Is Perception a skill tax?

So now that class skill really just means "+3 bonus", unlike in the bad old days where things like Spot and Listen were capped at half your level (and required separate ranks), it seems that EVERY GUIDE recommends putting 1 rank/level in Perception.

If you fail a Perception check, you can end up not getting to act in the surprise round, which means losing an action. Losing an action is the Pathfinder equivalent of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: it will not be forgiven, in this life or the next.

On the flipside, succeeding on a Perception check sometimes makes the difference between getting surprised and getting to set the encounter on your own terms, where it's the enemy that loses an action.

And since the PFRPG doesn't do Epic Level Handbook nonsense, the result of the d20 is always relevant: there is every possibility that in a 4 or 5 man party, the wizard/fighter/whatever with Wis 10 and no modifiers other than their ranks could save everyone's asses if the druid/ranger/inquisitor blows their roll, provided they invests 1 rank/level in the skill. (And thus, if a party is ambushed, the players can rightfully say to the wizard that not investing in Perception puts the party at additional risk).
For Int-based classes like wizard, arcanist, psychic, and occultist, taking Perception isn't that big of a sacrifice,and it's also less of an issue if your race grants extra skill points, so sorcerers and oracles (who are pretty much all humans for that favored class bonus) are also generally fine.

The folks who get screwed are fighters, bloodragers, and cavaliers, and to a lesser extent mediums, spiritualists, druids, and some clerics (nonhuman clerics without an Int bonus basically ALL have Knowledge [religion] and Spellcraft as their skill selections).

For bloodragers, and especially fighters, they get too few skill points. Fighters getting too few skills is not a newsflash to anybody. Bloodragers need Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) to qualify for some of the better feats, so they really only get one free point each level, which usually goes to Acrobatics.

So is Perception a skill tax? I understand that the skill system is a useful simplification whose benefits (streamlining gameplay) vastly outweigh its flaws (occasional unrealistic or unclear results), but receiving and subconsciously processing sensory input is literally the reason creatures have brains at all!

I'm fine with individuals with higher Wisdom scores, particular racial traits, or training in a particular class like rogue, ranger, barbarian, druid, etc. being flat-out better at perceiving things than a Wis 10 commoner of equal level. I'm fine with individuals of a higher level being flat-out better at perceiving things than they were at lower levels, for the same reason I'm okay with 10th-level characters being able to casually break Olympic records. What I'm not fine with is the fact that not maxing out your ranks in Perception is a crime against the party for which some classes are punished more harshly than others.

Yes.

Except for GMPCs.

This comes up every once in a while. Sometimes I will play characters where I intentionally keep perception low as a characterization thing to show that they're largely unaware (clouded sight or powerless prophecy oracles are good for this.)

To be honest though, I've never taken anything on a bloodrager that needed either spellcraft or knowledge (arcana) as a prerequisite.

Not for every character, no. I don't see losing that first (partial) action due to surprise a huge problem either since, thanks to the range of the d20, it's quite possible to not get the first action anyway due to unlucky results on the initiative roll.

The way adventures are constructed, having someone in the party well-versed in perception is probably a must simply to deal with traps, secret doors, and other hidden goodies. But that applies to other skills as well, none of which absolutely need investment from every PC.

I only put ranks in Perception if it is a class skill, with the exception of one time I took a rank so my familiar could get the +3. Being good at the skill is great, but I've never had a character die because of not having a maxed out Perception skill. It plays a role in maybe 1/4 of the combats I can think of. Sometimes just in the first round, sometimes during against special enemies. Even then, those enemies are likely to have better Stealth bonuses than your Perception bonus. I suppose it can depend on how lethal your GM wants the campaign to be.

I vote no on being a skill tax. It helps any character, but not every character needs it.

If you group has a stealth/scout type character that goes ahead and spot enemies/traps, the surprise round is largely unnecessary.

The value of Perception is dependant on how much your GM is fan of "you are all suddenly surrounded by enemies, roll initiative".

You're correct in that Perception provides the ability to prevent being surprised, though it really only works if the character has a means to perceive, but it's more than that.

Perception lets you find treasure so you don't miss a magic item or MacGuffin lying around in a dungeon. Perception lets you find secret doors that may give you an advantage (or likewise result in the prior benefit). It can help find plot-advancing items like evidence, books, journals, secret compartments...the list goes on.

