PDA

View Full Version : Perception vs Spot and listen and similar skill combinations



Aeromyre
2010-07-04, 05:51 PM
How do you feel about, the combination of the skills for example the most prominent of the combinations, Perception in the place of spot and listen.
I think it's important to rogues because hide and move silently get replaced by sneak, and disable device and open lock get combined into disable device,

Which system do you prefer and why?

awa
2010-07-04, 05:59 PM
I prefer the combined skills in general divided skill while slightly more realistic in most cases often give unneeded complexity and dice rolling to the game. A second aspect is the fact that characters don't get enough skills. I also combine tumble and balance.

ericgrau
2010-07-04, 06:08 PM
I'm reminded of a podcast where someone tried to use an athletics check to balance or something and the DM (one of the WotC staff who MADE 4e) said no-no, basically you use acrobatics if you're trying to balance, tumble or slip out of something, and athletics if you're trying to jump, swim or climb. So he had to un-consolidate them to explain what they meant. OTOH they sure do shorten the skill list and make leveling simpler and make it easier to remember what you have. Ideally I'd go with uncombined, but if it makes things easier for your group then combine them.

There's a consolidated skill system included in my rules cheat sheets in my sig if you want to use it. I know different people try to combine them in different ways. In my case I tried to stick as closely as possible to the way skills work in 3.5e, so skills with similar functions are combined whether or not the names make them seem similar. Most of the time the groupings also match which skills tend to be together on class skill lists. This is also close to the 4e consolidated skills.

Lev
2010-07-04, 06:10 PM
Depends on DM style, if it's built more for gamers than RPers then I'd say you'd have no use for separating them, but the standard 3.5 campaign has them separated because you'd just end up writing a ton of temporary notes on -2 or +2 to the check if it applies to listen or spot depending on the given circumstance. 4.0 got it right for the people who actually play 4.0 though.

Aeromyre
2010-07-04, 06:19 PM
I personally perfer the consolidated versions of them, mostly because i play PAthfinder, and it makes sense to me. Someone doesn't have an incredible ability to disable traps and not be able to open a lock with a key.

Jack_Simth
2010-07-04, 06:21 PM
How do you feel about, the combination of the skills for example the most prominent of the combinations, Perception in the place of spot and listen.
I think it's important to rogues because hide and move silently get replaced by sneak, and disable device and open lock get combined into disable device,

Which system do you prefer and why?

Mechanically speaking, Double-edged, doesn't matter much.

Consider it in D&D 3.5.
Spot/Listen/Hide/Move Silently vs. Perception/Stealth:

With two types of rolls, you've got better odds to find the person sneaking up on you (two 50% chances, when you only need to make one of them, means you've got a 75% chance), and the added benefit that it's harder to optimize both stealth skills (as you have to spend more money / feats / skill points - so the guy trying to sneak up on you probably isn't quite as good at it). Slants slightly towards the spotter.

However, with combined skills, you've got more points to play around with - as you've also got fewer things to invest in. So you can optimize Stealth much better than you can optimize Hide/Move Silently... meaning the guy who's doing the sneaking has better odds. Slants more towards the sneak.

But in either direction... mechanically speaking, it's a relatively minor distinction.

John Campbell
2010-07-04, 06:29 PM
The Pathfinder skill system is a tremendous improvement over vanilla 3.5's; probably the single best change they made to the game. The merger of related skills is not the biggest or best part of that (the biggest and best part would be the change in how class vs. non-class skills are handled), but it still helps quite a bit. 3.5 suffers heavily from "too many skills, not enough skill points" syndrome. Several classes in Pathfinder still don't have enough skill points, but reducing the number of skills they have to spread them around on at least helps. Reducing the cost of the vital ones that they didn't get as class skills helps more, though.

Perception is a good part of that. It's one of the most important skills... and in 3.5, only maybe a quarter of the party could afford to take significant ranks in it, so the other three-quarters were at the mercy of the d20 and stumbling around blind and deaf half the time. Pathfinder cut the cost in half right off the bat by merging Spot and Listen into Perception, then reduced it further by giving it to more classes as a class skill, and then reduced the cost of cross-class skills and raised the cap on them.

Also, replacing the specific skills with a general overarching Perception skill avoids the weirdness where there are specific mechanics for seeing and hearing, but no support for the other senses. Even smell, which has a specific ability (Scent) associated with it, provides no way to make a smelling test. Pathfinder fixes that; Perception covers everything. If one or more senses are especially keen or dull, that can be handled with specific modifiers... the beta actually gave all the PC races Perception bonuses on a couple of senses.

That applies to some of the other merged skills, too... like Acrobatics, which eliminates the weirdness where a character could reliably dodge and roll their way through the middle of a pitched battle without being touched by a sword, but was capable of failing to jump over a three-foot gap and could quite possibly fall off a sidewalk.

Mike_G
2010-07-04, 07:05 PM
I think that either merged skills, or just more points would help.

Nobody has enough skill points. Even the Rogue, who gets 8+Int bonus, needs more that he gets to fill the expected role.

And the poor Fighter gets boned. Boned boned boned.

ericgrau
2010-07-04, 07:09 PM
I think spot checks and being boned in general on skills you don't have are only an issue when you roll skill checks for everything. Trained skills are supposed to represent a heroic level of expertise, not everyday tasks like seeing what's in front of you. If you're rolling a spot check to see things that aren't even hiding (and there are strict RAW restrictions on when they even get a hide check), then your group is doing something wrong and have only themselves / rumors to blame. Skills are not essential to have except for a limited number of specific situations. Btw my sig cheat sheets cover skill rules too.

Claudius Maximus
2010-07-04, 07:16 PM
I combine Disable Device and Open Lock, but keep all the others separate. I like Spot and Listen/MS and Hide separate, since it's possible to see something and not hear it and vice versa. I like the increased granularity.

I do give everyone more skill points, and put Spot and Listen on several more class lists, so there's not all that much of a difference.

elonin
2010-07-04, 07:26 PM
I like combining skills, though to be fair I tend to play skillmonkeys in particular. All classes benefit from the skill point economy though. For the combined skills it makes skill focus worthwhile.

Lev
2010-07-04, 07:48 PM
How does skill combos work with skill tricks?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 07:55 PM
How does skill combos work with skill tricks?

I dare say the same as always? Consolidated skills just means there are less skills to put ranks on. If you have 5 ranks in Acrobatics, it's like having 5 in jump, tumble and balance all at once.

veovius
2010-07-04, 07:57 PM
What about skill synergy?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-04, 07:58 PM
What about skill synergy?

Depends. If they are consolidated, might as well just be done with synergy.(pathfinder did that)

Greenish
2010-07-04, 08:15 PM
I'm on the opinion that either skills need to be heavily consolidated or everyone needs more skill points, or better yet, both. More class skills for most classes would be grand too.

The thing that bugs me most is how Disable Device and Open Lock are separate. Or Spot and Search. They've given rogues a nice handful of skill points, and then they take most of the advantage by needlessly separating skills.

I don't see whose enjoyment of the game is enhanced by having to pick whether his character can swim or climb.

PId6
2010-07-04, 08:19 PM
I don't see whose enjoyment of the game is enhanced by having to pick whether his character can swim or climb.
There are people who put points in Swim or Climb? :smallconfused:

Greenish
2010-07-04, 08:25 PM
There are people who put points in Swim or Climb? :smallconfused:Precisely.

Dienekes
2010-07-04, 08:27 PM
Spot and Search should always have been 1 skill. Adding Listen I can understand either way really. Also some of the skills I find confusing to even exist.

As ericgrau says, it's ok to have separated as long as the GM doesn't make everything rolled. But then, why would skills like Climb, or Use Rope, or Decipher Script, or Appraise even skills to begin with? Overall, yeah, I like condensed lists.

Zeta Kai
2010-07-04, 09:08 PM
I understand the difference between Spot & Search; it Wisdom versus Intelligence, passive versus active.

That said, I heavily combine skills, to the point where I have literally half the skills as standard 3.5:

Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)

veovius
2010-07-04, 09:10 PM
I understand the difference between Spot & Search; it Wisdom versus Intelligence, passive versus active.

That said, I heavily combine skills, to the point where I have literally half the skills as standard 3.5:

Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)


My Factotum stares and drools longingly at that list......

Raistlin1040
2010-07-04, 09:16 PM
I understand the difference between Spot & Search; it Wisdom versus Intelligence, passive versus active.

