Is perception overrated?

[mephnick]

Also, surprise attack shouldn't run on perception alone.

But...it does, so..

But yes, I was talking surprise in combat, which is individual, your party cannot help you, and keys solely off perception.

[Findulidas]

Combat isnt only what this game is about though.

[Vaz]

Combat isnt only what this game is about though.

No. But it's the only one that essentially ends with you rolling a new character if you go wrong. DM's rarely allow a social encounter to go by. "I roll to persuade the King abdicate and give me his kinghood", "I roll to persuade the widow that her husband I just brutally slaughtered in a bar fight was a demon and she should repay me by riding my face like the transiberian express".

Combat 1/3rd of the game, with social taking up another 1/3rd, and travel/stuff/other taking up the other third - but combat more consistently takes up the majority of time at a table, and it's where dice rolled are the most.

[Sceptic]

But it's the only one that essentially ends with you rolling a new character if you go wrong.

Athletics. Falling damage can be pretty damned nasty. So can failing a jump roll to jump over a pool of acid.

And the latter is from experience.

[Vaz]

Rope.

/letters.

[Osrogue]

No. But it's the only one that essentially ends with you rolling a new character if you go wrong. DM's rarely allow a social encounter to go by. "I roll to persuade the King abdicate and give me his kinghood", "I roll to persuade the widow that her husband I just brutally slaughtered in a bar fight was a demon and she should repay me by riding my face like the transiberian express".

Combat 1/3rd of the game, with social taking up another 1/3rd, and travel/stuff/other taking up the other third - but combat more consistently takes up the majority of time at a table, and it's where dice rolled are the most.

Yeah, but that's less because it's important and more because it's slooooooow.

I'm in the boat that says getting surprised can be fun. No one likes ending up with lot's of surprising stab wounds, but surprise combat requires the sort of scrambling and stumbles you typically don't get from carefully prepared for and strategized encounters.

[Creyzi4j]

No. But it's the only one that essentially ends with you rolling a new character if you go wrong. DM's rarely allow a social encounter to go by. "I roll to persuade the King abdicate and give me his kinghood", "I roll to persuade the widow that her husband I just brutally slaughtered in a bar fight was a demon and she should repay me by riding my face like the transiberian express".

Combat 1/3rd of the game, with social taking up another 1/3rd, and travel/stuff/other taking up the other third - but combat more consistently takes up the majority of time at a table, and it's where dice rolled are the most.

A lot of times persuassion can be just as important. If you've been falsely accused by the idiot advisor for assassinating the king and you have 10 archers surrounding you ready to fire. Then you may need to succeed in thay persuassion roll to make your life better.

If you're travelling on the deep forest where the DM suddenly declares a huge rainstorm. Then passing that survival check my make your life a whole lot better.

If your ship has been docked by pirates who outnumber you 5 to one. And are asking you stuff, then passing that deception check as a fellow pirate could help.

If your ally/Pc or NPC is being held at his throat with a knife. Then passing the persuassion or intimidation check could help save his/her life.

Not saying it is bad. It has its great importance. But I particularly don't like getting it with characters with wisdom as their dump stat. It's like trying to force yourself to get it when there are others that could be better.

[Tanarii]

Not saying it is bad. It has its great importance. But I particularly don't like getting it with characters with wisdom as their dump stat. It's like trying to force yourself to get it when there are others that could be better.

From an optimization point of view, choosing to shore up a weakness can be just as good as choosing to strengthen a strength. Especially when it's a weakness that affects you individually, that someone else cannot shore up for you by being strong in that area.

From an RP perspective, choosing to take a skill associated with a Dump stat is often appropriate. Personally I love Investigation on Int 8 characters, representing someone with plenty of deductive reasoning ability, but not much education (ie sucks a Lore checks).

Edit: One thing I think is weird/funny is Wis / Perception are tertiary Barbarian abilities, but because of various class Features like Feral Instinct they can afford to dump Wis / Perception more than most.

