Perception

[Underling]

I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans.

 

Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm.

 

Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity.

 

A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Derek

[Steve Long]

The Questions board isn't for design speculation or system discussion, so I've moved this question.

[bjbrown]

Intelligence measures ability to process information, and perception rolls are often made for characters to notice something inobvious, which sounds like processing information to me.

Animals and creatures with low intelligence and good senses of course have this simulated with Enhanced Senses. The bumbling genius could be simulated with a Disadvantage.

Your argument for CON makes some amount of sense, but you're still going to have situations in which a high CON character should have low perception, and cases in which a low CON character should have high perception. While INT doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate with the level of perception desired, no stat will.

Based on the way that INT and PER are defined, I think they fit pretty well. Also, another reason not to base PER on a stat like CON or DEX is that those stats already have so many combat benefits, additional benefits don't need to be associated with them. (Especially DEX- it's already useful enough.) My thoughts fall into the not broken, don't fix category.

[badger3k]

Re: Perception

 

Originally posted by Underling

I'm curious why Perception is based on INT. I don't see the correlation. I mean, someone who is stupid doesn't seem to be less aware of his environment as someone who is brilliant. Actually, high intelligence is arguably a distraction from perceiving one's environment. Consider even the stereotypes of the oblivious genius professor vs. the dumb giant who can nevertheless smell "the blood of an Englishman." The problems with linking PER with INT becomes especially noticeable when it comes to animals, which often have great perception compared with more intelligent humans.

 

Thus, I propose that PER be based on either CON or DEX. The argument for using CON is that a reduction in health directly corresponds with a reduction in perceptiveness; if you're sickly your body doesn't function very well, and a reduction in perception would logically coincide with a reduction of the body's physical state. Conversely, the healthier the organism, the better all its parts should function, including perception. The only problem here is that according to this logic, all other physical and mental characteristics should probably be reduced as well. Hmmm.

 

Perhaps DEX would make a better base characteristic. The logic behind this is that animals that depend on DEX to survive tend to have terrific perception, whereas those that don't depend on DEX often have lesser perceptive abilities (compare a gazelle with a porcupine, for example). After all, all the DEX in the world does a critter no good if danger can't be perceived in time to actually use that dexterity.

 

A third option might be to average CON and DEX to determine PER. This would give higher default PER to those who are agile and healthy, and lower default PER to those who are clumsy and sickly.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Derek

 

I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

 

Being healthy doesn't make you more perceptive than one who is sick or tired - I've been dead tired and still caught things faster than my friends (and the situation was reversed other times). Is a handicapped person (low CON and phys lims) less perceptive than a non-handicapped person? Actually, that depends on the handicap, but hope I made my point. It doesn't matter if the parts are healthy if the processor isn't there.

 

Relating it to DEX is a little odd to me - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between PER and reflexes except that one enables you to use the other more effectively. I would keep DEX out of it. I haven't looked at the Bestiary, but I know in another game animals are given bonuses to their sensory rolls to reflect their senses, so for them I'd buy extra PER rather than start out as a different default. Also, animals also have limitations on their perceptions - a lot of animals have prey images or threat images - if a creature or object isn't in their image file (so to speak), the animal doesn't react to it like you think they might. (Of course, the same has been postulated for human beings too).

 

Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [iNT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

 

Just a few thoughts

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Perception

 

Originally posted by badger3k

I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

 

Brilliant scientistsc may not have a high INT by Hero standards, if they work slowly and methodically. What we see as Intelligence in Hero isn't justhow smart", but comic book "smart" that knows the answer right now.

 

Originally posted by badger3k

Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [iNT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

 

Just a few thoughts

 

All good points. leaving aside all game vs reality logic, the last thing we need is to make Con or Dex MORE valuable!

[Lupus]

Re: Re: Re: Perception

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

All good points. leaving aside all game vs reality logic, the last thing we need is to make Con or Dex MORE valuable!

Yeah. I say we stick with the 'bodily health' thing and tie perception to strength, instead.

 

[Farkling]

I've always told people that PER is not "How smart you are" it is "how fast you think" ... thus Wolverine and the infamous Reed Richards can be built with the same level of INT...and we will put the Beast and Iron Man quite a ways behind them, as they are both very intelligent fellows, but they frequently mis things...now, is Spidey a high (INT) perception character, or is he riding on that nifty Danger Sense power?

