And now I would like to bring something up that has bugged me for some time about D&D, and now bugs me about PF.
Does anyone else find it strange that Perception -- the capacity to see, hear and smell -- is tied into Wisdom? Why is there not an ability called Perception, on which the Perception skill could then be based?
"Wisdom" means insight, common sense, emotional intellgence. It really is an attribute separate from perceptive capability, the ability to see a hidden foe, to hear a quiet sound. Why are the two tied together, other than for simplicity's sake? It makes no "real world" sense.
For example, a cleric may be wise -- but should he be able to hear and see better than the rogue with whom he travels?
Or, a rogue can see hidden objects in the shadows, and pick the slightest sound out from a din -- but is he therefore automatically a wise sage?
Really, it makes no sense. When the PF designers were overhauling the world's oldest RPG, they should have added Perception as an ability, correcting one of the most basic -- but far-reaching -- problems in 3.5. In fact, I've been working toward making it a house rule. But I wish the PF designers had done the work -- so I wouldn't have to!
Just my 2 cents. Any thoughts?
Technically a cleric is no better at perception than a rogue, in fact a rogue is better (as shown by class skills).
Wisdom represents awareness by definition, which directly translates into realizing whats going on around you (perception).
Words are the problem.
"Dexterity" has a connotation meaning "nimble with the hands/fingers" which is why most subsequent RPGs have changed it in for "Agility" or something similar.
"Intelligence" is one of the slipperiest words in the English language, and entire disciplines of psychology have been unable to make a concrete definition of it.
Wisdom, in D&D/Pathfinder, turns out to mean "smarts that aren't book smarts". That happens to include perception. Tracing any of these words through their actual etymology reveals that they are all quite imperfect.
When considering a change such as "a Perception ability score", one must ask oneself is it really worth the effort? Or do most people "get" it the way it is?
Words are the problem.
"Dexterity" has a connotation meaning "nimble with the hands/fingers" which is why most subsequent RPGs have changed it in for "Agility" or something similar.
"Intelligence" is one of the slipperiest words in the English language, and entire disciplines of psychology have been unable to make a concrete definition of it.
Wisdom, in D&D/Pathfinder, turns out to mean "smarts that aren't book smarts". That happens to include perception. Tracing any of these words through their actual etymology reveals that they are all quite imperfect.
When considering a change such as "a Perception ability score", one must ask oneself is it really worth the effort? Or do most people "get" it the way it is?
I would propose that even though people may understand it, it would make more sense to modify the rules, so that consistency is achieved.
Class skills may sort of make up for the problem. But forget for a second about classes. Assume you have one individual who is unskilled, an NPC. They are very perceptive in terms of senses -- that is, they can detect light, sound, ect. -- but are not perceptive in regard to other's feelings, facial expressions, body language. They would have a high Perception ability score, but not Wisdom.
The reverse could be said for an elderly man, also unskilled. Perhaps he is nearly blind, and nearly deaf. But does that mean he is unwise in terms of formulating plans, or giving advice?
The same could, by the way, be said for willpower, which has also been rolled into Wisdom. If a character is wise, does that mean he or she is able to withstamd great amounts of pain? Or if a character is foolish, does that mean he or she cannot?
The language, and what it denotes, is important, and I will say that I am surprised that this was not addressed when PF was designed, as the designers paid an enormous amount of attention to and devoted a great deal of energy to minute details elsewhere.
the effort? Or do most people "get" it the way it is?
I would propose that even though people may understand it, it would make more sense to modify the rules, so that consistency is achieved.
Class skills may sort of make up for the problem. But forget for a second about classes. Assume you have one individual who is unskilled, an NPC. They are very perceptive in terms of senses -- that is, they can detect light, sound, ect. -- but are not perceptive in regard to other's feelings, facial expressions, body language. They would have a high Perception ability score, but not Wisdom.
The reverse could be said for an elderly man, also unskilled. Perhaps he is nearly blind, and nearly deaf. But does that mean he is unwise in terms of formulating plans, or giving advice?
The same could, by the way, be said for willpower, which has also been rolled into Wisdom. If a character is wise, does that mean he or she is able to withstamd great amounts of pain? Or if a character is foolish, does that mean he or she cannot?
The language, and what it denotes, is important, and I will say that I am surprised that this was not addressed when PF was designed, as the designers paid an enormous amount of attention to and devoted a great deal of energy to minute details elsewhere.
Well the unskilled NPC you're describing seems very "average," which to me implies a very low perception bonus. They can detect light and sound etc...because detecting those things requires like a 0 (look it up in the PFRPG!). Adventurers are NOT the norm, and are, in fact, extraordinary.