[Findulidas]

No. But it's the only one that essentially ends with you rolling a new character if you go wrong. DM's rarely allow a social encounter to go by. "I roll to persuade the King abdicate and give me his kinghood", "I roll to persuade the widow that her husband I just brutally slaughtered in a bar fight was a demon and she should repay me by riding my face like the transiberian express".

Combat 1/3rd of the game, with social taking up another 1/3rd, and travel/stuff/other taking up the other third - but combat more consistently takes up the majority of time at a table, and it's where dice rolled are the most.

Yes but you can use other skills that arent perception to avoid combat at many times. Of course this depends on the type of DM. I think you are supposed to anyway. Sneaking past the guards, decieving them, persuading them, intimidating them to back down and so on. You can also have many skills that are useful in battle such as knowledge skills, that is of course depending on your DM again and how much the PC's metagame.

[Vaz]

But the rest of the party can't, not all the time. It doesn't matter how big YOUR stealth score is if you've got a Plate Armoured Knight with negative stealth clattering alongside you. I doesn't matter how big your Persuasion score is if you don't speak the language, or the DM is saying "you fight now.

If you're sneaking past guards, then you're going to want to have high perception to hear them or see them before they see you. I'm not saying that other skills aren't useful; I'm saying that Perception is the one with the greatest penalty.

Also, Osrogue, you don't need to have been prepared, you simply don't want to be taking a full round of attacks, possibly with enemies at advantage and possibly with Sneak Attack, or other detrimental effects - which you then need to roll initiative on - and potentially still end up rolling low and having to face 2 sets of attacks before you even get to act, neither do you get to take reactions, which can just outright some characters who rely on them (Shield casters, for example)

[Creyzi4j]

If you're sneaking past guards, then you're going to want to have high perception to hear them or see them before they see you. I'm not saying that other skills aren't useful; I'm saying that Perception is the one with the greatest penalty.

If I was the DM i would rule it as:
If you're sneaking past the guards then you should rule a stealth check opposed to their passive perception/perception (if u count it as similar to an ambush) check. And that's it. I would just count as the looking at them before they look at you as part of the stealth check. Being stealthy should not be just about moving silently and being unseen it also involves using your eyes to look for obstacles in which you can take cover ,,(counts as perception in real life)

It's less punishing than rolling a perception check as opposed to their passive perception check. Then rolling another stealth check to oppose another PP.

I would allow a perception check to spot a difficult to spot object or a third party sneaky in the area. Or maybe an incoming guard away from your line of sight to avoid rolling another stealth check.

This is one of the reasons why I think perception is overrated. DMs should make some kind of parameter in which perceiving or spotting stuff is free.

If you see a horse charging towards you, then you should no lomger need to roll a perception check to see the horse unless that horse is: concealed, really far away (makes sense since it involves keen hearing, or silently creeping)

Perception should be about detecting stuff that are not very obvious, like an ambush or an assassin.

[Pex]

Group checks handle the platemail wearing warrior. As long as at least half the party makes it the platemail non-proficient in Stealth 8 DX character can roll a 1 with his Disadvantage and not ruin the moment. The party is stealthy enough for whatever it is they wanted to do.

[mephnick]

Group checks handle the platemail wearing warrior. As long as at least half the party makes it the platemail non-proficient in Stealth 8 DX character can roll a 1 with his Disadvantage and not ruin the moment. The party is stealthy enough for whatever it is they wanted to do.

I'm not sure this is actually intended, though I see it a lot. Technically you're supposed to compare any stealth check made for hiding to all perception checks on the other side to determine surprise. I'm not sure group checks are meant to be compared to contested checks.

I may be out of the loop re: sage advice or something, but I currently don't let my players use group stealth checks.

[Socratov]

I'm not sure this is actually intended, though I see it a lot. Technically you're supposed to compare any stealth check made for hiding to all perception checks on the other side to determine surprise. I'm not sure group checks are meant to be compared to contested checks.

I may be out of the loop re: sage advice or something, but I currently don't let my players use group stealth checks.

