I find dealing with insight checks awkward, never really know how to detail how someone looks or thinks when someone has rolled for insight. Any chance you can do a similar video for this???
Personally I describe one or two elements of body language that would correspond to the emotion/state being conveyed. Someone lying? You notice some subtle fidgeting/they won't make eye contact/their voice breaks slightly or varies in pitch oddly/they move their eyes as if they're inventing something/etc. Someone getting angry? You notice their face becoming slightly redder/fingers start to tighten around whatever they're holding/muscle in shoulder starts tensing/etc.
And I'll describe the opposite of these for negative insights, e.g. "Do I think they're lying?" "You don't notice any variations in their voice or tense body language; they're looking at you throughout with a gentle smile."
@@dtsazza This is the best way to run Insight. The other thing I like to do is ask my players what they are trying to get insight about. Are they trying to gauge whether the NPC is being truthful? Are they trying to discover their motivations or intent? I also try to lay the groundwork for there to be normal behaviors that might throw them off. Specifically narrating that a character rolls their eyes up before they answer any question, or that they don't seem to be making eye contact, their voice cracks as they talk, they keep picking at a fingernail. Incorporating some of these behaviors can help turn an insight check into a puzzle, where the player is being given multiple and competing pieces of information without being told what the answer is, forcing them to make a conclusion for themselves. I go over skill checks in session zero, what each skill covers and what it doesn't. I also encourage them to tell me what they are trying to do so I can match it to the skill, if it is even needed. Some of them area little nebulous, but having this discussion gives them the chance to ask questions and to get all of us on the same page.
On players reacting to low insight rolls, I’ve recently taken to telling them on a failure, “believe what you wish.” This keeps any assumptions being made based on the result of the roll.
Yeah I think this is the best course of action. They even just said that rolls are for additional information. If you are consistent with telling people they gain no new information on low rolls then they won't metagame on them.
In our table, there's a joke regarding Stealth rolls, where independent of what the result are, we always say "You believe you are hidden". Because you tried to do something and your roll just shows the success degree on hiding, but for you, even a 2 was an attempt, and you are hidden.. even if is just for whoever has low passive perception.. You just ain't that hard to see though :P
@@RaphaelDDL That's actually something I do at my table as well. I try to keep what my answers are for stealth and insight as "You believe that..." and my players picked up on it pretty quick. Just because they roll high or low and get an answer, doesn't mean that answer is what actually happened. Keeps them on edge even with really good rolls, and is always the most fun on stealth lol
a thing ive used to prevent the overuse of a specific skill, is when i ask for a specific roll such as perception, i always ask in this manner. "roll for perception, unless you could tell me why another skill could work" then i usually get responses such as "can i use x skill because of my training/experience, in/with y." This allows, in my experience, players who invested really heavy in certain skill to feel like they are able apply their field of knowledge/expertise to a specific situation. if they roll low i usually give them a partial outcome, and tell them they only got a piece of the solution. This allows another player in to do the same and usually succeed with that first players. this gives the feeling of teamwork as well as allowing a player who failed to still contribute to a situation.
This video helped me so much with my GMing when I first saw it. For my sometimes table I've introduced an idea to alleviate the dogpiles: max 2 players can roll the same check (or give one player the help action on it), any more won't give you additional benefits. This way the dynamic of who does what in the group really split up and specialists get to enjoy their build a lot more. Sometimes they still want to all do the same thing and sometimes I'll call for a skill challenge, but just having this "too many cooks" call really helped in my session.
@15:40 I think players have a responsibility to find opportunities for their skills and tools themselves too. Putting it all on the DM to include a use for your tools and skills is going to have you end up like the experience most groups have with them (where its left up to the DM to figure everything out and they neglect it because they have so much on their plate). As a player, you need to understand what your skills/tools let you do and try to utilize them in a way that makes sense.
This is definitely true for tool proficiencies. All characters have the same 18 skills, albeit with different modifiers. But the DM can not reasonably be asked to keep track of the tool proficiencies, as characters either have them or not. Finding uses for them is entirely on the players.
I do this myself for all my characters. I will usually describe what I'm trying to do and how like, "sniffing the air I try to see if I can pick up the scent off someone being in the room recently like, B.O., perfume or leather or grass." "Looking at the diplomat do I pick up any insight as to how his travels have been and his current state of mind?" "With my experience studying beasts of this region, are there any clues as to what kind of creature it may have been thanks to tracks and broken twigs? Snatched fur or mucus anywhere?"
Yes! players do have the responsibility to find those opportunities but sometimes for whatever reason they don't. More experienced players (especially those with experience on the other side of the screen) will make their intentions pretty clear without recurring to "gamey language" (like "I want to perception the room" ugh). But you might have inexperienced players, or players that have experience playing in a group where that sort of behavior was not called out or outright encouraged. So, how to encourage your players to do things in certain ways? The answer is you, as a DM, should try to reward desired behaviors or punish the undesired ones. An easy example could be: A character enters the bedroom of a potential enemy they are trying to gain information on and asks to "investigate the room" vs A character enters the same room and starts describing what they want to investigate and in which way (e.g: "I'll check under the bed for loose floorboards"). In the first case you could ask for a plain investigation check and set a high DC, in the second case you could decide to outright give the player a clue without a roll (even if "loose floorboards under the bed" was not in your notes. Maybe you had a secret letter from an ally of the bad guy hidden in a drawer and you decide that the loose floorboard idea is good enough to shift the letter from one location to the other) If you communicate this sort of thing in advance (preferably in a session 0) and keep to it, you'll definitely encourage your players to describe in detail what they're doing and how they're using their skills. Every player at the table should know that "investigating a room" will usually mean an investigation check with a high DC and taking the time to describe what and how you investigate could mean an auto success with no roll attached.
I'll clarify that when I say "punish" undesirable behaviors I'm not talking about punishing the players or characters, just communicating in advance that those sort of actions will yield poorer results. Also, when I talk about changing the location of clues to reward a creative or descriptive player Im talking about doing it sparingly, secretly and only when you feel it is a good idea. Every DM will get better at gauging these sort of scenarios with time, as will the players get better at descriptive actions.
TOTALLY AGREE! one of my DMs asks for WAAAAY too many perception checks, and he doesnt realize it. often times, the action has ground to a halt because of bad rolls on unnecessary perception checks.
Ooh, rolling insight to figure out what approach to make against an NPC? (I.E. Intimidation, persuasion, deception) That's freaking BRILLIANT. Maybe even rolling insight with charisma mod because your gaining this information while speaking them
Matt Mercer needs to watch this video. 😉 He's a great DM, but he drives me crazy with overly specific and generally superfluous ability checks. Fortunately, the people with whom I game moved past them during the 4E era. Great video.
The way I think of Passive Perception is that it acts like a Spidey Sense. It tells you something is off, but it requires a roll to figure out exactly what is going on.
Yes to this but also I think it should apply to like basic “you can see it so yes it’s there” For example this past weekend… Me: “is this the guy who stole our scroll and I saw run away?” Dm: “idk make a perception check” Me: “wouldn’t I know what he looks like? I saw his face” Dm: “idk maybe you did maybe you didn’t” Me “the miniatures all look the same and you never gave me a description even though we rolled for initiative before. I would be aware of him so I feel like this should just be passive perception. Dm:… Ugh… fine! I got an 18” Dm: “yeah this is the guy you saw before” **screams internally*
Disagree. Spider-Man uses intuition BEFORE the danger happen. This the main issue I have with perception. The Dungeon Dudes failed to talk about this even though they said it is all scenes.
