I've been playing and/or GMing EotE since release, and as I was reading through some other threads today I realized I'm still hazy on when to use Vigilance vs Perception. So is it that if you're actively looking for danger (or something else) you roll perception. If you are not expecting trouble, and thus not looking you roll vigilance?

example 1: You are sneaking through a pirate infested forest, trying to get to their hidden base. You're on constant lookout. A band of brigands is hidden ahead, Roll Perception.

example 2: You are grocery shopping, pondering whether to get the regular of extra bloody Meaty Puff's cereal. A band of bounty hunters is hiding behind the dairy counter ready to unleash buttery blastery death upon you. Not expecting anything do you roll vigilance to notice them?

I've pretty much just used vigilance for initiative, and the occasional "did I bring this with me roll." Am I doing this wrong?

Thanks all.

You have it correct. Actively looking equals Perception. Being on guard is Vigilance. Setting the ambush or initiating the fight is Cool.

That's basically how I'd do it.

In cases where the players have explicitly told me they're looking for something, searching an area, trying to find enemies, I'd have them roll Perception.

If they're being snuck up on or taken by surprise, roll Vigilance.

The way I run Perception is on a success for the players they are initiating the ambush, and they catch the opposition flat footed so they all act first. Cool and Vigilance are still the technical initiative skills.

That's basically how I'd do it.

In cases where the players have explicitly told me they're looking for something, searching an area, trying to find enemies, I'd have them roll Perception.

If they're being snuck up on or taken by surprise, roll Vigilance.

So let's say they roll Perception, and some succeed to notice the enemies hiding behind some bushes, while others fail to. Do you then have on group roll Cool and the other Vigilance for their Initiative? Do they all roll Vigilance? Would you use the successful Perception checks for Initiative?

That's basically how I'd do it.

In cases where the players have explicitly told me they're looking for something, searching an area, trying to find enemies, I'd have them roll Perception.

If they're being snuck up on or taken by surprise, roll Vigilance.

So let's say they roll Perception, and some succeed to notice the enemies hiding behind some bushes, while others fail to. Do you then have on group roll Cool and the other Vigilance for their Initiative? Do they all roll Vigilance? Would you use the successful Perception checks for Initiative?

I don't think there is a hard and fast answer honestly. In my case if one in the group spots the enemy at sufficient distance or in a circumstance where they can reasonably alert the rest of the party to the enemy, I don't roll anything I just let them open fire. Now in the case of a Nemesis or story point I might have the opposition roll vigilance, it just depends.

In a case where someone passes Perception but some don't and they can't alert the party without alerting the enemy, I just roll it as initiative and use Cool.

I pretty much only use Vigilance for players being ambushed.

(empty post...delete?)

That's basically how I'd do it.

In cases where the players have explicitly told me they're looking for something, searching an area, trying to find enemies, I'd have them roll Perception.

If they're being snuck up on or taken by surprise, roll Vigilance.

So let's say they roll Perception, and some succeed to notice the enemies hiding behind some bushes, while others fail to. Do you then have on group roll Cool and the other Vigilance for their Initiative? Do they all roll Vigilance? Would you use the successful Perception checks for Initiative?

For Perception in the above circumstance, I'd have it be one roll, having one PC "assist" the other for the skill check. That way they either succeed or fail as a group. Use the Vigilance/Cool mechanics to simulate who was better prepared/better aware; that's what the initiative system is for. But if one of a group sees trouble, it only takes a split second to call attention to that trouble and to raise a call to arms.

In all honesty, not to beat up the game, but I'm not a huge fan of Vigilance period. It seems to me being vigilant is really just being perceptive. The other example they give in the book for vigilance of checking for a piece of gear to me isn't about being vigilant as it is about being disciplined, which is right where I would put that check.

In all honesty, not to beat up the game, but I'm not a huge fan of Vigilance period. It seems to me being vigilant is really just being perceptive. The other example they give in the book for vigilance of checking for a piece of gear to me isn't about being vigilant as it is about being disciplined, which is right where I would put that check.

My jury is still out but I'm leaning towards agreeing here. It seems like a bit of a redundant skill. I'm trying to figure out if it would adversely effect the game in any way to remove the skill and just roll perception/cool for initiative instead.

For me Vigilance is a skill for GM. Only he initiates a Vigilance check, never a player. Think of it as alertness, spot traps in the last moment, etc. Perception is a skill for PCs. They initiate the check declaring that they are looking/observing, etc.

I love the idea of Vigilance skill and separation from Perception skill.

In all honesty, not to beat up the game, but I'm not a huge fan of Vigilance period.

I use it like awayputurwpn, because I generally don't allow everyone to roll Perception, because Perception is often at a party level. If everyone gets to roll, all that results in is a guaranteed success. However, Vigilance is everyone's tailored response (perhaps modified by the Perception roll).

In theory you could get rid of Vigilance and use Perception, but then you'd have to get rid of Cool and use Discipline. Personally I like the granularity.

That's basically how I'd do it.

In cases where the players have explicitly told me they're looking for something, searching an area, trying to find enemies, I'd have them roll Perception.

If they're being snuck up on or taken by surprise, roll Vigilance.

So let's say they roll Perception, and some succeed to notice the enemies hiding behind some bushes, while others fail to. Do you then have on group roll Cool and the other Vigilance for their Initiative? Do they all roll Vigilance? Would you use the successful Perception checks for Initiative?

