Hello everyone,
Goggles of Night (and Eyes of the Eagle) give a bonus to Perception checks involving sight. Does it include initiative rolls?
Per RAW, it doesn't seem so, but I remember they were supposed to...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you please elaborate why it wouldn't by RAW, exactly? Outside of the obvious, of course: If the initiative roll doesn't involve sight (like it happened after hearing something, or being attacked while blinded, etc.), or if you're using a different skill for initiative (like deception or stealth), then it wouldn't give you a bonus.
Same thing as if you're rolling stealth for initiative and have a bonus to stealth. I don't see anything in the initiative rules to say that bonuses can't be included. It just uses a check, and even though it's an initiative check it's also a(n) [insert skill here] check.
Typically, you’ll roll a Perception check to determine your initiative—the more aware you are of your surroundings, the more quickly you can respond. Sometimes, though, the GM might call on you to roll some other type of check.
|
But if you have a +2 Item Bonus to Stealth to Conceal an Object, that wouldn't always come into play when making initiative checks around Stealth.
Since it's a bonus to a specific part of the skill, it would be up to the GM if it applies. They would know best if you're rolling because you see the danger coming at you, if you're hearing it approach, or if you sense the guy you're talking to is about to lunge at you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aw3som3-117 : Well, first, and as you say, you can roll Initiative without having vision on the enemy. And it's actually quite common, especially considering that some members of the party may have vision and others not. And clearly, I don't want to start every fight by telling who gets the bonus and who doesn't get it.
Also, "Perception check involving sight" can either be a Perception check which includes at least a bit of sight or a sight-based Perception check. In the first case, Initiative rolls are included, not in the second case. And when I read the sentence, I understand the second case (but I agree that you can understand both).
I'm a bit annoyed by the fact that it isn't clearer, when it's a big use of Perception.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's best to assume Yes, but in certain circumstances it wouldn't. Sight is most PCs only Precise sense, so having a bonus to it should almost always apply.
So don't think of it as "Which scenarios would I apply the bonus" but rather "Which scenarios would I remove the bonus".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's best to assume Yes, but in certain circumstances it wouldn't. Sight is most PCs only Precise sense, so having a bonus to it should almost always apply.
I'm annoyed by the fact that it's not very clear. Very often, you start combat in a situation where only a handful of PCs have vision, because they are the ones opening the door or turning the corner. A +1/+3 bonus to initiative depending on where you are and how the GM sees the situation is just awful to adjudicate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's best to assume Yes, but in certain circumstances it wouldn't. Sight is most PCs only Precise sense, so having a bonus to it should almost always apply.I'm annoyed by the fact that it's not very clear. Very often, you start combat in a situation where only a handful of PCs have vision, because they are the ones opening the door or turning the corner. A +1/+3 bonus to initiative depending on where you are and how the GM sees the situation is just awful to adjudicate.
I mean, it's clearer than all the other ways I can think of them writing it and still keeping the flavor of it being useful for sight based checks. The only reasonable alternative I can think of that doesn't include a long list of examples is to just say it's on all perception checks, but that wouldn't make much sense for something that's exclusively helping you see better. For that reason they limited it, but they limited it in the most loose and freeing way. The only thing that's needed is that the check "involve[s] sight" rather than "relying on sight", being "based on sight", "using primarily sight", etc.
I mean, even if you don't see the enemy when initiative starts, if it was triggered by an ally seeing the enemy, then how do you know that the fight's started? Most likely from seeing your ally react. Alternatively, you can say you heard them warn you, but at that point it seems like you're looking for ways to have it not work.
For that reason I'd personally go with Cordell Kinter's idea and have it be the default, but keep it in mind when something notably not sight related is happening, such as rolling initiative while blinded, listening through a door for a perception check, etc.
I can certainly understand wanting it to be clearer what is and isn't included, but in this specific situation I honestly can't think of a better way of putting it without:
a) losing the flavor / logic of a vision based item, or
b) creating a list of situations and bogging down the rules
I mean, it's clearer than all the other ways I can think of them writing it
Currently, I don't know what is the intent behind the rule. So it's not clear at all.
