D&D 5E Is "perception" even a good concept?

[Lanefan]

The early versions of the game were often needlessly complex, yeah. ;P
And 1e surprise, IIRC, favored a couple of races and classes (and plenty of monsters).

Skills cover a lot more, with a single mechanic, so less complication overall, and more customizeability, so you can be alert, even if you're not an elf or whatever.

[MENTION=42437]Wiseblood[/MENTION] is right in one thing, though: unified mechanics are constraining, mostly because when the designers come up with a cool new mechanic their natural incliunation is to shoehorn as many things as possible into it whether it's a good fit or not (5e advantage, I'm looking at you).

Personally, if there's a mechanic that does something better than the unified one then that's the mechanic I want. Clerics-vs.-undead is a good example: every edition has tried a different mechanic for this and the 1e table is still the best.

1e surprise favouring a couple of specific races and classes was a feature, not a bug, in that it allowed design space for more differentiation between said races/classes. Elves (who had significant level limits) and Rangers (not at all easy to roll into given the stat requirements) were hard to surprise.

And giving monsters better chances to surprise PCs - hey, no problem there!

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

[MENTION=42437]Wiseblood[/MENTION] is right in one thing, though: unified mechanics are constraining

They are constraining to designers, yes. 'Design Restraint' is a term I've tossed out a few times, in fact. It can be a good thing, in that it minimizes bloat and (needless) complexity, and makes the game easier to learn and more approachable. I imagine it being voluntary, but imposed design constraint would be the next best thing.

Arguably, 5e didn't do enough of that kinda thing.
And, Gygax was clearly immune.

Personally, if there's a mechanic that does something better than the unified one then that's the mechanic I want. Clerics-vs.-undead is a good example: every edition has tried a different mechanic for this and the 1e table is still the best.

"It's still the first," is probably the best thing we could say about it.
It was pretty whack, though - look at how much bigger undead encounters needed to be to be challenging. In a feedback loop, that contributed to the 'must have a cleric!' trope and niche-protection. I mean, that's not just a mechanic that's bad, mechanically, it's almost bad on a moral level (ooh, extra-ironic, that).

1e surprise favouring a couple of specific races and classes was a feature, not a bug, in that it allowed design space for more differentiation between said races/classes.

And in later eds that got a perception bonus, so that wasn't lost, rather, there were fewer mechanics, enabling more character concepts.
(Damn, I'm arguing that 3.x was a tight, efficient system - more irony! - but, I guess it was, compared to 1e.)

 

[BookBarbarian]

(What'd be a good portmanteau of 'bug' and 'feature?' Beature? 'Bugure?' Fug?)

Fug sounds the funniest, but Bugture probably is best at getting the point across.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

How interesting of a character development choice is it really? I didn't mind so much back when it was split into several skills, but 5e Perception is really just an obvious pick for everyone in my experience. Does this bother anyone else?

Well then, I'll put this as nice as possible: You're doing it wrong.



Y'see, Perception is "you notice something amiss"...or... "you notice one of the nails is new". Perception is NOT "you sense hidden foes in this room, behind the pillars" ...or... "the door is trapped". If you and your group are taking perception to mean the latter...well, as I said, you're doing it wrong.

Perception, how I interpret it anyway, lets you know "somethings up with that door"...it is Investigation that lets you figure out "that door is trapped with a poison gas trap via the new nail popping out like a stopper".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Quickleaf]

In cases like this, why not just kinda mush the two skills together?

As in, if something's reasonably easy to grok then the roll can use the higher of the character's two skills, but if it's particularly difficult (like trying to discern one trog's scent from another - how does one tell awful from awful anyway) it could be using the lower. In other cases, just use the average of the two skills.

Absolutely, your ruling makes a lot of sense. It's a good work around.

But I was making a point about the bigger picture....

Giving Perception an active identity comes at the cost of taking away identity from Investigation.

I understand why Perception is in the game – to give the players' protection from "the monster/trap surprises you." (Yes, there are other reasons, but that is the 900 lb gorilla) But Perception doesn't really have an identity of its own.