A perception ability really is an unnecessary complication, in my opinion. I think the current system accounts for it perfectly. I mean, its not the only stats that does two things. Charisma can mean any number of things (from attractiveness, to your force of personality, to your ability to lead people), which I think sets the precedent for concentrating on one aspect of the stat. For example, a wasting oracle will probably have a high charisma (and is probably very unattractive at that point) but he could still have a very strong personality.At least, thats how I interpret it, a stat doesn't need to be all inclusive of what it describes, if you get what Im saying.
The boost to hearing and sight senses as paople age has been a minor glitch in the system. Its easily houseruled by giving acumulative to certain perception check as people ages.
Humbly,
Yawar
Well the unskilled NPC you're describing seems very "average," which to me implies a very low perception bonus. They can detect light and sound etc...because detecting those things requires like a 0 (look it up in the PFRPG!). Adventurers are NOT the norm, and are, in fact, extraordinary.
A perception ability really is an unnecessary complication, in my opinion. I think the current system accounts for it perfectly. I mean, its not the only stats that does two things. Charisma can mean any number of things (from attractiveness, to your force of personality, to your ability to lead people), which I think sets the precedent for concentrating on one aspect of the stat. For example, a wasting oracle will probably have a high charisma (and is probably very unattractive at that point) but he could still have a very strong personality.
At least, thats how I interpret it, a stat doesn't need to be all inclusive of what it describes, if you get what Im saying.
I see your point. But if you read again what I wrote, I stated that the unskilled NPC was very perceptive of light and sound -- not just that he could see and hear. Therefore, he should have a high Perception score, even if he is unskilled. Perception, I think, has much more to do with innate ability that actual training, anyway. A hawk, for example, has excellent eyesight. This is inborn, not due to practice or experience.
You bring up an excellent point about Charisma, and in fact, I think that Charisma should be split into two different abilities. On the one hand, there should be Charisma, defined as the strength of one's personality and leadership capability. Historical examples of individuals with high Charisma score would be Winston Churchill, Abrhaam Lincoln, Napolean Bonaparte -- none of them attractive, all of them inspiring to grear numbers of people.
On the other hand, there should also be Beauty, defined as physical attractiveness. In general, those individuals with high Beauty and low Charisma scores do not end up immortalized in the annals of history, because they make little impact on the world, at least in looking at the big picture. A good example, though, would be that attractive individual on whom you had a big crush in high school who turned out to be a social idiot and completely dull when you finally got to know them.
The only reason I am more focused on the problem of Wisdom as a "waste-dump" ability is that splitting Charisma into Charisma and Beauty is much less useful than liberating Perception and Willpower from Wisdom. As far as I can see, Beauty in general makes little difference in the 3.5 or PF world, as it would be used in such few skills. The only time I can think that it was useful in an RPG was with the old Victory Games James Bond, in which the Seduction skill (and hence one's physical attractiveness) was actually important.
I see your pint. But if you read again what I wrote, I stated that the unskilled NPC was very perceptive of light and sound -- not just that he could see and hear. Therefore, he should have a high Perception score, even if he is unskilled. Perception, I think, has much more to do with innate ability that actual training, anyway. A hawk, for example, has excellent eyesight. This is inborn, not due to practice or experience.
You bring up an excellent point about Charisma, and in fact, I think that Charisma should be split into two different abilities. On the one hand, there should be Charisma, defined as the strength of one's personality and leadership capability. Historical examples of individuals with high Charisma score would be Winston Churchill, Abrhaam Lincoln, Napolean Bonaparte -- none of them attractive, all of them inspiring to grear numbers of people.
On the other hand, there should also be Beauty, defined as physical attractiveness. In general, those individuals with high Beauty and low Charisma scores do not end up immortalized in the annals of history, because they make little impact on the world, at least in looking at the big picture. A good example, though, would be that attractive individual on whom you had a big crush in high school who turned out to be a social idiot and completely dull when you finally got to know them.
The only reason I am more focused on the problem of Wisdom as a "waste-dump" ability is that splitting Charisma into Charisma and Beauty is much less useful than liberating Perception and Willpower from Wisdom. As far as I can see, Beauty in general makes little difference in the 3.5 or PF world, as it would be used in such few skills. The only time I can think that it was useful in an RPG was with the old Victory Games James Bond, in which the Seduction skill (and hence one's physical attractiveness) was actually important.
When I read this post, why do I have visions of Player Options from 2e going through my head?
No offense, but this has been done before, and I can see why they did not want to bring it out again.
But this is a good time for a house rule...