That said, I heavily combine skills, to the point where I have literally half the skills as standard 3.5:

Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)

How does this work for you? I'm assuming well, because you're telling us, but what kind of differences do you see than a normal game? And why do you lump all the knowledge skills together, instead of putting Knowledge Arcana in Arcana, Knowledge Local in Investigate, etc.

arguskos
2010-07-04, 09:27 PM
I understand the difference between Spot & Search; it Wisdom versus Intelligence, passive versus active.

That said, I heavily combine skills, to the point where I have literally half the skills as standard 3.5:

Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)

ZETA I LOVE YOU OMG SO STEALING THIS WHOLESALE.

*nicks*

Milskidasith
2010-07-04, 09:29 PM
Swim, Climb, and Jump should be combined together into Athletics as well, in my opinion.

Endarire
2010-07-04, 09:44 PM
Combining skills makes people use the underdog skills, like Climb and Swim.

Game-wise, it's more convenient to take Perception than Spot, Listen, and Search. (I STILL don't know why Search and Spot are separate skills with different stat mods.)

Mike_G
2010-07-04, 10:34 PM
I sorta get Search and Spot having different mods. Spot is noticing something and being in tune with your environment would help, so Wisdom, whereas Search is systematically looking for something, so Int.

That said, I've played Rogues quite a bit, and after you buy the skills for sneaking, for detecting danger, and tumbling, and for disabling locks and traps, bluffing, picking pockets, gathering info, and so on, those 8+Int points that seemed so impressive just barely cover the basics. Combining a few would help. Or handing out extra points for everyone.

Curmudgeon
2010-07-04, 10:35 PM
If you're rolling a spot check to see things that aren't even hiding (and there are strict RAW restrictions on when they even get a hide check), then your group is doing something wrong and have only themselves / rumors to blame.
Actually, your group would be doing everything right. From page 64 of the Player's Handbook:
{table=head] Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)[/table]
Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it. If something is in plain sight but you still fail your Spot check, that thing is difficult for you to see. There are restrictions on Hide, and there are also restrictions on Spot:
Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.

Lev
2010-07-04, 11:24 PM
I understand the difference between Spot & Search; it Wisdom versus Intelligence, passive versus active.

That said, I heavily combine skills, to the point where I have literally half the skills as standard 3.5:

Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Arcana (Spellcraft/Use Magic Device)
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Socialize (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Sense Motive)
Deception (Bluff/Disguise/Forgery/Sleight Of Hand)
Heal
Investigate (Appraise/Decipher Script/Gather Information/Search)
Jump
Lore (Knowledge/Survival)
Mechanics (Disable Device/Open Lock/Use Rope)
Perception (Listen/Spot)
Perform
Profession
Stealth (Hide/Move Silently)
Swim
Tame (Handle Animal/Ride)


Mind explaining why swim/jump/climb aren't merged?

Lore grants you... uh.. 11 skills per skillpoint?

molten_dragon
2010-07-05, 07:49 AM
I tried doing this for the games I was DMing, but my players complained and wanted them separated again. I combined

listen/spot/search into perception
open lock/disable device into disable device
hide/move silently into stealth
bluff/diplomacy/intimidate into socialize

Kiero
2010-07-05, 07:55 AM
Consolidated skills avoid all sorts of absurdities, as well as pointless complication and bookkeeping.

One of the failings of Star Wars Saga Edition was to needlessly retain Climb/Jump/Swim, even when combined into Athletics (as D&D4e does) people still rarely train it. Split into three, no one ever gets any of them (bar the occasional Jedi who trains Jump for better Surge).

If a game has more than 20 skills, it has too many, IMO. This was the list I condensed Spirit of the Century's (normally 27 skills) down to for a fantasy game:

Arcana* [Mysteries]
Athletics [Athletics]
Craft [Art and Engineering]
Deception [Deceit, Gambling, Rapport]
Empathy [Empathy]
Gather Information [Contacting and Investigation]
Healer [Science]
Lore [Academics and Art]
Melee Combat [Weapons]
Perception [Alertness and Investigation]
Persuasion
Physicality [Endurance and Might]
Ranged Combat [Guns]
Resolve [Resolve]
Resources [Resources]**
Riding [Drive, Pilot, Survival]
Science [Engineering and Science]
Stealth [Stealth]
Survival [Survival]
Thievery [Burglary, Gambling, Sleight of Hand]
Unarmed Combat [Fists]

*Rename to Warren? Or specifically the player could rename to [I]their Warren.
**Campaign-specific, remove in some campaigns, keep in others.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-07-05, 08:05 AM
I have this consolidation:

Perception (Spot/Listen)
Stealth (Hide/MS)
Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble)
Athletics (Climb/Jump/Swim)
Deception (Bluff/Intimidate)
Fraud (Forgery/Disguise)
Lockpicking (Disable Device/Open Lock)
Linguistics (Decipher Script/Speak Language)

Gather Information was removed (use Diplomacy instead)
Use Rope was removed due to low utility (to secure a grappling hook, make an attack roll; to tie a knot, make a Sleight of Hand roll or a dexterity check)
Concentration was removed (to avoid losing a spell, make a Spellcraft check, but use your CON modifier instead of your INT modifier)
Survival was removed (to find and follow tracks, use Search. To otherwise get along in the wild, use Knowledge (natural))

I also only consolidated the knowledge skills into four:

Knowledge (Mystic) - includes Arcana and The Planes
Knowledge (Social) - includes Local, History, Geography, Nobility & Royalty
Knowledge (Natural) - includes Nature, Survival, Dungeoneering
Knowledge (Scientific) - includes Architectite & Engineering, Alchemy, Astronomy

Religion is a special case, residing between Social and Mystic on a case-by-case basis.

Saph
2010-07-05, 08:06 AM
The one issue with combining skills is that it makes some skills too good a deal. Perception is the main one. Everybody in our Pathfinder game has max ranks in Perception, because there's just no reason not to. In 3.5 the cost of maxing Search, Spot and Listen means that you have to think about whether you want to invest in them, but in Pathfinder there's really no need.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 08:09 AM
The one issue with combining skills is that it makes some skills too good a deal. Perception is the main one. Everybody in our Pathfinder game has max ranks in Perception, because there's just no reason not to. In 3.5 the cost of maxing Search, Spot and Listen means that you have to think about whether you want to invest in them, but in Pathfinder there's really no need.Isn't it good that the vigilant heroes can actually notice the broad size of the barn before it ambushes them?

Saph
2010-07-05, 08:10 AM
Yeah, but from a game design point of view, it's usually a bad thing to have one skill which is so much more useful than all the alternatives. I just think it's better if the costs and benefits balance out more.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-05, 08:18 AM
However, with combined skills, you've got more points to play around with - as you've also got fewer things to invest in. So you can optimize Stealth much better than you can optimize Hide/Move Silently... meaning the guy who's doing the sneaking has better odds. Slants more towards the sneak.

...sort of. The dude who's doing the spotting can actually afford to spend skill points on Perception even if it's cross-class.

Mike_G
2010-07-05, 08:38 AM
The one issue with combining skills is that it makes some skills too good a deal. Perception is the main one. Everybody in our Pathfinder game has max ranks in Perception, because there's just no reason not to. In 3.5 the cost of maxing Search, Spot and Listen means that you have to think about whether you want to invest in them, but in Pathfinder there's really no need.

Well, combining Spot and Listen can work, but keeping Search separate means you may be good at spotting an ambush, but not so good at systematically tossing a room looking for hidden clue, secret doors, pressure plates etc. So any combat veteran or guard might have points in Perception, but only the Rogue will max out Search.

Kiero
2010-07-05, 11:38 AM
Yeah, but from a game design point of view, it's usually a bad thing to have one skill which is so much more useful than all the alternatives. I just think it's better if the costs and benefits balance out more.

Given in any group of PCs, there'll be at least one alert character anyway, "balance" is irrelevant. It only takes one PC to notice something and moments later (within reason) the whole group knows.

Saph
2010-07-05, 11:45 AM
Given in any group of PCs, there'll be at least one alert character anyway, "balance" is irrelevant. It only takes one PC to notice something and moments later (within reason) the whole group knows.