There's also the matter of spotting traps (so that you don't inadvertantly trigger them), and several other miscellaneous things, so that your character doesn't get killed or disabled or whatever the trap does to characters.

There are few other skills with as much game-impacting applications as Perception. The only thing(s) that may come to mind is UMD, and maybe Acrobatics, depending on the character and scale of the campaign. That isn't to say that there aren't other skills that impact the game (Knowledge skills for identifying Monster attributes, Spellcraft for identifying spells and crafting magic items), but Perception is perhaps the most game-impacting skill in the game due to what it all affects, and that everybody would find its game-impactingness desirable.

You call it a "Skill" Tax, but compare that to Combat Expertise, which most everyone unanimously considers a "Feat" Tax. The thing with Combat Expertise is simple; it sucks. Most anybody would not take the feat if they don't want to, simply because penalties to your to-hit to increase AC is not worth that ratio trade-off.

But, because a lot of the other feats that people want (and are worthwhile), yet list Combat Expertise as a pre-requisite, people are forced to pick Combat Expertise as a feat, even though if they had a choice, they'd just dump it entirely.

So as far as Perception being a Skill Tax? Not really. As far as its game-impactfulness becoming an expectation for all "strong" characters to possess, or otherwise become crappy and miss out on a lot of good stuff? Obviously.

However, it ultimately depends on if you view the term "Tax" as "Something I have to do, even though I don't want to," or "Something I should do because it's the best thing for me to do." To me, Perception falls under the latter case, whereas something like Combat Expertise (something which has predominantly been labeled a Tax) falls under the former.

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

And removed player agency as a determining factor.

Perception is not a 'TAX', it is a character development decision. Very few other abilities or feats use Perception as a prerequisite.

On the other hand, even the fight with 10 wisdom can be good at Perception. It's not like he lacks a couple of feats to invest in being good at it.

Skill focus: Perception
Additional Traits: Seeker

The fighter matches an 18 wisdom druid.
At 10th level, the fighter matches a 24 wisdom druid.

How is that a removal of player agency?

If the player wants to be bad at perceiving things there are ways to do that.

How is that a removal of player agency?

If the player wants to be bad at perceiving things there are ways to do that.

The player is no longer choosing to invest skills in Perception, i.e. to be good or bad at the skill.

The player still has the choice to be bad at it if that's what they want for their character.

They now simply no longer need invest resources into being good at it. Which makes a heck of a lot of sense to me, one usually doesn't survive long enough to level up under the pressure required to do so without becoming decent at perceiving hidden threats.

It's not necessarily a skill tax since you can always do without it so long as a few people have it, but it is vital if you're trying to optimize.

In the highest most broken levels of optimization theorycrafting, people usually say that initiative is the only stat that matters. Going one step beyond that though, imo perception becomes the only stat that matters.

The player still has the choice to be bad at it if that's what they want for their character.

They now simply no longer need invest resources into being good at it. Which makes a heck of a lot of sense to me, one usually doesn't survive long enough to level up under the pressure required to do so without becoming decent at perceiving hidden threats.

Not that I'm arguing against your system but how would the player choose to be bad at it?

Personally, as long as one party member maxes it out, I don't ever see the need to put ANY ranks into it. Currently playing a very high int/high charisma Arcanist that is too self-absorbed to pay attention to what's going on around her. That's what "the help" (the other characters that are less important than her) is for. Once they spot the enemy and point it out to me, I can go about identifying them with all those extra skill points that I dropped into knowledge skills.

Party composition is largly about division of labor. If one person is good at a thing, the rest of the party can be good at other things. If you're playing rocket tag with your GM and winning or losing the perception check at the start of an ambush is the difference between life and death consistently enough that the whole party has to sink 1 rank/level into it, you may want to find a new GM.

A: roleplaying choice not to act on it
B: some kind of class feature or feat which penalizes it as a byproduct
C: a Flaw of some sort, for an extra trait or feat

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

I like this solution, so long as you give the class skill bonus to classes that would normally grant it and allow all of the relevant increasing options for those that want to (skill focus, eyes of the eagle, etc.)

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

I like this solution, so long as you give the class skill bonus to classes that would normally grant it and allow all of the relevant increasing options for those that want to (skill focus, eyes of the eagle, etc.)

Specialization options remain, but 'class skill' does not. That value is baked into the baseline modifiers.

