Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Generic_NPC 07-23-07, 03:49 AM	An idea for some encounter just popped into my head, but it involves a flammable, invisible gas. I then realized that I don't recall ever reading anything about making a smell check. This would probably just end up as an ability check, with some bonus if someone has the scent ability, but I considered making smell a skill. I suppose that up to this point any use of a scent in game that I have employed was just me arbitrarily forcing sensory input down their noses, and I would like to consider moving away from this. Anyone have any better ideas for detection of odor or such a gas in a partially underground branching complex or thoughts on the purpose of smell in a campaign?
TheCanadian 07-23-07, 03:58 AM	I think that creating a whole new "Smell" skill for what you want to do is entirely unecessary and would probably never come up enough in-game to justify it's existance. I think, in this case, the best thing to do would make it a Spot Check. Most people associate the Spot check with seeing something, but it'd be perfectly reasonable to lump smelling something in with the skill. What is "Spot" other than the ability to realize something is present?
Ace_of_Night 07-23-07, 04:07 AM	I think, in this case, the best thing to do would make it a Spot Check. Most people associate the Spot check with seeing something, but it'd be perfectly reasonable to lump smelling something in with the skill. What is "Spot" other than the ability to realize something is present? With that logic, Listen would also fall under the spot skill. Anyhow, if someone has the scent ability, they discover it, no rolls needed. Otherwise use a Wisdom check (DC, of course, depending on how smelly that smell of yours is)
hovnarr 07-23-07, 09:14 AM	In fact, it's a bit strange that Listen is a skill. Spot I can understand, because it has more to do with looking for specific signs of trouble or anomalies than simply using your eyes. Having an acute sense of hearing might make you a talented musician, or enable you to pick out one conversation among many. But the D&D system has one person of normal hearing able to hear a conversation on the other side of the door, while another person can't, which is a bit strange. Just as strange as a "smell" skill would be.
Steely_Dan 07-23-07, 09:30 AM	I would go the Saga route and just have the one sensory skill – Perception; otherwise you might as well add taste, touch, and smell to the list…
RobbyPants 07-23-07, 09:42 AM	I would probably just use unmodified Wis checks combined with the use of the scent ability if anyone (or their familiars/companions) have it. The three issues I have with a scent skill: Would it come up often enough to use it? It will eat up precious skill points, and most PCs probably won't want it. How will it interact with the scent feat? Will it make the feat obsolete (what happens when you get a high scent modifier)? Can PCs make untrained checks (DC 10 or lower)?
Kradlo 07-23-07, 09:52 AM	I use Wis modifier, with a +2 bonus if the character is a Gnome ("sensitive noses"). I'd give something more like a +5 or higher bonus if the character had the Scent ability. I like synergy bonuses as well, so if the smell is associated with a skill the character has (5+ ranks), I'll grant another +2 bonus. Examples: Food smells Profession (Cook) Chemical smells Craft (Alchemy) Natural aromas Knowledge (Nature), Survival Creature smells Knowledge (whichever appropriate to creature type), Favored Enemy (Creature)
Sarella Starshine 07-23-07, 10:04 AM	In fact, it's a bit strange that Listen is a skill. Spot I can understand, because it has more to do with looking for specific signs of trouble or anomalies than simply using your eyes. Having an acute sense of hearing might make you a talented musician, or enable you to pick out one conversation among many. But the D&D system has one person of normal hearing able to hear a conversation on the other side of the door, while another person can't, which is a bit strange. Just as strange as a "smell" skill would be. Well, a success on a Listen check could be where someone paying attention to what they are hearing. Everyone would 'hear' the noise, but those that fail would either tune the noise out, or not be able to recognize the noise as anything but noise. Those that pass would be able to recognize what the noise is or were paying attention to what they were hearing. I also interpet the Spot checks along the same lines (those that succeed were paying attention to what they were seeing, those that fail were either not paying attention or did not recognize what they saw). Which also explains why they are tied to Wisdom :). Which, if one would add a Smell skill, would opperate in the same mannor. Everyone would be able to 'smell' the smell, but those who succeeded would be paying attention to what they were smelling or recognized the smell, while those who failed were not paying attention or did not recognize it. I would make the Scent ability grant a bonus to a Smell check (around +4 to make it on par with those abilities that grant a flat bonus). I would also make it have an auto-success if the thing doing the smelling would dedicate a full round or standard action to smell the air. I would not add Touch or Taste as skills (:rolleyes: ) as those are not 'passive' in the same way sight, hearing, or smelling are. You would have to actively reach out and feel something or actively eat or drink something, which would make them an auto-success ('the statue is smooth, though there are few places that are nicked and scuffed' 'the potion has a foul taste that reminds you of something cross between week-old gym socks and the dumpster behind your apartment').
