Search, Spot, Listen

[urDrakas]

Niche protection. If everybody could do it, the ability to do so would be less cool. Only things that are inherently unimportant (like the skills necessary to make a living embodied in the Craft and Profession skills) to the adventuring lifestyle are allowed to everybody.

The ranger may not be able to kick as much butt as the fighter, but he's got a lot better ability to spot abmushes and notice details. It's all about the balance of coolness.

I agree that is probably the main reason why they aren't every person skills. I disagree with it on a personal level, and for the longest time allowed Spot as an every person skill. However, recently, I started ruling it as per the SRD (after talking about it with my group). It was just one less house rule to track, and I seem to have a few of those.

 

[frankthedm]

There can be an argument made that any competent warrior, who lives through combat, would get better at seeing attackers closing in on him. But that comes from the necessity in real life of not getting successfully attacked first. In D&D land attacking second almost guarantees launching a full attack action

The classes who do not get spot and list also often wear heavy armor. Since there are no rules governing a helmet penalizing spot, search and listen checks, [as a properly protective helmet would] or rules for reduced defense for not wearing a helm; It is a happy medium.

 

[Victim]

Niche protection: covered above.

Crowding out: Spot and/or Listen (it's easy enough just to get by with spot) are some of the more frequently used skills, IME. Right now, their cross class status is the main reason for most characters not to get them, so many more characters would have them if they were class skills. Since characters have finite skill points, they then lose ranks in the other skills their class is expected to have.

Stealth effects: If everyone has spot and listen, then Hide and Move Silently become much weaker since it's easier for most characters to beat the opposed check. In terms of effect, rogues and rangers are buying their stealth skills cross class.

 

[Pickaxe]

Our group has wondered the same thing. Our DM ruled that they're on everyone's skill lists. It doesn't take any special skill to root through a chest to find something, see someone on a rooftop with a crossbow 3 blocks away, or hear the guy behind you whispering to his friend.

No, it just takes the will to buy the ability cross-class. If a fighter is willing to do it, he will be much better at avoiding ambushes as he levels than the first level warrior with no ranks in Spot. The fighter just won't be able to hear the whispers through the doorand at the end of the hall or spot the high-level rogue hiding in the shadows; that's what the classes that focus on super-keen senses can do.

To say that all adventurers should get better Spot skills is like saying all adventurers should get +1 BAB every level, because they always are engaging in combat. Of course, they all do get higher BAB with higher level, just not at the same rate. The only difference with Spot (and any skill for that matter) is that one must choose to take ranks in a skill in order to improve it. Part of the problem is that most min/max builds try to maximize return on skill points, and thus usually ignore the possibility of taking ranks cross-class. So, you get fighters with no ranks in Spot and max in Climb, Jump, and Swim, not because they are more important to them, but because they don't like to spend points cross-class. Spot is one of the most important skills in the game; there's no reason that every character should be maximally good at it.

--Axe

 

[KarinsDad]

To say that all adventurers should get better Spot skills is like saying all adventurers should get +1 BAB every level, because they always are engaging in combat.

Actually, it is more like saying:

These are adventurers. By default, adventurers should get better at Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive, just like they get better BAB and Saving Throws. The more you have to rely on something, the better you should get at it.

Each adventuring class should improve at different rates, but they should all improve.


The game is designed to encourage that many classes NOT improve in these areas AT ALL as opposed to ensuring that all classes improve to some degree. To me, that is a game design flaw.

 

[MarkB]

Actually, it is more like saying:

These are adventurers. By default, adventurers should get better at Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive, just like they get better BAB and Saving Throws. The more you have to rely on something, the better you should get at it.

Each adventuring class should improve at different rates, but they should all improve.


The game is designed to encourage that many classes NOT improve in these areas AT ALL as opposed to ensuring that all classes improve to some degree. To me, that is a game design flaw.

However, making Spot and Listen universal class skills doesn't fix that flaw. You'd have to make them something other than skills to do that.

