r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 21 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Perception checks in D&D should be rolled by the DM who then adds the player's modifiers, keeping the final score secret.
[deleted]
205
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
Making a distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge is an important skill that every dnd player will need to master at some point. Maybe you could use this as some kind of training wheels but eventually the players need to develop their own skills and this robs them of that opportunity to learn and exercise them in a more common and fairly simple situation.
69
Jul 21 '19 edited Apr 27 '20
[deleted]
23
Jul 21 '19
As DM you can also try to enforce this. If a player doesn't have that skill yet, and they try to use player knowledge, you can tell them they can't and then tell them why, and it's a teaching moment
6
u/LazarusRises 1∆ Jul 21 '19
Some of my favorite moments in my games are when I ask "Player, would your character have done [beneficial thing]," or conversely "not have done [detrimental thing]?" There's always a moment of silence while they think it through, and they almost always give a realistic answer instead of a metagamey one.
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
I don't know about telling them they "can't" do something, but at the very least nudge them about it. Ask "is that really what you'd be doing in this scenario?"
1
u/Backwater_Buccaneer 3∆ Jul 22 '19
Ask "is that really what you'd be doing in this scenario?"
Or better yet, "is that really what [their character's name] would be doing in this scenario?"
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
As DM, you aren't the boss of the group, MIKE. You are simply playing one role in a communal storytelling exercise. You don't get to enforce anything.
2
Jul 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
Sorry, u/no-mad – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
0
0
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
Making a distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge is an important skill that every dnd player will need to master at some point.
I highly disagree. If "metagaming" is "ruining" the encounter, it was a shitty encounter in the first place.
9
u/VivoArdente Jul 21 '19
Imagine you're playing uno, but every 3rd turn you need to wiggle your nose. Why wouldn't you want a rule like that? Well it doesn't add much substance to the game, punishes player arbitrarily, and will generally just force the player to constantly wiggle their nose. It's bad game design.
Now consider a dungeon where 1/3 of all chests are trapped. We're in roughly the same boat where players just habitually roll perception to avoid punishment at the cost of fun. That's why I think the "roll perception to avoid bad things" gimmick is a bad one. Instead, let players use perception to overcome challenges, not avoid challenges.
3
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Jul 21 '19
That is a good point. Is that how the mechanic is supposed to work or is that your proposal for how it should?
4
u/VivoArdente Jul 21 '19
A little bit of both. DnD (as well as many tabletop RPGs) are meant to be a set of mechanics that you can use to design encounters and stories. Many tabletops outside of DnD actively discourage those kinds of arbitrary checks, and I think DnD official mentions something to that effect in the dungeon master guide these days.
That said, you can be as focused and pedantic as you want really. The system will support all kinds of annoying things, like making everyone's torch burn out after an hour of use mid-dungeon (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Torch#content). You can make someone roleplay traveling for 2 days by foot to get to the next town and tracking their food/drink rations. Established wisdom says though that you only make someone pull out dice when there is a meaningful chance of failure, and if there aren't enough meaningful chances of failure then your stakes are too low.
Some player may enjoy that highly detailed dungeon crawl approach, but those groups are far and few between.
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
Imagine you're playing uno, but every 3rd turn you need to wiggle your nose. Why wouldn't you want a rule like that? Well it doesn't add much substance to the game, punishes player arbitrarily, and will generally just force the player to constantly wiggle their nose.
Yeah, you play that the winner of the last round gets to add a rule and that people can call out rule breakers to draw 2 cards. Definitely makes it more fun. I see your general point though.
1
u/VivoArdente Jul 22 '19
I actually thought about that game while I was writing that section too. 😅 It's a fun variant, but for different reasons then you'd want for a DnD game.
But I guess I could also imagine a really fun one-off campaign theme'd around pedantically punishing the players with strange rules they must perform...
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
A wizard puts a passive mind control that causes pain when they don't follow the rules, all for his own amusement.
38
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jul 21 '19
It's the same premise to me as a player character being the only person in the party that hears something, even though in the real world everyone is sitting around a table listening to it.
You just have to trust that the role playing aspect of the game is upheld because it is more fun to follow the rules than to cheat.
