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

[Charlaquin]

And this has zero relevance to the question and appears to be nothing but a deflection.

So, let's try again. I have a skill for noticing things. What action can I take for noticing things, other than looking, since looking isn't allowed?

You keep saying “looking isn’t allowed” despite me consistently clarifying that looking absolutely is allowed. What’s up with that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Have you not had any players that you have to constantly nudge to be more descriptive? I feel like it would be like pulling teeth with some of the people I've played with.

Not for long. I’ve had players with whom it’s difficult at first, but again, once they see how it works, notice that other players are getting automatic success based on their approaches, and put together that having to roll is actually the worst possible outcome of describing an action in terms of goal and approach, they get into it.

 

[Charlaquin]

@GMforPowergamers
did you happen to see this question I asked in response to one of your earlier posts?

I’m curious. Imagine instead of a passive check, the DM just asked you to roll perception when you entered the room, and you rolled and got a total of 13. Would you then say “ok, I look again, more carefully?” and would you be similarly annoyed if the DM didn’t allow you to roll again?

Just wanted to make sure you didn’t miss it, cause I am genuinely curious to know your answer.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Charlaquin (genuine questions):

So, if a player describes their action so that an ability check isn't required, such as searching for the false bottom in the chest, does that mean if the same player describes in equivalent detail how they attack a target, do you forego the attack roll as well?

Logic dictates you should, but if not, what is the difference and why do you feel it is relevant enough to do things one way in one case and another way in a different case?

After all, what is an attack roll other than a Strength (Weapon) or Dexterity (Weapon) check vs. the target's AC?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, in the bolded portions, you are establishing for the player what their character is doing in the fiction, which is something I don’t like to do. Again, if that’s what works for you, that’s fine, but it’s not to my tastes.

no I didn't. the player declared they were using there characters perception not me. at most I am using a thesauruses instead of puppeting the words back

You did though. Well, except the deaf bat one, but there you established the character’s capabilities, which I’m even less a fan of, personally.

I mean it was a joke... it wasn't establishing anything it was a joke

Yeah, I don’t care for when they do that either. But I can accept it’s how their group likes to do things and enjoy it as passive entertainment, even if I know I probably wouldn’t like it as a player in the game.

it makes me not watch/listen to them... my group has people that talk like they are awesome though

You’re still focusing on detailed explanation which is not the key factor for me. As I keep saying, alI need is to know what the player wants to accomplish, and in a reasonably specific sense (such that I can clearly visualize it) what the character is doing to try and accomplish that. Beyond that, the player can be as detailed or as concise as they like - in fact, I generally prefer they favor being concise, because we get more gaming in that way.

again... "I use perception to look for danger" is a (very not detailed and general) action with an intent... you want more details. You are not (that I remember but I am talking to a few people) the MOST detailed in your requests... but again someone needed to know how someone would pick a lock, and someone else wanted to know how you calm down a crying queen...

never once in my life have I delt with royalty. I am not the best at calming down or making crying people feel better (but I try). If I make a bard with a high Cha and a bunch of stuff on my sheet about being nice knowledgeable about royalty and good at calming people down and I have to figure out how... but (it might not have been you) when someone brought up 'I saw this work in a movie' but it was something the DM didn't think would work it was an auto fail... when they tried

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t agree that it’s usually enough. At least not for me to assess if what the character is doing can succeed or fail at bringing about the player’s desired outcome and if there might be consequences for it failing to do so, without making assumptions or establishing for the player what their character is doing.

except again... they want to look for danger, they want to use perception activly... what don't you knwo other then details?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don’t know how to explain to you that “I use my character’s skill in perception” doesn’t convey information about fictional activity. It just doesn’t. The only information contained in that sentence is about game mechanics.

I am combineing these

But I need to know what that in character attempt to convince him looks like to adjudicate the action. Different approaches could have different results, and it’s not my job as DM to decide what approach your character takes.

why... why do you need to know what it looks like? why can't you talk in normal engleish with a friend that admits they want to do something in game that the character can physically/mentally/socially do but they can not describe?

“I remind the king of his ancestor’s bravery@ tells me one of the two things I need to know to resolve the action. “Diplomacy” tells me neither of them. So I can’t properly resolve either action, but the former is at least closer.

diplomacy tells you they wish to convince the king with something... and that something is a skill the character has the player does not (or maybe the player does but is having a rough day and just can't accesss... he/she doesn't know what to say here)

But “a cha skill” isn’t a thing the character does, it’s a game mechanic the people at the table use to find out what happens as a result of the (currently unspecified) thing the character does.

specified is so perfect here... becuse you are right it isn't SPECIFIT, it is very general, and only a kill and intent... that should be enough most times to make a ruleing...

now some people say "oh I adjust the DC based on what they said" and other say "I give advantage/disadvantage based on what they said... I am not a fan of either but I get it.

