Why is "Listening" a Wisdom check?

Title pretty much says it all.

Every other active "search" related skill is an Int check. Listening, though, says that "the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdome check," for Listen. This seems counter to the rule-of-thumb that I had developed for perception-type checks, which listening is def part of -- Int is used for active finding and Wis for passive noticing.
The rules governing tasks and skills state that "Wisdom measures a creature’s common sense, perception, self-discipline, and empathy. Use a Wisdom check in situations that call for intuition, gut feelings, or sensitivity to the environment." (DM Guidelines 7)

The same rules state that "Intelligence measures how well a creature learns and reasons. Use an Intelligence check when a character needs to draw on logic, education, or deductive reasoning." (DM Guidelines 6)

The Dungeon Master calls for a Wisdom check to determine your sensitivity to the environment -- to see if you can audibly hear something you're listening for.

The Dungeon Master might call for a subsequent Intelligence check to see if you can use logic, education, or reasoning to determine if you can figure out exactly what it is you're hearing (if it isn't obvious).

Intelligence is used for active finding because you are actively looking around for clues, hints, signs, etc -- there is logic, education, or deductive reasoning employed. Wisdom is used for active listening because you're testing perception that does not rely upon your faculties as much as it relies upon your senses.

Danny

But by this logic, shouldn't you make Wis checks for searching for something and then an Int check to determine if they player recognizes what they found?

Maybe some examples will help:


  • "I am searching the room." Is that Wisdom or Int? They don't have anything specific that they are searching for, so would that be Wis?

  • "I am searching for a secret passage on this wall." Because that is specific, is that an Int check? 

But by this logic, shouldn't you make Wis checks for searching for something and then an Int check to determine if they player recognizes what they found?

You would make a Wisdom check to search for something that would only be recognized based upon perception, otherwise it is an Intelligence check.

When determining whether or not the character recognizes what they found, you would use Intelligence in scenarios where knowledge comes into play, and Wisdom in scenarios where gut feelings or interpretation comes into play.

Maybe some examples will help:


  • "I am searching the room." Is that Wisdom or Int? They don't have anything specific that they are searching for, so would that be Wis?

  • "I am searching for a secret passage on this wall." Because that is specific, is that an Int check? 


Example One: It's Intelligence, because you are leveraging logic, education, and deductive reasoning to actively look around.

Example Two: It's Intelligence because you are leveraging logic, education, and deductive reasoning to actively look around for clues that point to the secret passage.

The difference between Intelligence and Wisdom isn't having a specific goal, it's whether or not you are relying on reason versus intuition.

Danny

wisdom covers basic senses, how acute your hearing, your sense of smell, or how good your eyesight is.

intelligence covers knowing where to look, knowing what to look for, and being able to deduce things based on clues (think CSI or Sherlock Holmes).

if that's not enough for you, animals tend to have both keen senses and low intelligence scores.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

This is what's great about the skills not being tied to specific stats. You could use Wis for passive listening, for whether or not the players happened to hear something around them that they weren't looking for, but then call for Int when actively listening at a door or eavesdropping on a conversation. It's flexible.
This is what's great about the skills not being tied to specific stats. You could use Wis for passive listening, for whether or not the players happened to hear something around them that they weren't looking for, but then call for Int when actively listening at a door or eavesdropping on a conversation. It's flexible.



See, this is what I would have thought -- active versus passive, but this is not how others in the thread are describing the differences. In fact, the way people are describing things, it should almost be player-choice what they use in most situations. Even if the search is active, if they are relying on intuition to find the secret door, they should use wisdom. But, they could also use intelligence...
The lines "this skill is usually used with ..." should die in the hottest fires of the nine hells. Theyve gone to great length to make an open unique 5e atribute system only to close it all down with the rigid 3.5 skill system. 
wisdom covers basic senses, how acute your hearing, your sense of smell, or how good your eyesight is.

intelligence covers knowing where to look, knowing what to look for, and being able to deduce things based on clues (think CSI or Sherlock Holmes).

if that's not enough for you, animals tend to have both keen senses and low intelligence scores.



Still not 100% clear. Sounds like, in many cases, the player can decide what they use. "I search the room..." could be an Inteligence check based on the players understanding of common hiding places and shape of the room. Whereas it could also be a Wisdom check because they just have an intuitive sense on where people hide things in the room. 
The lines "this skill is usually used with ..." should die in the hottest fires of the nine hells. Theyve gone to great length to make an open unique 5e atribute system only to close it all down with the rigid 3.5 skill system. 