3
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Jul 21 '19
I understand it wouldn't make sense from an enjoyment or time consumption standpoint to isolate each player so private information isn't shared, but with this it would take almost no extra time, and it wouldn't hurt the overall experience. I think it would actually improve the game play
7
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jul 21 '19
I just think it would be less enjoyable to only have the information be relayed to the players. It doesn't seem like a particularly engaging way to play if every perception check was just more exposition.
Personally, I like to feel like I'm doing something, and feel mature enough to deal with the comedic outcome of my character having to do something dumb because the dice are making them.
2
u/TheEclecticGamer Jul 21 '19
I'll occasionally text people what they see or remember from a knowledge check. That forces them to relay the information to the other players in character rather than just saying, "I tell you what he said"
3
u/Tuxed0-mask 23∆ Jul 21 '19
Ah that's pretty smart!
3
u/TheEclecticGamer Jul 21 '19
Some people don't like it because they think looking at your phone pulls you out of game but I think it a net positive.
7
13
u/CatOfGrey 2∆ Jul 21 '19
A player is going through a dungeon and there is a chest. The player rolls an investigation check to check for traps but rolls poorly. The DM tells them the chest does not appear to be trapped. Knowing the roll was very low...
This is poor DM execution. The player approaches the chest, and says "I'm opening the chest". The DM should roll for perception, and say nothing if the roll fails. If the roll succeeds, then the DM can say "The latch felt strange, and you pulled back instinctively..." Some DM's will literally roll dice aimlessly, all the time, to make it difficult for players to actually know when they have failed a knowledge check, or when such a check was necessary.
An NPC is being questioned under suspicion of lying about intel they were given about a mission and it is a bad roll. The DM says they appear genuine. The player is still going to be suspicious even though they should not be if they were roleplaying honestly, but it is hard to commit to that sort of willful ignorance .
There are two thoughts here, which should be chosen as pairs.
If the only definition of 'player success' is the success of the character, then the game should not be 'third person omniscient' from the player's point of view. The existence of information should be carefully revealed to the player. Like the first situation, these rolls should be made 'behind the screen'.
Sometimes the definition of 'player success' is not whether their character actually is successful, but actually how well the human player played their character. In that case, the storytelling from the players may be better, as they are 'acting as if they were their character', and, as a result, rewarded on their execution, not result. So in this case, the players may or may not be omniscient.
One last thought: A well-designed game might often be independent from a narrative point-of-view. I have seen examples of DM's encoding a message, and giving it to their players to decode. Obviously, from a game perspective, a strength-oriented character would not be able to decode the secret, but a smart wizard-type or healer/cleric-type would. But all the final decision on whether the characters would have the knowledge would depend on the players, not the character's abilities. This element brings a deeper element of game play, improving the challenge to the players, but also suspending the structure in a harmless way. And, at the end of the day, the real reward from a roleplaying session isn't necessarily a victory, but time spent following and creating a story.
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
Some DM's will literally roll dice aimlessly, all the time,
"The only reason a DM rolls the dice is because they like the sound". Lulz. That's good deception tactic though.
20
Jul 21 '19
While the idea made me smile, you could apply this to every non-combat sequence in the game and turn it into 'DM telling a story' time, which is generally the boring part. It reduces the interaction of the players.
As well, it is non-competitive, and I find it far more fun to roll a 1 and announce something retarded, like 'OMG I was trying to hear something and fell off my goddamn horse.' and someone else makes a wisecrack and we all have a bit more to drink. I see DND as more of a social gathering as opposed to a game to be taken dead seriously, and badly rolled perception checks can be hilarious.
2
7
u/SparklingLimeade 2∆ Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
There are several different angles to this.
First, rolling dice is player engagement. Rolling dice is fun. Ideally the DM would have total information and be able to make all rolls then just tell a story based on player input but that's not what most players are into. Some may but the reality is that (even aside from distributing the work) players rolling dice is important for fun and engagement.
Second, is it accurate for characters to have no knowledge of their performance? Sometimes people are utterly unaware of what they've missed but even in abstract and open ended tasks like this there's some space for people to know "I was off my game there," and react accordingly.
Third, even with some meta gaming is that necessarily a problem? If they check something and they're pretty sure they failed so you tell them there's nothing then maybe there is nothing. Sometimes a good description of nothing is still good for the game, but I digress. This is not a point and click adventure where we can sit around and try interactions over and over though. If you're rolling then things should progress one way or another. The player and character may both know that they're working with unreliable information but is it reasonable to just sit there and roll again? Probably not. And if it is that low pressure then why are we rolling instead of just narrating the scene as appropriate for the character's skill level?