I get where you are coming on from, which is why I use it differently: I add up all the PC's results on stealth, divide by the number players (rounded down) and compare that to the target number. If they succeed it means that those who overshot their target can reliably use it to help their lesser fortunate pals. and for a particularly clever approach I have even allowed someone to piggyback on another player's rolls by giving the latter player disadvantage on his check (but only if they choose to take the disadvantage, if they choose to cancel the disadvantage that means they choose for their own escape rather then helping an ally). I found that it put added pressure on those who optimised stealth to really perform and carry the weight of the party which my party turned into suspension and roleplaying.

it also means that if a player has been dumping his stealth by inordinate amounts that he really is a drag on the party's resources and/or tactics.

[Tanarii]

Group checks handle the platemail wearing warrior. As long as at least half the party makes it the platemail non-proficient in Stealth 8 DX character can roll a 1 with his Disadvantage and not ruin the moment. The party is stealthy enough for whatever it is they wanted to do.

Stealth checks are individually determined against each Passive Perception. That's explicit in the 'Hiding' sidebar.

If a DM want's to not use that rule, and instead replace it with a group check, that's up to him of course. But it's worth letting the players know in advance that they'll be making Stealth MUCH easier than intended by RAW.

[Sigreid]

Group checks handle the platemail wearing warrior. As long as at least half the party makes it the platemail non-proficient in Stealth 8 DX character can roll a 1 with his Disadvantage and not ruin the moment. The party is stealthy enough for whatever it is they wanted to do.

True, but I'd make all party members roll at disadvantage.

[rigolgm]

A lot of the problem is how the adventures are written and run, plus the limited expectations of players.

There's so much scope in D&D to have smart adventures where skills like History, Religion, Animal Handling etc could be made more prominent. But I think the trap/ambush/hiding/treasure-obsessed writers aren't trying hard enough. (Although I've not played enough of the recent new adventures to be sure).

A simple solution is small adjustments. For example, how about having a castle's traps be avoided if you know the History of the building? Or let players use Religion rather than Insight to determine certain motivations of a priest or local community? Or have an adventure be about returning a feisty unicorn to a princess, so that the Animal Handling player gets to test their skills (or just have easily-panicked pack ponies be a more common part of the adventurers' party)? If someone needs to disguise themselves as a member of the prieshood, someone with Religion skill should be better at it than someone from the outlands who just happens to have Deception skill.

The problem is that players aren't inclined to experiment with skills if they think Perception is ALWAYS the skill to spot traps and that Deception is ALWAYS the skill to do disguises etc. It's sad but I've virtually forgotten my gnome wizard has Animal Handling because it literally never comes up.

A more complicated solution is to write adventures where under-used skills have bigger consequences when they ARE used. The challenge is that this requires the writers and DMs to invest more effort. It usually needs much more fleshing-out than the typical consequences of a Perception check (avoid an ambush, get treasure etc). It could mean a different direction in the adventure. This more rigorous approach is one I'm familair with because I GM/DM the less combat-focussed Trail of Cthulhu RPG.

I like the way the Dungeon World RPG handles over-used skills, where below-average dice rolls often instantly hit the player with negative (but hopefully fun) consequences. The bad rolls often introduce spontaneous new plot twists too, as Dungeon World games are meant to be more 'self-evolving' than D&D ones.

[Knaight]

Perception is usually important. At the end of the day the primary factor in how relevant a skill is is how often it's rolled and how important these rolls are, and while that's fairly GM dependent Perception does come up a lot. There's a reason it's not uncommon for it to be a straight up attribute in other games.

[Tanarii]

The problem is that players aren't inclined to experiment with skills if they think Perception is ALWAYS the skill to spot traps and that Deception is ALWAYS the skill to do disguises etc. It's sad but I've virtually forgotten my gnome wizard has Animal Handling because it literally never comes up.

Players aren't inclined to experiment with skills because the very last thing they want to do is roll an ability check with possible consequences for failure. They want to do things that are certain outcomes, with maybe the occasional thing that has a small change of failure.