 

optionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

Ioptionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

 

"The bigger they are, the better they see"

[Ben Seeman]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"The bigger they are, the better they see"

Of course, cuz they have bigger eyes, right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Ben Seeman

Of course, cuz they have bigger eyes, right?

 

Well, as long as there's a GOOD reason.

 

Hmmm...does that mean we have to get some PER modifiers into Growth and Shrinking? I think I'll house rule that you have to buy PER modifiers or the size of your eyes/ears/etc. doesn't change

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Well, as long as there's a GOOD reason.

 

Hmmm...does that mean we have to get some PER modifiers into Growth and Shrinking? I think I'll house rule that you have to buy PER modifiers or the size of your eyes/ears/etc. doesn't change

 

Great - now we get a giant man with little pig eyes, or a doll man with BIG bug eyes - you'd habe to lose perception as your eyes popped out of your head!

[Col. Orange]

Originally posted by badger3k

a doll with BIG bug eyes - you'd habe to lose perception as your eyes popped out of your head!

 

Great, shrinking turns you Manga.

[Col. Orange]

Don't know how FRED explains it but GURPS (waits for the hurled rocks... no, safe) bases it of Intelligence because a single roll is used both to detect an object and to understand it's significance.

[Farkling]

No...I absolutely REFUSE to let GURPS apply a good explanation to something in HERO!! There has to be another way!!

 

**frantically pulls gamebooks from the shelves**

 

 

Oh no....that's actually a decent idea...

 

 

 

And for you people kicking dirt on my silly BODY idea...isn't BODY more than just physical toughness? Y'all keep arguing that over GURPs....

 

But the mechanical problem with Growth and Shrinking....hmmm....when you're tiny you can't see as far, and when you're big you can see OVER so much...

Anyway...the size modifiers are relative modifiers...if you are 4 hexes in size, then you have an even PER roll against something 4 Hexes in size...

[Underling]

Originally posted by Col. Orange

Don't know how FRED explains it but GURPS (waits for the hurled rocks... no, safe) bases it of Intelligence because a single roll is used both to detect an object and to understand it's significance.

 

Actually, GURPS has a perception roll first, THEN another IQ roll to understand the significance of the observation. But, again, IQ doesn't seem to fit for perception either!

 

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by bjbrown

Intelligence measures ability to process information, and perception rolls are often made for characters to notice something inobvious, which sounds like processing information to me.

Animals and creatures with low intelligence and good senses of course have this simulated with Enhanced Senses. The bumbling genius could be simulated with a Disadvantage.

Your argument for CON makes some amount of sense, but you're still going to have situations in which a high CON character should have low perception, and cases in which a low CON character should have high perception. While INT doesn't necessarily perfectly correlate with the level of perception desired, no stat will.

Based on the way that INT and PER are defined, I think they fit pretty well. Also, another reason not to base PER on a stat like CON or DEX is that those stats already have so many combat benefits, additional benefits don't need to be associated with them. (Especially DEX- it's already useful enough.) My thoughts fall into the not broken, don't fix category.

Perception may be processing of information, but many animals process that kind of information better than humans even though they may not have anywhere near the intelligence. Perception and dexterity evolve together in many respects, mainly because in the natural world dexterity without perception is mostly useless. Sure you can use Enhanced Senses and Disadvantages to get the standard cinematic/realistic effects of perception using INT, but doesn't it strike you that something's wrong if those advantages and disadvantages have to be applied MOST of the time to deal with animal perception, when they would only be needed rarely if the roll were based on something like DEX or CON? You could still use advantages and disadvantages for special circumstances, but they wouldn't needed nearly as often. Derek

[Underling]

Re: Re: Perception

 

Originally posted by badger3k

I believe you can relate PER to INT in several ways - the most obvious to me is that if you are smarter you can process more and theoretically should be able to notice things faster/better than someone/thing with less intelligence. If you have an absent-minded professor or a sensitive-nosed giant, buy the PER rolls up or down. (FRED has INT as the ability to take in and process information quickly (p 23)).

