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

[robus]

This is probably just semantics, but I view it as only a challenge to the PC, but since the player plays the PC, he's involved as well.

I would say the situation challenges the player, and the uncertainty resolution challenges the PC.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The thing about combat actions is that there is another party involved.

but the same could be said about cutting wood or playing basketball or (not really) fixxing a car (I can't do that one never could but I will use it as an example anyway)

my parents were car peeps my mom slightly less then my dad... but my Dad was a mechanic for 40ish years. He can describe how to take apart an engine (as long as it's pre computer integration) and put it back togather but he can't physically do it any more.

so again... you can tell me how you look for a trap, how you hide in the shadow, how you hide in the closet, how you hide under the tab;e/bed... it's still a skill check

 

[GMforPowergamers]

When I go to the bar, I will simply ask for a beer. Because naturally the bartender knows what I mean.

Hey, I wanted a pilsner, not an IPA.

at some bars 'beer' is the only one they have... but most have many. BUT if you ask for a sex on the beach they wont ask you how you want it made they will assume you mean the default way

IF I go into burger king and order a whopper and say nothing else I can't complain "I meant with no onions heavy pickles"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course I would allow a saving throw if you walked into the trap.

I've just finished catching up on the thread after the weekend, and this is one of many examples of you projecting bad faith play onto your interlocutor.

You can literally see in the post you quoted that I acknowledge you might have allowed the save. That doesn't actually address my point in anyway, because you wouldn't allow the check to detect the trap.

I noticed a couple of people have similarly distorted my example of the assassin in the alcove to turn it into some gotcha scenario where an evil viking hat DM is looking for an opportunity to stab a poor PC in the back if they don't say the magic words, rather than an example of a situation where a character can automatically see a previously completely hidden foe if they move into the right position. If they simply participate in play by describing what their character does or attempts to do, thereby giving the DM enough information to picture the scene and adjudicate their actions.

Because you are saying it is "an example of a situation where a character can automatically see a previously completely hidden foe if they move into the right position." Well, if there is a "right position" then there is a "wrong position" and what happens to the PC if they move into the wrong position? Would they not get stabbed by the assassin?

I read with a bit of frustration and bemusement the exchange where Celebrim gave examples of four garden walls, each with likely different difficulties to climb, but also potential hidden hazards, and @GMforPowergamers seemed to breeze completely past the point of the player owning his character's decision about which wall to try. I disagree with how Celebrim uses the word Railroading (I subscribe to a purely pejorative definition), but he's completely correct that if I as the DM simply let the player roll athletics and then narrate him climbing over the easiest wall, I've taken control out of the hands of the player, and implicitly communicated that there were no hazards on any of the walls.

This example seemed poor to me for a few reasons.

1) You don't need to roll athletics to climb a wall. To quote the PHB "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain) when you’re climbing, swimming, or crawling. You ignore this extra cost if you have a climbing speed and use it to climb, or a swimming speed and use it to swim. At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check." So, only one of those walls could even be argued to need any check to climb. The wall with ivy is trivially climbable. The other was a brick wall, so again, trivially climbable, and only the last wall was smooth, which may require a check. Of course, that also depends on if the wall is higher than 15 ft, because at that point most parties have at least one character who can jump up and grab the top of the wall, pulling themselves up without a check and lowering a rope, which would not require a check to climb. You may even be able to reach higher if you have an ally boosting you. Which, again, would probably not require any check.

2) It was never clear to me if these were all walls facing the same direction, or different directions. If they are three walls facing three directions, then the player needs to declare which way they are going, but that has nothing to do with the walls. So it seemed to me that they had three different walls, all facing the same direction, and all leading to the same place. In which case, the only reason it matters which wall is if one of them is trapped. Which just leads to you playing Three-card monte with the players. If there are hazards on one of the walls and not the others, and I'm forcing the players to guess which wall is dangerous, for no discernible reason other than to hit the players who guess wrong with a trap.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It depends, but generally I don't give advantage and disadvantage very often.

For example, if I were to give advantage or disadvantage on perception, it wouldn't be because of how they described looking, it would be becuase of the environment. If they are in a heavy fog or a rainstorm, they are going to get disadvantage.

great example... weather related Adv/disadv I use

Also, I tend to forget that a crowbar gives advantage on strength checks.

I am only like 80% sure I remember that right

But, before people accuse me of being unfair, my players use the help action and work together 95% of the time with all skill actions that I can't force them not to use the help action on (usually just perception, Stealth, insight and knowledge skills) so the vast majority of the time, they are rolling with advantage anyways.

 

[iserith]

again I disagree with your entire paragraph...

What is there to disagree with in that paragraph? That's derived in part from the rules of the game. You could possibly disagree with my statement on how to think about the approach we're describing, but disagreeing with that is flat out saying you're not going to look at something in a way that makes it understandable. Which would be odd in my view, if the goal is to understand each other.

if my player says he wants to use perception. I know out of game as the DM there is something hidden and it has a DC that he could make with a perception check, and I let him roll adding no additional actions or information then just tell him what he sees... what did I take on? what 'extra power'?

To some extent, which neither you nor your player in this example may care about, you're assuming certain things about what the character is doing in order to adjudicate a result. "Use Perception" means something to you in the fiction. You appear to just not be establishing it by describing it. If you do, then you open yourself up to player objection as to what the character actually did. Which the player may or may not do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't say.

DM: "You open the door and in the room you see a chest."
Player: "I investigate."
DM: "Narrates investigating a chest."
DM: "And you see a bed."
Player: "I investigate!"
And so on.

yeah... I bet no DM does it that way.

why is it every counter example has the DM doing something I have never seen?

I describe everything they see and THEN they tell me what they want to do, and "I investigate" tells me just about nothing.

I guess if there is no context, no conversation and no quest/point/reason yeah I would ask "what do you mean... what are you investigating?" too...

I just can't imagine that scenero...

DM describes the bar and 3 odd npcs...says there are 6 others in the bar but doesn't give description
Player "arcana"
okay I would need to ask what they want to do and why too...

I mean, every example always starts with a goal and a PC asking to make a skill check and somehow ends up with "The player called out a skill for no reason with no context"

I would have to add to that declaration the PC investigating the bed, and then the chest, and then, and then, and then... So if I'm not supposed to add anything and just go with what they say, they need to tell me something sufficient to do that with.

again... yes in this very rare occurrance they did not provide you any context and the game has no reason to help you so you need more information... but in the form of a goal mostly

 

[Maxperson]

You can literally see in the post you quoted that I acknowledge you might have allowed the save. That doesn't actually address my point in anyway, because you wouldn't allow the check to detect the trap.

If the trap is in the center of the room, you are not capable of detecting it from the doorway. That means that you need something other than, "I look for traps." If you told me, "I enter the room looking for traps as I go" you would get a roll. If you told me, "I look for traps near the middle of the room" you would get a roll. If you told me, "I got and examine the back wall of the room for traps" you would trigger the trap unless your passive perception was good enough(and most aren't) to detect the trap as you walk by.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think a big part of the problem here is you have no idea what I'm talking about, as this response really doesn't address the claim I made.

then yeah we are talking past each other

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Foolish - you should toll the dead before investigating a chest.

mimic test everything... event he tenfoot pole before you pick it up