D&D 5E Is "perception" even a good concept?

[Warmaster Horus]

I'd rather have a standard Perception score than breaking it into sensory groups. If you have visual and auditory subskills then EVERYONE will be taking visual because that's what most GMs will call for most of the time and a few will take auditory because they think it's important but it's only situationally so.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think part of is our DM made it very clear that he wants *characters* and wouldn't screw with people that were sub-optimal. I've joined in co-DM-ing, so I'm carrying that on and even the people that are used to optimizing like crazy are joining in on the shenanigans.

I think a lot of this sits with the DM in general. If you call for 10 perception checks to every one other type of check, the players will naturally come to the conclusion that it is the most important skill.

Personally, I don't often call for perception checks (I think I've run entire sessions without one). It's useful if someone is hiding, but beyond that... Admittedly, I do use passive perception quite a bit, but that's more along the lines of "you get the sense that something nearby is out of place, but you can't put your finger on it". (In this case, only one character needs the skill, which puts it in the same category as thieves tools.) At that point an investigation check will pinpoint whatever it is. Of course, if the player describes his character examining whatever it is (twisting the candle holder that opens the secret passage) I just let them succeed automatically.

 

[jasper]

Actualy, Radar did not have good hearing. Best description of him was that he was slightly psychic. He "knew" that the choppers are comming, same way he knew what his C.O. wanted from him before he even said it.

BUZZ! WRONG SIR! WRONG!
Radar was a 15 th level Supply/Adman Clerk at the beginning of the series and when he hit 20th level he stuck around for a season then retired.
That how he knew what forms to do, how to get around the co, and the choppers were coming. He was over level for the war.
Plus I think Gary was occasionally looking at the dm notes.

 

[CydKnight]

How interesting of a character development choice is it really? I didn't mind so much back when it was split into several skills, but 5e Perception is really just an obvious pick for everyone in my experience. Does this bother anyone else?

Having a truly obvious choice for everyone can add value to other less obvious choices because it depletes the quantity of choices. If Perception really is an obvious choice for everyone, because everyone is taking it as a proficiency, there is little-to-no difference with having no obvious choices because the question can then become how will you stand out from everyone else aside from Perception. Some of those choices will be class-driven decisions for many like Stealth for Rogue or Persuasion for a Bard. Other choices may strengthen Background concepts or role-play driven ideals.

Another way to look at it is what happens if I don't choose Perception as a proficiency? In many cases, if everyone in the party is already choosing it as a Proficiency, it probably isn't even necessary for your PC to do the same. Maybe you can add extra value to your character and the party by choosing something else that the party may not otherwise have as a strength. Perhaps this is a good topic of discussion during the Session Zero character creation?

 

[iserith]

My issue with perception (like other skills) is that I don't want every single player at the table rolling for it. If that is done, I have to up the DC a lot to have some chance of nobody making the roll.

Granted, this is perception not used for surprise. For surprise, everyone gets to roll and you either beat the average DC of the hiding monsters, or you did not.

But when I want them to just notice or know something, I usually ask for a skill roll for the PCs trained in a given skill, perception included. Or in the case of perception, I often have the front 2 or 3 party members roll for it, trained or not at the first moment that the front PCs are able to notice something (it comes into view, or they are about to step on a trap or whatever).

The generic problem of everyone rolling the skill is that someone is bound to roll high and make the DC. If that is the case, why bother rolling the dice at all?

When I want the characters to notice something, I just include it in my description of the environment. There's no need to roll the dice here in my view.

There's also passive Perception, for those PCs that are engaged in ongoing tasks related to it such as Keeping Watch or Searching for Secret Doors. If they're performing some other task that reasonably distracts from Keeping Watch, then they don't get an ability check or passive check - they just fail to notice. If you're doing that, then you don't need to ask for rolls so much.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

My issue with perception (like other skills) is that I don't want every single player at the table rolling for it. If that is done, I have to up the DC a lot to have some chance of nobody making the roll...

This is why I typically just allow one PC to make a given Perception roll if one is needed. If there is opportunity I will allow someone else who is trained in Perception to Help that player. So one roll, with Advantage if applicable. In many cases I determine that the closest player is the one who gets a roll for a sudden event (like a trap, ambush, etc) unless there's good cause to allow others.

 

[iserith]

Aside from gating much of the description of the environment behind a Perception check (which I don't recommend), is surprise coming up a lot? Truthfully, it seems to me only some monsters are natural lurkers that might push me to check their Stealth against the PCs' passive Perception. So maybe this comes up once every few sessions? And only those PCs who are Keeping Watch have a chance to avoid surprise - anyone performing any other reasonably distracting task are just surprised, no check.

If you're heavy on monster ambushes or assuming that most monsters are trying to be sneaky, then it's natural for the players to pump their Perception in my view. If that's the case, maybe tone it down on checking for surprise.

 

[TheNoremac42]

Perception is good for discovering information that isn't immediately obvious. Investigation (since the two are often misused or misunderstood) is used when trying to figure out what the information means. A low-INT, high-WIS character might see a spot on the floor that foot-traffic avoids and deduces that the patch of floor is somehow "taboo" to the local populace. The reverse character, with high-INT and low-WIS, might completely overlook the visual signs. However, if his high-WIS companion reveals his discovery to the group, he could deduce the "obvious" presence of a pit trap or a pressure plate with the evidence presented to him.

Perception is gathering information with the five senses.
Investigation is deducing what that information means.

 

[guachi]

One benefit of running older modules from 1e or BECMI is that since Perception (or Investigation) didn't exist the modules don't account for it. Almost everything in the modules boils down to: if you look in the right spot, you find it.

Though now that I think of it, most of my use of Perception has been passively to see if the PCs were surprised or not. It's really good for that.

And times where the PC might be doing both Perception and Investigation (maybe searching a desk and looking over the obvious things and also looking for the non-obvious and hidden) I'll have one die roll serve for both and simply adjust the results based on the appropriate skill modifiers.

 

[Mephista]

Optimization threads harp on how its an "obvious" choice, and that everyone should take it. In my experience, it just means that GMs just up the difficulty of perception checks. When one person specializes, its an advantage for that person. When everyone has it, it becomes the new standard.

This is a lot like that Constitution thread that just popped up. No, its not as critical as people make it out to be. Some tables are like that. Most aren't.