elondir 07-23-07, 10:08 AM	Popular houserules: Spot + Listen are combined into Detect. Move Silently + Hide are combined into Stealth.
shadzar 07-23-07, 10:16 AM	how about just letting them spot some dead canaries. they were used for checking air quality in mines to let the miners know if there was a gas leak because the canary would be dead. maybe something similar happened in your encounters area. then if a player sees these dead birds he can question why they are there. might not give them the full answer, but should point them in the directin that something is up. of course if torches are already lit, then its too late. for a skill i would use constitution for smell checks. you could assign modifiers to certain races or just go with a direct CON check.
Malchius 07-23-07, 10:19 AM	I'd run smell as search using Wis instead Int as it's reactive, and touch and taste would be Search if actively using to detect something, so to the speak.
shadzar 07-23-07, 11:07 AM	I'd run smell as search using Wis instead Int as it's reactive, and touch and taste would be Search if actively using to detect something, so to the speak. unless of course the thing being checked with touch or taste was acid, or poison, then you have a whole other series of checks to worry about.
hovnarr 07-23-07, 11:15 AM	Well, a success on a Listen check could be where someone paying attention to what they are hearing. Everyone would 'hear' the noise, but those that fail would either tune the noise out, or not be able to recognize the noise as anything but noise. Those that pass would be able to recognize what the noise is or were paying attention to what they were hearing. I also interpet the Spot checks along the same lines (those that succeed were paying attention to what they were seeing, those that fail were either not paying attention or did not recognize what they saw). My problem was not with the check as such, but the fact that you can train to become a better listener - or, even more extreme, smeller. Sure, there's a random element to it if you're not paying attention. But can you learn to become a better listener? Even as I ask the question, it sounds ridiculous because "better listener" has a social meaning to us, rather than implying an actually stronger sensory ability. Imagine telling a person with impaired hearing that all they need is to train their listening skill some more, and they will be able to compensate for that just fine. It just doesn't work that way. Spotting stuff, on the other hand, is not only a matter of eyesight, but experience in distinguishing the forms and movements that count. EDIT: to clarify, by all means use wisdom checks, but isn't devoting ranks to Listen or a Smell skill a bit bizarre?
Anathema 07-23-07, 11:22 AM	Forget smell checks. A flammable gas of this nature would have an odor that anyone can smell. The issue comes in identifying the smell as a flammable gas. This would require a Knowledge check. Arcana, Architecture & Engineering, Dungeoneering, and Nature could all make sense to identify it; based on the origins and nature of the gas in question.
Androcus Divinicus 07-23-07, 11:31 AM	<Off Topic Rant> Well, a success on a Listen check could be where someone paying attention to what they are hearing. Everyone would 'hear' the noise, but those that fail would either tune the noise out, or not be able to recognize the noise as anything but noise. Those that pass would be able to recognize what the noise is or were paying attention to what they were hearing. I also interpet the Spot checks along the same lines (those that succeed were paying attention to what they were seeing, those that fail were either not paying attention or did not recognize what they saw). Which also explains why they are tied to Wisdom :). QFT This is exactly the point. Essentially the Listen skill functions as the game mechanic by which we determine when hearing something becomes useful to you ... the recognition point. Spot is exactly the same. Using an example of someone with a hearing deficiency to refute this logic is just the same as using the example of someone with a withered arm to make the Climb skill out to be useless. If a character does indeed have poor hearing, then a penalty to Listen is certainly reasonable ... and this might be a good Flaw if you use those rules in your campaign. But, for the average denizen of the average D&D world, Sarella's interpretation of these skills is exactly right. Regards, Justin.
duboisjf 07-23-07, 11:42 AM	The issue comes in identifying the smell as a flammable gas. This would require a Knowledge check. Arcana, Architecture & Engineering, Dungeoneering, and Nature could all make sense to identify it; based on the origins and nature of the gas in question. I agree that identifying is the real issue here. I agree also that a knowledge check be used to identify smells. At the same time, DM should be flexible and allow identification without check (or give a high bonus) for familiar smell to PC. About the range : I think range should be available only for creature with scent ability or feat. Also cannot pinpoint or identify the directions from where the smells is coming without scent ability or feat.