Do you get the bonus only if you can see the enemy? Or to all Initiative checks while not blinded (as you take the example of seeing an ally react)? Or to no Initiative checks as they are Initiative checks and not Perception checks involving sight?If you only get the bonus if you can see the enemy, then it's a really bad mechanic, as your initiative modifier will change all the time.
If you get the bonus as long as you can see, then it is very badly stated as currently it's not at all what's written.
If you don't get the bonus to Initiative checks, that was my first reading, but then there's a lack of an item giving bonuses to Perception-based Initiative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Aw3som3-117 : Well, first, and as you say, you can roll Initiative without having vision on the enemy. And it's actually quite common, especially considering that some members of the party may have vision and others not. And clearly, I don't want to start every fight by telling who gets the bonus and who doesn't get it.
Also, "Perception check involving sight" can either be a Perception check which includes at least a bit of sight or a sight-based Perception check. In the first case, Initiative rolls are included, not in the second case. And when I read the sentence, I understand the second case (but I agree that you can understand both).
I'm a bit annoyed by the fact that it isn't clearer, when it's a big use of Perception.
I wouldn't have it recalculated for every scenario. That would be obnoxious, as you point out.
It does need a ruling on when it does and doesn't apply though. As Aw3som3-117 mentions, there really isn't a good way to write it that will make sense for all tables.
However, the ruling can be done once and be done with it.
You want the item bonus to apply to initiative: great. It can work that way.
You don't want to have it based on details of line of sight and such like that because then it would have to be recalculated: cool. Allow it to be used generally regardless of positioning and line of sight.
It doesn't make sense that it should apply unless the perception check/initiative uses vision: done. Make a list of conditions that would prevent it from working. Enemy is actively hiding, character is blinded, light is too low for precise vision, Concealed? You might have to add to or adjust the list as you play-test it in production.
This should allow you (or even better, the player of the character that has the Goggles of Night) to very quickly determine if the bonus applies or not.
And yes, other tables may make different choices. Some may even decide that the realism of recalculating based on specific positions of characters is important enough to use even though it requires more work to set up the combat. That is actually a benefit of less thoroughly defined rules.
As Aw3som3-117 mentions, there really isn't a good way to write it that will make sense for all tables.
Yes, of course, you can rewrite it to be clear:
- Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see.- Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see an opponent.
- Sight-based Perception checks.
And that's fine. But "involving sight" is unclear as hell. My first understanding was that it was not affecting initiative checks at all. And it looks like many have different readings of the same sentence. Which proves that this sentence is unclear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Aw3som3-117 mentions, there really isn't a good way to write it that will make sense for all tables.Yes, of course, you can rewrite it to be clear:
- Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see.
- Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see an opponent.
- Sight-based Perception checks.And that's fine. But "involving sight" is unclear as hell. My first understanding was that it was not affecting initiative checks at all. And it looks like many have different readings of the same sentence. Which proves that this sentence is unclear.
The problem is those three are all different from "involving sight". What if they don't mean as long as you're not blinded it works on initiative? (Also, for the record, initiative is not a perception check. Perception is simply a type of check that is often used for initiative.)
What if they don't want to limit it to checks where you can see your opponent?What if it's not only for checks that are "sight based"?
What if... and hear me out for a second, because I know a lot of people aren't going to like this interpretation. What if they're fine with any of those interpretations and others, allowing the GM to determine what makes sense for goggles / improved eyesight to help you with?
"involving sight" is unclear as hell.
It is. I'm not disagreeing with that. You should be able to define it better for your table. Which might be different than what I define for my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's best to assume Yes, but in certain circumstances it wouldn't. Sight is most PCs only Precise sense, so having a bonus to it should almost always apply.I'm annoyed by the fact that it's not very clear. Very often, you start combat in a situation where only a handful of PCs have vision, because they are the ones opening the door or turning the corner. A +1/+3 bonus to initiative depending on where you are and how the GM sees the situation is just awful to adjudicate.