I just set a DC to get the king to do what you want... or I don't (aka auto pass/auto fail) now you may ask the king to do something else (instead of asking him t lead his army to fight the lich lord you ask to at least send his best 10 men and the archmage with you, then you ask can you at least ask if they will volunteer, then you ask will you at least not try to stop us) and that is already player skill trumping character to one degree or another, but again it is something I am yet to find a way to avoid... (the DM can call for an Int or and Insight or something and then suggest 'maybe the king would be willing to help in a lesser way')

 

[Swarmkeeper]

@Charlaquin (genuine questions):

So, if a player describes their action so that an ability check isn't required, such as searching for the false bottom in the chest, does that mean if the same player describes in equivalent detail how they attack a target, do you forego the attack roll as well?

Logic dictates you should, but if not, what is the difference and why do you feel it is relevant enough to do things one way in one case and another way in a different case?

After all, what is an attack roll other than a Strength (Weapon) or Dexterity (Weapon) check vs. the target's AC?

I'm not @Charlaquin , but we approach the game similarly.

The difference is that with the chest, there is no uncertainty. They found a chest and it has a false bottom - searching for the false bottom revealed it. Therefore, per the rules, there is no ability check.

With the attack, regardless of how it is described, there is uncertainty (you might hit or you might miss) and a meaningful consequence for failure (on a miss, the enemy will not be damaged and will likely be able to attack you). Therefore a roll is necessary to determine the outcome.

 

[iserith]

@Charlaquin (genuine questions):

So, if a player describes their action so that an ability check isn't required, such as searching for the false bottom in the chest, does that mean if the same player describes in equivalent detail how they attack a target, do you forego the attack roll as well?

Logic dictates you should, but if not, what is the difference and why do you feel it is relevant enough to do things one way in one case and another way in a different case?

After all, what is an attack roll other than a Strength (Weapon) or Dexterity (Weapon) check vs. the target's AC?

This was already addressed upthread. The player gets to describe their attack, but they don't get to describe how the monster defends which likely makes the outcome of the attack uncertain with a meaningful consequence for failure, therefore there is a roll. That said, there may well indeed be situations where an attack roll doesn't make a lot of sense and the hit automatically lands. This is probably not very likely in a typical combat challenge, however.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin (genuine questions):

So, if a player describes their action so that an ability check isn't required, such as searching for the false bottom in the chest, does that mean if the sameplayer describes in equivalent detail how they attack a target, do you forego the attack roll as well?

Logic dictates you should, but if not, what is the difference and why do you feel it is relevant enough to do things one way in one case and another way in a different case?

After all, what is an attack roll other than a Strength (Weapon) or Dexterity (Weapon) check vs. the target's AC?

So, first of all, the degree of detail in the description is unrelated to the possibility of success. The action of checking the bottom of the chest to see if it’s false succeeds without a roll, not because it meets some arbitrary threshold of detail, but because the approach (examining the bottom of a box) doesn’t have a reasonable chance of failing to succeed at its goal (finding out if the bottom is false).

Now, I agree with you that attack rolls are procedurally comparable to ability checks. So let’s go through that procedure with an attack. The player declares an action like attacking an orc with their sword. We know the player’s goal (kill the orc) and we know their approach (stick it with the pointy end). Can this approach succeed in achieving this goal? Sure, the sword could hit a vital spot and the orc could die from that. Can this approach fail in achieving this goal? Sure, the sword could fail to penetrate the orc’s armor, or the orc could dodge out of the way, or parry the attack with its own weapon or shield, or the attack could hit a non-vital spot, thus wounding but not killing the orc, etc. Is there a consequence for failing to achieve this goal? Yes, the player will have used a limited resource (their action) for no benefit. Accordingly, it should be resolved with a dice roll, and in this case the rules indicate that the appropriate roll to call for in situations like this is an attack roll against the target’s AC, and if successful, roll the weapon’s damage die, add the appropriate ability modifier, and subtract the result from the orc’s current hit points.

Now, we could change the parameters slightly. Maybe they’re not in combat, maybe the orc is sleeping. In that case, could the approach fail to achieve the goal? Well, maybe… You could certainly argue that if the blow isn’t lined up just right, the orc could survive it, and retaliate. But, is that a reasonable chance of failure? I think in most cases probably not, I would probably just let that succeed without a roll. Pretty messed up of the hypothetical player to kill a defenseless sleeping orc in cold blood like that, but sometimes that’s the way it is.