D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[Li Shenron]

What would be the pros/cons of implementing Intuition in the game?
I’d like PCs to have a 6th sense to guide them, a way as a DM to give them gut instincts, flashes of warnings?
View attachment 118542
I can't decide if it would be a new ability or skill (if so, attached to Wisdom?).
Or should be like a Plot Point type of mechanic, each player getting one roll a session so it's not overused?

Please let me know if/how it has been done in previous editions or other rpgs.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.

You can already use Wisdom checks.

Making something a skill is never a requirement if your purpose is to give characters a chance. The main consequence of it being its own skill, is that some characters can choose to boost it (at the cost of another skill, obviously) by using their proficiency bonus.

If you plan this to be a major theme in a campaign, then you can consider making it a completely separate thing, which may be added to the standard set of the 6 main character abilities or otherwise be completely separate. Just keep in mind that point-based is a non-random mechanic, so if you design intuition as an amount of points that can be spent, it will work very differently compared to rolling, although there will still be the randomess of the player not knowing when it's good to use them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What do you mean?

That came out more general than I intended.
I meant that the ONE player I had that was looking for an intuition type mechanic was a player who wanted it for RP purposes. Their character wasn’t particularly smart but had a tendency to trust their gut.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It is also... the 2nd level cleric spell - Augury. One probably should not regularly have a stat check mimic more than a cantrip...

cough Insight as lie detector cough

 

[tommybahama]

So every trap interaction is basically three tasks that may or may not include ability checks, plus time.

I like this because it gives the Cleric (Perception), Wizard (Investigation), and Rogue (Thieve's tools) something to roll, but multiple rolls also increase the chance of failure. Our Pole-Arm Master fighter lost his arm in one campaign because someone failed their Perception roll. And what do you if someone fails their Investigation roll to figure out how the trap works?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I like this because it gives the Cleric (Perception), Wizard (Investigation), and Rogue (Thieve's tools) something to roll...

Why is it good to give somebody "something to roll on"?

As a player, I prefer to have something to do, in the sense of something to figure out or optimize or make a decision on. The d20 is so capricious that I don't like abdicating control to it.

 

[iserith]

I like this because it gives the Cleric (Perception), Wizard (Investigation), and Rogue (Thieve's tools) something to roll, but multiple rolls also increase the chance of failure. Our Pole-Arm Master fighter lost his arm in one campaign because someone failed their Perception roll. And what do you if someone fails their Investigation roll to figure out how the trap works?

As Elfcrusher mentions, it's less about the rolls and more about the tasks (since not every task requires a roll), but I think I understand your overall point. Each approach to a goal is evaluated on its merits before the DM decides if the roll is necessary.

With regard to the failed Investigation check, the meaningful consequences for failure can vary, but might include progress combined with a setback - how to disable the trap is clear, but now it's been accidentally set in motion and threatens the party. "What do you do?"

 

[iserith]

That came out more general than I intended.
I meant that the ONE player I had that was looking for an intuition type mechanic was a player who wanted it for RP purposes. Their character wasn’t particularly smart but had a tendency to trust their gut.

I think in a situation like that, I would just tell the player to use whatever means he or she wanted to use and to leave me out of it. The player can flip a coin for all I care. As DM, I can't determine how a character thinks or acts and I won't use mechanics to do it either. (The usual exceptions of magical compulsion or the like apply.)

 

[plisnithus8]

As DM, I can't determine how a character thinks or acts and I won't use mechanics to do it either. (The usual exceptions of magical compulsion or the like apply.)

I had a DM that would tell the party what they did between what they deemed important encounters to try to move things along -- that always rubbed me wrong for the loss of control. I then tried to do the opposite, never taking away player autonomy.

However, recently, I have heard good arguments that players control their actions and active thoughts, but the DM can inform their gut reactions and thoughts that pop into their heads for the player then to decide how to deal with those.

 

[iserith]

I had a DM that would tell the party what they did between what they deemed important encounters to try to move things along -- that always rubbed me wrong for the loss of control. I then tried to do the opposite, never taking away player autonomy.

However, recently, I have heard good arguments that players control their actions and active thoughts, but the DM can inform their gut reactions and thoughts that pop into their heads for the player then to decide how to deal with those.

I prefer the DM describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions and leave it at that. Telling players what their characters think or feel or even hinting at it is way too much DM intrusion for D&D 5e in my view. I bristle when a DM says "You think..." or "You feel..." In my experience, it's often a sneaky way to push the players in a particular direction the DM wants. I'd rather the DM just come out and say which direction we should be going in to stay on the plot or maybe think better about how not to hide the plot so well that players can't decide what to do. Because that's all this "gut check" is really used for anyway by and large from what I've seen.

 

[prabe]

I prefer the DM describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions and leave it at that. Telling players what their characters think or feel or even hinting at it is way too much DM intrusion for D&D 5e in my view. I bristle when a DM says "You think..." or "You feel..." In my experience, it's often a sneaky way to push the players in a particular direction the DM wants. I'd rather the DM just come out and say which direction we should be going in to stay on the plot or maybe think better about how not to hide the plot so well that players can't decide what to do. Because that's all this "gut check" is really used for anyway by and large from what I've seen.

I don't particularly disagree with this, but I think that both magical effects (which you already mentioned in another post) and some results of Ability Checks might get "you feel" type of language. "Do I think he's lying?" [Insight check] "I examine the [whatsis] closely." [Maybe Perception to notice there's something to figure out; Investigation to figure it out ... first check might get "you think" type of language}. It's edge cases, really, and I'm not arguing.