D&D 5E Perception in 5e, discuss how it works

[Psikerlord#]

I may well be playing things a bit differently too. I like the Perception/Search split. In which Perception is your subconscious ability to see something. Search is actually getting involved with the environment to find things. And they'll have different DCs. Perceiving there is a key under the mat in the first glance around the room is going to be hard, searching the room it is going to be very easy. This will be tied to if the player says 'I will look under the mat' which is automatic.

So you'll be allowed a subconscious check, DM rolls if there is something to be seen, you can also do one more check as an action. No more unless something changes. e.g. Open the door, Perception Check at Stealth DC to spot hidden goblin. They cannot use Perception to see the false bottom of the table drawer. Player says 'I pause at the door and have a good look' (action, another roll to see goblin). Now no matter how long he stares at the room he doesn't get another roll - unless something changes, for example the goblin moves. If they want to go in a Search, they will auto find the goblin (although Search takes longer so they'll get surprised by the gobbo) but must roll to find the false bottom, unless a players specifies searching for it.

I like this approach a lot

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes I think rolling behind the screen is better. Also getting pcs to make 10 perception rolls pre session and using those (randomly selected). either of those is better than "take 10" on perception checks.

Apart from the meta-game issues and mind games of hidden rolls, contested rolls have always seemed a little off. They deliver very inconsistent results that are somewhat at odds with what bounded accuracy and adv/dis otherwise achieve. Using one creature's score as a target and having the other make the roll keeps such checks a bit more playable and closer to the variance of other checks, attack rolls, etc.

It could just as easily be the players rolling active perception against 'passive' stealth as having monsters roll stealth against passive perception.

On the other extreme, static vs static ('check' passive perception of 14 vs DC 15 always failing, for instance) is also against the spirit of bounded accuracy. If it's that close, someone should roll.

Given the way 5e handles checks in general, and the rulings-no-rules philosophy, the DM is well within his rights to ignore passive perception (except as a rough guide of how alert the PCs are relative to eachother), and just decide whether they spot traps or are surprised by ambushes - unless they actively take measures to search, in which case the usual rules (again, including automatic success of failure, or rolling vs a DM-decided DC) apply.

 

[MarkB]

Perception is the skill to let you know if something exists.

Once you know it exists: survival, insight and investigation let you understand more about it.

A fairly elegant option, but it does rather turn Perception into a 'gateway' skill - you need decent Perception in order to 'activate' the rest of your skillset. In some situations you might be able to rely upon another PC to do the initial perceiving, but not always - and they, lacking your training, may miss the significance of what they see, and not consider it worth bringing to your attention.

I'd tend more towards letting Survival substitute for Perception for noticing anomalies or important details in natural settings, and Insight in social settings.

I would, however, go with your take when it comes to Investigation. This skill seems very much to be about finding out more in-depth information about something, rather than about detecting something in the first place.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Apart from the meta-game issues and mind games of hidden rolls, contested rolls have always seemed a little off. They deliver very inconsistent results that are somewhat at odds with what bounded accuracy and adv/dis otherwise achieve. Using one creature's score as a target and having the other make the roll keeps such checks a bit more playable and closer to the variance of other checks, attack rolls, etc.

It could just as easily be the players rolling active perception against 'passive' stealth as having monsters roll stealth against passive perception.

On the other extreme, static vs static ('check' passive perception of 14 vs DC 15 always failing, for instance) is also against the spirit of bounded accuracy. If it's that close, someone should roll.

Given the way 5e handles checks in general, and the rulings-no-rules philosophy, the DM is well within his rights to ignore passive perception (except as a rough guide of how alert the PCs are relative to eachother), and just decide whether they spot traps or are surprised by ambushes - unless they actively take measures to search, in which case the usual rules (again, including automatic success of failure, or rolling vs a DM-decided DC) apply.

Yeah I guess I kinda prefer the randomness, and in some ways it is not as random as earlier editions, because of bounded accuracy? But in any event I am hopeful the DMG will have a strong "make the game your own" vibe to it, so folks like me can customise a little and not feel guilty!

 

[Kobold Stew]

There's some good ideas here. Going back to the OP, here's how my gut leans, based on Basic:

If the party is walking through the forest would the DM ask for passive perception to avoid the pit trap or would they ask for survival rolls or would they ask for both?

Passive perception

While inside with a pressure plate with the DM ask for passive perception or investigation rolls to find it?

Unless they are actually looking, Passive perception.

While outside and an invisible opponent in a grassy clearing, would the DM ask for a survival roll, a passive perception, a perception/stealth contest, or investigation (illusion)?

The condition of Invisible suggests there's no roll to be made -- if it is, it's perception v. stealth, against a heavily obscured opponent. Once they are aware of the existence of the opponent, Int (Investigation).

While at a merchant guild would the DM call for an insight/deception contest or passive perception or investigation roll or something else to determine if the merchant is lying and selling false wares?

