I don't understand combining spot, listen, and search into perception and then breaking up perception into five senses. With races having touch-based, taste-based, etc. bonuses to perception checks, players must keep tract of 5 sub-skills with their individual sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell modifiers. Does anyone find this actually complicates this skill instead of simplifying it?
I don't understand combining spot, listen, and search into perception and then breaking up perception into five senses. With races having touch-based, taste-based, etc. bonuses to perception checks, players must keep tract of 5 sub-skills with their individual sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell modifiers. Does anyone find this actually complicates this skill instead of simplifying it?
We have had a discussion in my group about this, too. And decided to ignore the touch, taste and smell thing. What was mother "bothersome" however, was the folding of Search (Int-based normally) into Perception (which was Listen + Spot, which both are WIS-based).
So
5 votes from my group to remove the touch/smell/taste thing.
and
1 vote for leaving Search, Listen and Spot as three skills
3 votes for Listen & Spot into Percpetion and Search as a seperate skill
1 vote for Listen & spot into Perception and Search unsure where to put
|
the folding of Search (Int-based normally) into Perception (which was Listen + Spot, which both are WIS-based).
Yeah, this one I'm not a fan of. There is (to my mind) a difference between being good at passively noticing random things and knowing how to visually or physically inspect an object or area to find something that isn't immediately apparent to the casual observer.
I sort of took the taste/touch/etc. as "suggestions" as to what Perception can do/stand for, rather than reading that they were essential individually-defined sub-skills. A roll to sense something would be a straight undefined Perception roll, at a DC comparable to the various example ones. Races with bonuses to taste or whatever (individually) either get a straight +2 across the board (elves), or else only get the bonus if it's really obvious they should.
Then again, Perception should really be an ability score/attribute, with Notice or Alertness or "Sixth Sense" as a skill based on that attribute. In fact, it would be a whole lot more logical to delete "Wisdom" and "Charisma" and replace them with "Perception" and "Will." Charisma would then be a skill, replacing Diplomacy. But that would break the D&D standard of the last 30 years, so it won't happen that way!
|
Then again, Perception should really be an ability score/attribute, with Notice or Alertness or "Sixth Sense" as a skill based on that attribute. In fact, it would be a whole lot more logical to delete "Wisdom" and "Charisma" and replace them with "Perception" and "Will." Charisma would then be a skill, replacing Diplomacy. But that would break the D&D standard of the last 30 years, so it won't happen that way!
I totally agree, but yeah, that's for a new game.
I also agree that Search does not belong in Perception. Very different uses.
Ignore smell/taste/touch if you don't like them, but I'd rather have rules in the book for those rare times when they do come up. Scent may actually come up more often than the other two.
|
I agree that Perception is overcomplicated. It gives some flavor to the Racial Perception bonuses, but is otherwise too complex. I personally think that Sense Motive should be folded into this skill (it is also a WIS skill). And if someone can truly define the difference between Spot and Search, maybe it would help not only show why they use a different ability , but why Search should exist seperately.
|
|
I agree that Perception is overcomplicated.
Ok, but most of what is complicated (including all 5 senses) is also ignorable. It doesn't actually detract from anything to include and it does add something for some people.
On Search vs. Perception ... Perception seems to me to be mostly passive, what characters notice. When I DM I have players roll a d20 ten times and write down the numbers. As opportunities for them to notice something come up, I check their lists and cross off numbers. If they meet the DC I tell them what they spotted or heard. But Search is active, "I search the room for clues," or "I search the library for a book on demons." It is also based on Int. A smart person can search well, even if she isn't particularly perceptive, because she can figure out clues and patterns and recognize when things are out of place. That's why I would like to see Search out of Perception.
I agree that Perception is overcomplicated.Ok, but most of what is complicated (including all 5 senses) is also ignorable. It doesn't actually detract from anything to include and it does add something for some people.
On Search vs. Perception ... Perception seems to me to be mostly passive, what characters notice. When I DM I have players roll a d20 ten times and write down the numbers. As opportunities for them to notice something come up, I check their lists and cross off numbers. If they meet the DC I tell them what they spotted or heard. But Search is active, "I search the room for clues," or "I search the library for a book on demons." It is also based on Int. A smart person can search well, even if she isn't particularly perceptive, because she can figure out clues and patterns and recognize when things are out of place. That's why I would like to see Search out of Perception.
I agree completely with you. Search should become its own skill again. This makes sense for the reasons you stated as well as too much skill condensation will make backwards compatilbilty more difficult.
