Wisdom too powerful?

[Sunseeker]

I know some of this is aesthetic preference, and thus subjective, but you are describing something I would argue may be outside of the attribute of Wisdom. Surely not all people with 18 Wisdom are old and like the person from " The Most Interesting Man in the World" beer commercials.

One doesn't have to be old to have a wealth of experience, I think this is simply a modern misconception. It also depends on the particular type of experiences you're asking about.

The kind but dullard of a skullery boy, might be good at knowing when his lord is in a foul mood, ( the better to escape beatings), and he often brings a flower to the serving women in the castle when they are sad, even if no one else knows and nothing has been said of the cause. Of course he can't add, read, and barely speaks; and despite being raised in the kitchens can never remember where the pots go.

Exactly, this kid could make a great thief in his off-time(classically, a lot of servants were little more than that), he may not read so good or think so much, but he's got that kind of experience to know when a person is vulnerable or angry or a good target.

Though to be honest, what you're describing cones on such a personal level, strikes me more as Insight rather than Perception. Which makes an interesting point here, as personal-connections and being able to tell when a person is happy, sad, or angry before they express it is certainly Insight, and apparently also Wisdom!

This strikes me as high Wis, low Int, and while emotionaly perceptive, should said character also be the best at seeing a hawk in the sky through bright sunlight, or the person to search a room, or better able to resist Hold Person?

Again, this is kinda that "there are different kinds of wisdom", a young man raised in the woods may better notice that Hawk, but be totally unaware when it comes to seeing when a person is happy or sad, since they totally lacked human-communication while being raised by wolves.

I still think the best solution is to allow multiple sources. Perhaps Perception is the higher of Int or Wis. Perhaps Insight is the better of Wisdom or Charisma. I think allowing players to choose which aspects of their character go towards select skills and abilities would allow for a great range of diversity without having to greatly alter the rules.

 

[jsaving]

I am fine with Wisdom being associated with Insight but not Perception.

Perception should be Intelligence. I want smart Rogues, not wise Rogues.
Rembering a maze...intelligence. Noticing the small scratches on the inside of a jewelry boxes that indicates a false bottom...should've been Intelligence.

I definitely agree that 5e should strive to avoid "dump stats." But I'm not sure why "professorial" INT rather than "practical" WIS should govern Perception. As I see it at least, the high-INT rogue would know to look for small scratches on the inside of a jewelry box but wouldn't be able to find them. Similarly, the high-INT rogue would be good at recalling a previously viewed map and using his recollections to guide his party out of a maze, but not so good if dumped in the middle of a maze and asked to find the exit.

Think of the most perceptive fictional character you know of and now ask yourself, "Was he wise, or intelligent?"

Personally, I've always associated Sherlock Holmes with being the most perceptive fictional character I can think of and he is renowned as being highly intelligent, but not particularly wise. In fact, his famous companion Watson was the voice of reason in the relationship.

Certainly Sherlock Holmes is a smart guy, but not really in the D&D sense of having a wide knowledge base from which he can draw. He learns only information that experience tells him can be helpful in solving crimes while leaving a lot of basic grade-school knowledge on the cutting room floor. So I'd see him as having a high INT but a super-high WIS.

As for Watson, he's a part of the story not because he is perceptive but because he cares about other people beyond their relevance to the case at hand -- in my view at least.

 

[Remathilis]

My fear is less wisdom's ascent and more Int's relative uselessness.

Int seems now to to mostly be about lore checks and illusion resistance, unless your a wizard. However, Int used to have an additional use: language. I'd like to see # languages (and perhaps reading/writing ability) tied again to Int.

Alternately, I'd like to see a search/spot type of dichotomy. Searching for traps and secret doors is Int, seeing or hearing creatures is wis.

 

[DogBackward]

I'd like to see # languages (and perhaps reading/writing ability) tied again to Int.

In a way, yes. But I don't want everybody with a 14 Intelligence being master linguists (knowing four very different languages "just because"). I'd like to see Intelligence as a limit on how many languages can be known (besides Common and a racial language), instead of as automatic bonus languages.

And Intelligence is still important, even without languages. It's how you avoid getting lost, it's the best ability for active perception (search, etc...) And add to that all the various lore skills (which are very important in any game run by a decent DM), and it's actually a good stat to have. Some people can dump it, but if everybody does, you're kinda screwed.

 

[Szatany]

I am fine with Wisdom being associated with Insight but not Perception.

Perception should be Intelligence.

What about animals? Animals are very, VERY perceptive, but not intelligent.

