D&D 5E How to Play: Exploration (Stealth and Perception)

[Chris_Nightwing]

My my, double post, it's been a while, but I knew you'd come back..

 

[Gargoyle]

Why is that necessarily a flaw?

Now I'm trying to figure out whether I have a low Int or low Wis.

Perhaps there is no flaw and I'm just too thick to understand it. I guess one thing is the way I'm thinking about it.

When I read the rule initially, I thought of this sort of scenario:

Cleric: Ok, I am searching for a book that will reveal the location of the secret door.
DM: Because you are looking, roll Int. (Cleric fails)
Wizard: I'll look for it. (Wizard easily rolls high)
DM: You realize that the shelves are organized in alphabetical order, but in Dwarven...and you find a strange tome that may help.

While that scenario is still weird to me, and seems wrong, the following one comes to mind now and makes me feel better about it.


DM: You enter a room full of knicknacks and clutter. (Secretly rolls Wisdom check for Cleric, the person with the highest Wisdom). Cleric, you see a book on the table that seems to be out of place.
Cleric: Hmm a book. I read it.
DM: It appears to be a puzzle where you must find the picture of a wizardly looking fellow with the exotic name of "Waldo".
Cleric: Ok, I search through the book and try to find this "Waldo". Perhaps doing so will magically reveal the secret door we are looking for.
DM: You fail to find Waldo.
Wizard: I look through the book over his shoulder.
DM: You easily find Waldo in the mass of strangely dressed characters.

Better, partly because most of the time Wisdom checks will be secretly rolled by the DM anyway IMO, and I do like the idea of this sort of teamwork.

Thanks for the input.

 

[Gargoyle]

I would say that the rolls are separate. You always get a Wisdom check to notice a hidden creature. If you are actively searching, you also get an Intelligence check. Thus, active searching always improves your odds.

While that would resolve some of my problems with the rule, it isn't the RAW, since it clearly says "or". I'm sure I could houserule it any way I want, I'm just trying to figure out what sort of feedback to give on it to WotC, if any.

Edit: Of course, I proposed some house rules in my initial post, so your proposal was welcome too, just not precisely what I was looking for.

 

[Gargoyle]

If only Clerics used Charisma, then we could leave Wisdom to Druids and Rangers, whom we expect to have good senses.

I agree, this would be good. There are other good reasons for this too:

- Charisma would no longer be *the* dump stat, so you are likely to have someone in the party with high Charisma.
- If I was a god I'd want clerics who were leaders of mortals...I'd want them to have confidence and eloquence, and yeah, some gods would want them to even look good.

- It further differentiates clerics from paladins, druids, and rangers. There aren't a lot of casters that use Charisma.

- "Sheer force of will" seems like a pretty good description of clerical magic, I don't think there would be a need to change a lot of flavor text.

Another thought is that why do all clerics need to have the same stat for their magical power? A cleric of a god of strength might use the Strength ability score, while a god of beauty might prefer Charisma, etc. Maybe that's too big a change with some unforeseen (by me) ramifications, but I like the idea of it.

 

[Gargoyle]

If you're actively searching with a lot INT, it's probably because you're not very INTelligent.

Do you mean without?

 

[Dausuul]

While that would resolve some of my problems with the rule, it isn't the RAW, since it clearly says "or". I'm sure I could houserule it any way I want, I'm just trying to figure out what sort of feedback to give on it to WotC, if any.

It's not at all clear that that "or" is meant to be exclusive. To me it's hard to imagine that it could work any other way than separate checks.

I mean, think about what it would imply to make them exclusive: You get the Wisdom check automatically as soon as the hidden thing comes within range of your senses. If the checks are exclusive, then you never get the Intelligence check, because the Wisdom check happens first and locks you out. The only way to get the Intelligence check is to be actively searching at the moment the hidden thing enters the scene. It's ridiculous.

I admit that the rule text is not very clear, but given that it does not explicitly state you only get one or the other, I think separate checks are implied by the nature of the beast.

 

[occam]

Fact is, the more I think about it, the more Search (Int) feels a bit wrong... it's just a habit after decades of D&D to assume it makes sense

Are there really decades of precedent? AFAICR, this was only introduced with the Search/Spot split in 3e, which makes it a relatively recent development for D&D. As a long-time D&D player, I'd have no problem dropping the confusing distinction between Int & Wis when looking around for things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The second is because of famous literature characters such as Sherlock Holmes, which is supposed to be very intelligent and use his Int for searching for clues. But he could just as well be both a high-Int and high-Wis character, using Wis for observations and Int for deductions.!

This is precisely why in my current game I don't use the skills 'Spot' and 'Search', but rather changed the names to 'Observation' and 'Investigation'. Because there are certain visual aspects of the premise of 'Search' that I feel are better suited towards falling into the WIS category... while at the same time aspects in terms of deduction and reasoning that don't currently fall under a skill category at all, that I think should be represented.

Finding a secret door is Observation (while otherwise it'd fall under Search). But then figuring out the different parts of the door-- how it's locked, how it's trapped, how can it open-- falls under Investigation (which again, would have still been Search).

 

[I'm A Banana]

One way to parse it:

Int is active. If you don't use INT to search, you won't find X.

Wis is reactive. The ambush is coming, the WIS check just lets you know about it before it happens.

So if it's something your character is actively looking for, use INT. If it's something that your character would notice (and it's more a matter of if you notice IN TIME), use WIS.

 

[Dausuul]

So if it's something your character is actively looking for, use INT. If it's something that your character would notice (and it's more a matter of if you notice IN TIME), use WIS.

That's a good suggestion! To refine it a little more, we could say:

If something is visible but hard to spot, and the question is whether you notice it:
--You get a Wisdom check to find it without searching.
--If you search, you find it automatically.

If something is hidden from view and the question is whether you find it:
--You will not find it unless you search.
--If you search, you get an Intelligence check to find it.