Perception vs Find Traps

So the Dwarven Fighter has Perception +3

The Rogue has Find Traps +3

How do people think these two skills are going to work? I don't think it's reasonable to speculate that a Rogue is going to be able to get Perception +3 at some point, at which time he'll have 2 skills that give him the same bonus on finding traps.

Do they stack? Do I get an extra +1 to finding traps? Do I simply ignore the "Find Traps" skill and use Perception? Is it only possible to find magical traps if you have "Find Traps"?

All this is largely speculation at this point, but I'm curious how people interpret it. I would be inclined to say you get a "+1" bonus to Find Traps (total of +4) but only have +3 on Remove Traps.

Check out my 5th Edition Blog.

Do they stack? Do I get an extra +1 to finding traps? Do I simply ignore the "Find Traps" skill and use Perception? Is it only possible to find magical traps if you have "Find Traps"?

Given the bounded math of 5e, stacking it out of the question. A system where you don't get any bonus for overlapping skills seems too restrictive. I'm guessing a flat +1 bonus if you have more then one trained skill that applies is the most likely rule. Anything after that gets excessively complex for little benefit.

Do they stack? Do I get an extra +1 to finding traps? Do I simply ignore the "Find Traps" skill and use Perception? Is it only possible to find magical traps if you have "Find Traps"?

Given the bounded math of 5e, stacking it out of the question. A system where you don't get any bonus for overlapping skills seems too restrictive. I'm guessing a flat +1 bonus if you have more then one trained skill that applies is the most likely rule. Anything after that gets excessively complex for little benefit.



I doubt that will happen even, at least in this case. My guess is that when the rules are fleshed out more, they'll go into more detail about what the bonuses can and can't be used for when it comes to skills like "Find Traps". My money's on Perception not having anything to do with it and the Find Traps bonus being the only one that applies to locating a trap. They'll probably have similar clarifications on Track as well.

In the event that there is a situation in which multiple bonuses apply at the same time, though, you're probably right that they'll only give an additional +1 bonus and be limited to just one. Or they may not stack at all.
I doubt that will happen even, at least in this case. My guess is that when the rules are fleshed out more, they'll go into more detail about what the bonuses can and can't be used for when it comes to skills like "Find Traps". My money's on Perception not having anything to do with it and the Find Traps bonus being the only one that applies to locating a trap. They'll probably have similar clarifications on Track as well.

I really don't want to go back to a system where Find Traps is separate from Perception. It creates another situation like the healing cleric, where the party feels that somebody has to take up rogue simply so that somebody has Find Traps. You can avoid, dodge or deal with enough traps that you don't need a remove trap person all the time, but finding traps is simply too important to go very long without it.

Tracking is more specialized, and your probably right about tracking and perception not overlapping once we see the full rules.

I don't believe Find Traps and Perception cover the same thing, so I wouldn't give someone their perception bonus for finding a trap.  That said, I also wouldn't require that someone have a +3 to Find Traps in order to do it at all, so anyone could do it.  In fact, the healing Cleric in the playtest could do it more often than the Rogue, though skill mastery still makes it so its safest for the rogue to do it.

I really don't want to go back to a system where Find Traps is separate from Perception. It creates another situation like the healing cleric, where the party feels that somebody has to take up rogue simply so that somebody has Find Traps. You can avoid, dodge or deal with enough traps that you don't need a remove trap person all the time, but finding traps is simply too important to go very long without it.

Tracking is more specialized, and your probably right about tracking and perception not overlapping once we see the full rules.


I'm on the other side of that fence: I see Rogues being the specialists that are, to me they are really the only class than has any real skill to find/disarm traps.  I'm assuming that the disarming part is folded into that skill.  Just like tracking tht you mention, to me, the whole trap thing is a specialized skill... I imagine rogues in training spending a good deal of time learning about the many devious types of traps.
I think they should just lose Perception as a separate skill. It is too broad, like having the skills include Strong +3 or Agile +2 or Knowledge Everything +3.

My question is what are they trying to model with Perception as part of a soldier's background? The background says that the soldier is trained to stay alive when war rages around them, so my guess is it is meant to be used to spot things in battle that pose a danger.
I doubt that will happen even, at least in this case. My guess is that when the rules are fleshed out more, they'll go into more detail about what the bonuses can and can't be used for when it comes to skills like "Find Traps". My money's on Perception not having anything to do with it and the Find Traps bonus being the only one that applies to locating a trap. They'll probably have similar clarifications on Track as well.

