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

[iserith]

By the rules, the player isn't permitted to declare a die roll for an ability check. Calling for a role is solely the purview of the GM.

That is true, even if it's not worded exactly that way. I prefer to say there's nothing in the rules that supports a player asking to make an ability check. But a lot of people, perhaps because they played other editions of the game where it was explicitly permitted or picked it up from learning it from others, do have an expectation that the players ask or declare it so. In D&D 5e, that is the player giving up control to the DM in a way that does not appear to be intended.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah - like when the results aren't very dependent on the declaration, or I am repeating actions several times. If you're in a combat and mostly using a cantrip or basic attack, "I attack with X," seems sufficient.

I search for traps
I read the book
I attack the bad guy
sometimes even those get shortened
'traps?" holding up my d20
"grunt" hold up book
"sword chucks" rolls d20

sometimes I am all like
"Wait, let me pour some water on the floor to see if there is a grade, and look through thee key hole and at each hindge, then i careflully tap my dagger hilt on the door frame lightly"
"THis tome seems like it may have the answer we seek, let me go through it and see how it not only covers this but other topics"
"I look him in the eyes and fein left, then strik out to his right trying to get around his sheild"

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Right, which makes “I look around” kind of a superfluous action declaration. Like, yes, I know you’re looking around, that’s why I described what you saw in the environment. Is there anything else you would like to do?

Very much this. If I've done my job as DM, I've already described the environment with reasonable specificity so the players can make informed decisions for their PCs - essentially the DM has already told them what it is they see or sense by "looking around". The player then needs to have their PC interact with the environment the DM has described, which is more than saying "I look around" or "I roll Perception". And they need to interact with the environment with reasonable specificity so the DM can adjudicate fairly and appropriately.

 

[CleverNickName]

Ugh, yeah, this bothers me too.

Player: I make a Perception check on the chest!
DM: That's not a thing. Describe what you're doing.
Player: Fine. I want to check to see if the chest is trapped.
DM: Ah, okay. Make an Investigation check.
Player: bUt My PeRcEpTiOn iS HiGhEr!!!

Perception vs. Investigation for finding traps. Athletics vs. Acrobatics for climbing. Intimidation vs. Persuasion for negotiations. When my players announce a roll they would like to make, instead of describing their characters' actions, it's usually because they know the rules require a particular check and they would like to use a different one...and usually for my least-favorite reason (a perceived numerical advantage.)

And the thing is? I don't forbid them from doing so, just as long as they describe their actions accordingly. I'm happy to use different skill and ability checks in interesting ways, if they give me enough to work with! Like, if they want to use Acrobatics to negotiate their way up that cliff face, they could describe to me how they are going to try to nimbly parkour off of different rocks and trees as they make their way upward. Heck, I'd even settle for meeting me halfway: "Okay so I'd like to intimidate the shopkeeper, but I don't want to go all aggro on him or anything like that. So I'll just lower my voice and casually mention my friendship with the constable and his guild master....and maybe remind him of how important it is to keep me happy."

But if you just bark game mechanics at me, I'll bark the rules right back.

 

[Charlaquin]

I want to make a perception check... with my characters skill listed on the sheet that represents how well he actively checks things out

Your character’s knowledge and skill is accounted for in your passive perception, the results of which I have already described. If your character does something that might fail and has consequences for failing, that knowledge and skill will also be accounted for in the ability check, making failure less likely. If you’d like to try something you think might fail, you can certainly do so, but I can’t adjudicate the results unless you tell me what your character is doing in the fiction.

 

[Reynard]

"Wait, let me pour some water on the floor to see if there is a grade, and look through thee key hole and at each hindge, then i careflully tap my dagger hilt on the door frame lightly"

I don't think anyone in this thread is asking for this level of specificity (although I have seen it at some tables). "I want to try and determine if the hallways is safe. I am going to move slowly and examine as I go," is totally sufficient.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To do that, you need to describe an action or set of actions your character is taking in the world. that's all.

I don't know.. I do not have this skill in real life that my character does, I can no more describe how the character is perceiving a threat then I can describe how they alter reality, or how they make successful attacks, or how they place a blow to deal more damage, but the CHARACTER can do those things I just want to do a thing the character can do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah - like when the results aren't very dependent on the declaration, or I am repeating actions several times. If you're in a combat and mostly using a cantrip or basic attack, "I attack with X," seems sufficient.

As long as it’s obvious what target you’re attacking (which to be clear, it usually is in my experience.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your character’s knowledge and skill is accounted for in your passive perception, the results of which I have already described. If your character does something that might fail and has consequences for failing, that knowledge and skill will also be accounted for in the ability check, making failure less likely. If you’d like to try something you think might fail, you can certainly do so, but I can’t adjudicate the results unless you tell me what your character is doing in the fiction.

in fiction they can do this better I am actively perceiving for dangers

 

[iserith]

it isn't just shy... again my character is a living person who grew up in your world. ME, I am NOT someone that grew up in your world. My Character knows better then me about A LOT of things... why I want to default to what my character would know and do I not... it doens't just have to be talking to the king, but looking for shadow theives, or understanding mystic ruins, or hiding from the watch... "How do you hide" seems a mean qustion to ask a player who doesn't know how to hide if there character is prof expertise in stealth and have a magic bonus to stealth... THEY know how to hide even if I don't...

I would say the way to get more parity between what the player and character knows is to explore the world by taking action within it with reasonable specificity. Hopefully the DM is being generous with information and consistent in their adjudication. A player can always have a character attempt to recall lore or make deductions relevant to the situation in order to gain more context to make a decision, based on whatever experience they believe they may have with it, and the DM can decide to give them the information or not or have them roll.

except the CHARACTER skill should play as much or more importance (IMO) to that scenario then the player.

if my dex 8 non prof in stealth paladin with plate that gives disadvantage to stealth describes the perfect hiding place, and my rogue with an 18 dex prof in stealth expertise in stealth and a cloak of elven kind just says "I don't know where to hide but I try" I may give the rogue "Okay you hide no roll" and the paladin "okay all that description is awesome and I will give you that roll at disadvantage with a -1 to see how well it works"

my problem is when (and it seems like it is not only possible but likely in one of your games so correct me if I am wrong) Your answer to the above would be to auto pass the paladin not taking his lack of in character skill into account, and ask the player of the rogue for a better description of what he uses to hide.

If it is indeed the "perfect hiding place," then I don't see why we're rolling. And the rogue's description is indeed lacking in my view. I can't determine if they have total cover or are quiet because they are not declaring an action with reasonable specificity. For all I know, they are standing in plain sight on a pile of crunchy leaves, and I don't want to establish or assume their action for them. Do better, player!