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

[Wiseblood]

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.

True there are archetypes that are expected to notice things still it does not indicate that perception is a good concept.

Stealth is an action declared by a player. Perception is both active and passive. Perception being penalized by distance means added calculation to determine encounter distance. There is vagueness and interconnectedness of multiple skills and setting and narrative. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations makes both of these skills vary from table to table. That is another reason for me to think it is bad concept.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes!

So, if the PCs don't look for a hidden pit trap, you might roll a check vs their best passive DC to see if anything gives the trap away. If, OTOH, the PCs come in looking for a trap, you'd call for a check (or group check), with a DC you set. Obviously (IMHO, it's obvious) the overall chance of finding the trap should be higher in the latter case than the former.

What I wouldn't want to do is compare a DC to a DC or a check to a check.

Sorry, I still don't understand.

A check vs their best passive DC? Is a high roll good for the party? Is a low roll good (presumably)? What adds do I give the trap if it is a well designed trap or a crappy trap?

I get the second searching for a trap example, but the first doesn't make much sense without some more explanation and context.

 

[iserith]

Nod, saves-as-defenses worked out well for that in 4e. It wouldn't be hard to figure a DC for grapple checks in 5e.

Probably just 10 + Prof + Str or Dex I'm guessing. That would make monsters' defense somewhat improved perhaps because not many have training in Athletics or Acrobatics.

t's not an uncertain task, though, at that point. I'd consider that just narrating success/failure. (Which I am fine with, and have resolved to do a lot more of my next 5e campaign, BTW.)

The way I see it, the uncertainty exists prior to comparing the passive score to the DC. It's resolved once compared. So the player has described the character undertaking an ongoing task ("I keep watch for monsters and traps as we delve...") and, based on subsequent movement and position, the DM determines if that effort has a certain or uncertain outcome by whatever standards seem appropriate. If certain, there's no need to compare passive score to DC - the PC just succeeds or fails outright. If uncertain, the DM then goes to the passive score and compares it to the DC to get at an outcome.

 

[iserith]

Two issues with this:

1) Having a player declare that they are searching for secret doors and then having a trap autohit doesn't make sense to me. He is searching. He really doesn't know what he is searching for, but he is looking. Pressing stone, blowing dust over edges, whatever. To me, if he declares he is searching for a secret door and there is only a hidden trap, I let him roll to find the trap. If there is a hidden monster behind an illusory ceiling tile, I let him try to find the hidden opening, the monster does not automatically win surprise because the PC was busy searching for a secret door. Searching for secret doors also allows him to find non-conspicuous runes or anything else out of the ordinary. He's searching.

Sure, you could lump hidden dangers and secret doors under Keeping Watch, but then you reduce the number of trade-offs which makes for less choices and opportunity cost, plus less need to rely on other members of the party. For those reasons, I think it works better when you put Search for Secret Doors in its own category. Keep Watch covers traps and monsters. The character can't do both - unless it's a ranger in favored terrain! (How about some love for the poor ranger, eh?)

I think this method also interfaces with certain feats better which is why I separated out secret doors. I can't recall though. I'm not using feats in my current game.

2) The 10x effort and auto succeeds on a check rule in the DMG (page 237) is problematic to me. I don't think that PCs should automatically succeed at tasks, just because they put extra time in. Climbing Mount Everest is slow going, but low skill (and even highly trained) people still fall. I would only use that rule if the DC is within a reasonable range of being successful. Say the PC has to roll an 18 on the die roll to make the check, he's not going to make it automatically (in my game) by taking 10x as long. A better rule (IMO), is to allow him to roll once with advantage if he takes 10x as long. I don't like auto-successes. Also, you mentioned that the PC would automatically know with certainty with the 10x rule that if nothing is found, nothing is there. According to the DMG, that is not quite correct. It might be an impossible task for this PC and he autofails, but it might be a possible task for a different more skilled PC. He doesn't know that nothing is there, he knows he tried his best and didn't find it.

That rule is still subject to the DM's call, as with any other rules. If you don't think spending more time on a task will help, then it doesn't. The players don't get to decide on success, failure, or whether they roll or not. Further, the result of the adventurer's actions is whatever the DM says it is and that might include telling them that they've done their best and there's certainly nothing to be found. That's a good move if you want to signal to the players that it's time to move on and is a reward for their investment of time.

As for not liking auto-successes, I'm not sure what you mean. Our role as DM is to decide whether any given action succeeds or fails before going to the rules and mechanics. We do it all the time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

True there are archetypes that are expected to notice things still it does not indicate that perception is a good concept.

I can see how it might not be a great mechanic, but if the game is to model archetypes that are meant to be good at noticing or finding things or hard to sneak up on, or whatever, the concept of a perception ability that can be better for such characters than others would seem to be needed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The way I see it, the uncertainty exists prior to comparing the passive score to the DC. It's resolved once compared.

That's a bit of a stretch, for me. But, OK...

So the player has described the character undertaking an ongoing task ("I keep watch for monsters and traps as we delve...") and, based on subsequent movement and position, the DM determines if that effort has a certain or uncertain outcome by whatever standards seem appropriate.

I'm not so sure I find the 'ongoing task' criteria compelling. It doesn't quite have the same impact, to me, as an action declaration, and there are many 'ongoing tasks' that might be part and parcel of adventuring and not really need declaration - there's a whole thread about those, too.

But, if it is comparable to an action, I'd think calling for a check in the case of uncertainty would be the way to go, as being 'fair' and more engaging for the player.
....though, of course, only at the point where the consequence of failure would manifest.

