D&D 5E How far away can a person make perception checks?

[coolAlias]

Doesnt help that the DC system is pretty arbitrary at best. I still have trouble picking a DCm while improvising.

The difficulty with 5e DCs is that there is such a wide disparity in bonuses from the Expertise Rogue to the ability-dumping non-proficient fighter, there is simpy not a DC that is interesting for both ends of the spectrum to roll. It's either "Why bother, I succeed even on a 1" (unless your DM plays as 1 auto-fails... ugh) or "Why bother, I can't succeed" (unless your DM plays as 20 is auto-success... ugh).

That's why when I DM a lot of DCs tend to be around 15, and a lot of things you're not going to have to roll unless there's a meaningful reason to do so.

Big beefy barbarian wants to smash a door down? Sure thing, no check.

Same guy wants to do the same thing but in one hit so the party can get the drop on the enemies on the other side? Now we've got a reason to roll!

 

[iserith]

This is one of my biggest points of contention with 5e - I don't know why, but it seems more than one DM is all about having me roll to see what I can see... so I take Observant, thinking that will send the message. Nope, passive of 20+ isn't enough or doesn't apply because reasons, but maybe you'll roll well! Aaaaah, slay me now.

That's not really a D&D 5e problem, but yes, common in my experience, too.

 

[R_J_K75]

Im trying to remember what we did before 3E introduced the skill system. Was it if your players didnt actually say what they were doing they failed?

 

[Celebrim]

Im trying to remember what we did before 3E introduced the skill system. Was it if your players didnt actually say what they were doing they failed?

1e AD&D randomly generated an encounter distance based on terrain type, and randomly determined which side(s) were surprised based on a methodology that seems simple but in practice was fantastically and obscurely complicated.

Likewise, it had a simple random system to decide whether if one side wanted to break off combat, whether they successfully fled.

 

[5ekyu]

If we assume nice open conditions, good weather, pretty flat, at what range would you allow players to start making perception checks to notice things?

Example: An enemy orc is on the horizon, lets say at what distances would you allow a player to check to see if they see something, and can identify it as an Orc:

DC 30 (almost impossible)
DC 20 (tough but a fair amount of people could see it)
DC 10 (you would have to have diminished senses not to notice)

As a follow up to this, there are a few abilities that give some extraordinary sight ranges. For example, the Eagle Totem Warrior, Eyes of the Eagle magic item, and a wildshaped druid as an eagle. So if you go with the 1 mile as the "extreme distance" noted for the eagle totem specifically, would you use DC 30 to start at the 1 mile marker for these types, or a smaller DC?

Maybe already covered hut in 5e - maybe DMG, maybe PotA, I saw references to like 10 miles out spotting groups on the move from elevated position. It emphasized cover and obscurement rather than distance.

 

[R_J_K75]

1e AD&D randomly generated an encounter distance based on terrain type, and randomly determined which side(s) were surprised based on a methodology that seems simple but in practice was fantastically and obscurely complicated.

Likewise, it had a simple random system to decide whether if one side wanted to break off combat, whether they successfully fled.

Yeah I vaguely remember that. 2E was about the same. I was referring mostly what was the equivalent of the skill system before 3E?

 

[Hriston]

If we assume nice open conditions, good weather, pretty flat, at what range would you allow players to start making perception checks to notice things?

Example: An enemy orc is on the horizon, lets say at what distances would you allow a player to check to see if they see something, and can identify it as an Orc:

For me, what you call “the horizon” is going to be a specific distance that I determine. For the conditions you’ve described, that distance is going to equal a roll of 6d6 x 10 feet, so anywhere between 60 and 360 feet, but most likely around 210 feet. Depending on how much noise the orc is making (I generally assume a moderate amount of noise unless there’s a reason the orc is making a loud noise, like if it’s part of a group of a hundred orcs marching in iron boots) the party might have already noticed it approaching or it might not have, but that’s the distance at which there will be line of sight between the party and the orc, unless the orc is trying to be stealthy. In that case, the orc will be unseen at that distance.

Now if that distance is only 60 feet (because I rolled all 1’s), then conditions just might be conducive for hearing the orc’s quiet noises from that distance, and I’ll check the passive Perception scores of anyone who declared they were keeping watch for hidden threats to see if they notice the orc. But at any greater distance, the orc won’t be noticed, and if the party’s out in the open, the orc gets to decide if it wants to encounter the party or not.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah I vaguely remember that. 2E was about the same. I was referring mostly what was the equivalent of the skill system before 3E?

The answer to that is extremely complicated, because there was no unified system and so the things that we think of now as skill checks were either not handled at all and left up to improvisation, or where handled by a vast hodge podge of individual subsystems each with their own rules. A lot of published extensions to the rules followed the Thief module where skills were siloed off as abilities of a class. Often in modules you'd see subsystems created on the fly, and a lot of common 'house rules' originated in published modules - such as roll under your ability score as a sort of skill test. By 2e they were starting to have NWP's, but they'd never really turned that into a skill system per se, and the system as a whole wasn't very functional.

 

[R_J_K75]

The answer to that is extremely complicated, because there was no unified system and so the things that we think of now as skill checks were either not handled at all and left up to improvisation, or where handled by a vast hodge podge of individual subsystems each with their own rules. A lot of published extensions to the rules followed the Thief module where skills were siloed off as abilities of a class. Often in modules you'd see subsystems created on the fly, and a lot of common 'house rules' originated in published modules - such as roll under your ability score as a sort of skill test. By 2e they were starting to have NWP's, but they'd never really turned that into a skill system per se, and the system as a whole wasn't very functional.

You pretty much put into words what I had forgotten. Secondary Skills too...no skill of measurable worth. LMAO.

 

[Wiseblood]

I am in agreement with Campbell. I would add that perception is a terrible design. It is way past abstract. Grossly overused and ubiquitous in it’s proficiency. It is so ingrained in the game that it is inescapable.

With that said. So much goes into seeing you have more considerations that you can evaluate and decide if rolling is necessary at all.
For example.

Contrast: someone wearing a red outfit in a field of snow will stick out

silhouetting: a well lit background can give you away.

Movement: attracts attention.

Environmental clues. Obvious tracks, smell or sight of smoke, noise, litter also disturbed and now airborne dust.

Or other creatures indicating. Like birds being startled or circling overhead.

There are a lot more but you get the idea.

Perhaps a more pertinent question might be at what distance do you think “this is an encounter”?