:smallconfused: Eh? That doesn't follow.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal, but it's definitely a persistent problem I've noticed with skill amalgamation efforts - you tend to end up with a small handful of skills that cover virtually everything (Perception, Acrobatics) and a bunch more that are so specialised as to seem pretty useless by comparison (Craft, Climb, Knowledge X).

Zeful
2010-07-05, 11:55 AM
Which is why I generally don't combine many of the skills. Open Lock/Disable Device and maybe Swim/Climb might be combined due to either being the same thing (the former) or using some very similar motions (the latter), but that's it. The other skills are separate enough to warrant being separate skills.

Eldariel
2010-07-05, 11:57 AM
Given in any group of PCs, there'll be at least one alert character anyway, "balance" is irrelevant. It only takes one PC to notice something and moments later (within reason) the whole group knows.

1) 1d20 is a big die; only one guy is gonna fail rather often.
2) Parties get split up easily, and often. Gonna suck if you do.
3) Some people might not get the significance of something; the person with right Knowledge generally has to make that Spot-check.

Saph
2010-07-05, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I think skill amalgamation is a good idea if you're combining otherwise-useless skills into one, such as taking Decipher Script and making it a part of Speak Language (as Pathfinder did) or folding Intuit Direction into Survival (as happened in 3.5). The problem comes when you take a skill that's already really good (such as Tumble) and add more things onto it.

Ideally you want all the skills to be sort-of-balanced, as in people should actually have to think about which skills they want (as opposed to always taking the same four or five skills and ignoring the others). It's hard to balance it, though.

The other alternative is to have lots of skills, but give players a lot of skill points to spend.

Kiero
2010-07-05, 12:58 PM
The other alternative is to have lots of skills, but give players a lot of skill points to spend.

That's not an "alternative", it's accounting for the sake of accounting.

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 01:22 PM
That's not an "alternative", it's accounting for the sake of accounting.

So either we should have less skills and a reasonable number of skill points like in Pathfinder, or we have lots of skill and lots of skill points like in ... errr... nothing. Not 3.5 anyway. And like Kiero says it does add an unnecesary ammount of bookeeping :smallwink:
So yeah, either the Pathfinder way or homebrew seem to be the best options :smallcool:

Gametime
2010-07-05, 01:33 PM
A sort of halfway solution is what Iron Heroes did. The skill list is the same as 3.5, but class skills are done away with; all skills can be bought at a 1:1 rate.

However, each class also gains access to skill groups. The Stealth skill group, for example, has Hide and Move Silently. Perception contains Spot, Listen, Search, and Sense Motive. Putting a rank into a skill group gives you the equivalent of a rank in each of its associated skills, so it's almost always worthwhile to put ranks into every skills group to which your class has access.

The result is that classes that care about certain skills can effectively get them at a bulk discount rate, but not everyone is going to take Perception because, well, not every class has access to it. If you still want your character to be aware, you can buy Spot and/or Listen, but you won't get the good deal on it.

Iron Heroes also gives more skill points, in general; 4 for the at the least and 12 for the super-skill-dedicated class.

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-05, 01:46 PM
What about the Blind Swordsman? By Pathfinder RAW, he can "Perceive" the guy standing 50 feet away just as easily as the sighted guy can.

What about racial bonuses? Why shouldn't the sharp-eyed plains-running catfolk see much better than the sharp-eared underground-dwelling gnome?

What about magical equipment & spells? Why would Eyes of the Eagle improve your "perception" and allow you to suddenly hear things better?

And, while D&D doesn't have any rules about wearing glasses... why would my nearsighted Sorceress be able to "Perceive" everything by sight just as well as she can by hearing?

Zen Master
2010-07-05, 01:54 PM
I toyed with the idea of giving skill points for mental skills (diplomacy, spellcraft and so on) for intelligence - and 'physical competence' points for physical skills (climb, jump, balance) based on physical stats (dex, str - whatever).

It would have meant a complete rewrite of the entire skill system, so I never finished it. But I kinda liked the thought - fighters might actually get decent numbers for their skills.

Lev
2010-07-05, 02:11 PM
Consolidated skills avoid all sorts of absurdities, as well as pointless complication and bookkeeping.
If you don't like bookkeeping then hand your csheet your DM and ask him to manage it, if your DM doesn't like book keeping then maybe you shouldn't be using rules =]

DragonOfLies
2010-07-05, 02:17 PM
What about the Blind Swordsman? By Pathfinder RAW, he can "Perceive" the guy standing 50 feet away just as easily as the sighted guy can.

What about racial bonuses? Why shouldn't the sharp-eyed plains-running catfolk see much better than the sharp-eared underground-dwelling gnome?

What about magical equipment & spells? Why would Eyes of the Eagle improve your "perception" and allow you to suddenly hear things better?

And, while D&D doesn't have any rules about wearing glasses... why would my nearsighted Sorceress be able to "Perceive" everything by sight just as well as she can by hearing?

You'll find in some parts of the Pathfinder books that it says something along the lines of "this bonus applies to Perception checks relating to sight". Really all you have to do to accomodate for the blind swordsman is to simply take a massive penalty or autofail any Perception checks related to sight. It's not hard to see how to apply this concept to item-related bonus and penalties.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 02:44 PM
You'll find in some parts of the Pathfinder books that it says something along the lines of "this bonus applies to Perception checks relating to sight". Really all you have to do to accomodate for the blind swordsman is to simply take a massive penalty or autofail any Perception checks related to sight. It's not hard to see how to apply this concept to item-related bonus and penalties.

So it doesn't actually decrease the amount of bookkeeping. Arguably combining skills creates more bookkeeping as you have to annotate which "portion" of the skill you have bonuses for. The DM has to determine which "portion" of the skill the check relates to, and so on.

All this does is allow for less skill points to be spent for characters.

Kiero
2010-07-05, 03:11 PM
If you don't like bookkeeping then hand your csheet your DM and ask him to manage it, if your DM doesn't like book keeping then maybe you shouldn't be using rules =]

I just prefer to play better systems that get rid of the minutiae. Fortunately 4e did that, and all my hacks of FATE do.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 03:13 PM
What about the Blind Swordsman? By Pathfinder RAW, he can "Perceive" the guy standing 50 feet away just as easily as the sighted guy can.]If he has as many ranks of Perceive, it just means his hearing compensates for his blindness.

What about racial bonuses? Why shouldn't the sharp-eyed plains-running catfolk see much better than the sharp-eared underground-dwelling gnome?The catfolk see better, the under-gnomes hear better, in the end, they perceive equally well.

What about magical equipment & spells? Why would Eyes of the Eagle improve your "perception" and allow you to suddenly hear things better?Eyes of the Eagle allows you to see better, and thus Perceive better.

And, while D&D doesn't have any rules about wearing glasses... why would my nearsighted Sorceress be able to "Perceive" everything by sight just as well as she can by hearing?Because perceiving things is the same thing regardless of what sense or combination of senses you use. You could, say, smell and hear stuff really well, which would compensate for your poorer eyesight.

Really, if you want to model near-sightedness, just take a few less ranks in Perceive. In my opinion, you really don't have to model ever sense separately, when you can just have "this is how well you notice stuff"-skill. If you get stuck on how "the noises of the battle make the stench of rotting cabbage harder to see", you're missing the point.

Lev
2010-07-05, 03:17 PM
I just prefer to play better systems that get rid of the minutiae. Fortunately 4e did that, and all my hacks of FATE do.

Truth, I was just pointing out the irony of 4e; slogan being "you don't need a book to RP" and the irony being "then why use the 4e books?".

Meh, I'm obviously biased to 3.5, if I want to have tactical used stats that don't line up to a rich backstory I'll play munchkin and get that outta my system with random monostat goodness.

veovius
2010-07-05, 04:13 PM
I tried doing this for the games I was DMing, but my players complained and wanted them separated again. I combined

listen/spot/search into perception
open lock/disable device into disable device
hide/move silently into stealth
bluff/diplomacy/intimidate into socialize

I'm curious, what specifically did they complain about?

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-05, 05:33 PM
If he has as many ranks of Perceive, it just means his hearing compensates for his blindness.
The catfolk see better, the under-gnomes hear better, in the end, they perceive equally well.
Eyes of the Eagle allows you to see better, and thus Perceive better.
Because perceiving things is the same thing regardless of what sense or combination of senses you use. You could, say, smell and hear stuff really well, which would compensate for your poorer eyesight.

