Navy seals, dudes at best level 5, have methods and ways that they hide there scent, in combat situations.
Don't think of scent as 'being able to recognize which perfume someone is wearing' or any detection ability that is presently within the capacity of a human being.
The scent special ability is supposed to be borderline supernatural, akin to the best bloodhounds, and its parallels should be 'able to identify a person by smell
Whose scent are they countering? This is where I think you are making a patently false parallel, I'm sure they have methods to obscure obvious odors, but we aren't talking about masking the smell of their aftershave, we are talking about a level of scent that no human could ever realistically have.
Scent was not written to work with perception. Scent is pretty much unchanged from 3.5 when spot and listen were seperate skills and neither of them dealt with a sense of smell.
Seems like this is the only relevant point where we disagree.
Creatures with the scent special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks made to detect a scent.
But Perception was written to work with Scent.
Did that help any?
No, because the situations where you can neither hear nor see your opponents is such a corner case as to make scent pretty much useless.
Scent was not written to work with perception. Scent is pretty much unchanged from 3.5 when spot and listen were seperate skills and neither of them dealt with a sense of smell.Seems like this is the only relevant point where we disagree.
Could you provide ANY evidence that any of the above is false?
Scent in pathfinder and 3.5 are almost identical. Can you spot any actual difference?
Can you find a 3.5 reference for scent working with perception (a skill that didn't exist), spot (which makes no sense), or listen?
Creatures with the scent special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks made to detect a scent.But Perception was written to work with Scent.
Right. If you need to roll perception to detect that a skunk sprayed somewhere, the scent of a forest fire, that the masked assassin is wearing the same perfume as "Lady de winter" etc then the creature with scent has a +8 to the roll. That's all it says and that's all it means. It doesn't mean you erase the entire special ability entry for scent and replace it with +8 to perception.
I agree completely with your points 2) and 3). I disagree with your point 1Well here's the thing.
1)The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location.
2)Noting the direction of the scent is a move action.
3) If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.
Why do steps 2 and 3 require rolls but not part 1? None of them ask for a roll, and none of them say they're automatic.
I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Scent was not written to work with perception. Scent is pretty much unchanged from 3.5 when spot and listen were seperate skills and neither of them dealt with a sense of smell.
Interesting observation. I'd add that Search was also rolled into Perception, and it just occurs to me that that may be a source of contention here. In my example above, it could be thought of as: Sniffer gets a reactive Spot/Listen/Smell check (there should totally have been a Smell skill in 3.x) to notice Skulker's prescene, then if he succeds he can Search for him by sense of smell. (I might be suffering from 3.5itis)
If you can successfully hear them you know their approximate location. That is MORE information than you get by scent with your reading, which us merely their direction.
Yes. But it requires that you can hear them.
It makes scent worse than having no scent.
I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.
It is partly to avoid that outcome that I think Scent shoud nullify invisibility's flat Stealth bonus, but, though I haven't explicitly stated it yet, will let the invis stealth bonuses remain vs. ordinary hearing.
(But there should totally be an Acute Hearing extraordinary abiltity that could nullify invis' stealth bonus in a like manner to Scent. And grant a +8 to detect creatures by hearing. Sadly, to my knowledge there isn't.)
Did that help any?No, because the situations where you can neither hear nor see your opponents is such a corner case as to make scent pretty much useless.
You lost me there.
In the example of the rogue that I did, didn't it show that scent helped a lot?
Hi guys, sorry for firing off a thread and then getting distracted like hell the last couple of days.
Basically my beef is from a 3.5 player -> Pathfinder perspective.
I get it that scent and perception are linked together in Pathfinder. But the core mechanic is from 3.5 essentially unchanged. Remember, there was no perception in 3.5. There was no reactive check to notice someone with scent: it just happened.
Why change an old mechanic by making a new mechanic to inhibit the ability of the old one without referencing the new ability in the old one? That just seems sloppy.
And for scent to truly work the way PF has intended, stealth needs to work against scent. If you can't make a stealth check, then there's no opposed perception roll. If you can make a stealth check versus scent (which would definitely help out my rogue characters), can I make a stealth check versus scent in an empty dark room? My vision is concealed, but my scent has no cover/concealment.
Against most creatures, finding cover or concealment allows you to use Stealth.
If I don't cover or concealment, I shouldn't be able to make a stealth check.