Sarella Starshine 07-23-07, 11:48 AM	My problem was not with the check as such, but the fact that you can train to become a better listener - or, even more extreme, smeller. Sure, there's a random element to it if you're not paying attention. But can you learn to become a better listener? Even as I ask the question, it sounds ridiculous because "better listener" has a social meaning to us, rather than implying an actually stronger sensory ability. Imagine telling a person with impaired hearing that all they need is to train their listening skill some more, and they will be able to compensate for that just fine. It just doesn't work that way. Spotting stuff, on the other hand, is not only a matter of eyesight, but experience in distinguishing the forms and movements that count. EDIT: to clarify, by all means use wisdom checks, but isn't devoting ranks to Listen or a Smell skill a bit bizarre? Its no different that all the people that come to either these boards or the player boards asking to play blind characters yet wanting to have abilities that negate blindness (though, the blindness thing is worse as there are several abilities/feats that negate it). But, you know, in real life, one acctually *can* overcome some forms of impared hearing by training (putting points into the Listen skill). If someone wanted to play a completely deaf person instead of hearing impared, I would make it so they cannot use the Listen skill, and that skill would be completely unavailable to them. A hearing impared person would have a permanent penalty, that with training (puting points into the Listen skill) that one can overcome. The social meaning of 'better listener' is someone who *gasp* actively listens to you and what you say. Since, I stated earlier that one of the ways one can discribe a passed Listen check is that the person who passed was paying attention to the noises around them, and was able to distinguish different sounds from them, that would make them a 'better listener' because they were *gasp* actively listening. Maybe those who failed were tuning out the background noise, which would make that person a 'poor listener' because they were not paying attention (much like how someone who is a 'poor listener' in a real life social situation tunes out the talker).
ShadowChemosh 07-23-07, 12:28 PM	.......... Imagine telling a person with impaired hearing that all they need is to train their listening skill some more, and they will be able to compensate for that just fine. It just doesn't work that way. Spotting stuff, on the other hand, is not only a matter of eyesight, but experience in distinguishing the forms and movements that count. ....... Too bad it does work this way in real life. That person who can't hear is guaranteed to be able to spot things better and can read lips also. This is because they trained or had to use seeing more often and in ways that a hearing person does not need to. Just like a blind person can hear sounds that a normal person has no chance to hear. Did they grow super hearing ears? No they just trained themselves to use it more often and in better ways. So a person can train in better listing and better spotting, and they are separate things. So no reason for one skill to do both as in real life seeing is different than listing. For the answer to the original poster use Spot against things that are actively trying to hide from you and you have a reasonable chance to physically see. In example a spider hiding in ambush in the corner, but not under Total Cover. Use Search against inanimate objects that are not in plain sight(Plain Sight is anything requiring DC0 search). Seeing a small pool of blood in a room or finding a important piece of paper in a desk full of paperwork requires a search check. Use Listen against anything that can not been seen using normal vision, darkvision, or low-light vision. The spider hiding in a 2 foot deep hole that is out of sight of the character(ie total cover). A character stuck in a deeper darkness spell and attempting to find a monster. In the case above I would use Listen to detect the Smell of Gas that can not been seen. As this skill represents noticing things that CAN NOT be seen. If the Gas can be visually seen then I would ask for a Search Check as its a inanimate object that is not actively hiding. Later
shadzar 07-23-07, 03:21 PM	Imagine telling a person with impaired hearing that all they need is to train their listening skill some more, and they will be able to compensate for that just fine.Too bad it does work this way in real life. That person who can't hear is guaranteed to be able to spot things better and can read lips also.did you even read what you quoted? a hearing impared person being told to train to hear better was what you quoted. yet you go on about a hearing impared person being able to see better. WHAT?!?!?! and just because you can't hear don't mean you automagically gain the ability to see better or read lips. what drugs are you on? is your real life based on comic books you have read maybe?
