Why is Perception a Skill?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It seems to me like "Perception" should be mostly an innate ability, with options for feats, spells and special abilities to enhance it, much like the saves are. I don't really see how one can "train" their perception on a regular basis - one's senses are limited. I can't force my eyes and/or ears to get any sharper on their own.

I understand the gameworld use as an important tool for information gathering as well as contesting Stealth, but something doesn't seem quite right.

Thoughts?


Innate abilities are based on an attribute and don't scale with level, whereas some other things that are opposed to perception (such ass the aforementioned stealth) do... so if you want perception to scale, you have to find a device to make it level related, like a skill (if you invest in it), or BAB or a ST.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sharper may not be the word. You certainly can train yourself to process more information though. Remember the pictures where you have to find objects hidden in plain sight? Well, that's a way to gauge someone who is more skilled at Perception than someone who is not.

In the same vein, food critics are better at determining ingredients, and one famous muscian(the name of which I can't remember) could hear a song once and recreate it perfectly.

I do agree it shouldn't be a skill though. Level + Wisdom modifier would work just fine. I'd probably cut everything that gives a flat bonus to perception(like the Keen Senses of Elves and Halflings) in half though.

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In game balance issues aside, people can definitely train their perception. You can practice and learn the skills of mindfulness and awareness, getting used to recognizing and noting all the details that your senses can already detect.

E.g. I can see that there are a lot of orcs over there.

The guy with 20 ranks in perception with the same visual range can see that there are 43 orcs, which ones have ill-fitting shoes by their gaits, and where the invisible Ogre Mage is hiding in their midst by watching the displacement of the mob.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my game, Perception is basically a "bonus" skill—you're considered to have maxed it by default. It's silly to make it a skill when it's pretty much objectively the best skill in the game. But that's more a question of game design than realism.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I may actually be one of the only people on these boards who doesn't max perception :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I may actually be one of the only people on these boards who doesn't max perception :P

I usually only max it because I'm playing a class that has the extra skill points or I'm playing the class that should max it because the other players aren't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MrShine wrote:

It seems to me like "Perception" should be mostly an innate ability, with options for feats, spells and special abilities to enhance it, much like the saves are. I don't really see how one can "train" their perception on a regular basis - one's senses are limited. I can't force my eyes and/or ears to get any sharper on their own.

I understand the gameworld use as an important tool for information gathering as well as contesting Stealth, but something doesn't seem quite right.

Thoughts?

Since I can't explain exactly I'll just go with how I played it.

I was playing a cleric with no ranks and a -2 (trait lovesick) on perception. My characters eyes and ears were good enough but he was lost in his own world, hummed tunes, started thinking about the meaning of life while walking down a dark corridor and didn't notice anything around him. When the stakes went up for him, I maxed his perception, eyes and ears worked the same but he was paying attention to his surroundings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I may actually be one of the only people on these boards who doesn't max perception :P

Depends on the character. If the character I'm playing is conceived of as spacey, obtuse, generally unobservant etc. I will not max perception.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMHO, it is there to represent those PC ideas that are clueless to what is going on around them but are non the less smart, wise or high level. Where as if you just link it to level and or a stat you lose some RP potential.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO, it is there to represent those PC ideas that are clueless to what is going on around them but are non the less smart, wise or high level. Where as if you just link it to level and or a stat you lose some RP potential.

MDC

A PC with wis 18 has +4 on perception, if the player doesn't add any ranks it's not that much. You can still have a wise person, that is clueless.

Edit: Though wisdom does represent life experience, so it makes sense that if you have absolutely no idea whats going around you, you wouldn't be wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perception is one of the reasons I liked the Star Wars Saga rules where skills were all half character level +X for choosing it as a specialised skill.

It kind of bugs me as well that so many things you just want you character to be able to do are locked behind skills. More annoying is that the way you gain more skill points is become smarter. To jump or acrobatics along with other skills you have to be academic and have a higher Int.

It's the system we have and what we use though I guess.


Turelus wrote:

Perception is one of the reasons I liked the Star Wars Saga rules where skills were all half character level +X for choosing it as a specialised skill.

