Perception should be an intelligence proficiency

CleverNickName said:

I wonder what an Intelligence (Athletics) check would look like?

Click to expand...

Probably a lot like pounding a round peg into a square hole

Satyrn said:

Nice example of failing an Int (Athletics) check.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's clear that I have failed, but that doesn't stop me from pretending like I know what I'm talking about.

That triple is crazy. I might require a Geometry check along with that!

LordEntrails said:

That triple is crazy. I might require a Geometry check along with that!

Click to expand...

Ayup. That's why I think an Int (athletics) check makes sense.

It's like a Geometry (practical experience) check.

Gwarok said:

While I agree that is how the rules operate, the fact is no one sitting around the table actually has many of the skills being used by the characters, or even really any relevant experience with them. Therefore it's hard to actually describe how things would appear or work. When you make a stealth roll you don't have to tell the DM where exactly you are placing your feet, or how you are moving, it is assumed that specific information is covered by the roll and the fact you have that skill. You can't fail to describe your attempt at stealth properly and therefore fail it. You don't have to describe your attempt at using Medicine to stabilize a dying target to get the result you're looking for, so why would Investigate be any different?

Click to expand...

Describing what you want to do amounts to stating a goal and an approach to that goal. It does not have to be a complicated or technical statement or require any expertise on the part of the player. "I want to make a Stealth check" is not a statement of goal and approach. At best it just implies one. What it is is a player failing to perform his or her role in the game and that slack is often picked up by the DM, who in my experience will then describe what the character does. This gets the roles of DM and player exactly backwards. It is a common way to play but it really mixes up the play loop in a way that negatively impacts the play experience in my view.

That said, a player can absolutely describe a task in such a way as to fail automatically, no roll. It's part of the DM's role to make that judgment when determining whether or not there is uncertainty as to the outcome. This is discussed in the PHB and DMG both.

Gwarok said:

You or I could not properly role play Sherlock Holmes that way, because that character literally sees details that everyone else in the room misses, sees a different picture when he looks at a room than other less observant and informed people. We at the table are not Sherlock Holmes, we are the people he explains things to. So if I can't assume my +14 Investigate skill and the Observant feat provides me with more information to work with than everyone else at the table that doesn't have anything like that, what's the point in taking those skills and feats to make the fictional character you are playing? It may seem cheap for the DM to provide you with a given insight simply because you have the skill for it, but that is exactly what Investigation skill does. Not only to find things, but to make those seemingly often tenuous, not obvious connections between the information you have in front of you. This can of course be role played and is fun to do so, but sorta defeats the point of having that skill if that is the sole method of representing it in the game.

Click to expand...

According to the play loop, the DM can't narrate the outcome of the adventurer's actions until the player has describe what he or she wants to do. So if this Sherlock Holmes character wants a crack at finding all the clues or whatever, the player needs to describe the goal and approach. Only then can the DM take into account the uncertainty of the outcome and, if necessary, assign an ability check accordingly.

Gwarok said:

Long story short, I don't feel you should have to actually have the skills of your make believe character in order to roleplay that make believe character when they are using those skills. And that is where the DM comes in to provide the difference in observances from the perspective of the character in question. With most skills this doesn't come up, it is assumed and it is obvious why that is. For these two in particular however it seems to be considered a different type of skill.

Click to expand...

Absolutely nobody takes the position that "you should have to actually have the skills of your make believe character in order to roleplay that make believe character when they are using those skills." But the player does need to describe what he or she wants to do. That is the player's role in this game.

Gwarok said:

…Investigation allows you to … make the connections.

Click to expand...

I think that's a gret description of what Investigation is for and I'm going to start using it when I talk about it in my games.

WIS notices a thing, INT makes connections between multiple things. If you haven't noticed a thing then you can't make connections, but just because you noticed it doesn't mean you'll make the connection.

Greenstone.Walker said:

I think that's a gret description of what Investigation is for and I'm going to start using it when I talk about it in my games.

WIS notices a thing, INT makes connections between multiple things. If you haven't noticed a thing then you can't make connections, but just because you noticed it doesn't mean you'll make the connection.

Click to expand...

The shorthand I like to use at my table (we moved to 5E from 3.x):

Use Perception instead of Listen or Spot.
Use Investigation instead of Gather Information or Search.
Use Insight instead of Appraise or Sense Motive.

If you learned something from a book, a school, or a teacher, it's probably Int. Otherwise, it's probably Wis.

It's not perfect, but it'll do in a pinch.

I am all for finding more uses for Intelligence, but I don't think it's perception.

Investigation in our games is pretty critical. That's where a lot of it comes in. But, I do wish they had more Intelligence saves and fewer Wisdom saves.

I think smart people should be smart. I give +1 knowledge skill (history, religion, nature, arcana) per point of intelligence modifier.

Its a tragedy that intelligence is so underwhelming in 5e. Heck even wizards don't have to have high intelligence scores to be effective. Its amazing that wizards have any social standing at all. Here's what a 5e parent could be saying about their son.

"Well, he didn't have aptitude in anything, so we sent him to a weekend course to learn to be a wizard."

Wizards tend to be naturally smarter then most at trivia they aren’t specialized in. I’m not sure every wizard should be good at every knowledge skill. I could see someone who specializes in one focus, like spellcasting, might not have a lot of time to learn other things outside their field.