Listen & Spot vs. Perception

[Scorponok]

Just wondering, which do you prefer? Do you like having them as two separate skills, or having just one overall skill?

When Pathfinder came out with the new combined skill, I didn't really like it. Reason being, someone who had good vision and/or talent for spotting wouldn't necessarily have good ears. And vice versa. Also, having it as one skill makes it a wee bit too powerful as it then becomes something everyone wants to put ranks into.

The disadvantage of having them as two distinct skills is, say, if a predator is stalking the party, it should have to make two checks - move silently and hide, opposed by the party's spot and listen.

I'm sort of on the fence now as to which I prefer.

[Unbodied]

I'm all for simplified mechanics and not having to make more rolls than necessary.

[Saintheart]

The disadvantage of having them as two distinct skills is, say, if a predator is stalking the party, it should have to make two checks - move silently and hide, opposed by the party's spot and listen.

Not necessarily. Just combine the Move Silently and Hide checks into a single skill of Stealth.

[Ashtagon]

Given that there are very few cases in which you would want to use one without using the other, I'm all in favour of merging them.

Special cases (eg. blindness or deafness, and less severe forms of those disabilities) can be handled with case-by-case exceptions and special rules.

[Curmudgeon]

Combining Listen and Spot is fine; they're both WIS-based skills. However, Perception also rolls up Search, which is an INT-based skill. Pathfinder worked really hard at messing up someone focused on finding and disabling traps by transforming D&D Search (INT-based) and Disable Device (also INT-based) into PF Perception (WIS-based) and Disable Device (DEX-based). :smallmad:

So yes, it's fine to combine these skills. Don't screw anything else up while doing so, please.

[Nifft]

Combining Listen and Spot is fine; they're both WIS-based skills. However, Perception also rolls up Search, which is an INT-based skill. Pathfinder worked really hard at messing up someone focused on finding and disabling traps by transforming D&D Search (INT-based) and Disable Device (also INT-based) into PF Perception (WIS-based) and Disable Device (DEX-based). :smallmad:

So yes, it's fine to combine these skills. Don't screw anything else up while doing so, please.

Yeah, I prefer Search to remain separate.

Something like quickly casing a joint seems more about swiftly focusing on details in serial (Int), rather than being generally aware of the environment (Wis).

[Ashtagon]

Combining Listen and Spot is fine; they're both WIS-based skills. However, Perception also rolls up Search, which is an INT-based skill. Pathfinder worked really hard at messing up someone focused on finding and disabling traps by transforming D&D Search (INT-based) and Disable Device (also INT-based) into PF Perception (WIS-based) and Disable Device (DEX-based). :smallmad:

So yes, it's fine to combine these skills. Don't screw anything else up while doing so, please.

There's a little-known rule in the DMG (so not PF; maybe PF has it though) which notes that the DM is free to call for a specific skill check to key off a different ability score from the usual.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't see any reason to have two skills that do the exact same thing but based on a different ability score (i.e. perception and search).

[HammeredWharf]

I don't see any reason to have two skills that do the exact same thing but based on a different ability score (i.e. perception and search).

I'd say it's not the same thing. Search find things in the environment, while Listen & Spot are for finding hidden characters. For me, at least, Search represents a completely different form of action, i.e. actively tapping things with your hands or tools.

[Nifft]

I'd say it's not the same thing. Search find things in the environment, while Listen & Spot are for finding hidden characters. For me, at least, Search represents a completely different form of action, i.e. actively tapping things with your hands or tools.

Yeah.

In a more general sense, Search is the ability to hyper-focus on details, while Perception is the opposite -- the ability to never get lost in thought or distracted.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say it's not the same thing. Search find things in the environment, while Listen & Spot are for finding hidden characters. For me, at least, Search represents a completely different form of action, i.e. actively tapping things with your hands or tools.

That's just asking for any int-based PC to try and search for hidden characters with their hands, or any wis-based PC to try to spot things in the environment without using their hands.

[HammeredWharf]

That's just asking for any int-based PC to try and search for hidden characters with their hands, or any wis-based PC to try to spot things in the environment without using their hands.

True, that's what it is, but they end up finding different things. Additionally, Search requires active participation, while Spot & Listen do not.

Ideally, if I were designing a system, I'd make a separate skill (like Mechanic) for identifying and using various contraptions and use a universal Perception skill for everything else. After all, D&D's Search is basically a Find Traps skill 99% of the time. However, if I have to choose between the two, I prefer Search and Spot to stay separate.