I really don't want to go back to a system where Find Traps is separate from Perception. It creates another situation like the healing cleric, where the party feels that somebody has to take up rogue simply so that somebody has Find Traps. You can avoid, dodge or deal with enough traps that you don't need a remove trap person all the time, but finding traps is simply too important to go very long without it.

Tracking is more specialized, and your probably right about tracking and perception not overlapping once we see the full rules.




My interpretation would be that someone trying to perceive danger (ala traps) will have a higher DC than a rogue who is specifically trained at finding traps.  So both characters with perception and rogues with find traps can attempt to find traps but the rogue will have an easier time of it; translation lower DC.  Further with the aid feature all you need is someone in the party with a 10+ in the appropriate ability to give the person trying to find said trap an advantage roll.

As to combining the two on the same rogue character, my guess is that there will be a synergy bonus but they will not stack.  Like others have suggested a +1 to find traps when the rogue also has the perception skill bonus.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Hey guys,

I'm going to move this discussion to Playtest Packet Discussion.

Thanks,

Monica
I think Find Traps is the near-sighted cousin to Perception. Also, Find Traps is usually Intelligence-based IMO where Perception makes sense as wisdom. Perception looks for the trees in the distance and seeing if any hold bad guys. Find Traps is far more immediate and focused on finding that tripwire or hidden catch that is right next to you.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I think Find Traps is the near-sighted cousin to Perception. Also, Find Traps is usually Intelligence-based IMO where Perception makes sense as wisdom. Perception looks for the trees in the distance and seeing if any hold bad guys. Find Traps is far more immediate and focused on finding that tripwire or hidden catch that is right next to you.



Agreed.  Also, an intelligent character would be able to logically figure out the best places to put traps and deduce where a particular trapsmith may have been placed them.
So the Dwarven Fighter has Perception +3

The Rogue has Find Traps +3

How do people think these two skills are going to work? I don't think it's reasonable to speculate that a Rogue is going to be able to get Perception +3 at some point, at which time he'll have 2 skills that give him the same bonus on finding traps.

Do they stack? Do I get an extra +1 to finding traps? Do I simply ignore the "Find Traps" skill and use Perception? Is it only possible to find magical traps if you have "Find Traps"?

All this is largely speculation at this point, but I'm curious how people interpret it. I would be inclined to say you get a "+1" bonus to Find Traps (total of +4) but only have +3 on Remove Traps.



I wouldn't go with a straight math bonus.  If a rogue playing in my campaign had both Perception +3 and Find Traps +3, I would grant him Advantage on Find Trap checks due to his highly trained ability to pay attention to detail.

Nothing in this playtest "stacks" like they have in past editions.  At least not in the rules that we have been given to work with or consider.

I look at the 2 bonuses in this way:

Perception: Soldiers pull guard duty.  Newer soldiers pull guard duty a lot.  They get to the point where all of that watching and listening become ingrained in their ability to see, hear, and notice things that are out of the ordinary.  ie, "No birds chirping today, that's odd, right?"; "Those trees are swaying against the wind"; "All the deer are running out of the woodine and into the open"

Find Traps: Rogues learn how to maneuver through trip wires, poison coated pins in locks, wall blades, pit traps, etc.  A thieves guild in a town would train all of their novice rogues on the most common types of traps that they should know about before they let them go out and steal from the locals.  Thieves should have this specialized training before going out to perform this function.

If you have both skills, or both bonuses on a character sheet, it would be a lot easier for the broader skill to play into the more specialized skill.  ie "You'd think that since needle traps are most common in this town that this chest would have one, right?  Funny thing is, it doesn't.  So I wonder what else is here to protect this thing?"  (Find Traps + Advantage)

That's the way I'd rule it, but I'm just presenting one way, when in fact there are many. 
If rogues have the find traps skill wouldn't you just add +3 to perception in situations where perception is the relevant ability  - like spotting tripwires and pits, and apply dexterity when dealing with fine work like needle traps on locks.  If you want advantage surely you just pitch the dwarf up front with the rogue for pit traps or have two trap finders on your team.
...and this is why I dislike the opaque blobs of text that the rules are buried in, and why I dislike this skill system. Too much is left unexplained, too much is left up to interpretation, and too many conflicts like this one exist to rightfully call them corner-cases.

The problems of scope and specificity need to be addressed in order to clean up the skill system. At minimum, each skill needs to include a relevant ability score and a description of what the skill can be used for. Leaving this up to DM interpretation is a recipe for disaster and absolutely destroys any standardization between groups, which also makes an enormous mess of any kind of organized play. 

