Show
I've noticed something unusual about Perception. If you don't have it, you get screwed a lot. If you do have it...it doesn't do as much as you'd think.
Both DM's and module writers seem to only have a passing familiarity with the rules governing Perception, or if they are familiar with them, they find the concept of "passive perception" to be 'cheap'. I often hear complaints "using traps is pointless because the Ranger just sees them, that's bs!".
I'm heavily active in my local LFR and Encounters programs, and I've encountered the following situations:
-being surprised because of a failed Skill Challenge, regardless of Passive Perception. (Too numerous to list). -being surprised because "no one said they were making a Perception check", regardless of Passive Perception. (Session 6, D&D Encounters: Beyond the Crystal Cave).
-being unable to spot a trap because "you weren't adjacent to it" (rules for Passive Perception state you notice anything within your line of sight). (LFR mod encounter involving a Kobold trapmaster).
-encounters starting with enemies suddenly coming around a corner, or leaving an area of cover/concealment, without even making Stealth checks. (too numerous to list, this is my least favorite encounter type- it always starts with the DM asking players "what are you doing?", often after rolling initiative, so that high Initiative characters often get screwed out of their first action).
-Lurkers simply becoming "hidden", without having to make a Stealth check. (Session 6, D&D Encounters: The Lost Crown of Neverwinter).
And that's not even including such shenanigans as your DM simply setting the DC to notice traps as just beyond your Passive Perception rating...you know, so they're a "challenge". So, while on paper, the idea of boosting Perception may sound awesome, the sad truth is that in actual play, it's going to do less than you might think.
I've noticed something unusual about Perception. If you don't have it, you get screwed a lot. If you do have it...it doesn't do as much as you'd think.
Both DM's and module writers seem to only have a passing familiarity with the rules governing Perception, or if they are familiar with them, they find the concept of "passive perception" to be 'cheap'. I often hear complaints "using traps is pointless because the Ranger just sees them, that's bs!".
I'm heavily active in my local LFR and Encounters programs, and I've encountered the following situations:
-being surprised because of a failed Skill Challenge, regardless of Passive Perception. (Too numerous to list). -being surprised because "no one said they were making a Perception check", regardless of Passive Perception. (Session 6, D&D Encounters: Beyond the Crystal Cave).
-being unable to spot a trap because "you weren't adjacent to it" (rules for Passive Perception state you notice anything within your line of sight). (LFR mod encounter involving a Kobold trapmaster).
-encounters starting with enemies suddenly coming around a corner, or leaving an area of cover/concealment, without even making Stealth checks. (too numerous to list, this is my least favorite encounter type- it always starts with the DM asking players "what are you doing?", often after rolling initiative, so that high Initiative characters often get screwed out of their first action).
-Lurkers simply becoming "hidden", without having to make a Stealth check. (Session 6, D&D Encounters: The Lost Crown of Neverwinter).
And that's not even including such shenanigans as your DM simply setting the DC to notice traps as just beyond your Passive Perception rating...you know, so they're a "challenge". So, while on paper, the idea of boosting Perception may sound awesome, the sad truth is that in actual play, it's going to do less than you might think.
On the other hand...
> because "no one said they were making a Perception check",
I don't know whether that's part of the adventure text (I hope not) or the DM foisting an outdated "guess what I'm thinking?" play style on you, but that should not happen in 4E.
> encounters starting with enemies suddenly coming around a corner, or leaving an area of
> cover/concealment, without even making Stealth checks.
This *could* be a case of 'compare passives' for speed of play, although it probably won't be in every case...
> it always starts with the DM asking players "what are you doing?", often after rolling initiative, so
> that high Initiative characters often get screwed out of their first action
...but a DM who pulls this needs to meet the business end of a hammergun.
> your DM simply setting the DC to notice traps as just beyond your Passive Perception rating...
> you know, so they're a "challenge".
This one comes up on the forums rather frequently. Unfortunately, some DMs have a hard time leaving, "The PCs WILL blindly blunder into this because the script calls for it!" plot logic in the dustbin where it belongs.
Try building a balanced character instead of a optimized monstrosity and see if you AND your DM have more fun playing the game! You might be suprised.
Every single LFR module empowers DMs to make better decisions based on the group and what's fun for everybody.