This just seems like a big mess ):
Example: Invisible, immobile 10th level rogue with a stealth modifier of +17 (10 ranks, 3 class, 4 attribute) will have a stealth result from 58 to 77. Most PCs and a fair number of creatures will have no chance of detecting that rogue.
Against a creature with scent, the stealth score range changes to 18 to 37, which means that there is a greater chance that they will be detected than when there is no scent involved.
The rogue has no concealment or cover versus the scent guy.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
So the rogue can't use stealth |:
I guess cover is the only real option to use stealth versus scent. I suppose it's possible to conceal your scent in Pathfinder. I'm aware that there are ways to do that in hunting. But how is it done in Pathfinder? Is it like the Predator movie where Arnold covers himself in mud? (I know that was to avoid thermal detection, but you get my point.)
That seems like a lot of work to avoid one sense. . . and the rules are essentially silent on the issue.
Just check the blog on the revised stealth pretty damn sure the blog or in one of the posts the developers say scent auto detects invisibility and hidden.
I linked that text in the OP |: but there are 2 developers saying the opposite thing ):
Example:The rogue has no concealment or cover versus the scent guy.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.So the rogue can't use stealth |:
This makes Scent ridiculously overpowered. It is a very common ability at low levels. Dogs get it! The world should be full of dogs. Every farm should have several, guardposts should have them. Every low-level wizard or sorcerer should have at least one personal guard dog, a bargain at 25gp apiece. This reading of Scent makes Stealth totally usesless.
Which led me to opine uptread that:
I think that interpretation is unreasonable. It is akin to requiring total concealment for Stealth skill to be usable vs. sighted opponents, and ruling that you are automatically detected (by sight) once your opponenst have LOS to you.
I think Mistwalker's "Where's Waldo" metaphor is the correct way to think of the concealment/cover requirement. That is, the intent is that you can't (enter) Stealth vs. opponents that are already aware of you; but you can remain undetected even if they could detect you, by any and all means.
Rogues should stay upwind on the dogs and 15 feet away ... then stealth works fine.
Example:The rogue has no concealment or cover versus the scent guy.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.So the rogue can't use stealth |:This makes Scent ridiculously overpowered. It is a very common ability at low levels. Dogs get it! The world should be full of dogs. Every farm should have several, guardposts should have them....
Isn't that why we have the term 'guard dog'
making a stealthy character fear proximity with a few types of animals doesn't make stealth useless IMHO
Isn't that why we have the term 'guard dog'
making a stealthy character fear proximity with a few types of animals doesn't make stealth useless IMHO
I have less of an issue with a guard dog, in a familiar location (scents known) being easily able to pick up any new smells, like say from an invisible intruder.
I have a problem when some say that the guard dog would be able to pinpoint the invisible intruder in a busy inn, or a dungeon room (especially if there has just been blood, guts and excrement spilled in that room) just as easily. I my opinion there are too many new smells to be able to do that easily.
I will grant that I would have less problems if the invisible intruder has fought the PCs before (hence smell is known) or is from a type of creature that the PCs always fight (dog smells dye number 5, so growls at the twinky eating assassin guild member).
Dug around a bit.
meabolex' Radney-MacFarland quote in the OP is from Stealth Playtest rnd 2. That is, it was in response to how the proposed changes would work, not how the rules work now. So there is not necessarily a contradiction between the OP's James Jacobs and Radney-MacFarland quotes.
Also, about a month ago, JJ commented on that same thread that
This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
Whose scent are they countering? This is where I think you are making a patently false parallel, I'm sure they have methods to obscure obvious odors, but we aren't talking about masking the smell of their aftershave, we are talking about a level of scent that no human could ever realistically have.Navy seals, dudes at best level 5, have methods and ways that they hide there scent, in combat situations.
Don't think of scent as 'being able to recognize which perfume someone is wearing' or any detection ability that is presently within the capacity of a human being.
The scent special ability is supposed to be borderline supernatural, akin to the best bloodhounds, and its parallels should be 'able to identify a person by smell
Animals in the area, guard dogs or whatever. As I said early, too bad I don't have time to find a link, there is a Podcast about How to Do Everything. They talk with a Navy Seal about counter sniping tactics, how they plan a raid, and sneaking. They talk about techniques for hiding and adapting your smell, things that any person with a degree of stealth would probably think about.