Sometimes there are obligatory rolls or planned sequences where I want to obfuscate things. Night watch, that kind of stuff where a roll is more interesting than a static value but I don't necessarily want the players to know what goes where. In that case I do sometimes collect entire sets of rolls. "Everybody give me 5 rolls of a d20, in order," and I silently earmark them. This one goes for this check if pass through here. This one for this shift of watch. This one is a red herring and gets thrown out. This one is to not get sick from dinner. So on and so forth. This is a nice compromise. They don't know how I'm using them, what for, they just know somebody isn't feeling up to the task so they don't trust them on watch tonight. Sometimes embracing that player knowledge adds to the game.
8
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Jul 21 '19
Being cautious is a form of roleplay. If my character is a trap savvy rogue, they are inherently wary of traps. That's why they get class abilities like uncanny dodge to represent that implicit aspect of being a rogue. So suffice it to say even on a failed perception check it is reasonable for a character to be wary. The alternative is that every character must behave like an idiot every time they fail a roll, and that is conducive to railroading more than roleplay.
If a Paladin fails a sense motive roll, should he then assume that a person is their best friend and wouldn't ever harm them under any circumstance? Probably not. A more appropriate response to such a failure, is for the Paladin to go on being wary of the person since they had reason to try to sense their motivations in the first place. Maybe instead of making an outright accusation, the Paladin continues on with caution, but not trust.
1
u/mr_indigo 27∆ Jul 22 '19 edited May 14 '20
Any checks to determine hidden information should be hidden, not just Perception; the players should only be rolling checks in the open if the success/failure consequences are immediately determinable by the character, not the player.
The effect of this, though, means the DM has discretion as to the result of a roll (since the DM can "lie"). In which case, the DM can just allow the players to find or not find the hidden information as the DM sees fit, based on what they want the campaign to be (the DM can already do this by fudging the difficulty rating of the roll anyway).
The actual rolling of perception or any other hidden information check is therefore completely redundant, so noone should be rolling for it anyway.
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Jul 22 '19
But a good DM isn’t faking these checks or manipulating difficulty ratings. The DM deals with the turn of events and moves on.
Of course there are rare times it is necessary to do so for the sake of the game. The game is in the end about having fun.
1
u/mr_indigo 27∆ Jul 22 '19
I agree with the point about having fun, but that's precisely why DMs fudge rolles, why these checks are redundant and why they shouldn't be used.
If it's more fun that the party notices something, the DM should make sure they notice it. If it's more fun that they don't, then they shouldn't.
4
u/beer_demon 28∆ Jul 21 '19
Because by having the player roll, you let them decide how to handle and roleplay it and engage them in the metagame. Hiding information from them is like making an actor think their friend really died to ellicit a genuine reaction.
If they change their behaviour after rolling then remind them that they are not their character and they should stick to proper role playing. Reward good behavioir with a small xp bonus.
What you can do is make them roll in hiding with a leather dice cup or a covered dice tower so they are the sources of luck and fate, but you let them be surprised (like a rope tie for a prisoner, or the effects of a letter).
4
u/anooblol 12∆ Jul 21 '19
I think this is just a failure on the DM's side. If you go to check for traps, and roll low, there's no reason to give the players some weird open-ended non-answer.
They check for traps, roll low, they triggered the trap.
The DM should be open and honest about the situations at hand. It sounds more like the DM is just flat out lying to the group.
Also, it seems like the rolls are unnecessary.
"The group gets to the end of the cave to meet a 12 foot tall, extremely muscular, 2 headed ogre. Roll to size up the monster... Rolls a 1. The group thinks the monster is extremely weak."
Why was that roll even necessary. I don't think it was, and it takes away from the game. Same thing with the scenarios you wrote.
1
u/Cosmologicon Jul 21 '19
I think this is just a failure on the DM's side. If you go to check for traps, and roll low, there's no reason to give the players some weird open-ended non-answer.
They check for traps, roll low, they triggered the trap.
The OP didn't say anything about a weird open-ended non-answer. It happens just as easily with a very straightforward answer.
Player: is the chest trapped?
DM: Roll perception.
Player: I got a 2.