[Curmudgeon]

For me, at least, Search represents a completely different form of action, i.e. actively tapping things with your hands or tools.
Search had better not be tapping things with your hands, because Rogues are guaranteed to be able to Search at 10' from a trap that's triggered by touching, without setting it off. And that also works if the Rogue has less than 10' reach and no tools.

I think of the skill as peering intently at things from different angles to notice the difference between dirt and the edge of something, listening to your footsteps as you step back and forth to perceive different materials in the nearby floor, and smelling for anything that's "off" (like lubricant in an empty expanse of corridor). You're not poking and prodding, but are moving about very cautiously, hyper-aware of everything close to you. The Rogue's senses are so keen they can even notice certain magics from 10' outside their trigger area.

[bean illus]

Search had better not be tapping things with your hands, because Rogues are guaranteed to be able to Search at 10' from a trap that's triggered by touching, without setting it off. And that also works if the Rogue has less than 10' reach and no tools.



I think of the skill as peering intently at things from different angles to notice the difference between dirt and the edge of something, listening to your footsteps as you step back and forth to perceive different materials in the nearby floor, and smelling for anything that's "off" (like lubricant in an empty expanse of corridor). You're not poking and prodding, but are moving about very cautiously, hyper-aware of everything close to you. The Rogue's senses are so keen they can even notice certain magics from 10' outside their trigger area.

"Something about the dust in this 10' square looks strange..."

I see them as different things. Active and inactive are two of the easiest examples of qualifiers, as well as how long they take.

[Nibbens]

I've always been on the fence about this subject too. Coming from 3X to PF always felt a bit odd. But after playing with the PF "Perception" check for so long, I've gotten used to it.

However, I fully endorse the varied types of "perception" type checks in a game like Deadlands. Where characters can get bonuses or negatives on sight, but not sound, or touch but not sight or vice versa. I don't see this too much in PF or 3X - I mean, the conditions "blinded" or fog cloud type spells replicate that, but there's no spell or alchemy potion that allows you to get (the way Deadland puts it) "+2 to your roll on sight based search checks," or "-2 to your rolls on "listen" based search checks.

[Gabrosin]

Listen and spot are reactive skills, and search is a proactive skill. They shouldn't be combined, and I like keeping them keyed off different abilities.

I'm fine with listen and spot folding into a single perception skill. It always feels like every character needs more skill points than they have available just to do relatively essential tasks. Diverting skill points elsewhere for the sake of flavor, like adopting a profession or dabbling in forgery or climbing, always produces a critical weakness in a more important area. Listen and spot are valuable skills for everyone, but mostly they're delegated to the party scout. Having a single skill that encompasses both makes it more likely to be chosen.

[Keneth]

Over the many years that I've played 3E and Pathfinder, I've actually tested out a variety of different sets of skills, both expanded and consolidated. I can say with with absolute certainty that, as far as I'm concerned, consolidated skills that don't limit one's actions in any way are infinitely better than the alternatives. That's why we used Thievery, Stealth, Perception, Persuasion, Acrobatics, Athletics, etc. instead of a mile long list of random skills and scattered skill points. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't gain bonuses to specific uses of a skill: glibness still only granted a bonus to bluff checks, even though bluffing was part of the Persuasion skill.

Besides, one's ability to perceive their surroundings is almost always the result of a combination of senses. It makes more sense to develop such an ability as a skill rather than specifically improving your ability to see, which is more inherent than anything. It's not perfect, but I like it better mechanically in every way.

[Kantolin]

I personally prefer having both listen and spot because I rather like the character archetypes that are good at one but not the other (and either poor at the other or just normal).

A hawkeyed ratman archer who can see for miles but has normal hearing is one end. I also like 'orcs have very good hearing but are poor at vision', and that resulted in a very interesting orc ninja who was very good at sneaking but not hiding (and also could cover his scent, but that's neither here nor there).

Now, on the other hand. If my group is extremely pressed for time, I could see simplification being preferred (Although if you have to roll at all, it's not too much longer). Simultaneously, I do find that 'people do not have enough skill points', so I usually solve that by giving people more skill points to compensate rather than fewer skills.