I see your point. But if you read again what I wrote, I stated that the unskilled NPC was very perceptive of light and sound -- not just that he could see and hear. Therefore, he should have a high Perception score, even if he is unskilled. Perception, I think, has much more to do with innate ability that actual training, anyway. A hawk, for example, has excellent eyesight. This is inborn, not due to practice or experience.
You bring up an excellent point about Charisma, and in fact, I think that Charisma should be split into two different abilities. On the one hand, there should be Charisma, defined as the strength of one's personality and leadership capability. Historical examples of individuals with high Charisma score would be Winston Churchill, Abrhaam Lincoln, Napolean Bonaparte -- none of them attractive, all of them inspiring to grear numbers of people.
On the other hand, there should also be Beauty, defined as physical attractiveness. In general, those individuals with high Beauty and low Charisma scores do not...
To be fair, what you're describing is "comeliness," it was an alternative 7th stat from Unearthed Arcana, so there is some precedent for it. Obviously we're just going butt heads on this matter, so I won't argue it anymore. I am curious as to why you'd think your average unskilled NPC is going to be very perceptive? To me, an unskilled NPC would just be...well...average-ly perceptive.
|
I would propose that even though people may understand it, it would make more sense to modify the rules, so that consistency is achieved.
Class skills may sort of make up for the problem. But forget for a second about classes. Assume you have one individual who is unskilled, an NPC. They are very perceptive in terms of senses -- that is, they can detect light, sound, ect. -- but are not perceptive in regard to other's feelings, facial expressions, body language. They would have a high Perception ability score, but not Wisdom.
Sounds like sense motive to me....still wisdom based. If they had a higher than average wisdom they are +1 to +3 higher than other people around them. Perhaps their stats aren't exactly the same layout as the other NPC on average.
The reverse could be said for an elderly man, also unskilled. Perhaps he is nearly blind, and nearly deaf. But does that mean he is unwise in terms of formulating plans, or giving advice?
In game being blind and nearly deaf would impose it's own penalties(probably pretty severe by the description) to those checks.
The same could, by the way, be said for willpower, which has also been rolled into Wisdom. If a character is wise, does that mean he or she is able to withstamd great amounts of pain? Or if a character is foolish, does that mean he or she cannot?
Isn't withstanding pain a Fortitude save? That's tied to Constitution. Seems to fit. You may be thinking of Will saves but those are mostly to resist mind-control and other assaults on the mind...
The language, and what it denotes, is important, and I will say that I am surprised that this was not addressed when PF was designed, as the designers paid an enormous amount of attention to and devoted a great deal of energy to minute details elsewhere.
It sounds to me like you are confused as to what is used for different checks in the game and not that the designers are flawed in the design. User error....you failed a Perception check.
|
|
I see your point. But if you read again what I wrote, I stated that the unskilled NPC was very perceptive of light and sound -- not just that he could see and hear. Therefore, he should have a high Perception score, even if he is unskilled. Perception, I think, has much more to do with innate ability that actual training, anyway. A hawk, for example, has excellent eyesight. This is inborn, not due to practice or experience.
A hawk, for example, gets a racial bonus to this stuff. If you are building an NPC to your vision you would toss a higher than average ability into wisdom and distribute skill points accordingly to reflect that. I'm not seeing your problem. Perhaps I am failing a perception check...
|
First off, it ain't gonna change, at least not in any game that is in any way compatible with 3.5 D&D or anything that has come before. For good or bad, the 6 ability stats are what they are. Learn to love it, or at least to live with it.
That said, in my mind, Wisdom ought to be renamed Intuition. To me, that captures the non-book smarts aspect and also reflects how animals can me much smarter than people in their niches. Common sense. I'd go further and make Wisdom the save that goes with Intuition. Wisdom is actual good judgment and some classes would logically get better at judgment as time goes on. The Wisdom save would be used to see through illusions and what not. Perception would remain a skill tied to Intuition (formerly known as Wisdom). And what about Will saves, which used to be tied to Wis? Move them to Charisma, which says right in its description "character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead" - a much better match for will power than either Wisdom or Intuition.
I tried to come up with a system once with a save for every ability. For Intelligence it was Memory and for Strength it was Hold (as in to hold on to something or to hold your position when pushed). Saves seem to me to be reflexive reactions to surprise events, while ability scores and ability checks are more for intentional applications of ability.
When I read this post, why do I have visions of Player Options from 2e going through my head?
No offense, but this has been done before, and I can see why they did not want to bring it out again.
But this is a good time for a house rule...
Right, Player's Option "Skills and Powers" split all six abilities into two sub-abilities, each a different aspect of the primary ability, effectively giving each character twelve ability scores. That idea didn't play so well, I think.