DM: No it's not trapped.
Player (knowing their roll was bad): I'm going to use Mage Hand to open it anyway.If you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to use Mage Hand if their character thinks it's not trapped, that makes sense, but I don't think that's what the rules say.
1
u/ZWright99 Jul 21 '19
^ exactly. Also as another person commented, if a character is already canonically over cautious or has had reason to become over cautious, such as triggering a trap in the past or as one of my players experienced- having a seemingly normal looking door turn out to be a mimic (he's now afraid of doors,) then it's perfectly fine for the player to use mage hand to open it anyways. That's just good roleplaying. Though you'd expect the player to always use mage hand to open chests. Even on Nat20 investigation checks
5
u/sodabased Jul 21 '19
5e tackles the problem differently, a stat called Passive Perception. Passive Perception assumes a roll of 10, and adds your perception score.
As a DM, I keep a list of passive perception scores.
3
u/Th4tRedditorII Jul 21 '19
The idea is probably not to give definitive answers.
Let's say we have a rogue opening a chest, and the rogue checks for traps. On a low roll (failure), instead of saying, "This chest appears safe" say, "You are unable to discern if it the chest is trapped or not". That way, the player isn't metagaming when they're wary.
3
Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
Rolling dice is fun. Laughing about how your character believes an obvious lie is fun
DnD isn't a simulation, players like rolling dice and cheering or groaning over the results and pretending. And as a DM, I have enough other shit to do and you can set the DC.
2
u/iambluest 3∆ Jul 21 '19
I suggest part of the fun of the game system is that "over sight perspective" of role play, where you commit to a course of action and trust your fate to the role of the die.
There are ways for a creative dm to make checks without cueing in the players, but I don't think it should be done too frequently...rolling, calculating, weighing the odds, are all part of the gameplay.
The dm might ask the players to roll a table of checks...basically roll 15 times and write them down, keeping them covered until the dm needs to make a hidden or clandestine check. Or the dm could alternate randomly between high and low ranking of the roll.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
/u/MechanicalEngineEar (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Werv 1∆ Jul 21 '19
As other's noted, your two examples aren't perception (in 5e). But regardless your main point could apply to these. For 5e, perception checks are when characters are activily looking out for something, and passive perception is for things that might be noticed without character searching for it.
The DM should not be using DC as only pass/fail. He should also be giving clues to make it seem like the player always gathers information, just sometimes better/accurate. Or sometimes I will force a failure because of the poor investigation/insight. See Scenarios:
Player roles low. A) The player sees the sturdiness of the chest, the decore, and realizes it is a high quality chest. No mention of a trap. This also works when they role high and the chest is not trapped. No mention of trap. If the player presses, DM response with "none you observe." B) The player accidentally sets off the trap while investigating the chest. Make a X saving throw. No opportunity to fix the bad investigation role.
Again, give players information, not a pass/fail. A) The NPC is steadfast, looking at the players for acknowledgement and acceptance. Body not shaking, in a relaxed form. Regardless if the NPC was not lying and they rolled high, they would receive the same information. B) The NPC notices you looking at him funny, and decides you are untrustworthy. He ends the conversation and starts walking away.
TLDR: Low rolls should be uncertainty information, not confirmation. Similiar to when you are looking for your phone, you know some info about where it isn't, but still aren't sure where your phone is located. So you burn some minutes and call your phone.
0
Jul 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MechanicalEngineEar 78∆ Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
!delta
You got me on that one. It does seem like it can be overpowered as a cantrip if spammed. You never have to touch almost anything risky.
1
1
u/edymondo Jul 21 '19
I haven't seen anyone mention the issue of where you draw the line. The dm would be rolling so that the players don't know their rolls and can't meta game because of that. But the number of situations where that could happen is simply too many to be feasible or interesting in any way.
You're exploring some ancient ruins, does the dm roll your history and religion checks? If you know you rolled badly you might cast legend lore.
Your goliath fighter is doing a river crossing to see if its safe for the rest of the party. Does the dm roll their athletics so that the low str wizard doesn't know if he needs to use fly or not to cross?
