Sent is like opening a book to a random page and perceptionizing one word on the page.
I don’t agree with that analogy at all. Scent is like opening a book and seeing a page. You know the page is there. Then you need to take a moment to read it to determine the language it is written in. Then you need to read it closely to find the word. Like you know the animal is somewhere close. Then you need to spend an action to know what direction. Then you need to actually go find it.
There is always other sents when you are with your party. The wizard carries bags of animal fecal matter, and various other dead things. The fighter hasn't taken off his armor since level 1. The barbarian is always covered in blood.
There are always other things can see, hear, taste and feel. Unless one or more of those things are overwhelming, blocking, or canceling something out, they don’t make you selectively blind, deaf, ect.
If you sit in a room with five other people who constantly are talking, dancing and making other noises and a sixth person walks in and farts.. Do you think you are really going to hear that fart? You might just hear a noise, but ultimately not realize that someone new just farted.
Maybe. Maybe not. But you are talking about people with normal human hearing abilities, not creatures (or characters of a certain race with a special feat) with greatly improved hearing abilities. If normal hearing makes it is possible to hear the fart, you get a chance to perceive/notice it. If a creature has special hearing abilities, they would hear it even if no one else could possibly hear it. That is what is so special about it. It is a natural a advantage, not a developed skill.
My perception is that it comes up constantly, if not ubiquitously. Nearly every party has at least one familiar, animal companion, or even PC with scent. Most monsters that don't have scent keep critters in their lairs that do have it. For an ability that ubiquitous to be that powerful offends me on a game-design level, however "realistic" people find it to be (and, for the record, nothing about D&D/PF is "realistic," in my book -- that's part of why we play).
I guess I've never seen it come up that often, but like so many things on the boards here, its not hard to imagine certain campaigns where it's that common. I think the biggest difficulty people have is that perception covers such a large array of things when by RAW, it's only opposed by two skills, stealth and slight of hand, both of which deal mostly with sight and sound based issues. Adding the other senses to it without a legal counter for those senses made Perception require some DM rulings if the use of the other senses are quite common. Personally, I think scent is fine as starting at DC 0 because when all is said and done, the range where it is auto detectable, or even usable at all, is close enough that if someone really means me harm, we're already in initiative and combat has started before I have much, if any, time to share the information I just learned.
"Can" means "allowed to, able to, permissible". It does not mean "automatically do". If I say to you, "You can cross the road anywhere", that doesn't mean you automatically cross the road at any random point.
In game terms it does. It means that crossing the road is so simple that it doesn't require a check.
Or if something read "the pc's may cross the river anywhere they wish" .... with no further information given , how do you equate that with making up any particular swim check?
|
In game terms it does. It means that crossing the road is so simple that it doesn't require a check.
"PC's can bribe the watchman to let them pass."
"Characters can freely multiclass in Pathfinder."
"Dragons can assume multiple forms."
Action is required. At a MINIMUM, I'd put the onus on the player to 'activate' their scent ability by paying attention to that particular input.
Sent is like opening a book to a random page and perceptionizing one word on the page.I don’t agree with that analogy at all. Scent is like opening a book and seeing a page. You know the page is there. Then you need to take a moment to read it to determine the language it is written in. Then you need to read it closely to find the word. Like you know the animal is somewhere close. Then you need to spend an action to know what direction. Then you need to actually go find it.
you do not agree, because you confused yourself by relating the page as a physical object in the analogy..
The Page is nothing more than a moment of time that a number of words existed. To perceive the page is nothing more than being able to realize time. In that moment, you see every single word on that page.
You see the words.
But you didn't perceive the words, only saw them.
Rolling of the perception check is your characters ability to add 1+1 and make out what it is with just a glance. To actually perceive the words. When you read, you take 10 on this check if not 20, as reading isn't just simply looking at the words, but coming to an understanding of them. (Though of course you still might not because you don't have the appropriate language)
The character might not make the full perception check, but he might get a sudden jist of the writing and then become needing to read it.
There is always other sents when you are with your party. The wizard carries bags of animal fecal matter, and various other dead things. The fighter hasn't taken off his armor since level 1. The barbarian is always covered in blood.There are always other things can see, hear, taste and feel. Unless one or more of those things are overwhelming, blocking, or canceling something out, they don’t make you selectively blind, deaf, ect.
No, it doesn't have to be overwealing, blocking, canceling or anything.
It simply has to exist. Like a where's Waldo book. There is LOTS of stuff in there and Waldo isn't blocked by all of it. None of it individually is really overwhelming either. And you have the advantage of actually focusing your mind into looking for it.