I think combining spot, search, and listen to perception, as well as making class skills essentially worthless except for the +3 bonus, made it the case yes. making perception so easy to get means anyone not taking it is the equivalent of if there was a skill called "HP"; youre just needlessly nerfing your survivability by not taking it.

There is reasons not to of course, but theyre all roleplaying ones. Its a big part of why im seriously considering going back to 3.5 skill system for my home games (the main weakness of that was so many prestige classes required skill ranks, and prestige classes are pretty much dead for pathfinder, or at least dont require more than one of them)

Perception is a potent and useful skill, but in my experience highly overrated, especially if the GM assumes the PCs are taking-10 to minimise the metagaming "I'm on edge because the GM asked us to roll Perception check".

Also, ambush encounters are a rarity. Example: Skimming through the Hardcover edition of Crimson Throne I counted four "ambush-like" encounters where a surprise round against the PCs was a possibility amid 60+ encounters before I got bored.

I find that having at least one person in the party with good Perception is a must to get through adventuring challenges. Having everyone in the party be good at Perception because it gives "more chances of rolling high" is generally gratuitous and unnecessary. If you don't want to put ranks/traits/feats into Perception... don't. Every encounter out of 10-20 you'll miss out on a surprise round (which really isn't a big deal), but considering the vast array of things in the game that make PCs lose actions, that's small fry.

You are begging for trouble if the party does not have at least one person who's good at it, because it gives the GM free reign to screw with you, but beyond that it depends on the GM.

Most of the time you can get by with one or two lookouts that are very sharp on the uptake perception-wise; they'll find the traps and hidden doors, and hopefully the GM won't make enough ambush encounters that they roll low on the occasion that comes up.

On the other hand, if your GM is the sort where every treasure chest might be a mimic, 50% of the dungeon floor might as well be pressure tiles, your enemies tend to fight from ambush or not at all, random doors are booby-trapped even outside of dungeons, the farmers calling for help are often orcs in disguise...

Yeah, everyone max perception.

Ah yes, the tyranny of the best option.

Perception is arguably the only skill that is both useful to everyone and is not something that can be handled by one party member; stealth would fall under the same category, but ACP means that many parties will have at least one person who will always be useless at stealth even if they did put ranks in it. Perception doesn't have that problem.

I've made multiple characters with poor perception.

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

Ah, the 4th Ed option.

I've made multiple characters with poor perception.

I've known people who made 2h strength warriors without power attack, doesn't mean it's optimal to do so which is the discussion here.

The only case where I can see not putting ranks in perception at all being a decent idea is a Paladin, since you're a 2-rank class that likely wants to be a face and therefore sees Perception as a genuine opportunity cost. Being a Paladin mitigates the risk of giving enemies potentially 2 free hits on you.

The only case where I can see not putting ranks in perception at all being a decent idea is a Paladin

Or if you're in an adventuring party with one or more people with decent perception....

I'd say a lot of it depends on the playstyle/campaign you're in. While it's never a bad skill to have, it only really hits the point of being mandatory for all characters if traps, ambushes, and hidden doors/chests/items are constantly showing up. Otherwise, I'd say you're good with two people maxing it; one is enough in theory, but will lead to much groaning whenever he rolls low and the entire group misses some important stuff. And considering Perception's reputation as the game's most rolled skill, low rolls will happen a fair bit.

How much everyone needs perception is also modified by how often the party all get to benefit from one guy's high skill. Just like how the face might not be able to handle every single conversation the party ever has, the one guy with perception won't be there for every single check to See/Hear/Smell something. That's largely a matter of playstyle, though.

Note: If the GM asks what the party's watch order is when you go to sleep at night, everyone needs ranks in perception.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

Ah, the 4th Ed option.

Wasn't aware 4th Ed did it, but I've got no qualms regarding independent design with similar results.

Though my games in general could not be compared to 4E at all really.

Milo v3 wrote:

I've made multiple characters with poor perception.

I've known people who made 2h strength warriors without power attack, doesn't mean it's optimal to do so which is the discussion here.

The only case where I can see not putting ranks in perception at all being a decent idea is a Paladin, since you're a 2-rank class that likely wants to be a face and therefore sees Perception as a genuine opportunity cost. Being a Paladin mitigates the risk of giving enemies potentially 2 free hits on you.