 

[Blackwarder]

I would differentiate Perception checks into 'awareness' and 'examination' checks. Are you aware of something? Test your Wisdom - your intuition, gut feeling, your subconcious. Are you looking for something? Test your Intelligence - your ability to analyse and deduce. Basically it's passive (wis) vs. active (int), which is the easiest way to decide which to use.

That's basically how I did it in my last game, I played fast and loose with the abilitiy checks using what ever fitted the player description.

Warder

 

[am181d]

I think that over the past two editions, Wisdom has really morphed into being "Observation". I'm actually all for this, as I don't think there should be a stat to measure how clever a character is. In my grognardish view, cleverness should be a function of the player's problem solving ability.

 

[BobTheNob]

My take is that we need to consider what is best for the game, not which "simulates the real world".

I would actually agree with the arguments that in real world interpretation, wisdom is probably the better stat for the job (if I had to pick ONE stat that is).

But in terms of what is best for the game? Th OP observes that Wisdom effects perception. At the same time he wants his Rogue to be crafty and cluey (and I fully endorse him in that), not world wise, yet to do that he ends up with poor perception...he is right in saying that isnt a good result. Regardless of your and my "real world" interpretations of what stat SHOULD be used (as I do think it is Wisdom), the fact that rogues need to be wise to be perceptive is a poor end result of the design.

In this case I would simply state that rogues get a feature allowing them to use INT in place of WIS when making perception checks.

Final point : Dont labor real world interpretations as the driver for game design. Sometimes its better to skew your realtiy to allow game design to work, than it is to sacrifice game design on behalf of real world interpretation. Its a balancing act and I find its something we need to start thinking about in all of these gripes that have come out of the playtest.

Remember...its a GAME.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think the current setup of DDN is very flexible in the regard of using ability scores. And perception is a good example.

You see, i think perception is an incredible broad area of expertise. Most people are very perceptive in some areas and pretty much oblivious in others.

There are good arguments to use dexterity, intelligence and wisdom for perception rolls. Dexterity means keen eyed, good coordination and focus, good multitasking and reflexes. Wisdom means a good general awareness, concentration and intuition. Intelligence speaks of an analytical mind and the knowledge what to look for.

I'd like to use various combinations of those ability scores.

Likewise, while a perception bonuse speaks of a character that is generally very perceptive, many skills should play into specific perception tests. A character trained in religion exploring a ruined temple knows what to look for and what is out of place and should get the bonus. A character trained in survival spots animals, traps and hazards in the wild more easily. A trained thief is more likely to spot thieves in a crowd. etc.

Perception of the world is incredibly important in tabletop roleplaying and every character should have times to shine in it.

Right now DDN not only doesn't contradict this approach of mine, I feel encouraged to interpret tthe system my way. I like that.

I like your suggestion, and can see investigation into alternate ability scores for checks.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would differentiate Perception checks into 'awareness' and 'examination' checks. Are you aware of something? Test your Wisdom - your intuition, gut feeling, your subconcious. Are you looking for something? Test your Intelligence - your ability to analyse and deduce. Basically it's passive (wis) vs. active (int), which is the easiest way to decide which to use.

I think that is probably the best route if determined to keep the traditional six ability scores. The other option is to make Wis only about awareness/perception, roll the "strength of will" stuff into Cha, and then give Int more space elsewhere.

In real life, the kind of observation/perception/awareness/acute senses that would matter in a D&D world has very little to do with either Int or Wis, at least as people would normally understand the terms. It is mainly its own thing. Spotting hidden things is a skill and/or talent that seems to be fairly evenly distributed across a very divergent population when it comes to "intelligence" or "wisdom". (I believe this is why the US military has a separate section testing perception and observation directly, on the aptitude test that they provide to students leaving high school.)

As it happens, I've been rereading the complete Sherlock Holmes. Again and again, Holmes tells Watson that he sees all the same things. (This is even mostly true.) But he doesn't observe them. His mind doesn't go through the complete list, looking for the ones that are important and temporarily filing away the ones that are not. And certainly, the Int comes in that Holmes has trained himself to fit the important ones into the puzzle, sometimes very rapidly.

Personally, if it were up to me, I'd do something that would never fly: I'd make Cha only about force of personality (as it mostly has been), Wis about nothing but willpower and insight (with perhaps a bit of "danger sense " intuition thrown in), and then Int about raw cunning, observation, and perception--and only that. Then I'd leave the broader bits of "intelligence" out of the stats entirely, as mostly a bad business that really belongs under training.

This would necessarily give the traditional "wizard" a different slant, but I'd take that trade for all the other benefits. Maybe the fact that all versions of D&D have had to scrounge for something substantial for Int to do should tell us something ...