Except the risk taker player types. And they get their characters killed, along with possibly the entire party, unless the campaign is with a I Don't Kill PCs DM.

And even when a check might actually be needed, the DMs commonly call for rolls when they should be determining it to be automatic success, set DCs at 15-20 instead of 5-10, and have failures result in negative things instead of just not succeed.

Players are happy to roll 'DM hands out free knowledge with no failure downside' Lore or Insight or Perception checks. But they usually do whatever that can to avoid other checks that DMs just love to set too high and add actual consequences to failure to. Typically Acrobatics, Athletics, Investigation (traps), Medicine (diseases), Animal Handling, or any Cha check.

Which is stupid, because generally there shouldn't even be a check if there's no consequence for failure other than time. And even if time is a consequence, that should only matter in time sensitive situations ... in most campaigns that's combat.

But DMs just love their State of The World checks. Does a character know something/someone? Is this lock pickable? Is this cliff climbable or swimmable? Is this NPC persuadable? Etc, and if you fail the Hard check, Bad Things Happen (Unless It's A Lore Check).

Climbing and Swimming and Jumping done right are good examples of how checks should work. Unless there's a very adverse element, a check isn't even needed. But if you're climbing a very slippery surface, or in rough seas, or trying to extend your jump to catch that ledge ... NOW there's a check. Players understand those kinds of checks perfectly.

---------------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr: players don't experiment because DMs roll too often, set DCs too high, make failure states when none are needed. And of course, because by our very nature we would rather auto-succeed than risk a chance of failure.

[Pex]

Players aren't inclined to experiment with skills because the very last thing they want to do is roll an ability check with possible consequences for failure. They want to do things that are certain outcomes, with maybe the occasional thing that has a small change of failure.

Except the risk taker player types. And they get their characters killed, along with possibly the entire party, unless the campaign is with a I Don't Kill PCs DM.

And even when a check might actually be needed, the DMs commonly call for rolls when they should be determining it to be automatic success, set DCs at 15-20 instead of 5-10, and have failures result in negative things instead of just not succeed.

Players are happy to roll 'DM hands out free knowledge with no failure downside' Lore or Insight or Perception checks. But they usually do whatever that can to avoid other checks that DMs just love to set too high and add actual consequences to failure to. Typically Acrobatics, Athletics, Investigation (traps), Medicine (diseases), Animal Handling, or any Cha check.

Which is stupid, because generally there shouldn't even be a check if there's no consequence for failure other than time. And even if time is a consequence, that should only matter in time sensitive situations ... in most campaigns that's combat.

But DMs just love their State of The World checks. Does a character know something/someone? Is this lock pickable? Is this cliff climbable or swimmable? Is this NPC persuadable? Etc, and if you fail the Hard check, Bad Things Happen (Unless It's A Lore Check).

Climbing and Swimming and Jumping done right are good examples of how checks should work. Unless there's a very adverse element, a check isn't even needed. But if you're climbing a very slippery surface, or in rough seas, or trying to extend your jump to catch that ledge ... NOW there's a check. Players understand those kinds of checks perfectly.

---------------------------------------------------------

Tl;dr: players don't experiment because DMs roll too often, set DCs too high, make failure states when none are needed. And of course, because by our very nature we would rather auto-succeed than risk a chance of failure.

It sounds like you're disappointed there aren't defined DCs for skills to give DMs and players guidelines on what the PCs are capable of doing. Where have I heard that argument before?

[Tanarii]

It sounds like you're disappointed there aren't defined DCs for skills to give DMs and players guidelines on what the PCs are capable of doing. Where have I heard that argument before?

No. 3e tried that, and it led to DMs calling for rolls for everything under the sun. Which is okay in that system, provided you only ever do things you're good at. IMO the 5e way is better, because the assumption is everyone can try everything that needs to be done in adventuring, and have a reasonable chance most of the time, except in exception circumstances. It's just misused by DMs who are used to the 3e way ... which actually results in something worse than either.

Edit: now that I think about it, 3e didn't assume that you'd only ever face hard DCs either, although it seemed to be a common result. But defined DCs for everything definitely taught DMs and Players the bad habit of rolling for everything.