I'd do one of two things:

If it was literally an ambush, where the muggers were jumping out to attack the party, I would just say "Everybody roll Vigilance for Initiative, we're going into structured time for an encounter."

If the gangers were lurking around and the question was, do the players notice them, I might ask everybody to roll Vigilance. I'd assume the players would be able to communicate with one another, and if at least one or two of them got success, I'd indicate "There are several thugs skulking down the alley toward you in a vaguely threatening way."

Then the players could react however they wanted. They could attack, in which case the players would roll Cool for Initiative. They could try to talk to the others, they could flee, they could do a variety of things outside of structured time.

In general I assume unless the players are separated, or things are happening in a split-second, they are able to communicate to each other. If one player sees the thugs, a simple "We've got company" should clue the others in.

Perhaps since Perception and Vigilance seem to a couple of the cornerstone skills for Jedi they will be expanded upon more in F&D.

I'd do one of two things:

If it was literally an ambush, where the muggers were jumping out to attack the party, I would just say "Everybody roll Vigilance for Initiative, we're going into structured time for an encounter."

If the gangers were lurking around and the question was, do the players notice them, I might ask everybody to roll Vigilance. I'd assume the players would be able to communicate with one another, and if at least one or two of them got success, I'd indicate "There are several thugs skulking down the alley toward you in a vaguely threatening way."

Then the players could react however they wanted. They could attack, in which case the players would roll Cool for Initiative. They could try to talk to the others, they could flee, they could do a variety of things outside of structured time.

In general I assume unless the players are separated, or things are happening in a split-second, they are able to communicate to each other. If one player sees the thugs, a simple "We've got company" should clue the others in.

This. This right here.

I use Perception if the character is actively looking for something. I use Vigilance if there is something important they may overlook because they are not actively looking.

"I check the room for the keycard" - Perception

"I look for sniper nests before moving into the courtyard." - Perception

"I scout out the base for good escape routes." - Perception

"I walk through the room." - Vigilance to see if they notice the keycard on the desk

"I walk into the courtyard" - Vigilance for initiative against the snipers

"We need to find another way out!" - Vigilance to see if they noticed another possible escape route while moving through the base.

Yeah, IMO the skills are not as redundant as some people have been making out since the game's introduction. Perception and Vigilance have their own specific uses, as do Cool and Discipline, as do Streetwise and Knowledge (Underworld). Some skills might be more closely related than others.

It helps to remember that in the Beta game, there was Perception AND Surveillance, and the latter was dropped and subsumed mostly by the former. So with this considered, dropping Vigilance and just using Perception will make Perception a rather over-powered "must have" that it has been in many d20 games.

I've seen GMs allow a player to use their better of Vig or Cool for initiative. Really think drawing a distinction between Vig/Cool as initiative stats was unnecessary.

I've understood Vigilance as the ability to react to sudden surprises and attacks. It's how quickly an individual can react to the unexpected.

Perception is focused on searching and looking.

It is possible to be so focused on the horizon that you leave yourself open to attack from behind, thus explaining the need for perception vs Vigilance when it comes to detecting enemies.

Cool is the setup. You may perceive enemies, but to lay out an attack for them requires some kind of discipline skill to keep ones nerves under control and not alert the target. Cool and Vigilance are used in combat situations to hold your cool and be able to react first to attackers, interchangeably.

Having "spotting something" be two skills has led to some weird stuff at our table. Some of us are more likely to avoid being ambushed if we aren't aware we could be in danger (high Vigilance, low Perception). Like Mr. Magoo.

Having "spotting something" be two skills has led to some weird stuff at our table. Some of us are more likely to avoid being ambushed if we aren't aware we could be in danger (high Vigilance, low Perception). Like Mr. Magoo.

There's also the issue that most combat careers focus on Vigilance over Cool, making them worse at taking initiative when they actually have a plan of engagement compared to when reacting to the unexpected.

There's also the issue that most combat careers focus on Vigilance over Cool, making them worse at taking initiative when they actually have a plan of engagement compared to when reacting to the unexpected.

So planning is for wusses? Real men make it up as they go along.

I think the designers messed up, but not in the way some are suggesting.

They messed up when they named the skill perception. Perception is such a broad range of abilities as to be almost a useless term in gaming. In systems where perception is really perception it's almost invariably the best skill there is.

They should have named it investigation and we wouldn't need to have these silly arguments. Most people know investigation is an active task that is undertaken with conscious regard.

Vigilance is the ability to whip out your lightsaber and parry blaster bolts. Perception is your ability to stare at a man and determine from his body language if he's lying.

Lots of observant people don't react well to surprise. Anyone can be surprised. When was the last time you went into the bathroom expecting a woman to shoot you while you used the urinal? You've gathered all the data: woman, gun, bathroom. Do you react quickly or do you stand an gape like a fish? Vigilant people do.

Except how you describe the skills and the CRB does are completely different. Read Perception and Vigilance. The difference between the two in the first couple paragraphs is word choice and that's about it. They're both describing the exact same thing, ongoing passive awareness of one's surroundings.

Do you react quickly or do you stand an gape like a fish?

Gape like a fish. Definately.

Seriously, I was walking home from school one winter and a friend was testing the ice on the canal. His foot went straight through and he lost his balance and followed it. I stood there thinking "Oh, that's not good", while another friend ran over and fished him out.

Good times...