This one confuses me -- how is it significantly different from "Sense Motive" which I can only assume is rolled with Negotiation, given that it's a specialization of that skill...

The thing *I* don't like about perception is that various objects have various modifiers. For example, a holdout pistol gives a -4 to be spotted; a heavy pistol gives no modifiers. Therefore, if characters want to glance over at Johnson and see if he's carrying, then EVERYONE must make at least two tests, one at -4, one that isn't. (Unless you use "group rules" for the team, which I never liked doing. Even then you have two rolls).

Yup, much better to have a threshold to notice things. So to continue your examples, the Heavy Pistol would have threshold of say 2, while the Hold Out would have threshold of say 4.

Obviously concealed holsters and whatnot would up the threshold. A skill used to hide things would have hits added to the base threshold.

Then when Perception tests are called for, the player rolls, counts off successes and then you tell them what they see based on that.

At least this is how I will/would run it.

Though that's not a Perception Test but the target's opposing roll against a specific Skill test. Judge Intentions is the active social perceiving, but limited to determining a target's general state of mind (and incidentally opposed by target’s Willpower + Charisma). By RAW you'd still use Perception + Intuition to actively look for spinach stuck between someone's teeth, but i guess if you roll crappy opposing the Etiquette Test you are snowed anyway?

Where does it mention this? I haven't found it yet, and we have a PC on our team where this is applicable. I'd like to help him out by being able to say "no -1 die, it's in the rules here". In melee if the defender does not have skill rating to parry, block, or Dodge why wouldn't they get a -1 die penalty? Besides the GM choosing to have mercy on them.

Well ya, but that's because you can't Default. Spell Defense just happens to be more obvious about that since Counterspelling dice are the only dice available for the Test, unless you have a bound focus (but the bound focus without the Counterspelling skill does not allow you to roll).

EDIT: But i guess you mean that the target of a spell doesn't receive a -1 die penalty for not being protected in any way? Ya, that it is optional to the target of the spell shows up on page 173 in the use of the words "may" and "if". Oddly that sentence actually seems to contradict the example in which the protecting mage rolls, though the example is for an AoE spell. It is actually kinda of important to who rolls the dice. If the protecting mage isn't rolling the dice (unless they are a target as well) i don't think they get to spend Edge, and it would also affect the chances of a Glitch (and who would spend the Edge to negate the Glitch).

Hmm, never noticed that specialization before. That's likely for specializing to oppose Con + Charisma when someone is trying to fast talk you or something. But that's just my guess.

I don't really like that at all, it ignores the strength of the fixed TN where the person looking can just roll once and the check is made for several different items. Making those numbers Theshhold modifiers like Phantom Runner suggests is a bit too much, though that's on the right track to having it work a lot better. If they were 1 Threshhold per step on the table instead of 2 that'd be about right.

Right, my numbers were just arbitrary things thrown off the top of my head. Ideally the situation would play out like this.

Strange person walks into the bar where the runners are having a meet.
They all want to "look the guy over" to see what he might be hiding.
GM either rolls for each (group rule) or has each roll separately.

Then after successes are counted the GM simply goes down the list from easiest to see (lowest threshold) to hardest to see (highest threshold)....

Example:
Threshold / Item
1 / Ares Pred (poorly hidden)
2 / Cybereyes (custom job)
3 / Light Pistol (hidden)
drek-cetera...
drek-cetera...

Actually, that's an inconsistency in the rules. There are two skills that are supposed to make you better at detecting lies (Con and Negotiation), so you shouldn't be able to do it just as well without them. But as written, the "Judge Intentions" attribute test lets you "gauge another character’s [...] honesty" by rolling Charisma + Intuition.

In my games, I think I'm going to disregard the the whole "Judge Intentions" test, and instead use Negotiation/Con or Etiquette according to the situation.

- Magnus

Nowhere does it say that Gymnastics is rolled instead of Dodge.

So yes, it jolly well says that gymnastics is added instead of dodge. The rule that allows you to add gymnastics as an action is exclusive to adding your dodge. It's just that simple.

So the actual table looks like this:

vs Ranged:
Reaction

vs Ranged as a Full Defense Complex Action:
Reaction + Dodge
or
Reaction + Gymnastics.

vs Melee: Reaction + Dodge
or Reaction + Melee Skill

vs Melee as a Full Defense Complex Action:
Reaction + Dodge + Dodge
or
Reaction + Melee Skill + Dodge
or
Reaction + (Melee SKill x2)
or
Reaction + Dodge + Gymnastics
or
Reaction + Melee Skill + Gymnastics

No, point to me where it says "in place of" in the book.

While it does say you can use Gymnastics Dodge against ranged attacks, I will concede the fact to you that I forgot to mention the highlight parts below:

However, you are wrong about:

The description of Gymnastics Dodge says nothing of using melee skills. It is purely so the person can roll Reaction + Dodge + Gymnastics vs Melee Attacks.

So besides my leaving out 1 thing, my post was pretty solid and sound. Thank you and goodnight.

The description of gymnastic dodge doesn't need to mention your melee skill. What it says is:

And your dice pool is:

So rolling Reaction + Melee Skill is already defined as potentially being your dice pool on page 147. So when you add your gymnastics skill to that dice pool, what do you think happens?

-Frank

I thought it already was.

I think this is correct, actually... looking at the RAW. Though, the wording really could use some clarification. Of course, I've said that about this book a good two dozen times already, so... par for the course I guess.

Though, in my games, I'd have to agree with:

But I am pretty sure this would be a house rule, not RAW.

I was going to disagree, but you did say player characters, not players. I guess we can't all be like me.

Bah, What kind of wussy god dies in the first place.

Oh, wait. One who didn't invest points in dodge.

I don't feel like an exception, but there you are.

And on second thought I really like the idea of backflip-parrying with my char. Let's see what my GM says to it.

What is the dice pool modifier to dodge a spear while nailed to a giant wooden cross by one's wrists and feet?