Perception should be an intelligence proficiency

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn't make it a global change, for all the reasons that you have already read in this thread. I'd keep it situational.

You are well within the rules to call for an Intelligence (Perception) check instead of a Wisdom (Perception) check, if you think the situation might require "book smarts" rather than "street smarts." An engineer would have the education and training to spot a weakened support column without actively searching for one, for example. Just sprinkle a few brainy situations into your game, and start asking for Intelligence checks.

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

 

[iserith]

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

Recalling obscure sports trivia.

 

[Satyrn]

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

Lining up a triple takeout in curling.

I tell you, I felt like the smartest athlete ever after making that shot.

 

[LordEntrails]

Lining up a triple takeout in curling.

You're going to have to tell me/us what you are talking about. I'm not proficient in althletics, and other than a few minutes in the Olympics, have no idea about curling!

 

[CleverNickName]

*rolls a nat 1*
It's pretty much shuffleboard on ice, with brooms.

 

[Satyrn]

You're going to have to tell me/us what you are talking about. I'm not proficient in althletics, and other than a few minutes in the Olympics, have no idea about curling!

This isn't me, my triple was nowhere near as tough, not was it ever recorded. I'm suggesting an an Int(athletics) check would show that this could be done, and where to aim your shot to knock all 3 blue stones out of the rings:

[video=youtube_share;GSkO0n47c9o]https://youtu.be/GSkO0n47c9o[/video]

 

[Satyrn]

*rolls a nat 1*
It's pretty much shuffleboard on ice, with brooms.

Nice example of failing an Int (Athletics) check.

So applying my example to D&D, you could call for such a check if your player ever declares that he's looking to set up a trick shot, something like "I scan the room, looking for a piece of furnishing - a drapery, a candlestick, something - that I could shoot with an arrow to send flying into that lamp around the corner, and knock it over."

Success would mean that he's applied his archery trickshooting to the scene, and has found the outlandish geometry to make it work.

 

[Gwarok]

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.

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? 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.

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.

 

[Gwarok]

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.

I think you should get a bonus to skills based on your INT score, but they can only be used for INT based skills. 16 INT? Great, you can pick up History, Religion, Arcana as a bonus. You're big brain does not let you get acrobatics though. Or perhaps for every bonus of INT you can spend it to get expertise on a skill even if you aren't a rogue or bard. Still gotta spend the skill point, but you can focus on it to a level that sets you ahead of others. Something like that.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Expertise is too powerful. I second getting extra languages for high Int. There’s very little in the game that gives you more languages aside from weak feats and being able to speak to a variety of races/cultures just adds more rp possibilities. It enables social skill checks instead of making existing ones overly powerful. . It also means that a party doesn’t have to rely on magic (comprehend languages or tongues).