D&D 5E Is "perception" even a good concept?
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It doesn't bother me. I think its value depends on how the DM handles it, especially passive Perception. In my games, where passive Perception only applies to the given ongoing task you're focusing on, I don't see a lot of Perception pumping. It's good, but other options are good too.
MechaPilot
Explorer
Like most of the skill consolidation, I think it's great. It doesn't punish players who want their characters to be good at something general by forcing them to select more skills just to "notice things."
Also, it doesn't stop people from being creative with it if they want to. Just because your Perception modifier is +4, doesn't mean it has to be a +4 for all purposes. Want your character to be like Radar from M*A*S*H (for the young'uns: Radar wore glasses but could hear helicopters coming earlier than anyone else in the camp)? Sure, you can take a penalty to your vision and off set it with a bonus to your hearing.
Same thing with other skills. Are you from a mountainous area and can't swim? Take disadvantage on your Athletics checks to swim and get advantage on your checks to climb.
Also, it doesn't stop people from being creative with it if they want to. Just because your Perception modifier is +4, doesn't mean it has to be a +4 for all purposes. Want your character to be like Radar from M*A*S*H (for the young'uns: Radar wore glasses but could hear helicopters coming earlier than anyone else in the camp)? Sure, you can take a penalty to your vision and off set it with a bonus to your hearing.
Same thing with other skills. Are you from a mountainous area and can't swim? Take disadvantage on your Athletics checks to swim and get advantage on your checks to climb.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Back when I played Pathfinder, everyone put every skill point into Perception at every opportunity, because being surprised was a death sentence. It was annoying, but you had to put up with it if you wanted to play the game (at least, to play the game the way that our GM ran it, from the adventure paths).
To contrast, the few times I played 3.5 after having played Pathfinder or 4E, I just didn't even bother. With two different skills for Spot and Listen, it meant a 50% chance that I wouldn't have a chance to detect an ambush, even if I did invest heavily in one of those skills, and those odds don't add up to a game I would want to play. I'll just take two other skills that might come up, and trust to the rogue or cleric to pay more attention.
With 5E, it comes back to how the DM runs it. If I'm going to need Perception and Investigation and Arcana in order to have a reasonable chance of not being surprised, then I won't bother. If Perception lets me detect anything worth noticing before it hurts me, then I'll reluctantly take that skill, and it's not a big deal. Of course with 5E, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to die regardless (as long as I'm not a level 2 character in bugbear country), so I'm not going to worry about it too much.
As far as design philosophy goes, I think it would help if missing a Perception check wasn't quite so devastating. If surprising someone in combat just meant that you went first, rather than you got an entire extra round where they couldn't respond, then Perception would be nice but not quite as vital as many now consider it.
Yeah, I think Henry's on the right track.
Perception is overused in my opinion, and in a lot of modules it looks like just another thing for players to do. If your players are saying they're looking for threats from a high vantage point, they should get a lot of information just from that. The perception test should only come in if there's something really hard to notice or something hidden, say a certain badge on a certain soldier's uniform or subtle tracks leading in and out of one tent. The first thing should be a lot of information just as a reward for the players doing a smart thing.
For combat, if enemies aren't be particularly stealthy, I'll give the players multiple chances to hear them coming, the quicker they succeed, the longer they have to prepare for the attack.
Changing little things like this, and telling your players that you will change those things before they create their characters can make their skills more varied and more interesting. That said, skills in 5E are more general and less often used in my experience. If everyone has dumped their points into Perception, I don't think it will be a major problem.
Throw more varied skill checks at your party and they'll figure out they should spread their points out. My party right now instead constantly rolls Investigation...
Perception is overused in my opinion, and in a lot of modules it looks like just another thing for players to do. If your players are saying they're looking for threats from a high vantage point, they should get a lot of information just from that. The perception test should only come in if there's something really hard to notice or something hidden, say a certain badge on a certain soldier's uniform or subtle tracks leading in and out of one tent. The first thing should be a lot of information just as a reward for the players doing a smart thing.
