Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Steely_Dan 04-02-07, 07:00 AM	I know a lot of people detest Skill folding, but apparently that is just what they're doing with d20 Star Wars Saga: Oh, and I just thought that if people are so against Listen + Spot = Perception, why not have Smell as well? ...I'm aware we already have Scent, but I've known people (ex-military) who were pretty good with the old olfactory action.
NoldorForce 04-02-07, 12:54 PM	Does d20 Star Wars have any other instances of skill folding? I've seen this sort of thing in Arcana Evolved (where Hide + Move Silently becomes Sneak and Profession just disappears).
Rhuxley 04-02-07, 01:53 PM	Look to L5R, and you see where they got the idea. Sneak = hide & move silently. Investigation = spot, search & listen.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 03:17 PM	I dislike the skill folding of listen/spot and move silently/hide because it reduces flexibility in creature design. Example: The treant. It is a huge lumbering tree creature that is not very good at moving silently. But it looks like a tree giving it a very logical +16 to hide in forests. Now if you had just one skill "stealth", it wouldn't make sense to give the treant a +16 stealth bonus. You could specify that a treant gets a +16 bonus to stealth when hiding, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of skill folding. I personally think that the desire to have skill folding (especially for useful skills) comes down to power creep. Everyone wants as many skills maxed out as possible. To do this they need either more skill points or fewer skills they need to invest in. However, I do think some skills are too specific or minor and melding them into other skills makes sense. Example, folding open locks into disable device, use rope into sleight of hand and calling it "hand coordination", and balance into tumble and calling it "agility".
Zyrusticae 04-02-07, 04:31 PM	In reality, it is still possible to do specific situational skill bonuses, like the aforementioned treant hide ability, an' so on and so forth. (Note the sample wookie stat block and its specific bonus to climb.)
Grod_The_Giant 04-02-07, 04:51 PM	I dislike the skill folding of listen/spot and move silently/hide because it reduces flexibility in creature design. Example: The treant. It is a huge lumbering tree creature that is not very good at moving silently. But it looks like a tree giving it a very logical +16 to hide in forests. Now if you had just one skill "stealth", it wouldn't make sense to give the treant a +16 stealth bonus. You could specify that a treant gets a +16 bonus to stealth when hiding, but then that kind of defeats the purpose of skill folding. I personally think that the desire to have skill folding (especially for useful skills) comes down to power creep. Everyone wants as many skills maxed out as possible. To do this they need either more skill points or fewer skills they need to invest in. However, I do think some skills are too specific or minor and melding them into other skills makes sense. Example, folding open locks into disable device, use rope into sleight of hand and calling it "hand coordination", and balance into tumble and calling it "agility". actually, I think a big reason is ease of play. rolling two separate checks for hide and move silently, and two opposing checks for spot and listen, really slows things down.
ravenshrike 04-02-07, 04:58 PM	Search should be it's own skill. Someone who couldn't spot an incoming missle could be perfectly good at searching for contraband.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 05:02 PM	actually, I think a big reason is ease of play. rolling two separate checks for hide and move silently, and two opposing checks for spot and listen, really slows things down. If having to roll four d20s instead of two d20s slows you down, perhaps you need to practice more. Laziness is never a reason, it is only an excuse.
MerlintheTuna 04-02-07, 05:12 PM	actually, I think a big reason is ease of play. rolling two separate checks for hide and move silently, and two opposing checks for spot and listen, really slows things down.Not by much. My biggest issue with Hide & Move Silently is that the sneaker generally has significantly better sneaking skills than the guard has detection skills, and having two checks involved decreases that advantage. After all, the sneaker needs to win both, and the guard can win either. Also, figure that the sneaker can generally take 10, meaning the guard is stuck hoping for something around an 18-20 to show up. Mathematically, if you figure the "detector" has a 30% chance of making a Spot or Listen check, having two skills gives him a 51% chance of noticing the "sneaker", and having only one gives him a 30% chance -- a pretty substantial reduction. Basically, circumstances almost always favor the one Hiding/Moving Silently, so I kind of like giving the other guy something. And again, the Treant, or characters that can cast Invisibility (or Silence) might have one and not the other. On the other hand, keeping Spot and Search separate strikes me as unfathomably stupid. Consider this. You, Joe Gamer, are a Ranger. You have a mess of ranks in Spot, but never put any in Search -- a synergy to Tracking just never seemed worth it. You just lost your keys. You will find your keys more quickly if you stand in the middle of the room just kind of glancing about than if you rifle through the things cluttering the room, actually looking for them.. That, and those weird cases -- actively looking for invisible targets is a function of Spot, not Search, and so on. Having two skills that govern eyesight is pointless. If Search were "Search through database" or similar, fine, but as it stands, you might as well have a skill for your left eye and a skill for your right.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 05:23 PM	You just lost your keys. You will find your keys more quickly if you stand in the middle of the room just kind of glancing about than if you rifle through the things cluttering the room, actually looking for them.. Your example has one major flaw. You are assuming the Search DC and Spot DC are the same. In many cases the Search DC is significantly lower than the Spot DC. In addition, spot has a distance penalty while search does not (it is assumed you are within 10 feet I think). The Spot DC in your example may be 20, while the Search DC is 5. Makes more sense now. That, and those weird cases -- actively looking for invisible targets is a function of Spot, not Search, and so on. It makes sense, you are just not visualizing it correctly. If you are trying to notice an invisble target, you are not crawling about trying to find them. You are trying to notice subtle changes in surroundings and shadows. That is definitely Spot. You could try using the Search skill to find an invisible target, but it would be extermely difficult unless the target can't move.
