D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[Ashrym]

The difference in using a proficient skill vs a WIS check for things like "gut feeling" or "instinct" or "intuition" is whether there is training or skill that can improve the trait.

I don't think there should be in skills but possibly class / subclass features. We see similar ideas with uncanny dodge, evasion, and danger sense.

I don't like the "gut feeling" type checks at all, tbh. If there is no need to roll it's pointless and if there is a desire to roll that d20 isn't something to rely on for the concept. I am also far more likely to use passive perception or passive insight already.

2cp

 

[plisnithus8]

I prefer the DM describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions and leave it at that. Telling players what their characters think or feel or even hinting at it is way too much DM intrusion for D&D 5e in my view. I bristle when a DM says "You think..." or "You feel..." In my experience, it's often a sneaky way to push the players in a particular direction the DM wants. I'd rather the DM just come out and say which direction we should be going in to stay on the plot or maybe think better about how not to hide the plot so well that players can't decide what to do. Because that's all this "gut check" is really used for anyway by and large from what I've seen.

You say these things anecdotally but seem to implythey are facts.
DMs can describe how the smell of a rotten corpse makes the rogue inspecting it feel: "Your stomach begins to knot up, and you feel as if you will soon vomit." The DM can rely the feelings of nostalgia that the barbarian feels upon seeing his grandfather's grave: "You miss Hornburs hand on your shoulder when you used to go out fishing, and you can't help but think about he would watch you out of the corner of his eye when you caught your first quipper," especially when a DM and player have worked on a backstory narrative together.
An insight check or history check can reveal more information that a PC thinks about a creature or object. DMs can be objective, giving some thinks/feels that are true and may lead in a certain direction (not all DMs have a railroad narrative) but also just as easily be plant red herrings.

 

[iserith]

I don't particularly disagree with this, but I think that both magical effects (which you already mentioned in another post) and some results of Ability Checks might get "you feel" type of language. "Do I think he's lying?" [Insight check] "I examine the [whatsis] closely." [Maybe Perception to notice there's something to figure out; Investigation to figure it out ... first check might get "you think" type of language}. It's edge cases, really, and I'm not arguing.

The issue is not with my position but in the many definitions of the word "feel." I'm talking about the DM saying what your feelings are about something. That's a no-no in my book. Observing mannerisms to determine truthfulness isn't a feeling in the same way as I just referenced.

 

[plisnithus8]

The difference in using a proficient skill vs a WIS check for things like "gut feeling" or "instinct" or "intuition" is whether there is training or skill that can improve the trait.

I don't think there should be in skills but possibly class / subclass features. We see similar ideas with uncanny dodge, evasion, and danger sense.

I don't like the "gut feeling" type checks at all, tbh. If there is no need to roll it's pointless and if there is a desire to roll that d20 isn't something to rely on for the concept. I am also far more likely to use passive perception or passive insight already.

2cp

Yes, this why I'm leaning toward letting players substitute their 1 Plot Point a session for an Institution check (without a roll). This and I don't want them spamming intuition checks.

 

[plisnithus8]

The issue is not with my position but in the many definitions of the word "feel." I'm talking about the DM saying what your feelings are about something. That's a no-no in my book. Observing mannerisms to determine truthfulness isn't a feeling in the same way as I just referenced.

If your definition of thinking and feeling are active, I think we are saying the same thing.
To me it's kind of like when a Christian says that a bad thought popped into their head, but it wasn't a sin until they actively pondered it or acted upon it.
I don't think a DM should force a layer to make a Perception check, but passive perception -- by definition -- just happens.

 

[iserith]

You say these things anecdotally but seem to implythey are facts.

My words are plain and I am careful to point out what is my opinion, my preference, and what is my experience. You can take that as you will, but I am implying nothing.

DMs can describe how the smell of a rotten corpse makes the rogue inspecting it feel: "Your stomach begins to knot up, and you feel as if you will soon vomit." The DM can rely the feelings of nostalgia that the barbarian feels upon seeing his grandfather's grave: "You miss Hornburs hand on your shoulder when you used to go out fishing, and you can't help but think about he would watch you out of the corner of his eye when you caught your first quipper," especially when a DM and player have worked on a backstory narrative together.

I think that's best avoided. I prefer the player describe that the rotten corpse makes the character queasy. I prefer the player describe how his or her character feels about seeing grandpa's grave. The DM doesn't need to get involved in this and in my opinion should not. As a player, I would not tolerate this from a DM. Sticking to describing the environment and narrating the results of the adventurers actions leaves space for the player to decide these things. In my experience, they will if the DM just gets the heck out of their way and stops intruding upon the player's role.