When the PF designers were overhauling the world's oldest RPG, they should have added Perception as an ability, correcting one of the most basic -- but far-reaching -- problems in 3.5. In fact, I've been working toward making it a house rule. But I wish the PF designers had done the work -- so I wouldn't have to!
Given that the same six ability scores have been used since first edition, it seems pointless to fault the Pathfinder developers for not changing it. If you think the game can be improved by splitting Wisdom into three scores (Wisdom, Perception, and Willpower), why not go about proposing that change in a positive way under the Suggestions/House Rules/Home Brew section of the messageboards?
First off, it ain't gonna change, at least not in any game that is in any way compatible with 3.5 D&D or anything that has come before. For good or bad, the 6 ability stats are what they are. Learn to love it, or at least to live with it.
Amen to this. As other people have pointed out, this has been attempted at time in the past, but never really stuck. I personally love the White Wolf system of 9 stats (although the Charisma/Manipulation/Appearance divide was always sort of tricky), but that's a major change from the core rules system, involving all sorts of recalculations to balance the scores and make them all equivalent--Charisma is already a dump stat for melee types, do we really need to give them more dump stats?
That said, in my mind, Wisdom ought to be renamed Intuition. To me, that captures the non-book smarts aspect and also reflects how animals can me much smarter than people in their niches. Common sense. I'd go further and make Wisdom the save that goes with Intuition. Wisdom is actual good judgment and some classes would logically get better at judgment as time goes on. The Wisdom save would be used to see through illusions and what not. Perception would remain a skill tied to Intuition (formerly known as Wisdom). And what about Will saves, which used to be tied to Wis? Move them to Charisma, which says right in its description "character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead" - a much better match for will power than either Wisdom or Intuition.
This is brilliant. I think these two changes would solve every problem I've ever had with ability scores in D&D.
Right, Player's Option "Skills and Powers" split all six abilities into two sub-abilities, each a different aspect of the primary ability, effectively giving each character twelve ability scores. That idea didn't play so well, I think.
Yeah, I don't ever remember using that in my old 2e games, but I do remember reading about it, he he.
And who can forget comliness?
Perception isn't about seeing or hearing things. Seeing and hearing things are basic racial traits; some creatures have bonuses or penalties but for the most part that's that. The core of Perception, and the reason it's a skill, is noticing things. This hinges on realizing that something you see is worth noticing, and Wisdom seems quite appropriate there.
Losing the equally appropriate Intelligence-based Search is a shame, but it did good things for the skill system in general. Still conflicted about that one. :)
Technically a cleric is no better at perception than a rogue, in fact a rogue is better (as shown by class skills).
Wisdom represents awareness by definition, which directly translates into realizing whats going on around you (perception).
Not really - Wis is a bit of a dump stat for Rogues (who need Str/Dex/Int, with a good dose of Cha and a bit of Con...)
A Cleric/Druid is going to have a pretty epic Wis score.
Given that, it's pretty easy for a Clr/Dru, especially an Elven one, to beat out the Rogue fairly comfortably.
Technically a cleric is no better at perception than a rogue, in fact a rogue is better (as shown by class skills).
Wisdom represents awareness by definition, which directly translates into realizing whats going on around you (perception).
Not really - Wis is a bit of a dump stat for Rogues (who need Str/Dex/Int, with a good dose of Cha and a bit of Con...)
A Cleric/Druid is going to have a pretty epic Wis score.
Given that, it's pretty easy for a Clr/Dru, especially an Elven one, to beat out the Rogue fairly comfortably.
I think you missed the point. Perception is a class skill for a rogue, not a cleric. Although a PC cleric will have a decent perception (because they will have EXTRAORDINARY wisdom), you're average (read:not PC) rogue is going to have an equal if not better perception score.
A cleric needs AT LEAST 16 wisdom (which on a game world scale is extremely uncommon as I understand it) to even keep up with a rogue putting points into Perception.If a rogue puts no points into wisdom (or dumps it) in favor of physical stats, then...thats what they've focused on, and their awareness is going to suffer because of it. A cleric, on the other hand, has focused on honing their wisdom, and will gain the benefit.
True, druid will beat BOTH out as they have both the class skill AND wisdom as a main stat.
And why bring Elven into it? an Elven rogue is going to gain the same benefit as an Elven Cleric/Druid.
On the topic of the number of ability scores, there are several schools of idea, which can be neatly folded into one of the three gaming models (see GNS at wikipedia).
What I want to say is that some gamers need more technical details about their characters in order to squeeze the most fun out of the game, and some will need less to reach the same goal. A role-playing game could very well be organized around two abilities : physical / mental. Some other RPG have 10 or more scores, some of them not even based on the same dice (saw Warhammer RPG once and was afwaid, vewy afwaid... ;-). I also saw somewhere (can't recall where... someone does?) a subsystem in which each D&D ability was split in two, giving a dozen abilities (strength was split into muscle/endurance, intelligence into reasoning/memory, or something like that). D&D has 6 defining abilities.