If you sit in a room with five other people who constantly are talking, dancing and making other noises and a sixth person walks in and farts.. Do you think you are really going to hear that fart? You might just hear a noise, but ultimately not realize that someone new just farted.Maybe. Maybe not. But you are talking about people with normal human hearing abilities, not creatures (or characters of a certain race with a special feat) with greatly improved hearing abilities. If normal hearing makes it is possible to hear the fart, you get a chance to perceive/notice it. If a creature has special hearing abilities, they would hear it even if no one else could possibly hear it. That is what is so special about it. It is a natural a advantage, not a developed skill.
Hearing it is NOT perceiving it. I know its hard to understand the separation of hearing something and perceiving something. Have some kids, and then talk to them. While they hear you, where they actually listening to you?
The creature with super hearing may have heard the fart, but that doesn't mean he perceived the fart.
An example I had recently was my brother setting a pan of grease on fire. I smelled it and just figured he was cooking some Mexican food as he tends to do randomly. I smelled it, the sent of the burning oil. I even perceived it as oil. But I didn't perceive it as something that could have been dangerous.
This is the difference between just simply smelling/hearing/seeing something and actually perceiving it.
There is no functional difference whatsoever between "no check required" vs. "roll a DC 0 check, with a +8 modifier, as a free action." They are the same thing.
Only of course, when you are a lazy GM.
If one of your players walks into a room with.. Oh I dunno.. True seeing, do you immediately tell him everything in the room that can be perceived through sight alone?
Lets say the room itself looks just like one of those "find the item" games where you have to find 10 items littered in a collection of various other items.
Not all of them are blocked, none are overwhelming by themselves etc.
Only of course, when you are a lazy GM.
Poor analogy hidden by a blatant insult. Nice.
If the "item" you're trying to find is a red tickle-me-elmo doll, and you are always looking to find them as soon as possible upon entering the room, because you die if you don't, and if spotting that doll is a DC 0 check made at +8, it's an auto-success unless the player forgets to announce it.
Or unless you mean, by a "non-lazy DM," one who puts mountains of dung and corpses in every room to disguise scent, much like there are DMs who run all their adventures in anti-magic fields. THAT is lazy DMing -- instead of fixing flaws in the rules, he just ham-handedly nixes abilities wholesale.
There is no functional difference whatsoever between "no check required" vs. "roll a DC 0 check, with a +8 modifier, as a free action." They are the same thing.
There is and there isn't. The first one means the ability goes off automatically, period, as soon as the smellee is within range. The second provides a mechanic that accounts for those situations where functionally no roll is required because the DC is lower than their minimum roll, while providing a consistent mechanism for determining when rolls are required. This allows both the DM and the players to make fair use of what, for better or for worse, is fairly easy for the party to use without spending a lot of time on unnecessary rolls.
There is and there isn't. The first one means the ability goes off automatically, period, as soon as the smellee is within range. The second provides a mechanic that accounts for those situations where functionally no roll is required because the DC is lower than their minimum roll, while providing a consistent mechanism for determining when rolls are required. This allows both the DM and the players to make fair use of what, for better or for worse, is fairly easy for the party to use without spending a lot of time on unnecessary rolls.
Like I said, if your survival depends on using it, people will call for a check all the time, unless the player forgets. So the distinction is that players (not PCs) who are more OCD are at a big advantage. I'd prefer for the rules to favor strategic use of in-game abilities, vs. out-of-game personality quirks that stress constant repetition of "I smell the room! I smell the room!"
Or unless you mean, by a "non-lazy DM," one who puts mountains of dung and corpses in every room to disguise scent, much like there are DMs who run all their adventures in anti-magic fields. THAT is lazy DMing -- instead of fixing flaws in the rules, he just ham-handedly nixes abilities wholesale.
There are plenty of ways to disguise scent that require little effort from either the DM or the player. An abandoned dungeon will almost always have plant life and animal life of some kind, no matter how well sealed it is. A dungeon home to the creatures they are fighting are going to be permeated with that smell just through that creature's natural day to day activity. There will also be plenty of dungeons where scent works just fine. I agree that nixing abilities wholesale is not the way to go, especially adding logical challenges to foil all five senses without blatantly targeting them is really quite easy.
Like I said, if your survival depends on using it, people will call for a check all the time, unless the player forgets. So the distinction is that players (not PCs) who are more OCD are at a big advantage. I'd prefer for the rules to favor strategic use of in-game abilities, vs. out-of-game personality quirks that stress constant repetition of "I smell the room! I smell the room!"
I would handle that by saying after the 3rd or 4th time of them doing that since that is their SOP, it doesn't have to be constantly repeated. Perception and it's use is one of those things that once you have a gauge of how they are using it, you can move it off screen more often than not, making any required rolls as needed, but otherwise treating the entire process as fairly routine only worth noting when deviation from the normal plan is required. That allows them to make it clear what they are doing to prevent trouble, but also prevents the constant paranoid perception checks.