Actually, I'd argue that high Perception is less important for many characters (especially those in armor) than several other skills, but most notably: Acrobatics, Climb and Swim

Perception stops you from being surprised and having the enemy have one additional standard (or move) action over you. The worst case being they're spellcasters (at which point invisibility may well come into play and your Perception means squat) or rogues sniping (which doesn't bother the barbarian).

Acrobatics stops you from falling to your death ignominiously.
Climb stops you from falling to your death ignominiously.
Ride stops you from falling off your horse and being curb-stomped ignominiously.
Swim stops you from sinking and drowning to death ignominiously.

Of course, most of these can be overruled by magic at later levels, and Perception is one of the few skills that isn't, but that's an issue (and assumption) with magic in general. If your group doesn't contain a batman wizard, then the skills will remain relevant.

If all your characters are doing is going from flat, featureless room to flat, featureless room, and being ambushed by hidden monsters, then Perception is the skill of choice. If the campaign involves any form of physical activity, or a significant part of your character involves being mounted, then the skills that prevent ignominious character death could well be much more important. Especially if you have an armor check penalty a lot of the time.

The same philosophy applies when dealing with any game where social skills have a heavy presence; Diplomacy (and Bluff, Disguise, Sense Motive etc) does little when dungeon crawling through mindless undead, but is king when it comes to intrigue heavy adventures.

TL;DR: Most guides have to make an assumption about what you're spending your time doing, and usually, the assumption is that you're dungeon-crawling almost 100% of your time. Which is why I advise any of my players looking at such things to take them with a grain of salt, as the advice presented is far, far from being universally applicable.

When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax. Same with Power Attack, same with most prerequisite feats for any given feat tree, same with the Big Six magic items. Since the vast majority of Pathfinder expects you to be exploring, searching and encountering things, and since the skill has such powerful mechanical effects tied to it, Perception is simply too powerful to ignore and something that will definitely hurt your chances if you don't invest into it every level. Even if you don't have it as a class skill or very high Wisdom, you should invest into it anyway. This is particularly important for casters, who absolutely love that surprise round action (or act anyway if they went Divination). It could mean the difference between life and death in many cases, given that it also affects your ability to notice traps, natural hazards and details in the environment.

As others have pointed out Perception does not eat up skill ranks 100% of the time or anywhere close. I only have 1 out of 7 characters who have maximized its ranks since level. A second high INT character picked it up later for max ranks on a headband. I've seen it far more commonly show-up that 1 character particularly the trap finder has maxed it out and largely made it irrelevant for most other characters since they autosucceed all the time on searches, and the frequency of ambushes is not that high in published adventures.

We should really talk about the strength tax next and how ridiculous it is in a point buy system that characters are forced to at least 6 points into strength just so they can carry clothing and a weapon...

Arachnofiend wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

I've made multiple characters with poor perception.

I've known people who made 2h strength warriors without power attack, doesn't mean it's optimal to do so which is the discussion here.

The only case where I can see not putting ranks in perception at all being a decent idea is a Paladin, since you're a 2-rank class that likely wants to be a face and therefore sees Perception as a genuine opportunity cost. Being a Paladin mitigates the risk of giving enemies potentially 2 free hits on you.

Actually, I'd argue that high Perception is less important for many characters (especially those in armor) than several other skills, but most notably: Acrobatics, Climb and Swim

Perception stops you from being surprised and having the enemy have one additional standard (or move) action over you. The worst case being they're spellcasters (at which point invisibility may well come into play and your Perception means squat) or rogues sniping (which doesn't bother the barbarian).

Acrobatics stops you from falling to your death ignominiously.
Climb stops you from falling to your death ignominiously.
Ride stops you from falling off your horse and being curb-stomped ignominiously.
Swim stops you from sinking and drowning to death ignominiously.

Of course, most of these can be overruled by magic at later levels, and Perception is one of the few skills that isn't, but that's an issue (and assumption) with magic in general. If your group doesn't contain a batman wizard, then the skills will remain relevant.

If all your characters are doing is going from flat, featureless room to flat, featureless room, and being ambushed by hidden monsters, then Perception is the skill of choice. If the campaign involves any form of physical activity, or a significant part of your character involves being mounted, then the skills that prevent ignominious character death could well be much more important. Especially if you have an...

You can still perceive Invisible enemies. It's just harder, and you just can't see them, so you get a 50% miss chance. Or to put it more nicely, it's like they have a Displacement spell cast on them. Seeing does not mean you perceive it. You could hear it, smell it, taste it...heck, even feel it if they're trying to hit you (and they have Improved Invisibility).

