Perception should be an intelligence proficiency

[77IM]

For a lot of things, like spotting traps and secret doors, I'll allow players to roll either Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation). Sure, why not? It keeps the game moving, balances Int and Wis a little better, and lets PCs of differing idioms succeed at similar tasks. I view it kind of like finesse weapons: you can be a Str-warrior or a Dex-warrior, and in some situations they are different, but in many situations they accomplish exactly the same thing.

 

[iserith]

The easy way to remember the distinction in my view is:

Perception = detect
Investigation = deduce (based on clues you have)
"Knowledge Skills" = recall

Since action declaration is the players' role in the game, to see more Intelligence checks, the players describe their characters as attempting to deduce something from existing clues (e.g. how the trap works based on what they've found so far) or recall lore (e.g. the troll's strengths and weaknesses). That action declaration must come with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure in order for there to be an Intelligence check at all.

So it seems to me that if those sorts of tasks aren't coming up much, then the players don't find them very valuable, which is then on the DM to correct by presenting content that makes them more useful. Traps and secret doors are an easy add in this regard, and the rules call for Intelligence checks to figure out their workings before disarming or opening (when that task has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure).

 

[aco175]

I try to get a mix of both to give the PCs each a chance to find things. I also tend to not use passive checks that much. I think I just give out a certain amount of info just based on assuming someone has +3 in some stat I'm looking for, so I just tell the group, or tell the player of the cleric or mage that they see something.

I like the idea of comparing what an animal would notice as Perception vs. what a human finds using Investigation, as mentioned upthread.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I add value to INT by asking for more INT checks. For example, disarming a trap is an INT\Thief's Tools check. Camouflaging a shelter is an INT\Stealth check. Searching a room for a hidden object is an INT\Investigation check.

I do like the seperation of perception and investigation. The trope of the clueless, highly intelligent character is very common.

 

[LordEntrails]

Another useful distinction is if you have to touch something, then it is Investigation, not Perception.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

At some points in the playtest, perception type tasks were split more evenly between Wisdom and Intelligence. Then they apparently decided the distinction between noticing and finding was too subtle and just stuck it all together.

 

[Gwarok]

Run Perception and Investigation the way I do, which is the way I think they are intended to be used.

Perception tells you something is wrong. It tells you their is a draft, or scuff marks, or that something is off. It never tells you what or how. Sure, perception tells you the wall has a draft that might be a secret door, but without investigation you will never find where the door is or how to open it.

Sure, perception tells you their is a trip wire across the hallway or a switch/trigger on the door hinge. But you will never figure out how to bypass or disarm it unless you use investigation.

Perception tells you the gate guard as a tattoo half hidden on his forearm, but only intelligence is going to tell you anything about it.

Low Int is fine in my games, but don't expect to know why. Go ahead and be a bull in a china shop, but their will be no finesse or innuendo etc.

The way I've interpreted it in my game is that perception allows you do notice things that you are looking for, while Investigation allows you to notice patterns and things you weren't specifically looking for and make the connections. Sure, you might see something that is right in front of you, but not necessarily know that it's important or relevant. For instance, perception might help you find where Waldo is in the pictures of a crowd. But INT(Investigation) will let you connect that each of these 10 pictures of crowds has a Waldo in it, and that the point of each is a game to find him. If there is a connection to be made or something wrong with a picture it's INT, if it's something you know to look for, like a tripwire for a trap, it's WIS(Perception).

The problem is role playing this distinction. Most DM's will try their level best to paint a picture for the group. But to actually portray it simply based on the requires:

1) The DM have a VERY clear and detailed image in their own head of the "thing" to be found and what it is
2) Is then able to communicate that detailed image clearly
3) The players then have to hear and interpret it clearly

Much is lost in translation at each step, because we're only human. Doing all 3 of these things is impossible to do perfectly, and makes simply telling the characters what the room looks like and expecting them to pull the relevant data not only impossible but removes that fact that a high INT character with proficiency in investigation will literally be seeing more than low INT characters. Sherlock Holmes gets a much better description from his DM than Watson or LeStrade because of his faculties, not merely the same one. If we just give every player the same description, then you're using the skills of the player behind the character, not the character they are playing, making their character's skills and abilities irrelevant. I don't have an 18 INT or the ability to cast spells, my wizard does. The DM must account for that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How about intelligence granting additional skills equal to the ability bonus?

I’d be ok with languages or tools, but not skills. A wizard shouldn’t outpace the rogue in skills just because their Int is higher.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It seems like wizards already get a lot of goodies, so I would be more supportive of changes to the use of Int that don't particularly benefit wizards. I could see having critical hits be made on 20-half your int modifier (minimum 0), or 19-half your int modifier (minimum 0) for champion fighters. Of course that would mean the really smart barbarian would be a real monster.

I also think there could be monster traits that work off of checks vs. the PC's int (mostly for the white room crowd): the first time a monster with the diabolic genius trait sees a PC, have the player made an check vs. the PC int, and if the PC fails the check, the monster knows the PC's level, class, spells known/prepared, and any magic items the PC has. If the PC fails the check by 5 or more, the first time the PC does damage (or inflicts a condition) using a magic item, he/she takes equal damage to the monster and/or also gets that condition.

 

[iserith]

The DM must account for that.

I don't agree on this point. Initially, the DM need only describe the environment to include the basic scope of options that present themselves. Each player gets the same description. From there, it's on the players to put their characters in the position to explore further and the resolution of those specific player-declared tasks is when the adjudication process and game mechanics (if necessary) come into play. (This is when we might but not always see a distinction between Holmes' and Watson's abilities.) The DM then narrates the result of the adventurers' actions and loops back to describing the environment.

In short, the player doesn't get a different description of the environment just because of some ability score, class feature, or skill proficiency he or she chose during character creation or advancement - he or she has to do something to get more information. That's my read on the rules of the game, anyway.