If one DM says that Perception can be used to find traps, and another DM says it can't, and according to the rules they're both right... we have a problem. 
Recipe for disaster is probably a bit hysterical.  With the bounded accuracy and flatter power curve I seriously doubt it will make a massive difference to any game.  Whatever your rolls, at levels 1-3 they are still going to be massively better than what rogues had in 1e.  Be thankful I say!
If one DM says that Perception can be used to find traps, and another DM says it can't, and according to the rules they're both right... we have a problem. 



Not necessarily - the above is only a problem when the players involved in the game (DM included) fail to communicate about these simple differences of interpretation when there is still time to change what skill a character has to get the skill the player they wanted them to have.

No matter how strict or free-form the rules are written, interpretation is always involved and communication about interpretation is always the thing that prevents there being a problem.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Not necessarily - the above is only a problem when the players involved in the game (DM included) fail to communicate about these simple differences of interpretation when there is still time to change what skill a character has to get the skill the player they wanted them to have.

No matter how strict or free-form the rules are written, interpretation is always involved and communication about interpretation is always the thing that prevents there being a problem.


True, but given the choice I'd rather play a game that attempted to be as clear as possible in order to facilitate that intragroup communication and understanding rather than intentionally obfuscating its rules like this playtest does.

It's also less intragrop communication that worries me than intergroup communication. A player who goes from a game where the DM rules one way to a game where the DM rules exactly the opposite could be in for a nasty surprise at an inopportune moment, particularly if the people involved assume everyone plays it the same way they do.
 
Again I think this is still scaremongering - if your rogue can't score less than 10 on his roll be it wsdom or dexterity related, it just means that it's a bit harder to spot the well hidden stuff.  I do agree that it would help if they drew a distinction with previous editions where perception was used and so rogues were counter-intuitively quite bad at locating traps.  If the skill is FIND and Remove traps then the skill bonus applies to locating the traps regardless which ability score is most appropriate in the circumstances.
When I first started playing 3rd Edition, my DM had a lot of strange interpretations on rules.  For instance, if you moved adjacent to an enemy and didn't charge, you provoked an attack of opportunity.  When I started DMing, I ran a game for people who had played in other groups.  It created so much drama and headache as we argued about the interpretation.  Consulting with the DMG, I tried the whole, "I may be wrong, but I'm the DM, and you need to abide by the ruling" approach.  All that accomplished is having less people want to play in my game.

Additionally, there's a diversity game where the purpose is that everyone is taught different rules to a similar game.  I can't describe to you the level of frustration and rage-quits that result from that experience.  In short: there needs to be a level of guidance on how each skill is used.  Now if we want diversity of which skills can be used in different situations, such as using Intimidate vs. Charm to get information from an informant: I'm game.  But the two should be clearly defined how they're used.
I will admit, it took me running a few play test session in 5E to finally figure out that the Fighter could use STR +6 for Intimidate challenges.

But as everyone else said, it's not abundantly clear that the option of using STR was there from the playtest material as presented.  It's been explained in additional posts/columns/webcasts, etc. but that's a poor substitute system for writing a rules based RPG.  Especially when it would have taken this much space - "Fighters can use STR for intimidate challenges" to make that clear.

I also tend to prefer another shot at a die roll, when necessary, than a static mathematical bonus or penalty - that feature was one of my least favorite additions to 4E.  "Oh, that was very descriptive, you gain +2 to your next 'd20 roll'" vs. "Wow, that's a great idea, roll 2d20 and take the highest roll".

The second one just sounds cooler to say as a DM, in my opinion. 

 
I had a thought and then I countered my own point.

If you want a game that has all the rules written clearly and concisely with no room for misunderstanding, go play Monopoly.

But then I thought about it a moment and said to myself, "Self, I said, don't some people play with Free Parking and some without? And aren't there different rules for how much insider trading can be done, and how much alliances can cover?"
Even Football (American or other) have one set of rules for professionals, and one for flag football and one for just playing on the weekend with your buddies. By playing in the street instead of on a dedicated field, you've "houseruled" how wide the field or how many people will play at one time.

So my point is that no table is going to play the same even if the rules for Perception are detailed, UNLESS every option is written out and that isn't possible because we are human minds, not computer programs.
Viva La "what ever version of D&D you are playing right now!"
It's also less intragrop communication that worries me than intergroup communication. A player who goes from a game where the DM rules one way to a game where the DM rules exactly the opposite could be in for a nasty surprise at an inopportune moment, particularly if the people involved assume everyone plays it the same way they do.
 