Pathfinder wouldn't change that big a staple from D&D, but you can adapt all you like. Take your pick of house-rules, there. Some of them having been explained in great lengths over the 'net, it's possible that you'd have less work to do than you envisoned.
As always... my post, my opinions, my two cents :-)
Personally, I think the perceptions ought to be tied to Charisma. It represents a character's presence, or in other words, how they interact with the world around them.
Comeliness stat was never the best idea in my book, though it tends to come up a lot. Sure, an 18 comeliness sounds fine, but not so much the low end of the spectrum, which it'll come down to since it's kind of a worthless stat in actual gameplay. Generally, a game mechanic that affects how a character actually looks will either be completely ignored or be a big turn-off for a player.
And why bring Elven into it? an Elven rogue is going to gain the same benefit as an Elven Cleric/Druid.
Because those pointy eared tree huggin' moonbaby nature lovers have a peculiar fondness toward becoming tree worshipping heathens, meanwhile other more cultured races tend to make up the bulk of most of the Gentleman Collector numbers.
Incidentally, Monks will give the Rogue a bit of a worry too when it comes to spotting 'stuff'.
So yes, a Druid will beat out a Rogue on Perception just about any given day of the week. Perhaps Rogues should be given a favoured terrain type deal - where they get a bonus on perception/knowledge/bluff to really let them shine.
Just sayin...
Perception as a wisdom based skill make's sence to me.
If i had my way :) on ability scores :) muhahahhaha
Strenght: +damage to melee weapons or melee range weapon.(encumberance)
Constitution: Starting HP and +hp per Character level. +fort save.
Dexterity: + to hit on attacks Range and Melee attacks
Agility: + to AC, Dodge, Ref saves
Intelligence: + to skills and arcain spells
Wisdom: + to Will saves and Devine spells
And Charisma would be out the door, three blocks over and in the trash can.
But thats just me:) hehe.
Yar!
I would like to draw everyone’s attention to THIS little comic that makes a wonderful and comical reference to this mechanic of wisdom & perception. It's more 3.5 specific, but it still applies.
Enjoy!
Perception is not the ability to see an object, hear a sound, or whatever else. It's the ability to see and understand what you're seeing. A character with low Perception will see the slightly off-color stone; a character with high Perception skill will see the slightly off-color stone and make the connection that it is out of place and deserves closer examination. It's perfectly placed as a Wisdom skill.
Technically a cleric is no better at perception than a rogue, in fact a rogue is better (as shown by class skills).
High wis will probably more than make up for it.
Does anyone else find it strange that Perception -- the capacity to see, hear and smell -- is tied into Wisdom? Why is there not an ability called Perception, on which the Perception skill could then be based?
Because the attributes should be kept in check. We have 6 ability scores, the same set we have always had in the game.
Plus, where does it stop?
Comeliness to be separate from Charisma? We could also have manipulation (to mess with people), Agility and Reaction, Awareness (to measure up people), Endurance, Resilience, Composure, Resolve.....
Really, it makes no sense. When the PF designers were overhauling the world's oldest RPG, they should have added Perception as an ability
Not only is it unnecessary, it would also have destroyed backwards compatibility.
, correcting one of the most basic -- but far-reaching -- problems in 3.5.
I never once had a moment where I thought "Damn, that was bad, if only perception was separate from wisdom". Not exactly far-reaching in my opinion.
Because the attributes should be kept in check. We have 6 ability scores, the same set we have always had in the game.
Plus, where does it stop?
I can understand the backwards compatibility issue, and I can understand the importance of simplicity.
But, really, just because Gary Gygax came up with 6 attributes does not mean that 6 is the magic number. Rather than 7, 8, or 9 abilities, as others have suggested, it could have been 2. One could ask, "Where does the expansion of the number of abilities stop?" One could also ask "Where does the merging of abilities stop?" and, having folded together perceptive capability, willpower, and wisdom, continue on to fold Strength and Constitution together, etc.
It is interesting to see how many different ways people have thought about this. In my opinion, just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that that's how it should be .
I do like the idea of Intuition and a Wisdom save.
By the way, if any one has encountered details of how others have expanded the number of abilities, can you point me in the direction of specific websites?
Thanks --
High wis will probably more than make up for it
How so? A cleric with starting Wis of 16 would be Perception +3. A rogue with a starting Wis of 10 and 1 rank in Perception would be +4. Furthermore, the rogue has the skill points to spare one for Perception at every level. The cleric? Not so much. Consequently, the cleric is likely stuck at that +3 for quite a while, whereas the rogue's Perception improves every level.