Further, having a good Passive Perception doesn't mean you're always going to notice everything always. Having an optimized one will, but it will throw things out of whack for the rest of the group.
I suggest talking to your DM(s). If it's a regular game situation, you should talk to them about your concerns. I have found far too many DMs who just don't understand how Passives work in 4e, and seem unable to grasp that you don't always have to roll.
What's a Player to Do?
Try building a balanced character instead of a optimized monstrosity and see if you AND your DM have more fun playing the game! You might be suprised.
Um...what part of my post implied in any way that I'm playing a 'optimized monstrosity', exactly? Point of fact, I think of all my 4e characters, all of two of them have Perception even trained. If, by 'optimized monstrosity', you mean an Elf Seeker with Perception trained and a Headband of Perception that grants a +1 to Perception checks that I got from D&D Encounters, then you and I have different definitions of 'optimized monstrosity'.
Some of what you mention about traps sounds like DMs with a limited idea of what a trap can be. They're stuck on the idea of hidden "gotcha" traps, which - pretty much for this very reason - are a bad idea. Many if not most traps in the DMGs are perfectly effective even if they're spotted, as long as they're incorporated with a larger encounter. It doesn't matter if you know the pressure plate is there and what it does if you can be pushed into it, or a minion can trigger it.
Being surprised due to a failed skill challenge, and regardless of your Perception score, is totally legitimate.
Some lurkers might have abilities that allow them to become hidden without Stealth checks. I'm not sure. If it has a power that lets it do that, then it can. Specific beats general.
The Perception rules are not the laws of physics. They don't dictate in their entirely what you can and can't see. They are general rules and, as just mentioned, specific beats general. If the DM wants you to bump into an encounter, you will. If he wants you to be ambushed, you will be. It's not appropriate for the DM's ideas for encounters to be straitjacketed by the skill rules. Now, it's also not appropriate for him to negate skills in every case, but on occasion it's fine and it's the DM's perogative.
You say that if you don't have Perception you "get screwed a lot." Well, there's a term for that phenomenon. It's called "being on an adventure." You mention DMs who want there to be challenge, and arrange their DCs to guarantee it. That's not an elegant approach, but it's one way for them to do their job of providing you with a game that's something other than a foregone conclusion. Don't sit down expecting that you and your party have the game solved. That's not a useful approach, because of that aforementioned perogative of the DM. Do your best, sure, have some wins, but you will not win every time.
So, if you find there's not much percentage in boosting Perception, don't, and recommend that others don't either. Spend your training on other, more interesting skills. Once the DM sees that he doesn't have to resort to tricks to make things interesting, he'll stop. You'll get screwed probably just about as often, and no one will have any wasted skills.
(Part of the problem with the skill, I think, is the way being observant is treated in society. Sherlock Holmes catches everything, right, and he belittles people who miss details. We berate people who miss the obvious. We bring this into the game world. If a character misses something we think should be obvious (especially to the character's high Perception) I've often seen the character treated as bumbling, instead of someone who was making a fine effort, but got jumped.)
The problem I'm encountering is that Perception is always treated as pass/fail. I'd be quite happy if there were degrees of Perception in a game I was playing- I don't need to know everything, but I'd like to know that if my character has a strong Perception score, that it's doing something for me. In other words, I'd like to feel that there is a difference between a character with a good Perception and one with a bad Perception.
Now see, I don't expect Perception to always work- there are going to be times when you're distracted or whatnot. Vision is our least reliable sense, as the eye is easily fooled. And as Sherlock Holmes points out, most people see things around them...but they fail to observe the things that they see.
The problem I'm encountering is that Perception is always treated as pass/fail. I'd be quite happy if there were degrees of Perception in a game I was playing- I don't need to know everything, but I'd like to know that if my character has a strong Perception score, that it's doing something for me. In other words, I'd like to feel that there is a difference between a character with a good Perception and one with a bad Perception.
There should be degrees of Perception, or any skill check for that matter. Easy/Medium/Hard DC. I use the same variance for checks; those who succeed at the hard DC percieve the most information. Those who succeed at the easy DC percieve less.