It kind of bugs me as well that so many things you just want you character to be able to do are locked behind skills. More annoying is that the way you gain more skill points is become smarter. To jump or acrobatics along with other skills you have to be academic and have a higher Int.

It's the system we have and what we use though I guess.

That makes no sense to me either. I wonder why it is like that.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You can learn to be more perceptive. When I joined the military I got a lot better at noticing things so I see why it is a skill just like being stealthy is a skill. When you are being trained how to clear rooms, and you get training on IED's you are taught things to look for. I can see the same thing going into not getting caught by a trap or how to notice that someone or something is in the room with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perception isn't training to see better. It's a Wisdom based skill. You're training to recognize what is and isn't important. Ever heard a strange noise in the middle of the night when everyone else is asleep? Perception is the difference between the paranoid fear that someone is coming to get you and the knowledge that the cat was eating out of the bowl you left by the sink and knocked it off. It's recognizing the unnatural silence when children have just recently or are about to do something awful that will need cleaning up. We (as humans) see a lot of stuff, the optic nerve throws out most of it and our brain pastes over gaps with biophotoshop. If we're focused, we ignore even more (the gorilla experiment). Ranks in Perception aren't necessarily seeing or hearing better so much as noticing that other leaves aren't shaking (no wind) but that bush is, or hearing a noise and knowing to focus in that direction to hear more. It's not training the senses themselves but the filter you use to process the data.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point is that you can be trained to noticed things that you would not have otherwise noticed. The fact that you learn to ignore certain things, and pick up on others does not take away from the fact that your learning is applying to how well you do with when perception comes into play.

Scarab Sages

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
In my game, Perception is basically a "bonus" skill—you're considered to have maxed it by default. It's silly to make it a skill when it's pretty much objectively the best skill in the game.

I don't like that word "objectively" - I've seen way too many people around here use it for effect (or to imply that "anybody who disputes my claim must be stupid") without using it correctly or even having a good handle on what it does and doesn't mean.

That said, it's hard to argue that Perception isn't the most useful skill of them all pound-for-pound. That's why I'd favor "trust-busting" it back up a bit like in 3.5th Edition when it was Listen, Spot, and Search. I'd restore the Intelligence-based Search skill (which you use to find Waldo), and reduce Perception to just the combination of Listen and Spot (being the skill that lets you know if Waldo is sneaking up behind you with an axe).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect it is more by luck than design, but generally the classes which cannot afford points in perception are the ones most would consider to be spacey or indifferent to their surroundings - the Sorcerer, Oracle* and Paladin.

With 2+ (low) Int skills on low Wis builds it isn't really worth it and these classes will never be scouts aside from the Seeker archetype. They don't get it in class, they need Spellcraft or Diplomacy or Know Arcana more. They have a lot more going on in their own minds than in the outside world.

Summoners would be similar but of course they just make their Eidolon do it as always. Wizards are smart and precise so even though they don't get it in class and are low Wis, they have the ranks to make it respectable.

Clerics can be otherworldly too and won't have max ranks, but they do have good Wis.

The 4+ skills and up classes are all professional adventurer or warriors and can afford to make their Perception strong. Rangers and Rogues and even Bards and Cavaliers have fluff reasons as well as the mechanical capability to keep their eyes and ears alert, even if it isn't the same reason. Rangers have to be keen hunters, Cavaliers are battlefield commanders who need to be appraised of the situation etc.

It's a bummer for guys like the Paladin, but the gods don't love him because of his cunning, bless him. He'll survive.

My argument falls down with the example of the unfortunate Fighter, but that has been tacitly admitted as a design flaw holdover from 3.5. Many home games fix this skill problem. It's just silly that guards and watchmen and sergeants and gladiators don't get any boost.

*Edit: I forgot Oracles get 4+ per level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
0o0o0 O 0o0o0 wrote:

I suspect it is more by luck than design, but generally the classes which cannot afford points in perception are the ones most would consider to be spacey or indifferent to their surroundings - the Sorcerer, Oracle and Paladin.

With 2+ (low) Int skills on low Wis builds it isn't really worth it and these classes will never be scouts aside from the Seeker archetype. They don't get it in class, they need Spellcraft or Diplomacy or Know Arcana more. They have a lot more going on in their own minds than in the outside world.

