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

[KarinsDad]

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.

I actually hate the very concept of passive perception (and passive insight) with a passion.

The PCs walk into the room. There is a hidden pit trap in the floor. With passive perception, whether they notice it or not is dependent on the DC of the trap and whether the PCs with good passive perception are close enough to see it. If the Expertise Rogue PC is in front, they notice it every time. If not, they don't. There is virtually no randomness here. Same for secret doors and a lot of other common game situations.

If I call for a perception check for everyone, someone is going to make the roll.

So, I call for a D20 roll for the closest PCs and don't tell them what it is for and look at my Perception cheat sheet. Sometimes they make the roll, sometimes they do not. Sometimes the most perceptive PC notices, sometimes a lesser perceptive PC notices. Sometimes nobody notices. This might give the players a clue that something is going on, but for all they know, it could have been some other roll (like a "high is good for the party roll" which I use a lot).

I do the same think for Insight, Knowledge checks, etc.


So even for surprise, I give players an active perception check against the average (rolled) stealth of the hiding foes. I prefer a few PCs knowing that something is going on than all of the PCs almost always knowing that something is going on and the perceptive PCs are almost never surprised (which happens if you have 5 foes roll active stealth rolls vs. passive perception of each PC as per the surprise rules). Changing the rule around like this, there are very few rounds where all of the PCs (or all of the NPCs) are surprised and although the perceptive PCs often make their rolls, they don't always do so. Sometimes, the least perceptive PC notices something and the other PCs are distracted and surprised.

With the rules as written, a single stealthy Goblin out of 5 can roll a 1 on Stealth for a total of 7 and everyone in the party make their passive perception and are not surprised. They might not know where the other Goblins are, but they can all act on the "surprise round" because nobody is surprised. I find that nonsensical because with 5 foes, it happens nearly every encounter. Some NPC will roll low.

This approach also allows for the PCs to try to stealth in, even the PCs in heavy armor. We add of the total stealth of every PC and divide by the number of PCs (effectively a Group Check, but with slightly different mechanics). That gives us the average and some of the NPCs make their active Perception rolls and are not surprised and others don't.

 

[iserith]

I actually hate the very concept of passive perception (and passive insight) with a passion.

The PCs walk into the room. There is a hidden pit trap in the floor. With passive perception, whether they notice it or not is dependent on the DC of the trap and whether the PCs with good passive perception are close enough to see it. If the Expertise Rogue PC is in front, they notice it every time. If not, they don't. There is virtually no randomness here. Same for secret doors and a lot of other common game situations.

Something to consider:

The section of the rules on Adventuring goes into tasks that are performed while the PCs are traveling. Since the section on Speed/Pace breaks down to minutes and feet not just hours and miles, that says to me that it applies when the characters are delving (instead of just traveling overland, for example). Since passive checks are used when a character undertakes a task with an uncertain outcome repeatedly, then passive checks will apply as the PCs go about the business of adventuring. However, as the Adventuring section notes, you can only really perform one given task provided that task reasonably distracts from other tasks. So, for example, if you want to Keep Watch for hidden dangers (monsters, traps), you can't Navigate, Search for Secret Doors, Forage, Track, Draw a Map, etc. and vice versa. The exception is the ranger in favored terrain who can both Keep Watch and perform some other task.

What this does is create a trade-off, especially if you make the result of tasks other than Keep Watch useful (e.g. Search for Secret Doors reveals short cuts around danger or paths to hidden treasure), valuable (Draw a Map - and sell it), or even necessary (Navigate in a maze or you're automatically lost). In my experience you'll quickly see players opt to do other things than Keep Watch, especially if you're not ambushing the characters every time they turn around. They can afford to suffer the odd automatic surprise because of the upsides of performing other tasks. If they cannot abide being surprised, then they'll Keep Watch at the cost of not getting any of the benefits of the other tasks. It's truly a meaningful decision and promotes a lot of teamwork as well.

If I call for a perception check for everyone, someone is going to make the roll.

I think this should be avoided but for different reasons: I get annoyed when DMs ask for checks that are not prompted by a player describing what they want to do. It's the DM making assumptions about character action and I'm not a fan of that.