MerlintheTuna 04-02-07, 05:32 PM	Your example has one major flaw. You are assuming the Search DC and Spot DC are the same.No, I'm not. I'm assuming that, having no inclination to search for traps, I've got a significantly higher modifier to Spot than to Search -- enough to cancel out whatever ad hoc penalties you've applied to justify your thoughts. And searching still requires searching in the right place; even if the check DC is lower on the Search check, I'll have to make it a huge number of times unless I happen to guess the right 5 foot cube on the first try. You are trying to notice subtle changes in surroundings and shadows. That is definitely Spot.Interesting. Also distinctly wrong.The Search skill lets a character discern some small detail or irregularity through active effort.You're using your own rationalizations of the flawed system to justify the flawed system. Having two skills for sight is objectively pointless. This is markedly similar to the "Vancian casting is more flavorful, because the system is dumb enough that we're more or less forced to come up with bizarre reasoning for why it is the way it is," argument.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 06:09 PM	No, I'm not. Yes, you are. I'm assuming that, having no inclination to search for traps, Err... when did we start talking about traps, your previous example was with keys. In general, traps do not have Spot DCs. Why you ask? Because most traps have total cover and/or concealment making Spot impossible (See the Hide skill). I've got a significantly higher modifier to Spot than to Search -- enough to cancel out whatever ad hoc penalties you've applied to justify your thoughts. I'm not applying ad hoc penalties. It is called setting a DC. Many scenarios only have one or the other (like traps) since the DC for the either would be so high as to be impossible (like traps), or so low as to be automatic success (like searching under the table for someone hiding under the table). And searching still requires searching in the right place; even if the check DC is lower on the Search check, I'll have to make it a huge number of times unless I happen to guess the right 5 foot cube on the first try. True you do have to search in the right place. However, you can take 10. So once again, using your key example. If you are in a 10x10 foot room with the keys on the floor somewhere, the Search DC is 10 (which is actually high since rummaging through a drawer with other junk is DC 10 as well), and the Spot DC is 26 (Take 10 +16 for size). You have a +0 Search and a +15 Spot. You can take 10 to search the whole room and automatically find the keys in 6-24 seconds (depending where you start, they are always the last place you look :) ), or you can keep rolling spot checks. Even with a +15 modifer you only have a 50% chance to see them each round. If the room is full of trash so the keys have total cover, the Search DC will go up a little, while the Spot DC will be impossible. Interesting. Also distinctly wrong. No, once again you just don't understand. Perhaps you should quote everything, like the sentence just before the one you quoted. The Spot skill lets you notice something, such as a hiding rogue. The spot skill is "Hmm, how odd that lamp doesn't cast a shadow." The search skill is going to investigate and noticing the lamp is an illusion. The Spot DC might be very high to notice such a small detail in passing, while the search DC is not even given since if you actually decide to search the lamp you would automatically discover such a thing. You're using your own rationalizations of the flawed system to justify the flawed system. Having two skills for sight is objectively pointless. Oh, the system has flaws, just not in this case. Hopefully my posts have helped you understand the difference between Spot and Search better. EDIT: As an aside, the difference between Spot and Search is like the difference between INT and WIS. If you want to lump Spot and Search together then you should also lump INT and WIS into a single Mental stat.
