Perception and taking 10/20.

[King-Panda]

Normally, a character who is out of combat and not actively searching for hidden doors, items, or traps uses their passive perception (PP) to determine if they see said items. There doesn't seem to be a "Take 20" rule in 4th edition, which brings me to my issue.

If a player wants to spend more time and energy looking for something, they can roll a perception check in what amounts to a 50% chance of getting higher than their PP, and a 45% of getting lower than their PP. How can someone - who is looking harder than they would normally - do worse than they would if they weren't paying as much attention?
I can understand having to roll for thing like listening over the sound of battle, or rolling if you are vision is obscured/blocked/etc, but extensively searching a room up and down should not have this penalty.

At first I thought I'd just bring back Taking 20 (and I might), but I thought of a possible solution. A player could roll 1d10 and add it to their PP when searching (Not in danger, with no chance of "failure") a room/hallway/etc for hidden things. This would still involve the luck of a roll, while allowing for a fluff reason to mesh with the mechanics (a more extensive search has a better chance of success).
If I'm missing something, please let me know. Otherwise, how do you all as DM's handle this in your games?

 

[James McMurray]

The DMG suggests to assume the players roll a 20 on search checks if they have time to be thorough. That's how I do it.

 

[Dalzig]

DMG 41 - "Unless the characters are under a time constraint, assume that they’re going to roll a 20 eventually, and use the best possible Perception check result for the party."

Also, it is quite easy to do worse when actively rolling. Imagine when you are trying to find your keys. At that moment, you are rolling your ass off, but do you find them immediately? No. It takes you a while until you are finally able to roll that 20 to find them.

If the keys were out in the open, you probably would have seen them with your Passive Perception... or your Perception (like mine) just really sucks.

 

[King-Panda]

Alright good to know. Follow up question: assuming using your PP happens automatically without having to take an action (?), a player enters a room on the run from baddies that contains a hidden door, and no other exits. He knows he has 6-7 rounds before the baddies arrive. His PP isn't high enough to find the door, but he could find it with a good roll. Is he forced to roll 4-5 normal perception checks before the baddies arrive? If he says he's searching for a hidden exit, should I just give him the +2 DM bonus? What if he was told earlier there was a secret door in the room?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Also, depending on the type of roll, getting a smaller value may simply be another failure and not doing worse. So, unless the active perception says something like "if you fail by 10, you go blind", then rolling a 1 vs. the 10 of PP is simply another failure. On the other hand, you could always justify such things like "you slipped and knocked some of the stuff over and had to pick it up thus no actual searching was done."

Searching for a hidden exit: +2. Was told there was a secret door: +4 (or automatic). It should be automatic because if he was told there was a secret door, he should've asked exactly where.

 

[Dalzig]

Well, the DMG goes on further to say that you should wait about 2 minutes (game time) before giving them the 20, which equates to 20 rounds. In this case, they wouldn't find the secret door in time by that method. So they would have to actually be rolling themselves. Can they find the door in time?! Exciting stuff.

As for the +2 bonus, it makes sense. Normally perception checks to search the room are including every detail of the room (treasure, traps, hidden doors, clues, plot hooks, etc.), so by narrowing down the search it is reasonable to give a +2.

 

[King-Panda]

Thanks again guys, I'm feeling a lot better about this now that I know taking 20's still in the game.

 

[Markn]

One other think I will mention.

How can a perception check be lower than their passive check? Look at it like this - If their passive perception was high enough to spot something, they didn't need to roll. So, if they roll and get less they still effectively have their passive perception check. If they roll higher, then they are using that result instead.

For example. DM has set a perception DC of 23. One player in the group has a higher passive perception - lets say 25. The others are lower. Every player rolls. The player with the passive perception of 25 only rolls a 2, so technically he has a 17 (15 for his starting score plus 2 for the dice). In reality he still has a 25 because he would have spotted the DC 23 without a roll.

This is how I justify the lower roll for a check when the passive is capable of being higher.

Hopefully, that makes sense. If not, let me know, I can try again.

 

[Jhaelen]

So, if they roll and get less they still effectively have their passive perception check. If they roll higher, then they are using that result instead.

Yep, you're right, that makes sense. So basically the pcs now have a 50% chance of not noticing anything besides what they already noticed.

Originally I thought of using a d10+10 for their check. But I think it's really better if there's a chance of not detecting anything further.

 

[King-Panda]

Awesome idea Markn, that solves the issue in my mind.