So, I call for a D20 roll for the closest PCs and don't tell them what it is for and look at my Perception cheat sheet. Sometimes they make the roll, sometimes they do not. Sometimes the most perceptive PC notices, sometimes a lesser perceptive PC notices. Sometimes nobody notices. This might give the players a clue that something is going on, but for all they know, it could have been some other roll (like a "high is good for the party roll" which I use a lot).

I do the same think for Insight, Knowledge checks, etc.

This reminds me of the other thing in the Adventuring section - position in the marching order matters. If the party is approaching a trap, only the characters in the front rank have a chance of noticing it. This means that the guy or gal with the good passive Perception needs to be in the front rank and Keeping Watch which means not performing some other beneficial task and also being somewhat more at risk than the others.

So even for surprise, I give players an active perception check against the average (rolled) stealth of the hiding foes. I prefer a few PCs knowing that something is going on than all of the PCs almost always knowing that something is going on and the perceptive PCs are almost never surprised (which happens if you have 5 foes roll active stealth rolls vs. passive perception of each PC as per the surprise rules). Changing the rule around like this, there are very few rounds where all of the PCs (or all of the NPCs) are surprised and although the perceptive PCs often make their rolls, they don't always do so. Sometimes, the least perceptive PC notices something and the other PCs are distracted and surprised.

With the rules as written, a single stealthy Goblin out of 5 can roll a 1 on Stealth for a total of 7 and everyone in the party make their passive perception and are not surprised. They might not know where the other Goblins are, but they can all act on the "surprise round" because nobody is surprised. I find that nonsensical because with 5 foes, it happens nearly every encounter. Some NPC will roll low.

This approach also allows for the PCs to try to stealth in, even the PCs in heavy armor. We add of the total stealth of every PC and divide by the number of PCs (effectively a Group Check, but with slightly different mechanics). That gives us the average and some of the NPCs make their active Perception rolls and are not surprised and others don't.

It sounds like you check for surprise a lot. I don't because it doesn't always seem obvious to me that a monster is going to try to be sneaky. Sometimes, sure. Or sometimes ambushes happen because of previous actions the PCs have taken (a foray into the dungeon plus a retreat to rest comes to mind). But not all that often in my games. If there's a lot of ambushes and surprise in yours, then that could be a big factor contributing to players pumping Perception. Toning that down and implementing the rules I mentioned above might sort that right out.

 

[Joe Burkhart]

It really just depends on how your DM uses it. When I was a DM I didn't really use it a lot necessarily. I would use a mixture of the skills available to test the players with based on the situation. Perception is kind of an option for the lazy DM. But, it can also be used sparingly and become a good tool for the less lazy of us as well.

 

[KarinsDad]

It sounds like you check for surprise a lot. I don't because it doesn't always seem obvious to me that a monster is going to try to be sneaky. Sometimes, sure. Or sometimes ambushes happen because of previous actions the PCs have taken (a foray into the dungeon plus a retreat to rest comes to mind). But not all that often in my games. If there's a lot of ambushes and surprise in yours, then that could be a big factor contributing to players pumping Perception. Toning that down and implementing the rules I mentioned above might sort that right out.

I don't check for surprise a lot either.

This is just the set of rules I use when I do. The foes have to be actively hiding because they are aware that the PCs are approaching. This does happen quite a bit in circumstances where some PCs do not have darkvision and are using lights in a dark area (cavern, whatever) and the foes have darkvision; but in something like a building, the NPCs are usually only aware and setting up ambushes if the PCs made a lot of noise (like being in lengthy combats in the same building or casting Lightning Bolt or some such).

I have also had one monster out of a group stealth close to "check the noise out". If he rolls high on his stealth, none of the PCs usually notice him. If he rolls average, it's likely that at least one PC will notice him. Initiatives are rolled and a surprise round occurs and if the one or two PCs that noticed him are able to prevent him from running away to tell his friends, then the friends are not actively setting up an ambush. If he gets away, they are. Even though the PCs know that this one got away, they still don't know where an ambush might occur and can still be surprised a short time later.