For combat, if enemies aren't be particularly stealthy, I'll give the players multiple chances to hear them coming, the quicker they succeed, the longer they have to prepare for the attack.
Changing little things like this, and telling your players that you will change those things before they create their characters can make their skills more varied and more interesting. That said, skills in 5E are more general and less often used in my experience. If everyone has dumped their points into Perception, I don't think it will be a major problem.
Throw more varied skill checks at your party and they'll figure out they should spread their points out. My party right now instead constantly rolls Investigation...
Fanaelialae
Legend
It's a matter of making other skills equally important.
Investigation should frequently be called for, as Perception only let's you notice something, whereas investigation allows you to note something important (such as the example above about noticing a badge).
Use grappling, and suddenly being proficient in athletics or acrobatics is very important.
Don't let the party face always do all the talking, and suddenly the social skills increase in value.
Insight ought to be equally important.
Finally, if you want to diminish the necessity of perception, simply make it so that if a perceptive character notices something, they can warn the entire party. At that point, much as with the wizard taking Arcana, there is minimal benefit to everyone taking Perception if the rogue can keep everyone from being surprised.
Investigation should frequently be called for, as Perception only let's you notice something, whereas investigation allows you to note something important (such as the example above about noticing a badge).
Use grappling, and suddenly being proficient in athletics or acrobatics is very important.
Don't let the party face always do all the talking, and suddenly the social skills increase in value.
Insight ought to be equally important.
Finally, if you want to diminish the necessity of perception, simply make it so that if a perceptive character notices something, they can warn the entire party. At that point, much as with the wizard taking Arcana, there is minimal benefit to everyone taking Perception if the rogue can keep everyone from being surprised.
Quickleaf
Legend
Great advice so far.
The problem, for me, boils down to: What does a Perception check actually signify? What is the character doing in precise terms?
I'm sure every DM has heard at least once, upon a party entering a room: I make a Perception check. But what does that even mean?
Imagine the same scenario, the party enters a room, but a player says instead: I make an Athletics check.
Neither has any meaning. It's the context that gives them meaning (and risk/reward) – in the case Athletics, whether the PC is climbing, jumping, swimming, or whatever. But what is the context for Perception?
It's tempting to make context for Perception be the five senses. For example, the player would need to say something like:
- "I'm listening at the door.
- "I raise my torch and peer into the shadows to see if there's anything hidden.
- "I feel along the wall for irregularities in the stone."
- "I taste the vial for hints of poison."
- "Is this troglodyte's smell similar to the one that stabbed Durkin?"
And then you need to attach risk/reward to it, just like you would for Athletics with climbing (risk of slipping/dropping an item), jumping (risk of falling), swimming (risk of getting swept away/drowning), etc. For example:
- Listening: Maybe the PC risks vulnerability / disadvantaged saves to sound-based attacks/spells?
- Looking: Maybe the PC risk surprise by hiding monsters? Or vulnerability / disadvantaged saves to vision-based attacks/spells?
- Feeling: Maybe contact poisons and traps on the wall would impose disadvantage saves on the PC?
- Tasting: Maybe the risk is making sure not to drink to much so as the PC actually gets poisoned?
- Smelling: Maybe the risk is getting subjected to the Troglodyte's Stench as if it were there?
That's one idea. I haven't experimented a lot with it yet, but definitely I've been asking for clarification on what a PC is doing when a player says "I make a Perception check" and I've been placing risks on checks involving Perception, Investigation, Arcana, Nature, History, and Religion. So far, so good, but it's led me in a direction of play that feels different from how D&D is usually run.
Not a bad thing. Just not for everyone.
But if that's the approach you take (and it's a sensible one), Perception can start to encroach onto Investigation's territory... For example, if a player says "I smell the rags from the troglodyte we chased away. Is this troglodyte's smell similar to the one that stabbed Durkin? The DM needs to decide if this is the PC perceiving through their senses OR if it's the PC deducing a clue. This case feels like a 50/50 toss-up to me.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Similar Threads