Summoners would be similar but of course they just make their Eidolon do it as always. Wizards are smart and precise so even though they don't get it in class and are low Wis, they have the ranks to make it respectable.

Clerics can be otherworldly too and won't have max ranks, but they do have good Wis.

The 4+ skills and up classes are all professional adventurer or warriors and can afford to make their Perception strong. Rangers and Rogues and even Bards and Cavaliers have fluff reasons as well as the mechanical capability to keep their eyes and ears alert, even if it isn't the same reason. Rangers have to be keen hunters, Cavaliers are battlefield commanders who need to be appraised of the situation etc.

It's a bummer for guys like the Paladin, but the gods don't love him because of his cunning, bless him. He'll survive.

My argument falls down with the example of the unfortunate Fighter, but that has been tacitly admitted as a design flaw holdover from 3.5. Many home games fix this skill problem. It's just silly that guards and watchmen and sergeants and gladiators don't get any boost.

Oracles get 4+Int, and a few Mysteries give Perception as a CS (Dragon and Time at least, off the top of my head.) I've played a few Oracles and never had a problem keeping Perception up.

EDIT: Also, 'Spacey' and 'Indifferent' aren't terms I'd ever really apply to the stereotypical Paladin. Additionally, the idea that 'professional adventurers' have a specific number of skill points per level is rather baffling.

Silver Crusade

Why so aggressive?

Anyway, the Paladin can often be tunnel-visioned or indeed indifferent to the ways of worldly flesh. Or perhaps they are just dumb and eager. Or innocent and naive. These are all valid ways of playing a stereotypical Paladin, so while 'spacey' may be an ill-chosen word the vibe of not being so alert still stands.

Pathfinder is a game where one plays professional adventurers and the rules give skill points for the classes, what is baffling?


I do think that it should be a skill, but I think it should be a class skill for all classes or none. I don't know what would make any class inherently better at noticing things than others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frequently studying the finer details of things?

Rogues spend a lot of time dealing with locks, after all. Wizards study many tomes of lore in order to learn - Sorcerers mostly just acquire their talent.


This sounds suspiciously like 4th Edition DnD taint.

We need to quarantine this thread!

I like the skill, it makes a lot more sense since it was worked into a single skill. In 3.5 it was 3 different skills: listen, search and spot.

I never understood how someone could be good at spotting something, but search was a whole different skill. In pathfinder its all neatly rolled into 1 skill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skull wrote:


I never understood how someone could be good at spotting something, but search was a whole different skill. In pathfinder its all neatly rolled into 1 skill.

<shrug>. The distinction makes sense to me. Spotting is passive; it's noticing and remembering the significance of what you've seen. Searching is active; you are thinking about what you're doing.

Sherlock Holmes put it well:

Quote:

“You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.”

“Frequently.”
“How often?”
“Well, some hundreds of times.”
“Then how many are there?”
“How many? I don’t know.”
“Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed."

For an example, consider a Where's Waldo? image? Search is the skill of finding Waldo specifically. Spot is the skill of glancing at the picture and noticing the important details, which may or may not be where Waldo is, depending upon the circumstances.

I can understand Pathfinder's desire to simplify the skill list in the interest of speed and playability, but I recognize that 3.5 is more accurate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
coldvictim wrote:
I do think that it should be a skill, but I think it should be a class skill for all classes or none. I don't know what would make any class inherently better at noticing things than others.

In general, the "nature" classes and "sneaky" classes get Perception as a class skill.

That makes sense to me. If something's sneaking up on you during training, you will learn to notice the signs of things. (That's why they teach it in the real-world military). But no one ever was assaulted in the middle of a library by a folio volume.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

After about 15 years of being blind, I can assure you that you can learn to train yourself to perceive things better. It got to the point in college, that I could tell who was coming near me by listening to how my friends walked. It became agame to try and trick me. Needless to say, it didn’t work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
But no one ever was assaulted in the middle of a library by a folio volume.

You must hang out in some lame libraries if you've never been assaulted by a book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
MrShine wrote:

It seems to me like "Perception" should be mostly an innate ability, with options for feats, spells and special abilities to enhance it, much like the saves are. I don't really see how one can "train" their perception on a regular basis - one's senses are limited. I can't force my eyes and/or ears to get any sharper on their own.

