Is it the responsibility of the GM to tell the players to make a perception roll?
Example,
The PCs are running after an enemy during combat. The enemy crosses a pool of water on a rope (for example). The water happens to contain a hazard that can be noticed and avoided maybe. If the PCs say they chase the bad guy across the water do I:
A: Say nothing and let them run into the hazard ( I am assuming they will not make a perception check while chasing)
B: Say ok you move, but make a perception check first, if they fail, the hit the hazard; if they pass they stop running and notice the hazard?
C: Something else?
Thanks,
John
C: If they dont think of rolling perception, they dont notice it (like in RL, if you arent paying attention, well...).
I do think that players should get a "static" perception roll (about 5+perception, might modulate that, it's a houserule) which represents what they notice without paying attention. So the cleric might notice more easily than the fighter (again, when not paying attention).
C: If they dont think of rolling perception, they dont notice it (like in RL, if you arent paying attention, well...).
I do think that players should get a "static" perception roll (about 5+perception, might modulate that, it's a houserule) which represents what they notice without paying attention. So the cleric might notice more easily than the fighter (again, when not paying attention).
I like the idea of a static perception roll - something the PC gets if they don't declare - maybe it could be their normal perception less 5 points or something like that?
In that situation: you roll it for them, or you just ask them to roll but don't tell them what for.
In that situation: you roll it for them, or you just ask them to roll but don't tell them what for.
I dont like this, because as a player, i get REALLY paranoid when the GM asks for a perception roll. As a GM, I dont want to show them my cards like that.
As for "static perception", I guess you could also treat it as the minimum possible (1+perception) otherwise it's just too low to be useful I beleive.
|
C: If they dont think of rolling perception, they dont notice it (like in RL, if you arent paying attention, well...).
I do think that players should get a "static" perception roll (about 5+perception, might modulate that, it's a houserule) which represents what they notice without paying attention. So the cleric might notice more easily than the fighter (again, when not paying attention).
I disagree on that. Problem is then the plyers feel they have to ask for perception rolls constantly. In option B they are getting a chance to notice something off that tips them to the hazard. I understand that the mere calling for a perception roll can bring about meta issue but you can always take down percption mods and roll for them if you wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that situation: you roll it for them, or you just ask them to roll but don't tell them what for.I dont like this, because as a player, i get REALLY paranoid when the GM asks for a perception roll. As a GM, I dont want to show them my cards like that.
You don't tell them they're rolling perception, you just tell them to roll. (for this trick to work you have to know their perception modifier beforehand).
This also adds another trick to your DMing bag because you can ask for a roll at any time -for no reason at all- to make them edgy and paranoid.
In that situation: you roll it for them, or you just ask them to roll but don't tell them what for.I dont like this, because as a player, i get REALLY paranoid when the GM asks for a perception roll. As a GM, I dont want to show them my cards like that.You don't tell them they're rolling perception, you just tell them to roll. (for this trick to work you have to know their perception modifier beforehand).
This also adds another trick to your DMing bag because you can ask for a roll at any time -for no reason at all- to make them edgy and paranoid.
So you could just tell them to roll - and it might be an acrobatics check to see if they slip in the water as well - interesting...
Having the PCs roll when the don't know what they are rolling for is an interesting action I have not used much up to this point. But I do have to have their skill numbers....
|
When I am really really prepared as a GM I will make a little table of expected rolls that the PCs will need to make in a night that I don't want to prompt them for, i.e. saving throws, perception checks, sense motive, etc. I usually have them provide on their initiative card their current saves, init bonus and skills. So that when I want those passive things to happen without setting of the alarm bells I have fairly allowed the PC to roll without giving hints.
Made for a great session when half the party wandered over to a table and started feasting on corpses *evil grin*
When I GM players only roll perception when they specifically ask for it, which means when they're searching for something specifically (like they think treasure may be in the area).
The rest of the time I roll their perception checks for them (I require copies of all players character sheets). In a non-combat situation I give them a 10. This represent take 10 rules (which you can do whenever you aren't distracted or in immediate danger) and to me reflects a basic level of observation of the world around you. However in combat or chasing after an enemy I would consider as distracted or in danger. So, I would just roll the perception checks for them each indivdually.
This way it minimizes any metagame impact rather than saying "Roll perception" which lets players know that something is there.
When I am really really prepared as a GM I will make a little table of expected rolls that the PCs will need to make in a night that I don't want to prompt them for, i.e. saving throws, perception checks, sense motive, etc. I usually have them provide on their initiative card their current saves, init bonus and skills. So that when I want those passive things to happen without setting of the alarm bells I have fairly allowed the PC to roll without giving hints.
Made for a great session when half the party wandered over to a table and started feasting on corpses *evil grin*
Great responses - this is interesting.
Dumb question - is making a perception check a free action?
Dumb question - is making a perception check a free action?
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
In fact, perception checks are not free actions. They are not an action at all. Free actions can only be performed on your turn during the round (except for speaking).
When I am really really prepared as a GM I will make a little table of expected rolls that the PCs will need to make in a night that I don't want to prompt them for, i.e. saving throws, perception checks, sense motive, etc. I usually have them provide on their initiative card their current saves, init bonus and skills. So that when I want those passive things to happen without setting of the alarm bells I have fairly allowed the PC to roll without giving hints.
Made for a great session when half the party wandered over to a table and started feasting on corpses *evil grin*
Great responses - this is interesting.
Dumb question - is making a perception check a free action?
Yeah. Most perception checks are reactive in that you make it as soon as something you *could* see comes up. However you can also actively look about as a standard action.
Ninja'd and corrected. No action at all. Still standard for actively looking.
I roll 1 D20 and add use that to add the perception modifeir from each player to it, if the die roll + their modifier hits DC, that player sees it. In the case of hidden treasure, highest success gets it, if they try some sneaky thief slight of hand thing, any other successes are considered in the same vicinity and will roll perception to see them palming it.
Roll perception for them, or use a 'passive' perception in the same way that D&D 4th edition does, where it's an automatic take 10, except as someone upthread suggested you might want to have it be 5 or something instead.
Alternatively, have the players give you, say, three perception checks and a saving throw of each type in advance, so that you can use those without having to ask for a roll.
|
The perception check is reactive and should take no time. There is something to notice in the water so a perception check is perfectly valid. If they run into the hazard with out a check they could probably be quite justified in feeling a little hard done by. The rules allow you to add +5 to +10 to the DC I would think in this instance.
+5 Creature making check is distracted. If your chasing an enemy upon your paying less attention to your surrounds and more to him/her. There are so many time you can apply this modifier it's not funny.
+2/+5 more for unfavourable /terrible conditions. Depending on the rope condition, thickness etc and how much they are focused on catching the escapee.
I would certainly allow a perception check for the PC madly sprinting after the escapee. If he appears to solely focused on the man (looking for attack opportunities, making sure he stays in sight) then I'd add the full +10. He is most certainly distracted by the chase, and conditions are unfavourable for his sight based checks since he's so focused on the quarry)
|
|
I make all the players roll 5-10 perception checks before each session starts. They then give me thier checks on small post it notes that I stick on the inside of the DM screen. As they wander by items or encounters that require perception I cross out thier checks as used and give or withhold information based on thier success or failure.
I like this method for a couple of reasons.
1. It avoids the nervous nelly PC who informs me he is looking for traps everytime the PCs go anywhere.
2. It allows to build tension and not be interupted by rolls or pcs asking for rolls.
3. It avoids putting the PCs on alert by me asking them to roll.
Marik