 

See my above post. Humans don't notice things more than most animals do, they just usually understand the significance of them better (the INT roll after the PER roll, you might say). And while the definition of INT may be the ability to take in and process information quickly, I suspect that should be interpreted as taking in and processing ALREADY PERCEIVED information, since the actual game effect of Perception is no different from how animals perceive their environment. Animal senses are no less developed than human senses, even though they may be processed by smaller brains. Just giving most animals Enhanced Senses is a kludge, I believe, since the need for animals to have good senses is no different from the need for humans to have good senses (especially for the environment in which we evolved). There's MUCH less need for a workaround if PER is based on DEX.

 

Being healthy doesn't make you more perceptive than one who is sick or tired - I've been dead tired and still caught things faster than my friends (and the situation was reversed other times). Is a handicapped person (low CON and phys lims) less perceptive than a non-handicapped person? Actually, that depends on the handicap, but hope I made my point. It doesn't matter if the parts are healthy if the processor isn't there.

 

I agree the argument isn't as good for CON as it is for DEX...but I think it's still better than the argument for INT. Regarding your example, a handicapped person wouldn't necessarily have low CON, nor would a person who was tired, so I wouldn't use those as arguments against using CON for PER.

 

Relating it to DEX is a little odd to me - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between PER and reflexes except that one enables you to use the other more effectively. I would keep DEX out of it.

 

I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless.

 

I haven't looked at the Bestiary, but I know in another game animals are given bonuses to their sensory rolls to reflect their senses, so for them I'd buy extra PER rather than start out as a different default. Also, animals also have limitations on their perceptions - a lot of animals have prey images or threat images - if a creature or object isn't in their image file (so to speak), the animal doesn't react to it like you think they might. (Of course, the same has been postulated for human beings too).

 

GURPS too uses INT (IQ) for perception. I think that is inaccurate as well. The fact that they need to buy up animal senses is a red flag that something in the concept is off base.

 

And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence).

 

Personally I'll stick with the standard system, mainly for the reasons above. However, you can use either (or even make another stat - Perception, used to reflect all of the things that have been mentioned). Give it modifiers for health/dex/etc (or make it a figured char - [iNT/5+CON/5+DEX/5] or something similar).

 

As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is.

 

Derek

[Underling]

Originally posted by Farkling

I've always told people that PER is not "How smart you are" it is "how fast you think" ... thus Wolverine and the infamous Reed Richards can be built with the same level of INT...and we will put the Beast and Iron Man quite a ways behind them, as they are both very intelligent fellows, but they frequently mis things...now, is Spidey a high (INT) perception character, or is he riding on that nifty Danger Sense power?

 

optionally, following the CON argument, your house rule could base PER rolls on BODY....

 

Should INT really be how fast you think, rather than memory and analytical capabilities? There's no other characteristic to simulate that. Besides, isn't that how INT is actually used in the game--making INT rolls and skill rolls based on INT to reflect how much you know and how well you can figure something out?

 

How fast you think, however, is probably best simulated by DEX, since DEX is the main characteristic for figuring SPD, and you can't be speedy if you can't think as fast as your SPD, right? Also, if INT is how fast you think, then someone with a 20 INT and 3 SPD should accomplish more INT-based actions than someone with a 10 INT and 6 SPD, and that doesn't make sense, does it?

 

Of course, basing PER on DEX makes DEX too valuable. Others have complained that STR is too weak (right?). One way to reduce the value of DEX and increase the value of STR would be to make SPD based on 1+((DEX+STR)/5). Strength should influence speed? WTF? Well, the argument for this would be that body mass slows a person's speed and acceleration, and high strength counteracts the effects of body mass. Thus, for two people of equal body mass, the one with the higher strength can overcome the inertial effects of his own body mass faster and therefore move faster than the other person.

 

This same logic could apply to inflicting damage with melee weapons and fists. SPD should influence damage based on simple physics: f=ma (force=mass*acceleration). If two people have the same STR and body mass but one moves faster, the one who moves faster would do more damage (not the same as Move By Attacks, but similar in principle).

 

But now things are getting too mixed up! Well, since most abilities seem to overlap, perhaps all abilities should be based on the average of all characteristics. ;-)

 

Derek

[Farkling]

Hey Underling!

 

Ok...I've braced myself.

Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

 

Analyze is based on observation...

Bugging is based on observation...

Computer Programming is analytical I imagine, unless used for hacking...though I know some code crunchers who would insist it is merely trial and error and observation.

Concealment is observational

Criminology is observation and analysis...