MerlintheTuna 04-02-07, 07:03 PM	Err... when did we start talking about traps, your previous example was with keys.A desire to find traps is pretty much the only sensible reason to put ranks into Search. Hence the mention of traps when stating why I don't care about Search. Sorry, I should've been clearer here.I'm not applying ad hoc penalties. It is called setting a DC.These are the same thing. "I think I'll make the Spot check 15 points higher than the Search check." Exactly the same.You have a +0 Search and a +15 Spot. You can take 10 to search the whole room and automatically find the keys in 6-24 seconds (depending where you start, they are always the last place you look :) ), or you can keep rolling spot checks. Even with a +15 modifer you only have a 50% chance to see them each round.This scenario still favors Spotting the keys, despite being designed to favor Searching. As the room gets bigger, Spotting becomes even more advantageous.No, once again you just don't understand. Perhaps you should quote everything, like the sentence just before the one you quoted.What if I'm actively searching for a hiding Rogue? "He just jumped into the woods over that way. I'll keep an eye out for moving branches." The hiding rogue example says Spot, the active looking says Search, the moving branches say Spot -- unless you guess the right 5 foot cube, in which case it's Search again. Here you're making the claim that "trying to notice subtle changes" is definitely Spot and that "discerning some small detail or irregularity" is definitely Search. Such an assertion is ludicrous.The search skill is going to investigate and noticing the lamp is an illusion.That's not a search check. If you really want to invent an automatic check for such an instance, it's an attack roll to hit the thing, which you take 10 on and successfully touch it. After that, it's a Will save to disbelieve the illusion. There's no Searching involved.If you want to lump Spot and Search together then you should also lump INT and WIS into a single Mental stat.I'm not sure whether this is more Straw Man or Slippery Slope. Either way, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Search being Int based is similarly ridiculous.Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.Which one makes more sense to base "I'm looking for something" off of? Reasoning ("I think, therefore my keys are under this box.") or perception ("Ooh, a metallic glint!"). It's like this. I've presented a number of reasons why keeping them separate seems wrong. There's the immediate response (my eyes only do one thing; why are there two skills?), the absurd cases (looking at the ceiling to find your keys on the table), and the shaky middle ground (He's hiding, and I'm actually seeking; which skill do I use?). The burden of proof now falls on you to actually defend the system. This requires more than an explanation of how the system is; it requires an explanation of why the system is.
teshen 04-02-07, 07:58 PM	Not by much. My biggest issue with Hide & Move Silently is that the sneaker generally has significantly better sneaking skills than the guard has detection skills, and having two checks involved decreases that advantage. After all, the sneaker needs to win both, and the guard can win either. Also, figure that the sneaker can generally take 10, meaning the guard is stuck hoping for something around an 18-20 to show up. That's one way of looking at it... and in game play I've never really had something work right... For instance, while playing a rogue with maxed hide and move silently skills, I'd routinely roll high on one and low on the other... in other words, an individual who has spent a large amount of his training at being unobtrusive, would bust out into mime in the middle of a crowd of enemies (great move silent roll, horrible hide roll)... maybe I should have taken Perform-Interpretive Dance for the 'You can't hear me' Dance. :dancin: :mymy: :doh:
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-02-07, 08:24 PM	Modern and Science Fiction games tend to have much more skill folding because they have a whole lot more skills. Piloting, Computer Use, specialized sciences, these all add up. The only was to enable anyone to know even the basics needed to function in society is either skill folding or increasing the allotment of skill points to a degree where the advantage of playing a skill based class gets reduced too much to be an attractive option.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 08:45 PM	A desire to find traps is pretty much the only sensible reason to put ranks into Search. Hence the mention of traps when stating why I don't care about Search. Sorry, I should've been clearer here. Apparently you've never had creative DMs if the only reason you've ever used Search is to find traps. Granted, most Search DCs for mundane scenarios will be very low as I mentioned and therefore no need to roll. These are the same thing. "I think I'll make the Spot check 15 points higher than the Search check." Exactly the same. No they are not the exact same thing. Setting DCs is usually based off a formula or guide (like the size adjustment for Spot). They are not "ad hoc". Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of ad hoc. It means customized or non-generalizable. The guidelines for setting DCs are anything but ad hoc. Circumstance modifiers are ad hoc. This scenario still favors Spotting the keys, despite being designed to favor Searching. Never said it didn't, but it should given the +15 spot modifier. Make the spot modifer +0 and the scenario heavily favors search. As the room gets bigger, Spotting becomes even more advantageous. No necessarily. Note how you COMPLETELY ignored my cover scenario. If the keys are covered you can't spot them AT ALL. What if I'm actively searching for a hiding Rogue? "He just jumped into the woods over that way. I'll keep an eye out for moving branches." The hiding rogue example says Spot, the active looking says Search, the moving branches say Spot -- unless you guess the right 5 foot cube, in which case it's Search again. That makes perfect sense to me, why