A good oneliner to differentiate perception and investigation i hav recently read on reddit was perception is what an animal might be able to figure out. I love this general rule of thumb because you can quickly decide in spontaneous situations what skill to use.
I've actually toyed with the idea of perception only being a passive skill that acts as a benchmark for stealth rolls and automatically detecting traps, and then splitting its active duties between investigation, insight and survival; just because perception does so many things that its an auto pick skill; and one that steamrolls other information gathering skills. A good bit of that is just that DMs default to it and just sort of forget that people are taking skills like investigation to be able to investigate crime scenes, insight to be able to understand someone's motives and survival to track people or animals and then never get to use those skills. Also big ups to the Uh Oh shirt! Red team, best team.
I had a fun time with insight today! My player’s Druid recently picked up and prepared hold person. An assassin I was intending to get away was caught, and I needed to improvise an interrogation scene. All I had prepped was that this assassin was good at their job, would not speak, and would die before revealing secrets about who they were working for. As the party asked questions, I had them roll insight to determine what his facial expressions meant. They learned promising his life wouldn’t work, but they could goad him into revealing his mission by insulting his ego, and it kept the character’s silence from bringing the game to a halt!
I think the "degrees of success" idea is very important. Even a low roll should give you basic information, where a high roll would give you bonus info. This way you can not "gate story progression behind a roll", but still ask for rolls, because rolling dice is Fun!
I love incorporating tool proficiencies for unique trade-specific insight and information. It's such a great way to drive both character and narrative while utilizing an often neglected area of the character sheet. I sprinkle my environments with tool, skill, and language specific easter-eggs, such that each clue will only reveal its secrets once a specific player interacts with it. Sharing those 'ah ha!' moments around the party at different times gives each player-character their time in the sun, it gives the whole table permission to think of unique ways to use their tools and backgrounds, and it gives validation to the conceptual character decisions that the players made back during session 0.
I love this channel because you portray mistakes in a way that makes us feel okay for making them, it is a very good learning environment. I feel very comfortable watching you guys
This is a great video. It covered the subject well, with sound advice. I ask my players not to talk in skill check terms. Instead, tell me what you are doing and I will either call for a skill check or I won’t. Sometimes I make a double skill check, where I roll secretly and if it succeeds I ask the player to make a check. Their roll determines how much information I give them, but since they already passed my roll, they always succeed. If they fail the secret roll then I just don’t ask them to make a check. Players do not know I am making a check because I am rolling a dice all the time. Plus, to throw them off, I will pre-roll a d20 a few times while the players are talking and write down the numbers, which means I can instantly say “You see nothing” without apparently even rolling.
I also think passive perception and other passive skills should be referenced more often for things that players don't ask for. I'm currently playing a PC with low perception (I dumped Wis). While walking into a room, I should never be able to pick up on nuances like small inscriptions or things out of place that more perceptive characters do. The DM delineating what the characters notice is honestly pretty fun, and eliminates the nonsense situations where I roll well and perceive more than my more perceptive party-member. And it also opens up good RP moments where the investigator/perceiver is rewarded for being so, but can still ask for help.
I think it would be great if you covered how to increase the use of Tool proficiency. And in relation to this video I think an example of too many perception checks is critical role
Some of their checks are just in telling a better story for viewers. However, Mr. Mercer handles most things very well in spite of the antics of the other cast members. There are times it does feel its scripted. Like they just happen to get those good rolls in the last minute. Though I've DM'd a few games that work out the same way. Overall, Crit Roll seems to promote, or try to, a good view into how D&D can be. It's embellished with over-the-top voice actors, sure. This doesn't take away from how well thought out Matt is at storytelling and world building. I've only dabbled into the building part, it's tough. I think in honest truth, the only thing that is misleading in a small way is the voice acting vs. day-to-day D&D sessions. Most games I've been in don't delve too deep into the voice play of the characters. In the long run, it just boils down to the players at your table and their strengths, not that of the characters. If a character's stats would allow for something, but the player running it is unable to see it, sometimes you just have to help them out for sake of brevity and the game itself. Like they said in the video, one roll could completely derail the whole session over a missed roll. Sometimes that's ok, sometimes it isn't. It's up to the DM in those moments to make the call and help keep the session rolling forward. Or not, that is fine as well if it falls within the narrative of the game, you and your players are playing.
I *think* this is Homebrew territory, but it's still interesting to see what the DDs approaches are. Persoanlly, I try to fight the urge to make new rules, but apply exisiting ones to new situations. I allow Cooks to make a skill check on the long rest before battle. If they get 20+, everyone who shared the meal has Inspiration. Someone with Leatherworking can skin and tan a monster hide. The cook would be able to butcher it, resulting in preserving more magical ingredients (especially in the Arcanist is advising). A lot of skills should also give a descent, default, standard of living (similar to Performer).
@@rysarian4384 I agree that XGtE does add something more. Most are underwhelming though imo, but some are cool. For a West Marches style game, Cobbler is almost a must. ;-)
Just yesterday I was looking how to introduce leads and clues. This is even better cause now players can be rewarded for expanding on their roleplay. Much appreciated guys. Long time fan :)
Much food for thought. Thank you! 😊👍 They key takeaway for me is to apply *degrees of success and failure for rolls,* instead of just a binary: _"You found nothing"_ vs. "You found a secret door". If there really is nothing there, a 20 will reveal some interesting but inconsequential info, like graffiti, or a secret pouch with a pipe and tobacco, or maybe just a dead rat under a mattress. Rolling a 1 might mean that they put their hand in a slimey pile of chicken poop, or some other inconsequential but icky mishap. Maybe rolling high, but not quite high enough to find a secret door can be planned for. _Almost_ finding the secret door could mean finding matching indents in the floor that means that all the furniture in the room was once in different places. The secret door isn't found, but there is still a shadow of something not quite perceived. If there is always some new information from all rolls, that should at least add new interest to the places that the players find themselves in, even if it didn't actually cause progress along the path they need to go.
8:40 "Sometimes when you give players an automatic success, they might not believe you" I noticed this pretty early on as a DM. What solved the problem for me was that I made them roll and gave the information regardless of the score of the roll. The difference being, if they had rolled poorly, I added a superfluous "but that is all you notice" after the description. Examples: A) Good roll "You notice some scrape marks on the floor, as if a portion of the wall was movable." B) Bad roll ""You notice some scrape marks on the floor, as if a portion of the wall was movable, but that is all you see." For me, this has worked wonders. YMMV.
Could also use time as a variation. Poor roll it takes longer to find it, but they still find it. I do this often, normally followed by behind the screen random encounter roll. Sets the stage of time in the games. Keeping them aware that it does not stop, and their actions or time taken to perform them can have cause/effect moments. This comes up a LOT on Nat 1's during times.