[Curmudgeon]

Simultaneously, I do find that 'people do not have enough skill points', so I usually solve that by giving people more skill points to compensate rather than fewer skills.
I like that approach myself. What I do is each class gets 150% of the base number of skill points, thus 3 + INT mod for a Cleric or Wizard, 6 + INT mod for a Barbarian or Monk, 9 + INT mod for a Bard or Ranger, and 12 + INT mod for a Rogue or Scout.

[rrwoods]

I game I'm playing in currently takes a hybrid approach: Certain skills form "skill groups". One of those groups is Perception, which rolls up Listen, Search, and Spot. The rules for skill groups are:

* If any skills in a group are class skills, all of them are.
* When purchasing ranks, 1 point purchases 1 rank in all skills in a group (or 1/2 rank, for cross class).

You still make the checks separately; Search is still INT and Spot is still WIS (and effects that give bonuses to search don't benefit spot and vice versa).

[Sagetim]

I tend to prefer the pathfinder system over the 3.5 system for skills, in part because I don't have to worry about multiplying skill points at level one, but also because class skills don't revert to not being class skills. Having a straight +3 for a skill being a class skill is nice.

I prefer Perception and Stealth, because it means characters can generally be more skillful, because they don't have to dump ranks into as many skills to reach the same level of competency. I would also probably house rule that search is it's own skill and int based, and that disable device is int based, because I like rogues having a noticeable advantage for being smart and not just being a dexterity dumping god of blendering things with two weapon fighting sneak attacks.

[marphod]

Hunh. I didn't think about the key attributes changing for the Listen/Spot/Search. That makes the roll-up less ideal. Alas.


I like that approach myself. What I do is each class gets 150% of the base number of skill points, thus 3 + INT mod for a Cleric or Wizard, 6 + INT mod for a Barbarian or Monk, 9 + INT mod for a Bard or Ranger, and 12 + INT mod for a Rogue or Scout.

I'm considering, with my rules rewrite, everyone starting with Int skill points (not Int Mod, but raw Int) (Wis for creatures with Animal Intelligence/no Intelligence, but restrictions on the skill list -- the PF skill list, but no Knowledge skills, spellcraft, disable device, Craft, linguistics, sleight of hand, or use magic device, maybe others -- characters with higher Wisdom than Intelligence can choose to use their Wisdom score, but have the same restrictions as animal ints for starting skill points) and (if I don't change how skills are acquired,) a flat +8 skill points per level/HD (+4 for Animal Intelligence/No Intelligence). (Plus any bonus skill points from race, feats, etc.)

(This does mean I'd need to change the use of skill points as an attempt to balance no-casting classes, but we already knew skill points didn't balance much of anything.

[martixy]

I game I'm playing in currently takes a hybrid approach: Certain skills form "skill groups". One of those groups is Perception, which rolls up Listen, Search, and Spot. The rules for skill groups are:

* If any skills in a group are class skills, all of them are.
* When purchasing ranks, 1 point purchases 1 rank in all skills in a group (or 1/2 rank, for cross class).

You still make the checks separately; Search is still INT and Spot is still WIS (and effects that give bonuses to search don't benefit spot and vice versa).

This.

There are however further aspects besides grouping that affect how skills work.

For example in 3.5 it matters which class you take first - in a scout/ranger build you're better off starting with scout first.
This is something PF addresses simply and effectively.

[The Random NPC]

There's a little-known rule in the DMG (so not PF; maybe PF has it though) which notes that the DM is free to call for a specific skill check to key off a different ability score from the usual.

There was a couple of FAQs recently that explicitly point out that a skill that changes ability score is considered that ability score. So if you had a Dex (Appraise) check, any bonus to Dex based skills would apply to that check.

Also, if I were to choose, I'd roll Listen, Spot, and Search into one skill. It'd be Int based, and represent active perception. I'd also have a Wis based passive perception check, either as a 10+Wis+Level, or possibly something else (like 1d20+Wis+Level).

[Pale Sun]

I prefer Stealth to Hide and Move Silently, but I prefer Listen and Spot separated as they are two separated senses.

[Keneth]

I'm considering, with my rules rewrite, everyone starting with Int skill points (not Int Mod, but raw Int)

Personally, I find skill points in any shape or form dependent on an ability score to be pretty stupid, so I've gone completely in the opposite direction. You can acquire a great number of skills without being particularly intelligent or wise, therefore I felt that skill points should be acquired almost exclusively through class choice (i.e. the amount of time and effort invested into actually developing skills). All of my classes and racial types receive a fixed number of skill points at each level.

