D&D General "I make a perception check."

[iserith]

They are still deciding which skill check they are rolling for.

I imagine then the DM describes for the player what the character does?

 

[Charlaquin]

Easy solution (works every time I've ever had to do it):

PLAYER: "I roll a perception check!"

DM: "Okay... you fish some funny-looking dice out of your pocket, crouch down, and give 'em a roll. Everyone else in the party is giving you weird looks, wondering what that's all about. Meanwhile, while you're playing with dice..." (turns to the next player)

Players shape up real quick when you pull that on 'em.

In my experience that approach just leads to the player getting even more frustrated.

 

[iserith]

Indeed. These players are a severe problem at the table. I can't throw any hooks their way & expect them to react or care. I can't create problems they care about. They exist entirely to throw off encounter math with an extra PC & spring from hammerspace pikachu style when a player who does those things suggests they take care of a problem

I suppose these behaviors can come in a package, but could also appear independently and in other contexts.

I am also too old to understand the pikachu reference.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I imagine then the DM describes for the player what the character does?

In those cases where they choose to do so, yes. If the player is ceding that responsibility to the DM by declaring and rolling a skill check without role-playing it first, that's their choice. And the groups I've played with havent had any real issues with that.

Some players want to role play everything, some players just want to roll the dice and find out what happens. Some fall between the two. None are invalid play styles.

 

[Maxperson]

Given that I try my best not to leave out details when describing the environment, there is nothing else to see from the vantage point where you entered the room. What else would you like to do?


"hidden—both unseen and unheard"

If someone says their PC hides in a pantry, closes the door, and stays quiet, I am not going to automatically call for a Dex(Stealth) check when an NPC lumbers into the room. Unless circumstances, such as tight quarters in said pantry, warrant it.

Same with someone who is Invisible in the room who says they are staying quiet before the NPC comes along.

Hiding is detectable, though. What number do you use for the NPCs perception to detect the PC hiding in the pantry if not a stealth check?

 

[Reynard]

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

It's right there. You just quoted it. If the DM wants to be secret, he just takes the average roll of a task done over time. It can't be average if there aren't numbers 1-20 involved with that task.

Wait, what? You said the passive check was "looking around without even trying" which absolutely isn't what the rule is. It says no such thing.

 

[iserith]

In those cases where they choose to do so, yes. If the player is ceding that responsibility to the DM by declaring and rolling a skill check without role-playing it first, that's their choice. And the groups I've played with havent had any real issues with that.

Yes, I've certainly seen a lot of DMs establish what the characters were doing when the players didn't.

But as to forcing anyone to play a particular way, I don't have that kind of power. I do, however, have the power to decide who I DM for or play with.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, what? You said the passive check was "looking around without even trying" which absolutely isn't what the rule is. It says no such thing.

Let me bold the next relevant portion.

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

You detect a secret door passively, because the game assumes that PCs are keeping an eye out for secret doors as they wander throughout the dungeon. It doesn't just assume that the PCs happen to search at the one spot where a secret door happens to be and use an average perception roll to passively find it.

Passive checks assume that you are constantly engaging in the activity, and have settled on an average roll for the moment a passive check is needed, because if it didn't, it would be an active roll.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Hiding is detectable, though. What number do you use for the NPCs perception to detect the PC hiding in the pantry if not a stealth check?

Reread my post. I said I do not automatically require a Dex(Stealth) check. As DM, I am a fan of the PCs and I am free to make a ruling that the PCs have taken enough precautions to remain hidden without a roll if circumstances warrant.
Otherwise, I might call for a Dex(Stealth) check vs NPC passive Wis(Perception), with or without advantage/disadvantage, again, as circumstances warrant.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not about modifiers in this example: you can't hide if you aren't concealed and the using the torch example will explicitly remove concealment.

I'm of the opinion that's a fancy way of saying "There's a really massive positive modifier here." I'm the same about "You don't need to make a roll to walk across flat ground."