I understand the gameworld use as an important tool for information gathering as well as contesting Stealth, but something doesn't seem quite right.

Thoughts?

Because some people are inattentive.

Because some people are bad at recognizing what they see as what it is.
Because some people don't know what signifies hidden things.

All of which can be improved with effort, time, and experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I may actually be one of the only people on these boards who doesn't max perception :P

No you're not. I only max it on characters who have being perceptive as part of their character concept... such as my sky elf ranger. I don't generally bother with my more "bookish" characters.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's usually at least 2 other characters with maxed perception in the games I play, so I often just metagame and ignore the skill and improve other more important skills like profession(brewer).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been a while since I've had a character with any ranks perception let alone max ranks. Everyone else in the group always maxes it out, so there's no reason to.


Alni wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO, it is there to represent those PC ideas that are clueless to what is going on around them but are non the less smart, wise or high level. Where as if you just link it to level and or a stat you lose some RP potential.

MDC

A PC with wis 18 has +4 on perception, if the player doesn't add any ranks it's not that much. You can still have a wise person, that is clueless.

Edit: Though wisdom does represent life experience, so it makes sense that if you have absolutely no idea whats going around you, you wouldn't be wise.

I am sorry I should have made it clear that I was talking in general terms an not in terms of PF RPG game.

That is to say in PF perception is liked to a Stat and higher stat gives bonus to a skill but in real life that is not always the case.

IMHO, you also have to look at the limitations placed on the skill system in PF (note I am not saying there is a problem with it I am just saying that by making such a design decision you limit some possibilities) in that you can have only the max rank in a skill equal to you level you limit the effect of learned skills vs stat bonuses vs level as a representation of over all learning or real life experience.

IMHO, Perception can also be viewed as just not seeing, hearing, taste, touch or other sense (time). But can also be viewed as linking small facts to knowledge to provide insite (which is more of a wisdom thing in PF).
For example: A art expert may not notice that a painting is a forgery until a unknowing student notices some strange brush strokes under the frame (while taking it apart to restore) that actually are clues that it was his chief student who did the painting and had great skills in impersonating his masters style and composition.

Another question along this line IMHO, is "The Core Rules provide various age ranges based on starting professions does that mean that if I roll very low and get a young age and then at 2nd level want to change my class to one in which the age range is a lot higher than my actual age can I do so?"
Example: Elf Rogue starting age 114 and I progress to 2nd level and want to take Wizard can I do so even though my age is below the one listed on the table of a min 120 years?
Does it matter in you game or to your GM or players or story?

MDC


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the replies everyone! Clearly I had overlooked (see what I did there?) the cognitive aspect of perception - using the information that we do absorb more effectively. It's also nice to see people that take the skills into consideration when RPing their characters - it seems some skills are more impactful than others when looked at in terms of reflecting character traits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my house rules, I give an alternative to perception to make it less necessary. When in a surprise encounter, you can roll a d20+character level to notice the assailants. It doesn't completely make perception obsolete in battles, but it gives characters less punishment for ditching it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go walking with a skilled hunter and you will be amazed what he "sees" in the forest that you miss. it is not that his eyes are innately better at seeing a deer standing in the bushes. A lifetime of experience allows him to "spot" what you have missed.


Something that really sticks out to me here is

Turelus wrote wrote:
More annoying is that the way you gain more skill points is become smarter. To jump or acrobatics along with other skills you have to be academic and have a higher Int.

That has always bothered me as well; why would a Paladin, who's best "dump" stat would be int, have to become more academic to have more skills per level up? One could argue that, somewhere in between the lines, the character is working on and focusing/training different skills between level-ups, and in order to focus on more skills at a time, you would have to be smarter.

I have rolled around the idea of making skill ranks per level up tied to the classes primary ability score. For Bards, this would be charisma, for clerics it would be wisdom, for rogues it would dexterity, etc. But I can't really come up with a good, applicable reason why this would work any better than basing them off int. It seems just as unbelievable either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I once met a veteran while waiting for a bus from a parking lot to a local festival. He was maybe 5 years older than me, but had been trained to recognize a number of things about situations he walked through. In the time it took to walk from our cars to the bus stop (about 400'), he pointed out every piece of security equipment that was visible - cameras on specific street lamps, in the buildings, etc.