That is not to say that intelligence doesn't affect the ability to develop skills, but I do feel that it's marginal compared to pure talent and hard work.


I prefer Listen and Spot separated as they are two separated senses.

Separate senses, yes, but not so much separate skills (if they could be considered skills at all).

[Psyren]

I'm happy combining Spot + Listen + Search, and the notion that Wis-based Search makes rogues MAD has been debunked (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/canny-observer-ex) already. If anything, the opposite is what would make a rogue MAD, because they presumably still want to be trying to spot and listen while scouting too. Noticing all those traps is kinda pointless if you don't also hear the guard coming while you're tinkering with them.

[Optimator]

It makes more sense from a game perspective to make them one skill. The problem, however, is it makes perfect sense that specific racial traits, magic items, spells, etc would affect one but not another. Think of Cloaks of Elvenkind; it helps one hide better but doesn't muffle sound. If one combines Hide and Move Silently into Stealth then the simulationist granularity has to go out the window and I do think there is a place for it.

[martixy]

It makes more sense from a game perspective to make them one skill. The problem, however, is it makes perfect sense that specific racial traits, magic items, spells, etc would affect one but not another. Think of Cloaks of Elvenkind; it helps one hide better but doesn't muffle sound. If one combines Hide and Move Silently into Stealth then the simulationist granularity has to go out the window and I do think there is a place for it.

Which is why I'm so keen on a hybrid system such as rrwoods's, even if its somewhat more complex. I just fail at expressing it so eloquently. I do want to preserve the "simulationist granularity" as you said. But also, from a gameplay point of view, mechanically 3.5's is kinda bad game design.

[Nifft]

Which is why I'm so keen on a hybrid system such as rrwoods's, even if its somewhat more complex. I just fail at expressing it so eloquently. I do want to preserve the "simulationist granularity" as you said. But also, from a gameplay point of view, mechanically 3.5's is kinda bad game design.

Something I tried early on, which worked great (with one major constraint), was Perception Modality.

- One skill: Perception.
- If no sensory modes apply, then you can't even roll.
- Each additional applicable sensory mode grants the perceiver a +4 bonus on this check.

The usual sensory modes were:
- Sight
- Hearing
- Smell (if perceiver has Scent)

Racial (and class) bonuses may apply to specific sensory modes. You get the bonus if that mode applies to the roll.

The major constraint is: the DM has to roll all the Perception checks, since the DCs are going to vary depending on how many modes are applicable.

I bet this system could be tweaked to work with passive PC Perception.

[Optimator]

In Star Wars Saga Edition intimidating is part of the Persuasion skill. Wookies get a bonus to Persuasion when intimidating only. So this kind of thing can work with broader skills if it's set up for it. It can be clunky or elegant depending on the way it's set up I suppose. Having caveats on every instance of using a skill ("is the enemy hearing or seeing you at the moment? Let me modify the Notice check") isn't necessarily better than having separate skills that apply in different situations. It certainly can be though. One solution is just to realize that there are a lot of skills to cover, potentially with redundancies and overlap (Open Lock/Disable Device, I'm looking at you! Notice they are split only because the stats used are imagined to be different) and adjust the number of skill points received so characters can have more diversity.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm happy combining Spot + Listen + Search, and the notion that Wis-based Search makes rogues MAD has been debunked (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/canny-observer-ex) already.
"Debunked" is specious, because you're assuming Pathfinder. There's no such remedy if you're talking about combining these skills in D&D.

[Water Bob]

I think it depends on how much detail you want in a game. If you just want one dice throw, then, obviously, go with a Perception check. But, if you want to have a chance that an enemy is heard but not seen, or seen but not heard, then the two rolls provide that granularity.

I prefer the two separate skills because I like characters being able to become keen-eyed but not keen-eared, or the reverse, depending on how the player spends his skill points.

Also, at any real distance, you're just throwing one check, Spot, because hearing range is a lot shorter than the distance that we can see. So, the Listen skill is only used for close encounters (leaving you just one skill check, Spot, for many types of longer range encounters).

[Curmudgeon]

Also, at any real distance, you're just throwing one check, Spot, because hearing range is a lot shorter than the distance that we can see. So, the Listen skill is only used for close encounters (leaving you just one skill check, Spot, for many types of longer range encounters).
It doesn't work that way in D&D. Both senses are quickly attenuated with distance, linearly rather than logarithmically as in real life.