Wisdom (Insight) vs. Charisma (Deception).

 

[Sadrik]

A fairly elegant option, but it does rather turn Perception into a 'gateway' skill - you need decent Perception in order to 'activate' the rest of your skillset. In some situations you might be able to rely upon another PC to do the initial perceiving, but not always - and they, lacking your training, may miss the significance of what they see, and not consider it worth bringing to your attention.

I'd tend more towards letting Survival substitute for Perception for noticing anomalies or important details in natural settings, and Insight in social settings.

I would, however, go with your take when it comes to Investigation. This skill seems very much to be about finding out more in-depth information about something, rather than about detecting something in the first place.

I like this too. I also agree that perception as the gateway skill can be a problem. We noticed the rogue in the starter set does not have perception but has investigation. So in the early traps where it called for perception checks the rogue was unable to find the traps very well, despite his adherence to scouting ahead. He failed both perception but made both DEX saves so effectively avoided the traps for the party.

To mitigate the gateway problem, you could never call for perception checks, it is actually deleted. Instead you call for the other three skills dependent upon the situation. Investigation for clues or indoor/urban stuff (noticing a thief hiding in the alleyway), Survival for outdoor stuff (spotting distant detail etc), and Insight for interpersonal stuff (debunking a lie). With no Perception the other skills would shine better and they would not overlap at all. Hmm, perception skill is the overlapping problem child... This may be the direction I go.

Yeah I guess I kinda prefer the randomness, and in some ways it is not as random as earlier editions, because of bounded accuracy? But in any event I am hopeful the DMG will have a strong "make the game your own" vibe to it, so folks like me can customise a little and not feel guilty!

1e/2e you rolled a d6 and on a '1' you noticed something. Some races and class had bonuses. The thief of course rolled % and their % started about where the d6 % was and of course went up from there. So bounded accuracy was not really an issue here because there was no scaling (except the thief).

3e/4e lots of scaling and due to this high level DCs were impossible for low level characters or characters who did not invest in the called for skill. This made checks both very random and very unrandom. They were more like gateways, had skill maxed out? yes: roll your check and see if you can do it, no: don't even bother. 4e somewhat mitigated this problem by giving +1/2 level to everything. But then the question becomes, if you are just adding numbers to the DC and the player roll, what is the point.

5e really fixes this. The DCs are static and do not change whether 1st level or 20th level and it really only relies on the PCs skill and ability. This is the best way to handle this. Also the bonuses do not scale to the point of making the roll unimportant. For this reason the chassis for 5e is my favorite.

I also hope that the DMG offers many ideas on how to tailor the game to be more like 1e and more like 4e and every edition in between.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know personally... I'm *only* going to be using Perception in passive form. Any active "looking around" is going to be Investigation. To me... Perception is a "Danger Sense". That's it. You get an itch in the back of your head that something's up and that happens automatically through no action. You automatically get that number against anything potentially dangerous out there that you can notice or spot. But in addition, if you use your action to actually search for potentially dangerous things out there-- either saying you're looking for trouble or a trap or are "on guard"... you also get to make an INT or WIS (Investigation) check if your passive WIS (Perception) check did not find the trouble first.

So a creature is sneaking up on you while you're doing something (and thus you aren't using your action to be "on guard".) It makes a DEX (Stealth) check. If that check is lower than your passive WIS (Perception), then you notice the creature automatically through no effort on your own, even while you were doing something else. That creature was just really bad at sneaking. But if the DEX (Stealth) check was higher than your passive (Perception) number... then the creature does surprise you because you had your mind on the other activity.

Now though, if you said you were using your action to look for trouble or be "on guard"... then if your passive WIS (Perception) was lower than the creature's DEX (Stealth) check and you didn't notice the threat automatically... you would then get to follow that up with an active WIS (Investigation) check and hopefully roll high enough to find the sneaking creature.

When it comes to traps or secret doors... it's the same thing. Because to me... the DC of said trap or secret door is not a "static number" per se, but rather what I always visualized as the INT (Deception) check of the person or creature who designed or build the trap or secret door in the first place. So I don't mind if a trap or door in some published adventure will be found automatically with any of the party's passive (WIS) Perception. Because to me... it just means the person who built that trap or door just didn't do a very good job. But like in the case above... if the DC of the trap/door is high enough that it isn't found automatically through passive WIS (Perception)... anyone who states they are actively looking for traps/secret doors will get to make an INT (Investigation) check too (provided of course they are okay with moving much slower, or they make specific statements on where they are looking or what they are looking through.)

Finally... in terms of which ability check to use for active checks, it's going to come down to whether the person who is looking is making a general sweep of an area for general non-specific threats (which would use WIS) or is specifically looking for someone they know is out there or at or through a specific area/object (and thus use INT.)