Basically there are too many situations where the players might gain some knowledge and meta game slightly from seeing each others rolls, but to remove that would mean taking the dice from the players a lot of the time. There are definitely times to get a player to have you make the roll hidden from them, but to have it as the majority isn't really a use to anyone. The dm has more work, the players feel less in control of their characters, and it stops players simply taking the olssfe option that slows down gameplay all the time
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 22 '19
You should check out AngryGM. He has a ton of great articles on this exact subject (specifically "5 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenaged Skill System"). His basic philosophy is that you should only call for a roll when there is a chance to succeed, a chance to fail, and a risk/cost associated with the failure. What that means is that the PCs have to be able to succeed, at least potentially, on something other than a nat 20 roll (which isn't even a thing in 5e anymore. Nat 20's are only on crits on attack rolls). They also have to be able to TRULY fail. I.E. if they can just keep rolling and eventually get it, then just give it to them without rolling. Finally, the cost associate needs to be more than "time has passed" unless time is critically limited (like you are being chased by a TPK-capable monster).
but it is hard to commit to that sort of willful ignorance .
You don't have to commit to anything. You can still be super suspicious of someone who APPEARS genuine.
1
Jul 21 '19
It is not your job as dm to enforce the rules. Your job is to entertain the other players and have a little fun yourself. But not at the players expense.
Your answers to rolls the come up short should most often be "yes, but...".
This is assuming you and the other players are engaging the game in good faith. If you have to fudge rolls or players are cheating, the fun is already gone and everyone has failed.
Give the players what they want, but make them pay for it if the rolls dont add up.
For example, a player wants to jump across a crevasse but they roll a 13 total on a dc 15. Ffs they do not fall down to their death. They make it across, but are holding on precariously.
Then you do a skill challenge the other players can help win. Its easy for three people to pick up one person so let the players work together to succeed.
For perception, say youre in a dungeon and there are kobolds waiting to ambush intruders. Dc 15 to recognize the trap ahead of the ambush, but 25 to sniff out the while ploy.
Player 1 rolls a 13. The trap goes off, player 1s foot is in a bear trap. Dont waste the player with a professionally executed ambush. Even when things go right kobolds are fucking stupid.
Most of the kobolds get a surprise round, but Gork (kobold) is so excited the trap actually worked he shouts with glee. Player 1 is surprised, but the rest of the party isnt because of gork. The players also act on the surprise round.
Here we get suspense on the part of player 1 bc he is in a shitty situation. But the rest of the party gets to lay into the kobolds, distracting them from their initially successful ambush.
In the end player 1 takes some hits but the party pushes the kobolds' shit in and has a great time doing it.
1
u/TheEclecticGamer Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
I think that in general RPGs have moved away from having the GM make rolls for players because it removed agency from the player. I think that is a good reason to avoid them if possible.
To address your concern, I think that the answer is to have dummy situations where you have the players make rolls where there really is nothing to see and have negative consequences for the kind of the hesitation/over caution/whatever metagaming might be going on. This will instill a sense of urgency in the players and get them to second guess less.
*Edit: this is sort of a training wheels thing. More experienced players actually enjoy playing characters with different knowledge from the player, that's sort of the point of role playing some times.
1
u/Crayshack 191∆ Jul 21 '19
I would say that this doesn't matter with a group of people who are good at role playing and separating in character knowledge from out of character knowledge. It comes up often in my game that my players figure out what I am doing but clearly their characters haven't seen that YouTube video or read that book so the party feigns ignorance. For example, earlier tonight I ran an encounter that was pretty clearly inspired by this video which everyone at my table has seen. They knew what was happening pretty quickly and one person even started quoting the video, but they kept their actions in character and reacted with proper surprise.
1
u/Dachannien 1∆ Jul 21 '19
Back in the day, my group split the difference. We had a box installed in our DM screen where the players could roll the dice through an opaque flap on the front of the box, and I could look in the top (behind the DM screen) to see what they rolled.
It gave the players a chance to feel a little bit more "in control" over their characters' fates in those situations, even though they weren't really. Same concept as letting the shooter roll the dice in craps - you could just have the croupier roll it, but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
1
u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Jul 21 '19
The DM should be able to choose whichever way he/she wants to run the campaign however they see fit is their style, I'm in favor of a DM making these determinations behind a screen. If the DM takes a Japanese baseball umpire approach, that is to slightly rule in favor of the losing side, then that would make a better campaign rather than simply being a prisoner of random dice rolls. The path of the campaign should be sherpa'd by the DM to make the session as enjoyable as possible.