Only of course, when you are a lazy GM.Poor analogy hidden by a blatant insult. Nice.
If the "item" you're trying to find is a red tickle-me-elmo doll, and you are always looking to find them as soon as possible upon entering the room, because you die if you don't, and if spotting that doll is a DC 0 check made at +8, it's an auto-success unless the player forgets to announce it.
Or unless you mean, by a "non-lazy DM," one who puts mountains of dung and corpses in every room to disguise scent, much like there are DMs who run all their adventures in anti-magic fields. THAT is lazy DMing -- instead of fixing flaws in the rules, he just ham-handedly nixes abilities wholesale.
No its not a poor analogy. True seeing is a highly improved ability of sight, while sent is a highly improved ability of smelling things.
It doesn't require any hamfisting or other stupid stuff. Just coming up with a simple perception check and having them run it at +8 for sent. That's all. No quantum physics re-engineering of the entire game system.
Just an extremely simple perception check.
And no, not a DC 0 check made at +8. That is what being a lazy GM would do. Or yes, just constantly say "There is a strong sent of pine".
Like I've said OVER AND OVER again, its not that ONE thing has to be overwelming or otherwise mask anything.
Where's Waldo, those item finding games etc, they don't overwhelm you by putting a big spinning wheel in the center of the page that constantly flashes thousands of colors at you.
You are trying to find waldo, and you see 30 people with a red and white stripped shirt. Seeing them individually, no they wouldn't overwhelm you at all. Its the overall collection of them that makes it harder to find waldo. Its the collection of various other red/white objects that make it hard to find waldo.
Like I said, if your survival depends on using it, people will call for a check all the time, unless the player forgets. So the distinction is that players (not PCs) who are more OCD are at a big advantage. I'd prefer for the rules to favor strategic use of in-game abilities, vs. out-of-game personality quirks that stress constant repetition of "I smell the room! I smell the room!"
Now I'm not sure here, but I believe you took the OCD from your left hand and put it in your right hand then just tried to make it seem like it disappeared cause it isn't in your left hand anymore.
Cause lets repeat that less sentence with a slight change..
I'd prefer for the rules to favor strategic use of in-game abilities, vs. out-of-game personality quirks that stress constant repetition of "I cover myself in sents! I cover myself in sents!"
That's pretty much what happens, if your players have that OCD out-of-game quirk that they need to hide from things that would smell them.
Course you may be just saying to make a perception check vs an actual DC (not DC 0) with a +8 bonus. If so, that is EXACTLY what I've been saying.
And no, not a DC 0 check made at +8. That is what being a lazy GM would do.
How is that lazy when it is how a Perception check for any of the other senses works. You start at DC 0, add in distance, take into account if the potential target is trying to mask the use of that sense and any environmental factors, and determine if a roll is required based on the minimum check the checker could receive. If the target isn't hiding their scent in any way and they are close enough to trigger scent, it will probably be automatic unless the environment is overfilled with particularly strong scents, as the checker would be able to recognize something different in the immediate area, even if the checker doesn't know exactly where it is or what it is. If there are enough environmental influences or the would be target is taking simple measures to mask their presence, or more likely, a combination of the two factors occur, than a roll is called for.
Works the same as if you were using or trying to hide from any other sense. There are just as many ways to conceal yourself from scent as there are to hide from vision or to mask sounds, most of them quite simple. Just you don't have to detail precisely how your character is walking when they go into stealth mode but most DMs do require you to state when you start walking stealthily, the same is true for scent. A detailed explanation isn't required, but a statement to the fact that you are taking appropriate measures to prevent detection by smell is required because I don't assume anything as a DM.
Like I've said OVER AND OVER again, its not that ONE thing has to be overwelming or otherwise mask anything.
Where's Waldo, those item finding games etc, they don't overwhelm you by putting a big spinning wheel in the center of the page that constantly flashes thousands of colors at you.
Right, so instead of every room having a mountain of dung, room A has 3 pairs of shoes and dirty underwear, room B has a smoky grill and skewers of meat, etc. It's the exact same gimmick, the exact same wholesale nerfing of the problematic rule instead of just changing the rule, except you dress it up differently every time. No thanks.
Right, so instead of every room having a mountain of dung, room A has 3 pairs of shoes and dirty underwear, room B has a smoky grill and skewers of meat, etc. It's the exact same gimmick, the exact same wholesale nerfing of the problematic rule instead of just changing the rule, except you dress it up differently every time. No thanks.
That isn't entirely unreasonable if used properly. Throw in the smell of a nearby rotten water source or the breeze from a nearby entrance way and you have several more plausible reasons. Still, most of the time, in such settings, it will be one either is automatic at really, really close range, when its too late to do much about it often times, or require a roll. Seems balanced to me.