Cryptography is pattern analysis, stemming from observations

Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison

Demolitions...analysis and/or observation

Disguise...analytical and observational...

Electronics...education and ability

Forensic Medicine...analysis and observation (CSI anyone)

Forgery...analyse subject, observe duplicate effectiveness...

Gambling...if you think this is NOT observational and analytical...play high stakes poker.

Inventor...many Inventors admit they simply thought of something nobody else did...comic book inventors are not so much analysts as tinkerers...

Lip Reading...observation and analytic

Mechanics...education and ability

Mimicry...observation and vaguely analytic

Navigation...oobservation and analysis...the Boy Scouts would vouch for mostly observational...

Paramedic...observation and education

Security Systems...observation, analysis, education (Sneakers)

Shadowing...observation and movement?

Survival...observation and education

Tactics...observation, education, analysis

Tracking...observation and analysis

Area Knowledges:: observation and memory of landmarks...locations...maps

Cultural Knowledges:: Observation of ritual and civilizations of a people

Knowledge Skills:: Ah...education, recall, memory.

 

Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...

But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

 

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**

[badger3k]

Re: Re: Re: Perception

 

Originally posted by Underling

I disagree. In most cases, especially when including animals, I think you'll find perceptive abilities to be directly proportional to dexterity, for without perception, dexterity is meaningless.

 

And while you're right about animal prey/threat images, that doesn't mean their perceptive abilities are lesser in any way...only that how they process the information provided by their senses is limited. An antelope will still perceive the rabbit before a human is likely to, but since the rabbit doesn't match the antelope's prey/threat images, it doesn't respond. Even many extremely unintelligent organisms (insects, fish, amphibians) can perceive motion and shapes very well (commensurate with their dexterity) even if they can only recognize a limited range of patterns (commensurate with their intelligence).

 

As a figured characteristic would make sense, particularly if PER rolls are intended to be fairly averaged out among individuals with varying characteristics. (DEX+CON)/2 anyone? The real headache, it seems, is that DEX and CON are too valuable as it is.

 

Derek

 

Good points, but here's a few more:

 

1) If an animal lacks the image (and reasoning) to respond to something, is it perceiving it? An antelope can see the rabbit, but since it doesn't recognize it the rabbit is ignored. So in game terms, does it perceive the rabbit? I think if you exclude any kind of intelligence/reasoning capacity in the equation, then it's useless. Its like computers - GIGO. You can see the stop sign. You can react to it. But not if you don't recognize it and know what it means. Basing your perception solely on physical characteristics is too one sided for my taste.

 

2) Part of the problem seems to be that the standard is the human one. The game system is really designed around humans as a base, so anything with better senses need enhanced senses. If you have an olympic athlete (high CON and DEX), he would automatically be more perceptive (maybe as good as a wolf or owl, for example) than a medium characteristic detective. That's a little odd as well.

 

3) I also think some of the difference is our perception of the system (har har), its that when you say animals and high DEX, to me you seem to be implying reflexes more than agility or coordination (what I view DEX as). (Maybe not after thinking about it). Hmm - anyway, i'd still argue that DEX and PER are related, but not directly. Animals with a higher perceptive ability would survive more, the same way that animals with better reflexes and abilities (say, a monkeys ability to climb well or fast, etc). The ones that had both would have the best chance of survival. Have you ever met anybody with fast reflexes who couldn't notice a hand in front of his face until it hit him? Or better yet, look at all the people who can play video games and get max scores (or learn martial arts, perhaps), but don't notice their wives new hairstyle? Perception helps reflexes more than reflexes help perception (IMO). Survivors tend to have higher everything overall (generalization warning!)

 

4) That's about it for now, but I'd go with {[(INT/5) + (CON/10)]/1.5}, used as a straight bonus. I.E. - use figured PER + 9 = perception roll. Used that way, CON isn't a major part but has a minor effect. Although if I wrote up a disease now, I'd probably include a PER drain to the effect now.

[Lupus]

Re: Hey Underling!

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Shucks...looks like most skills a PER based...

But imagine HERO with all thos stats and and a PER score instead of INT...that would get more bad press than the 3d6 die rolls, the tons of damage dice, and the new tag line from critics would be "they have 14 Stats, and NO IQ rating...the characters are all idiots!" or worse...we'd have 15 state...with a PER AND an INT score...