Acrobatics used to avoid falling to your death? That almost never happens in practically every table I've been at. At best, you use it to jump a gap, and even that's solved with using things like grappling hooks and rope, or some other means to get across.

Climb is useful only for those who can't Fly. Quite frankly, if anyone can use the Fly skill, then they wouldn't bother putting points into this (unless their flight is magically-granted, in which case it only serves as a back-up, and the Fly skill rants are allotted with an Intelligence Headband).

Ride skill is only relevant for people with mounts. Cavaliers, certain Paladins, and other similar classes, are the only ones who would bother putting points into it. It's otherwise mostly useless to anyone else who would take it, and is at-best situational for when you rent a mount for travel (and when you get access to teleportation, becomes pointless).

Swim is perhaps the most useful of the others, since flight doesn't save you from water or drowning, and if you can't Swim, you're basically dead in three rounds (and you're effectively Nauseated). Granted, certain magic can reduce or eliminate the danger of this sort of thing, but the odds of characters preparing or possessing such (unless you're in a sea-oriented campaign), is nonexistent.

Also, if you think Armor is a reason to dump Perception, then that's hilarious. Perception can find you better armor, it can find you secret areas for information or access points (and other loot besides better armor), it can save you from being surprised, especially from things that don't care about your Armor (Combat Maneuvers, Touch Spells, Saving Throws, Area of Effects, and so on).

You're going to need a better reason besides "I have armor on" to justify it. Because unless you're a Wizard or Monk (or some person who can't wear Armor), guess what? You're wearing Armor, just like everybody else would be, and unlike you, they have Perception. What do you have up on them that they don't already possess?

As others have pointed out Perception does not eat up skill ranks 100% of the time or anywhere close. I only have 1 out of 7 characters who have maximized its ranks since level. A second high INT character picked it up later for max ranks on a headband. I've seen it far more commonly show-up that 1 character particularly the trap finder has maxed it out and largely made it irrelevant for most other characters since they autosucceed all the time on searches, and the frequency of ambushes is not that high in published adventures.

We should really talk about the strength tax next and how ridiculous it is in a point buy system that characters are forced to at least 6 points into strength just so they can carry clothing and a weapon...

One character might be tasked with getting it as high as possible to ensure at least one character can hit trap DC's and act in surprise rounds, but every character should be investing into Perception when possible. since it covers more than just ambushes, but also searching for traps and environmental details, that's good enough a reason to always take it just in case. And sometimes you simply don't have your trapfinder around. Or the trapfinder isn't given the chance to make that check. Whatever the case might be, it is such an important skill that taking the risk of not having it can be bad and result in dead characters.

Also, I suppose my DM's are outliers, since they usually do either throw ambushes or start encounters as ambushes, and as far as the rules state, everyone needs to make individual Perception checks to determine surprise, and anyone who doesn't beat an attacking creature's Stealth checks loses their action. One person making these Perception checks does not grant an entire group an action in a surprise round. So if an ambush does happen, and you don't have high Perception, you only have yourself to blame when your party is immediately on the back foot and can't recover, particularly when that opponent has rolled high on initiative as well (something equally as important to be kept high, mind you). YMMV apparently.

At least perception is something that WILL come up.

Everyone groans with anguish the moment the GM pulls out a water-filled map. I hope you decided to put ranks in swim, even though the past 8 sessions were in a desert!

Also, if you think Armor is a reason to dump Perception, then that's hilarious. Perception can find you better armor, it can find you secret areas for information or access points (and other loot besides better armor), it can save you from being surprised, especially from things that don't care about your Armor (Combat Maneuvers, Touch Spells, Saving Throws, Area of Effects, and so on).

Not to mention that when it comes to skills for people in heavy armor, Acrobatics, Climb, Ride, and Swim are all taking significant armor check penalties.

Ride's only a must if you're focusing on mounted combat, and swim for an aquatic campaign. Acrobatics can be good, but similar to Ride you really need to specialize in it to get full use out of it for things like tumbling: A character with low dex eating an additional -6 for full plate is not going to have an easy time beating tumble DCs without substantial additional investment.

Otherwise, I'd hesitate to suggest more than 1 rank in climb, ride or swim for the class skill bonus.

some people seem to only be valuing it on a single one of its uses. Its value must be counted as a whole.