Really, if you want to model near-sightedness, just take a few less ranks in Perceive. In my opinion, you really don't have to model ever sense separately, when you can just have "this is how well you notice stuff"-skill. If you get stuck on how "the noises of the battle make the stench of rotting cabbage harder to see", you're missing the point.

Try these:
A Hawk flies silently overhead... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the catfolk or the under-gnome?
Out over the stormy waves, a ship is in distress... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the guy wearing the "Eyes of the Eagle" or the near-sighted Were-Wolf with incredible scent abilities?
Behind one of the walls of the ancient cavern is a hidden underground river... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the guy wearing the open-face helm or the near-sighted sorceress?

Sight and Hearing are vastly different things.

Let's try something different:
Two men are moving quietly through town during a storm... who's more likely to be "perceived", the guy in the grey & black platemail or the guy in the bright yellow robe? And does the blind guy have a decent chance of "perceiving" them?

Greenish
2010-07-05, 05:38 PM
Try these:
A Hawk flies silently overhead... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the catfolk or the under-gnome?With equal amount of ranks in Perception and equal racial bonuses, they're equally likely. Those gnomes sure have keen ears!
Out over the stormy waves, a ship is in distress... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the guy wearing the "Eyes of the Eagle" or the near-sighted Were-Wolf with incredible scent abilities?All else being equal, the guy who has magical item that boosts Perception.
Behind one of the walls of the ancient cavern is a hidden underground river... who's more likely to "perceive" it, the guy wearing the open-face helm or the near-sighted sorceress?Depends on their ranks and skill modifiers.

Sight and Hearing are vastly different things.But the ability to notice stuff is a single thing, a sum of many different abilities.

Let's try something different:
Two men are moving quietly through town during a storm... who's more likely to be "perceived", the guy in the grey & black platemail or the guy in the bright yellow robe?All cats are grey in the dark. :smalltongue:
And does the blind guy have a decent chance of "perceiving" them?If the blind guy is good enough at perceiving things.

You're getting too stuck on Spot/Listen distinction, which need not exist.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 05:50 PM
You're getting too stuck on Spot/Listen distinction, which need not exist.

There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 05:52 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.

They're the exception rather than the norm of usage of said skills. It's more convenient then to treat them as exceptions.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 06:00 PM
They're the exception rather than the norm of usage of said skills. It's more convenient then to treat them as exceptions.

While the situations behind them are non-standard, the mechanics behind them really aren't. Would a enemy not want to blind a character to better set up his friends around the corner? Or that enemy rogues would choose to not silence themselves with magic to ensure that the party can't hear them coming?

All this does is prevent otherwise viable tactics from being viable. Which in my book is bad design.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-05, 06:00 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.
But those are fairly situational things. It's as simple to fix as saying "No Perception Check". I mean, we don't throw out Spot as a idea just because someone can get around it with invisibility. Why should we throw out perception? If you're deaf and someone uses invisibility, you cannot perceive them. If we were using Spot and Listen, you wouldn't see them (Spot) because they were invisible, and you couldn't hear them (Listen) because you're deaf. I don't see what the problem is.

wizuriel
2010-07-05, 06:07 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.

Not really you can still make a general perception and gave modifiers depending how the person is doing it. If someone tried to find someone by sight in a pitch black cave than make it insanely hard to succeed.

What would you do if someone tries to use their sense of smell to find an invisible character?

olentu
2010-07-05, 06:08 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.

I suppose that the character could use smell to perceive the enemies.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 06:08 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?

Because of spells like Blindness/Deafness, Silence, Invisibility and such, a distinction between Sight and Sound is needed.

No, it isn't. Poor sight or hearing could result in penalties to Perception when one sense or the other isn't applicable, but no sight or hearing whatsoever just denies you the chance to make the check. Done.

You could, of course, respond to this by pointing out that this isn't stated in the actual rules, but since skill consolidation is meant to make play simpler while achieving the same basic results, I judge proving that consolidation never increases, and often decreases, complexity of play to be sufficient to demonstrate its worth.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 06:09 PM
While the situations behind them are non-standard, the mechanics behind them really aren't. Would a enemy not want to blind a character to better set up his friends around the corner? Or that enemy rogues would choose to not silence themselves with magic to ensure that the party can't hear them coming?

All this does is prevent otherwise viable tactics from being viable. Which in my book is bad design.



But those are fairly situational things. It's as simple to fix as saying "No Perception Check". I mean, we don't throw out Spot as a idea just because someone can get around it with invisibility. Why should we throw out perception? If you're deaf and someone uses invisibility, you cannot perceive them. If we were using Spot and Listen, you wouldn't see them (Spot) because they were invisible, and you couldn't hear them (Listen) because you're deaf. I don't see what the problem is.

As Raistlin said, separating listen and spot from perception doesn't make it any easier, or even "consistent" or "sensical". If you bypass a sense, you just can't use the perception check for that sense. It's easy like that, and you do exactly that with separate senses anyway.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 06:10 PM
Not really you can still make a general perception and gave modifiers depending how the person is doing it. If someone tried to find someone by sight in a pitch black cave than make it insanely hard to succeed.

What would you do if someone tries to use their sense of smell to find an invisible character?

Nothing: Most Pc races lack scent, which by RAW is how to detect someone with their nose.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 06:10 PM
There's an enemy 50ft away hiding inside of a magically silenced area. Can a blind character perceive her?You can smell her. You can hear the lack of ambient noise from that area.

There's an invisible (Improved Invisibility) enemy stalking the party for days, can a deaf character detect him?You can see his footsteps in the grass/mud/sand. You can notice how twigs and other things are strained against the wind (as if some invisible entity was passing them!). You can sense something blocking/changing the wind that ought to blow to you by it's presence.

Really, such things are only problems if you overthink the situation, instead of accepting the perception skill as an abstraction, much like AC or to-hit. If a deaf character doesn't have a penalty on Perception (as he should), that just means he is able to compensate it with other senses.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-05, 06:20 PM
Imagine a level 10 Elven Ranger with a +20 to Spot and Listen. First off, he's taken both skills, so the only different between Spot/Listen and Perception are how many of his skills we're taking away. Now imagine a level 1 rogue with a +8 to Hide/Move Silently. Again, taken both, so the only difference between that and Stealth is how many skillpoints. Let's look at the matchup. The Elf is many levels higher, has naturally good senses, and has trained a lot to see and hear. The Rogue is new at adventuring, and all he has going for him is a bit of stealth training, and some natural dexterity.

In theory, the Elf should be able to spot and hear the rogue most of the time. If he rolls an 8, he's getting the best roll the rogue can hope to get. That makes sense to me. If he rolls a 9 or higher, the rogue can't do anything to prevent being noticed. Spot and Listen are passive skills, unlike Search, so let's keep that in mind. The Elf rolls a 3 on Spot and a 15 on Listen. 23 and 35. The rogue rolls 16 on Hide and a 12 on Move Silently. 24 and 20. So, in this situation, the Elf doesn't see the rogue, but he hears him. He perceives him, so to speak, because he made one of his rolls.

In most situations, that Elf is going to find the Rogue. It doesn't matter how many rolls they make. Sometimes, the Elf is slacking off and the Rogue gets by him, and that makes sense. But the idea that someone so perceptive would be able to passively hear something nearly impossible to hear, but wouldn't be able to spot someone in a bright orange Ninja jumpsuit is silly.

Either you have an on-day at being perceptive, or sneaking, or you have an off day. Why not just make it one roll and give the characters the skillpoints they need?

Zeful
2010-07-05, 06:21 PM
You can smell her. You can hear the lack of ambient noise from that area.

Really, you can hear the lack of ambient noise? You realize how ridiculous that sounds right? First you have to be familiar enough with the area to even know that there are supposed to be ambient noise, then you have to know what kind of ambient noise is normally there, then you have to notice that there is a lack of such noise through the present ambient noise.

So no, that's pretty much not possible.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 06:25 PM
So no, that's pretty much not possible.

Magical silence is pretty strong. What we usually call silence still has the sound of our breathing. The sound of our beating hearts. The sound of the slightest breeze against blades of grass and tree leaves. The creaking our our joints when we move.

Perceiving magical silence should be very simple, as it's absolute silence. Anyone alert should notice when they enter magical silence.

Mike_G
2010-07-05, 06:29 PM
Magical silence is pretty strong. What we usually call silence still has the sound of our breathing. The sound of our beating hearts. The sound of the slightest breeze against blades of grass and tree leaves. The creaking our our joints when we move.