@@drfolsom74 That's what I was doing when I had the players-not-believing problem. At least for my players, the implication that their bad rolls cause some additional info being missed cements that at least the information they did get is factual. And this method doesn't mean that they can't use extra time investigating if they want to*. "Time wasted" has never been a terribly popular approach. Plus, this method works also when extra time simply cannot be spent, like for noticing someone's eye twitch at the mention of some other person or event. I've found "but that's all you see" very powerful. *Over the years, "investigation" has become a "short rest activity" at my table. For example, if the party stops to investigate a crime scene or an abandoned holy site or a room with knick-knacks and do-dahs aplenty or what have you, they usually stop for long enough to bind their wounds, have a quick chat with NPCs if available, meditate, scout the surroundings for enemies, etc. - depending on the party composition and their talents.
I played once at a "perception addicted" table as an insight focused lore bard, it was really cool because in the beguining all of them (even the dm) thought I should have focused on perception insted, but as the campaign progressed they gradually learned the power of that skill, it was really fun!
I remember asking to look behind a painting in a room to see if there was a safe behind it. The DM asked me for a perception check, I rolled high and they tell me there is nothing there. Like why even ask? It just really encouraged asking for constant perception checks, every player would just roll dice and shout out numbers whenever we went into a room, sometimes doing more then one if they didn't roll well. At my own table if someone interacts with something directly I often don't have them make a roll and if someone rolls a dice I didn't ask them to it doesn't count.
I generally don’t like useless checks, but I’ll admit I do use them on occasion. I find that, IF you’re very careful on how often you use them, it can help discourage the meta-gaming dog piles of checks, because the party starts to break this mentality of “oh, we’re being prompted for a check, there must be SOMETHING important here”. Because they know that sometimes, I’m just keeping them a bit off-balance. But you’re right, if you do it too often, it can kinda encourage players to try and do constant checks on EVERYTHING, so I tend to limit it to once or twice a session, if that.
One problem I have with the fuzzy split between Investigation and Perception is that it forces Rogues to be 3-Ability Dependent to be effective at their roles. And for Autopsies, use Investigation to look for wounds on a body and Medicine to determine what actually killed them. After all, someone might poison a victim and then stab them with someone else's pilfered dagger to misdirect the investigation.
New to DnD, but in exploring some sewers and finding another path to the surface, used cartographer's tools + proficiency to figure out what building on the surface links up to that pathway.
I loved this line: "Many DMs may not be rolling high enough to see this problem growing. So today we're hoping to roll high in our perception and take an action to investigate these problems and use some of our insight to determine how to better use these skills at your table." Dude must have been really inspired when he came up with that. Pure golden poetry!
Good advice. One other thing I often use Perception to decide who gets to spot the information rather than deciding whether it gets spotted, highest roll sees it first.
In D&D 5e the big difference between wisdom and intelligence is that wisdom is the application of knowledge, intuition, and your general awareness or your surroundings. Intelligence is your ability to remember information, process data, rationalize, and use logic and reason or be deductive. Wisdom skills are things you practice and gain through experience and intelligence skills are things you study.
Intelligence= knowing a tomato is a fruit Wisdom= knowing a tomato doesn't go in a fruit salad Charisma= convincing someone to do it anyway I stole this example
@@whiskeySe7en every new player i have gets told about the ability scores as they relate to tomatos. str = ability to crush a tomato. dex = ability to dodge a thrown tomato. con = ability to eat a rotten tomato. int = knowing a tomato is a fruit. wis = knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad. cha = ability to sell tomato based fruit salad. P.S. Its called salsa, and its delicious xD
Several of the things you have listed under Intelligence aren't actually covered by INT in 5e. Processing data, and application of logic and reason are examples.
i REALLY like doing what you suggest at around 23:30, just asking everyone what they want to do in a situation before resolving rolls. if 3 people are wanting to check the room out, then so be it. but if one person checks that room and the others have decided to start looting bodies, then that's that, no chances to "re-perceive". i also like doing that with travel scenarios, so that when they do enter a new encounter map there's no, "well, duh, of course we're ALL going to roll perception!" just the people who said they were on lookout get to use their perception rolls, while those who were foraging are doing another (hopefully important) task, etc...
I have no idea why I watch these guys-I haven’t played since I was 12-14, in 1983-85. But D&D was awesome, and their videos are entertaining, so here I am.
This remains great advice. When I had a rogue PC with Observant and a passive perception of 20, once they spotted the first trap for all the similar ones on that dungeon were obvious. No rolls needed. But if the others in the party split off, anything could happen. Encouraging specific role play and exploration description by the players is key, because then everyone is telling the story together.
I wish more people would use the rules for tool set proficiencies from Xanathar's Guide, they are amazing and I haven't seen anyone talking about how incredible and versatile they are!
Definitely 100% here. One area I specifically DON'T allow Perception is where something is plainly visible, and the information comes from understanding or context. Because they're so underused, I'm always looking for ways to bring in the knowledge skills.
I once allowed my friend`s character to roll using his chess set proficiency. The group was trying to look at a map where wooden troops were displaced and since its was like an strategical game decision it was just plausible for him to reed the map and realize what was going on.
I love this idea! This would never help my goblin paladin who has dice proficiency from her background as a soldier. Maybe she'll could use it in a situation that involves gambling.
I really like the concept of "success, and'. I'd already started playing with it somewhat, but I'm going to try using it in more situations. Thank you!
You guys dropped this video just in time. I am a new DM and this is something I am struggling with my first group. I'll need to review this a couple more times to get everything, but thank you so much.
I love this video and will be forwarding it to my party. I already do a bunch of what your are saying but did have something to add for passive perception. I have a ranger in the group I DM for with HIGH wisdom. I make sure to make their passive perception key in as many situations as possible so they feel powerful. There is a lot of travel time in my homebrew campaign (only a couple days from one end to the other of the map) and if there is something happening ahead/behind, and they aren't otherwise distracted they notice. I don't give details, but if the party is walking and there is an ambush up ahead I give the ranger a heads up (DM rolls involved and other things obviously). All I do is message them privately (Discord) and say you see a glint of metal up ahead (or something). My player feels great for seeing it, and I feel great when they don't, lol!
Regarding comprehensive searches - 3.x edition had the Take 20 option, which could only be used when there was no consequence for failure. The handwave was that by taking 20x the time for any check, you could be deemed to have rolled 20 at least once, and so could guarantee getting your maximum possible.
I find that as a player, I can ask for very specific quesitons that border on metagaming. For example of where this did not happen, Matt Mercer described cart tracks and stated that the part could not determine which way the cart was moving. He made an analogy with an automobile and said the party could not tell. Having been in horse drawn carts, I knew that it was perfectly obvious which way the cart was moving if you looked at the hoof prints. Is is 'metagaming' to ask for 1) details about hoof prints, 2) the right asscention of stars (an easy and accurate way to determine the time at night that should be obvious to anyone that travels at night in pre-industrial world), 3) which side of the trees have moss on them (usually north, but be careful if the tree is down near a stream). I think anyone in a pre-industrial world should know the constellations well, allowing them to detemine the time and latitude easily. Sailors would be the best at this, but I think anyone should be pretty good at it.
I like to use perception checks to give characters hints as to where to use another skill and what skill might be applicable. For instance, if they roll well enough in a room with a secret door, then I'll tell them that they think something looks like it might be out of place in a certain area of the room. Then they can do an investigation check of that area to try to actually find the secret door. Or if they are walking through the wilderness, a sufficient perception check could note an area of disturbed vegetation. A nature check could then be used to try to determine what caused the disturbance or a survival check to figure out which way it went.