I get your point, as I have seen some of the "rage-quit" behavior mentioned by another poster... though never ito a level were anyone actually quit a game or left a session save one single time in 15 something years.

...I just don't agree on the situation precisiely. It seems, to me, more logical that someone assume everyone plays it the same way they do when playing a rules set more clearly detailed - I might even call it a safe assumption.

A player assuming that a rule they see is open to very widely different interpretation... logically they would assume that they'd have to talk to their new group about how that rule is interpreted...

but then, I do run into one or two of my players making assumptions about various different things (never actually the rules, at least not the rules directly as funny as that seems) and all I ever have to say about it is "you really should never assume anything."

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

I think you're overestimating the logic processing capabilities of the average D&D player. 

I recommend you institute a simple prescreening process:

Show them this image. If they laugh, they're allowed to play.
I had a thought and then I countered my own point.

If you want a game that has all the rules written clearly and concisely with no room for misunderstanding, go play Monopoly.

But then I thought about it a moment and said to myself, "Self, I said, don't some people play with Free Parking and some without? And aren't there different rules for how much insider trading can be done, and how much alliances can cover?"
Even Football (American or other) have one set of rules for professionals, and one for flag football and one for just playing on the weekend with your buddies. By playing in the street instead of on a dedicated field, you've "houseruled" how wide the field or how many people will play at one time.

So my point is that no table is going to play the same even if the rules for Perception are detailed, UNLESS every option is written out and that isn't possible because we are human minds, not computer programs.

Except that in every game of 4e I ever played Wisdom was used for Perception checks, and in every game of 3.X Wisdom was used for Spot and Listen; this did not take pages and pages of detailed rules, it took three letters: "Wis."

Also, whenever I've played Monopoly, there's always been a discussion of the local house rules (or lack thereof) at the beginning before the game starts, because everyone present is fully aware that their house rules deviate from the written rules and so everyone has to be on the same page.
I think you're overestimating the logic processing capabilities of the average D&D player. 

I recommend you institute a simple prescreening process:

Show them this image. If they laugh, they're allowed to play.



It may not surprise you, but I did not laugh at the image linked in your post.

I also fail to see exactly how laughter at a particular comic strip is meant to be a judge of character, imaginative prowess, reliability, understanding... or any of the qualities that I would actually look for in a potential gamer recruit.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

If perception and find traps both coover finding traps then clearly perception is a much more powerful skill because it covers a lot more besides and find traps becomes a pointles skill of pointles because it does nothing thatisn't also done by perception.

If rules as written intend that perception covers every thing that perception can include (including finding traps, tracking, listening, spotting, etc. etc. etc.) then it creates a clear inequality between the skills and this has to be changed.

If the rules don't intend it to be used for everything that such a broad term can cover then this needs to be made clear.  Or change the word.

This is a big problem with the current aproach to skills though.  This concept of vague skill bonuses will lead to some skills being better than others while at the same time making it impossible for the developers to reign in overpowered skills.


Personally I want the skill 'doing things'.  That would be awesome.  (overexageration to make a point)     
If rules as written intend that perception covers every thing that perception can include (including finding traps, tracking, listening, spotting, etc. etc. etc.) then it creates a clear inequality between the skills and this has to be changed.

Skills don't have to be equally useful as long as the cost isn't equal. I have played several games with this sort of ability+skills system where skills are grouped into general and specific or otherwise ranked by how much they cover. Several point buy systems divide them into 3 or even more different costs bases on how specific and useful the skill is.

The sort of open ended system that 5e seems to be aiming for almost requires some sort of ranking system and some sort of rules for overlapping skills. If you say perception doesn't cover the same range as find traps, what happens when spot ambush, spot secret doors, find treasure, spot clue and identify monsters are added? You will end up with perception covering nothing because everything is covered by some more specific skill.

They could get away without it if they went with the sort of general and very broad skills that 4e has, but that doesn't seem to be the way 5e is aiming.

One thing they could do is to give narrow skills a higher bonus then general skills, so perception might be +3 and find traps +5 for it's narrow part of perception.

If rules as written intend that perception covers every thing that perception can include (including finding traps, tracking, listening, spotting, etc. etc. etc.) then it creates a clear inequality between the skills and this has to be changed.