Perceiving magical silence should be very simple, as it's absolute silence. Anyone alert should notice when they enter magical silence.

When they enter it, sure, I agree.

But if I'm invisible, standing in a 10 foot area of magical silence thirty feet from you, I think you're boned.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 06:32 PM
Magical silence is pretty strong. What we usually call silence still has the sound of our breathing. The sound of our beating hearts. The sound of the slightest breeze against blades of grass and tree leaves. The creaking our our joints when we move.

Perceiving magical silence should be very simple, as it's absolute silence. Anyone alert should notice when they enter magical silence.

I never said you were in it, just that the enemy was, the response was that you would hear the lack of silence 50ft away, which is why my response was formulated the way it was.

wizuriel
2010-07-05, 06:32 PM
When they enter it, sure, I agree.

But if I'm invisible, standing in a 10 foot area of magical silence thirty feet from you, I think you're boned.

Not really. By RAW you can still make spot checks to find invisible opponents. Its a DC20-40 spot check depending on how well they can stop keep stilll.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 06:33 PM
Oh, true, you can't pinpoint magical silence that isn't on you. It again goes into the simple situation of you not being entitled a perception check at all, which is no different than if said skills were separated.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 06:38 PM
Either you have an on-day at being perceptive, or sneaking, or you have an off day. Why not just make it one roll and give the characters the skillpoints they need?

Because it doesn't make anything easier, on anybody. The DM still has to note that perception checks are based on sound, or sight, and still has to deal with all the situational modifiers as if Spot and Listen both still existed. So why not just keep them separate and be honest about the complications the skill causes?

I see no benefit in combining the skills when you still have to include delineations as if they still were separate.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 06:41 PM
Because it doesn't make anything easier, on anybody. The DM still has to note that perception checks are based on sound, or sight, and still has to deal with all the situational modifiers as if Spot and Listen both still existed. So why not just keep them separate and be honest about the complications the skill causes?

I see no benefit in combining the skills when you still have to include delineations as if they still were separate.

First of all, less waste of skill points. Putting points only in listen or only in spot is counterintuitive because whoever doesn't invest in both is hosed.
Second, said situations where it's actually important to differentiate sense aren't the norm, but the exception.

It's really opting to use the complicated form when it's called for...or using it all the time.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 06:44 PM
I never said you were in it, just that the enemy was, the response was that you would hear the lack of silence 50ft away, which is why my response was formulated the way it was.You'll notice the lack of ambient sound from one direction compared to other directions, because you're so perspective.

Really, a 20-foot radius zone of silence in any place with ambient noice (ie. pretty much anywhere) would be easy to notice, given your relatively large perception score (if you didn't take penalty from being blind, as you're suggesting).

[Edit]:
The DM still has to note that perception checks are based on sound, or sightNo she doesn't. Perception is Perception is Perception. Just like your AC doesn't care whether you nimbly dodge enemy swings or whether your armour negates them. You're too stuck with the Spot/Listen distinction. :smalltongue:

olentu
2010-07-05, 06:58 PM
I suppose that if one is going to break up perception is should really be done for every sense. I mean I want to know what my infrared detection score is

Greenish
2010-07-05, 07:04 PM
I suppose that if one is going to break up perception is should really be done for every sense. I mean I want to know what my infrared detection score isActually, modeling for the different races seeing the different wavelengths of light might be really interesting.

[Edit]: Your infrared detection score IRL is probably around 0, assuming you're a human. (Damn me for being so human-centric.)

olentu
2010-07-05, 07:10 PM
Actually, modeling for the different races seeing the different wavelengths of light might be really interesting.

[Edit]: Your infrared detection score IRL is probably around 0, assuming you're a human. (Damn me for being so human-centric.)

Well I suppose I have neglected to put any points in it. Oh well just noticing large fires and the such for me.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 07:59 PM
[Edit]:No she doesn't. Perception is Perception is Perception. Just like your AC doesn't care whether you nimbly dodge enemy swings or whether your armour negates them. You're too stuck with the Spot/Listen distinction. :smalltongue:

Some times you cant use dodge or sometimes you cant use your dex mod to AC. Same as perception, your blind or the enemy is invisible or your deaf or they are silenced and you would have to take account for that.

If I wanted to play a blind character and wanted to spend all my skill points into listen I would have no penalty. But if I pored them into perception I have to take penalties to perception for being blind. Because if someone was hiding from me and my non blind friend why would I not take penalties to perception for not seeing? My friend has just as many points so why should I have the advantage beacuse I say I can hear really well?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:04 PM
Some times you cant use dodge or sometimes you cant use your dex mod to AC. Same as perception, your blind or the enemy is invisible or your deaf or they are silenced and you would have to take account for that.

If I wanted to play a blind character and wanted to spend all my skill points into listen I would have no penalty. But if I pored them into perception I have to take penalties to perception for being blind. Because if someone was hiding from me and my non blind friend why would I not take penalties to perception for not seeing? My friend has just as many points so why should I have the advantage beacuse I say I can hear really well?

You just wouldn't be entitled a check for visual cues. You said so yourself, if you're filling listen, anyone that didn't max move silently would be detected with ease.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 08:08 PM
You just wouldn't be entitled a check for visual cues. You said so yourself, if you're filling listen, anyone that didn't max move silently would be detected with ease.

And at that point you are making differences between the skill itself and should just leave it as two skills as its less book keeping. Then you don't have to ask 'is he good at keeping quite or can I sense him?' each time or 'can I see him or was he invisible?'.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:10 PM
I don't see what is there to gain in having separate spot and listen instead of a single perception if you'll only USE the separation on a few specific cases.

"Less bookkeeping to separate the skills" doesn't follow. On the normal conditions of temperature and pressure, you don't need to differentiate both senses.

PId6
2010-07-05, 08:15 PM
And at that point you are making differences between the skill itself and should just leave it as two skills as its less book keeping. Then you don't have to ask 'is he good at keeping quite or can I sense him?' each time or 'can I see him or was he invisible?'.
You can say the same about pretty much any skill though. Climb? There's a big difference between climbing trees and mountains. Hide? Hiding in natural terrain is a very different set of skills from hiding in urban areas. Spellcraft? Why should learning about arcane spells automatically help you know how what a cleric or druid is casting?

Ultimately, all the skills are abstractions. Perception is really just another layer of it above Spot and Listen, and most of the time isn't going to make much of a different. D&D isn't suppose to model reality down to every detail; as long as you have a working model to play out your swashbuckling adventures or political intrigue or exploration campaign or what have you, what more do you need?

Greenish
2010-07-05, 08:17 PM
Some times you cant use dodge or sometimes you cant use your dex mod to AC. Same as perception, your blind or the enemy is invisible or your deaf or they are silenced and you would have to take account for that.Sometimes, you take penalties on your perception check. There, all taken into account.

If I wanted to play a blind character and wanted to spend all my skill points into listen I would have no penalty. But if I pored them into perception I have to take penalties to perception for being blind. Because if someone was hiding from me and my non blind friend why would I not take penalties to perception for not seeing?You would take penalties because it's harder to notice things when you're blind, d'oh.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 08:18 PM
I don't see what is there to gain in having separate spot and listen instead of a single perception if you'll only USE the separation on a few specific cases.

If you play long enough its going to come up, more then once in a likelihood, and bite you in the butt. Its not really that unreasonable for high level people to be invisible or silent if they are trying to be stealthy at lest from what I have experienced.




"Less bookkeeping to separate the skills" doesn't follow. On the normal conditions of temperature and pressure, you don't need to differentiate both senses.

Both those are not as drastic as hearing and seeing. There are conditions for when you can not see or hear and thats more of a headache when that happens. 'Does being blind stop me from finding the guy?' I could say I hear well but thats fiat as I have never said before that I could hear well or vis versa.

edit:

You can say the same about pretty much any skill though. Climb? There's a big difference between climbing trees and mountains. Hide? Hiding in natural terrain is a very different set of skills from hiding in urban areas. Spellcraft? Why should learning about arcane spells automatically help you know how what a cleric or druid is casting?

Ultimately, all the skills are abstractions. Perception is really just another layer of it above Spot and Listen, and most of the time isn't going to make much of a different. D&D isn't suppose to model reality down to every detail; as long as you have a working model to play out your swashbuckling adventures or political intrigue or exploration campaign or what have you, what more do you need?

