D&D 5E Perception checks, searching a room, listening at a door, etc etc

[Psikerlord#]

I'd just get everyone to roll at once. That would take very little time.

 

[Agamon]

5E kinda makes the "scout" go away... in previous editions there was always someone super good at perception, and if they couldnt see it or hear it, it didnt exist. 5e narrows that field wya down and its more roll luck than skill points.

I don't find this, at all. DCs are now flatter, so having +4 or +5 now is like +10 or +12 in 3e. Our group's rogue is an excellent scout.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't find this, at all. DCs are now flatter, so having +4 or +5 now is like +10 or +12 in 3e. Our group's rogue is an excellent scout.

In 3.x, you would often have a situation where the Ranger has +20 to Spot and the Wizard has +0, so there's no point in the latter even rolling because the former will always roll higher. In 5E, due to bounded accuracy, it's almost impossible to have that sort of check - the worst PC almost always has a chance to out-perform the best PC, with a lucky enough roll.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I don't find this, at all. DCs are now flatter, so having +4 or +5 now is like +10 or +12 in 3e. Our group's rogue is an excellent scout.

In 3.x, you would often have a situation where the Ranger has +20 to Spot and the Wizard has +0, so there's no point in the latter even rolling because the former will always roll higher. In 5E, due to bounded accuracy, it's almost impossible to have that sort of check - the worst PC almost always has a chance to out-perform the best PC, with a lucky enough roll.

Saelorn explained my point succinctly. Maybe in 5E you have a range of +/-4 on checks. It gets more stretchy late game when proficiencies get higher vs someone with wis dump stat, but still, nothing like a 3.5 spotter or PFRPG Perception trained char with a magic item... they could easily get +20 on checks by level 10.

 

[Astrosicebear]

But i have a rash barbarian in my group now, so by the time someone wants to listen at the door, said door is kicked in.

 

[pukunui]

For myself, it is time to go the oft ignored 'don't make the roll' option. If a sufficiently trained character wants to try a trivial task (that I usually want to have them succeed at anyway) they succeed. It's like a doctor having to make a check to hear a heartbeat with a stethoscope - it just happens. Or rolling checks to see if I can successfully drive to work.

We roll for tasks that I want to be random.

My preference is to let character that have spent resources on being good at a task to generally succeed.

+1. I've started adopting the "Only roll if the outcome is uncertain and failure would lead to an interesting complication" playstyle. It's the difference between making a character roll to see if they can open a jammed door and making them roll to see if they can open that wedged door quietly so as not to alert the occupants of the room on the other side.

Hearing sounds coming through a door has more to do with the environment and circumstances than an individual's ability. I'd base any chance of hearing something on a passive Perception score, modified by +/-5 for advantage/disadvantage as usual, with advantage being gained through especially quiet conditions or disadvantage through especially noisy or awkward ones (like having a party of six adventurers all trying to listen at a door at the same time).

How does one "help" someone to listen at a door anyway?

 

[txshusker]

I've often had everyone roll 4-5 d20s for perception before an encounter erupts or heading into a delve... write them down... the next time they say they all want to search, use those rolls, scratch them off as you go. Also, it prevents you from stopping the narrative to ask for perception check when some module states you should; which thereby gives away some clue to the players that something's up.

 

[txshusker]

How does one "help" someone to listen at a door anyway?

They hold the glass while the other listens.... Or maybe they all hold their breath and stop moving, thereby preventing close radiant noises?

 

[Riley37]

In my experience, when one person searches an area, they might miss something, and when 4-6 people search an area, they don't miss much, and when 4-6 people do a *coordinated* search of an area, they finish the task quickly and are unlikely to miss much. So, if the same actions have the same outcomes in D&D, that's fine with me.

 

[Agamon]

Saelorn explained my point succinctly. Maybe in 5E you have a range of +/-4 on checks. It gets more stretchy late game when proficiencies get higher vs someone with wis dump stat, but still, nothing like a 3.5 spotter or PFRPG Perception trained char with a magic item... they could easily get +20 on checks by level 10.

By level 10? I think my LG PC had a Spot of +21 by level 4. So I get what you mean, but I see this a feature of 5e. No one is completely useless in a given situation, as no one is perfect. But it's still smart to play the percentages and send the rouge with his expertise to scout the goblin camp. And like I say, it's worked quite well for him.