I agree completely with you. Search should become its own skill again. This makes sense for the reasons you stated as well as too much skill condensation will make backwards compatilbilty more difficult.I agree that Perception is overcomplicated.Ok, but most of what is complicated (including all 5 senses) is also ignorable. It doesn't actually detract from anything to include and it does add something for some people.
On Search vs. Perception ... Perception seems to me to be mostly passive, what characters notice. When I DM I have players roll a d20 ten times and write down the numbers. As opportunities for them to notice something come up, I check their lists and cross off numbers. If they meet the DC I tell them what they spotted or heard. But Search is active, "I search the room for clues," or "I search the library for a book on demons." It is also based on Int. A smart person can search well, even if she isn't particularly perceptive, because she can figure out clues and patterns and recognize when things are out of place. That's why I would like to see Search out of Perception.
Ditto.
I thought that having separate bonuses for different kinds of perception would be problematic and too complicated, and I wasn't sure about lumping search in with them, but honestly, after my last playtest session, the PCs did a really good job themselves of explaining what they were doing in terms of what perception bonus they were trying to receive, and it convinced me that both the consolidation and the individual bonuses based on different senses would work out fairly well.
For example, the gnome felt for seams with his bare fingers for a trap door when he was searching. In fact, in the long run it made searching more interesting from a storyline point of view, because the players were more descriptive in what they were doing to search, for example.
|
|
I thought that having separate bonuses for different kinds of perception would be problematic and too complicated, and I wasn't sure about lumping search in with them, but honestly, after my last playtest session, the PCs did a really good job themselves of explaining what they were doing in terms of what perception bonus they were trying to receive, and it convinced me that both the consolidation and the individual bonuses based on different senses would work out fairly well.
Awesome. See, this is why I think things like leaving some skills (Knowledge, Craft, Profession, Perform, Perception) a little vague and Lordzack's synergies as an Aid-Self check can work well in Pathfinder. They all put the onus on players to explain why they should get to use Profession (sailor) to tie a knot or Knowledge (nobility) to boost their Diplomacy roll. Making players justify puts the work back into their hands and should lead to better storytelling.
I agree with separating Search and Perception, really not much because it makes sense or not, but because it leaves the Perception skill too powerful, its like "one of the main skills of the game". It´s your ability to detect hidden passages, notice someone hiding, hearing someone sneaking up, find traps, notice strange patterns in a room, eavesdropping on others conversation, fight someone invisible, etc, etc... it´s everything!
Then again, Perception should really be an ability score/attribute, with Notice or Alertness or "Sixth Sense" as a skill based on that attribute. In fact, it would be a whole lot more logical to delete "Wisdom" and "Charisma" and replace them with "Perception" and "Will." Charisma would then be a skill, replacing Diplomacy. But that would break the D&D standard of the last 30 years, so it won't happen that way!
Whoa.. yeah.. there is a bold idea. I wouldn´t remove Wis and Cha, but agree 100% on having perception work as an attribute. And we already got Will... it´s not a skill nor an attribute though, it's a save.
the four players in my group and myself all agree that perception and it's five sub groups is much better than spot and listen but then thats just us. On the search vs. perception i think it fine being bundled in perception after play testing my group loved the way they had to use all thier senses to search for trap and hidden things they are recently starting ROTR #2 the Skinsaw Murders and being able to use an olfactory based perception check has really helped them find clues.
|
|
I think combining spot and listen is a good idea. The whole point of rolling two checks to sneak past someone and two checks to notice them is a little silly. And as long as you're rolling the two that were actually skills together, might as well throw in other 'senses'. I get that, and I like that. So, while there is the complexity of the racial bonus to one or two types of perception, I can allow that as a nod toward some realism.
Search, I think, can stand on its own. I agree just from a balance point of view that perception is too good. Every class would be silly not to take it, since more often than anything else, it may determine the difference between life and death for the party.
I have two thoughts on the general situation.
1) Separating search and other perceptions is good. There are other reasons for it above, and I'm more comfortable keeping an Int based skill separate from a Wis based skill.