I never said the skill system was the best just the one I like the most. I would re-hall it entirely if I knew how but I have no idea. I like the idea, maybe, if you have the combined skills but then you could specialize in skills IE: Stealth 6- Hiding 2= 8 to hide checks.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:36 PM
Both those are not as drastic as hearing and seeing. There are conditions for when you can not see or hear and thats more of a headache when that happens. 'Does being blind stop me from finding the guy?' I could say I hear well but thats fiat as I have never said before that I could hear well or vis versa.
Being blind denies you spot checks.
Being blind denies you using perception for visual cues.
What changed? You're still taking the sense's cue equally in both cases.
Let's see if I can sum up better now:
If you have Listen&Spot, you have to take both into account.
If you have Perception, you have to take both into account.
The first uses 2 numbers.
The second uses 1.

The treatment for the exceptions is exactly what you already do if you separate listen & spot.

There is no gain in ease of use separating the two skills.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 08:45 PM
Being blind denies you spot checks.
Being blind denies you using perception for visual cues.
What changed? You're still taking the sense's cue equally in both cases.
Let's see if I can sum up better now:
If you have Listen&Spot, you have to take both into account.
If you have Perception, you have to take both into account.
The first uses 2 numbers.
The second uses 1.

The treatment for the exceptions is exactly what you already do if you separate listen & spot.

There is no gain in ease of use separating the two skills.

(taken from Zetas list)

Unless you just don't want to bother with the other half of the skills or they make no sense taking them: Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble), my guy could be good at one of these, or his class might, and not have the other two. Why should my fighter know magic and fighting tatics equally with lore?


Again its not the best but the one I like the most. As you have said if there is no difference between option one and two its just a matter of taste then.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:48 PM
The first one is slightly simpler and allows for a better spread of skill points.

But that doesn't seem to matter. What I tried to get across is that "less bookkeeping" just isn't something "listen&spot" has over "perception".

Zeful
2010-07-05, 08:48 PM
There is no gain in ease of use separating the two skills.

There is no gain in ease of use in combining the two skills, either.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:49 PM
There is no gain in ease of use in combining the two skills, either.

There is in the fact that the most common use for the skill(opposing a hide) will only require one roll from each side. And when it goes to the less common uses of the skill, there is no perceivable difference.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 08:51 PM
Unless you just don't want to bother with the other half of the skills or they make no sense taking them: Acrobatics (Balance/Escape Artist/Tumble), my guy could be good at one of these, or his class might, and not have the other two.And that wouldn't make sense. You're agile and acrobatic, why should you be adept at escaping the kraken's tentacles but still fall prey to the clumsy attacks of the orc past whom you move?
Why should my fighter know magic and fighting tatics equally with lore?Uhm, what?
Again its not the best but the one I like the most.What is? :smallconfused:

[Edit]:
There is no gain in ease of use in combining the two skills, either.But you waste less of your precious skill points. (Even if we accept Snake-Aes' idea of keeping spot/listen separate in function, which I do not.)

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 08:52 PM
Being blind denies you spot checks.
Being blind denies you using perception for visual cues.
What changed? You're still taking the sense's cue equally in both cases.
Let's see if I can sum up better now:
If you have Listen&Spot, you have to take both into account.
If you have Perception, you have to take both into account.
The first uses 2 numbers.
The second uses 1.

The treatment for the exceptions is exactly what you already do if you separate listen & spot.

There is no gain in ease of use separating the two skills.



The first one is slightly simpler and allows for a better spread of skill points.

But that doesn't seem to matter. What I tried to get across is that "less bookkeeping" just isn't something "listen&spot" has over "perception".


Am I reading this wrong? Can you please clarify this better? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

Zeful
2010-07-05, 08:53 PM
Instead of 2 skill to put points in (or 48 skill points) it's one. It "frees" up skill points to allow characters to do more things.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 08:55 PM
Am I reading this wrong? Can you please clarify this better? I don't understand what you are trying to tell me.

I mean the condensed form.

Thajocoth
2010-07-05, 08:58 PM
Listen & Spot as separate skills allows you to be good at one and not the other... Which certainly adds something.

Perception decreases the total number of skills for easier bookkeeping, and allows a skill for feeling, smelling & tasting.

In general, more skills allow you to be a bit more customized, by being good at one thing and bad at another, while less skills allows you to have skills for more situations.

Even in some 1 for 1 situations... Sense Motive -> Insight. Insight does everything Sense Motive did, but it's also good for, say, determining the direction of a smell...

I prefer 4e's shorter list for it's versatility, but I certainly see what's good about longer lists of skills.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 09:16 PM
And that wouldn't make sense. You're agile and acrobatic, why should you be adept at escaping the kraken's tentacles but still fall prey to the clumsy attacks of the orc past whom you move?

If you are good at balancing that must mean you can escape grapples better?



Uhm, what?



Using Zet's skill system in the first page a barbarian knows the same about which weed kills the pain as much as he does about which undead hate sunlight.



What is? :smallconfused:

Have not found it




[Edit]:But you waste less of your precious skill points. (Even if we accept Snake-Aes' idea of keeping spot/listen separate in function, which I do not.)

If you are just trying to save skill points just add more or play a class with a lot of them or do both. I like having a lot of skills but at some point you just have to go without knowing everything and being able to do back flips.



I mean the condensed form.

Just combining skills to save points is kinda wrong to me. It might be nice but I just don't like it.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 09:25 PM
There is no gain in ease of use in combining the two skills, either.

Aside from the fact that easily 90% of characters will never have to worry about whether or not they are entitled to a specific Perception check, because hardly anyone plays blind or deaf characters?

Your example is a pretty severe corner case. It would be like saying "Aha, an Athletics skill is a bad idea, because my character who has no arms should not be able to Swim or Climb, but he can Jump! I demand separate skills to accommodate my very specific set of abilities!"

Greenish
2010-07-05, 09:30 PM
If you are good at balancing that must mean you can escape grapples better?Yeah. You're an agile bugger. It most certainly doesn't make less sense, and it conserves your skill points, which you don't get enough.
Using Zet's skill system in the first page a barbarian knows the same about which weed kills the pain as much as he does about which undead hate sunlight.As far as I can tell, Zet is the only one advocating lumping all knowledge skills in the same skill. What that has to do with the rest if the topic I don't know.
If you are just trying to save skill points just add more or play a class with a lot of them or do both.Adding more skill points to all classes would certainly be great. Consolidating skills would likewise be great, and obviously you could do both.
I like having a lot of skills but at some point you just have to go without knowing everything and being able to do back flips.Nobody is advocating merging all the skills.

Just combining skills to save points is kinda wrong to me.You're entitled to have your opinion, obviously, but if you want to convince others, you should have arguments too. For example, I'm not on the opinion that making skill points go farther is the only reason to merge skills, merely one of them.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-05, 09:39 PM
I like the combined skills. Especially when it comes to stealth and its counterpart perception.

Really all it comes down to is one less roll on both sides, which I am totally for.


If you are good at balancing that must mean you can escape grapples better?

Yes.

PId6
2010-07-05, 09:40 PM
Nobody is advocating merging all the skills.
That would make for a hilarious game though. :smallamused:

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-05, 09:42 PM
"Okay you get one skill point per level."

"Yes there is only one skill."

"The skill of awesome."

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 09:47 PM
Yeah. You're an agile bugger. It most certainly doesn't make less sense, and it conserves your skill points, which you don't get enough.

Agility is you dex mod, you get those to dex skills. So ya if you are agile you can do all that but thats your dexterity not your skill.



As far as I can tell, Zet is the only one advocating lumping all knowledge skills in the same skill. What that has to do with the rest if the topic I don't know.

The topic is witch one do you like more? I like the one with a lot of skills. Zeta posted his list and I have been working off of that I did not notice anyone else's lists.




Adding more skill points to all classes would certainly be great. Consolidating skills would likewise be great, and obviously you could do both.

If you did both a rogue arguably could get to many skill points and be able to fill all skills up. One or the other is good both might be to much.



Nobody is advocating merging all the skills.

But if you start trying to save some points here by merging skills and then maybe you add some more skill points there... When does it stop? What level is ok? I say just add some more points to each class and be done with it. How many skill points do you need?