 

[KarinsDad]

Something to consider:

The section of the rules on Adventuring goes into tasks that are performed while the PCs are traveling. Since the section on Speed/Pace breaks down to minutes and feet not just hours and miles, that says to me that it applies when the characters are delving (instead of just traveling overland, for example). Since passive checks are used when a character undertakes a task with an uncertain outcome repeatedly, then passive checks will apply as the PCs go about the business of adventuring. However, as the Adventuring section notes, you can only really perform one given task provided that task reasonably distracts from other tasks. So, for example, if you want to Keep Watch for hidden dangers (monsters, traps), you can't Navigate, Search for Secret Doors, Forage, Track, Draw a Map, etc. and vice versa. The exception is the ranger in favored terrain who can both Keep Watch and perform some other task.

What this does is create a trade-off, especially if you make the result of tasks other than Keep Watch useful (e.g. Search for Secret Doors reveals short cuts around danger or paths to hidden treasure), valuable (Draw a Map - and sell it), or even necessary (Navigate in a maze or you're automatically lost). In my experience you'll quickly see players opt to do other things than Keep Watch, especially if you're not ambushing the characters every time they turn around. They can afford to suffer the odd automatic surprise because of the upsides of performing other tasks. If they cannot abide being surprised, then they'll Keep Watch at the cost of not getting any of the benefits of the other tasks. It's truly a meaningful decision and promotes a lot of teamwork as well.

I buy into this except for delving.

From my perspective, the PCs are all being alert while delving. Once a room is basically secure, then they go about searching for secret doors, drawing maps, etc. Up to that point in time, everyone was effectively "on watch". Once they start doing other things, the only PCs on watch are the ones that aren't doing something else. It doesn't make sense to punish PCs for not declaring that they are doing something else (or for not explicitly declaring that they are on watch).

So in the case of the secret pit trap, all of the PCs walking into the room can find it given their movement, but only the closest get a chance as they approach (or anyone else if they rush straight over it to head to the other side of the room or some such).

Traps should not be automatic and all delving PCs should all be wary of such things. If nobody heads over to the section of the room with the hidden secret pit trap, nobody really gets a chance to notice it. By definition, it is secret. I don't just allow the Expertise Perception Rogue to auto-notice it from across the room (or even as he approaches) because his passive perception is greater than the DC of the trap.

I don't limit active rolls to actively using those skills. I use active rolls in place of passive because I hate how passive skills work. The mechanics for passive skills are nonsensical to me.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

I've played in groups where any player that ventured into a town would immediately yell: "I keep an eye out for pickpockets!". It is probably a learned behavior after some unpleasant experience with a DM that would allow pickpockets to rob the PC's blind at every opportunity, unless they explicitly made it clear that they were watching out (and even then they would have to make a spot check, which is just silly).

I tend to assume the PC's are at least some what competent, and that monsters and pickpockets are not lurking at every turn. I want my players to feel like they won't get screwed over by the DM the moment they let down their guard. This also places less focus on perception skills.

In my campaigns, I presume that the players are keeping an eye out for anything suspicious wherever they go, unless they are currently occupied with a distracting action. They don't need to make a roll, unless they try to attempt something that I consider difficult. I'll give the players hints when something is afoot, so that they can respond, rather than some sort of gotcha. If one of the players is keeping watch, I presume he'll be able to hear anything suspicious, and if he has dark vision, he might be able to see it too. No roll is involved, unless the players state they want to know where the suspicious sound is coming from, or if they can tell if its some kind of animal or a human.

 

[jasper]

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.

....

Hmm did Elves have a 4 in 6 chance of noticing concealed doors and 2 in 6 chance secret doors automatically. Plus the fact the moment you ask for a roll, out came the carpenter squares, measuring tapes, and knocking on walls.

