Perception as Ability Score

[Khrysaes]

So, I am under the impression that the perception of perception is that almost every character takes the skill proficiency.

I have been considering removing it as a skill and turning it into its own ability score.

Doing this, and along the lines of Sanity or Honor in the DMG, I think would make increasing the perception of a character more meaningful.

Has anyone here done this? If so, what are your experiences?

If not, what are your thoughts?

[Leon]

Its a useful skill to have but is not always needed or taken from my experience in not just this edition but across all of them. Putting it in its own stat seems a bit forced.
In 3.5 i combined the skills Spot and Listen into one (along with several others I felt should be combined) and made them class skills for all and still not everyone made use of that ability, I think I was the only character who had it in my first 5e game (Fitted with the character very well as a Recon type) and in the second most of us do but notably two characters who are less concerned with what is going on around them don't have it.

[Unoriginal]

So, I am under the impression that the perception of perception is that almost every character takes the skill proficiency.

I have been considering removing it as a skill and turning it into its own ability score.

Doing this, and along the lines of Sanity or Honor in the DMG, I think would make increasing the perception of a character more meaningful.

What do you mean by "more meaningful", in this context?

[Mastikator]

I'd say ask for perception less often if you feel it is overused. Changing the core mechanics of the game will have unpredictable knock on effects.

[Khrysaes]

What do you mean by "more meaningful", in this context?

It would be less of a tax, and players would then have to choose between perception and other ability scores. Yes, mechanically it may make weaker characters, but I think the variability or the value for perception as a choice makes it more meaningful.

[Zhorn]

So my biggest concern will be how this is perceived (heh... punny :smallbiggrin:) by the players.


Players: "We invest in this skill"
DM "I'm taking that off being a skill and making it a flat ability score"
Players: "okay... why?"
DM "Because you were using it"

I know it's not a malicious thing, but it could easily be seen as just trying to take away something from the players, similar to how when some player get a strong ability combo working, and suddenly the party is regularly encountering enemies with damage resistances and condition immunities that specifically match up with what those abilities use.
Just 2cp to be aware of.

Now that part is out of the way, let's try and take the more supportive angle;
What about instead spinning Perception into an ability score, you still got the route of additional Abilities scores to break up the monopoly of the strong stats and Perception is just moving across to one of those. More of an idea of if you are trying to water down a strong stat array for characters into a more levels out / lower starting baseline.
Say the new attribute was Instinct and it governed Animal Handling, Perceptions, and Survival, and leaving Wisdom with Insight, Medicine and Saving Throws.

The idea comes from a suggestion I read someone else had regarding an issue they had with Dexterity being a god-stat; so rather than just nerfing the abilities, they just broke them apart with a Balance attribute governing Stealth, Acrobatics, and AC, with Dexterity on Sleight of Hand, Ranged attacks and Saving Throws.
Not sure if it'll pan out, but if I were to break out from the base six attributes, both Wisdom and Dexterity would be the first I'd look at spreading out, considering the weight those stats hold over the others.

[Unoriginal]

It would be less of a tax, and players would then have to choose between perception and other ability scores.

How is having a whole new stat to invest in less of a tax? Having to choose between X and all the other things is a tax.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I do not agree that Perception proficiency is a "tax" or that every (or even nearly every) character will take it....

If you wanted to make it not a tax, just give everyone proficiency in it for free. Or make it a derived statistic like HP using some formula...which basically boils down to "give everyone proficiency" or "give everyone proficiency based on class".

I don't recommend doing this, however, as I don't think that it's a tax. Not everyone plays in super-numbers-optimized mode (for which I'm very grateful).

[Tanarii]

It's not my experience that even half of players take this skill. For starters they're limited by fixed background skills and not every class having access. Second even then sometimes there are other options in the class skills they want more.

But absolutely if you want to make perception it's own thing, seperate from skills and ability scores, go for. That was a Pathfinder 2 innovation I agreed with.

But if you're doing that, make the base ability available for all characters. Something like no ability score modifies it, all characters get proficiency, and Rangers and Rogues get automatic expertise in it. Don't make it it's own ability score. That's not helpful at all.

[False God]

I had one DM run perception as "add up your mental scores and divide by 3, that's your perception stat". It works alright, mostly used it in 3.5 but it'd port to 5E just fine. Wouldn't say it's any better or worse than using 3.5's various perception skills or 5E's "Perception", just different.