High wis will probably more than make up for itHow so? A cleric with starting Wis of 16 would be Perception +3. A rogue with a starting Wis of 10 and 1 rank in Perception would be +4. Furthermore, the rogue has the skill points to spare one for Perception at every level. The cleric? Not so much. Consequently, the cleric is likely stuck at that +3 for quite a while, whereas the rogue's Perception improves every level.
A cleric can put ranks in perception at no penalty.
A cleric can put ranks in perception at no penalty.
And so can the rogue, but when the cleric does it, Perception is not a class skill and the cleric is spending 1/2 his base skill points on something that isn't a class skill. Advantage? The rogue.
And so can the rogue, but when the cleric does it, Perception is not a class skill and the cleric is spending 1/2 his base skill points on something that isn't a class skill. Advantage? The rogue.
However low level Cleric V low level Rogue = Cleric Wins.
Any level Druid v Any level Rogue = Druid Wins.Ranger V Rogue is also a mismatch, with the Ranger likely beating out the Rogue as well.
When do we want to roll monks into this?
Not very impressive.
Does anyone else find it strange that Perception -- the capacity to see, hear and smell
This is the crux of your problem. This is NOT the definition of Perception.
Wikipedia defines it as follows:
"perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information".
Just because you see, hear or smell something doesn't mean you have the understanding of what it truly means.
For example:
John (Perception Roll=4): I search the room.
DM: You see a large door with funny switches and gizmos all over it.
Steve (Perception Roll=28): I search the room.
DM: You see a portcullis with a door-nob, door-bell and keyhole.
However low level Cleric V low level Rogue = Cleric Wins.
Any level Druid v Any level Rogue = Druid Wins.
Any? Not so. Possibly? Yes, and so what? No one has made the claim that rogues are the gods of Perception. What has been repeatedly advanced is the bogus claim that a high Wisdom alone makes a character excellent at Perception.
Not very impressive.
Quite.
Something to remember is the fact that whatever the ability on which a skill is based (ie Wisdom for Perception), the base ability doesn't have as much impact as the ranks you put in the skill, as you rise in levels.
A Rogue can have a very low Wisdom but still maximize his Perception, and a Cleric might have a very high Wisdom but if he doesn't develop Perception it doesn't give him much.
About extra abilities, i used to have Beauty added to the six base abilities, until the 3rd edition, when i realized after some reflexion to get rid of it, as beauty is a very subjective thing, according to races.
Besides, i do not really care if a player wants to have a gorgeous character, or a hideous one.
Charisma is more useful, as a reaction modifier.
But, really, just because Gary Gygax came up with 6 attributes does not mean that 6 is the magic number.
It does work quite well - and has always worked quite well.
And if you really understood the backwards compatibility issue, you wouldn't even suggest that Pathfinder should have changed it. It would have shattered backwards compatibility. Ability scores influence the game and all creatures and characters on a very basic level. Fundamentally changing them will like you have suggested would mean the goal of maintaining backwards compatibility would not have been kept.
Come back in about 10 years with this idea*. That's the time when Pathfinder 2nd edition is going to come out (according to early forecasts made by Paizo), and PF2e will probably be a new edition of d20, not just a big revision.
And even then I doubt they'll go for 7 ability scores. In fact, I doubt that the attributes will be touched at all. Maybe bonuses will be different, but they'll still be compatible with rolling 3d6 and it will still be the classic 6 that have been in D&D for decades now.
And if they should actually change that, they will probably redo from scratch, not just split one merged ability score apart.
One could ask, "Where does the expansion of the number of abilities stop?" One could also ask "Where does the merging of abilities stop?"
One could answer, "At the classic 6!" :P
*Or move this discussion into the house rules section.
But, really, just because Gary Gygax came up with 6 attributes does not mean that 6 is the magic number.
As a matter of fact it is quite ingenious, as it gives us three physical attributes (Str, Dex, Con), mainly used in combat and physical skills, and three mental ones (Int, Wis, Cha), mainly used in investigations, spellcasting and psionics.
A cleric can put ranks in perception at no penalty.And so can the rogue, but when the cleric does it, Perception is not a class skill and the cleric is spending 1/2 his base skill points on something that isn't a class skill. Advantage? The rogue.
Clerics might have few skill points to go around, but then again, they don't really need much.
And note that 2 is only the base number. You forget intelligence (okay, unlikely to be much more than 10, but it does happen!), humans, and favoured classes.
Since I've been using Pathfinder (early Alpha stages), I've seen many clerics with ranks in Perception (in fact, most had it, maybe even all).