I like to think of Perception checks as being used to determine the Who, What and where of a place/situation and Investigation being the how and why (and maybe when, depending on the situation) with insight being used more for reading a person's intentions, preferences, honesty, etc. This is a generalization of course, but I find it's an easy way to get across to my players how to use them in a given situation
Great video guys i'm really enjoying your channel. I mainly DM for my Kids and perception checks have become the catch all (with who can shout first and loudest) for when we hit a new area or room. After watching this (and knowing my kids) i'm going to try a change with them, removing the perception check and replacing it with a 'Sensory Check'. I'm hoping this will be a way for both, them and me! to start using more of the proficiency checks and properly investigating areas!
Ginny Di had a very good video that goes right along with this that she published today (about not rolling for everything). Good to see great D&D minds thinking alike!
I've always felt that for the case of secret doors a perception check would tell the character "there's something not right about this bookcase". If the player asks *what* is wrong with it, that needs an Investigation check. This also helps turn "meta-gaming" into something reasonable "in world" because the character has a reason to keep turning their attention to this bookcase or calling the groups attention to it.
The problem with this is it gates all answers behind dice rolls. If the player can figure put the trap based on what the character perceives then that should be perfectly legitimate, otherwise what is even the player's role in 5e?
@@YMasterSexcept that's not what I was saying. I was highlighting what I feel is an in-game use difference between perception and investigation, not good/bad secret for design. That being said, it's not *necessarily* locked behind dice rolls, even with my original example. If the bookcase slid side to reveal the door & the players say: A) they will push/pull on the case - done! No investigation dice needed. B) I'll check the bookcase - roll investigation to (potentially) give them the information about the secret door. C) I'll check the books - roll investigation. Basically specifics from players should get specifics from the DM. If they are dancing around it, then roll to see if they get more information. If they are vague, then roll for the chance of specifics. Plus knowing that there's "something up" with the bookcase will make PCs unstoppable. If their investigation checks fail, then the group will tear down the entire wall to find out what's back there. (Particularly if there's a "completionist" in the group.)
Finally got my campaign PDF and I'm so overwhelmed reading all the information about your glorious city I definitely don't want to make people roll perception checks I just want to tell them how cool the thing you guys made is lol
Another great video guys! An issue worth talking about is the Search action in combat. It takes the Search action to look for an invisible or a hidden enemy, and it is often forgotten.
I had this issue till I figured something out when discussing this with my son. 1) A DM should never ask the player to roll a perception check. A perception check is a passive skill roll made by the DM when ever a player character would notice something off with out actually searching the area. I use a party role and than add the perception to it. Example: Party enters a room with a hidden nook in the wall. Roll a party perception check to see if anyone notices the wall being odd. 2) If the party asks what do the see. No need to role, you already done it. 3) When the party begins to actively search/scan the room you do not do a perception check. Instead you have them role what is the equivalent of the search check, which in 5e is the investigate check. I would have each player role individually as not everybody in the party may be searching/scanning. Example: Party enters a room with a hidden nook in the wall and fails their perception check. The rogue stats he is going to scan the room while the others guard the door. The rogue rolls an investigate check and notices something off with the wall that has the nook. If the opening mechanism is somewhere else in the room I would have him roll another investigate check (with advantage) as he is going from scanning to a more thorough search of the room expecting to find a switch.
There are always ways to check on perception that are about how the levels of success, intelegece, wisdom and how they looked and other skills that might effect what they see or dont see and determines on what I tell them or don't. IF there is a critical fail on a skill, a fake results happens which can interfere with other players success "Oh I head a loud bark.' " The other player who had a crit 1 "Nah, you just hearing things." the banter between the two might cause time to slipp that an encounter would happen. I also use skills to encourage players to think about how they intereact with the enviroment and each other. A historian would ask questions that a smith would not and vice versa. To me a skill is a knolwedge base for the players to draw from to get info, much as you guys said and allows for more information or more options for the players to interact with their enviroments, npcs or even other players.
I just wrapped up a campaign where I played a multiclassed Rogue/Cleric. By 20th level I had a +5 in wisdom and I took expertise in Perception. When you combined that with Reliable Talent I couldn't roll below a 27 on a perception check and our DM loves to call for Perception rolls. It was awesome.
I like the way TFS at the Table handle these kind of things (some of which you mention in this video) but if the players ever asked to make a perception check he would almost always follow up with "What are you looking for?" or "How are you searching?" or "What are you searching?" And that makes sense because if you're looking specifically for traps or a secret door you might not notice things you are not specifically looking for. Or for skill checks the DM might give two or more options that will lead to the same clue or conclusion.
I am not very good at theatre of the mind styles of play so I adopt a lot, like a staggering amount, of battle maps. This has single handedly removed the entire "I roll perception on the room" or "what do I see" because I tell my players, what you see, is what your characters see. This leads to "I see a large desk here, can I check it out further?" "sure player! Roll perception, or investigation if you want to dig a little beyond just seeing things". Best thing I've ever done lol
I like that you talk about perception after doing a video on the soul knife rouge. I hate abilities that say you can turn a fail into a success with perception, insight. Stealth, and deception. You don’t fail these checks you just don’t garnish more information and most of the time stealth sets a perception dc not the other way around unless it’s passive perception.
Perception and investigation are different but often work together. The rules specifically mention perception for finding hidden doors and traps so I would have players roll for those purposes. However, it doesn't say that they know that it is a trap. Their perception told them something was "off", but investigation would tell them what that "off" might mean. Perception would tell you that something is "off" while walking down the road, but investigation would tell you that it is an ambush and what kind. Perception made it so you couldnt be surprised and investigation would tell you there are 4 people about to drop a net on you. Perception = Something seems off over here Investigation = This is what the off thing means
Once, the players were on a crossroads situationswith two possible paths, and I left them to talk among themselves to decide as a group where to go next (and also, I went to the bathroom real quick because as a DM you gotta take those chances to leave the table). When I came back they hadn't talked, instead one of them had ALREADY ROLLED a perception check and told me "what do I see?". Not only was uncalled for, the best part was that I wasn’t even at the table for that roll.
The DM for one of the games I play allows us to contest certain skill checks that he asks for with a different one as long as we can make it make sense within the context. One scenario we had was my character and another player, fairy, were trying to hide from the BBEG but the fairy saw something shiny and (to their nature) wanted to run out of cover after it. My character wants to hold them back but has a low strength stat. So instead I asked to use medicine and grab them by the achilles, using the pain from that to keep them from moving. Buuut since it was painful, she screamed and we got found anyways. Still cool that it happened that way.
One thing I used to do playing the White Wolf games back in the 90s was have each success be a question that the players could ask. It should work with any dice pool mechanic. I think Star Trek Adventures even formalizes this. It seems to work well for knowledge acquisition skills, in that it both keeps the actual human players around the table engaged, but also allows the character's aptitudes to differ from the player's (which seems to be a major point of having character attributes).
Next do Charisma checks(persuasion, deception, intimidation, perfromance) as if people who play has less charisma than their characters, i have seen so many DM ask the players to 'convince them' before allow an ability check, but never have seen a single dm ask a player to lift 1000lb before ask for an athletics check
Really good topic and enjoyed your analysis and suggestions. Until skill checks came to be a central exploration mechanism in 3e, players had to describe what they were doing to be successful when looking for something hidden (or use an information-gathering spell such as augury, detect magic, locate object, etc.). And it was incumbent on the DM to be descriptive without giving everything away. The back-and-forth dialog between players and DM created story moments and encouraged theater-of-the-mind play instead of stat-sheet-focused play. Because the use of skill rolls to do things in-game has become so prevalent as many player's default style, I have had to regularly remind my players to describe what their character is doing and then I will decide what kind of roll is required, if any.