What perception does is:

Allows you to notice disguises
allows you to notice mind control
allows you to avoid ambushes
allows you to avoid traps
allows you to find hidden things/details
allows you to hear enemies when sleeping (arguably part of avoid ambushes)
allows you to eavesdrop on hidden conversations (including read lips if needed)

and probably quite a few more things. It is an extremely valuable skill for all levels and types of adventuring, which is why its imperative to max it IF youre more concerned with winning than roleplaying (not making any judgements).

Its also important for at least 3 characters to max it, because low rolls and even consecutive low rolls are always a possibility. Will spotting/hearing something always be life or death? No. But it will always be useful and will sometimes be life or death.

Its also used in some capacity in pretty much every single adventure.

That is why I think the skill as it exists and in the system it does is too strong.

allows you to notice mind control

Seriously? Even I didn't realize that one.

That totally belongs in Sense Motive.

EDIT: It is in Sense Motive

But perhaps there is text granting that ability to perception as well? Link it if ya got it.

thorin001 wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I've integrated perception as a funtion of level and wisdom in my games to great effect.

Ah, the 4th Ed option.

Wasn't aware 4th Ed did it, but I've got no qualms regarding independent design with similar results.

Though my games in general could not be compared to 4E at all really.

I can compare your games to 4th Ed. For example; I know next to nothing about either system.

Heh, I did agree to go public with it this week. Been slowed down by a brief bout with a serious 'stomach flue' and then caring for family who caught it thereafter.

Heh, I did agree to go public with it this week. Been slowed down by a brief bout with a serious 'stomach flue' and then caring for family who caught it thereafter.

Sorry to hear that. I'm just posting while bored. Hope everyone gets to feeling better.

Hmm, with only 1 person with high perception, you may as well not even set up a watch since their perception sleeping will likely beat everyone else's awake. ;)

But the biggest issue is that with only 1 person with a good perception, you're counting on him not to roll like crap to notice that secret door leading to the treasure stash.

Baval wrote:

allows you to notice mind control

Seriously? Even I didn't realize that one.

That totally belongs in Sense Motive.

EDIT: It is in Sense Motive

But perhaps there is text granting that ability to perception as well? Link it if ya got it.

you are correct, my bad. for some reason i thought it was perception. replace it with "allows you to find invisible/stealthy opponents". the others still apply though

Perception lets you find treasure so you don't miss a magic item or MacGuffin lying around in a dungeon. Perception lets you find secret doors that may give you an advantage (or likewise result in the prior benefit). It can help find plot-advancing items like evidence, books, journals, secret compartments...the list goes on.

I hope I never play with another GM that requires successful perception checks to advance the plot.

I don't mind rolling to "find" the thing, but failure shouldn't stall the story. Instead it should bring complications for plot specific items. As GM, I don't require the check to beat a DC to advance the plot either. Instead, I attach consequences for failure. Like there's a trap they didn't notice, or maybe the item is gone, but there's a clue as to who took it. You don't find the MacGuffin for free, a good roll avoids these consequences.

In video game terms it's call "pixel b!@#&ing". I find it annoying and dumb. YMMV.

When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.

My personal experience, over thousands of hours as both player and GM, is actually quite different. Generally speaking, one or two characters go for insanely high Perception checks (especially half-elves who took Skill Focus (Perception) as their bonus feat), and the rest of the party's Perception check is then pretty much a non-issue, whether they put ranks in it or not.

The reason being rather simple: In the vast majority of cases, only one person needs to succeed at the check.

With certain other skills, you cannot rely on your team mates, and have to make the check yourself. But Perception isn't one of them (unless your GM is deeply in love with ambush encounters, which is something of a corner case).

Hmm, with only 1 person with high perception, you may as well not even set up a watch since their perception sleeping will likely beat everyone else's awake. ;)

But the biggest issue is that with only 1 person with a good perception, you're counting on him not to roll like crap to notice that secret door leading to the treasure stash.

In a game where magic trumps skills? Not so much

Also, that is what Take-10 is for. It is generally more important that one character be great at Perception than every character be merely competent.

Furthermore, resting safely can be a non-issue from 4th to 8th level, depending on your party makeup and sleeping plans.

You can still perceive Invisible enemies. It's just harder, and you just can't see them, so you get a 50% miss chance. Or to put it more nicely, it's like they have a Displacement spell cast on them. Seeing does not mean you perceive it. You could hear it, smell it, taste it...heck, even feel it if they're trying to hit you (and they have Improved Invisibility).