If certain, there's no need to compare passive score to DC - the PC just succeeds or fails outright. If uncertain, the DM then goes to the passive score and compares it to the DC to get at an outcome.

So you could determine a PC is 'certain' to notice a trap before triggering it, even if his passive is lower than the DC to find it? Or, you could determine that it was 'uncertain' in which case he would automatically fail to find it, just as if you had decided failure was certain?

I can see the lack of certainty from the player side, because he doesn't know the DC, and still won't know it after succeeding or failing. ..OK, or maybe just lack of information... On the DM side it seems pretty certain, though.

Comparing DC to DC like that just seems to me like a quantitative way of judging whether to narrate success or failure. I can see that. I'd prefer to call for a check if they were close, though.

 

[iserith]

That's a bit of a stretch, for me. But, OK...

That's the adjudication process though right? We decide on success or failure before going to an ability check, and a passive check is an ability check.

So you could determine a PC is 'certain' to notice a trap before triggering it, even if his passive is lower than the DC to find it?

Yes, definitely. It depends on the circumstances of course. It's typically going to happen when the DM has telegraphed the trap when describing the environment and the player does something that obviates uncertainty as to noticing it while exploring.

Or, you could determine that it was 'uncertain' in which case he would automatically fail to find it, just as if you had decided failure was certain?

The outcome would be the same, but I don't go to the check (passive or otherwise) until uncertainty is established to remain consistent with the adjudication process. There's also the issue of whether the character is actually Keeping Watch or doing something else. Your PP 20 isn't going to help you find a trap when you're looking for secret doors while exploring. Or if the party is approaching the trap and you're in the back rank. I think a lot of people treat PP as a catch-all for everything and it's really no wonder why a lot of people come away from it dissatisfied or feel Observant is just crazy powerful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's the adjudication process though right? We decide on success or failure before going to an ability check

Yes.

, and a passive check is an ability check.

Not so much, IMHO. But, stipulating that, yes.

Yes, definitely.

OK, then, if certainty can be judged in spite of uncertainty always going the other way, that's consistent. (Sounds ironic, I guess, but consistent.)

The outcome would be the same, but I don't go to the check (passive or otherwise) until uncertainty is established to remain consistent with the adjudication process.

I'd think being aware of how difficult something is or how good the PC is at something would be part of establishing uncertainty. But I guess it doesn't /have/ to be to the point of knowing both numbers, exactly.

There's also the issue of whether the character is actually Keeping Watch or doing something else. Your PP 20 isn't going to help you find a trap when you're looking for secret doors while exploring.

Can't agree with that as it obviates a play benefit of having passives, in the first place. If you still have to provoke players into essentially pixel-bitching around to assure that they don't miss anything, might as well be all active checks.

 

[Satyrn]

But, if it is comparable to an action, I'd think calling for a check in the case of uncertainty would be the way to go, as being 'fair' and more engaging for the player.

That's what [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is saying, too. The only place you're differing is that he considers "comparing DC to DC" to be "calling for a check."

 

[iserith]

Yes. Not so much, IMHO. But, stipulating that, yes.

I mean, it says that in the rules. You don't have to take my word for it.

OK, then, that's consistent.

Consistency is a counterbalance to "DM Empowerment," haha.

I'd think being aware of how difficult something is or how good the PC is at something would be part of establishing uncertainty.

There's actually no DC until a goal and approach is stated and the DM has determined uncertainty. Modules or the DMG obviously have to give a DC to communicate how easy or hard something is to the reader, but most actually say the specific goal and approach that applies to that DC or it's implied. So it might say "If the character searches the north wall, he or she has a chance to spot the secret door with a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check." The uncertainty here is presumably that someone has taken steps to conceal the door from prying eyes and a standard search requires a check. If the character doesn't search the north wall, then some other DC may apply or the character never had a chance to notice it. If the character exhaustively searches the north wall (spending 10x the usual time on it, maybe), then there's also no DC - the character automatically succeeds.

I think a lot of people think about it like the modules present it without seeing that the DC is for a specific goal and approach. Some other goal and approach might be automatically successful or fail outright.

Can't agree with that as it obviates a play benefit of having passives, in the first place. If you still have to provoke players into essentially pixel-bitching around to assure that they don't miss anything, might as well be all active checks.

There's no pixel-bitching at all though. There's just reasonable specificity as I mentioned in another thread. The rules in the Adventuring section plus the rules for locating hidden objects and on how to use ability scores tell us that position matters, that checks resolve actions, and players describe actions. So the players do have to establish what the characters are doing while exploring. It's a safe bet to say that they Keeping Watch unless otherwise stated of course, but I think it's worth checking with the players on that score to avoid the DM making faulty assumptions.

In practice, this means that when the characters enter the adventure location and being exploring, I'm asking them what they are generally doing while they explore. This boils down to about a half-dozen overarching tasks that they choose. The whole matter is dispensed with in seconds. I make a note of it and we carry on. If I think there's uncertainty, I check their passive score against an appropriate DC and narrate a result. Their tasks change when they say so or when circumstances force a change, such as in combat when the only ongoing task a character can undertake is Keep Watch (because the rules assume characters in combat are aware of their surroundings at all times).

Of course, folks can run this however they want. It's just that a lot of other methods for handling passive Perception and the like dissatisfy a lot of people and that's typically because of how they handle it at the table. Frequently that's because they're doing it like a previous edition of the game did it and the outcomes are having a negative impact on their 5e game. Or they've never used such a mechanic before and have it be a catch-all with no player input into the matter, leading to bad outcomes. Like every player taking the Perception skill and/or Observant feat.