I enjoy using perception for other senses besides sight if not enough information was given. The phrase I use is " I would like to or may I perceive X" and usually explain what sense I'm using
First thing I tell anyone who sits to play at a table where I'm the DM (usually during session 0) is that they should not say things like "I'd like to make a X check to assess Y". It is the DM's prerogative to ask for checks when they are relevant. I usually refer them to the very basic but often ignored basic descriptions in the PHB: 1- Page 6: "The play (...) unfolds according to this basic pattern: 1- DM describes environment. (...) 2- Players describe what they want to do. (...) Sometimes resolving a task is easy (...) but the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap or some other circumstance might make it challenging (...). In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. 3- The DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions." 2- Page 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attemps an action (other than an attack) that has a chance for failure" This implies that players expecting to roll perception checks to learn what they can about a specific scenario should instead be asking questions like: "what do I see in this room?" or "I want to check under the rug for a trapdoor". The DM now has to determine the circumstances of the situation and decide if a roll is needed. For example, the DM might have a note saying that a successful DC 15 investigation check lets the players discover that a trapdoor is under the rug, but if a character wants to directly go and lift the rug that check is now unnecessary. The trick is to ride the balance between prompting players to be descriptive and creative and rewarding them with success without needing to roll the dice and making sure that you are asking for a healthy amount of dice rolls, because as we all know, players love to roll dice.
Ginny Di just did a video very very similar to this (though it's for too many rolls in general), both her video and this one are excellent sources of info!
My player wanted to use the smithing in our kind of skills to improve his artificers armor. Make the fists this more damaging by adding retractable blades to them. I said it would take about a month of downtime and make it a skill challenge. The party had some downtime after a nasty boss fight. He aced the rolls and described them beautifully. So I granted him a little something extra. In addition to the added damage he was able to fire the blades out and recall them in a similar way to the bracer of flying daggers.
Hey guys, yall are awesome! I really appreciate the hard work you put into your videos! They are awesome and very informative! So recently I completely dove back into D&D, and I wanted my charecter to be able to play at any store or convention, similar to how the old RPGA system use to work! I found that in 5th eddition we now have the adventurers league! But there almost no videos discussing what it is or how you join or how it works. Could you guys maybe make a video shedding some light on the topic?? Ether way thanks yall for everything you do and keep up the good work! :)
This is why in 3.5 there was Spot, Search, and Listen skills, a lot of skills have been combined in 5th which is good for simplicity. However, it has caused problems with the explanations of the different skills, the reason I think that Spot and Listen where important is probably because if you can smell it you've already inhaled the gas, if you can taste it you've probably already ingested it, and if you can feel it the rogue has already stabbed you in the back. Int is the dump stat for like 11/13 of the classes and wis is a good saving throw which is why Perception (Spot and Listen) has encroached into Investigations (Search) territory. I remember the old thing of "Do you make your Rogue be able to detect a trap is there before it goes off, or find the off switch afterwards." But D&D is a team game so you have the Cleric notice there is a trap, the Fighter activates it, the Wizard finds the off switch, and the Rogue disarms it.
Some very good tips and tricks were given in the second half of the video. What I struggle with as DM is thieves tools checks to open doors or chests. What do I do with these if they fail, can they try again or can I say the opportunity is gone? If anyone has an answer I'll gladly hear it.
I use the pizza analogy when I think about perception skill checks in particular, but also investigation and insight. You can see, smell and touch each topping but you can’t see the sauce because it’s hidden. You might be able to smell the sauce but honestly, that would be a perception roll. You might have a reasonable suspicion the sauce underneath is red, but just to be certain it’s not white, better roll. Also the crust is made of cauliflower which you wouldn’t have known just by looking at it. Sometimes you have to eat evidence to know what it’s made of… Seriously. Perception is more than a reasonable expectation of what can be sensed. It also involves luck. That’s why you’re rolling a dice every time you want to use it…
My players were trying to make it out of a forest before nightfall to avoid gnolls and i told them i was going to do a skill challenge where they could (reasonably) use any skill and explain how they would use it to help them get out. Instead of just looking around (perception) to find their way back, our barbarian used athletics to run as far ahead as he could to find the right path forward. It was a high dc but he did it.
Great video guys. I do have a different opinion on asking for an investigation check to find traps and hidden doors. So my scout/gloomstalker with advantage, expertise in perception and the alert feat goes to do his scouting thing, I say I want to look for traps and the DM asks for an investigation check, OK I roll a 10-1 for a 9. It’s all clear guys, aren’t I a great scout.
I often mix skills together. An example is a player discovering a dead body and wanting to figure out how the person was killed. In this case, I will ask the player to roll both medicine and invesitgation. I then combine the scores to see if they beat the DC I have set and to decide how much detail they gain. A lower score might let them know the victim was stabbed to death. While a higher score may let them know they were stabbed precisely through the heart with curved dagger blade.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I find dealing with insight checks awkward, never really know how to detail how someone looks or thinks when someone has rolled for insight. Any chance you can do a similar video for this???
I describe the targets emotional state/true feelings at the moment.
Personally I describe one or two elements of body language that would correspond to the emotion/state being conveyed. Someone lying? You notice some subtle fidgeting/they won't make eye contact/their voice breaks slightly or varies in pitch oddly/they move their eyes as if they're inventing something/etc. Someone getting angry? You notice their face becoming slightly redder/fingers start to tighten around whatever they're holding/muscle in shoulder starts tensing/etc.
And I'll describe the opposite of these for negative insights, e.g. "Do I think they're lying?" "You don't notice any variations in their voice or tense body language; they're looking at you throughout with a gentle smile."
@@dtsazza This is the best way to run Insight. The other thing I like to do is ask my players what they are trying to get insight about. Are they trying to gauge whether the NPC is being truthful? Are they trying to discover their motivations or intent?
I also try to lay the groundwork for there to be normal behaviors that might throw them off. Specifically narrating that a character rolls their eyes up before they answer any question, or that they don't seem to be making eye contact, their voice cracks as they talk, they keep picking at a fingernail. Incorporating some of these behaviors can help turn an insight check into a puzzle, where the player is being given multiple and competing pieces of information without being told what the answer is, forcing them to make a conclusion for themselves.
I go over skill checks in session zero, what each skill covers and what it doesn't. I also encourage them to tell me what they are trying to do so I can match it to the skill, if it is even needed. Some of them area little nebulous, but having this discussion gives them the chance to ask questions and to get all of us on the same page.
@@JJV7243
On players reacting to low insight rolls, I’ve recently taken to telling them on a failure, “believe what you wish.” This keeps any assumptions being made based on the result of the roll.
Yeah I think this is the best course of action. They even just said that rolls are for additional information. If you are consistent with telling people they gain no new information on low rolls then they won't metagame on them.