Yes I find these messy little bonuses that may or may not apply to be a very tiresome part of PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, for the record, initiative is not a perception check. Perception is simply a type of check that is often used for initiative.Typically, you’ll roll a Perception check to determine your initiative—the more aware you are of your surroundings, the more quickly you can respond. Sometimes, though, the GM might call on you to roll some other type of check. For instance, if you were Avoiding Notice during exploration (page 479), you’d roll a Stealth check. A social encounter could call for a Deception or Diplomacy check.Initiative is quite explicitly a Perception check generally. Or whatever else the GM deems viable, so item bonuses should apply.
Emphasis added. I stand by my statement.
My point was that there's nothing special about initiative that makes perception different from any other skill in the game. If it's acceptable to say "Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see." or " Perception checks involving sight and Perception checks for initiative as long as you can see an opponent.", which were two of the options given, then it should be just as acceptable to say "Perception checks involving sight", and just like any other perception check you can determine whether it involves sight or not. Because, again, it's a perception check. But apparently "perception checks involving sight" is good enough for non-initiative situations, but not good enough for initiative perception checks?
The third wording option is consistent with how Paizo writes abilities, and if that's what they meant, then yeah, they could've said "Sight-Based Perception Checks", but that's not what they wrote. They just said that it has to involve sight. It's perfectly reasonable to read those two as functionally identical (I disagree with that interpretation, but it's reasonable), but unless the wording changes to "sight-based" I'm going to assume they meant what they said: "Involving sight."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goggles of Night (and Eyes of the Eagle) give a bonus to Perception checks involving sight. Does it include initiative rolls?
IMO, there are very few initiative situations that do not involve sight in some way. Even invisible foes involve you moving around and coordinating with your party which involve you seeing your environment and the other PC in addition to looking out for physical signs from the foes.
Or vs a Stealth check for initiative, which involve you trying to notice which would be quite hard if you aren't looking around [ie, involving sight]. Or for initiative in social contests using Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidation, Performance, or Society, you'd be watching the other party, looking for non-verbal clues, reactions and mannerisms [ie, involving sight].
So, IMO, I'd add that bonus in for all perception checks unless a Dm specifically told me not to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of this mechanic because situational bonuses are kind of annoying to track.
But I'm also not sure it's necessarily vague, or at least uniquely vague here.
Any time you roll a perception check, for any reason, the GM has to determine whether or not it's sight based and then the bonus is applied or not applied as appropriate.
It's imprecise, but that's just how a lot of these situational bonuses shake out.
Also, for the record, I'm pretty sure every perception check for a creature with only one precise sense (sight) technically requires determining if the check involves said precise sense or not, because if it doesn't isn't there some kind of penalty?
Brb, I'ma check rq
Edit: Nvm, it just relates to the stages of detection, not to the check itself.
Any time you roll a perception check, for any reason, the GM has to determine whether or not it's sight based and then the bonus is applied or not applied as appropriate.
Well, the DM doesn't have to check if it's "sight based" but if it involves sight at all which is a bit different IMO. IMO "involving sight" doesn't mean primarily sight based but more could sight apply in any way, even tangentially.
But I'm also not sure it's necessarily vague, or at least uniquely vague here.
Yeah, it seems like they enjoy being frustratingly vague in places as it happens more often than should be possible to do my happenstance. :P
I'm not a fan of this mechanic because situational bonuses are kind of annoying to track.
I think this one is broad enough to allow for it to work often enough that it's a special case when it doesn't work. In play, I can't recall a time it hasn't worked: now I can't say if that's because the DM's agreed that it's that broad or if they too are annoyed with the vagueness and just let it work to cut down on work. ;)
I think they say Sight Based mainly so you wouldn't try to apply it to Sense Motive checks.
I'd 100% say Sense Motive involves sight: the items never state anything about "sight based", only "checks that involve sight".
From Sense Motive action: "Choose one creature, and assess it for odd body language, signs of nervousness, and other indicators that it might be trying to deceive someone. seeing body language is totally involving sight as would signs of nervousness and some "other indicators". So, IMO, the items in question are good to go for use in Sense Motive checks. It's hard to read body language when you can't SEE the body language...
|
|
Two people can be seeing the same thing, but one could be more adept at reading social cues than the other. So while one person sees someone extending their hand to shake the other notices that the movement is too quick and it's more like they're going for a grab. One person can see someone sweating and think "Yea it is kinda hot in here" while the other can see it and think "Hmm, they were fine just a few moments ago, what's this about?"