Completely agree. They should also give more and better examples. I also think the perception rules are overly-convoluted and need to be clarified. Especially if mrpopstar is accurate in his descriptions of the checks. I would interpret the rules very differently than how he does.
This is what's great about the skills not being tied to specific stats. You could use Wis for passive listening, for whether or not the players happened to hear something around them that they weren't looking for, but then call for Int when actively listening at a door or eavesdropping on a conversation. It's flexible.



See, this is what I would have thought -- active versus passive, but this is not how others in the thread are describing the differences. In fact, the way people are describing things, it should almost be player-choice what they use in most situations. Even if the search is active, if they are relying on intuition to find the secret door, they should use wisdom. But, they could also use intelligence...



That's not the way I'm reading it. It's always the DM's choice which bonus is added to any check, unless he gives the players a choice.
This is what's great about the skills not being tied to specific stats. You could use Wis for passive listening, for whether or not the players happened to hear something around them that they weren't looking for, but then call for Int when actively listening at a door or eavesdropping on a conversation. It's flexible.

 

See, this is what I would have thought -- active versus passive, but this is not how others in the thread are describing the differences. In fact, the way people are describing things, it should almost be player-choice what they use in most situations. Even if the search is active, if they are relying on intuition to find the secret door, they should use wisdom. But, they could also use intelligence...

 

That's not the way I'm reading it. It's always the DM's choice which bonus is added to any check, unless he gives the players a choice.

Correct.

The player's contribute to the narrative by explaining their actions. The Dungeon Master calls for a check when necessary, citing the ability he feels is appropriate to test based upon the explanation of action given.

Danny

This is what's great about the skills not being tied to specific stats. You could use Wis for passive listening, for whether or not the players happened to hear something around them that they weren't looking for, but then call for Int when actively listening at a door or eavesdropping on a conversation. It's flexible.

 

See, this is what I would have thought -- active versus passive, but this is not how others in the thread are describing the differences. In fact, the way people are describing things, it should almost be player-choice what they use in most situations. Even if the search is active, if they are relying on intuition to find the secret door, they should use wisdom. But, they could also use intelligence...

 

That's not the way I'm reading it. It's always the DM's choice which bonus is added to any check, unless he gives the players a choice.

Correct.

The player's contribute to the narrative by explaining their actions. The Dungeon Master calls for a check when necessary, citing the ability he feels is appropriate to test based upon the explanation of action given.


Sure, that's the way I read the rule, too. The DM decides the most appropriate roll. But, like I said before, as mrpopstar is describing things, there seems to be no reasons why one person can't intuit the same conclusion that another arrives at through reason. I'd really like to see the rules rewritten to support this. Unless we are talking about applied scientific research, it seems there is no reason that this can't be the case.

As the rules are written, active searching is done through INT and passive awareness through WIS. 

But "Listen" seems to be  the oddball out here. 

Actively searching for something involved sight, sound, scent, balance -- and many of the other senses to pull data in and your brain to process it.

And, again, Listen seems like it should be held to the same standards as searching. If I am actively listening for something through a door, I need to process the sounds that I hear to determine if it is a threat or not -- or, at the very least, determine what the sound is. Whereas, passive listening would come into play 

The other thing I don't understand -- why not create a "Sense" skill (similar to knowledge) and allow the player to specify "smell' or "taste" or "see" ... and treat it the same as noticing vs. finding or, framed another way, passive vs active perception. 

It just seems silly to spend several hundred words describing the difference between awareness and searching (which both can very well involve listening) only to create a rule exception with a listen check. It's an exception, an oddity, that adds unnecessary complexity to a game that is specifically trying to be streamlined.

Maybe some examples will help:


  • "I am searching the room." Is that Wisdom or Int? They don't have anything specific that they are searching for, so would that be Wis?

  • "I am searching for a secret passage on this wall." Because that is specific, is that an Int check? 


Example One: It's Intelligence, because you are leveraging logic, education, and deductive reasoning to actively look around.

Example Two: It's Intelligence because you are leveraging logic, education, and deductive reasoning to actively look around for clues that point to the secret passage.

The difference between Intelligence and Wisdom isn't having a specific goal, it's whether or not you are relying on reason versus intuition.