 

**Prepares to deflect thrown missiles**

Heh. Personally, I have no problem with systems that don't have a stat called 'intelligence.' IQ in the real world has enough problems, and having a stat called Intelligence often leads to misunderstandings about what stats actually mean. There being lots of different kinds of intelligence, and the stat Intelligence reflecting only some.

 

TORG, for instance, has no INT stat. They have Perception (analysis/interpretation) and Mind (logic/methodology) instead.

 

All that said, I'm still fine with leaving HERO as is. It doesn't matter that animals should have good perception scores. Just buy up their perception separately to intelligence. No system has to perfectly reflect all life on this and every other planet. It may be a kludge, but who cares? I'd rather build good characters than good cats. I hate cats.

 

So for the purposes of the system, and what the Int stat actually represents in the HERO system, PER based on INT is perfectly logical. So in my games, that's the way it'll remain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hey Underling!

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Ok...I've braced myself.

Let's take a look at which skills are solely analytical...

 

Deduction is NOT analysis...it's divine providence and beyond this comparison

 

One might also say it's noticing things that others miss, and interprets these minor observations. "I note you are recently married". "How did you know that?" Elementary - you tug at your wedding ring, as though you're not used to its presence."

[Pattern Ghost]

The reason that PER is based on INT is the simple fact that Perception is a form of intelligence. Animals don't have high INT, they hae Enhanced Senses.

 

The non-perceptive scientist is just a fictional sterotype. Most scientists are very perceptive individuals; they're trained observers, after all. If you want the Nutty Professor, then you buy a lower INT, buy up levels with SS, and you've got him.

 

The animal theory has several holes:

 

1. The general perceptiveness of animals is overrated.

2. Animals which do have better than human senses usually have one or two highly-developed senses, and are frequently deficient in others. That's modelled by Enhanced Senses, as already mentioned.

3. Basing the PER roll on physical attributes such as DEX and CON to fix the percieved problem modelling animals presumes that animals generally have better than human DEX and CON, which also isn't the case.

 

I think the system has it right. You could do something like dividing up INT into TECH (SS and technical-oriented skills), PER (PER rolls and skills) and WIT (quick-thinking skills), but do we need more stats? Probably not.

[Farkling]

I suppose you let your characters buy deduction, you softie!

 

Ahem. Hugh. I note the quote of a Sherlock Holmes type character...at the risk of causing strife...I shuld like to point out that Batman and company would NEVER allow Sherlock into the detective club. Holmes always had the answer and then worked to fill the blanks in...rather like looking in the back of your math book before solving the problems...the rest is just mechanical manipulation of the facts to a preselected end.

 

Sherlock had at least a 24- Deduction roll by my lights. He was a lousy detective. Of course, we could blame that on Moriarty somehow...I imagine...

 

eh, the only character in my game allowed to buy up his deduction roll is the ArchAngel...he has a pipeline ya see...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Farkling

I suppose you let your characters buy deduction, you softie!

 

Buying it's not a problem. Now, what do we let them use it for It's 3 points - don't expect it to make your life 75 points easier!

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Ahem. Hugh. I note the quote of a Sherlock Holmes type character...at the risk of causing strife...I shuld like to point out that Batman and company would NEVER allow Sherlock into the detective club. Holmes always had the answer and then worked to fill the blanks in...rather like looking in the back of your math book before solving the problems...the rest is just mechanical manipulation of the facts to a preselected end.

 

Actually, in a recent BatBook ("Made of Wood" Part 3), Bats goes on record saying something like Detective Work is just following your hunches and determining which one is correct. Sounds like he's starting with Deduction to me.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

Sherlock had at least a 24- Deduction roll by my lights. He was a lousy detective. Of course, we could blame that on Moriarty somehow...I imagine...

 

I'm not much of a Holmes fan, so I'm not going to assess the specific character. I think the wedding ring is a Holmes line. One can interpret your observation as a weakness in the writer, however - he doesn't have the same keen observational skills, or detective skills, so he glosses over the methodology.

 

Originally posted by Farkling

eh, the only character in my game allowed to buy up his deduction roll is the ArchAngel...he has a pipeline ya see...

 

That goes WAY beynd a skill in my books. He should buy a Contact (a pretty expensive one, too!) No reason that can't be simulated as "super-deduction", I suppose.