Seeing cues and reading into them are not the same thing. The action even says to assess what you are seeing, which goggles aren't going to help with.
Seeing cues and reading into them are not the same thing. The action even says to assess what you are seeing, which goggles aren't going to help with.
Not the point even remotely: you have to see the cues to access them and that is the ONLY factor you need to have to get the bonus from the items: it's very hard to seriously say that reading cues [or noticing "signs of nervousness, and other indicators"] doesn't involve sight, the only prerequisite for the bonus.
The person that's better at accessing the cues still has a better chance to do so if they have a better chance to see the cues in the first place, so it even makes sense in that way too. So IMO, you completely failed to make a point here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"involving sight" is unclear as hell.It is. I'm not disagreeing with that. You should be able to define it better for your table. Which might be different than what I define for my table.
First, I'm playing PFS quite often. I can accept when a GM rules a specific case that doesn't happen often in a way I dislike. But bonuses to initiative happen at every fight, literally. And having GM variation on that is just too sad.
Unlike Graystone, I'm fine with most gray areas in the game, as I find they empower the GM. But in that case, it's juste cumbersome. As a GM, I don't care of initiative modifiers, it's not a moment where I feel empowered but a moment where I feel I'm a computer.So, as a GM, I'll certainly use the rule of allowing it to every initiative checks, period. Not cumbersome, but I still disagree with the way it's written. Giving a bonus to all Perception checks would have been better. That was Eyes of the Eagle bonus in PF1, even if it's kind of illogical, if you want an item to affect most Perception checks, maybe it's better to say it affect all Perception checks than to force people to get Earplugs of the Eagle to get the bonus always.
Well I think the intent is that it more or less constantly applies on initiative if you look at the stuff that gives an item bonus to Perception:
Eagle-Eye Elixir - Gives a +1-3 bonus for an hour
Googles of the Night - Gives a +1-3 bonus for sight only
Eyes of the Eagle - Gives a +2 bonus for sight only
Robe of Eyes - Gives a +3 bonus, uncommon
Third Eye - +3 bonus, level 19 item
So basically the only non-temporary source of item bonus through out your adventuring career are the Googles of the Night.
However if you look at the ABP you are gaining a Perception bonus all the way up to +3 throughout all levels.
Which makes me think that it's meant to be the Perception boosting item. Though I think it's a shame since you kinda need it but it's also tied to an item that has no other effect if you have Darkvision. ABP fixes that however.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing cues and reading into them are not the same thing. The action even says to assess what you are seeing, which goggles aren't going to help with.Not the point even remotely: you have to see the cues to access them and that is the ONLY factor you need to have to get the bonus from the items: it's very hard to seriously say that reading cues [or noticing "signs of nervousness, and other indicators"] doesn't involve sight, the only prerequisite for the bonus.
The person that's better at accessing the cues still has a better chance to do so if they have a better chance to see the cues in the first place, so it even makes sense in that way too. So IMO, you completely failed to make a point here.
Sensing Motive comes in two forms, seeing and interpreting body language, which I have explained is up to interpretation and you (as always) are dismissing a valid point. One person sees someone rub their neck and can tell it's a nervous tick, another sees the exact same thing and thinks they must just have an itch.
The second form, is in verbal cues, which goggles will do absolutely nothing for, and I argue is way more important. If you've ever played games like LA Noir you will know the difficulty in that game starts off easy, with suspects grimacing obviously or stuttering when they lie, and eventually gets to the point of where you need to not only pay attention to their movements but the actual content of what they're saying. It becomes a game of "poke holes in their story until they break" rather than "See if you can spot the nervous tick".
Most of the time, you see people make those subtle movements, but the reason you don't remember them is because they were unimportant to you. It has nothing to do with "I can see better" it's all to do with "I can identify when something is important". You wouldn't remember the make or model of the car you drove behind on the way to work this morning, even though you were starting at it for almost an hour, because those details weren't important to you. Your brain didn't keep those details on hand because there's no need.