Right, so instead of every room having a mountain of dung, room A has 3 pairs of shoes and dirty underwear, room B has a smoky grill and skewers of meat, etc. It's the exact same gimmick, the exact same wholesale nerfing of the problematic rule instead of just changing the rule, except you dress it up differently every time. No thanks.Like I've said OVER AND OVER again, its not that ONE thing has to be overwelming or otherwise mask anything.
Where's Waldo, those item finding games etc, they don't overwhelm you by putting a big spinning wheel in the center of the page that constantly flashes thousands of colors at you.
Sigh..
I say, I change the rule.. Then you go on about how I wholesale nerf instead of changing the rule.
Simply put, if sent can be used, it gives a +8 to a perception check.
No auto-success stuff, or making just a DC 0 unless I wholesale nerf it via a bunch of crap or my players are OCD paranoid schizophrenics who cover themselves in anti-sent chemicals every ten minutes.
Sent gives +8 if sent can be used.
If there is a number of decently powerful sents then like perception with lighting conditions, there are penalties to it. But never more that a -8 (Basically negating it, kinda like darkness to sight based perception.)
If someone rolls stealth, Its auto-assumed they do at least little something to mask sent. (Reflected in the DC of perception vs stealth)
Everything on the multiple sents or even powerful sents is my explanation of WHY my rule is that its not auto-success or DC 0 with a +8 to perception check.
Or if something read "the pc's may cross the river anywhere they wish" .... with no further information given , how do you equate that with making up any particular swim check?Thank you for proving my point for me so eloquently. I would go to the Swim section of the Skills chapter and read the DCs for swimming.
-And if the river is 6 inches deep? Three feet deep? You can simply walk accross (well unless you're a halfling) You would have to decide IF a swim check is called for first, not what the DC is. If the river was supposed to have any depth worth mentioning, it would have said "with a dc x swim check" or "as calm water" or "as rough water" etc.
If its a +8 to perception checks, then why have a separate system for determining a characters direction? If you beat someone on a perception check you know where they are.
We don't use that usually, unless the enemy is invisible.. and that's pretty much still just the base perception.
Then it isn't a river.
Rivers are loosely defined by flow, not depth.
And out west they'll call pretty much anything a river
Scent really just tells you "You smell something!", perhaps what it is, but not any direction or distance.
It doesn't even ruin surprise round if you fail to locate the creature, but you can have weapons drawn and wards on.
BTW the smell doesn't have to be covered to hide you. If everything smells like you, the scent is also pretty useless. I can imagine a goblin warren to smell like goblins all around even if the little terrors are around or not. Picking up a goblin smell there is rather useless.
Scent really just tells you "You smell something!", perhaps what it is, but not any direction or distance.
It doesn't even ruin surprise round if you fail to locate the creature, but you can have weapons drawn and wards on.
BTW the smell doesn't have to be covered to hide you. If everything smells like you, the scent is also pretty useless. I can imagine a goblin warren to smell like goblins all around even if the little terrors are around or not. Picking up a goblin smell there is rather useless.
Usually by the time you are able to actually smell something with scent, you are able to get a general distance, "way too close for me to like it," but otherwise a very good post.
Okay, the Perception skill really details everything you need on this. Even if you want to put in competing smells to ruin someone's day, you are looking at the Perception entry of "Terrible Conditions" that specifically calls outs competing smells in the chart.
Even with that, at 30 feet away, you are looking at a DC 8, with a minimum roll of 9 (0 ranks, 0 Wisdom, scent +8, roll 1).
It would take having a Wisdom of 7 or lower (plus 0 ranks) to get into the realm of needing a 2 to succeed.
So yeah, in that rare instance of a person with extremely low Wisdom, trying to notice someone approaching with a midden heap next to him, he might need to make a roll.
Nearly every other time he's going to succeed, unless a Stealth roll is made.
Simply put, if sent can be used, it gives a +8 to a perception check. No auto-success stuff. Scent gives +8 if sent can be used.
Mechanically, that was the exact same houserule I had proposed, before you started talking about "Where's Waldo." Why didn't you just put a "+1" and be done with it?
If its a +8 to perception checks, then why have a separate system for determining a characters direction? If you beat someone on a perception check you know where they are.
That's pretty much what I do.
|
|
As other have suggested, if all Scent gave was a +8 perception skill check, then the ability might read like:
Scent: You gain a +8 on perception checks.
In the same line, you might re-write invisibility:
Invisibility: You gain +20 to Stealth checks.
You change both abilities when you add extra text. Scent ability, Stealth skill and Invisibility both have a lot of qualifying text. The Stealth Skill, when read in conjunction with the Scent ability, make you realise the power of the Scent ability.
Or when read with a eidalon.
Seriously, you can get a +16 to perception (Skilled, sent, tremor sense) before any other modifiers. Granted, my eidalon isn't going to get tremor, cause he flies.