[Ashtagon]

It doesn't work that way in D&D. Both senses are quickly attenuated with distance, linearly rather than logarithmically as in real life.

This is why no one can see the sun; it is simply too far away.

[martixy]

This is why no one can see the sun; it is simply too far away.

Yes they can.

Every non-blind character gets a 4.908×1010 circumstance bonus to spot it.

[Nifft]

Yes they can.

Every non-blind character gets a 4.908×1010 circumstance bonus to spot it.

Even with the circumstance bonus, the sun's actions remain undetected for at least eight minutes.

This is probably why the Illithids have thus far failed to eat the sun.

It's too stealthy.

[Water Bob]

It doesn't work that way in D&D. Both senses are quickly attenuated with distance, linearly rather than logarithmically as in real life.

In real life, you can see people from a cliff ledge, down in the valley, but you can't hear them speak or splash through the stream.

It works this way in D&D because a DM would not make the character on the ledge make a Listen check for something he has no chance to hear. But, a Spot check would be useful in spotting the fishermen down below.

Therefore, you just need one check in this situation--the Spot check.

[marphod]

That is not to say that intelligence doesn't affect the ability to develop skills, but I do feel that it's marginal compared to pure talent and hard work.

Given that my idea would tend towards characters with 8 skills per-level, with (at 20th level) less than a 10% adjustment based on intelligence, I'm not sure why you're objecting.


(I'm also debating splitting skills entirely from Levels, but that's a bigger change)

[Scorponok]

For my next game, when the situation calls for it, I was thinking of just averaging out the Spot and Listen bonuses. Example: Garwar the half orc has a +4 to spot and a +8 to listen. It then becomes +6 to see or hear the kobald moving through the bushes. If the Kobald happens to be invisible, then just the listen check would be applied. (In case he snaps a branch or steps on some loose gravel.)

[Nifft]

For my next game, when the situation calls for it, I was thinking of just averaging out the Spot and Listen bonuses. Example: Garwar the half orc has a +4 to spot and a +8 to listen. It then becomes +6 to see or hear the kobald moving through the bushes. If the Kobald happens to be invisible, then just the listen check would be applied. (In case he snaps a branch or steps on some loose gravel.)

Here is the logical consequence of your idea:

"My character walks around with her eyes closed, so I have a better chance of finding any ambush."

[Psyren]

"Debunked" is specious, because you're assuming Pathfinder. There's no such remedy if you're talking about combining these skills in D&D.

Weren't you the one assuming Pathfinder when you said:


Combining Listen and Spot is fine; they're both WIS-based skills. However, Perception also rolls up Search, which is an INT-based skill. Pathfinder worked really hard at messing up someone focused on finding and disabling traps by transforming D&D Search (INT-based) and Disable Device (also INT-based) into PF Perception (WIS-based) and Disable Device (DEX-based). :smallmad:

So yes, it's fine to combine these skills. Don't screw anything else up while doing so, please.

Since you brought it up, I was pointing out that PF addressed this (assuming it even needed addressing, considering that Wis-deficient scouts really shouldn't be a thing) as early as 2nd-level.

Also, Disable running off Dex rather than Int was actually a buff to Rogues; Dex is their primary stat, not Int. The end result of these changes to skills is that you can have a 10 Int Rogue that maxes all his key skills and keeps up with every trap and sense in the game. Considering that Int is "book smarts" (Knowledge, memory) while Wis is "street smarts" (Sense Motive, Perception, common sense, intuition etc.) this actually makes more sense.

[Water Bob]

FIVE AND DIME THE EYES AND EARS


This is a tweak I use in my 3.5 based Conan game.

When you read the Spot and Listen skills, you'll see a pesky penalty modifier of -1 per 10 foot distance to the target. I find that modifier unwieldy in a game. I dislike having to stop and count squares.

I've found that it is much easier to use a -5 modifier at 50 feet and a -10 modifier at 100 feet. These modifiers are not as granular, but they play better.

You might want to try them out. I call this my "Five and Dime" tweak.

For me, it's easier to gauge that a guard might about around 40 foot away than it is to count out the exact squares at the moment I'm going to throw his listen check. 40 foot means I don't use a modifier. 50 foot or better, I use the -5 modifier, and I keep using that until 100 foot, where the -10 modifier pops up.