 

[Pickaxe]

Actually, it is more like saying:

These are adventurers. By default, adventurers should get better at Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive, just like they get better BAB and Saving Throws. The more you have to rely on something, the better you should get at it.

Each adventuring class should improve at different rates, but they should all improve.


The game is designed to encourage that many classes NOT improve in these areas AT ALL as opposed to ensuring that all classes improve to some degree. To me, that is a game design flaw.

Is it a game design flaw if PCs fail to grasp the importance of Spot and Listen? Of the eleven core classes, five have neither Spot nor Listen as a class skill, but really only the cleric, paladin, and sorcerer are in a particular bind. A wizard's intelligence gives him skill points to spare, and a fighter's skills, IMO, are not so great that one can't afford to bump Spot every 2 levels or so. Even a cleric will be boosting Wisdom, which will effectively result in higher Spot/Listen. The issue also tends to be a non-issue, since most parties have someone with a high Spot, and that character is often capable of alerting the rest; in addition, NPCs have the same problem that PCs have, so generally there is no great change in the chance for PCs to be ambushed, except in the case of high-level ambush specialists (whom you'd expect would be more successful in this regard anyway).

Nevertheless, the point can be made that Spot, Listen, and Search are different from other skills in a way that doesn't fit the skill mechanic. Skill points represent the PC's selective use of limited time to develop specific skills; you can't spend enough time to become better at everything. Spot, Listen, and Search, it could be argued, are integral parts of adventuring, and therefore, like BAB, one might expect them to improve without special attention by the PC. If we accept this premise, I can see two "fixes" to the 3E approach:

1) The video game way: Everytime you use a skill, it improves (or has a chance to improve); so when you make a Spot roll, you might also improve your Spot skill. This, of course, entails a level of bookkeeping that few players and DMs would stand for.

2) Deliver skills like Spot and Listen into the world of BAB and saves, i.e., with set improvements for each class with level progression. Classes could have different rates of progression, or they could be the same and use the skill point mechanic to reflect class differences. Simpler, but still requires another mechanic to be inserted into the existing ones.

My guess is that, if the designers even considered this issue, simplicity won the day. More likely, the designers were too focused on fixing the even more ridiculous mechanics for surprise from 1e (and perhaps 2e; I didn't play enough to remember) to note this.

--Axe

 

[KarinsDad]

2) Deliver skills like Spot and Listen into the world of BAB and saves, i.e., with set improvements for each class with level progression. Classes could have different rates of progression, or they could be the same and use the skill point mechanic to reflect class differences. Simpler, but still requires another mechanic to be inserted into the existing ones.

My guess is that, if the designers even considered this issue, simplicity won the day. More likely, the designers were too focused on fixing the even more ridiculous mechanics for surprise from 1e (and perhaps 2e; I didn't play enough to remember) to note this.

I suspect you are correct. This was not an issue for the designers.

My preference would be to have Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive (but not Search) be similar (but not identical) in game mechanics to Saving Throws.

I consider these to be more of "skills acquired via experience" as opposed to "skills acquired via training" anyway. Just like diving out of the way of a Fireball or forming a mental image in your mind to prevent yourself from being Charmed (i.e. saving throws).

 

[KarinsDad]

However, making Spot and Listen universal class skills doesn't fix that flaw. You'd have to make them something other than skills to do that.

Agreed.

I could see them being similar to BAB. +1 per level for classes that are really good at it, +3 / 4 levels for classes that are fair at it, and +1 / 2 levels for classes that are "bad at it".

And, I would include Sense Motive in with Spot and Listen (course, a given class might be good, fair, or bad at one of these and possibly be different for the others).

 

[urDrakas]

Agreed.

I could see them being similar to BAB. +1 per level for classes that are really good at it, +3 / 4 levels for classes that are fair at it, and +1 / 2 levels for classes that are "bad at it".

And, I would include Sense Motive in with Spot and Listen (course, a given class might be good, fair, or bad at one of these and possibly be different for the others).

Interesting concept, I might have to try it out in game someday.