Skills don't have to be equally useful as long as the cost isn't equal. I have played several games with this sort of ability+skills system where skills are grouped into general and specific or otherwise ranked by how much they cover. Several point buy systems divide them into 3 or even more different costs bases on how specific and useful the skill is.

The sort of open ended system that 5e seems to be aiming for almost requires some sort of ranking system and some sort of rules for overlapping skills. If you say perception doesn't cover the same range as find traps, what happens when spot ambush, spot secret doors, find treasure, spot clue and identify monsters are added? You will end up with perception covering nothing because everything is covered by some more specific skill.

They could get away without it if they went with the sort of general and very broad skills that 4e has, but that doesn't seem to be the way 5e is aiming.

One thing they could do is to give narrow skills a higher bonus then general skills, so perception might be +3 and find traps +5 for it's narrow part of perception.




But that isn't the direction they are going.  The intention as stated is not to have a list of specific skills at all.  Rather each 'skill' is simply a circumstance that will grant a bonus to an ability check any time that it seems aplicable.  This way there can be as many 'skills' in the game as the DM allows.    Not only are the skills open ended, but the "skill list" itself is open ended so it isn't possible to have various levels of skills (because that would force them to list all the skills in order to assign a level to it).  This isn't explained in the playtest package so f you haven't read all the articles you may not have realised it.  This is why there isn't (and won't be until the devs change direction for skills) a skill list in the rules.

As it stands all skills are bought in one of two ways.  As part of a background or part of a rogue scheme (other skill based classes may get something similar).  The most you can expect is some guideline suggesting that if a background  only gives narrowly applied skills (like lores) they should get an extra skill.

As it stands the skill system is flawed.  Nice idea but completely impractical for any kind of balance.  The simplest solution would be a defined skill list (which they could use to give different skills different levels but I think that would make the skill purchasing system more complicated than they want).   Unfortunately thay are catering to two extreme groups... those that want a smaller skill list (to whom they give no skill list to at all) and those that want a long skill list (to whom they give an unlimited skill list).  Unfortunately the people that want a logical skill list are not catered to.


Edit: When i say 'levels of skills' in this post I mean levels of skill complexity not levels of character advancement within a skill.  
If you have skills like Find/Remove Traps,  then Perception is just too board. Also the adventure didn't help by listing everything as just a Wisdom check to find/spot it.

I mean clearly I get to add my Find/Remove Traps bonus to spot a trap, but do I get my Perception? What about an ambush, I assume I get Perception, but to quote Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" my rogue want to add my find/remove traps as well.

What about Perception to search a room for clues, do I add it if they aren't in plain sight?

Tracking is another weird one, is that a Perception check? A Wilderness Lore one? A Survival one? Does the player just get to add the bonus if they argue a good case?

I don't want a full skill list particularly but some more guidance is definately in order.
I have moved this discussion to Playtest Packet Discussion


Thanks,

Monica
I think you're overestimating the logic processing capabilities of the average D&D player. 

I recommend you institute a simple prescreening process:

Show them this image. If they laugh, they're allowed to play.



It may not surprise you, but I did not laugh at the image linked in your post.

I also fail to see exactly how laughter at a particular comic strip is meant to be a judge of character, imaginative prowess, reliability, understanding... or any of the qualities that I would actually look for in a potential gamer recruit.



I didn't laugh at the image but I did laugh at this response - am I in? :P
I also fail to see exactly how laughter at a particular comic strip is meant to be a judge of character, imaginative prowess, reliability, understanding... or any of the qualities that I would actually look for in a potential gamer recruit.

And that's kind of the point. 

If perception and find traps both coover finding traps then clearly perception is a much more powerful skill because it covers a lot more besides and find traps becomes a pointles skill of pointles because it does nothing thatisn't also done by perception.

If rules as written intend that perception covers every thing that perception can include (including finding traps, tracking, listening, spotting, etc. etc. etc.) then it creates a clear inequality between the skills and this has to be changed.

If the rules don't intend it to be used for everything that such a broad term can cover then this needs to be made clear.  Or change the word.

This is a big problem with the current aproach to skills though.  This concept of vague skill bonuses will lead to some skills being better than others while at the same time making it impossible for the developers to reign in overpowered skills.

This is my problem with the language of the rules as they are now, nicely summarized. 

