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

[GMforPowergamers]

@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.

we have a house rule that all of us follow about retries, so in a new game with a NEW DM i would be fine with it (TBH i don't even remember if there is and if so what it is about RAW retries)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What is or isn't reasonable or specific enough will vary from table to table. It's a convention of play that the group must settle on. For some tables like mine, a succinct statement of goal and approach without asking to make an ability check is the bar. For other tables, it seems, saying a single word and holding up a die is enough.

correct... in fact if we are going through a trap filled dungeon that requried us to check 3+ doors I promise you we would not only get to "Trapped?" holding up a die but we would get to an exacerbated sigh, a roll and just a number given

the 9th door we have to check for traps:
DM "You see another wooden door with the odd stone melded around it instead of metal holding it together, the handle is just a hole you need to put your hand in like a few before"
Rogue/Artificer/Trap guy: 'rolls die, adds skill/tool set that has been agreed at last few doors to roll "23"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Anything about what is happening in the fiction, because “use perception” is a game mechanic, not something the character does.

except it still is... it isn't good enough for you but for many of us it is a perfectly fine out of game description of an in fiction action

 

[Swarmkeeper]

a int 8 not trained in investigation (or 8 wis not trained in perception don't make this a per/inv argument) has less a chance of finding it then an average commonor with a 10 stat, and I assume it is hidden so a commonor would need some luck. on the other hand a rogue with prof expertise and a high stat is going to find it easier... if he is 11th level and has all that he has +9 or 10 and min roll of 10 so that is 19 or 20 min...


yes becuse (to me) this isn't about a players skill...

So certain characters are not allowed to check the bottom of a box? At what point do you, as DM, tell the player "your character wouldn't do that"? At what point can the party burn the troll?

remember I said I have a friend/player that is a stage magican? Imagine him describing a search, when he knows how these tricks work. Now imagine someone that has no clue describing there search... one may be

but that doesn't mean there character is better then the other one at finding things

There seems to be this tension in some posts here (not just yours) about what other characters can do better or worse. Is this not a game where you cheer on the success of your fellow party members? Or is this some other social issue where there is spotlight hogging? Because the latter is not curable by rolling dice for ability checks.

that is the part that bugs me the most...

"hey our group does it this way and it works great" is perfect, even if it isn't how I run it...

BUT back to the rant (and many here and in similar threads) when people say something akin to "Man I hate that my players DON'T do it the way I like, and I am trying to teach them to do it my way" that bugs me... it shows me that there is a disconnect that will cause people to leave the hobby over not doing things 'the right way' tm

Which is your way of indirectly saying we're engaged in a badwrongfun style of play? You literally believe our style drives people from the hobby? Just... wow.

 

[iserith]

correct... in fact if we are going through a trap filled dungeon that requried us to check 3+ doors I promise you we would not only get to "Trapped?" holding up a die but we would get to an exacerbated sigh, a roll and just a number given

the 9th door we have to check for traps:
DM "You see another wooden door with the odd stone melded around it instead of metal holding it together, the handle is just a hole you need to put your hand in like a few before"
Rogue/Artificer/Trap guy: 'rolls die, adds skill/tool set that has been agreed at last few doors to roll "23"

Why is your DM in the example including lots of content you don't appear to enjoy interacting with? That doesn't seem like a smart move on their part.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

While I don't care even the slightest if people leave the hobby, your concern here seems very overblown.

yeah, I get you don't really care about it... that (not just in this thread) has been made clear... but I do CARE...

just like I don't care if they just name the skill/tool and you do.

There is no "right way" to do this stuff. There are preferences, based perhaps in the rules themselves, that groups have and people are welcome to play with others who share those preferences.

that prefrence is fine to have... just realize when you 'rant' or try to 'advocate' people will disagree with your thoughts and tell you why

 

[tetrasodium]

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? What actions do police take to look for things that isn't looking? And I don't mean searching, I don't mean investigating and touching things and moving things. I literally mean seeing/looking/ect

The mass effect wheel is absolutely one hundred percent relevant as an example if the GM refuses to fill out the options for you. Put your own actions in it to start PHB pg6 "2. The players describe what they want to do." & relay your choice to the GM so the GM can progress to step3. Looking has already been done & repeating looking is a waste of everyone's time

 

[iserith]

yeah, I get you don't really care about it... that (not just in this thread) has been made clear... but I do CARE...

just like I don't care if they just name the skill/tool and you do.

that prefrence is fine to have... just realize when you 'rant' or try to 'advocate' people will disagree with your thoughts and tell you why

I don't rant as that implies having emotions about something I find pretty silly in this case. I do advocate, however, and I fully expect and enjoy people disagreeing with me. They are the whetstone that make my arguments sharper.

 

[Mort]

A consequence for failure requires a possibility of failure. If the box has a false bottom, and you check the box for a false bottom… you can’t really fail at that. Sure, hypothetically if you did fail at it, that would be consequential, but there’s no reasonable chance of that happening.

I don't understand this at all.

If a container has a false bottom, the whole POINT is that that false bottom might be hard to discover - it could very easily be made difficult to find.

So I find it completely inappropriate that someone with a -1 investigation has the same chance to find the false bottom as someone with a +13 investigation - so long as they use the same words.

Or worse yet, if the PLAYER (of the -1 investigation PC) knows what kind of descriptions the DM likes, they could have a significantly better chance of finding the bottom.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is the chest a mimic, because if not it is a total false equivalence. You make rolls when outcomes are uncertain. Outcomes are always uncertain in combat.

funny aside my "no roll if prof on DC 11 or less" house rule applies to combat, and there are (rare) monsters not only with 10 but some with 8 that my PCs auto hit... but they have to then choose "You can roll to see if you crit but a 1 always misses, or take the auto hit with no chance to crit"

in my games not only are all in combat outcomes not uncertain we have taken it farther.... The 7th level party is 'ambushed' by 14 kobolds... just MM stat kobolds, and a player says "can we skip" I have in the past and will in the future say "Okay here is your XP you beat up the kobolds do you leave them alive or kill them?"