In our table, there's a joke regarding Stealth rolls, where independent of what the result are, we always say "You believe you are hidden". Because you tried to do something and your roll just shows the success degree on hiding, but for you, even a 2 was an attempt, and you are hidden.. even if is just for whoever has low passive perception.. You just ain't that hard to see though :P
@@RaphaelDDL That's actually something I do at my table as well. I try to keep what my answers are for stealth and insight as "You believe that..." and my players picked up on it pretty quick. Just because they roll high or low and get an answer, doesn't mean that answer is what actually happened. Keeps them on edge even with really good rolls, and is always the most fun on stealth lol
Holy shit, this just blew my mind. I will definitely be using this for my tables going forward.
I dont let them see the roll period
a thing ive used to prevent the overuse of a specific skill, is when i ask for a specific roll such as perception, i always ask in this manner. "roll for perception, unless you could tell me why another skill could work" then i usually get responses such as "can i use x skill because of my training/experience, in/with y." This allows, in my experience, players who invested really heavy in certain skill to feel like they are able apply their field of knowledge/expertise to a specific situation. if they roll low i usually give them a partial outcome, and tell them they only got a piece of the solution. This allows another player in to do the same and usually succeed with that first players. this gives the feeling of teamwork as well as allowing a player who failed to still contribute to a situation.
The perception dogpile is so prevalent in my group! Thank you for these great tips. Awesome video as always.
Last night I ran my first adventure, a homebrew one-shot for mostly new players. It was a great success, thank you for all your advice guys!
Congrats
This video helped me so much with my GMing when I first saw it.
For my sometimes table I've introduced an idea to alleviate the dogpiles: max 2 players can roll the same check (or give one player the help action on it), any more won't give you additional benefits. This way the dynamic of who does what in the group really split up and specialists get to enjoy their build a lot more. Sometimes they still want to all do the same thing and sometimes I'll call for a skill challenge, but just having this "too many cooks" call really helped in my session.
@15:40 I think players have a responsibility to find opportunities for their skills and tools themselves too. Putting it all on the DM to include a use for your tools and skills is going to have you end up like the experience most groups have with them (where its left up to the DM to figure everything out and they neglect it because they have so much on their plate). As a player, you need to understand what your skills/tools let you do and try to utilize them in a way that makes sense.
Exactly
This is definitely true for tool proficiencies.
All characters have the same 18 skills, albeit with different modifiers. But the DM can not reasonably be asked to keep track of the tool proficiencies, as characters either have them or not. Finding uses for them is entirely on the players.
I do this myself for all my characters. I will usually describe what I'm trying to do and how like, "sniffing the air I try to see if I can pick up the scent off someone being in the room recently like, B.O., perfume or leather or grass." "Looking at the diplomat do I pick up any insight as to how his travels have been and his current state of mind?" "With my experience studying beasts of this region, are there any clues as to what kind of creature it may have been thanks to tracks and broken twigs? Snatched fur or mucus anywhere?"
Yes! players do have the responsibility to find those opportunities but sometimes for whatever reason they don't. More experienced players (especially those with experience on the other side of the screen) will make their intentions pretty clear without recurring to "gamey language" (like "I want to perception the room" ugh). But you might have inexperienced players, or players that have experience playing in a group where that sort of behavior was not called out or outright encouraged.
So, how to encourage your players to do things in certain ways? The answer is you, as a DM, should try to reward desired behaviors or punish the undesired ones. An easy example could be: A character enters the bedroom of a potential enemy they are trying to gain information on and asks to "investigate the room" vs A character enters the same room and starts describing what they want to investigate and in which way (e.g: "I'll check under the bed for loose floorboards"). In the first case you could ask for a plain investigation check and set a high DC, in the second case you could decide to outright give the player a clue without a roll (even if "loose floorboards under the bed" was not in your notes. Maybe you had a secret letter from an ally of the bad guy hidden in a drawer and you decide that the loose floorboard idea is good enough to shift the letter from one location to the other)
If you communicate this sort of thing in advance (preferably in a session 0) and keep to it, you'll definitely encourage your players to describe in detail what they're doing and how they're using their skills. Every player at the table should know that "investigating a room" will usually mean an investigation check with a high DC and taking the time to describe what and how you investigate could mean an auto success with no roll attached.
I'll clarify that when I say "punish" undesirable behaviors I'm not talking about punishing the players or characters, just communicating in advance that those sort of actions will yield poorer results. Also, when I talk about changing the location of clues to reward a creative or descriptive player Im talking about doing it sparingly, secretly and only when you feel it is a good idea. Every DM will get better at gauging these sort of scenarios with time, as will the players get better at descriptive actions.
TOTALLY AGREE! one of my DMs asks for WAAAAY too many perception checks, and he doesnt realize it. often times, the action has ground to a halt because of bad rolls on unnecessary perception checks.
Ooh, rolling insight to figure out what approach to make against an NPC? (I.E. Intimidation, persuasion, deception) That's freaking BRILLIANT. Maybe even rolling insight with charisma mod because your gaining this information while speaking them
I firmly believe that a truly charismatic person is a better listener than speaker.
Matt Mercer needs to watch this video. 😉 He's a great DM, but he drives me crazy with overly specific and generally superfluous ability checks. Fortunately, the people with whom I game moved past them during the 4E era.
Great video.
The way I think of Passive Perception is that it acts like a Spidey Sense. It tells you something is off, but it requires a roll to figure out exactly what is going on.
Yes to this but also I think it should apply to like basic “you can see it so yes it’s there”
For example this past weekend…
Me: “is this the guy who stole our scroll and I saw run away?”
Dm: “idk make a perception check”
Me: “wouldn’t I know what he looks like? I saw his face”
Dm: “idk maybe you did maybe you didn’t”
Me “the miniatures all look the same and you never gave me a description even though we rolled for initiative before. I would be aware of him so I feel like this should just be passive perception.
Dm:…
Ugh… fine! I got an 18”
Dm: “yeah this is the guy you saw before”
**screams internally*
Thanks for wasting everyone's time. Roll to see a trap you already noticed with your PP.😅😂
Disagree.
Spider-Man uses intuition BEFORE the danger happen.
This the main issue I have with perception.
The Dungeon Dudes failed to talk about this even though they said it is all scenes.
A good oneliner to differentiate perception and investigation i hav recently read on reddit was perception is what an animal might be able to figure out.
I love this general rule of thumb because you can quickly decide in spontaneous situations what skill to use.
I've actually toyed with the idea of perception only being a passive skill that acts as a benchmark for stealth rolls and automatically detecting traps, and then splitting its active duties between investigation, insight and survival; just because perception does so many things that its an auto pick skill; and one that steamrolls other information gathering skills. A good bit of that is just that DMs default to it and just sort of forget that people are taking skills like investigation to be able to investigate crime scenes, insight to be able to understand someone's motives and survival to track people or animals and then never get to use those skills.
Also big ups to the Uh Oh shirt! Red team, best team.
I had a fun time with insight today! My player’s Druid recently picked up and prepared hold person. An assassin I was intending to get away was caught, and I needed to improvise an interrogation scene. All I had prepped was that this assassin was good at their job, would not speak, and would die before revealing secrets about who they were working for. As the party asked questions, I had them roll insight to determine what his facial expressions meant. They learned promising his life wouldn’t work, but they could goad him into revealing his mission by insulting his ego, and it kept the character’s silence from bringing the game to a halt!
I think the "degrees of success" idea is very important. Even a low roll should give you basic information, where a high roll would give you bonus info. This way you can not "gate story progression behind a roll", but still ask for rolls, because rolling dice is Fun!
