Perception from Dexterity

[Falling Icicle]

I don't like the idea either. Dexterity is a physical attribute, perception is a mental ability. It just doesn't make any sense. How does my agilility and reflexes have anything to do with noticing things? If I were to change the attribute linked to Perception, the only other ability that could possibly make sense would be Intelligence, IMO.

 

[CapnZapp]

Kzach, I'm concerned with your responses here. You seem to use this thread as evangelizing your point, despite how people aren't interested.

You've posted your suggestion, and you've got your answer; deal with it.

Remember; people answering you is a courtesy. Not an invitation to bickering.

Bringing up "proof" you're right just drives people away. I see no place for such, not in a house rule thread. Instead, why don't you use the rule if you like and stop trying to convince others they're doing it wrong, eh?

 

[Kzach]

Kzach, I'm concerned with your responses here. You seem to use this thread as evangelizing your point, despite how people aren't interested.

You've posted your suggestion, and you've got your answer; deal with it.

Remember; people answering you is a courtesy. Not an invitation to bickering.

Bringing up "proof" you're right just drives people away. I see no place for such, not in a house rule thread. Instead, why don't you use the rule if you like and stop trying to convince others they're doing it wrong, eh?

What the hell?

This is a forum for discussion not blanket agreement with the popular opinion of the masses.

Seriously, get over yourself.

 

[Garthanos]

And here I was feeling guilty because I was harping a little on my disagreement

1) perception used as the standard guarding the camp skill is about patience and discipline (features of wisdom) and the most common context for perception rules in many games.

2) the dictionary definition supports intelligence far more than dexterity....(for which you have to drag in secondary meanings which make it in to intelligence.)

his argument is that classic archetypes the rogues and rangers ought to be the best at perception In their contexts I dont think he is actually wrong, but I dont like his method or his conclusion. (...I think that it may mean we need more reasons for them to have intelligence or any mental accuity you want it to be.)

I would say that taclords are a new archetype that also ought to be the best at perception in his battlefield context.

Out of this we got a very nice house rule from 77IM, for which I consider this whole thread worth its weight.

 

[77IM]

Quoting RAW in a Houserules thread? Seriously?

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that the RAW has no bearing on house rules?

-- 77IM, trying to be helpful but not sure what you are looking for

 

[Kzach]

People defending Wisdom for Perception are using the exact same arguments I'm using to promote Dexterity. With two key exceptions that I believe give the Dexterity argument an advantage.

The first is that dexterity at least has the back-up of being tangentially associated with perception whereas wisdom, no matter how wide an arc you want to swing, does not. Other editions and other games have no bearing on this argument. The fact remains that Perception was arbitrarily assigned to Wisdom through very little justification other than, "Well, it ain't got much else goin' fer it."

That is not a solid argument.

The other, and far more important, factor is that of mechanics and the thematic element. Mechanically, assigning Dexterity to Perception works much better than Wisdom. So what if Wisdom loses a bit of punch? With Perception based on Dexterity, you don't hurt any of the classes that SHOULD be good at Perception and already are through Wisdom (avenger, druid and ranger), but you give those classes who can't bump their Wisdoms or are forced to take an extra feat simply to be good at what they already should be good at, their schtick back (rogues, barbarians mainly).

Plus you eliminate the ridiculously stupid situation where clerics, invokers, warlords and fighters are better at Perception than rogues.

The argument that, "Well a rogue can take a feat..." works far better to support Dexterity for Perception since it is the OTHER classes who should need to take a feat in order to be good at something that is outside their niche.

 

[77IM]

The first is that dexterity at least has the back-up of being tangentially associated with perception whereas wisdom, no matter how wide an arc you want to swing, does not.

I think most people would very much disagree with that.

Other editions and other games have no bearing on this argument.

What does have a bearing, then? Do the dictionary definitions of Dexterity and Wisdom have more bearing on the game than the PHB definition? If "wisdom includes perception" has worked -- and made sense --for the popular 3e and all its derivatives (Star Wars, M&M, T20, Spycraft, 4e) and all those people playing them, maybe there is something there that you are missing regarding how other players perceive Wisdom, Dexterity, and the ability to notice things.

"What traits should characters have and what do they cover?" is a very difficult issue that has plagued RPGs for generations. It's doubly difficult for mental traits, like Wisdom and Perception, because humans are complicated and mental capabilities don't really fall into three neat buckets like we want them too. Because the meaning of traits is subjective, I can't argue that you are "wrong" to want to have Dexterity cover Perception. I can only say that I disagree, and also that in my experience most players would also disagree.


You make an interesting observation about rogues being bad at something in their niche (although, clerics, warlords, fighters, etc. all need to take a feat to get Perception training, while rogues can get it as a class skill), but I consider that a larger flaw in how 4e uses ability scores and encourages min-maxing, not a specific issue with rogues and Wisdom.