2) The simple fact that every person in the party (or may) does make it a little hard to set DCs appropriately. I hate having everyone roll for a Spot check. If I have 5 players, surely I get one with a 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 (or similar). Now, if they all have the max ranks, this means whatever is going to be spotted always gets spotted (right now this isn't as much the case, but with the new system it will be more likely). So, I'd really like to see a good rule for 'party checks' instead of 'individual checks'. I think it would be 'faster and easier' to ask for a 'party stealth check' opposed by the enemy 'party perception check'. Thus, rather than having the cleric, rogue, fighter, and barbarian all make stealth checks, you would have one of the players roll one check. Something like 'd20 roll+best modifier-worst Armor Check - 1 per person'. So, the above party is 8th level, the roll would be 1d20+16(lvl+3+ability)-9 (AC -5, 4 people). Effectively the party's stealth would be 1d20+5. Not as good as the barbarians 1d20+16, but much better than the clerics 1d20-5.
As a DM this will also be very helpful if I have large numbers of people opposing the PCs. Sneaking past 200 guards (if it happens) should be harder even though most of them aren't very observant. While some of them could never spot the rogue, with that many someone might 'get lucky'. Some kind of bonus for having lots of people actively on guard would be nice. Just a thought.
|
|
2) The simple fact that every person in the party (or may) does make it a little hard to set DCs appropriately. I hate having everyone roll for a Spot check. If I have 5 players, surely I get one with a 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 (or similar). Now, if they all have the max ranks, this means whatever is going to be spotted always gets spotted (right now this isn't as much the case, but with the new system it will be more likely). So, I'd really like to see a good rule for 'party checks' instead of 'individual checks'. I think it would be 'faster and easier' to ask for a 'party stealth check' opposed by the enemy 'party perception check'. Thus, rather than having the cleric, rogue, fighter, and barbarian all make stealth checks, you would have one of the players roll one check. Something like 'd20 roll+best modifier-worst Armor Check - 1 per person'. So, the above party is 8th level, the roll would be 1d20+16(lvl+3+ability)-9 (AC -5, 4 people). Effectively the party's stealth would be 1d20+5. Not as good as the barbarians 1d20+16, but much better than the clerics 1d20-5.
This would definitely boost the game speed. Excellent suggestion. As a DM I've always had the trouble of collecting all the random shouts of "17!", "5!" and such from the table.
Personally I like having all kinds of sense included in Perception, but agree on the Search thing. While it might seem appropriate, it should be separate. If not otherwise, for balance reasons. Even as a Listen & Spot skill it's very tempting for anyone. I guess some lesser known skills need a boost too.
Group skill checks is a good idea. Maybe it should includes something along the lines of "aid another"...
Maybe the average perception or stealth check for a group could be with a "take 10".
|
The simple fact that every person in the party (or may) does make it a little hard to set DCs appropriately. I hate having everyone roll for a Spot check. If I have 5 players, surely I get one with a 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 (or similar). Now, if they all have the max ranks, this means whatever is going to be spotted always gets spotted (right now this isn't as much the case, but with the new system it will be more likely). So, I'd really like to see a good rule for 'party checks' instead of 'individual checks'. I think it would be 'faster and easier' to ask for a 'party stealth check' opposed by the enemy 'party perception check'. Thus, rather than having the cleric, rogue, fighter, and barbarian all make stealth checks, you would have one of the players roll one check. Something like 'd20 roll+best modifier-worst Armor Check - 1 per person'. So, the above party is 8th level, the roll would be 1d20+16(lvl+3+ability)-9 (AC -5, 4 people). Effectively the party's stealth would be 1d20+5. Not as good as the barbarians 1d20+16, but much better than the clerics 1d20-5.
This is a great idea! and it would be nice to see such a system incorporated into the abilities of the base classes too, for example a ranger who works alone isn't likely to help a party with surviving in the wild while a ranger specialized as a guide could receive a bonus to party skill checks when making checks for more than 2 people. Same for a group orientated rogue (scout) with stealth checks, a bard whose trained as a circus performer might be able to help a party with acrobatics, paladin might enhance sense motive, etc...
Given my experience with GURPS, I am use to asking for things like scent-based or touch-based perception rolls.
I also tend to keep quick sheets of the "take 10" numbers of common skils of the characters (climb, Jump, and so forth). With the new Perception skill, I plan on noting each character's "take 10" number for each senses. This allows me to make quick check's on what they might notice.
On skill separation: I like the current rule. Perception is a really, really strong skill now, but others are too, so it's okay.
I would also have liked moving the active search for secret doors and traps checks to Disable Device.
---
On group skills: I always assume the "passive" party (if in doubt, that's the NPC's) to take 10 an opposed checks (yes, technically, take 10 cannot be used under stress, but you get the point).