You're entitled to have your opinion, obviously, but if you want to convince others, you should have arguments too. For example, I'm not on the opinion that making skill points go farther is the only reason to merge skills, merely one of them.

I am not trying to convince others, if I was I would be lieing right now, I am just, as you put it, stating my opinion. I don't think for a minute that I will change anyone's mind. Besides arguing to have fun I think most arguments are pointless as you can not change everyone's opinion. I am stubborn and wont change my opinion and thus I don't think my opposition will, simple put.



Edit:


"Okay you get one skill point per level."

"Yes there is only one skill."

"The skill of awesome."

I always wanted a Badassery check to make things I do look cool.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-05, 09:50 PM
But if you start trying to save some points here by merging skills and then maybe you add some more skill points there... When does it stop? What level is ok? I say just add some more points to each class and be done with it. How many skill points do you need?It stops when the group is comfortable with the rule.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-05, 10:05 PM
Skills are just a step further away from your attributes. Your attributes show you how physically/mentally able you are, and your skills are a step further from that.

As far as I see it, there is definitely a line to draw before skills just become redundant to attributes.

To have alot of skills means that you have way more bookwork to deal with, less skills means that you have less mechanical backing for your roleplaying quirk.

All it really comes down to is ease of use vs. roleplaying mechanics. If you are playing a blind character in 4e, just talk to your dm.



I am not trying to convince others, if I was I would be lieing right now, I am just, as you put it, stating my opinion. I don't think for a minute that I will change anyone's mind. Besides arguing to have fun I think most arguments are pointless as you can not change everyone's opinion. I am stubborn and wont change my opinion and thus I don't think my opposition will, simple put.


This is a terrible outlook to have.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 10:11 PM
This is a terrible outlook to have.

It is, and I have paid for it, but its mine and I like it.

Greenish
2010-07-05, 10:17 PM
Agility is you dex mod, you get those to dex skills. So ya if you are agile you can do all that but thats your dexterity not your skill.Says who?
The topic is witch one do you like more? I like the one with a lot of skills. Zeta posted his list and I have been working off of that I did not notice anyone else's lists.And I like the one with condensed skills, such as perception = spot + listen + search and disable device = disable device + open lock.
If you did both a rogue arguably could get to many skill points and be able to fill all skills up. One or the other is good both might be to much.I would expect a rogue to be good at hide, move silently, search, climb, balance, disguise, bluff, sleight of hand, use magic device, use rope, gather information and appraise. Maybe also spot/listen/perform/sense motive/diplomacy. Even getting the stuff from the first list requires 14 Int human.
But if you start trying to save some points here by merging skills and then maybe you add some more skill points there... When does it stop?When you feel it's enough, d'oh. Stealth, perception, acrobatics, athletics, linguistics, those are all good contractions in my book, but your mileage may vary.
I say just add some more points to each class and be done with it.That works too. It's no excuse to have open lock and disable device as separate skills, though.

I am not trying to convince others, if I was I would be lieing right now, I am just, as you put it, stating my opinion. I don't think for a minute that I will change anyone's mind. Besides arguing to have fun I think most arguments are pointless as you can not change everyone's opinion. I am stubborn and wont change my opinion and thus I don't think my opposition will, simple put.Now then, obviously we argue to change at least someone's mind, and you should think what you might miss when you categorically state that you won't change your mind.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-05, 10:20 PM
Eh, with the old unconsolidated skill list, I often found myself with the vaguely martial characters I wanted to play, being essentially unable to play an all round physically competant character. Let alone someone who was generally competant AND aware of his surroundings.

And you can leave out ever being not-noticed in the same build!

The ludicrous spread of really limited use skills devalued the entire system, to my mind, almost to the point where several of the characters I rolled I felt there was no point even paying attention to the skills, because there was no way I could even begin to cover the reasonable bases, and so one or two obvious skills were maxed and that was it.

Properly consolidated skills make skills more generally useful.

Eorran
2010-07-05, 10:20 PM
If I may derail the Perception vs Spot/Listen argument, is anyone else disappointed that 4e kept Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff separate? I was really looking forward to Persuade, or something like that. Especially since they're all Charisma based, and face it, they are more similar than almost any other group.

Making a convincing argument to get your own way: Diplomacy.
What if your argument includes a lie? Bluff, presumably.
What if you warn someone about possible dire consequences in order to get your way? Intimidate.
What if it's not an outright lie, but a cleverly worded half-truth?
What if the half-truth includes a warning of bad consequences?

If you're good at any one of the three, it follows that you'll be good at the other two. If you train any of them, you're probabyl training all of them - debating is a teachable skill that could cross all three categories.

Although thinking about taking Intimidate training is pretty funny. I picture a drill sergeant yelling at people to yell back at him.

Skorj
2010-07-05, 10:28 PM
Agility is you dex mod, you get those to dex skills. So ya if you are agile you can do all that but thats your dexterity not your skill.


We played that way for years before D&D had a real skill system. No skills per se, just roll against the appropriate stat. It worked fine. Not everything you want to roleplay needs a specific number associated with it on a character sheet. Corner cases like using invisibility to sneak up on a guard dog were handled just fine without specific sight/sound/scent numbers - the DM would just use a little judgement and assign a modifier.

I like having 2-3 skills per stat, just to split e.g. acrobatics from mechanics, but if two skills are going to be together in 90% of character concepts, why bother splitting them. Having played a great many systems, I have a strong belief that anything that doesn't matter at least once a month in a regular gaming group can live without its own number.

EDIT


Although thinking about taking Intimidate training is pretty funny. I picture a drill sergeant yelling at people to yell back at him.

I used to work with a former Marine drill instructor. They did indeed "take intimidate training", both formally in learning the position and informally in exchanging tips and tricks with each other. It just seems odd because it's not a skill many people use these days.

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-05, 10:29 PM
Skills are just a step further away from your attributes. Your attributes show you how physically/mentally able you are, and your skills are a step further from that.

As far as I see it, there is definitely a line to draw before skills just become redundant to attributes.

To have alot of skills means that you have way more bookwork to deal with, less skills means that you have less mechanical backing for your roleplaying quirk.

Some reasons you need skills:
A person who is Smart is not always Knowledgable.
A person who is Wise is not always Perceptive.
A person who is Dexterous is not always Precise.

Some reasons you need different skills:
A person who is a good Juggler is not always a good Shot.
A person who has bad Vision does not always have bad Hearing. (and vice-versa.)
A person who can lift great weights is not always able to jump really high.
A person who can climb swiftly is not always able to swim swiftly.
A person who can't hide well ("he's huge!") is not always unable to move quietly.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 10:36 PM
Says who?

Same reasoning that a high strength score does not make a brown bear a better climber then an ape.



And I like the one with condensed skills, such as perception = spot + listen + search and disable device = disable device + open lock.

Its nice just not for me.



I would expect a rogue to be good at hide, move silently, search, climb, balance, disguise, bluff, sleight of hand, use magic device, use rope, gather information and appraise. Maybe also spot/listen/perform/sense motive/diplomacy. Even getting the stuff from the first list requires 14 Int human.


See I end up taking Jack of all trades beacuse for a rogue thats not good enough for me. Maybe not max out ranks and give 3/4th to more skills. My rogues are the face, the sneak, and maybe the nerd.



When you feel it's enough, d'oh. Stealth, perception, acrobatics, athletics, linguistics, those are all good contractions in my book, but your mileage may vary.

That's my I find some arguments pointless, the simple fact that YMMV.



That works too. It's no excuse to have open lock and disable device as separate skills, though.

Got me on this, does not make sense at all.



Now then, obviously we argue to change at least someone's mind, and you should think what you might miss when you categorically state that you won't change your mind.

Let me restate, I am stubborn in the sense that I will not change my state of mind. Facts such as monks are mechanically worse then most classes can change my mind but if you tried to tell me monks are not total BA's I would laugh in your face. I really do not think I am phrasing this or saying it right. Fact= Change my mind, Opinion= lol nice try.

English is a cruel mistress.

