Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8719939" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>I don't think I'm explaining myself well. </p><p></p><p>If I say "My character goes over to the bookshelf and runs my fingers over the books" I'm investigating. That is what an investigation looks like. I'm not perceiving. Perhaps I pick up a mug and examine it in close detail. That's investigating. I'm getting in close. This is why the Eyes of Minute Seeing give advantage to Investigation checks, while improving vision up to a foot away. </p><p></p><p>So, if anything where I get close, touch things, examing in minute detail is investigation, then perception is just... looking. The rules text you just posted says it, "notice things about the environment" that's perception. Again, "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." With that in mind... what action do you take to trigger a perception check, except the action of "looking" or "noticing" </p><p></p><p>I mean, you would never accept someone stating "I notice the goblin hidden in the corner" as their action. In fact, since the goblin was hidden and they didn't know about it, they could not make that statement. But noticing is the action of perception. This is the fundamental problem I have with the repeated assertion that a player saying "I look around" isn't good enough for a perception check, because... what else are they supposed to do? There is no other action for visual perception. The only other conclusion is you want them to narrow the scope, to only attempt to perceive part of something, which leads into my other concern, as I stated.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I do see something unreasonable in that exchange. Because the player was clearly trying to use their action to detect a threat, but because they didn't know where the threat was, they automatically failed. However, you can't know where a hidden threat is until you spot it. It basically turns perception into extreme three-card monte, where you walk up to someone with three face down cards who has already shuffled them. It is just blind guessing. </p><p></p><p>Which leads to one of two responses from the players</p><p></p><p>1) They will list every single thing possible, turn over every card, in an attempt to win, This is undesirable, because I do not want to sit through your checklist every time you enter a room.</p><p></p><p>2) They go vague, and ask to roll perception. Understanding that this fundamentally covers everything they could potentially try and guess, with a single action.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They want to know the things they don't know about the idol. </p><p></p><p>This is a fundamentally strange question to me. Let us say this is an idol to Shar, but it is made of purple amethyst, which is an important detail because it connects them to a specific cult of Shar. The player asks who the idol is of, and you let them roll and find out about Shar.... but since they didn't ask about if the material was important you aren't going to tell them? They have no idea to even ask that question, so why would you expect them to ask it? </p><p></p><p>Again, this seems to lead into blind guessing games. Can you ask the correct question to unlock the hidden information you don't know to ask for? And I don't see the appeal of this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All of those. They want to know all of those things. All of them might be important. </p><p></p><p>Why do they need to specifically ask if the idol has been desecrated for you to provide them with that information? The idol is entirely in their mind's eye, they can't see it and compare it to a non-desecrated version they have seen before. Which in IRL they would obviously be able to trivially do. I don't need to specifically ask out loud if a cross has been desecrated, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to tell by looking at it, because I know what a cross looks like to begin with.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You aren't asking where they acquired their knowledge of religion (where they got their proficiency), just asking them to imagine where they might have learned information about something they don't know to help reveal details of their backstory... how are those not the same thing? They are expecting they learned the information in the same place they got their other knowledge of religion, which is what gave them proficiency and training in the religion skill.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But I want to "detect hidden elements of the environment" and there is no action for that except looking around and noticing hidden elements of the environment. Are you saying that you have never had someone roll perception? I can't think of an action to look around for hidden or concealed things, except to say I look around for hidden or concealed things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So what does an active insight look like? How can I actively use it instead of passively?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How can they confirm it? You refuse to let them use the skill to confirm it unless they "do something" but there is nothing to do, because the action that constitutes "an effort to read body language or understand someone's feelings" is being relegated to a passive skill that they cannot utilize.</p><p></p><p>What actions do you expect from them?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8719939, member: 6801228"] I don't think I'm explaining myself well. If I say "My character goes over to the bookshelf and runs my fingers over the books" I'm investigating. That is what an investigation looks like. I'm not perceiving. Perhaps I pick up a mug and examine it in close detail. That's investigating. I'm getting in close. This is why the Eyes of Minute Seeing give advantage to Investigation checks, while improving vision up to a foot away. So, if anything where I get close, touch things, examing in minute detail is investigation, then perception is just... looking. The rules text you just posted says it, "notice things about the environment" that's perception. Again, "spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something." With that in mind... what action do you take to trigger a perception check, except the action of "looking" or "noticing" I mean, you would never accept someone stating "I notice the goblin hidden in the corner" as their action. In fact, since the goblin was hidden and they didn't know about it, they could not make that statement. But noticing is the action of perception. This is the fundamental problem I have with the repeated assertion that a player saying "I look around" isn't good enough for a perception check, because... what else are they supposed to do? There is no other action for visual perception. The only other conclusion is you want them to narrow the scope, to only attempt to perceive part of something, which leads into my other concern, as I stated. I do see something unreasonable in that exchange. Because the player was clearly trying to use their action to detect a threat, but because they didn't know where the threat was, they automatically failed. However, you can't know where a hidden threat is until you spot it. It basically turns perception into extreme three-card monte, where you walk up to someone with three face down cards who has already shuffled them. It is just blind guessing. Which leads to one of two responses from the players 1) They will list every single thing possible, turn over every card, in an attempt to win, This is undesirable, because I do not want to sit through your checklist every time you enter a room. 2) They go vague, and ask to roll perception. Understanding that this fundamentally covers everything they could potentially try and guess, with a single action. They want to know the things they don't know about the idol. This is a fundamentally strange question to me. Let us say this is an idol to Shar, but it is made of purple amethyst, which is an important detail because it connects them to a specific cult of Shar. The player asks who the idol is of, and you let them roll and find out about Shar.... but since they didn't ask about if the material was important you aren't going to tell them? They have no idea to even ask that question, so why would you expect them to ask it? Again, this seems to lead into blind guessing games. Can you ask the correct question to unlock the hidden information you don't know to ask for? And I don't see the appeal of this. All of those. They want to know all of those things. All of them might be important. Why do they need to specifically ask if the idol has been desecrated for you to provide them with that information? The idol is entirely in their mind's eye, they can't see it and compare it to a non-desecrated version they have seen before. Which in IRL they would obviously be able to trivially do. I don't need to specifically ask out loud if a cross has been desecrated, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to tell by looking at it, because I know what a cross looks like to begin with. You aren't asking where they acquired their knowledge of religion (where they got their proficiency), just asking them to imagine where they might have learned information about something they don't know to help reveal details of their backstory... how are those not the same thing? They are expecting they learned the information in the same place they got their other knowledge of religion, which is what gave them proficiency and training in the religion skill. But I want to "detect hidden elements of the environment" and there is no action for that except looking around and noticing hidden elements of the environment. Are you saying that you have never had someone roll perception? I can't think of an action to look around for hidden or concealed things, except to say I look around for hidden or concealed things. So what does an active insight look like? How can I actively use it instead of passively? How can they confirm it? You refuse to let them use the skill to confirm it unless they "do something" but there is nothing to do, because the action that constitutes "an effort to read body language or understand someone's feelings" is being relegated to a passive skill that they cannot utilize. What actions do you expect from them? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top