ShadowChemosh 07-23-07, 03:39 PM	did you even read what you quoted? a hearing impared person being told to train to hear better was what you quoted. yet you go on about a hearing impared person being able to see better. WHAT?!?!?! and just because you can't hear don't mean you automagically gain the ability to see better or read lips. what drugs are you on? is your real life based on comic books you have read maybe? When a person in real life loses an ability like seeing or hearing their other senses get better as they must rely on those abilities more often. This was said to show prof that one can get better in a single area like hearing or seeing. I was in no way attempting to show that a person who plucks their eyes out can suddenly see better, but they will learn to hear better and even touch will become more acute. This simple fact shows that if you practice with one type of sense(ie Spot, Listen, or Smell). That you will be more skilled in its use over a person who never does. This whole fact shows that your statement about it not being possible to train in a area of SPOT is completely wrong. P.S. - Yep it does look like I quoted the wrong post above. Hope this clears it up some.
hovnarr 07-23-07, 03:55 PM	I'm going to try to simplify my argument in the extreme in the hope that it might get across. And if it doesn't, who cares, I have nothing more to add. Putting ranks in a skill signifies training rather than talent. I believe that you can train your attentiveness, and that sensorically impaired people MUST do so simply to stay alive. I don't believe that you can increase your physical sensory ability through training. There is no university program where you learn how to see better or hear better. However, I'm quite convinced that certain professions receive training in attentiveness - be it for use in violent situations (policemen) or social situations (psychologists) etc. For a fantasy game that uses the d20 skill system, I think it would be more appropriate for a single attentiveness skill. The only practical reason for having both Listen and Spot is that we need a non-spot opposed check to move silently. But you could just set a reasonable DC to a move silently check instead if you wanted to. That is all.
shadzar 07-23-07, 03:57 PM	When a person in real life loses an ability like seeing or hearing their other senses get better as they must rely on those abilities more often. This was said to show prof that one can get better in a single area like hearing or seeing. I was in no way attempting to show that a person who plucks their eyes out can suddenly see better, but they will learn to hear better and even touch will become more acute. This simple fact shows that if you practice with one type of sense(ie Spot, Listen, or Smell). That you will be more skilled in its use over a person who never does. This whole fact shows that your statement about it not being possible to train in a area of SPOT is completely wrong. P.S. - Yep it does look like I quoted the wrong post above. Hope this clears it up some. :confused: i am way curious what post you meant to quote then. either way your statement about other sense getting better when you lose on is inaccurate. it would be more accurate to say without the lost sens you spend more time on the others and notice things you didn't before and more accutely. yeah in D&D just add ranks to the chosen skill if its poor, but it doesn't really help where no smell skill exists. i am als, after giving it some thought, thinking that smelling is not as important as knowing what it is you are smelling. the probelm there is flammable gases are odorless. the smell we smell nowadays is due to things added so we can tell when there is a gas leak, thus the use of the canaries in mines. unless your world flammable gases have distinct smells then i don't really know what to tell you. :(
Aliquid 07-23-07, 04:03 PM	My problem was not with the check as such, but the fact that you can train to become a better listener - or, even more extreme, smeller. Sure, there's a random element to it if you're not paying attention. But can you learn to become a better listener? Even as I ask the question, it sounds ridiculous because "better listener" has a social meaning to us, rather than implying an actually stronger sensory ability.Actually, you can train to be a better listener. A common example is with music training. Let's say I play a "G" note on a piano, and ask you to take an out-of-tune guitar, and tune it to match the piano. Training will allow someone to do that with a much higher level of precision. The training will allow them to distinguish very subtle differences in sound that an untrained person wouldn’t notice (even if they tried). Another example that is more relevant to D&D is the ability to filter out sounds: Lets say you are in a noisy crowded restaurant, and you are having a conversation with a friend. There are hundreds of different sounds going on while you have this conversation (other conversations, clanking dishes, footsteps, traffic noise, etc). Luckily, your brain has the ability to “filter out” the other noises and focus on the one that matters (i.e. your friend’s voice). The louder things get, the harder it is to filter out your friend’s voice. With practice, you can actually improve this “filtering” ability, and that would be very handy for someone using the "listen" skill to spy on someone in D&D [edit] added comments below: There is no university program where you learn how to see better or hear better. However, I'm quite convinced that certain professions receive training in attentiveness - be it for use in violent situations (policemen) or social situations (psychologists) etc. It is more than just attentiveness, it is also the knowledge of what to look for. A well trained scout that is using spot to look for the enemy might notice a branch move in the forest. Based on how the branch moved, he would know if it was the result of the wind, an animal, or a hiding goblin. An untrained commoner might be "attentive" enough to notice the movement, but he wouldn't be trained enough to know how to interpret what he saw.
twiggyleaf 07-23-07, 09:30 PM	I have thought about this before. What I usually do is take a midpoint between spot and listen then roll d20.