At least not yet. Not in the rules as they commonly seem to be interpreted (i.e. Perception checks everywhere! The DM calls for them! Players ask to make them!).

I have two concurrent but probably mutually exclusive trains of thought...

1) What if Perception had some codified uses that it doesn't currently have? Like using a Perception check or group Perception check to determine starting encounter distance. Or using Perception to identify certain types of combatants (e.g. brood mothers, generals, charmed/possessed monsters, the "parent" shadow that spawned all these other shadows).

2) What if skills that gather/recall/notice information – Perception, Investigation, Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion in 5e – were treated more like backgrounds, rather than skills. IOW, they have no number value and require no dice to be rolled. They simply provide you with a baseline of information.

 

[iserith]

Absolutely, your ruling makes a lot of sense. It's a good work around.

But I was making a point about the bigger picture....

Giving Perception an active identity comes at the cost of taking away identity from Investigation.

I'm not sure it does. They resolve uncertainty for different tasks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1) What if Perception had some codified uses that it doesn't currently have? Like using a Perception check or group Perception check to determine starting encounter distance.

Group check for encounter distance sounds like a solid idea.

2) What if skills that gather/recall/notice information – Perception, Investigation, Arcana, History, Nature, and Religion in 5e – were treated more like backgrounds, rather than skills. IOW, they have no number value and require no dice to be rolled. They simply provide you with a baseline of information.

The DM /can/ just provide you with information, as 'narrating success' rather than calling for a roll, of course.

That makes me wonder what if we didn't bother with skills, at all. Just, when the DM calls for a check, he calls out the stat and either says "with proficiency" or not. He can base whether you're proficient on your Background, Class, Race, and even what you've been doing in the campaign.
You could always ask "do I get proficiency? I am a _________, afterall."

 

[Wiseblood]

I have two concurrent but probably mutually exclusive trains of thought...

1) What if Perception had some codified uses that it doesn't currently have? Like using a Perception check or group Perception check to determine starting encounter distance. Or using Perception to identify certain types of combatants (e.g. brood mothers, generals, charmed/possessed monsters, the "parent" shadow that spawned all these other shadows).

I can't comment on the second thought but I believe thought one is already a thing. Encounter distance would be either one of two things.

A) The intersection of passive/active perception minus one per ten feet of distance coupled with any other modifiers (eg. darkness) and a stealth check or arbitrary DC.

B) Arbitrary distance subjects are detetctable due to circumstance or narrative eg. line of sight or subject silhouetted against contrasting background or illuminated in area of darkness.



While example A gets into the area of needless complexity IMO, B obviates the need for the skill almost entirely.

Sorry if my post sounds snooty or snotty I am trying to be precise.. I may have failed miserably.

 

[Quickleaf]

I'm not sure it does. They resolve uncertainty for different tasks.

Yeah, I feel like I'm not articulating myself well, or others are misunderstanding my point.

Yes, RAW Perception and Investigation are different. No question.

My point was about Perception being an artifact of the rules and not (usually) clearly signifying something a character is DOING.

But if a DM, such as myself, tries to make Perception signify something that a character is DOING, and not just leave it as an artifact of play to discern whether or not a PC notices a trap/hidden monster, THAT'S when you start running up against the fuzzy boundary between Perception and Investigation. Because you start getting into senses, and it's a very fuzzy line from describing the senses in detail to "clues."

If I accept Perception as just an artifact of play, not signifying anything a PC is actually DOING, there's no problem. Perception and Investigation are clearly different.

It's only when I try to give Perception more significance / treat it as more than an artifact of play, that Perception vs. Investigation becomes an issue.

Does that make sense?

 

[Quickleaf]

I can't comment on the second thought but I believe thought one is already a thing. Encounter distance would be either one of two things.

A) The intersection of passive/active perception minus one per ten feet of distance coupled with any other modifiers (eg. darkness) and a stealth check or arbitrary DC.

Where's that rule from?

The 5e DMG is conspicuously silent on encounter distance. The closest it comes are some notes on typical visibility outdoors on p.243. But nothing like the methods for determining encounter distances from older editions.