He was trained in perception - he had invested hours into becoming better at noticing very specific things. In game terms, he probably also had Skill Focus: Perception. I am not similarly trained, but I could see the things he pointed out to me. That is why perception is a skill.

I can understand the argument about how skill ranks are earned. I think that is one of the key flaws of many classes. That said, Intelligence is, among other things, a measure of your capacity to learn. It makes sense to tie skill ranks to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

if I was gonna redesign the skill system I think I might divide the skills into physical skills and mental skills and tie the former to Dexterity (representing co-ordination and 'muscle memory').

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
andygal wrote:
if I was gonna redesign the skill system I think I might divide the skills into physical skills and mental skills and tie the former to Dexterity (representing co-ordination and 'muscle memory').

im not completly sure what you mean. But im not excited about making strength more of a dump stat, unless it is removed.

For perception, i would make it based on the appropriate knowledge skill for where you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First off I agree and disagree.

Disagree:

Spoiler:
I disagree that you can not train perception. I've recently had the pleasure of working with a fellow planning an Office move for a larger business. Just the way this guy looks at things and his casual observations. It's baffling how fast he is able to estimate sizes and layouts alone, and not just Knowledge: Engineering or layout. He's quite to pick out feeling, textures, people's reaction, and several other things. Would timing be counted as perception?
One could argue he's more experience (more wise) at this kind of task, but you can also say he's being training this specific skill for all the years he's been doing this.

Agree:

Spoiler:

1st- As mentioned in earlier posts from a gamiest point of view. When most every character ever created are sinking ranks in a specific skill nearly 90 to 100% of the time. Good game design teaches that you either remove the feature entirely or make it a more universally part of the game (i.e. no need to sink ranks in perception).

2nd- Slightly backtracking with my first disagreement point. If a "real person" were to go adventuring, and gallivant through dungeons, and ruins, and castles for whatever the real time equivalently of 5 to 15 levels were, there is no way one would not be gaining at least passively training their perception. Avoiding perilous trap and deadly monsters one would definitely pickup some quick recognitions along the way. This would not be on the same level as a spy or a forward scout, but certainly leaps better than an average clerk.

My Knee jerk reaction is that a seasoned adventurer should have half his levels in perception automatically.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GeneticDrift wrote:
andygal wrote:
if I was gonna redesign the skill system I think I might divide the skills into physical skills and mental skills and tie the former to Dexterity (representing co-ordination and 'muscle memory').

im not completly sure what you mean. But im not excited about making strength more of a dump stat, unless it is removed.

For perception, i would make it based on the appropriate knowledge skill for where you are.

Personally I'd probably make physical skills CON based to represent that you had the fortitude to train in more physical activities than another might.

Frankly PF could stand to take a lesson from 5e on the strength-skills matter; Dex-To-Damage is free in 5e and there is only one strength-based skill, Athletics.

Strength builds are still super-common because Athletics is arguably the best skill in the game after Perception, tied with Stealth. Climbing, swimming, and various feats of strength are all Athletics so it's a skill you roll very regularly, and it's a skill that allows you to push away or trip enemies in combat.

Climb and Swim should really not be separate skills, in my book. If reworking the skill system, give strength some GOOD skills or one really useful one like Athletics if you want to incentivize it more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
In my game, Perception is basically a "bonus" skill—you're considered to have maxed it by default. It's silly to make it a skill when it's pretty much objectively the best skill in the game.

I don't like that word "objectively" - I've seen way too many people around here use it for effect (or to imply that "anybody who disputes my claim must be stupid") without using it correctly or even having a good handle on what it does and doesn't mean.

That said, it's hard to argue that Perception isn't the most useful skill of them all pound-for-pound. That's why I'd favor "trust-busting" it back up a bit like in 3.5th Edition when it was Listen, Spot, and Search. I'd restore the Intelligence-based Search skill (which you use to find Waldo), and reduce Perception to just the combination of Listen and Spot (being the skill that lets you know if Waldo is sneaking up behind you with an axe).