PId6
2010-07-05, 10:45 PM
Some reasons you need different skills:
A person who is a good Juggler is not always a good Shot.
A person who has bad Vision does not always have bad Hearing. (and vice-versa.)
A person who can lift great weights is not always able to jump really high.
A person who can climb swiftly is not always able to swim swiftly.
A person who can't hide well ("he's huge!") is not always unable to move quietly.
A person who is a good tree climber doesn't necessarily know how to climb mountains.
A person who can move silently in undergrowth isn't necessarily good at moving silently on a city street.
A person who specializes in disabling tripwires isn't necessarily able to disable poison needle traps.
A person who knows how to dress like another person doesn't necessarily know how to act like them.
A person that knows how to handle giraffes doesn't necessarily know how to handle pandas.
A person who knows a lot about plants and weather doesn't necessarily know much about giants and fey.

Most skills are already abstractions; condensing a few of them doesn't really hurt verisimilitude much in light of that.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 10:50 PM
If I may derail the Perception vs Spot/Listen argument, is anyone else disappointed that 4e kept Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff separate? I was really looking forward to Persuade, or something like that. Especially since they're all Charisma based, and face it, they are more similar than almost any other group.

Making a convincing argument to get your own way: Diplomacy.
What if your argument includes a lie? Bluff, presumably.
What if you warn someone about possible dire consequences in order to get your way? Intimidate.
What if it's not an outright lie, but a cleverly worded half-truth?
What if the half-truth includes a warning of bad consequences?

If you're good at any one of the three, it follows that you'll be good at the other two. If you train any of them, you're probabyl training all of them - debating is a teachable skill that could cross all three categories.

Although thinking about taking Intimidate training is pretty funny. I picture a drill sergeant yelling at people to yell back at him.

I think Intimidate and Diplomacy are different enough to warrant different skills, though I wouldn't be heartbroken to see them consolidated. I think they represent different ways to achieve the same result, but in such a way that the difference between them is likely to actually come up in play. I'd expect a cold-blooded killer to be good at Intimidate and a lawyer to be good at Diplomacy, and I wouldn't expect either to be good at the other.

That, to me, is the sort of skill divide that makes sense to preserve, because "intimidating" and "diplomatic" are more common descriptors in fantasy than "near-sighted" or "lacks arms."

I agree about Bluff, though. Whether you're trying to convince someone or scare someone, you can employ both truths and falsehoods to get your point across.


A person who is a good tree climber doesn't necessarily know how to climb mountains.
A person who can move silently in undergrowth isn't necessarily good at moving silently on a city street.
A person who specializes in disabling tripwires isn't necessarily able to disable poison needle traps.
A person who knows how to dress like another person doesn't necessarily know how to act like them.
A person that knows how to handle giraffes doesn't necessarily know how to handle pandas.
A person who knows a lot about plants and weather doesn't necessarily know much about giants and fey.

Most skills are already abstractions; condensing a few of them doesn't really hurt verisimilitude much in light of that.

My personal favorite is "A person who knows a lot about this particular city doesn't necessarily know a lot about every city in the world, along with the fighting styles and special weaknesses of every vaguely human-shaped race there is."

Ah, Knowledge: Local. The one skill no adventuring party should be without.

Demons_eye
2010-07-05, 10:50 PM
Most skills are already abstractions; condensing a few of them doesn't really hurt verisimilitude much in light of that.

I agree with this and this is why I do hate the skill system. I posted in the homebrew a little while ago and Djinn and Mullet gave me some insightful information. They suggested spending points to specialize in skills.

PId6
2010-07-05, 10:57 PM
I'd expect a cold-blooded killer to be good at Intimidate and a lawyer to be good at Diplomacy, and I wouldn't expect either to be good at the other.
I don't know... Lawyers can be pretty damn scary...

Kylarra
2010-07-05, 10:59 PM
I don't know... Lawyers can be pretty damn scary...I concur. My aunt cross-examines me on my social life...

Morithias
2010-07-05, 11:01 PM
I let people use specialized knowledge checks if they can justify it for their character.

For example, a player character who has taken "Legendary Leader" "Legendary Tactician" or some like war based class. I let take things like "Knowledge War" which one can use as basically a knowledge check for everything war related. It replaces local when finding out about the milita, royalty when learning about the general, geography when planning ambushes and attack strats, and so on. However it is useless in any other circumstance.

I think this makes a decent amount of sense. Cause there are so many uses for a skill that no person cares about. My General doesn't care about using knowledge local to know who the chef who cooks pancakes tuesdays from 6 am to 9 am for the local inn is.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-05, 11:08 PM
Hmm, it does make sense to separate Listen and spot. Some people have hearing issues and some people have sight issues. Some people are better at one thing than another (symbolized by spent skill points, of course)
Tumbling, balancing and the like may seem similar, but are quite different. Someone good at balancing on a rope isn't automatically good at rolling around and evading attacks. But, they both work off of the same stat, which would make sense why those with good balance are better tumblers.

So, if you're bad at numbers and keeping track of things, use the simplified 4.0 version, or if you like being in-depth and being an actual representation of what it would be like (i.e. a more realistic role play), separating them works.

The Cat Goddess
2010-07-05, 11:09 PM
Of course, this only goes to show why I perfer skill-based systems like GURPS.

Kylarra
2010-07-05, 11:12 PM
So, if you're bad at numbers and keeping track of things, use the simplified 4.0 version, or if you like being in-depth and being an actual representation of what it would be like (i.e. a more realistic role play), separating them works.The rhetoric here is kind of amusing, but more bookkeeping is not synonymous with realistic roleplay, and 3.X's skill system is already weirdly abstracted in ways that keep it from being "in-depth" and "an actual representation" if you want to ruin your own verisimilitude.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 11:18 PM
"Okay you get one skill point per level."

"Yes there is only one skill."

"The skill of awesome."
*cue wicked electric guitar riff*

Lhurgyof
2010-07-05, 11:46 PM
The rhetoric here is kind of amusing, but more bookkeeping is not synonymous with realistic roleplay, and 3.X's skill system is already weirdly abstracted in ways that keep it from being "in-depth" and "an actual representation" if you want to ruin your own verisimilitude.

I wasn't saying the skill system is perfect, there are lots of things that don't make sense at all, but I'm just saying that I like spot/listen, tumble/balance, move silently/hide separate. xD
And I find the 4.0 skill system over-simplified to the point that it detracts from the game when I play.


*cue wicked electric guitar riff*

Duh-nuh-nuh-na! You have found the internets!

Kylarra
2010-07-05, 11:54 PM
I wasn't saying the skill system is perfect, there are lots of things that don't make sense at all, but I'm just saying that I like spot/listen, tumble/balance, move silently/hide separate. xD
And I find the 4.0 skill system over-simplified to the point that it detracts from the game when I play.It's hard to read that sort of backtracking from the weighted words you were using earlier, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

Personally I fall more on the side of granting extra skill points and reworking all the skill lists to allow things like guards that can actually see what's happening around them.

Gametime
2010-07-06, 01:55 AM
Hmm, it does make sense to separate Listen and spot. Some people have hearing issues and some people have sight issues. Some people are better at one thing than another (symbolized by spent skill points, of course)
Tumbling, balancing and the like may seem similar, but are quite different. Someone good at balancing on a rope isn't automatically good at rolling around and evading attacks. But, they both work off of the same stat, which would make sense why those with good balance are better tumblers.

So, if you're bad at numbers and keeping track of things, use the simplified 4.0 version, or if you like being in-depth and being an actual representation of what it would be like (i.e. a more realistic role play), separating them works.

Some of us are good with numbers, have no problem keeping track of things, and still prefer the condensed skill system, you know. It isn't purely a matter of whether we're able to keep up with the amazing complexities. :smallconfused:

Lhurgyof
2010-07-06, 12:07 PM
Some of us are good with numbers, have no problem keeping track of things, and still prefer the condensed skill system, you know. It isn't purely a matter of whether we're able to keep up with the amazing complexities. :smallconfused:

That's good, it must just be because I live in Maine;There are gamers up here who just like simple numbers and killing monsters.
There's one thing I want to know, though. What the hell is the difference between spellcraft and knowledge arcana.

hamishspence
2010-07-06, 12:21 PM
Spellcraft is practical knowledge.

Knowledge Arcana is theoretical (and historial) knowledge.

This is just a guess.

Still- using Spellcraft to recognize the major features of the spell just cast (school, level, damage, etc) and Knowledge (arcana) to know who first devised it, and when, and why, does seem a bit fiddly.

Saph
2010-07-06, 12:26 PM
Plus, Knowledge (Arcana) is used for identifying monsters. Other than that, yeah, it's the difference between a practical skill and theoretical book-learning. It's a bit artificial, but eh.