I love incorporating tool proficiencies for unique trade-specific insight and information. It's such a great way to drive both character and narrative while utilizing an often neglected area of the character sheet. I sprinkle my environments with tool, skill, and language specific easter-eggs, such that each clue will only reveal its secrets once a specific player interacts with it. Sharing those 'ah ha!' moments around the party at different times gives each player-character their time in the sun, it gives the whole table permission to think of unique ways to use their tools and backgrounds, and it gives validation to the conceptual character decisions that the players made back during session 0.
I love this channel because you portray mistakes in a way that makes us feel okay for making them, it is a very good learning environment. I feel very comfortable watching you guys
This is a great video. It covered the subject well, with sound advice. I ask my players not to talk in skill check terms. Instead, tell me what you are doing and I will either call for a skill check or I won’t. Sometimes I make a double skill check, where I roll secretly and if it succeeds I ask the player to make a check. Their roll determines how much information I give them, but since they already passed my roll, they always succeed. If they fail the secret roll then I just don’t ask them to make a check.
Players do not know I am making a check because I am rolling a dice all the time. Plus, to throw them off, I will pre-roll a d20 a few times while the players are talking and write down the numbers, which means I can instantly say “You see nothing” without apparently even rolling.
I also think passive perception and other passive skills should be referenced more often for things that players don't ask for.
I'm currently playing a PC with low perception (I dumped Wis). While walking into a room, I should never be able to pick up on nuances like small inscriptions or things out of place that more perceptive characters do. The DM delineating what the characters notice is honestly pretty fun, and eliminates the nonsense situations where I roll well and perceive more than my more perceptive party-member. And it also opens up good RP moments where the investigator/perceiver is rewarded for being so, but can still ask for help.
I think it would be great if you covered how to increase the use of Tool proficiency. And in relation to this video I think an example of too many perception checks is critical role
Some of their checks are just in telling a better story for viewers. However, Mr. Mercer handles most things very well in spite of the antics of the other cast members. There are times it does feel its scripted. Like they just happen to get those good rolls in the last minute. Though I've DM'd a few games that work out the same way. Overall, Crit Roll seems to promote, or try to, a good view into how D&D can be. It's embellished with over-the-top voice actors, sure. This doesn't take away from how well thought out Matt is at storytelling and world building. I've only dabbled into the building part, it's tough.
I think in honest truth, the only thing that is misleading in a small way is the voice acting vs. day-to-day D&D sessions. Most games I've been in don't delve too deep into the voice play of the characters. In the long run, it just boils down to the players at your table and their strengths, not that of the characters. If a character's stats would allow for something, but the player running it is unable to see it, sometimes you just have to help them out for sake of brevity and the game itself. Like they said in the video, one roll could completely derail the whole session over a missed roll. Sometimes that's ok, sometimes it isn't. It's up to the DM in those moments to make the call and help keep the session rolling forward. Or not, that is fine as well if it falls within the narrative of the game, you and your players are playing.
I *think* this is Homebrew territory, but it's still interesting to see what the DDs approaches are.
Persoanlly, I try to fight the urge to make new rules, but apply exisiting ones to new situations.
I allow Cooks to make a skill check on the long rest before battle. If they get 20+, everyone who shared the meal has Inspiration.
Someone with Leatherworking can skin and tan a monster hide. The cook would be able to butcher it, resulting in preserving more magical ingredients (especially in the Arcanist is advising). A lot of skills should also give a descent, default, standard of living (similar to Performer).
Take a look at Xanathar's Guide. It covers how tool proficiencies and skill proficiencies overlap and how tools can be used.
@@rysarian4384 I agree that XGtE does add something more.
Most are underwhelming though imo, but some are cool. For a West Marches style game, Cobbler is almost a must. ;-)
Just yesterday I was looking how to introduce leads and clues. This is even better cause now players can be rewarded for expanding on their roleplay. Much appreciated guys. Long time fan :)
Much food for thought. Thank you! 😊👍
They key takeaway for me is to apply *degrees of success and failure for rolls,* instead of just a binary: _"You found nothing"_ vs. "You found a secret door".
If there really is nothing there, a 20 will reveal some interesting but inconsequential info, like graffiti, or a secret pouch with a pipe and tobacco, or maybe just a dead rat under a mattress.
Rolling a 1 might mean that they put their hand in a slimey pile of chicken poop, or some other inconsequential but icky mishap.
Maybe rolling high, but not quite high enough to find a secret door can be planned for. _Almost_ finding the secret door could mean finding matching indents in the floor that means that all the furniture in the room was once in different places. The secret door isn't found, but there is still a shadow of something not quite perceived.
If there is always some new information from all rolls, that should at least add new interest to the places that the players find themselves in, even if it didn't actually cause progress along the path they need to go.
This is great advice, love this!
8:40 "Sometimes when you give players an automatic success, they might not believe you"
I noticed this pretty early on as a DM. What solved the problem for me was that I made them roll and gave the information regardless of the score of the roll. The difference being, if they had rolled poorly, I added a superfluous "but that is all you notice" after the description.
Examples:
A) Good roll
"You notice some scrape marks on the floor, as if a portion of the wall was movable."
B) Bad roll
""You notice some scrape marks on the floor, as if a portion of the wall was movable, but that is all you see."
For me, this has worked wonders. YMMV.
Could also use time as a variation. Poor roll it takes longer to find it, but they still find it. I do this often, normally followed by behind the screen random encounter roll. Sets the stage of time in the games. Keeping them aware that it does not stop, and their actions or time taken to perform them can have cause/effect moments.
This comes up a LOT on Nat 1's during times.
@@drfolsom74 That's what I was doing when I had the players-not-believing problem. At least for my players, the implication that their bad rolls cause some additional info being missed cements that at least the information they did get is factual. And this method doesn't mean that they can't use extra time investigating if they want to*. "Time wasted" has never been a terribly popular approach. Plus, this method works also when extra time simply cannot be spent, like for noticing someone's eye twitch at the mention of some other person or event. I've found "but that's all you see" very powerful.
*Over the years, "investigation" has become a "short rest activity" at my table. For example, if the party stops to investigate a crime scene or an abandoned holy site or a room with knick-knacks and do-dahs aplenty or what have you, they usually stop for long enough to bind their wounds, have a quick chat with NPCs if available, meditate, scout the surroundings for enemies, etc. - depending on the party composition and their talents.
I played once at a "perception addicted" table as an insight focused lore bard, it was really cool because in the beguining all of them (even the dm) thought I should have focused on perception insted, but as the campaign progressed they gradually learned the power of that skill, it was really fun!
I remember asking to look behind a painting in a room to see if there was a safe behind it. The DM asked me for a perception check, I rolled high and they tell me there is nothing there. Like why even ask? It just really encouraged asking for constant perception checks, every player would just roll dice and shout out numbers whenever we went into a room, sometimes doing more then one if they didn't roll well. At my own table if someone interacts with something directly I often don't have them make a roll and if someone rolls a dice I didn't ask them to it doesn't count.
I generally don’t like useless checks, but I’ll admit I do use them on occasion. I find that, IF you’re very careful on how often you use them, it can help discourage the meta-gaming dog piles of checks, because the party starts to break this mentality of “oh, we’re being prompted for a check, there must be SOMETHING important here”. Because they know that sometimes, I’m just keeping them a bit off-balance.