They want to blend in and if animals are reacting as if there is something new about, then they might alert their target to their presence.
If you really want to get technical I guess a PC could get a scent toolkit, or heck even a masterwork toolkit for a +2 bonus, and would satisfy the requirement for having a kit to get local smells.
Wow ok, so my two questions:
1) Does the scent ability neutralize the invisibility bonus to stealth (+20 moving or +40 stationary)?
2) Does someone with scent automatically pinpoint an invisibile creature within 5feet or does it still require a perception check. (I am on the side of automatic.)
Are answered as per:
1) CRB p564 indicates that: Scent does neutralize invisibility bonus. Detect as per normal perception vs stealth. (It says nothing about it neutralizing stealth.)
2) CRB p443 indicates that: It is automatic within 5feet.
I feel both are fine as written since scent does not pinpoint creatures outside of 5feet. It just indicates presence (or general direction with a move action).
- Gauss
Dug around a bit.
meabolex' Radney-MacFarland quote in the OP is from Stealth Playtest rnd 2. That is, it was in response to how the proposed changes would work, not how the rules work now. So there is not necessarily a contradiction between the OP's James Jacobs and Radney-MacFarland quotes.
Also, about a month ago, JJ commented on that same thread that
This is the extent of it for now. We have no plans at this point to put it into the PRD or do much else with it at this point—feel free to use the variant rules of this playtest in your games as you wish... but it's not going to be something we officially adopt into the game, since that type of change goes from errata to re-design.
And the time for re-design is not now.
I get that the stealth playtest was just that -- a playtest for development purposes. However, my question is: how does it work now? If it's an opposed roll versus perception, how does cover/concealment factor in? How can scent be "concealed"? Why weren't these things ever addressed if the scent ability and perception were to combine? Because there aren't enough wizards/sorcerers running around with familiars that use the scent ability?
The world should be full of dogs.
A huge number of creatures on earth have a better sense of smell than humans do.
I have a problem when some say that the guard dog would be able to pinpoint the invisible intruder in a busy inn, or a dungeon room (especially if there has just been blood, guts and excrement spilled in that room) just as easily. I my opinion there are too many new smells to be able to do that easily.
First, scent can only be used to pinpoint location within 5 feet. Otherwise it's simply a ping of "present in range". The move action literally only reveals the direction. There's no indication about how strong the scent is.
Second, if the invisible intruder has no cover or "scent concealment" and is within the scent range, it's no different than the creature being visible in terms of what the scent is. Dogs can identify distinct scents in a ridiculously complicated mix. Humans have 5 million nasal receptors, dogs have 225 million. Dogs have between 1000 to 10000 (!) times better scent detection than a human.
It just indicates presence (or general direction with a move action).
Yeah, but that's a major advantage against invisible creatures or creatures that are trying to avoid detection in the first place.
Detect as per normal perception vs stealth. (It says nothing about it neutralizing stealth.)
Stealth has a couple of conditions that must be met in order to make an actual check. You need to have concealment, you need to have cover, and you can't be observed.
What constitutes "observation" for scent?
What does concealment mean in relationship to scent? Invisibility has no effect on scent. Is concealment in relation to scent even possible?
meabolex: Under current (ie, not the test rules) Scent grants a +8 bonus to detect scents via perception. Thus, you must use perception to detect a smell which means stealth still works. Although, I could be missing some statement somewhere that says otherwise.
Of course, this doesn't make logical sense since no amount of stealth should change if you smell someone. Hence I agree with the change provided in the test rules.
- Gauss
Interesting observation. I'd add that Search was also rolled into Perception, and it just occurs to me that that may be a source of contention here. In my example above, it could be thought of as: Sniffer gets a reactive Spot/Listen/Smell check (there should totally have been a Smell skill in 3.x)
Right. But it wasn't. So how did scent work at all in 3.5?
Any of the scent actions (detect presence, detect location, pinpoint within 5 feet) can legitimately be read as being automatic. In 3.5 they HAD to be automatic because there was no possible roll to make.
Pathfinder has the same exact ability, but now it CAN"T be read as being automatic? Why not?
I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.(that scent is worse than no scent)
Ok, my 5th level druid has a +18 to perception in human form. There's an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 12 i need to beat his stealth. I get the general idea of where he's standing but not his exact square.
