two create decision points since they interrupt the player's search; the last is meant to push against the instinct to 100% completion everything in the dungeon. Depending on the assumptions and what sort of experience you're trying to generate for your players.

[Kurald Galain]

Wouldn't this just result in everything being found all the time? Since there's a finite number of things you can describe, I'd just say that I looked in all of them, and then I'd find everything.
In practice, a lot of players won't find a lot of things. On the other hand, with perception checks if the DC is too low and/or PCs invest a lot of points in that, that will also result in everything being found always.

I suppose the underlying question is, is there an expectation that the players find everything. Some campaigns either have a (misguided) sense of WBL that requires finding everything, and some "completionist" players do expect to find everything. Organized play (regardless of edition) seems to foster this mindset.

[Elder_Basilisk]

In practice, a lot of players won't find a lot of things. On the other hand, with perception checks if the DC is too low and/or PCs invest a lot of points in that, that will also result in everything being found always.

I suppose the underlying question is, is there an expectation that the players find everything. Some campaigns either have a (misguided) sense of WBL that requires finding everything, and some "completionist" players do expect to find everything. Organized play (regardless of edition) seems to foster this mindset.

The rewards structure of organized play definitely encourages completioninsm. In order to keep a handle on character wealth over the long term, each adventure has a strict limit on how much treasure can be awarded. Otherwise, characters who play 1-16 and got everything are way ahead of the ones who played treasure poor 2-11 instead. And players are understandably annoyed at a constant flow of "over cap" wealth. "Yeah, yeah, another 132,000 haul... And we get to keep (checks party level) 2500 gp each." It was a little easier than write non-monetary rewards that were mutually exclusive or did not assume completion, but in LG, access awards were pretty heavily restricted so you couldn't really use that as hidden treasure either.

On the other hand, hidden treasure is an important feature of old adventures (and video games too for that matter--and not just directly D&D influenced games either, it was important in things like Sonic and Mario Brothers too), and the possibility of getting "extra" or cool things provides an important lure for players to interact with the environment and potentially push their luck by risking additional encounters or doing crazy stuff. The huge ruby eyes on the idol on the 1e covers could inspire some crazy schemes but they're a lot less tempting if you assume that 1. You will somehow be at wealth by level anyway either because the DM will insert more treasure or penalize you if you get too much, 2. You can just buy anything you want from the Magic Mart anyway so the cool item you couldn't otherwise obtain isn't so attractive either. (Admittedly less of an issue if you use Pathfinder RAW for item availability, but I don't know how many people do and 3.5 rules were far more generous).

Still, as it relates to search, as a player or DM, I don't want to be expected to specify everywhere I search. "I look under the rug and behind the tapestries and check the desk drawers for false bottoms and look through the firewood" "Ha! You didn't check to see if any of the wastepaper scraps in the wastebin we're scrolls. No treasure for you!" But again in both roles, I want the interaction with the environment to be more than "I search" or "I take 20 to search." Probably the automatically find it if you specify how you search and what you're looking for is there but get the search/perception check to find it without specifying seems like the best way to me right now.

[Elkad]

Wouldn't this just result in everything being found all the time? Since there's a finite number of things you can describe, I'd just say that I looked in all of them, and then I'd find everything. Yes, sometimes there'd be time constraints which prevent that much searching, but not always.

No, because "I search everything" isn't a valid response. Everything? Do you take a chisel to every brick in the walls? Feel around in the chamberpot? Whittle down the table legs to make sure nothing is embedded in them? Cut the ogre's stomach open? Pull up the pavers? Hold the paintings up to the light to check for hidden writing on them? Besides some of that being completely silly, even if I allowed "I search everything" to cover it, you are going to spend a massive amount of time. Not 6 seconds for a 5' square. If you don't care about noise or damage, checking a multi-drawer desk for hidden compartments still takes at least a minute or two to pull out the drawers, knock all the panels out, maybe take a measurement of inside vs outside, etc.


Also, this is moving searching fully into the realm of player skill, which is not everyone's preference.

True. But then I've sat at tables where the DM expected me to give a roleplayed detailed accounting of my argument to Random_NPC_Guard_#11 as to why he should let me by his checkpoint. Or to the Baron to convince him to send some troops with our party. Which I find rather tedious and unfun. Only thing worse is listening to another player try to do that while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs.

I want "I roll Diplomacy to get by"
"He might be agreeable, but is hinting at a bribe."
"I roll knowledge:local to determine the appropriate amount".

But describing how I'm tapping the floor with my 10' pole while also watching for tripwires I find enjoyable.

[Fiery Diamond]

True. But then I've sat at tables where the DM expected me to give a roleplayed detailed accounting of my argument to Random_NPC_Guard_#11 as to why he should let me by his checkpoint. Or to the Baron to convince him to send some troops with our party. Which I find rather tedious and unfun. Only thing worse is listening to another player try to do that while the rest of us twiddle our thumbs.

I want "I roll Diplomacy to get by"
"He might be agreeable, but is hinting at a bribe."
"I roll knowledge:local to determine the appropriate amount".

But describing how I'm tapping the floor with my 10' pole while also watching for tripwires I find enjoyable.

In other words, different people have different things that they find fun vs. tedious, different things that they prefer mechanics vs. player skill to handle, and that's okay. Different strokes for different folks, and there's nothing wrong with offering suggestions that lean toward player skill or toward mechanics, since different people will appreciate different approaches.

[Elkad]

In other words, different people have different things that they find fun vs. tedious, different things that they prefer mechanics vs. player skill to handle, and that's okay. Different strokes for different folks, and there's nothing wrong with offering suggestions that lean toward player skill or toward mechanics, since different people will appreciate different approaches.

Agreed. Most of my players started when I did, in Basic or 1e. There was no Search or Spot, other than for specific things like secret doors. We use action descriptions, rarely roll that stuff, and find that enjoyable.

But nobody is going to describe how they sweet-talk the King's Granddaughter to get information on the Possibly-Evil Grand Vizier.
We might DO that, but it'll be glossed over with a roll.
The Paladin to the Fertility Goddess (played by a friend of mine, great character!) was on a perpetual side-quest to personally "bring the blessing of new life" to every female he encountered, including the aforementioned King's Granddaughter. The stereotypical Bard had nothing on his exploits, but there were no blow-by-blow descriptions.

At another table, a bunch of Godfather fans might actually speak in Thieves Cant around the table, or have detailed conversations, but just "roll search" after every fight. Seems weird to me, but that's fine.