Mock26 07-23-07, 09:35 PM	Forget smell checks. A flammable gas of this nature would have an odor that anyone can smell. The issue comes in identifying the smell as a flammable gas. This would require a Knowledge check. Arcana, Architecture & Engineering, Dungeoneering, and Nature could all make sense to identify it; based on the origins and nature of the gas in question. Are you sure? If I remember correctly, natural gas has no odor.
VulcanStormwrath 07-23-07, 09:51 PM	This is a large part of the reason why my house rule has combined, spot, listen and similar situations into a Perception skill. Spot is used to notice a pickpocket but it's actually touch. By having a perception skill, you simply add modifiers for racial bonuses or the scent ability. To balance this Move Silently and Hide are combined into the Stealth skill.
forsaken1111 07-23-07, 09:56 PM	Are you sure? If I remember correctly, natural gas has no odor. Correct, natural gas has absolutely no smell. The sulfur smell is added in to allow us to detect leaks.
Aliquid 07-23-07, 10:09 PM	Are you sure? If I remember correctly, natural gas has no odor.He didn't say it was "natural gas", he said it was a flammable gas, and there are plenty of flammable gasses that do have an odor.
forsaken1111 07-23-07, 10:11 PM	He didn't say it was "natural gas", he said it was a flammable gas, and there are plenty of flammable gasses that do have an odor. I believe he was refuting the text he quoted which states that "A flammable gas of this nature would have an odor that anyone can smell." by pointing out that there is at least one flammable gas with no oder.
Anathema 07-23-07, 10:21 PM	Are you sure? If I remember correctly, natural gas has no odor. "Natural" natural gas has an odor; processed natural gas doesn't (like propane). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas edit: And btw; "Of this nature" would of course mean flammable gas that has an odor, which I thought was assumed when we were talking about 'smell checks'
Mock26 07-23-07, 10:38 PM	"Natural" natural gas has an odor; processed natural gas doesn't (like propane). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas edit: And btw; "Of this nature" would of course mean flammable gas that has an odor, which I thought was assumed when we were talking about 'smell checks' Unprocessed natural gas has no odor. Here are two quotes from the above linked whacky-pedia site: In any form, a minute amount of odorant such as t-butyl mercaptan, with a rotting-cabbage-like smell, is added to the otherwise colorless and odorless gas, so that leaks can be detected before a fire or explosion occurs. In mines, where methane seeping from rock formations has no odor, sensors are used, and mining apparatuses have been specifically developed to avoid ignition sources, e.g., the Davy lamp.
_Radagast_ 07-23-07, 10:42 PM	An idea for some encounter just popped into my head, but it involves a flammable, invisible gas. I then realized that I don't recall ever reading anything about making a smell check. This would probably just end up as an ability check, with some bonus if someone has the scent ability, but I considered making smell a skill. I suppose that up to this point any use of a scent in game that I have employed was just me arbitrarily forcing sensory input down their noses, and I would like to consider moving away from this. Anyone have any better ideas for detection of odor or such a gas in a partially underground branching complex or thoughts on the purpose of smell in a campaign? How about everyone SMELLS it, but no one knows what that smell is unless some sort of Knowledge related skill is rolled (or perhaps a Craft Alchemy check)? "You enter this room, which reeks of some odd odor." "Well, what does it smell like?" "Do you have any Knowledge or Alchemy related skills?" "No." "Then you don't recognize the smell..."
forsaken1111 07-23-07, 10:53 PM	If they have no ranks in kn. alchemy just make it smell like rotten eggs or decaying flesh or something similar. Or be mysterious and say it smells very familiar... give an int check. If they pass they remember smelling it in that alchemist's shop last summer. As you recall, that shop blew up later that day due to the alchemist's carelessness. This will give them an out incase noone has alchemy but someone has a high int.