Which leads to the point: Perception isn't just seeing something, it's knowing when something you see is important. If you see someone rub their arm, that's something everyone in the party would see, but only someone with a good perception would know to make note of it. If someone is stuttering or tripping on their words, everyone hears that, but only perceptive people would know that's not how they normally speak. Sense Motive "involves sight" yes, but you aren't looking for a secret door or a trap, you are analyzing the stuff you can see to make judgements.
This is why if you Critically Fail a Sense Motive you get the wrong idea, it's not like a crit fail means you're looking in the wrong direction. You could Sense Motive and crit fail, think they're lying because they're sweating, they were rubbing their neck, etc, only to find out that they were only doing those things because they have a rash caused by a disease that also makes them sweat, and now you look like a fool in front of everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sensing Motive comes in two forms, seeing and interpreting body language, which I have explained is up to interpretation and you (as always) are dismissing a valid point. One person sees someone rub their neck and can tell it's a nervous tick, another sees the exact same thing and thinks they must just have an itch.
What you JUST described proves my point: both people roll checks "involving sight" which is the only requirement. that plus 2 could be the difference between the second person not seeing the 'itch' at all or seeing it: the +2 in no way guarantees you successfully read the tell but that was never the question.
The second form, is in verbal cues, which goggles will do absolutely nothing for, and I argue is way more important.
Sure, in the unusual situation where you are using Sense Motive without seeing the target, sure. If however, you at any time in the situation see the target and therefor try to look at the body language, it then is by definition involving sight.
As such, I see NO reason to not have it work by default and can see no reason to disallow it because some part of the check might not apply unless that it's quite clear it doesn't. AGAIN, the only relevant question is 'does the check "involve sight"': not primarily involves sight or mostly involves sight or only involves sight. Any time you make examples of "you see people make those subtle movements", you are conceding that it should apply to the roll: it's only not applicable if the roll is done blind, with the target unseen or with sight being 100% irrelevant.
Why would wearing darkvision goggles make you better at detecting lies?
The description of Sense motive maybe? "Choose one creature, and assess it for odd body language, signs of nervousness, and other indicators that it might be trying to deceive someone." Again, it's hard to read body language and signs of nervousness without SEEING it, hence it being 'involved' with sight improvements. You can't read tells you don't see. Secondly, sense motive is a Perception check, so it makes as much sense as using sight in most other perception checks from seeing though lies, impersonations, hidden things, following a lead, Discover an npc's preferences, seeking, ect. Noticing the clues has to come before you formulate a conclusion for all of these.
tracking conditional bonuses is annoying
That's pretty much why I'd say defaulting to Sense Motive as the chances it's in no way involves sight is pretty slim to bother tracking it for the rare non-sight involved checks.
|
|
Sensing Motive comes in two forms, seeing and interpreting body language, which I have explained is up to interpretation and you (as always) are dismissing a valid point. One person sees someone rub their neck and can tell it's a nervous tick, another sees the exact same thing and thinks they must just have an itch.What you JUST described proves my point: both people roll checks "involving sight" which is the only requirement. that plus 2 could be the difference between the second person not seeing the 'itch' at all or seeing it: the +2 in no way guarantees you successfully read the tell but that was never the question.
The second form, is in verbal cues, which goggles will do absolutely nothing for, and I argue is way more important.Sure, in the unusual situation where you are using Sense Motive without seeing the target, sure. If however, you at any time in the situation see the target and therefor try to look at the body language, it then is by definition involving sight.
As such, I see NO reason to not have it work by default and can see no reason to disallow it because some part of the check might not apply unless that it's quite clear it doesn't. AGAIN, the only relevant question is 'does the check "involve sight"': not primarily involves sight or mostly involves sight or only involves sight. Any time you make examples of "you see people make those subtle movements", you are conceding that it should apply to the roll: it's only not applicable if the roll is done blind, with the target unseen or with sight being 100% irrelevant.
And you're 100% ignoring the crux of my argument: Sense Motive does not rely on how well you see or hear but rather how you interpret what you see and hear.
If it relies on vision so much, please explain how crit failing with sense Motive works then, and how seeing things better can stop you from misinterpreting vocal cues and body language.