This is not how I am reading the rules. From page 9 in the How to Play pdf:

"Your Wisdom score serves as a measure of your general awareness of your surroundings,"

and a little farther down

"Your Intelligence score measures your ability to find something you’re looking for"

In example 2, they have specified that they are looking for a secret door, so it would be an INT check. No brainer there.

But let's look at Example 1 in more detail.

While reason and intuition are part of the equation, they aren't the only deciding factor. Specificity is also a factor. Does the character know what they re looking for -- or are they just looking?

This is further clarified in the "Finding a Hidden Object" section:

"In most cases, you need to tell the DM where you are looking in order for him or her to determine your chance of success."

You must be specific about where you are searching -- and, implied in the example and described in the previous rule, what you are searching for.

The answer for Example 2 -- INT or WIS -- isn't defined in the rules for perception. The most common use case ("I search the room") actually falls through a crack in the rules. Wisdom is described as being general awareness, but the player is actively searching a room -- relying on more than their general awareness -- most likely relying on some logic to process what they are seeing and evaluate that based on some guidelines.

BUT, and this is key, they are not searching for something specific, which is a clearly stated in the guideline for making the search an INT check.

Clearly, the rules need to be better defined here.

Personally, I find this whole thing confusing. By adding the "specificity" aspect to using INT vs WIS, they have created a huge loophole (unless I am missing something). 

I think there are two ways to solve the problem.

1) They can make all perception -- awareness or searching -- a Wisdom check. It would greatly simplify everything. Whether you are looking for something specific or generally searching a room or listening at a door -- it is a Wisdom check.

2) Make it as simple as intuition versus reason. Remove the specificity requirement for using INT -- AND, on top of that, let the player decide what they role based on the description of what they do, which in turn will determine the type of information the DM reveals. A Cleric and Rogue might have high situational awareness whereas a Wizard might rely more on his cunning and intelligence to hunt down secret doors. 

Also, going through this whole exercise, I have come to understand why Listen is usually keyed off a WIS check -- according to the current ruleset. When you listen at a door, you aren't listening for anything specific -- you're just trying to determine if it's safe to proceed, so it's your general awareness of a situation. Whereas, if you are specifically listening for a snoring dragon, you would use an INT check.
Also, going through this whole exercise, I have come to understand why Listen is usually keyed off a WIS check -- according to the current ruleset. When you listen at a door, you aren't listening for anything specific -- you're just trying to determine if it's safe to proceed, so it's your general awareness of a situation. Whereas, if you are specifically listening for a snoring dragon, you would use an INT check.

Correct.

I previously explained this in Post #2:

The Dungeon Master calls for a Wisdom check to determine your sensitivity to the environment -- to see if you can audibly hear something you're listening for.

The Dungeon Master might call for a subsequent Intelligence check to see if you can use logic, education, or reasoning to determine if you can figure out exactly what it is you're hearing (if it isn't obvious).

Personally, I find this whole thing confusing. By adding the "specificity" aspect to using INT vs WIS, they have created a huge loophole (unless I am missing something).

They've only provided examples, and offered reference for guidance with using the system.

According to the new Legends & Lore article, the skills have been redrafted for better presentation:

Skills are part of our ability check system as before, but we've made some tweaks to how we present them. For instance, you gain your skill die when using Intelligence to search for traps. The system is similar to what you've seen before, but we are casting it as an augmentation to your ability checks. The biggest benefit I've seen at the table is from a DM's point of view. I've quickly fallen into a cadence of saying things like, "Make a Wisdom check to listen" or "Make a Strength check to break down the door." The idea is that those descriptive reasons for the check map to our skills.

Perhaps things will seem more clear on Wednesday.

Danny

Also, going through this whole exercise, I have come to understand why Listen is usually keyed off a WIS check -- according to the current ruleset. When you listen at a door, you aren't listening for anything specific -- you're just trying to determine if it's safe to proceed, so it's your general awareness of a situation. Whereas, if you are specifically listening for a snoring dragon, you would use an INT check.

Correct.

I previously explained this in Post #2:

The Dungeon Master calls for a Wisdom check to determine your sensitivity to the environment -- to see if you can audibly hear something you're listening for.

The Dungeon Master might call for a subsequent Intelligence check to see if you can use logic, education, or reasoning to determine if you can figure out exactly what it is you're hearing (if it isn't obvious).



You did.

But I was confused by the idea that INT was used for active searching and WIS used for passive, which is only partly true. It's also how specific you are being in your search.

Again, as I read it, you could use INT for a Listen check if you were listening for something specific.

They should just remove Wisdom.

