mrpopstar
Sparkly Dude
You're being snarky.LOL I don't seem to appreciate being challenged? Ahem Cough, cough
Wisdom is not a physical ability score, yet you insist that proficiency in the Perception skill demonstrates a focus on physical sight. Is it your stance that a character with 20/20 vision can improve their vision to 20/15 if they gain proficiency in the Perception skill? Can you provide evidence outside of the skill's description to substantiate your claim?If am guilty of not liking my "fixed mindset" challenged, you seem oblivious to the fact yours has been as well and you are not acknowledging the points despite your claims.
This isn't about being challenged, it is about reading the description of what Perception is comprised of and understanding that those proficient in Perception will be better than those who aren't at judging a distance. I've outlined it for you multiple times and you still are either unwilling or unable to understand the significance.
There is no need to push my thinking because your hypothetical has no merit in 5E. Elves and humans don't, as a race, have the same visual acuity because, in 5E, elves do have Keen Senses, and not every human will have proficiency in Perception. So, please stop proposing meaningless hypotheticals and address how the description of the "keenness of your senses" as part of Perception has nothing to do with visual acuity.
I'm not being contentious, or even onerous in my asking. Help me see it the way you see it beyond advancing a single phrase.
Please do not tell me what I know or what I feel.Actually, the very fact you felt compelled to resort to such a hypothetical demonstrates you do understand how perception is tied to visual acuity, but are simply unwilling to acknowledge it. You are trying to find a way to force your point of view through the hypothetical, even though your understanding is inaccurate given the description of Perception in the DMG. As I have said before, if you want to play that way more power to you--no one is trying to stop you.
I expressed why it would be Intelligence (Perception) to estimate a distance, and you expressed why you disagree despite the evidence I've presented. Now I know you understand but just don't want to challenge your thinking, I am done trying to show you. You know, but won't admit it.
Also, I asked you to push your thinking and offered food for thought. That's not a desperate or dirty trick.
By "push your thinking" I mean "ask questions that challenge your own stance." It feels like you're in combat with me when I've simply questioned the appropriateness of involving Perception in the Intelligence check used to measure one's ability to estimate a gap. Yikes!Actually, if you had responded, "Sure, I see your point. Perception is actually tied to senses given that keenness of your senses phrase and being better at it could make it easier to judge a distance, but I just feel it should be straight Intelligence alone," my response would have been: "That's cool, play it however you feel is best for your table" and left it at that.
Guess I'll just leave it as it is instead.