Or are you just trying to argue for the sake of it again?
If it relies on vision so much, please explain how crit failing with sense Motive works then, and how seeing things better can stop you from misinterpreting vocal cues and body language.
Are we arguing for realism? IRL I have difficulty understanding television without my glasses on because while I have good enough sight to generally make out the different characters on the screen, I have trouble reading their body language and facial expressions. Better eyesight makes it easier to pick up on a layer of expression that I would otherwise miss. Totally makes sense to me that something which improves vision would improve the ability to detect lies for sighted people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it relies on vision so much, please explain how crit failing with sense Motive works then, and how seeing things better can stop you from misinterpreting vocal cues and body language.Are we arguing for realism? IRL I have difficulty understanding television without my glasses on because while I have good enough sight to generally make out the different characters on the screen, I have trouble reading their body language and facial expressions. Better eyesight makes it easier to pick up on a layer of expression that I would otherwise miss. Totally makes sense to me that something which improves vision would improve the ability to detect lies for sighted people.
And hitting things with a bow, Recognizing spells, tennis play... Actually, it improves everything but Fortitude and Will saves.
But once you have a correct vision, it no more improves anything to have a better vision, besides Perception checks.
Actually, even Perception checks rarely rely on the quality of your vision but on your ability to process the data. Once someone shows you the slightly different tile, everyone sees it, it's noticing it in the first place that is tough.
But, well, it's a game. As a GM, I'll apply the bonus to Initiative checks. As a PFS player, I'll never buy this item to avoid any discussion about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, not sure why the question was to explain how it works beyond pointing to the game mechanics, but there it was.And hitting things with a bow, Recognizing spells, tennis play... Actually, it improves everything but Fortitude and Will saves.If it relies on vision so much, please explain how crit failing with sense Motive works then, and how seeing things better can stop you from misinterpreting vocal cues and body language.Are we arguing for realism? IRL I have difficulty understanding television without my glasses on because while I have good enough sight to generally make out the different characters on the screen, I have trouble reading their body language and facial expressions. Better eyesight makes it easier to pick up on a layer of expression that I would otherwise miss. Totally makes sense to me that something which improves vision would improve the ability to detect lies for sighted people.
But once you have a correct vision, it no more improves anything to have a better vision, besides Perception checks.
Actually, even Perception checks rarely rely on the quality of your vision but on your ability to process the data. Once someone shows you the slightly different tile, everyone sees it, it's noticing it in the first place that is tough.
Which indicates to me that the Goggles of Night/Eyes of the Eagle either gives you "correct" vision at their highest bonus (which is why they can continue to improve things), or don't actually affect the quality of your vision but instead do something to improve your ability to leverage it. The same thing that makes it easier to notice subtle differences in a trapped floor tile also makes it easier to detect subtle differences in body language and facial expression.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, thinking this hard about how a magical item improves your ability to process data feels like a waste of time. Goggles of Night work on Perception checks that involve sight, regardless of what they are. You might as well ask how boots make you better at somersaulting your whole body, or how sprig of mistletoe increases how well you remember reading about polar bears.
The number of situations where the goggles wouldn't apply as written is vanishingly small. You're pretty much talking about making checks while completely blinded or when you're hearing something out of sight, like the next room over. Neither of those is likely to be an initiative roll. The latter is too far away to call for one. And no group should be putting around areas they might be attacked without being able to see. So really that just leaves the blinded condition.
|
I mean, it's clearer than all the other ways I can think of them writing itCurrently, I don't know what is the intent behind the rule. So it's not clear at all.
Do you get the bonus only if you can see the enemy? Or to all Initiative checks while not blinded (as you take the example of seeing an ally react)? Or to no Initiative checks as they are Initiative checks and not Perception checks involving sight?If you only get the bonus if you can see the enemy, then it's a really bad mechanic, as your initiative modifier will change all the time.
If you get the bonus as long as you can see, then it is very badly stated as currently it's not at all what's written.
If you don't get the bonus to Initiative checks, that was my first reading, but then there's a lack of an item giving bonuses to Perception-based Initiative.
Zerk does give "+2 item bonus to Perception rolls for Initiative".