It's one skill that does both mesh well with the cleric's ability scores and that is useful to pretty much everybody.
So we have a cleric and a rogue.
Rogue will probably have a low wisdom score that will not see much improvement as he develops - it's not unlikely that the rogue will start with something like 10 or 12 in wisdom and keep it there for the rest of his adventuring career).
So he puts skill ranks into it, gets +1 for Wisdom and +3 for class skill, for a total of Level +4
The Cleric will also keep putting ranks into the skill. He won't get any class skill bonus, but it's highly unlikely that his wisdom score starts out as less than 14. Depending on your ability generation, you'll probably have 16 at least, and 18 isn't that far out. So you're starting with anything between Level +2 and Level +4 - not far behind the rogue. And wisdom will get frequent increases - Level increases will be put there, and of course the cleric will use a big chunk of his money on wisdom boosters.
Before long, the Wisdom range is more like 18-22, meaning the Cleric has perception equal to Level+4 or even Level+6.
At very high levels, it might go up to 28, maybe more (if he can get an inherent bonus) and move his bonus up to +10.
And even if not, the rogue won't have his advantage for long (if he ever had it).
And then there's the campaigns that use Character Traits and clerics that use one of them to get perception as a class skill, leaving the rogue in the dust.
So when do we start the petition to make Perception a Cleric class skill since you say almost every cleric takes it anyway :)
--what he made a point, if most clerics are takeing the skill, why would it not be comsider a class skill-- :)
Maybe that's why Rogues get such good reflex saves.
They can't see their hands in front of their faces - so only those able to dive out of the way lightning quick at the last possible second are the ones that live long enough to join adventuring parties :p
Anyhow, back to the Wis Class V Rogue shootout; I wouldn't infer that Rogues should be the be all and end all of Perception - however I think they could certainly use a bit of a massage to bring them up a bit in this area.
For example, a favoured terrain for rogues... after all the rogue is the Urban Ranger!
Threadjack, but just to put my two cents on the "six attributes" thing:
For about twelve years now, I've been fiddling with a homebrew system. It has gone through various incarnations, and I've tried several arrangements of base attributes, with counts ranging from two to ten.
Six really is a sweet spot, if you want to have an equal division of mental and physical attributes. Two is a video game, four will serve but needs more secondary stats to pick up some slack, eight is just too many.
I do not find any of the classic ability scores a good match, wisdom could be argued for ofcourse, since it is the rule.
Main problem seems to me the impact a good ability scores has on this check a 'wise' character can easily outshine one of the perceptive classes.
Since apparently everyone or near everyone now maxes out perception (at least in my group), I am considering making it a level check instead with a + 3 bonus for the classes that have it as a class skill currently.
Since I seen it mentioned a few times :
The 2nd edition had Player's Option : Skills and Powers
it divided every ability score in 2, it was a decent attempt you put one ability in it and could alter it slightly..
intellect and memory for example for example, you put 'X'(say 16) in intelligence score you could up either intellect or memory by up to 2 points if you wanted and lower the other
(18 intellect and 14 memory for example)
It was crude and got you some useless ability scores, but the idea was fairly nice in itself :)
I would consider to use it a little different,
strength / constitution
dexterity / agility
intellect / memory
personality / willpower
didnt think it through very well, but take to hit bonus from strength and put it towards dexterity and I think you have a pretty workable system (though not backwards compatible without any effort :p)
Threadjack, but just to put my two cents on the "six attributes" thing:
For about twelve years now, I've been fiddling with a homebrew system. It has gone through various incarnations, and I've tried several arrangements of base attributes, with counts ranging from two to ten.
Six really is a sweet spot, if you want to have an equal division of mental and physical attributes. Two is a video game, four will serve but needs more secondary stats to pick up some slack, eight is just too many.
The problem with six stats is it's nearly synonymous with D&D and d20 made six stats practically synonymous with the usual Str, Con, Blah suspects.
Two is a video game, four will serve but needs more secondary stats to pick up some slack, eight is just too many.
Video games usually have more than that. You get stuff like "Strength, Agility, Stamina, Spirit" or the like, or "Attack, Defense, Spellpower, Knowledge", and so on.
I do find 6 is the perfect number - For D&D and Pathfinder! Changing the basic attributes without changing it to a different game is as unthinkable to me as getting rid of vancian spellcsting, having fighters (actual fighters, not just any warrior class) with magic, or turning archons into chaotic critters (which would be double-dumb because archon means ruler and is thus just right for order) - or getting rid of the classic alignments.
I do think other games have great attribute sets, though:
(New)World of Darkness:
Has nine attributes - 3 x 3. You have physical, mental and social scores, and each category has one for power, one for finesse, and one for resistance (which do the job of saving throws, more or less.)