Someone "on guard" or who is "searching for traps" while walking down a dungeon corridor... is looking for threats but doesn't know where/when/what those threats are. This would use WIS (Investigation) for the active but non-specific search. For someone who is looking at a specific section of dungeon wall for a secret door, or a locked chest for a dart trap, or for a person they know is out there but is currently hidden from view (because the creature used its action to make a DEX (Stealth) check)... that person uses INT (Investigation) for a specific search with known parameters.

This is how I intend to run things, even if it goes against the rules a bit (where the rules use Perception in active cases as well as passive), but I put much more stock in really splitting up when and where Perception and Investigation should be used. And the passive/active split to me makes the absolute most sense.

 

[Sadrik]

Finally... in terms of which ability check to use for active checks, it's going to come down to whether the person who is looking is making a general sweep of an area for general non-specific threats (which would use WIS) or is specifically looking for someone they know is out there or at or through a specific area/object (and thus use INT.)

I think you will find your cleric PC saying... I do a general sweep and your wizard PC saying I search the book shelf the desk the bed and the curtains and the rug and the chandelier. Ultimately the same thing occurs. The will make an investigation roll (WIS or INT). I am uncertain about that, is the descriptive detail from the player warranted? To me it sounds like a matter of simply allowing WIS or INT with Investigation. Which is ok.

Will you do this for survival skill with pit traps?

Will you do this for insight skill with lies?

Someone "on guard" or who is "searching for traps" while walking down a dungeon corridor... is looking for threats but doesn't know where/when/what those threats are. This would use WIS (Investigation) for the active but non-specific search. For someone who is looking at a specific section of dungeon wall for a secret door, or a locked chest for a dart trap, or for a person they know is out there but is currently hidden from view (because the creature used its action to make a DEX (Stealth) check)... that person uses INT (Investigation) for a specific search with known parameters.

The on guard vs off guard is nicely done with the passive perception. If you are inattentive you get disadvantage, if you are attentive you get advantage. This equates to +/-5 which is a huge swing. Going slow and steady through the dungeon corridor provides your passive check is significantly higher. Running through dungeons is dangerous because it provides -5 passive perception. You ain't seein' crap. Sneaking by an attentive guard will be difficult.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah I guess I kinda prefer the randomness, and in some ways it is not as random as earlier editions, because of bounded accuracy? But in any event I am hopeful the DMG will have a strong "make the game your own" vibe to it, so folks like me can customise a little and not feel guilty!

Really depends on how you perceive 'randomness.' They all used a d20, which is a uniform distribution.

5e is really pushing the idea that the DM can change the game to suit - an unavoidable reality of all RPGs, whether they spell out a 'golden rule' or Rule-0, have fans obsessing over the RAW, or provide rules decent enough that you don't absolutely /need/ to change them - as a 'feature.'

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think you will find your cleric PC saying... I do a general sweep and your wizard PC saying I search the book shelf the desk the bed and the curtains and the rug and the chandelier. Ultimately the same thing occurs. The will make an investigation roll (WIS or INT). I am uncertain about that, is the descriptive detail from the player warranted? To me it sounds like a matter of simply allowing WIS or INT with Investigation. Which is ok.

Will you do this for survival skill with pit traps?

Will you do this for insight skill with lies?

The way I'm doing it, a person doesn't get to choose whether they are doing a general sweep or a specific search-- those are dictated by what they are actively looking for.

If you are searching for something specific-- a trap on some object, a secret door in some wall, an enemy you know is out there but has gone into hiding-- that's an INT check (plus Investigation if you have it.)

If you are just at a heightened state of attention-- you are prepared for the worst, your eyes are peeled, you're on guard-- that's a WIS check (plus Investigation if you have it.)

The on guard vs off guard is nicely done with the passive perception. If you are inattentive you get disadvantage, if you are attentive you get advantage. This equates to +/-5 which is a huge swing. Going slow and steady through the dungeon corridor provides your passive check is significantly higher. Running through dungeons is dangerous because it provides -5 passive perception. You ain't seein' crap. Sneaking by an attentive guard will be difficult.

I don't like this at all, because I really don't like using Perception in any active way. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't be calling it Perception, I'd be calling it Danger Sense or Alertness or Intuition. It's not something you do... it's something you have. So I won't be using the passive WIS (Perception) + 5 (in place of Advantage) check to symbolize being "on guard". If you are "on guard" you are using your action to look around. And any active looking around in my game will add on Investigation-- either to an INT check for a specific object/location/person you are looking for, or a WIS check for a heightened attention to anything and everything that might jump out at you.

As far as the other two... in my game Insight will be used for EVERY social searching / cold reading situation (no Perception checks there). And Survival will only be used to set up pit traps, or as a lore skill to indicate whether an area would be likely to have them or not (based upon the creatures who might be in the area) but not in any way used to actually discover or find them.