/me shrugs @'s
The problem I'm encountering is that Perception is always treated as pass/fail. I'd be quite happy if there were degrees of Perception in a game I was playing- I don't need to know everything, but I'd like to know that if my character has a strong Perception score, that it's doing something for me. In other words, I'd like to feel that there is a difference between a character with a good Perception and one with a bad Perception.
I don't follow your last line. There's a clear difference there, seems to me, at least in general. In certain specific situations it might not matter who has what Perception, but that's ok too.
Skills in D&D are generally pass/fail, with some odd exceptions. It's a simply skill system and by and large it works. A system that regularly takes account of the amount by which you pass or fail CAN work, but that's not what D&D goes for. Maybe in future editions.
That says, there's precedence for Perception checks not giving out everything. In Dungeon Delve there's an encounter in which the Perception check will let you know that there's a shadowy figure hiding behind some pillars, but not what kind of creature it is. So, even though I prefer just to avoid situations in which it matters whether or not the PCs sees what's coming, it's apparently acceptable for the DM to keep some surprises in reserve even if the Perception check was good.
But on a Perception check, if the DM has detailed things sufficiently richly there could be things you spot only if you make the Hard threshhold and others that you'll notice on the Easy threshhold. On the other hand, maybe the DM hasn't put in that much detail. You notice the irregularity in the pattern of the brickwork, or you don't.
One thing I would suggest is for the DM to ask for the perception checks *before* describing the scene, and not give any indication if they have succeeded or not. Just alter the description of the scene as needed to include what was spotted and exclude what wasn't.
I don't follow your last line. There's a clear difference there, seems to me, at least in general. In certain specific situations it might not matter who has what Perception, but that's ok too.
Skills in D&D are generally pass/fail, with some odd exceptions. It's a simply skill system and by and large it works. A system that regularly takes account of the amount by which you pass or fail CAN work, but that's not what D&D goes for. Maybe in future editions.
Actually, I do more than just simple pass/fail in my games. I use . . .
There should be degrees of Perception, or any skill check for that matter. Easy/Medium/Hard DC. I use the same variance for checks; those who succeed at the hard DC percieve the most information. Those who succeed at the easy DC percieve less.
this method. Easy check is perceiving the obvious, Medium is perceiving things you might have to search for, and Hard is things that you really probably shouldn't have been able to notice. Failing below the easy check, either by check or by passive check is essentially the result of "nope, nothing".
I use the easy/medium/hard for each skill though. It takes marginally more work, but it really feels like a good system of resolution that rewards you the more you have.
Anything simple that must happen in order for the story to progress, generally ought to just happen. Without a roll. Unless the DM is going to make some use of a failure to put you on a slightly different path, and the thing that must happen will instead happen a bit later. Similarly, getting suitable treasure/rewards for succeeding in a challenge should not be dependent on a roll; but precisely what those rewards are could vary (and in that case the different rewards really ought to make an interesting difference).
Conversely, anything that must NOT happen, can't be made to happen with a lucky roll.
And a trap by itself is not interesting. Even if it hits someone it doesn't do much damage and imposes only a short delay. A trap in the middle of a combat encounter is better. Then it doesn't need to be hard to spot - the monsters can push you into it. Or you can push them into it.
the idea of boosting Perception may sound awesome, the sad truth is that in actual play, it's going to do less than you might think.
This is where I believed you were talking about going nuts with Perception, and my comment was more generally directed at people who like to make their passive perception so high as to negate any possibility of being surprised by anything. Some people here have posted a fondness for just that type of play. DMs put traps and ambushes in adventures because they are often important to the story, not to screw players (although just like everything else, there are bad DMs out there who do). Boosting Perception to the point of negating those surprises makes the game less fun for the DM and a lot of players IME forget that the game is supposed to be fun for the DM too. My advice to my players and any players who are willing to listen is to not be so disgustingly good at anything that it limits the DMs ability to challenge the characters. It is often more fun for eveyone that way. In my group a lot of the great experiences we still talk about from as far back as 30 years ago are often the result of being ambushed or springing a trap. How often do we have nostalgic discussion about the 20th time the wizard spotted an ambush and the party was prepared for it? Um...never.
> the story,
If the story relies on "the characters WILL blunder into this" plot logic then it's already in trouble.
"These creatures will try to ambush the party," on the other hand, does not assume that they will succeed in doing so, and their failure to do so will also be worked in as an engaging part of the story.