And Constitution.

:3c
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
Think of it this way:

When you use Search, you are actively and methodically going through an area looking for something.  You need not necessarily know exactly what you're looking for.  But the way you go about it lends more to intelligence because of the way it's performed: planned and methodical.

Spot and Listen basically describe not how you do something, but how well you can pick up on the clues provided to determine information.  This usually comes with experience rather than study.  So, if you're using Listen to hear what's on the other side of the door, you'd use a Wisdom check; you're trying to glean information based on sound.  The more skilled or the higher wisdom, the more information you can glean from that attempt.

Same deal with Spot.  As opposed to Search, you're looking around to see what you can see.  You're taking in clues from the world around you and trying to glean information from that.  A scuffmark on the floor where a bookcase has swung open numerous times that signifies the presence of a secret door.  A rug not quite all the way on the ground, signifying a possible trap door.  The appearance of boots barely poking out from under a curtain and the accompanying strange way the curtain falls signifying someone hiding behind it.

To me, that's the difference.  Determining the appropriate ability check (and, by extension, skill) to use is all in how the player describes his actions.
Thanks for the reply, thewok, but these descriptions still seem problematic.

Think of it this way:
When you use Search, you are actively and methodically going through an area looking for something.  You need not necessarily know exactly what you're looking for.  But the way you go about it lends more to intelligence because of the way it's performed: planned and methodical.



This makes a lot of sense, and it is how I would interpret the rules, but I don't think this is how the rules actually work.

"Your Intelligence score measures your ability to find something you’re looking for..."

That last phrase is key. "Something you're looking for..."

And then the examples it provides are things that someone would actively search for: a hidden door, a secret compartment, clues to a murder. There is no example of "I search the room methodically just to see what I find."

And why does search have to key off INT? 

I would certainly houserule that you can arrive at conclusions through an intuitive process or even locate things through your intuition -- especially if you've searched dozens or hundreds of rooms before. Why can't a character intuit their way to the answer?

 To me, that's the difference.  Determining the appropriate ability check (and, by extension, skill) to use is all in how the player describes his actions.



I completely agree with this. And think that the rules should be updated to reflect this. Don't tie Search, Spot, and Listen to an ATT. Get rid of the language, "Most often used with a ATT check." Just describe it. Give a few examples and let the DM decide the most appropriate ATT to apply.

I also think they need to clarify the language around the specificity of finding something -- how specific do you have to be in order to use INT? Or is it more the method of the search and less the object of the search? 
Here's an easy excercise:

Queue up Act 1, Scene 3 of King Lear; Chaccaron Maccaron; and Gangnam Style; all at once.   Now, try to make any sense of King Lear.

Is that Int or Wis?
I completely agree with this. And think that the rules should be updated to reflect this. Don't tie Search, Spot, and Listen to an ATT. Get rid of the language, "Most often used with a ATT check." Just describe it. Give a few examples and let the DM decide the most appropriate ATT to apply.

I also think they need to clarify the language around the specificity of finding something -- how specific do you have to be in order to use INT? Or is it more the method of the search and less the object of the search? 

I think that you're reading too much into it. The rules merely present an example -- they still encourage you to use your judgement as the Dungeon Master.

Danny

I completely agree with this. And think that the rules should be updated to reflect this. Don't tie Search, Spot, and Listen to an ATT. Get rid of the language, "Most often used with a ATT check." Just describe it. Give a few examples and let the DM decide the most appropriate ATT to apply.

I also think they need to clarify the language around the specificity of finding something -- how specific do you have to be in order to use INT? Or is it more the method of the search and less the object of the search? 

I think that you're reading too much into it. The rules merely present an example -- they still encourage you to use your judgement as the Dungeon Master.




I strongly agree with mrpopstar.  You're spending a lot of time covering something that is indistinct at times.  There's actually a whole paragraph on how it's indistinct.  The implication is that your group will necessarily make decisions during play.  Players states their actions, then the DM determines the likelyhood that the action will succeed.

In the example regarding specific searches, the debate is not over using INT (vs WIS).  The debate is over whether the action even has a possibility to succeed.  The search for the hidden object only covers exterior surfaces, when the hidden object is in the interior of one of the surfaces.  It was an example of how DMs should use their judgement, based on players' descriptions of actions.

