Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Complexity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6044290" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Here's the thing though... with the 5E design paradigm... I don't even think you need to do that-- use Knowledge for Perception. The reason is simple... nobody is <em>making</em> "Perception" skill checks. Nobody is actually making "skill checks" at all. They are making INT and WIS checks to notice something in particular. Ability checks. Everyone HAS "Perception", because everyone has an INT and WIS score.</p><p></p><p>All I've done in my playtests have just removed <em>official</em> places where PCs get a bonus +3 because of their "trained skills". No "trained skill" guarantees you a +3 bonus to notice things. </p><p></p><p>Now that being said... I agree with you 100% and actually do what you suggest in that occasionally I will give the PCs the +3 bonus for another skill they have if it influences where, when and how they do their INT or WIS check. But like in every case of using these "skills" now... they have to explain how it is what they are trained in is being used to justify getting the +3 bonus to their INT or WIS check. And they have to be specific about it. It is never just <em>presumed</em> that some "trained skill" they have will automatically apply.</p><p></p><p>So for instance... a player in a dungeon comes up to a closed dungeon door and states they are listening to see if there is anyone on the other side. I tell them to make an INT check to see if they discern what is back there. They say they have Dungeoneering, can they get the bonus +3? I ask them why it would apply? The player then says that based upon knowing how cave tunnels are formed and how echos sound travelling down them... they know how to "tune out" the unnecessary background sounds to focus in on the unnatural sound remaining. I would then judge whether that made sense in this particular case and then give or not give them the +3. It puts the onus on the player to justify why they should get a bonus... not just me reflexively asking them when they say they are listening at the door "Do you have Dungeoneering? Add a +3."</p><p></p><p>This method basically trains the players to start thinking in the abstract... using the actual game world to justify reasons for their game mechanics. The last thing I want anymore is for someone to say "I'm listening to what's behind the door, I'm trained in Perception, making a Perception check, rolled a 12 plus my +7 bonus, I got a 19..." all without any input from me. Because that is how we end up with the exceedingly bland interaction and exploration pillars... when we have no reason or need to roleplay because the mechanics are all just set up to need nothing but rolling dice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6044290, member: 7006"] Here's the thing though... with the 5E design paradigm... I don't even think you need to do that-- use Knowledge for Perception. The reason is simple... nobody is [I]making[/I] "Perception" skill checks. Nobody is actually making "skill checks" at all. They are making INT and WIS checks to notice something in particular. Ability checks. Everyone HAS "Perception", because everyone has an INT and WIS score. All I've done in my playtests have just removed [I]official[/I] places where PCs get a bonus +3 because of their "trained skills". No "trained skill" guarantees you a +3 bonus to notice things. Now that being said... I agree with you 100% and actually do what you suggest in that occasionally I will give the PCs the +3 bonus for another skill they have if it influences where, when and how they do their INT or WIS check. But like in every case of using these "skills" now... they have to explain how it is what they are trained in is being used to justify getting the +3 bonus to their INT or WIS check. And they have to be specific about it. It is never just [I]presumed[/I] that some "trained skill" they have will automatically apply. So for instance... a player in a dungeon comes up to a closed dungeon door and states they are listening to see if there is anyone on the other side. I tell them to make an INT check to see if they discern what is back there. They say they have Dungeoneering, can they get the bonus +3? I ask them why it would apply? The player then says that based upon knowing how cave tunnels are formed and how echos sound travelling down them... they know how to "tune out" the unnecessary background sounds to focus in on the unnatural sound remaining. I would then judge whether that made sense in this particular case and then give or not give them the +3. It puts the onus on the player to justify why they should get a bonus... not just me reflexively asking them when they say they are listening at the door "Do you have Dungeoneering? Add a +3." This method basically trains the players to start thinking in the abstract... using the actual game world to justify reasons for their game mechanics. The last thing I want anymore is for someone to say "I'm listening to what's behind the door, I'm trained in Perception, making a Perception check, rolled a 12 plus my +7 bonus, I got a 19..." all without any input from me. Because that is how we end up with the exceedingly bland interaction and exploration pillars... when we have no reason or need to roleplay because the mechanics are all just set up to need nothing but rolling dice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Complexity
Top