I have one player who IRL has completely random perception checks. Sometimes they're totally on the ball, sometimes they miss the obvious. So I have them roll a d100, no mods. It's amusingly accurate to their IRL ability which makes it fun. But the "random=fun" isn't necessarily something I'd recommend for everyone.

[Goobahfish]

I think the better question is, does 'perception' better reflect a fundamental characteristic of a player's natural talents.

There is an argument for 'yes', which is mostly based on 'perception is the most common skill check'.

But, looking more broadly, does D&D need a perception-based stat, what would it represent, how would it differ from other stats etc?

#1) It would be carving up Wisdom. Wisdom has traditionally been the stand-in stat for Perception... this has never made much sense to me. Why would clerics be good as 'perceiving things'. If I think about the kind of character that notices things, it is Rangers, Rogues, Explorers, Scholars, Commanders, Politicians etc. Of these, only Rangers would change from being reliant on Wisdom to reliant on Perception and Wisdom (perhaps a bit more MAD).

#2) What else would fall under perception? You could argue for... Animal Handling, Perception and Survival. Insight and Medicine would probably stay as (Wis). Initiative could arguably fall under Perception too. Which spells would now target Perception. Some Int save spells like illusions?

#3) How would this change the min-maxers? Would Perception be a dump stat for most characters? Would it slide in above Cha/Int as slightly more useful akin to Wisdom?

---

For reference, I have 'Wit' in my system (among 8 different stats). I think it is definitely worthy as a main stat as it is such a large part of 'exploration'. If you are calling for a Perception check as often as a Dex check, Strength check etc... then it probably is worth its own thing.

My players have often dumped Wit (not all of them) and basically regret it whenever they make a check (which is all the god-damned time... traps, illusions, ambushes, lies etc).

[Schwann145]

Just rename "Wisdom" to "Perception" and move all the mental-based things currently under Wis (like Medicine) to Intelligence. Done.

Yes, this includes spellcasting for classes like Cleric. If they're to stay as a prepared caster, then Int makes more sense than Wis ever did anyway (the only reason I can fathom that they ever used Wis in the first place is to make "their stat" distinctly different from Wizards... but with how much the game has evolved, who cares about that anymore, really?)

[EggKookoo]

It's not my experience that even half of players take this skill.

Anecdotally, of my two current campaigns (one I'm DMing, one I'm playing in): 4 of 5 PCs took it in one campaign, 2 of 5 took it in the other. So 6 out of 10. I don't know how typical we are. Campaign 1: warlock, druid, bard, artificer, rogue. Campaign 2: barbarian, paladin, fighter, monk, wizard. Bold has proficiency in Perception.

[Tanarii]

Anecdotally, of my two current campaigns (one I'm DMing, one I'm playing in): 4 of 5 PCs took it in one campaign, 2 of 5 took it in the other. So 6 out of 10. I don't know how typical we are. Campaign 1: warlock, druid, bard, artificer, rogue. Campaign 2: barbarian, paladin, fighter, monk, wizard. Bold has proficiency in Perception.
So warlock and Wizard took Sailor background?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Perception as a stand-alone ability works just fine-- there are plenty of systems that are structured that way-- but I'm not sure that it would do that much about the "everyone takes perception proficiency" you're talking about. If your players are insistent on being good at perception, shifting it to an ability isn't going to change anything, it just switches the investment from a minor one to a major one, and hurts any character who depends on multiple ability scores.

A better option might be to just give everyone Perception proficiency for free (including NPCs). That lets your players indulge their instinct while side-stepping the whole question of characterization.

[EggKookoo]

So warlock and Wizard took Sailor background?

Urchin and Sage, respectively, but the wizard is a tabaxi which gets Perception as a racial. We're playing with the new-ish variant where you can put 2 +1 wherever, so the player put them on Int.

[Samayu]

Everybody already has Perception. They just don't necessarily get their proficiency bonus added to it.

My own thoughts on adding a Perception ability is... the ability system is already so screwed up, why bother? I mean, is intelligence really different from wisdom, on the grand scale? Shouldn't wisdom be willpower? No wait, Charisma is actually played like strength of will, so...

