Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 8724664" data-attributes="member: 20323">I notice that most of the players I play 5e with imagine their characters as &quot;good at noticing things&quot;, and this is usually reflected in Perception proficiency. Those players who play against this type are a very small minority, again IME.Perhaps part of the reason for this is exactly what you say above – the consequences of failing to notice something (i.e. failing a Perception check) tend to be very significant to potentially lethal, whereas other failed skill checks may not be so obviously significant or lethal.For example, failing a History check might be interpreted by the DM that &quot;you simply don't know which noble that heraldic crest belongs to&quot;, or failing a Persuasion check might be interpreted by the DM as &quot;the guard doesn't let you pass the gate.&quot; However, there may be other ways to accomplish these things, such as casting legend lore or striking up a conversation with a NPC and asking them about the crest, or casting friends or sneaking in.Consequences for a failed Perception check might range from &quot;you are ambushed by the bugbears&quot; (which could lead to being dropped to 0 hit points before getting to act, or potentially killed at lower levels or at lower HP) to &quot;you don't notice anything&quot; (which, depending on DM and adventure design, could mean losing out on treasure or failing to find a secret door necessary to complete a quest).I wonder – and I don't know, cause I'm mainly a GM and haven't asked any players this – is the reason for favoring Perception proficiency is due to a perception that the consequences of failing Perception are more grievous / more lethal / more immediately obviously bad than other skills?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 8724664, member: 20323"] I notice that most of the players I play 5e with imagine their characters as "good at noticing things", and this is usually reflected in Perception proficiency. Those players who play against this type are a very small minority, again IME. Perhaps part of the reason for this is exactly what you say above – the consequences of failing to notice something (i.e. failing a Perception check) tend to be very significant to potentially lethal, whereas other failed skill checks may not be so obviously significant or lethal. For example, failing a History check might be interpreted by the DM that "you simply don't know which noble that heraldic crest belongs to", or failing a Persuasion check might be interpreted by the DM as "the guard doesn't let you pass the gate." However, there may be other ways to accomplish these things, such as casting [I]legend lore [/I]or striking up a conversation with a NPC and asking them about the crest, or casting [I]friends[/I] or sneaking in. Consequences for a failed Perception check might range from "you are ambushed by the bugbears" (which could lead to being dropped to 0 hit points before getting to act, or potentially killed at lower levels or at lower HP) to "you don't notice anything" (which, depending on DM and adventure design, could mean losing out on treasure or failing to find a secret door necessary to complete a quest). I wonder – and I don't know, cause I'm mainly a GM and haven't asked any players this – is the reason for favoring Perception proficiency is due to a [I]perception [/I]that the consequences of failing Perception are more grievous / more lethal / more immediately obviously [I]bad [/I]than other skills? [/QUOTE]

Verification