Actually...

The creature or object touched becomes invisible. If the recipient is a creature carrying gear, that vanishes, too. If you cast the spell on someone else, neither you nor your allies can see the subject, unless you can normally see invisible things or you employ magic to do so.

Items dropped or put down by an invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature. Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source). Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible.

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

Bolded for emphasis. This is generally how it plays out unless GM Fiat dictates otherwise. It's just a symptom of the "Magic Trumps Mundane" philosophy of D&D in general.

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

When something eats up a characters skill ranks 100% of the time, with an immense statistical disadvantage for not taking it, you might as well call it what it is. A tax.

My personal experience, over thousands of hours as both player and GM, is actually quite different. Generally speaking, one or two characters go for insanely high Perception checks (especially half-elves who took Skill Focus (Perception) as their bonus feat), and the rest of the party's Perception check is then pretty much a non-issue, whether they put ranks in it or not.

The reason being rather simple: In the vast majority of cases, only one person needs to succeed at the check.

With certain other skills, you cannot rely on your team mates, and have to make the check yourself. But Perception isn't one of them (unless your GM is deeply in love with ambush encounters, which is something of a corner case).

I suppose that is where you and I differ. My DM's use ambush rules fairly frequently. I think it's a rare encounter when we are aware of each other before the combat even begins. So Perception has been remarkably important for all of us.

Also, the fact that invisibility is a flat bonus to Stealth checks regardless of the method of locating the creature is squarely an unintentional fault of the system, or at the very least not properly differentiating between visual and auditory Perception checks well enough, and particularly within the spell's bonus. It still mentions that the creature is not magically silence, which implies a way in which the spell can be overcome, but RAW it's the ultimate stealth spell, capable of improving stealth even in situations when you cannot visually perceive the creature regardless of invisibility (like behind a solid wall or within an area of darkness without darkvision). But of course that's ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, and any sensible DM should only apply the bonus on visual checks. The fact that it so easily accomplishes this is a tragic symptom of improperly worded rules language resulting in an overall buff to an already powerful spell :P

Also, the fact that invisibility is a flat bonus to Stealth checks regardless of the method of locating the creature is squarely an unintentional fault of the system, or at the very least not properly differentiating between visual and auditory Perception checks well enough, and particularly within the spell's bonus. It still mentions that the creature is not magically silence, which implies a way in which the spell can be overcome, but RAW it's the ultimate stealth spell, capable of improving stealth even in situations when you cannot visually perceive the creature regardless of invisibility (like behind a solid wall or within an area of darkness without darkvision). But of course that's ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, and any sensible DM should only apply the bonus on visual checks. The fact that it so easily...

Invisibility and its ilk are something of a pet peeve of mine.

My introduction to 3.5 (I skipped 3.0 entirely) was a "special ops" game where we playing a commando team with royal sanction and support, specialised in infiltration, sabotage and tactical strikes. So naturally, we went with the narratively appropriate choices of rogue, monk, rogue/wizard, rogue/cleric and swordsage (later retconned into a ranger when the GM decided he didn't like the ToB). And we got our asses kicked from start to finish.

The spiritual sequel game - a different module with the same premise - we then made a party consisting of beguilers, wizard/druid/somehybridprc, archivist and a single rogue (using a swashbuckling adventures variant).... and fared profoundly better. Because whatever you want to do with skills, magic either does it better, or grants bonuses above and beyond anything your measly skill ranks could attain. So we crushed the module with ease, and the whole thing wound up feeling like we cheated.

That being said, the above was 3.5, and Pathfinder has done a much better job of avoiding the extreme power creep of spells, though many of the main culprits are still there (jump, knock, disguise self, alter self, invisibility, invisibility sphere, silence, spider climb, fly, gaseous form, enlarge person, reduce person, detect secret doors, discern lies, zone of truth, glibness etc).

Hmm, with only 1 person with high perception, you may as well not even set up a watch since their perception sleeping will likely beat everyone else's awake. ;)

But the biggest issue is that with only 1 person with a good perception, you're counting on him not to roll like crap to notice that secret door leading to the treasure stash.

Since the Keep Watch spell was published, it's become pointless to ask for watch rotations.

As for rolling crap, most players I know just take 10 on perception unless they are looking for something specific. Then they take 20.