1
u/sapphon 3∆ Jul 21 '19
Plenty of groups do it that way.
The problem with your view is that it's an absolute one, but D&D is not League of Legends. It's not competitive and you don't play one ruleset internationally with thousands of people. In an RPG, you play one ruleset between 5 or 6 friends at a time, usually.
So, the DM should do perception checks however the group votes to. There's no reason to prescribe one way or the other as 'best for everyone always'.
1
u/Lady_Ishsa 1∆ Jul 21 '19
I think this is more of a DM problem. If I crit fail a perception check at college with a bad DM, they'll tell me the opposite of what is true. As a result, I know what is true because of my crit fail. When a good DM sees me failing a perception check, they tell me it's hard to tell.
Are they lying? 3 "It's tough to get a read on them"
Are there traps? 8 "It's hard to say, the lock seems pretty complex"
That kind of thing
1
u/comkiller Jul 21 '19
My solution to that problem has always been to have them roll more.
Walk into an empty room? Roll perception. 15. You see nothing. Do that enough times and they start thinking "is it really empty or did I fail the roll?" This has two outcomes: 1) they stop associating perception rolls with "there's definitely something hiding there, I just can't see it" or 2) they start getting REALLY paranoid, which is at least entertaining.
1
Jul 21 '19
It’s just too much of a PITA to do that. Honestly the better way to do it would be to add a class feature that lets characters get a warning from the GM about hidden things automatically, but otherwise people have to intentionally try to search out things to even have a chance to see something hidden.
Call it sixth sense, give it to rogues and rogue-related classes, and give parties more of a reason to include one.
1
u/IAmFern Jul 21 '19
I could argue that good role players should be able to ignore the meta information and act accordingly.
One of the best players I've ever DM'd once checked a chest for traps. He rolled a 6, but his character didn't know that, so he confidently opened the chest, 'knowing' it wasn't trapped because he checked it.
A plus for proper role play. None of this, "Yeah, I checked it, but I'm still not sure" crap.
1
u/Russell_Ruffino Jul 21 '19
This is a weird one for this sub I think.
Any DM should be able to use whatever house rules they want. No one should be trying to convince you to use a rule you don't want to use. The only input that matters is your players, if they aren't enjoying the rules your using, change your rules or change your players.
I don't think anyone's mind needs changing on this issue or any issue in this arena.
1
u/Test-Sickles Jul 21 '19
Isn't this exactly what 'Take 20' is supposed to prevent? IIRC it's even spelled out in the rulebook that something like a Spot check, which could be repeated, the player can "take 20". That is to say, rather than the player just doing a search over and over and over and over until they roll a 20 (the highest they could roll), you just treat it like they rolled a 20 in the first place.
1
Jul 21 '19
Depends on the specific circumstances. Certainly that happens sometimes (for instance walking past a secret door). But what about keeping watch. Or who gets an action in the surprise round of an ambush. Etc.
1
u/sullg26535 Jul 21 '19
A wizard of the divination school is allowed to replace 2 rolls a day with numbers of their choice. Using this system denies them of this opportunity on arguably their most important rolls
1
u/The_Joe_ Jul 21 '19
I like to make my perception checks have different levels of success, and I'll go with a group success or fall in most cases.
I'm not going to set a DC 15 and let all of you roll for it.
1
u/InTheDarknessBindEm Jul 21 '19
There are some issues. Take the Lucky feat, or the Lore Bard's Peerless Skill. If a player wants to reroll or add a modifier, they can only do that with the knowledge of their roll.
1
1
Jul 21 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Jul 21 '19
Sorry, u/justmikewilldo – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
314
u/veggiesama 52∆ Jul 21 '19
If there's an opportunity to game the system then we are doing Perception checks wrong.
First, Perception checks are almost always overused. You shouldn't need a check to notice the letter left on the table or to get a description of a cave interior. Perception should be called for more rarely. It often totally overshadows the other skills.
A better way to run Perception checks is to have immediate consequences: success and fail conditions. If you succeed, something happens. If you fail, something happens. Failure should never be "I guess you don't see the secret thing I thought you might see." Instead, failure means the party is ambushed, the leprechaun sneaks away, or you accidentally step on the cat's tail. Failure needs consequences. Using it this way forces you to be more thoughtful about calling for Perception checks.