What awful thing did you do to tick off Waldo so badly that he's out to murder you? I thought you're supposed to find Waldo, not the other way around.


Blackwaltzomega,
What? Climb and swim not separate skills?
I guess if you are going a minimalist approach to skills you could combine them into one group but I know quite a few people who can climb well and did not learn to swim.
MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Blackwaltzomega,

What? Climb and swim not separate skills?
I guess if you are going a minimalist approach to skills you could combine them into one group but I know quite a few people who can climb well and did not learn to swim.
MDC

How many of those people are seasoned adventurers in a fantasy game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mountains out of molehills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why is Perception a skill?

Take a look around and see all the people who are so focused on their social media/multimedia devices and oblivious to the rest of the world around them. Then ask yourself if perception is innate or learned. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrShine wrote:

It seems to me like "Perception" should be mostly an innate ability, with options for feats, spells and special abilities to enhance it, much like the saves are. I don't really see how one can "train" their perception on a regular basis - one's senses are limited. I can't force my eyes and/or ears to get any sharper on their own.

I understand the gameworld use as an important tool for information gathering as well as contesting Stealth, but something doesn't seem quite right.

Thoughts?

Actually you can. Sherlock Holmes and Batman are excellent examples of people who actively train to sharpen their senses and perception to a finely honed edge. There are lots of ways to train yourself to be better at things like that and fantasy is full of them.

Turelus wrote:

Perception is one of the reasons I liked the Star Wars Saga rules where skills were all half character level +X for choosing it as a specialised skill.

It kind of bugs me as well that so many things you just want you character to be able to do are locked behind skills. More annoying is that the way you gain more skill points is become smarter. To jump or acrobatics along with other skills you have to be academic and have a higher Int.

It's the system we have and what we use though I guess.

You don't need INT to jump or swim or climb. Your stupid fighter is still given 2 skill points to use for those skills. Same with Paladins.

The reason that they went with Intelligence as the 'new skill point' stat... is that at least 14 out of 35 skills are intelligence based. Knowledges take up a huge portion of the skill list. Things like Swim and climb and acrobatics... They COULD have made them their own catagories that gave you skill points when you have high physical stats... but honestly that happens ANYWAY. If you have a high strength, your climb goes up... and you can use it untrained.

There are a few different ways to tweak the system, but honestly this makes sense just fine how it is. Strong people get the strong skills naturally, Smart people know more about a variety of different things.

Personally, I think the best thing they could do is just make sure to give everyone at least 4+ skill points a level and it wouldn't be too noticeable. Pathfinder Unleashed I think has 'background' skills that essentially lets each character get an extra 2 skill points for non-combat skills that we've been using lately. Everyone in our group is pretty happy with it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If we're looking at mechanics: The "correct" and short answer is 'Because Stealth is a skill'. - One of the things that sets the Perception DC.

Unlike a Save's DC, a Perception's DC is not static. A Save DC will always be somewhere around a specific number at any given level. The Perception DC varies a lot more. Attempting to balance a save vs a skill would be a nightmare.


I think the problem here is that "how well you notice things" is both an innate talent and a learned skill. To a certain extent, observation is pattern-matching, and you have to be familiar with the patterns in question in order to figure out what's out of place or what's missing. An accomplished woodsperson might get a clue from a particular way the underbrush is broken up; whereas someone who had never been outside the big city might not even realize that's not normal. If some malefactor is posing as a baker as cover, someone with no experience in the kitchen or knowledge of baking might not realize that the mysterious sacks in the back of the store aren't the kind that flour or sugar comes in.

Probably perception should be governed by Wisdom and another skill that's appropriate to the context in which the perception check would take place. After all, the same skill that lets you spot secret doors in dungeons is not necessarily the same skill you'd use to figure out that the Duc's limp is inconsistent with his claim that it was an old war injury that flared up.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:

Why is Perception a skill?

Take a look around and see all the people who are so focused on their social media/multimedia devices and oblivious to the rest of the world around them. Then ask yourself if perception is innate or learned. :D

That's not a fair analogy! Those people failed a Will save. It's a different mechanic.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why is Perception a Skill? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.