In the listening debate, if your player describes his action enough to convinces you that he should use one attribute over the other, that is sufficient.  If your player instead asks you "Can I use INT instead?" it's up to you to get more information.  Specifically, your response should be "What are you doing?" rather than "Why?"  And if it's not enough to convince you, it's WIS.  That's the rule they state.  "If you're not positive that INT is the right choice, then WIS is the ability to use."
 I strongly disagree. If something shouldnt be taken serious what is it doing in the rules in the first place? If it says X skill is usually used by Y attribute it must be because that is the rule... not an example, as then it would have said that for example you could use Y attribute with X skill.
 So: Seeing as we all seem to agree that its up to the DM/players what skill is used with what stat, thre is no validity in having that sentence at the end of every skill. Skills and attributes should not have any built in links if we want to achieve a system where skills are expertise in a very narrow area that can then be applied to any relevant attribute roll. Its a sad remnant of the 3.5 skill system that we are currently seeing.
 All that being said its hopefully mood points when they roll out the new exploration system
 I strongly disagree. If something shouldnt be taken serious what is it doing in the rules in the first place? If it says X skill is usually used by Y attribute it must be because that is the rule... not an example, as then it would have said that for example you could use Y attribute with X skill.

It is to be taken seriously.

It shouldn't be taken as a straightjacket.

So: Seeing as we all seem to agree that its up to the DM/players what skill is used with what stat, thre is no validity in having that sentence at the end of every skill. Skills and attributes should not have any built in links if we want to achieve a system where skills are expertise in a very narrow area that can then be applied to any relevant attribute roll. Its a sad remnant of the 3.5 skill system that we are currently seeing.

The validity lies in that it serves as a point of reference.

It's there for the people who aren't as savvy as the rest of us who have gaming experience underneath our belts.

All that being said its hopefully mood points when they roll out the new exploration system

It occurs to me that the skill changes this Wednesday will be specific to presentation, as opposed to a redraft. In the current iteration, the player is the driver of skill checks, there is no passive application of skills, and the language used to give examples of skill checks is not in line with the language used to explain skill use (e.g. noticing or finding hidden creatures).

I assume what we're going to see is an approach that offers clarity, as well as a presentation that allows the Dungeon Master to initiate ability checks that cite associate skills through his own descriptive contribution to the narrative. Otherwise, the system and skills will remain largely unchanged.

Skills are part of our ability check system as before, but we've made some tweaks to how we present them. For instance, you gain your skill die when using Intelligence to search for traps. The system is similar to what you've seen before, but we are casting it as an augmentation to your ability checks. The biggest benefit I've seen at the table is from a DM's point of view. I've quickly fallen into a cadence of saying things like, "Make a Wisdom check to listen" or "Make a Strength check to break down the door." The idea is that those descriptive reasons for the check map to our skills.

Danny

 I strongly disagree. If something shouldnt be taken serious what is it doing in the rules in the first place? If it says X skill is usually used by Y attribute it must be because that is the rule... not an example, as then it would have said that for example you could use Y attribute with X skill.

It is to be taken seriously.

It shouldn't be taken as a straightjacket.



100% agree that it shouldn't be taken as a straight-jacket, but the rules as described should be taken seriously. They should be taken as the strong opinion of experienced game designers. 

Were these rules final, I wouldn't even be posting about this -- other than to get feedback about the way I rule perception. 

As it is a playtest I hope this feedback helps them -- and encourages them to -- clarify the language around perception and maybe even simplify the rule a bit.


 
So: Seeing as we all seem to agree that its up to the DM/players what skill is used with what stat, thre is no validity in having that sentence at the end of every skill. Skills and attributes should not have any built in links if we want to achieve a system where skills are expertise in a very narrow area that can then be applied to any relevant attribute roll. Its a sad remnant of the 3.5 skill system that we are currently seeing.

The validity lies in that it serves as a point of reference.

It's there for the people who aren't as savvy as the rest of us who have gaming experience underneath our belts.



Really, they should offer multiple examples and clarify the issue of specificity. Do they intend INT only to be used when searching for a specific item in a specific region? Or can it just be a specific area of a room? Or any time when logic and rationale would work to the benefit of the person doing the searcher? Really, all three seem reasonable to use INT for the check. Just please provide more examples that cover each of these things.

As to the point about the examples serving only newbies. I completely disagree. I think the examples and rules serve to explain how perception works in this edition of D&D. 

I've been gaming for over 20 years and am trying to judge the latest edition on its own merits. While every explanation of the difference in Wisdom and Intelligence in this thread make 100% sense in the context of other editions, my questions were more about the rules, as they are stated in the platest packet.