doesn't it to you? If a rogue is hiding behind a tree, peaking out, you have a certain chance to spot him (say Spot DC 30). if you actually start searching for the Rogue, you WILL find him if you search that square (the Search DC is so low as to be automatic). Granted the Rogue can try to move to avoid your search, but then he needs to make another hide check and probably a move silent check as well. Here you're making the claim that "trying to notice subtle changes" is definitely Spot and that "discerning some small detail or irregularity" is definitely Search. Such an assertion is ludicrous. No it is not ludicrous. Apparently you just don't get it despite giving a perfect example above. :confused: That's not a search check. Yes, it is, you have just never used Search in a more general situation before. If you really want to invent an automatic check for such an instance, it's an attack roll to hit the thing, which you take 10 on and successfully touch it. Or you could just use Search. If a DM told me to make a touch attack to search an inanimate object I'd slap him with my PHB. After that, it's a Will save to disbelieve the illusion. There's no Searching involved. Yes, but note that inorder to get the Will save you have to INTERACT with it. Searching it can mean interacting with it. Spotting it is NOT interacting with it. Also, note, that if you attempting to touch or pick up lamp, you would know it is a figment (see the illusionary wall spell). I'm not sure whether this is more Straw Man or Slippery Slope. It is neither. Either way, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. That's because you don't understand the difference. Search being Int based is similarly ridiculous. Nope, makes perfect sense. Search involves a systematic analysis. Sounds INT to me. When perception and intuition have failed (My keys are not where I left them and I've scanned over the room and haven't seen a metallic glint), it's time to use reason (I will start on this end and work my way back to cover the whole room). Which one makes more sense to base "I'm looking for something" off of? Reasoning ("I think, therefore my keys are under this box.") or perception ("Ooh, a metallic glint!"). Er... how can you see a metallic glint if the keys are under a box? It's like this. I've presented a number of reasons why keeping them separate seems wrong. Which I completely disagree with and have shown why the separation of the skills makes perfectly logical sense. There's the immediate response (my eyes only do one thing;why are there two skills?) Err... the eyes DO NOT doonly one thing! I take it you have never had a neuroanatomy course? There are completely different parts of the brain that interpret different parts of sight, be it shape, motion, color, contrast, etc. Each of these parts of sight are emphasized differently across the animal kingdom. the absurd cases (looking at the ceiling to find your keys on the table), Well, you are searching, but you obviously have a low wisdom. You maybe a great searcher (INT), but you still may not know where to look (WIS). and the shaky middle ground (He's hiding, and I'm actually seeking; which skill do I use?). Err.. you using both of course. However, you are only searching in a specific square. If he is not in that square, you are using Spot to notice him. The burden of proof now falls on you to actually defend the system. Err... actually it doesn't. The burden is on you to disprove it. But, just for fun, I have defended the system and shown the faults in your logic. This requires more than an explanation of how the system is; it requires an explanation of why the system is. Which I have. If you can't understand the basic difference between spotting a gas station and realizing you need gas, and actively trying to find one because you need gas, well I can't help you there.
kalstrand 04-02-07, 08:46 PM	The reason Search and Spot need to be kept seperate is because they do different things. Spot is passive, if you can see it you can spot it. Search is active you must actually manipulate your surroundings. Using you lost keys example. If those keys are on a table under something no matter how much you try to spot them by looking around the room you will never find them because there is no way to see them. Now if you search for them you are moving the pile of stuff on the table that your keys are hidden under and now you can find them.
Roland the Crownbreaker 04-02-07, 09:36 PM	CalvinNhobbes's arguement MerlintheTuna's arguement To sum it up, it seems you each either have a different interpretation of what the rules are, or have DM's who have interpreted them differently. Now stop nitpicking each other to death.
enygmatic_me 04-02-07, 09:54 PM	I agree that Spot and Search should remain two separate skills, but Spot and Listen could rolled into a "Perception" skill with little problem. Situational modifiers would be easy to use to distinguish DC and what sense was being used. Example: Your character is pursuing someone down a sewer. You have lost sight of them but you can hear them running so you are managing to stay on their path. You then come to a junction in the sewer system. The DC to hear someone running might normally be a 15. With the echoing off the walls the character gains a +4 to this roll, but do to running water from a broken pipe the character takes a -6 for a net total of -2 to the roll. Similar things can be done for sight based "Perception" checks (though I think Awareness might be a better name for the skill). Folding Hide and Move Silently together could be handled the same way. Creatures that gain benefits to Hide would just get a bonus to "Stealth" when hiding. Large lumbering creatures who gain a bonus to hide could take a penalty to "Stealth" when trying to move silently. Example: The aforementioned Treat gains a +16 to "Stealth" when they remain still in forests and other wooded surroundings, but take a -16 to stealth when trying to move silently. The big advantage to folding some of these more related skills together, in my opinion, is the elimination of needing to spend skill points on so many different skills.