An insight check or history check can reveal more information that a PC thinks about a creature or object. DMs can be objective, giving some thinks/feels that are true and may lead in a certain direction (not all DMs have a railroad narrative) but also just as easily be plant red herrings.

Those sorts of checks resolve what a PC can recall (when there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure), not what he or she thinks or feels about the things the PC can recall. The DM can avoid a lot of trouble by not intruding on the player's role.

 

[iserith]

If your definition of thinking and feeling are active, I think we are saying the same thing.
To me it's kind of like when a Christian says that a bad thought popped into their head, but it wasn't a sin until they actively pondered it or acted upon it.
I don't think a DM should force a layer to make a Perception check, but passive perception -- by definition -- just happens.

Passive Perception doesn't "just happen."

Passive Perception is a special kind of ability check that occurs when the DM must decide, for example, if a character is surprised by a monster or notices a trap or hazard while traveling. You cannot have an ability check without a corresponding task that carries with it an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. This is covered in the rules for ability checks in general and passive checks specifically.

While it's common practice in my experience that it is assumed that a character is alert to hidden dangers unless otherwise stated, that assumption still means that the character is actively on the lookout for danger. There is nothing "passive" about the task the character is undertaking, repeatedly. "Passive" just means there's no die roll.

A DM is well-served in my view to avoid making too many assumptions about what the characters are doing or telling a player how his or her characters thinks or feels about things. That's the players' role. The game works best in my view when everyone sticks to the roles the rules of the game prescribe.

 

[tommybahama]

Why is it good to give somebody "something to roll on"?

As a player, I prefer to have something to do, in the sense of something to figure out or optimize or make a decision on. The d20 is so capricious that I don't like abdicating control to it.

I think most players love to roll dice and will get bored if the rogue is 120 feet in front of the party and rolling for everything. That and I doubt the rogue will have great stats for Perception, Investigation and Thieve's tools at the same time.

 

[iserith]

I think most players love to roll dice and will get bored if the rogue is 120 feet in front of the party and rolling for everything. That and I doubt the rogue will have great stats for Perception, Investigation and Thieve's tools at the same time.

I think players think they love to roll dice - chiefly because many people in my experience don't understand that a roll isn't a task, nor a task a roll - but what they really love is having their characters engage in interesting tasks to overcome challenges. Wanting to roll a d20 is a bad strategy. Better to work at removing uncertainty as to the outcome of the task and/or the meaningful consequence for failure so that you succeed with no roll. If success at a task is your goal, a d20 is a poor ally indeed.

 

[plisnithus8]

Passive Perception doesn't "just happen."

Passive Perception is a special kind of ability check that occurs when the DM must decide, for example, if a character is surprised by a monster or notices a trap or hazard while traveling. You cannot have an ability check without a corresponding task that carries with it an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. This is covered in the rules for ability checks in general and passive checks specifically.

While it's common practice in my experience that it is assumed that a character is alert to hidden dangers unless otherwise stated, that assumption still means that the character is actively on the lookout for danger. There is nothing "passive" about the task the character is undertaking, repeatedly. "Passive" just means there's no die roll.

A DM is well-served in my view to avoid making too many assumptions about what the characters are doing or telling a player how his or her characters thinks or feels about things. That's the players' role. The game works best in my view when everyone sticks to the roles the rules of the game prescribe.

A Passive Perception check can be something like repeatedly searching for something, but I think it can also be actually passive, thus the name.
Darkron Is in his home and walks into a room. An assassin stands behind the door hiding. Darkron isn’t actively searching, but as a DM I’ll use his passive perception score to give whoever it was that came through the door an opportunity to notice the assassin or something strange just because their senses are so acute.

I think it is the DM’s role to describe what a PC experiences — sometimes that might involve telling players what they feel and thoughts that might occur to them. Then the players’ role would be to respond to that stimuli. I’m not at all saying this should be done often or maliciously or to railroad. A DM should learn how they group works best and employ a tool like this if it benefits the group.

The basic tenets of the game are:
1. DM describes.
2. Players act.
3. DM narrates results.

To me, a feeling is not something I do. Thoughts that pop into my head are not something I have conscious control over.
What I do is react to my feelings or random thoughts.
I don’t choose to feel sad, but I can try to do things to snap out of it.
I choose to eat a sandwich that has spoiled and then feel like I want to die, but I certainly don’t choose to feel that way; that is a result of my action. I can then act to relieve that feeling somehow.
My feelings are can result directly from my actions, but sometimes they result in how external stimuli affect me whether I want that to happen or not.
As a DM, I might ask the spoiled sandwich eater to make a Constitution saving throw. Pass or fail, I’d describe how they felt: “you feel your Stomach grumbling a bit” or “your stomach is tied in knots and may soon explode.” I wouldn’t leave the choice if feeling to the player.