No, I don't want to derail this into a discussion about whether the current abilities are the right ones, I'm just saying you're not going to be able to fix it this way.

[Sigreid]

No matter how you classify it, a good chunk of players are going to invest heavily in perception. Few things can end your character faster than being caught unaware and everyone knows it.

[Tanarii]

It's probably be a little less common if it was only used for detecting hidden creatures. As it is, many DMs use it to just automatically detect anything hidden.

Ideally perception should generally only give you a hint to something being hidden, and investigation is needed to ferret it out.

But IMO it's better to just reserve perception for finding creatures, and investigation when searching for other hidden things (traps, secret compartments, secret doors.

[Goobahfish]

Just rename "Wisdom" to "Perception" and move all the mental-based things currently under Wis (like Medicine) to Intelligence. Done.

Yes, this includes spellcasting for classes like Cleric. If they're to stay as a prepared caster, then Int makes more sense than Wis ever did anyway (the only reason I can fathom that they ever used Wis in the first place is to make "their stat" distinctly different from Wizards... but with how much the game has evolved, who cares about that anymore, really?)

That works up until... Fear saves and anything which is a stand in for Willpower (one of the things that has always irritated me about D&D).


Everybody already has Perception. They just don't necessarily get their proficiency bonus added to it.

My own thoughts on adding a Perception ability is... the ability system is already so screwed up, why bother? I mean, is intelligence really different from wisdom, on the grand scale? Shouldn't wisdom be willpower? No wait, Charisma is actually played like strength of will, so...

No, I don't want to derail this into a discussion about whether the current abilities are the right ones, I'm just saying you're not going to be able to fix it this way.

Exactly. I ended up tossing out Wisdom and Charisma and adding back in 4 other stats. One of which is perception (by another name - Wit). I.e., quick witted, keep your wits about you. I think D&D is stuck with 6 for all eternity so... it will be hard without an overhaul.

-----

On another note. Basically, perception and stealth are the two 'default' take if not otherwise able skills IMO. This also applies to designing monsters etc. The two represent such an important 'Sun Tzu' kind of aspect to combat.

[Leon]

It would be less of a tax, and players would then have to choose between perception and other ability scores. Yes, mechanically it may make weaker characters, but I think the variability or the value for perception as a choice makes it more meaningful.

The concept of something being a "Tax" because its useful is a bit silly to begin with. This isn't 3.5 where you were indeed often "taxed" with having to choose a bad Feat to unlock something better. Some skills still are highly situational, some like Perception are always going to be useful and it should stay as a skill that is ultimately a option for a player to choose (they are all feats, skills etc options to take or not) be less concerned that players have taken X skill provide more or less situations to make use of it than trying to fenagle it into a extra stat for sole purpose of perceiving something.

[Schwann145]

That works up until... Fear saves and anything which is a stand in for Willpower (one of the things that has always irritated me about D&D).

Sure it still works; you just roll your Intelligence save vs Fear (or other stand-in effect). :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

Urchin and Sage, respectively, but the wizard is a tabaxi which gets Perception as a racial. We're playing with the new-ish variant where you can put 2 +1 wherever, so the player put them on Int.
And presumably for the other the DM allowed a custom background skill swap. If that's allowed, it makes getting Perception a whole lot easier.

Without it, there's 1 PHB background with the skill, or you need to be an Elf, if you're a Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock or Wizard. And even for the other classes, using one of your two class skills for it can be a steep price to pay.

[EggKookoo]

And presumably for the other the DM allowed a custom background skill swap. If that's allowed, it makes getting Perception a whole lot easier.

I'm the DM. I like to use the variant that allows you to pick an option if two features give you the same skill proficiency, and I think DnDBeyond does this as well since we're using that and it let us swap. I can't remember the specifics but she got the same proficiency from the same source (maybe it's an item, although I tend not to allow swaps for that as it gets noodly). Regardless, it boils down to a custom skill swap by another name, so yeah, by RAW that's one less.

[BaronCorvo]

And presumably for the other the DM allowed a custom background skill swap. If that's allowed, it makes getting Perception a whole lot easier.

Swapping background skills is explicitly allowed on page 125 of the PHB. If a DM doesn't allow it, that's a house rule.