navar100 04-02-07, 09:56 PM	No, I'm not. I'm assuming that, having no inclination to search for traps, I've got a significantly higher modifier to Spot than to Search -- enough to cancel out whatever ad hoc penalties you've applied to justify your thoughts. And searching still requires searching in the right place; even if the check DC is lower on the Search check, I'll have to make it a huge number of times unless I happen to guess the right 5 foot cube on the first try. If your keys are under a book, which is under a towel, no Spot will ever find it, unless that's the name of your dog. You'll need to Search for it. You might say "If I have enough high of a Spot, I'll notice the towel will look odd; thus my key is under it." What if your keys are in a cup which is under another towel? You can probably easily recognize a cup is under the towel but not your keys in the cup. However, maybe your keys are in your dresser drawer. Are they under the bed? Roll Search to see if you get it on your first try. If not, or instead of, just Take 20.
navar100 04-02-07, 10:02 PM	A desire to find traps is pretty much the only sensible reason to put ranks into Search. I Search for secret doors. I Search for any hidden items of interest in the furnished room. I Search for information in the library. I Search the prisoner for a hidden poison so he can't kill himself.
calvinNhobbes 04-02-07, 10:36 PM	To sum it up, it seems you each either have a different interpretation of what the rules are, or have DM's who have interpreted them differently. Now stop nitpicking each other to death. I bow down to your great wisdom. :) enygmatic_me, Yes, combining Spot with Listen makes more sense than Search. However, you run into the same problem that I outlined with the treant above with Hide and Move Silently. Some creatures may have better vision or hearing. Once again you could just say, "Gnomes get a +2 to perception checks involving hearing". But then you haven't really combined the skills, you've just allowed players to min/max easier.
Neodymium 04-02-07, 10:44 PM	There are already many cases of situational modifiers. Just look at the dwarf. They get bonuses in regards to things made of metal or stone. Most skills have multiple uses. Why not have Perception and be able to use it in several ways? EDIT: and why was a brand new thread about this started? everybody is just going to have to retype the exact same arguments they gave in the last few threads.
MerlintheTuna 04-03-07, 01:58 AM	I Search for secret doors. I Search for any hidden items of interest in the furnished room. I Search for information in the library. I Search the prisoner for a hidden poison so he can't kill himself.The guy that searches for secret doors is generally the same guy that searches for traps. I try to make that person not me. The furnished room becomes unfurnished when I want to find things. I ask the librarian. I take the prisoner's clothes. If he's determined enough to hide poison in the only place left, he deserves it. <Shrug> Guess we're just going to disagree then, I guess.
ScipioX 04-03-07, 03:03 AM	I've gotta agree with Merlin on this one. Almost all the search examples given so far haven't really been using the search skill. You don't need a search check if you touch the lamp, nor to find your keys if they are under something. You have to spend the action to look under things, but there's not a whole lotta roll involved. Same thing with a hiding rogue. you either spot him, or automatically see him by 'searching' and removing his cover.
Zumarai 04-03-07, 03:48 AM	Well our group has folded some Skills for our current Planescape campaign, but only Skills that share the same ability score modifier, and it's working out fantastically: -Acrobatics (Balance + Tumble) -Athletics (Climb + Jump) -Deception (Bluff + Disguise) -Perception (Listen + Spot) -Persuasion (Diplomacy + Gather Information) -Stealth (Hide + Move Silently) -Use Device (Use Magic Device + Use Psionic Device)
Neodymium 04-03-07, 04:03 AM	zumarai, i think you mixed up athletics and acrobatics. I've gotta agree with Merlin on this one. Almost all the search examples given so far haven't really been using the search skill. You don't need a search check if you touch the lamp, nor to find your keys if they are under something. You have to spend the action to look under things, but there's not a whole lotta roll involved. Same thing with a hiding rogue. you either spot him, or automatically see him by 'searching' and removing his cover. That's exactly what your search check is doing. It's an INT-based skill. "Oh, hey, i'm going to move/open/inspect/look behind this to see if there's something to be found here." It's not really sight-dependent at all. It's discovering things that are not readily apparent. Yes, some things can be thought out by the player and perhaps negate the need for a search check. But using search covers things that you might not have noticed or even possibly been able to notice with a spot check ("under a loose board..."), or that the player did not personally think to check.
Zumarai 04-03-07, 06:15 AM	zumarai, i think you mixed up athletics and acrobatics. Totally – thanks – fixed.