If the group is making a combined, organized effort, I might make a difference, but in 99 out of 100 cases, a hundred orcs will be easier to sneak upon than a single one. The solo creature is more alert to outside threats, produces no background noise and doesn't divert its attention with gambling, brawling or drinking.
I believe in the saying "A mob's IQ is as high as that of it's dumbest member, minus one."
It always comes up when the party rogues uses Disguise/Bluff/Sneak against a group of people/monsters. If you let every group member make a check, the DC is effectively always 20+average Wisdom mod + mods, and that's pretty tough at low to medium levels.
I don't like making these rather creative problem solving attempts excessively difficult, and so far, the take-10-rule has proven itself very fine.a
|
|
On group skills: I always assume the "passive" party (if in doubt, that's the NPC's) to take 10 an opposed checks (yes, technically, take 10 cannot be used under stress, but you get the point).
If the group is making a combined, organized effort, I might make a difference, but in 99 out of 100 cases, a hundred orcs will be easier to sneak upon than a single one. The solo creature is more alert to outside threats, produces no background noise and doesn't divert its attention with gambling, brawling or drinking.
I believe in the saying "A mob's IQ is as high as that of it's dumbest member, minus one."It always comes up when the party rogues uses Disguise/Bluff/Sneak against a group of people/monsters. If you let every group member make a check, the DC is effectively always 20+average Wisdom mod + mods, and that's pretty tough at low to medium levels.
I don't like making these rather creative problem solving attempts excessively difficult, and so far, the take-10-rule has proven itself very fine.a
I guess my problem is that I do want the rules for the NPCs to be the same as for the PCs. Now, when we have a variable rule, I can't 'metagame' my NPCs too much. For example, if I'm going to be trying to sneak up on the PCs while they're camped, and I know that the Perception check is going to be +12, and my NPCs have a +15, I know that taking 10, the NPCs will always win. So, the PCs should get a roll. But, if the PCs get a roll, so should the bad guys.
And sure, a group of 200 orcs might not be paying a whole lot of attention. You could probably use disguise to walk right through them more easily than you could use stealth to sneak around them. No matter how carefully you dart from shadow to shadow, that is a lot of eyes, and anyone who notices you will be inclined to question the person that doesn't look like they belong.
All I'm saying is that if there is a good rule to use that can be applied consistently, whatever it is, I'd like to see that. The same rule can also be applied to initiative checks. You know, when I have 3 different monsters in the encounter, one at +12 Init, one at +0, and one at -6, well, it seems strange to have them all go at the same time, but it is more work to have them all go at different times.
My point was not to suggest what the rule should be, but that there should be a rule. At least, I think it would be good.
I always let one party roll. One the other (passive) one takes 10. So there's no auto-win except with extreme skill differences.
Suppose I am used to "perception skill" governing all senses from other games I play besides D20 based. Most games I have played have Perception/Alertness/Awareness skill that governs the five senses.
I dont see a problem with folding Spot, Search and Listen into one skill. I always found it strange that they were seperate skills in the first place in 3.0 and continued to be in 3.5.
Regarding the Int vs Wis issue. I still have problems with permanently linking abilities and skills. Take craft for example...you could make a Wisdom + Craft to appraise an item, an Intelligence + Craft to come up with the design for an item, Dexterity + Craft to actualy create the item, COnstitution + Craft to work through the night to finish an item ahead of schedule.
Fairly common for my main D&D game master to break with the usual ability + skill pairings and call for an unconventional pairing if she feels it fits better.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
I agree completely with you. Search should become its own skill again. This makes sense for the reasons you stated as well as too much skill condensation will make backwards compatilbilty more difficult.I agree that Perception is overcomplicated.Ok, but most of what is complicated (including all 5 senses) is also ignorable. It doesn't actually detract from anything to include and it does add something for some people.
On Search vs. Perception ... Perception seems to me to be mostly passive, what characters notice. When I DM I have players roll a d20 ten times and write down the numbers. As opportunities for them to notice something come up, I check their lists and cross off numbers. If they meet the DC I tell them what they spotted or heard. But Search is active, "I search the room for clues," or "I search the library for a book on demons." It is also based on Int. A smart person can search well, even if she isn't particularly perceptive, because she can figure out clues and patterns and recognize when things are out of place. That's why I would like to see Search out of Perception.
I disagree -- I like that Perception includes Search as well, and it makes sense to me (after all, you could use Perception (Touch) to search for secret doors in darkness). I don't think I ever played a character (even a Rogue) that could afford putting more than a few ranks in Search.