[Skills] Solutions to the oblivious rogue problem

[mlund]

I think the real resolution here is that Rogues shouldn't use Wisdom as a dump-stat. If you want to be good at observing people and objects you should take a good Wisdom score. Between that, the +3 bonus for training, and a minimum 10 on checks with it the Rogue's a good trap radar.

The play-test Rogue was just built badly.

Rogue stats should break down like this:

Primary: Dexterity - combat and stealth
Secondary: (Helpful, but optional)
Constitution - Hit Points + Toughness
Wisdom - Searching, Listening, Reading People
Charisma - Streetwise, Fast-Talking

Neither Strength (more of a finesse class) nor Intelligence (not typically an academic) are particularly necessary for a Rogue. They could be used to develop a more well-rounded character, but none of the Rogue's primary skills or combat techniques use those stat modifiers.

A Dungeon-crawling Halfling Thief should spend his Heroic Array like this:

STR 8
CON 13
DEX 17
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 12

This small, affable fellow is a well-qualified burglar (or "expert treasure hunter" if you prefer).


- Marty Lund

 

[DogBackward]

Yeah, I'm gonna second the "If you want to be good at finding things, don't tank Wis." approach. That's like saying "Oh, the Fighter chose to put an 8 in Strength? Well, let's just give them a flat +5 to attacks and damage. Fighters should be good at melee attacks, after all."

If you have a low score, you will be bad at things related to that score. As you should be.

 

[PinkRose]

I agree, build a better rogue is the answer.

If the Rogue had a 14 WIS and 8 INT would we even be having this conversation? Is there anything that the rogue uses INT for in the playtest?

 

[nomotog]

It use to be that your required the trap-finding ability to find traps. They could bring that back. Maybe you can't spot traps unless you have the perception skill or maybe they can bring back trapfinding as a skill that lets you use your wisdom skill to find traps. Then you can use this idea with other things. Maybe you can't make masterwork weapons without a skill that says you can.

 

[BobTheNob]

I almost posted this in its own thread, but this seems like a more appropriate place at the moment.

Is Perception the oddball skill that shouldn't be based on an ability score? You look at stories, literature, movies, and you see heroes of all sorts that are perceptive in various ways. A gambler rogue may not be wise with his coin, but can spot a cheater from a mile away because he knows what he's looking for. A guardian warrior may not have the priestly wisdom, but could still have naturally keen hearing, such that he can identify the unsheathing of an assassin's dagger in a crowded room. A wizard need not be wise to notice the magical trap the rogue is about to trigger, and shout out a warning to him.

Perhaps wisdom and perception could be divorced. Some systems approach Perception as an ability score of its own, though I'm not too fond of that approach either, as I think a dwarf spelunker, a halfling swindler, and a high elf wizard might be perceptive in different areas relating to their expertise, while an urban human cloistered priest might be the least observant member in his party despite a high wisdom (though he might be the only one to spot an inaccurate spelling of Yeenoghu in a wall writing that points to a double entendre).

Perhaps one approach is removing the skill altogether. A wizard uses Arcana to perceive magical wards, a rogue detects mechanical traps with his Thievery, a fighter perceives threats in a crowd with his Streetwise, a dwarf notices hazards with his dungeoneering, etc. In 3e and 4e, Spot/Listen/Perception have been the most used and most valued skills, because it works on everything, and is used every adventure. Why not just let everyone be good at it, except, they are only good at it when it relates to their area of expertise? This way we can hopefully avoid the situation where the cleric is better at detecting traps, than the rogue, and the ranger is better at detecting magical wards than the wizard.

If someone wants to really go the extra mile in Perception, perhaps "Perceptive" could be a trait/feat/what have you, and whenever the individual is making a check to perceive using a trained skill, he could roll with advantage (whatever the final mechanic for that turns out to be, double rolls, or +2).

I think other than Perception, the 5e approach to skills seems quite good. Let's say I am trained in streetwise. I want to tail a suspect in the crowds without being seen, I make a dexterity check and add my streetwise. This would reflect my ability to keep the target in sight, and use passing wagons and carts to my advantage to not be noticed. I want to use my knowledge of the streets to come up with a shortcut, I make an intelligence check and add my streetwise. I want to gather information about a local vigilante, I make a charisma check and add my streetwise. This allows skills to reflect what a character is truly good at. So my fighter trained in streetwise doesn't need to be trained in "stealth" to tail someone in a city, and doesn't need to be trained in "knowledge local" to know a few short cuts around town. I think being trained should be a +5 rather than a +3, so training has a greater impact than natural talent, but that's just a numbers game.