5th level druid has a +18 to perception and scent in doggy form. Theres an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 1 i need to beat his stealth. I do not get the general idea of where he's standing, all that i know is that he's somewhere (detect presence but not location). If I spend a move action to sniff and make another perception check, I learn that he's an indeterminate distance from me at 11 o clock. If I move next to him and make ANOTHER perception check then i know what square he's in... but i'm out of actions so he can just move around again next round.
meabolex: Under current (ie, not the test rules) Scent grants a +8 bonus to detect scents via perception. Thus, you must use perception to detect a smell which means stealth still works. Although, I could be missing some statement somewhere that says otherwise.
Of course, this doesn't make logical sense since no amount of stealth should change if you smell someone. Hence I agree with the change provided in the test rules.
- Gauss
The test rules were for fixing the problems with stealth. One of the problems with it are the ubiquitous monster abilities that roflcopter it. They weren't going to change that to be worse in stealths favor.
The test rules didn't change the scent ability at all.
I think under ordinary circumstances, scent should be as automatic as seeing something. You don't always need to make a perception roll to notice the obvious.
Summarized: He states it is automatic (no check).
The problem with this is that they did not post a change to perception to remove the +8 bonus creatures with Scent get to detect a scent.
Currently:
Scent seems to require a perception check to notice creatures.
Scent ignores invisibility.
Scent should ignore stealth as per invisibility but may not. It is a grey area.
Playtest:
Scent is stated (by developer) to be automatic within range but there is no documentation for this.
Scent may or may not ignore invisibility. No statement is specifically made.
Scent may or may not ignore stealth. No statement is specifically made.
For examples of wording on a similar ability Blindsense it should be stating something like 'The creature does not need to make a perception check to notice creatures within range.'
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this is that they did not post a change to perception to remove the +8 bonus creatures with Scent get to detect a scent.
Why is everyone so hung up on that +8, and assuming that the only possible use for it is to find a hidden foe?
Find the poison in your food, notice the blood stains on someones robes, pick up on someone's disguise, notice that the wet footprints on the ground are salty.... there's a million possible uses for scent in perception rolls OTHER than just finding someone.
Good point BigNorseWolf. Since the discussion is on how it affects stealth/invisibility I failed to consider that removing it would impact other elements of how scent is used.
But, that still means that the +8 bonus in Perception would need a comment of its own.
- Gauss
I'm pretty much with BNW here...
That said, Scent is poorly written, and could be clearer than it is.
Points:
The OP compares Scent with 'normal' visual Perception, claiming you don't normally have to roll Perception to see characters close to you that aren't Stealthing. Such an approach is purely house-ruling what may (or may not be) an auto-pass Skill Check... I'm sure there's plenty of characters who could Fail a DC 10 Perception check at a short distance from themselves.
Honestly, ALOT of Perception checks that would otherwise be called for by the rules are often ignored in actual gameplay... I mean, ALL Perception DCs are based on distance, meaning as characters move around (coming closer to new objects/characters), they would be continually re-informed of what they are now Perceiving. But that is so tedious that nobody really plays Perception to the hilt of RAW... Another reason why I wish Stealth/Perception had been Erratad so you could seriously consider using RAW thruout a game with them.
There is controversy over whether Scent's mention of 'you can detect' means auto-success or requires you to roll, etc. The grammar itself fundamentally doesn't indicate either strongly - You don't NEED to say 'automatically' if a Perception roll is never being invoked in the first place, but 'can' could be seen as giving 'permission' to use another part of the rules...
But that comes to a serious point: Perception ALREADY covers Olfactory perception, right? So Scent saying you 'can' detect creatures within range would just be totally superfluous if it's 'just' letting you roll a Perception check - RAW Perception WITHOUT Scent lets anybody roll a Perception check using scent, and there is no range limit, just range modifiers for Perception.
A creature WITH Scent CAN make Perception checks using olfactory scences, outside of the given ranges of scent (since Perception itself can already do olfactory senses), using their +8 bonus... But in range, I don't beleive there are any checks needed to be aware of general presense (again, normal Perception still is valid, so you CAN now roll to Pin-Point the square of a target, that just isn't automatic unless they are adjacent to you, per Scent), likewise the Move Action to note general direction doesn't use a Perception Check either.
