Natural Watchfulness states:

You have learnt to ... read much from your surroundings. Additionally, during the day, you may make an Explore roll with a TN of 14 to gather information regarding the area surrounding you, as if you were observing it from a vantage point (the top of a tall tree, a small hill).

All well enough. But, then it adds:

A Woodman possessing Natural Watchfulness, finding himself in a clearing deep in the woods, might roll Explore to notice that a forest stream passes nearby, and that a cave opens a few hundred meters to the east.


Amongst our group, opinion is divided on the nature of Natural Watchfulness. One side believes it enhances your mental acuity in regards to natural phenomenon (ie, these types of trees only grow near water, those types of bats only live in caves etc). This acuity is dependent on actual physical movement and observation (Exploration).

Or based on the example, Natural Watchfulness is more 'magical' and metaphysical. You stand in a clearing deep in the woods silent, concentrating, letting your 'mind's-eye' rise high above and until it pierces the thick foliage to clearly discern topographical features and other points of interest, including animals, groups of people, even individuals.


How does your group view the 'Additionally, during the day/Explore' part of Natural Watchfulness?

Natural mental explanation on my end...

The issue hasn't come up for me. I see it as being mental based on very good (but not encyclopedic) knowledge and being particularly observant. Kind of like someone is pulling a Sherlock Holmes but instead of reading a person by minute clues, it is an area of observable terrain. Of course, the info revealed would be more general and less detailed than Holmes obtained - but you get the idea.

The only other two forum references are:

http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=3041


and


http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...&showtopic=3018


The first deals with 'once per day'. The other has its use as a 'birds-eye view', which would support the metaphysical argument.


FWIW, I see it as you two do.