Greywander
2022-05-20, 11:17 AM
So here's the thing: adventuring is a dangerous business, and being aware of your surroundings is hugely important in any kind of dangerous environment. So Perception actually is quite critical for adventurers. For NPCs? It depends. Those living in a safe city don't really need it; a lot of us IRL don't have Perception proficiency. In more dangerous environments, such as small villages on the edge of civilization, or cities riddled with crime, it can be more useful.
But Perception isn't exactly a broad skill. It could be combined with Insight and Investigation, but isn't. Knowledge skills are much more broad, but considered not as useful for adventurers. It's not that Perception is such an amazing skill, it's just disproportionately useful in the highly specific niche that is adventuring.
Now, I get that D&D is built around the idea of adventuring, and the game already makes some core assumptions about PCs such as knowing two languages or being proficient in at least a few weapons, but I do think it's probably better that it doesn't assume Perception proficiency by default. It makes the game a little more flexible at handling things that aren't adventuring and adventurers. It allows for a broader variety of character archetypes, such as absent minded wizards. Which, yes, is a bad idea, but flawed characters can be more fun to play.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I can see why people think of Perception as a skill tax, but it's just that it's especially useful for the types of things adventurers tend to do. It's a bit like wearing armor: it's not free (armor costs money and encumbers you), and most people (i.e. NPCs) don't wear it, but for adventurers specifically it's usually a good idea. And yet despite that armor proficiencies aren't considered mandatory, just nice to have if you can get them. The difference is that literally anyone can get Perception proficiency from their background, while armor proficiencies usually require a bit of hoop-jumping. If you could get armor proficiencies from your background, likely instead of tool proficiencies, people would be complaining about the armor proficiency tax.
So in the end, we could say that it's all just a matter of... Perception. Ba dum tsh.
But Perception isn't exactly a broad skill. It could be combined with Insight and Investigation, but isn't. Knowledge skills are much more broad, but considered not as useful for adventurers. It's not that Perception is such an amazing skill, it's just disproportionately useful in the highly specific niche that is adventuring.
Now, I get that D&D is built around the idea of adventuring, and the game already makes some core assumptions about PCs such as knowing two languages or being proficient in at least a few weapons, but I do think it's probably better that it doesn't assume Perception proficiency by default. It makes the game a little more flexible at handling things that aren't adventuring and adventurers. It allows for a broader variety of character archetypes, such as absent minded wizards. Which, yes, is a bad idea, but flawed characters can be more fun to play.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I can see why people think of Perception as a skill tax, but it's just that it's especially useful for the types of things adventurers tend to do. It's a bit like wearing armor: it's not free (armor costs money and encumbers you), and most people (i.e. NPCs) don't wear it, but for adventurers specifically it's usually a good idea. And yet despite that armor proficiencies aren't considered mandatory, just nice to have if you can get them. The difference is that literally anyone can get Perception proficiency from their background, while armor proficiencies usually require a bit of hoop-jumping. If you could get armor proficiencies from your background, likely instead of tool proficiencies, people would be complaining about the armor proficiency tax.
So in the end, we could say that it's all just a matter of... Perception. Ba dum tsh.