Perception should be an intelligence proficiency

[iserith]

I have the opposite problem in the game I DM. In a party of six 4th level characters the highest passive perception is 12. Three PC's have Perception proficiency paired with a wisdom score of 10. One PC has a wisdom of 14 but isn't proficient in Perception. As a group they are much better at Arcana/History/Investigation/Religion skills. They're always pushing me to use Investigation to find traps and secret doors and I'm always pushing back that they have to notice something before they can investigate it. Perception lets you walk around with a broad awareness until something unusual grabs your attention. Investigation is putting your focus on a single thing and giving it all your attention. Using investigation to find traps and secret doors would require a focused examination of every surface: good lighting, brushing off dust, poking and probing, listening, moving slowly, etc. Certainly possible, but time consuming.

If I was in a party like this, I'd suggest we put one person in front to stay alert to dangers and one person behind or next to him or her who works together on the same task. That means there's a passive Perception of 17 detecting hidden monsters and traps as the PCs move through the dungeon. (The person doing the work together task is automatically surprised if lurking monsters attack, but at least the party has a better chance of blundering into a trap.) Every player then listens very carefully to the DM for any description that might telegraph a trap.

When they stop moving around to explore an area, same deal, more or less - each person searching for hidden objects gets someone to work together with them on the task. Any Wisdom (Perception) check would thus be at advantage. Once a trap or secret door is found, now we can deduce how it works based on the clues we just found, which may be resolved with an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

Short of spending resources to boost the result of the checks, this is about the best they can do with what they have I think. They're just better at deducing the workings of a trap or secret door than finding them!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Observant would do it. Might be worth looking in to. No pun intended

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Another way to handle this in-game would be to use the sharpshooter's Int mod (instead of Dex) to the attack roll for that trick shot.

 

[Satyrn]

Another way to handle this in-game would be to use the sharpshooter's Int mod (instead of Dex) to the attack roll for that trick shot.

Certainly.

But then it would be a terrible answer to the question "What would an Int (Athletics) check look like?"


Edit: And really, in my example, the int check was just picking out the shot before taking it, like the curling team's skip placing his broom where he wants his teammate to aim.

 

[Krachek]

We can give better bonus to trained skill or high ability score.
Ex.: Twice ability modifier and twice proficency bonus.
At high level it will give a +22.
Expertise would give a +28 or +33 bonus.

It could be nice, but it will make skill user « specialist only. »
If not trained you won’t ever take a chance.
Dc will be on extreme, too easy or too hard.
Im not sure it is so good, but at least it will solve the 2 barbarians vs wizard problem.

 

[iserith]

I think the two-barbarians-vs.-one-wizard "problem" is easily fixed by examining one's presuppositions and adjusting them for this game.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I think the two-barbarians-vs.-one-wizard "problem" is easily fixed by examining one's presuppositions and adjusting them for this game.

I don't really see it as a problem either. If there is a 'Lich King' and people want to know more about it, I use their passive Religion or History to figure out what to tell them. I might have tidbits of info at dc: 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25

The barbarians have 9 and each know DC 5 knowledge: It's an undead
The wizard has a 13 and Knows the DC 10: It's an undead mage

The two barbarians put their brains together and hammer out a dc 14(passive with advantage), which nets them what the wizard already knows: DC 10 - It's an undead mage

Two wizards put their combined knowledge together and get a dc 18 for the DC 15 knowledge that the Lich has been ruling the lands for the last 200 years.

If they want to glean another morsel, I let them roll to see if they heard other facts. Only the wizard will figure out the DC 20 knowledge. A Wizard trained in Religion or History might get the DC 25 knowledge.

That was my whole point from before: having a higher Int stat will naturally net you more information and, since wizards tend to be smart, they tend to glean more information than other people who are untrained.

I can see the extra languages. You might need to learn multiple languages to decode a variety of tomes that could be useful when learning to unlock the mysteries of the universe and learning to Bend Reality to your Will.