> How often do we have nostalgic discussion about the 20th time the wizard
> spotted an ambush and the party was prepared for it?
"How often do we have a nostalgic discussion about how the party turned the tables on its would-be ambushers," you mean? Quite often, in my experience - certainly more often than the "Wasn't it great when we were automatically ambushed because the story demanded it?" discussions.
The time that Perception shined was when the druid could count Shadows lurking in the shadows to ambush our group. We were able to plan our path based on how many Shadows were in the way, compared to how many we could handle. I tried not to make the unPerceptive characters feel foolish, but I could have called myself "Radar O'Reilly" if I had wanted to be a pain in the -censored-
I may have to write up a card to give to DMs: My character has high Perception but my player does not. Please tell us both when there is something interesting to see.
Some of it is how you and the DM handle things; if you want to gloat or the DM wants to play 'gotcha' then things will go badly.
Try this: talk with your DM out-of-game. Explain that you are trying to build up Perception so you can see things coming. Ask him to check his work so your group can benefit from your labors. (I like the easy/medium/hard suggestion above.) This can make his game different since he doesn't have to create ambushes; he can just use DM fiat once in a while. Understand that some things - like lions - make a living by sneaking up on their prey and won't be seen until the last minute. Only when facing a situation where you are drawn into a trap the BBEG pre-planned for your personal destruction should the group be caught completely flat-footed.
If the story relies on "the characters WILL blunder into this" plot logic then it's already in trouble. "These creatures will try to ambush the party," on the other hand, does not assume that they will succeed in doing so, and their failure to do so will also be worked in as an engaging part of the story.
We are talking about two different things here. The logic of my stories never requires that something occur, but my fun is often derived from not knowing what will happen and seeing how the players deal with it. Being unable to surprise the characters is just as bad as not letting characters avoid springing a trap. This game is a two way street, and players often forget that IME. If I can't surprise the characters it unfairly takes one of the tools out of my toolbox.
How often do we have a nostalgic discussion about how the party turned the tables on its would-be ambushers," you mean? Quite often, in my experience - certainly more often than the "Wasn't it great when we were automatically ambushed because the story demanded it?" discussions.
I've seen this too, but you missed the most important part of the sentence you quoted. That would be "the 20th time." If the characters routinely, as in always, surprise the ambushers it becomes boring really fast. Sure they might have a lot of fun with it the first time (as would I), but eventually if I continued to throw ambush situations at them in the hope they would be surprised, it will be non-memorable. All I ask for from my players is the chance to challenge them. If fate conspires against that, well that is one thing. If the players conspire against that, then I have a problem with my fun being limited in the same way I would be limiting the players' fun if I ignored their perception scores altogether and just hand waved surprise.
I'm not saying you should do this ALL the time, but every once in a while it could work.
Success on a perception check doesn't always mean they spot the trap ahead of time. Maybe they just spoted it before it was sprung
For example, say the characters are going through a narrow chasm. A great perception check might let them know they are being surounded, or that they heard a suspicious rustle or whistle.
That doesn't mean they know where everything is, or that they aren't yet surrounded. Maybe they just don't get surprised, or maybe even get a surprise round to counteratack. Or set their own trap, w/e.
Point being, the absurdly good check still did something, but it wasn't a guaranteed "escape teh danger" like people tend to think it is.
I think you can still "trap" your players with legit situations, even if their perception is stupidly high.
I'm not saying you should do this ALL the time, but every once in a while it could work.
Success on a perception check doesn't always mean they spot the trap ahead of time. Maybe they just spoted it before it was sprung
For example, say the characters are going through a narrow chasm. A great perception check might let them know they are being surounded, or that they heard a suspicious rustle or whistle.
That doesn't mean they know where everything is, or that they aren't yet surrounded. Maybe they just don't get surprised, or maybe even get a surprise round to counteratack. Or set their own trap, w/e.
Point being, the absurdly good check still did something, but it wasn't a guaranteed "escape teh danger" like people tend to think it is.
I like this and I agree with it. Even if all Perception did during a particular encounter was keep you from being surprised during the ambush I think everything would still be on the level. Not that it can't do other things during other encounters, but it definitely shouldn't "solve" every surprise or ambush situation on its own or automatically.