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't think the arguments in favor of perception are very good so far. Some DMs/players say they ignore it or modify DC to stack the chance of surprize for players whose resources were spent to get higher perception. Others don't use perception often. It looks like a legacy mechanic. Would it feel like D&D if perception was dropped? I am not saying players couldn't detect anything but instead leave it to random chance or narrative. Keeping a mechanic that costs build resources and character sheet space only to ignore it or nerf it in play bothers me.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think the arguments in favor of perception are very good so far. Some DMs/players say they ignore it or modify DC to stack the chance of surprize for players whose resources were spent to get higher perception. Others don't use perception often. It looks like a legacy mechanic. Would it feel like D&D if perception was dropped? I am not saying players couldn't detect anything but instead leave it to random chance or narrative. Keeping a mechanic that costs build resources and character sheet space only to ignore it or nerf it in play bothers me.

There are issues with that too though. The keen eyed archer or scoundrel is a well established archetype. It would be a disservice to players to leave no route for making such a character.

Furthermore, it serves as a foil for stealth. Using purely random chance to spot a hidden rogue is both unsatisfactory and risks making stealth overpowered.

 

[iserith]

I buy into this except for delving.

From my perspective, the PCs are all being alert while delving. Once a room is basically secure, then they go about searching for secret doors, drawing maps, etc. Up to that point in time, everyone was effectively "on watch". Once they start doing other things, the only PCs on watch are the ones that aren't doing something else. It doesn't make sense to punish PCs for not declaring that they are doing something else (or for not explicitly declaring that they are on watch).

So in the case of the secret pit trap, all of the PCs walking into the room can find it given their movement, but only the closest get a chance as they approach (or anyone else if they rush straight over it to head to the other side of the room or some such).

Traps should not be automatic and all delving PCs should all be wary of such things. If nobody heads over to the section of the room with the hidden secret pit trap, nobody really gets a chance to notice it. By definition, it is secret. I don't just allow the Expertise Perception Rogue to auto-notice it from across the room (or even as he approaches) because his passive perception is greater than the DC of the trap.

I don't limit active rolls to actively using those skills. I use active rolls in place of passive because I hate how passive skills work. The mechanics for passive skills are nonsensical to me.

A passive check is an ability check resolving a task that is performed repeatedly when that task has an uncertain outcome. So the process of adjudication is something like this:

The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM considers whether the outcome of the tasks are uncertain. If not, the DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. If uncertain, then an ability check is called for, unless that task is being performed repeatedly, in which case it's a passive check. Once the check is resolved, the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

I think the confusion some folks have with passive checks - and maybe this doesn't apply to you, but I will explain it for anyone else - is that they think characters aren't doing something actively. "Passive" refers to there being no roll. A passive check is an ability check and ability check resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of a task the character is attempting. So working backwards, a character must necessarily be doing something actively in order for a passive check to resolve an outcome.

So in a practical sense, the DM asks what ongoing task each PC is doing as they travel or delve including when they are pouring over a "secured room." This choice comes with an opportunity cost of not performing some other beneficial or necessary task. Passive checks are used to resolve these ongoing tasks when the outcome is uncertain. The upside for the player is that they can't roll less than a 10 here and anyone Working Together adds a +5 to the resolution. Players naturally want control over outcomes via their decisions. The smart play for players is to reduce the need to roll dice because randomness is not their friend. If the game features a lot of randomness because the DM is asking for more rolls than average, then it is natural for the players to all train in those skills and pump them up because that is the only way they can have any control over the outcome.

The downside to performing a task repeatedly is that it comes with the expenditure of the resource of time (if nothing else). If there are time pressures, such as deadlines to meet or wandering monster checks at set intervals, the players are trading not rolling less than a 10 for the risk of, say, not completing their mission in time or running afoul of wandering monsters. If they instead attempt to perform a task with an uncertain outcome once, then an ability check may be appropriate at the cost of no longer performing the ongoing task for however long the other task takes or the risk of a bad outcome. Alternatively, they can sink 10 times the normal amount of time into a task and gain success automatically, but this can be a significant cost if time as a resource is precious.

With all of these trade-offs and considerations, it does make the choice of task, who in the party does what, how much time to spend on it a meaningful decision for the players with an important impact on outcomes. It also makes Perception good, but not a Must Have and even tones down the oft-maligned Observant feat (if you use feats). When it comes to the exploration pillar of the game, I cannot recommend it strongly enough.