When I read them, I walk away confused. The rules are muddled. They don't provide enough examples and seem to overstate the difference between INT and WIS in some places and understate it in others. And, yes, I am even accounting for the section about the two often being indistinct because, for every perception skill they list, they include a recommended ATT to use with that skill. 

So, is it indistinct or not? Could a player reasonably swap INT out for WIS in different situations and achieve a similar result? I think so. Some of the rule descriptions imply this; others suggest otherwise.

 All that being said its hopefully mood points when they roll out the new exploration system

It occurs to me that the skill changes this Wednesday will be specific to presentation, as opposed to a redraft.





I certainly hope so!

I posted this thread looking for a rules clarification because I found the language confusing. I completely agree about the semantic differences between INT and WIS in perception, and will probably let players interchange them a bit more than I have as a result of this discussion.

But this is all an interpretation of the rules that is required because the current rules lack internal consistency, IMO. It's a playtest, these things are expected. And even if they launched it this way, a muddled description of perception checks will not break the system or prevent me from buying the books.
Sherlock Holmes walks into a room.

He rolls a wisdom+spot to see the blood stain on the floor.

He rolls an int+medicine to determine how long it's been there.

He rolls a wisdom+listen to hear the footsteps coming down the hall.

He rolls an int+listen to determine how many pairs of footsteps are coming down the hall.

He rolls an int+spot to determine a good place to hide.

He rolls a wisdom+listen to hear what they're saying when they enter the room.

He rolls an intelligence+listen to pinpoint whos talking at what time.

He rolls a wisdom+listen to make sure they've all left the room, and the hallway.

He rolls an int+spot to see if he can dust and find some footprints/fingerprints.

He looks out the window and uses wisdom+spot to see the license plate numbers on the car.

He uses int+spot to copy the license plate correctly. 

I think it's pretty clear cut. 
I am not sure why Wisdom should be the stat for perception.

Sherlock Holmes has an awful Wisdom! In the books he was a drug addict  thrill seeker who alienates many people who he meets with his lack of empathy. In the D&D rules Sherlock Holmes is given as the poster child for the Intelligence stat. However the Sherlock Holmes character was based on his great perception and spotting small details that no one else could.

If Intelligence was the stat for perception then this would give a mechanical reason for the "clever rogue" archetype. The Rogue already has Intelligence as a favourved attribute, but very little reason in game to take it.  

Of course some people might say, animal are perceptive but not Intelligent. Sure however they are probably going to be getting +5 to checks for "eagle eyes" or" bat ears" anyway. 

I think this plays into other archetypes as well, for example it was always Raistlin who notices "stuff" in the Dragonlance books rather than Goldmoon. As Wisdom is a useful attribute anyway for saving throws and Intelligence doesn't really matter to most characters, it would also help to rebalance the attributes. 
I've always held that the difference between INT and WIS were once well distinguished (I believe in an old D&D manual).

INT was the ability used to perceive something, WIS was the ability to make sense of what was perceived.  

The example that I remember is this:  Imagine you're outside and water begins to fall on you.  Your intelligence would tell you that it's raining.  Your wisdom would tell you it might be best to get inside.

So, in light of the original thread, I would think that Listen is correctly labelled as a wisdom check.  Sure I might hear noises through a door, but only my wisdom would be able to tell me that it's a conversation which I'm hearing or if the shuffling/grating noise is more similar to clockwork machinations or the random shufflings of the undead dragging weapons designed for my party's doom.   
I've always held that the difference between INT and WIS were once well distinguished (I believe in an old D&D manual).

INT was the ability used to perceive something, WIS was the ability to make sense of what was perceived.  

The example that I remember is this:  Imagine you're outside and water begins to fall on you.  Your intelligence would tell you that it's raining.  Your wisdom would tell you it might be best to get inside.

So, in light of the original thread, I would think that Listen is correctly labelled as a wisdom check.  Sure I might hear noises through a door, but only my wisdom would be able to tell me that it's a conversation which I'm hearing or if the shuffling/grating noise is more similar to clockwork machinations or the random shufflings of the undead dragging weapons designed for my party's doom.   



The reason they changed that is because it makes Wisdom a useless stat as it's completely within the realm of the player.

If I hear voices, if my DM was telling me that I don't know it's a conversation, or that I don't know I need to get out of the rain, I would stop playing in that DM's campaign.
Sign In to post comments