-- 77IM

 

[Garthanos]

Why not use, intelligence? far fewer arguments from dictionary bangers and people who don't like dex as a mental attribute (or think it is overwhelmingly too all encompassing if accepted as both).

Why should my tactical warlord be upping his dexterity... the whole concept of the class is having a better perception - ie seeing through the fog of war?

Feh, I think we need more reason for no stats to be dump stats....

Acknowleging perception (like real life intelligence) is contextual seems the only reasonable course.

 

[N0Man]

The dictionary definitions and the synonyms of the two words:

And please tell me, just how long did it take for you to go around Dictionary Shopping to find one reference that gives your argument credence?

I will tell you, I purposefully attempted to seek out such a definition that included Intelligence, and after going through 12 dictionaries, I came up empty-handed and gave up.

Obviously you are either far more persistent to try to find a source out there that agrees with you, or you are luckier than I am. (Dictonary.com, M-W.com, Wiktionary, thefreedictionary.com, yourdictionary.com, alphadictionary.com, askoxford.com, encarta.msn.com, dictionary.cambridge.org, wordsmyth.net, ARTFL Project (Webster Dictionary, 1913), Allwords.com)

Dexterity is rooted specifically in the use of the hands, and describes physical skill, coordination, and quickness. It's use has grown to be used metaphorically to describe skill and quickness in general (such as mental quickness).

What you are arguing is that because Dexterity is metaphorically applied to intellectual skill as well, that we should base intellectual skills based on Dexterity.

This is despite the fact that D&D has ALWAYS been about having 3 attributes that were physical, and 3 that were mental. Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are meant to be for physical skills. Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom are meant to be for mental and social skills.

Or maybe I should just take up your method of logic, and say that we get rid nearly all attributes and just keep 2 attributes, Constitution and Smart!

Smart replaces Strength:

2: marked by often sharp forceful activity or vigorous strength

Smart replaces Dexterity:

3: brisk, spirited <a smart pace>

Smart replaces both intelligence and wisdom:

4 a: mentally alert : bright b: knowledgeable c: shrewd

Smart replaces Charisma:

6 a: neat, trim <soldiers in smart uniforms> b: stylish or elegant in dress or appearance c (1): appealing to sophisticated tastes (2): characteristic of or patronized by fashionable society

Now we have 1 skill based on Con (Endurance), and all the other skills, social, mental, and physical (except Endurance) can all be based on Smart.

 

[N0Man]

Here's a house rule that may address some of the issue by reducing the importance of Wisdom to Perception without eliminating it.

If you're trained in Arcana, you can use Arcana instead of Perception to notice magical phenomena (not including invisible creatures).

If you're trained in Dungeoneering, you can use Dungeoneering instead of Perception to search for disguised stonework (including secret doors, movable panels, and concealed holes) and to search for tracks underground.

If you're trained in Heal, you can use Heal instead of Perception to notice the symptoms of a disease or to notice poison (such as realizing that a funny smell is toxic gas).

If you're trained in History, you can use History instead of Perception to search anything that is out-of-place for its historical or cultural context (for example, if an old dwarven ruin contains some elven carvings, you could use History to search the carvings).

If you're trained in Insight, you can use Insight instead of Perception to understand what is being said in an overheard conversation.

If you're trained in Nature, you can use Nature instead of Perception to search for natural phenomena (such as particular plants and animals, or geographic features) and to search for tracks outdoors.

If you're trained in Religion, you can use Religion instead of Perception to actively search places or objects of religious significance.

If you're trained in Thievery, you can use Thievery instead of Perception to search for traps and to notice concealed weapons.

If you're trained in Perception, you can use it for all its normal uses, including all of the above.
​

The rationale is that "awareness" is such a generic and useful trait that it shouldn't be limited to just one skill with one ability score. So Perception is still useful for character concepts that are generally aware, but character concepts that are more focussed can still notice items relating to their areas of expertise. (When 4e came out, I was kind of surprised it didn't work this way, particularly searching for traps [Thievery] and searching for tracks [Nature].)

-- 77IM

Now this is a far more reasonable suggestion. Not only do I think that is a fine and well thought out house rule, you even find such things in official materials.

In a recent article, they had made a skill challenge example using Nature to be able to do some sneaking and spying inside of a forested area, even though we'd usually just think of this as a straight stealth check.

Skill challenge examples have also done things like allowed History to be used (in order to cite some applicable historical lesson) in order to persuade someone, even though this is typically though of as just a Diplomacy check.

I'd allow a rogue to use Thievery to spot traps, but not to spot hidden ambushers in the bushes in the forest. However, I might let the rogue use Nature for that instead, if he chose.