We did this as a houserule in 4e. Perception was a such a super skill, and the same questions arose. Why cant my rogue notice traps, why cant my mage see those runes on the wall?

So, we dumped the perception skill and said that you use the appropriate skill to what you are trying to notice. It was inelegant as you had some kludginess involved (like why is Dexterity helping me notice a trap) but the payoff was that ... (drum roll) ... the characters capabilities matched expectations.

I will suspend my disbelief just a little longer so long as characters are working right, and a rogue being the worst at spotting traps is NOT what I call working right.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I disagree that the Rogue should dump Int so that they can have a good Wis and thus spot things. Rogues should be clever, but they shouldn't necessarily be wise - to me, a Wizard ought to be more likely to find a trap than a Cleric, after all, they're better at Knowledge (Engineering) and used to be better at Search (3E). I'm arguing that Find Traps ought to use Int! All active searching should!

 

[HeinorNY]

Rogue stats should break down like this:

Primary: Dexterity - combat and stealth
Secondary: (Helpful, but optional)
Constitution - Hit Points + Toughness
Wisdom - Searching, Listening, Reading People
Charisma - Streetwise, Fast-Talking

CON = thug
WIS = treasure-hunter
CHA = faceman
CON+CHA = swashbuckler
WIS+CHA = thief
CON+WIS = assassin

 

[mlund]

I disagree that the Rogue should dump Int so that they can have a good Wis and thus spot things. Rogues should be clever, but they shouldn't necessarily be wise

I disagree. Rogues are generally good at feeling their way through situations and relying on their experiences to give them a sixth sense for danger and a keen eye for detail. Those things are all in the primary wheel-house of Wisdom. None of that calls for an particular talent at logic, formula, organization, memorization, or academic aptitude that a high Intelligence score implies. Now a proper infiltrator will probably have great Intelligence too; it gives him an advantage casing targets, researching subjects, making solid plans, and improvising new tactics on the fly.

- to me, a Wizard ought to be more likely to find a trap than a Cleric, after all, they're better at Knowledge (Engineering) and used to be better at Search (3E). I'm arguing that Find Traps ought to use Int! All active searching should!

With the fluid form of the game and skill system they'll definitely be rational, narrative opportunities where you use Intelligence to search for something instead of Wisdom. Looking for something in a library or a book? Use Intelligence. Looking for a pattern? Use intelligence. Trying to remember what sort of tricks or techniques a creature uses to hide traps / valuables / ambushes? Use intelligence. Want to identify what made those tracks, which way they were going, and how much they were carrying? Use intelligence.

High intelligence would definitely be useful disabling devices too.

- Marty Lund

 

[ren1999]

I agree. Every rogue type should be trained in Perception.

 

[Falling Icicle]

"We saw quite a bit of feedback that stated that it was goofy that the rogue with a low Wisdom score was worse at finding traps than the cleric. We're looking at revising the skill system in a few different ways. One approach gives you a skill bonus that replaces your ability bonus when you use the skill. That's one way to make training important without having a low score undermine it. We're looking at those rules, but it's not clear yet if they are satisfying in play."

So, anyone who is trained in a skill is just as good as anyone else, regardless of their respective ability scores? Horrible idea. This makes even less sense than what people were complaining about. I can't believe they're even considering this.

The answer is so simple I don't know why they won't do it. Just make skills give a +5 bonus. That way, an untrained person would need to have a 20 ability score and the trained person have an 8 or lower ability score in order for the untrained person to be better. But then, we're talking about the pinnacle of humanoid perfection compared to someone who is clumsy, stupid, etc. So that makes sense.

It seems they're just afraid of high numbers, but really, the numbers won't be that high. Since ability scores cap at 20, the highest bonus a player could have when using a skill is +10. That really is nothing to freak out about. If anything, I think the numbers people are adding are far too low compared to the impact of the d20 roll, making things way too swingy. This helps alleviate that.

For example, they say a DC 10 action is "trivial". So trivial that one shouldn't even have to roll. And yet a typical person (ability score 10) would only succeed on such an action 50% of the time! Even with my proposed +5 bonus from skill training, he would fail trivial actions 25% of the time, which is far more often than one would expect.