I'm the DM. I like to use the variant that allows you to pick an option if two features give you the same skill proficiency, and I think DnDBeyond does this as well since we're using that and it let us swap.

This isn't a variant either, it's also the default rule per page 125 of the PHB.

A background gives two skills, two non-skill proficiencies (tool, language, instrument, vehicle, etc), and one background feature. There's no provision for players inventing their own background features (it says to work with your DM), but otherwise they're free to choose any combination that fits that model. The standard backgrounds in the PHB and elsewhere are described as samples, not the only options available.

[EggKookoo]

A background gives two skills, two non-skill proficiencies (tool, language, instrument, vehicle, etc), and one background feature. There's no provision for players inventing their own background features (it says to work with your DM), but otherwise they're free to choose any combination that fits that model. The standard backgrounds in the PHB and elsewhere are described as samples, not the only options available.

Ah, that explains why DnDBeyond prompted her to pick something else.

[Tanarii]

Swapping background skills is explicitly allowed on page 125 of the PHB. If a DM doesn't allow it, that's a house rule.
Per the DMG, the DM is in charge of deciding custom backgrounds. It's a variant rule they choose to allow or not allow.

[BaronCorvo]

Per the DMG, the DM is in charge of deciding custom backgrounds. It's a variant rule they choose to allow or not allow.

The DMG says no such thing. Page 289 gives guidelines for creating custom backgrounds for the DM's campaign, including creating new background features. Neither the DMG nor the PHB says that customizing backgrounds is a variant rule, and neither the DMG nor the PHB says anything about allowing or not allowing customization. It's just the standard rule.

The section immediately before "Creating a Background" is titled "Variant: Spell Points", so that is explicitly called out as a variant rule. But the section on backgrounds never uses that word.

[Theodoxus]

#1) It would be carving up Wisdom. Wisdom has traditionally been the stand-in stat for Perception... this has never made much sense to me. Why would clerics be good as 'perceiving things'. If I think about the kind of character that notices things, it is Rangers, Rogues, Explorers, Scholars, Commanders, Politicians etc. Of these, only Rangers would change from being reliant on Wisdom to reliant on Perception and Wisdom (perhaps a bit more MAD).

#2) What else would fall under perception? You could argue for... Animal Handling, Perception and Survival. Insight and Medicine would probably stay as (Wis). Initiative could arguably fall under Perception too. Which spells would now target Perception. Some Int save spells like illusions?

#3) How would this change the min-maxers? Would Perception be a dump stat for most characters? Would it slide in above Cha/Int as slightly more useful akin to Wisdom?


I started with the AGE engine but I went with 12 stats, though 2 deal strictly with weapon attacks. I also greatly expanded the skill list (there are 5 skills for each attribute, though again, 11 are for weapons...)

My Perception covers Improvised weapons, Medicine, Searching, Senses (sight, hearing, smell, etc) and Tracking.

My Wisdom covers Animal Handling, Beast Handling (domestic vs wild), Empathy (just Insight), Self-Discipline (a 'willpower' skill) and Survival.

I split Intelligence into Memory (rote learning covering Lore) and Reason raw intelligence and powers of deduction that covers Cartography, Cryptology, Engineering, Evaluation, and Research. While I don't have Wizards per se in my homebrew, spellcasters that rely on classical Intelligence (Artificer, AT, EK) would use Reason to power their spellcasting, if they so chose.

I split Charisma into Charm, covering Bargaining, Gambling, Investigation (the old Gather Information), Persuasion, and Seduction; and Presence, covering Deception, Disguise, Intimidation, Leadership, and Performance.

Lastly, I split Balance off of Dexterity. Balance covers Acrobatics, Initiative, Running, Sabotage, and Stealth, while Dex covers Sleight of Hand and fine motors skills of Calligraphy, Crafting, Forgery, and Navigation.

I absolutely agree that the 6 attributes of D&D is a nigh indestructible holy cow though. None of my players have been enthusiastic about moving away from them... So at the moment, this all remains a thought exercise. But there is definitely room for expansion... I just think it'll be relegated to the land of OSR.

[BaronCorvo]

Ah, that explains why DnDBeyond prompted her to pick something else.

Yeah, DnDBeyond is doing the correct thing here. It's pretty good about rules like this, though there are still some glitches (particularly with newer stuff, like Tasha's), some of which can be fixed manually.