Mock26 07-23-07, 11:00 PM	If anything, I'd put any sort of smell check as a constitution check. I figure that of all the attributes of a person (Str., Int., Wis., Dex., Con., and Cha.) it would be most closely associated with one's health than anything else. How strong you are probably won't help you to smell better (though it could if you want to rule that with your superior strength you can inhale more air). Intelligence and Wisdom won't help you to smell anything (though they could help you to identify it). Dexterity is also of little use (except for fleeing from what you smell). Charisma won't help you (unless you are what smells and that smell is a nice aftershave or some sultry perfume and you're trying to seduce someone). That leaves Constitution. I seriously doubt that it is a perfect fit, but I know that when I'm sick I have trouble smelling, even if it is a sickness that doesn't clog my sinuses. In D&D frailness of health is often associated with a weak constitution. Even if a person isn't sick, I would pigeonhole their sense of smell in with their constitution, simply because, as I said, it seems that of the 6 attributes Constitution is the best fit out of something that doesn't really fit all that well into the 6 attributes. But, that is just my opinion.
Anathema 07-23-07, 11:13 PM	Unprocessed natural gas has no odor. Here are two quotes from the above linked whacky-pedia site: I think I misread the wrong part of the entry. I coulda swore it said that only processed natural gas was odorless. Cest la vie.
StSteven 07-23-07, 11:22 PM	Well, I have had similar questions about the listen skill. I understand the training to notice stuff (being more attentive). I can see that being tied to wisdom. In that case it is like a spot check. That makes perfect sense. The problem I have is with listening at doors. When you put your ear to a door and actively listen, it isn't like a spot check. It has nothing to do with paying attention. I mean, everybody trying to listen at a door is paying attention. Either you hear good enough to hear them or you don't. To the OP, I would use the knowledge thing. Something else could make more sense (like the average of the listen/spot checks), but it doesn't matter that much. Kinda like the listening at doors not making sense isn't important, just curious.
forsaken1111 07-23-07, 11:25 PM	In the case of listening at a door, the roll could be to determine if you understand and recognize the sounds or if you her indecipherable muffled noise.
Mock26 07-23-07, 11:28 PM	I think I misread the wrong part of the entry. I coulda swore it said that only processed natural gas was odorless. Cest la vie. No worries. Just don't let it happen again! If it does happen again, all your dice are belong to us! :D
Dowjin 07-23-07, 11:32 PM	I would make detecting a foreign smell a survival check, as its an environmental circumstance, and also because the sense of smelling is linked to the survival skill in the case of tracking; for what is tracking by smell other than analyzing the scent trail, and what it belongs to? The DM decides what situations require what sorts of checks. For example, in the case of a crumbling bridge, would you call for a reflex save to fling one's self out to grab the opposite ledge, or a balance followed by a jump followed by a climb? Perhaps no balance is needed? The DM governs how the world interacts with the players. Choose the skill checks that seem appropriate to YOU, as you built the scene, there is no wrong answer.
Fireclave 07-23-07, 11:39 PM	For passively noticing a scent, I'd probably chalk that up as a straight wisdom check. But actively searching for a scent, IMO, falls under the search skill. I would say that in the absence of the Scent ability, mundane, human ability to smell would fall under the search skill. Spot is sight oriented, but Search includes anything and everything you do to find what it is you are looking for in that 5ft x 5ft squire (feeling, tapping, kicking, poking, scraping, prodding, brushing, dusting, and in this case, smelling). If the source of the smell is particularly strong, perhaps having additional DC to notice the presence and strength of the scent at a distance. Example of a normal scent - The slightly strong odor of an particular alchemic agent admist other alchemic substances in a wizard's lab. You can smell the presence of the agent when you enter the lab, so you're sure there's something to be found in the room, but can't determine the exact location of the source. Otherwise, the normal search DC applies. Example of a strong scent 60ft - DC 20 - I smell something 20ft - DC 10 - It's over here somewhere 05ft - DC 05 - It's so close, I can taste it 00ft - DC 00 - Cookies! :twocents:
StSteven 07-24-07, 04:14 PM	I actually have something crunchy for you. Underdark has explosive gases listed in it. It lists a DC 20 survival check (I think I would use knowledge(dungeoneering) though) to notice that an open flame is behaving oddly in an area with explosive gas the first round. If not noticed or acted upon, there is a 50% chance each additional round that it explodes (dealing 3d6 in 10 ft radius with a DC 15 reflex to half). Great book. Well worth it even if you are not in FR.
Mirage_1 07-24-07, 05:28 PM	:confused: i am way curious what post you meant to quote then. either way your statement about other sense getting better when you lose on is inaccurate. ( Or....it actually is accurate. For example, in analyzing brain activity scientists have found that blind people "reading" braille use part of the brain that was formerly used by the brain for sight, and it is therefore nearly impossible for a sighted person to read braille as well as a blind person can...