[quinron]

A lot of the problem is how the adventures are written and run, plus the limited expectations of players.

There's so much scope in D&D to have smart adventures where skills like History, Religion, Animal Handling etc could be made more prominent. But I think the trap/ambush/hiding/treasure-obsessed writers aren't trying hard enough. (Although I've not played enough of the recent new adventures to be sure).

A simple solution is small adjustments. For example, how about having a castle's traps be avoided if you know the History of the building? Or let players use Religion rather than Insight to determine certain motivations of a priest or local community? Or have an adventure be about returning a feisty unicorn to a princess, so that the Animal Handling player gets to test their skills (or just have easily-panicked pack ponies be a more common part of the adventurers' party)? If someone needs to disguise themselves as a member of the prieshood, someone with Religion skill should be better at it than someone from the outlands who just happens to have Deception skill.

The problem is that players aren't inclined to experiment with skills if they think Perception is ALWAYS the skill to spot traps and that Deception is ALWAYS the skill to do disguises etc. It's sad but I've virtually forgotten my gnome wizard has Animal Handling because it literally never comes up.

I like this a lot. To offer a counterargument to Tanarii, the keys to making this work would be to a) make it clear to the players when options like these arise, b) keep active checks active and passive checks passive (so an active History roll, for example, instead of a Perception roll to know the telltale signs of an old ruin's traps), and c) try to stop the "I'm going to roll for..." habit among players. A big part of what builds conceptions like "Perception is the god-skill" is that once a player knows what a specific skill can do, they tend to think that that skill is the only way they can accomplish anything of that nature.

[Pex]

No. 3e tried that, and it led to DMs calling for rolls for everything under the sun. Which is okay in that system, provided you only ever do things you're good at. IMO the 5e way is better, because the assumption is everyone can try everything that needs to be done in adventuring, and have a reasonable chance most of the time, except in exception circumstances. It's just misused by DMs who are used to the 3e way ... which actually results in something worse than either.

Edit: now that I think about it, 3e didn't assume that you'd only ever face hard DCs either, although it seemed to be a common result. But defined DCs for everything definitely taught DMs and Players the bad habit of rolling for everything.

Take 10 and Take 20 were a thing in 3E such that even if a roll was called for you didn't really have to, so you would autosucceed at a task anyway because the DCs were preset. The DM and players never had to worry if a roll was needed or not. 5E does have its own versions, but it's really just telling the DM no rolls are needed for tasks, but without guidelines what those no roll needed tasks are is up in the air to DM fiat, which gets us back to the original problem.

[Tanarii]

which gets us back to the original problem.

Edit: I'm not even making sense to myself any more. I'm more tired than I thought.

We've tread this ground before. I prefer the 5e way because it empowers the DM with better tools, which I think empowers players. You prefer the 3e way because it restricts DM choice, which you think empowers players. Different mind sets. (Also Please recast that from your point of view because I'm aware it's not fair to your position I just can't figure out right now the way you view our positions, only the way I do.)

[Vaz]

In what way does it give them better tools? It's "make it up lol".

[Creyzi4j]

.
A more complicated solution is to write adventures where under-used skills have bigger consequences when they ARE used. The challenge is that this requires the writers and DMs to invest more effort. It usually needs much more fleshing-out than the typical consequences of a Perception check (avoid an ambush, get treasure etc). It could mean a different direction in the adventure. This more rigorous approach is one I'm familair with because I GM/DM the less combat-focussed Trail of Cthulhu RPG.