1) CRB p564 indicates that: Scent does neutralize invisibility bonus. Detect as per normal perception vs stealth. (It says nothing about it neutralizing stealth.)
You must be looking at this:
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
---
2) CRB p443 indicates that: [Pinpointing] is automatic within 5feet.
That would be this sentence:
A creature with the scent ability automatically pinpoints unseen creatures within 5 feet of its location.
---
Good sleuthing!
I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion.(that scent is worse than no scent)Ok, my 5th level druid has a +18 to perception in human form. There's an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 12 i need to beat his stealth. I get the general idea of where he's standing but not his exact square.
Alternatively: you roll less than 12 (55% chance) and don't notice him at all.
(You are assuming Stealth bonus of 6, die roll of 4 , +20 from invisible but moving, yes?)
5th level druid has a +18 to perception and scent in doggy form. Theres an invisible stealthing rogue who has a total stealth modifier of 30 (HE ROLLED A FOUR!) I roll the 1 i need to beat his stealth. I do not get the general idea of where he's standing, all that i know is that he's somewhere (detect presence but not location).
OK, assume he rolled a 20. Then his check result vs. you assuming a +6 stealth = 26 = your Perception DC, since you can detect him as if he was visible. But you also get +8 to your check to smell him, so the least result you can get on your Perception check is 27!
Basically, as long as his stealth modifier is 7 or less, you can't fail to detect his prescence. If he was (as I think he should be) taking 10, you'd functionally autodetect him if his stealth mod was 17 or less.
For him to have a 50% chance of remaining undetected by you, his check result would have to be a whopping 37. How often does that happen at 5th level?
This is very useful even if you don't know his exact location! Now you can alert your party to danger (e.g. three short barks means "invisible foe" makes wiz cast see invisibility) and start buffing yourself.
Powerflower,
You're focusing on the numbers and loosing track of the question.
The druid in human form gets MORE information than that same druid in doggy form by your reading of the scent rules.
|
I think the scent argument stems from three points:
1. Stealth skill doesn't really work as written. There are a lot of threads on this including an attempt at a fix in one of the blogs. Basically you can't sneak up on a guard while his back is turned as there is no facing. No cover, no stealth...
2. Invisibility is very common. This can be very difficult for some parties or nothing too much depending on your gm. Some people can look at footprints to "defeat" invisibility, some people use a bag of flour, some have to use ready actions and blind-fighting. Some people like it to be hard to detect invisible foes once you know they are there, some people don't...
3. Scent isn't well written, particularly in respect to the mess associated with the Stealth skill. Its also hard to imagine what its like to have great smell. We all have a sence of smell, but what is it like to have the scent of a dog? You can literally see with your nose.
So if you fall into the invisibility should have realatively easy means to overcome school then being aware of an invisible opponent within 30ft with a special ability isn't that bad. If you think invisibility should be hard to overcome scent will appear very powerfull.
Invisibility is a level 2 spell. Its very common. Guard dogs are very common in the real word because of their fine sences, and impressive bite and low maintenace. However, what does your barking dog mean? Things become a lot more difficult with characters with scent and familiars/ companions that can communicate their thoughts.
I think we won't be agreeing on this one any time soon...
Pathfinder has the same exact [scent] ability [as 3.5], but now it CAN"T be read as being automatic? Why not?
Umm have I said that? I have been pretty careful not to. If I have, I retract it.
(If I had thought so I wouldn't see any point in participating in this discussion)
The druid in human form gets MORE information than that same druid in doggy form by your reading of the scent rules.
I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.
A CHANCE at getting to know two things (prescence and location) is NOT better than a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY of getting to know one thing (prescence) and* the SAME CHANCE as the first example of also getting to know the other (location).
You seem to assume that gaining scent makes you lose sight.
* I know I didn't state this explicitly in my example, as I assumed it was obvious. I guess I should have.
I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.
You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.
What happens if you read the detection of a presence as automatic? Thats how it worked in 3.5
-It doesn't give you blindsenses ability to instantly know what square they're in.
-It doesn't give you blindsights ability to completely ignore the invisibility.
A CHANCE at getting to know two things (prescence and location) is NOT better than a VIRTUAL CERTAINTY of getting to know one thing (prescence) and the SAME CHANCE as the first example of getting to know two things (prescence and location).