I don't want rules text that's devoid of flavor, wit, and atmosphere (though I would argue that the current playtest documents lack the latter two. Slogging through some of the spell descriptions brought back bad memories of before-she-went-crazy Anne Rice.). What I want is rules text that is clear, concise, and logically organized. Engaging fluff and sensible rules are not mutually incompatible.

Particular to the skill system, my biggest gripe is the potential points of argument or abuse the "open ended" system creates. It's permissible and acceptable in this system for "Athletics" to coexist with "Climb", "Jump", and "Swim". Or "Perception" to coexist with "Find traps". 

This is bad. It creates an inherent devaluation of more specialized skills versus more broadly-applicable ones because both provide the same bonus. Such a system is, while not inherently imbalanced, significantly more difficult to make fair for all players, with the net effect of forcing the DM to, effectively, finish the job the designers started and finish writing the rules

I dunno about you guys, but if I was in the mood to write my own game, I'd be off writing my own game to sell and make money on rather than helping out WotC, who I would be effectively competing against. 

There are two obvious solutions to this issue, neither of which will be implemented:

First solution, define specifically what the skill entails and what its scope is. Specify, for example, that Perception is specifically tuned to finding things like pending ambushes, snipers, a specific person in a crowd, etc., while Find Traps is your fine detail observation skill, useful for locating small, subtle things that the looking-at-the-big-picture Perception does not. This will not be implemented because it is percieved as an unwanted level of definition and restriction in a game that's about options.

Second solution, grant larger bonuses according to the specificity of the skill. If Perception overlaps in capability with Find Traps but also covers more ground, then grant Find Traps a larger bonus (maybe a +4 or +5 to Perception's +3) in order to compensate for the narrower scope. This will not be implemented because the degree of consideration required here would (a) require solution 1 to be implemented as well, (b) require a definition of skill scope that runs contrary to the whole point of moving the task resolution system to its current open-ended model.

Personally I want the skill 'doing things'.  That would be awesome.  (overexageration to make a point)    

I'm not sure that's all that much of an overexaggeration, sadly. Remember this is a system where "Pick Locks", "Survival", and "Commerce" can all coexist in supposed parity. I strongly suspect that anyone who doesn't acknowledge the differences of scope and usefulness--and thus value--of these three examples is either choosing to remain intentionally ignorant, or is selling something. 

 Skills don't have to be equally useful as long as the cost isn't equal. I have played several games with this sort of ability+skills system where skills are grouped into general and specific or otherwise ranked by how much they cover. Several point buy systems divide them into 3 or even more different costs bases on how specific and useful the skill is.

And those skill systems work well and are fairly self-balancing so long as their underlying mathematical structure is sound. 

Unfortunately, D&D isn't one of those systems.

The sort of open ended system that 5e seems to be aiming for almost requires some sort of ranking system and some sort of rules for overlapping skills. If you say perception doesn't cover the same range as find traps, what happens when spot ambush, spot secret doors, find treasure, spot clue and identify monsters are added? You will end up with perception covering nothing because everything is covered by some more specific skill.

I'm glad this flaw is apparent to some of us. I don't realistically think we'll be able to convince the designers to correct the issue or alter the system such that it becomes moot, but at least we can say we tried.

They could get away without it if they went with the sort of general and very broad skills that 4e has, but that doesn't seem to be the way 5e is aiming.

The profound irony of the playtest's skill system is that every single problem they address when speaking about design goals was solved five years ago.

One thing they could do is to give narrow skills a higher bonus then general skills, so perception might be +3 and find traps +5 for it's narrow part of perception.

We are thinking the same thoughts.

If you have skills like Find/Remove Traps,  then Perception is just too board. Also the adventure didn't help by listing everything as just a Wisdom check to find/spot it.

I mean clearly I get to add my Find/Remove Traps bonus to spot a trap, but do I get my Perception? What about an ambush, I assume I get Perception, but to quote Admiral Ackbar "It's a trap!" my rogue want to add my find/remove traps as well.

What about Perception to search a room for clues, do I add it if they aren't in plain sight?

Tracking is another weird one, is that a Perception check? A Wilderness Lore one? A Survival one? Does the player just get to add the bonus if they argue a good case?

I don't want a full skill list particularly but some more guidance is definately in order.

The official rule about this appears to be "ask your DM". I find that both unsatisfying and unacceptable, personally. As a player, I don't want to have to pester my DM every time I want to do something because I'm not sure if the numbers on my character sheet means I'm good at it or not. As a DM, I don't want to have to create rules to adjudicate common occurrences--that's why I'm playing a game someone else wrote, and not writing my own.