D&D 5E How to Play: Exploration (Stealth and Perception)

[BobTheNob]

I always had problem is wisdom being the state that is related to all the perception checks, especially condifering that it's also the one used by divine spell casters, suddenly your cleric is also your best detector...

Warder

Always had an issue with this myself.

I have heard the arguments for Wisdom as the stat to use (its your intuition e.t.c.) and I have never disagreed with them. What I have disagreed with is then end result, which is what is listed above. That "Wisdom" classes end up as the best detectors going.

I dont mind if they have 4e style Intuition linked to wisdom (i.e. detecting social quips, deception and lies), that makes sense to me...but when a cleric has a natural edge to spot a goblin in the bushes...thats just weird

 

[Li Shenron]

Are there really decades of precedent?

More than one decade is decades. Or whatever, does it matter?

This is precisely why in my current game I don't use the skills 'Spot' and 'Search', but rather changed the names to 'Observation' and 'Investigation'. Because there are certain visual aspects of the premise of 'Search' that I feel are better suited towards falling into the WIS category... while at the same time aspects in terms of deduction and reasoning that don't currently fall under a skill category at all, that I think should be represented.

Finding a secret door is Observation (while otherwise it'd fall under Search). But then figuring out the different parts of the door-- how it's locked, how it's trapped, how can it open-- falls under Investigation (which again, would have still been Search).

This. All in all, I would prefer they go back to skills in the previous two packets, where they more meant to be "ability checks first, skill bonus later". This way the same skill used for noticing stuff could have been used on top of a Wis check or an Int check, depending on the circumstances. With rigidly defined ability-skill connections, we'll never get rid of ambiguities or corner cases.

 

[sheadunne]

More than one decade is decades. Or whatever, does it matter?



This. All in all, I would prefer they go back to skills in the previous two packets, where they more meant to be "ability checks first, skill bonus later". This way the same skill used for noticing stuff could have been used on top of a Wis check or an Int check, depending on the circumstances. With rigidly defined ability-skill connections, we'll never get rid of ambiguities or corner cases.

Or they could remove the tie to ability scores altogether, then it wouldn't matter.

 

[Li Shenron]

Or they could remove the tie to ability scores altogether, then it wouldn't matter.

Do you mean, not applying any ability modifier to skill checks? I've never thought of that...

 

[Sadrik]

There is a really good book by Malcolm Gladwell entitled Blink. In this book he argues that there are two ways we draw conclusions about things. One in which we use our analytical mind and another we use our unconscious mind. Our unconscious mind for example allows us to get out of the way of a truck as it barrels at us. We don't have to consciously weigh the costs and benefits of the situation. We simply get out of the way. He argues that this unconscious reasoning is fast and can both be better than the more measured approach and can be worse. Training for years of art appreciation for instance can give you a better hunch about the quality of a piece of art than a scientist who simply measures the components of the piece. I like the concept of WIS representing this unconscious reasoning, and the rational mind which can be just as good if not better when time permits being represented by INT.

Switch the skills around and saves around to reflect this new understanding of these concepts and I think you have something.

 

[kerleth]

Yay, supporters for the CSBCBF (Clerics Should Be Charisma Based Foundation)! From my experience more "Iconic" cleric style figures run off of charisma. They are often leaders, a crisis of faith involves losing confidence and doubting your own choices (via doubting said faith). Clerics with intimidate and bluff (my god will smite you, it will be all right Aunt May, we'll make it out) are easier to reconcile then (By jove, there are 5 orcs behind that hill). Also, it would serve to be another good divide between druid and cleric.

As to the original subject, I also prefered the previous packets where skills weren't linked to specific ability scores. I see why they did this, but I liked that way better. That, however, doesn't really fix the problem. If they describe using intelligence checks as being used for search for specific things, when describing what all that sort of thing is good for, then the "issue" is still there. I'm okay with the current rule. Wisdom is a noticing something isn't right and working from there. Intelligence is methodically checking over something to see if it all fits together. Though it is odd that you would make an intelligence check when specifically looking to see if there are any muddy spots on the floor from the invisible creature who stepped in the puddle. Perhaps part of the problem is a character acting "intelligently" is actually more tied to the player than any of the other scores are. As far as character specific traits, I think the observation and investigation split is a really great idea. It still comes down to describing which fits into which, however.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm not sure what the problem is. I imagine the scenario like this:

Scenario 1: Rogue sneaking into the enemy base.
Rogue: I hide behind the corner. [rolls Dex check to hide]
Guard: [rolls Wis check to spot, fails] She's gone! I'm going to go look for her. [rolls Int check to search, fails]
DM: He doesn't find you.
Rogue: I sneak up behind him and kill him! [rolls Dex check to move silently]
DM: [rolls Wis check to spot, succeeds] He notices you sneaking up on him, so you don't surprise him. Roll initiative.

Scenario 2: A party of PCs is exploring the dungeon.
DM: You walk north into a large, square room. A 10-foot-wide corridor leads north.
Wizard: There was a portal to the Plane of Ooze in the other room... I look for signs of oozes. [rolls Int check to search] 5.
DM: You don't see anything.
Fighter: Screw this, let's keep moving. I go north.
DM: [Secretly rolls a Wisdom check for the Fighter] You notice a shimmering curtain of slime just inside the corridor. You're barely able to avoid walking right into it.
Fighter: A gelatinous cube! I attack it!
DM: Roll initiative.

Of course, this comes down to DM style, so it's probably for the best that the rules don't specify. I'd run it as above, but you could also run it as below:

Scenario 2.2: A party of PCs is exploring the dungeon.
DM: You walk north into a large, square room. A 10-foot-wide corridor leads north. Everyone give me a Wisdom check to spot.
Wizard: Hmm, I wonder why. [rolls] 7.
Fighter: [rolls] 21.
DM: Fighter, you notice that there's a gelatinous cube in the northern corridor.
Fighter: I kill it!
DM: Roll initiative.