The scent rules are not meant to work with the +8 mechanic. There is nothing in them that specifies or even hints at making the check, much less making it with or without the +8 bonus providing more information than just making it on its own.
I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.
What? I didn't change any numbers. I extended your example to show you why your cherry-picked cases were misleading you.
What happens if you read the detection of a presence as automatic?
As I had hoped I had shown:
My variant does make detection of prescence virtually automatic unless the Stealthing character is vastly better at Stealth than the character he's trying to sneak past is at Perception.
So in low-level play, it could practically always be treated as autodetection to speed things up.
At high-level play however, my variant allows stealth experts to sneak past mooks/guard dogs.
This is a bump up to the PCs.
What? I didn't change any numbers.I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.Alternatively: you roll less than 12 (55% chance) and don't notice him at all. <------- changing the situation so that your reading works.
I extended your example to show you why your cherry-picked cases were misleading you.Nothing remotely misleading about it. Your reading breaks down under certain circumstances: basically any time you can make the perception check with or without scent.
My variant does make detection of prescence virtually automatic unless the Stealthing character is vastly better at Stealth than the character he's trying to sneak past is at Perception.Which given most adventure/DM set ups where the NPC's know the PC's travel route and itineraries and have ample time to buff and prepare is pretty much a given.
So in low-level play, it could practically always be treated as autodetection to speed things up.You misunderstand me.
I'm asking what breaks if you read it my way? Whats wrong with reading it my way?
I conclusively proved to you that the opposite is true.You did no such thing. You changed the numbers so that a situation where your interpretation breaks down didn't occur.What? I didn't change any numbers.Alternatively: you roll less than 12 (55% chance) and don't notice him at all. <------- changing the situation so that your reading works.
That's not changing the situation so that [my] reading works, it is pointing out to you, using your own numbers, that without scent you had a 55% chance of getting no information at all.
By your numbers you had, without scent, a 45% chance of learning two bits, and, with scent, a 100% chance of learning one bit.
Now here I think is the dire mammoth in the room that you are failing your perception check against even though it doesn't have concealment:
With scent you still have a 45% chance of learning the other bit as well, since gaining scent did not make you lose your senses of sight, hearing, etc.
I did not point that out initially because I thought it glaringly obvious.
My variant does make detection of prescence virtually automatic unless the Stealthing character is vastly better at Stealth than the character he's trying to sneak past is at Perception.Which given most adventure/DM set ups where the NPC's know the PC's travel route and itineraries and have ample time to buff and prepare is pretty much a given.
If the GM intentionally set the PCs up for a fall they will fall. So if the characters have scent, the ambushers will know that too and have something like negate aroma on.
You misunderstand me.
I'm asking what breaks if you read it my way? Whats wrong with reading it my way?
I understood you, but I chose to focus on why I think my way is "better" rather than why your way is "wrong". Amounts to the same but is usually a better way of fostering dialogue. Also, by accepting that framing I would implicitly be claiming that my way is "right" -- which I am not claiming, not in the sense that "it is RAW" anyway. It might be RAI but there's so much ambiguity that I wouldn't put money on it.
This is probably a dumb question, but has anyone mentioned that there is a way to partially conceal your scent in Pathfinder? "Conceal Scent" feat from Osirion: Land of Pharaohs. Requires 1 rank in Stealth, 1 rank in Survival.
"Creatures cannot use the scent ability to track you (though they can still track you through standard means such as footprints). Creatures with scent can detect your presence by smell at half the normal distance, but cannot pinpoint your location with scent."
It's not perfect, but it's there.
This is probably a dumb question, but has anyone mentioned that there is a way to partially conceal your scent in Pathfinder? "Conceal Scent" from Osirion: Land of Pharaohs. Requires 1 rank in Stealth, 1 rank in Survival.
"Creatures cannot use the scent ability to track you (though they can still track you through standard means such as footprints). Creatures with scent can detect your presence by smell at half the normal distance, but cannot pinpoint your location with scent."
It's not perfect, but it's there.
.... and half the people in this conversation would consider that overpowered for an orison, and the other half would consider it moot because scent doesn't work even if various books says it does...
Orison? Conceal Scent is a feat not an orison. As for scent not working it seems to work fine to me. Under current rules: Perception check to detect target, move action to note direction, automatic pinpoint within 5feet. Conceal scent halves the effective distance and removes the automatic pinpoint within 5 feet. Seems like it works fine to me.
