[Skills] Solutions to the oblivious rogue problem

[Mercutio01]

The less time you have to spend the more likely you are to be using Wisdom.

If you're spending 6 seconds to determine whether or not there is a trap, or your just advancing the party cautiously and putting the Rogue in the front of the marching order he's making a Wisdom Check for traps.

Why? Why wouldn't the smart guy know where to look intuitively and do as well (or better) finding traps than the guy who just has good eyesight? If anything, I'd argue that looking for traps should use both stats in some fashion. Knowing where to look is just as important as being able to see.

I'm also not sure why intuition is grouped under Wisdom. Thinking about it this on a Myers-Briggs assessment, Intuition is opposite of Sensing, one being more of an intellectual with abstract hunches and intelligent guesses and the other being more reliant on senses and concrete realities. I mean, yeah that's really parsing it through the weeds a lot, but in some respects I still think 3Es breaking up of trap-finding as Intelligence from spotting as Wisdom makes sense, time constraints or not.

But really, it's a combination of both knowing where to look (Intelligence) and awareness (Wisdom) that allows someone to find a trap. Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade is a good example of that. He's well-read and knows there is a trap (The Breath of God) and aware of his surroundings (sees the saw blades just a half second before he gets his head cut off.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the advice to DMs that an easy, stress-free action requires no roll for success.

If he has to roll for some reason, the typical person might fail the 'trivial' DC 50% of the time... but the DM is advised not to require a roll for those actions in most cases.

I realize that, I was just pointing out how it doesn't really fit with what they're describing it to be. In 3.x, a trivial DC was 0 or 5 ("very easy" and "easy," respectively). 10 was "average," which to me is a much better fit, statistically. 10 being the average DC makes sense for other reasons, too. It's also the AC of an average person who is not wearing armor, for example.

Characters in 5e are going to have even smaller bonuses to their rolls than in 3.x, so I don't see why they feel the need to bump up the DCs or to be so terrified of skill bonuses that they're actually considering having skills replace one's ability modifiers rather than add to them.

You run into another magical/non-magical class divide, though.

The Rogue is the best at disarming traps, but anyone is capable of it.

The Wizard is the best at throwing fireballs, and nobody else can do it.

This has been the case since at least 3.0. Of course, one had to invest in cross class skills in order to do this, while in 5e, one only needs a high ability score.

And it isn't just clerics and trapfinding, either. Clerics can also easily be better at tracking than Rangers, Fighters can easily be better climbers than rogues, etc. Even if you shift perception to Intelligence, you instead have wizards that are better at finding traps than rogues.

The only way I see to fix this is to make skill training more meaningful. If skills granted a +5 bonus, then ability scores could never offer a higher bonus than being trained in a skill does, since ability scores cap at 20 (+5). It still fits well with their flatter math, as a +10 total bonus is not really that high. Statistically, a trained person is succeeding 25% more often than one who is not trained and has the same ability score.

 

[mlund]

Why? Why wouldn't the smart guy know where to look intuitively and do as well (or better) finding traps than the guy who just has good eyesight? If anything, I'd argue that looking for traps should use both stats in some fashion.

Actually, I'd argue that in order to be "the smart guy" you need to have good scores in both wisdom and intelligence. If you have high intelligence and rubbish wisdom you aren't all-around smart. You have a huge aptitude for ration, reason, recall - formula, pattern, and methodology are your wheelhouse. Unfortunately you're about as dense as lead when it comes to the subtleties of the world around you.

Knowing where to look is just as important as being able to see.

Wisdom is about knowing where to look intuitively. Intelligence is about recalling that Kobolds love to leave traps at choke points, favor ones that pass over their heads and hit medium-sized creatures, and remembering that all Soviet-made motion sensors prior to 2004 aren't sensitive to motion at speeds lower than 100cm/second.

I'm also not sure why intuition is grouped under Wisdom. Thinking about it this on a Myers-Briggs assessment, Intuition is opposite of Sensing, one being more of an intellectual with abstract hunches and intelligent guesses and the other being more reliant on senses and concrete realities.

Myers-Briggs doesn't use them as opposites, but rather pairs them to see what it says about a personality to favor one over the other. Both aspects are critical to what Wisdom is about. Sensing is about physical Awareness. Intuition is about discerning meaning "between the lines," of what you experienced.

But really, it's a combination of both knowing where to look (Intelligence) and awareness (Wisdom) that allows someone to find a trap. Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade is a good example of that. He's well-read and knows there is a trap (The Breath of God) and aware of his surroundings (sees the saw blades just a half second before he gets his head cut off.

Intelligence helps most for trap-finding if you have set-up work - either research prior or an extended amount of time to conduct a methodical survey and eliminate possibilities rationally. When you are flying blind you have to rely on your experience, instincts, and awareness to make an assessment on the spot. Having both is gang-busters, though. When you combine prior knowledge or research and solid methodology with solid experience, good instincts, and high awareness you're looking at a situation where you'll either detect the traps automatically or at least be searching with Advantage.

- Marty Lund

 

[Hypersmurf]

I realize that, I was just pointing out how it doesn't really fit with what they're describing it to be. In 3.x, a trivial DC was 0 or 5 ("very easy" and "easy," respectively). 10 was "average," which to me is a much better fit, statistically.

But consider also that in 3E, an average DC was a trivial task for the average person, in a stress-free environment. By Taking 10, the average person could not fail at a DC 10 task.

DDN says "For an easy, stress-free task, you don't need to roll", and defines DC 10 as Trivial. If you're attempting the Trivial task but you're not stress-free, the DM will make you roll and you might fail. If you're stress-free, he doesn't make you roll, and you succeed.

3E said "If you're stress-free, you can Take 10". If you're attempting a DC 10 task but you're not stress-free, you're required to roll and you might fail. If you're stress-free, you Take 10, and you succeed.

To me, it seems like the main difference is that instead of codifying the Take 10 rules, in DDN they're leaving it to DM common sense to decide if a task is worthy of requiring a roll or not. But essentially, the result regarding an average person attempting a DC 10 task in a stress-free environment is the same in both systems - success with no need to roll.

-Hyp.