Physical is Strength (well, carry heavy stuff and hit people hard), Dexterity (be quick and agile) and Stamina (endure depletive and hurtful effects); mental is Intelligence (the power of memory and comprehension), Wits (thinking "on your toes", fast thinking) and Resolve (not giving up even though it may be mentally tiring or hurtful); social is Presence (just like it sounds - have a good presence, impress others just with your.. presence), Manipulation (change other people's minds) and Composure (keep your calm in the face of insults, ridicule, or horrors, both mundane and supernatural).
Legend of the Five Rings
There are 5 rings (true to the game's name), each representing one of the five elements (Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Void).
The four "classical" rings have two traits (=attributes) each (one mental, one physical), while Void is the connecting force between everything. does not have its own traits but instead gives you "Void Points" to give you a boost of insight (and dice) when making a roll.
Not everything uses the traits - some things are calculated by ring - your Ring is equal to the lower of its traits - so if you have Awareness 3 and Reflexes 8, your Air ring is only 3. Life energy, for example, is derived from Earth rather than stamina or willpower.
Air represents speed, subtlety, understanding. It is composed of awareness (intuition and empathy - the skill for social interaction) and reflexes (reaction speed - the skill for initiative, defence and archery)
Earth represents durability and resilience. It is composed of stamina (physical energy - mainly for endurance and shaking off wounds, poison, disease and the like) and willpower (mental energy - used for mental resolve and resisting mental effect)
Fire represents inspiration and energy. It is composed of agility (hand-eye coordination - most melee weapons use this as a base trait) and intelligence (understanding and memory - used for knowledge and for many non-combat skills)
Water represents power and clarity. It is composed of perception (well, noticing things) and strength (governs mêlée damage)
I like both systems a lot, and they make sense for their respective games, but Pathfinder is Pathfinder.
On the topic of the number of ability scores, there are several schools of idea, which can be neatly folded into one of the three gaming models (see GNS at wikipedia).
What I want to say is that some gamers need more technical details about their characters in order to squeeze the most fun out of the game, and some will need less to reach the same goal. A role-playing game could very well be organized around two abilities : physical / mental. Some other RPG have 10 or more scores, some of them not even based on the same dice (saw Warhammer RPG once and was afwaid, vewy afwaid... ;-). I also saw somewhere (can't recall where... someone does?) a subsystem in which each D&D ability was split in two, giving a dozen abilities (strength was split into muscle/endurance, intelligence into reasoning/memory, or something like that). D&D has 6 defining abilities.
Pathfinder wouldn't change that big a staple from D&D, but you can adapt all you like. Take your pick of house-rules, there. Some of them having been explained in great lengths over the 'net, it's possible that you'd have less work to do than you envisoned.
As always... my post, my opinions, my two cents :-)
What a great find! The article in Wikipedia is really quite fascinating. After reading that, and a link to something called the Forge, which has all sorts of papers about gaming psychology and philosophy, I have realized that a good deal of the disagreements people are having here are due to differences in gaming philosophy. We are all looking for something a little different.
For example, for those who subscribe to "Gamist" philosophy -- those looking to optimize a character, those who enjoy game rules, those wondering who is better, the cleric or the rogue -- the 6 abilities work fine, as they always have. Why tinker with them?
However, I approached the problem from a Simulationist viewpoint, in that I want my RPG world to replicate the "real world" as much as possible (as much as that makes any sense in a sword and sorcery type game). For example, when I create new characters, I do not try to optimize them. Instead, I roll for race and gender, as well as social bakground and prior occupation, on demographic tables I have created. Abilities I roll completely randomly, and without switching them around, or re-rolling. What I get is what I get. The whole process -- up to class selection -- is completely random, because that is the way biology is. You play the game with what you are given. It's nerdy, I know, but I like to play like that.
Anyway -- it amazes me how coming from a different philosophical point of view can affect how one sees game mechanics.
The Forge is worth checking out, if you haven't seen it yet.
Two is a video game, four will serve but needs more secondary stats to pick up some slack, eight is just too many.
Video games usually have more than that. You get stuff like "Strength, Agility, Stamina, Spirit" or the like, or "Attack, Defense, Spellpower, Knowledge", and so on.
I wonder if he was thinking of Final Fantasy Tactics, where you get only Brave and Faith.
Losing the equally appropriate Intelligence-based Search is a shame, but it did good things for the skill system in general. Still conflicted about that one. :)
Threadjack, similarly I'm conflicted about Balance being rolled into Acrobatics. I want to make my dwarf fighter steady on his feet without turning him into a tumbling acrobat. (It's a flavor thing where less is more.)