- Gauss
.... and half the people in this conversation would consider that overpowered for an orison, and the other half would consider it moot because scent doesn't work even if various books says it does...This is probably a dumb question, but has anyone mentioned that there is a way to partially conceal your scent in Pathfinder? "Conceal Scent" from Osirion: Land of Pharaohs. Requires 1 rank in Stealth, 1 rank in Survival.
"Creatures cannot use the scent ability to track you (though they can still track you through standard means such as footprints). Creatures with scent can detect your presence by smell at half the normal distance, but cannot pinpoint your location with scent."
It's not perfect, but it's there.
It's not an orison, it is from the country Osirion. It is a feat.
I understood you, but I chose to focus on why I think my way is "better" rather than why your way is "wrong". Amounts to the same but is usually a better way of fostering dialogue.
Probably with normal people. With me it just gets us talking past each other.
Also, by accepting that framing I would implicitly be claiming that my way is "right" -- which I am not claiming, not in the sense that "it is RAW" anyway. It might be RAI but there's so much ambiguity that I wouldn't put money on it.
Right, but you would need to add an awful lot of intent into the scent rules to read it the way you're doing it. There's also the problem that the scent rules were written before the +8 modifier existed.
Orison? Conceal Scent is a feat not an orison. As for scent not working it seems to work fine to me. Under current rules: Perception check to detect target, move action to note direction, automatic pinpoint within 5feet. Conceal scent halves the effective distance and removes the automatic pinpoint within 5 feet. Seems like it works fine to me.
- Gauss
By that reading scent does nothing.
Perception check to detect target<--- EVERYONE can do this. Reflexively, automatically, with no special ability. The rogue tries to sneak up on joe peasant? He gets a perception check. He tries to sneak up on the dog? He gets a perception check. There's no difference. Its as much a non ability as getting to roll initiative or getting a fort save to stabilize.
BigNorseWolf, a +8bonus to perceive scents is not 'nothing'. The ability to detect the presence (albeit not location unless within 5feet) of invisible creatures is also not 'nothing'.
Scent ignores invisibility. Scent grants a +8 bonus to detect scents.
I roll perception check against invisible creature (it is 30feet away in still air).
I get a 25 (33 with scent).
Invisible creature's stealth check is a 28 (48 with invisibilty on the move).
The 25 fails to penetrate the 48. Thus I cannot detect its location. The 33 penetrates the 28. Thus I know it is present.
Now I make a move action to locate direction.
When invisible creature gets within 5 feet of me I know exactly which square it is in (automatic pinpoint). If I did not have scent I would not know this.
Now, lets look at the effect of the feat Conceal Scent.
The creature is still 30feet away, I cannot locate it because of the half distance penalty.
I still fail my 'normal' perception check.
When it reaches 15feet away I succeed on my perception check and can note its direction with a move action.
When it reaches 5 feet away I cannot automatically pinpoint its location.
Thus, scent is great. Conceal Scent is definitely a workable feat. However, a potion of Negate Aroma (APG) is more effective and does not cost a feat.
- Gauss
BigNorseWolf, a +8bonus to perceive scents is not 'nothing'. The ability to detect the presence (albeit not location unless within 5feet) of invisible creatures is also not 'nothing'.
So scent, exactly as it was written in 3.5 without the +8, was nothing?
BigNorseWolf, you seemed to take my denial that it is worth nothing as a statement that a previous edition is must therefore be nothing based on a lack of +8. However, I was commenting on PF scent.
But, to show that 3.5 scent was also useful:
A quick check of 3.5 Scent shows that there was no +8 bonus to detect a scent. It says nothing about a check to detect scents. My only assumption is that it was automatic (therefore, not 'nothing'). (Which btw, is how the PF playtest redesign of scent is supposed to work.)
Additionally, Scent can detect invisible creatures (DMG p295) 'as it would a visibile one'.
So again, 3.5 version of scent was not 'nothing' either.
- Gauss
|
|
However, what BigNorseWolf is saying is that Scent is completely unchanged, except for an additional sentence in the Perception skill block. The Scent ability doesn't mention Perception AT ALL.
You seem to believe that, although the Scent ability's text is completely unchanged from how it was in 3.5, it is now forced to use Perception, even though it doesn't mention Perception AT ALL.