This was how I tried to solve the issue on underused abilities in DnD Forgotten Realms. Stuff such as the following comes into account
1.) Every once in a while there are shrines which grants bonuses or penalties = and you needed a religion/arcana check to make proper yur prayers to get the blessing/bonus (for 1d2 days since religion is a bit underused)
2.) History check on lore about creatures to offer some sort of parley solution to a problem
3.) During big battles with preparations. Performance may provide an inspiration point (if you fail then you lose hp=since the cleric's way to boost inspiration was to flagellate himself = but I think this was pretty homebrew) (This is not the only for performace before battles tho' Bard's may have other options as well)
4.) Survival checks have minus 5 to 13 depending on the weather. And the party had to add up all their survival check bonuses in a single to two roll/s for travelling. Survival checks also had brackets in failure. For example a 5 on survival is more penalizing compared to a 10. 12 is the success.
5.) Probability of diseases/sickness would come out (so you may need somebody with high medicine roll to assess for symptoms). So you won't waste a spellslot in curing that dx (u can also use a medicine check to try to cure dx twice per day)

[Cybren]

Stealth checks are individually determined against each Passive Perception. That's explicit in the 'Hiding' sidebar.

If a DM want's to not use that rule, and instead replace it with a group check, that's up to him of course. But it's worth letting the players know in advance that they'll be making Stealth MUCH easier than intended by RAW.

Well, that's an example of one way to use the stealth skill, but not necessarily the only one. The DM could call for any kind of dexterity ability check that the situation could reasonably apply your stealth proficiency to. You know, the entire way the skill/ability check system was intended to be used

[Knaight]

In what way does it give them better tools? It's "make it up lol".

It lets the GM use their judgement for difficulty over the formula. Given how staggeringly stupid some of those formulas were (the +1 DC per +10 feet difficulty modifier in Spot being the single best example of really sloppy design), and given the load involved in memorization or frequent look up that inherently takes attention away from other GMing tasks. How much attention this takes depends on the GM, and how much the players care about rules predictability versus model fitting depends on the players.

As for it being "make it up lol", that's a questionable characterization. There's a system in place that requires a judgement call, but that's fundamentally different from actual design work. You're picking a number to plug into a system based on a set of guidelines, you're not building the system itself. Being willing to make judgement calls like this and making them well is a GM skill, but that's also true of handling a system with a bunch of defined numbers you need to know. For a lot of GMs, the judgement call system works better. For a lot of players, the judgement call system also works better because the rules predictability of systems with more specific definitions is less desirable than the better modeling of a competent GM taking into account the specifics of a situation and not the broad strokes that are intrinsic to a specific DC list per skill.

[Tanarii]

Well, that's an example of one way to use the stealth skill, but not necessarily the only one. The DM could call for any kind of dexterity ability check that the situation could reasonably apply your stealth proficiency to. You know, the entire way the skill/ability check system was intended to be used

Some uses of skills have specific sub-rules that lay out in more detail how they are supposed to work. Especially Hiding, Finding a Hidden object, Detecting Threats, Surprise, Search (combat action), Traps, Secret/Concealed Doors, Foraging, and Social Interaction.

And per the Hiding sidebar it is a roll for the creature trying to do it vs Passive Perception of creatures that can detect them.

Certainly I agree there are circumstances where it's worth applying a Group Check to Stealth checks. Even Passive check or automatic success. But that's not the default specific rule for either Hiding or Surprise.

In what way does it give them better tools? It's "make it up lol".

It's "make it up" with guidelines. Suggested DC range, specific rules for some kinds of checks, passive checks, opposed checks, group checks.

The 3e DCs take away DM flexibility and introduces weird edge cases. The 5e DCs add DM flexibility but introduces less certainty. I find the latter more immersive, both as a player and a DM.

OTOH I primarily DM, so it's hardly surprising I'd prefer the 5e method of setting DCs.

[Cybren]

Some uses of skills have specific sub-rules that lay out in more detail how they are supposed to work. Especially Hiding, Finding a Hidden object, Detecting Threats, Surprise, Search (combat action), Traps, Secret/Concealed Doors, Foraging, and Social Interaction.

And per the Hiding sidebar it is a roll for the creature trying to do it vs Passive Perception of creatures that can detect them.

Certainly I agree there are circumstances where it's worth applying a Group Check to Stealth checks. Even Passive check or automatic success. But that's not the default specific rule for either Hiding or Surprise.

Which was my only point, so, yeah.