But you’re right, if you do it too often, it can kinda encourage players to try and do constant checks on EVERYTHING, so I tend to limit it to once or twice a session, if that.
Your channel has been one of the biggest influences for me as a DM. And I especially love your "How To" videos
One problem I have with the fuzzy split between Investigation and Perception is that it forces Rogues to be 3-Ability Dependent to be effective at their roles.
And for Autopsies, use Investigation to look for wounds on a body and Medicine to determine what actually killed them. After all, someone might poison a victim and then stab them with someone else's pilfered dagger to misdirect the investigation.
New to DnD, but in exploring some sewers and finding another path to the surface, used cartographer's tools + proficiency to figure out what building on the surface links up to that pathway.
This is really good. I can see myself falling into a bunch of these pitfalls at various times.
I loved this line:
"Many DMs may not be rolling high enough to see this problem growing. So today we're hoping to roll high in our perception and take an action to investigate these problems and use some of our insight to determine how to better use these skills at your table."
Dude must have been really inspired when he came up with that. Pure golden poetry!
Insight is examining People. Investigation is looking for something. Perception is more general environment or noticing something
Good advice. One other thing I often use Perception to decide who gets to spot the information rather than deciding whether it gets spotted, highest roll sees it first.
In D&D 5e the big difference between wisdom and intelligence is that wisdom is the application of knowledge, intuition, and your general awareness or your surroundings. Intelligence is your ability to remember information, process data, rationalize, and use logic and reason or be deductive.
Wisdom skills are things you practice and gain through experience and intelligence skills are things you study.
Intelligence= knowing a tomato is a fruit
Wisdom= knowing a tomato doesn't go in a fruit salad
Charisma= convincing someone to do it anyway
I stole this example
Awesomely put!
@@whiskeySe7en Holy shit. Totally this.
@@whiskeySe7en every new player i have gets told about the ability scores as they relate to tomatos.
str = ability to crush a tomato.
dex = ability to dodge a thrown tomato.
con = ability to eat a rotten tomato.
int = knowing a tomato is a fruit.
wis = knowing not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.
cha = ability to sell tomato based fruit salad.
P.S. Its called salsa, and its delicious xD
Several of the things you have listed under Intelligence aren't actually covered by INT in 5e. Processing data, and application of logic and reason are examples.
i REALLY like doing what you suggest at around 23:30, just asking everyone what they want to do in a situation before resolving rolls. if 3 people are wanting to check the room out, then so be it. but if one person checks that room and the others have decided to start looting bodies, then that's that, no chances to "re-perceive".
i also like doing that with travel scenarios, so that when they do enter a new encounter map there's no, "well, duh, of course we're ALL going to roll perception!" just the people who said they were on lookout get to use their perception rolls, while those who were foraging are doing another (hopefully important) task, etc...
I have no idea why I watch these guys-I haven’t played since I was 12-14, in 1983-85. But D&D was awesome, and their videos are entertaining, so here I am.
I love the look on Monty's face when he makes a shit/amazing pun 😂
This remains great advice. When I had a rogue PC with Observant and a passive perception of 20, once they spotted the first trap for all the similar ones on that dungeon were obvious. No rolls needed. But if the others in the party split off, anything could happen. Encouraging specific role play and exploration description by the players is key, because then everyone is telling the story together.
I wish more people would use the rules for tool set proficiencies from Xanathar's Guide, they are amazing and I haven't seen anyone talking about how incredible and versatile they are!
Definitely 100% here.
One area I specifically DON'T allow Perception is where something is plainly visible, and the information comes from understanding or context.
Because they're so underused, I'm always looking for ways to bring in the knowledge skills.
I once allowed my friend`s character to roll using his chess set proficiency. The group was trying to look at a map where wooden troops were displaced and since its was like an strategical game decision it was just plausible for him to reed the map and realize what was going on.
I love this idea! This would never help my goblin paladin who has dice proficiency from her background as a soldier. Maybe she'll could use it in a situation that involves gambling.
I really like the concept of "success, and'. I'd already started playing with it somewhat, but I'm going to try using it in more situations. Thank you!
Ginny D did a video on this exact same problem earlier this week. Glad to see you guys are covering it too.
Very well written script! I am especially glad that you also offer possible solutions to the problems you encounter.
At 25:00 if one person has time to look, all can at the same time. Everyone has the same time available, when the DM doesn't RR the team.
Your channel has been infinitely helpful for me as a DM. Thank you both!!
You guys dropped this video just in time. I am a new DM and this is something I am struggling with my first group. I'll need to review this a couple more times to get everything, but thank you so much.
Thank you for this! I have my first murder mystery I'm DMing and this will help broaden my skill checks and help make it more alive. Thank you!
Great topic! I'd love to see more videos about over/underused or improperly handled mechanics.
I love this video and will be forwarding it to my party. I already do a bunch of what your are saying but did have something to add for passive perception. I have a ranger in the group I DM for with HIGH wisdom. I make sure to make their passive perception key in as many situations as possible so they feel powerful. There is a lot of travel time in my homebrew campaign (only a couple days from one end to the other of the map) and if there is something happening ahead/behind, and they aren't otherwise distracted they notice. I don't give details, but if the party is walking and there is an ambush up ahead I give the ranger a heads up (DM rolls involved and other things obviously). All I do is message them privately (Discord) and say you see a glint of metal up ahead (or something). My player feels great for seeing it, and I feel great when they don't, lol!
Regarding comprehensive searches - 3.x edition had the Take 20 option, which could only be used when there was no consequence for failure. The handwave was that by taking 20x the time for any check, you could be deemed to have rolled 20 at least once, and so could guarantee getting your maximum possible.
I think this might be my favorite video of those that I've watched from you two. Thank you for the insight.
I find that as a player, I can ask for very specific quesitons that border on metagaming. For example of where this did not happen, Matt Mercer described cart tracks and stated that the part could not determine which way the cart was moving. He made an analogy with an automobile and said the party could not tell. Having been in horse drawn carts, I knew that it was perfectly obvious which way the cart was moving if you looked at the hoof prints. Is is 'metagaming' to ask for 1) details about hoof prints, 2) the right asscention of stars (an easy and accurate way to determine the time at night that should be obvious to anyone that travels at night in pre-industrial world), 3) which side of the trees have moss on them (usually north, but be careful if the tree is down near a stream). I think anyone in a pre-industrial world should know the constellations well, allowing them to detemine the time and latitude easily. Sailors would be the best at this, but I think anyone should be pretty good at it.
I like to use perception checks to give characters hints as to where to use another skill and what skill might be applicable. For instance, if they roll well enough in a room with a secret door, then I'll tell them that they think something looks like it might be out of place in a certain area of the room. Then they can do an investigation check of that area to try to actually find the secret door. Or if they are walking through the wilderness, a sufficient perception check could note an area of disturbed vegetation. A nature check could then be used to try to determine what caused the disturbance or a survival check to figure out which way it went.
I like to think of Perception checks as being used to determine the Who, What and where of a place/situation and Investigation being the how and why (and maybe when, depending on the situation) with insight being used more for reading a person's intentions, preferences, honesty, etc. This is a generalization of course, but I find it's an easy way to get across to my players how to use them in a given situation
Great video guys i'm really enjoying your channel. I mainly DM for my Kids and perception checks have become the catch all (with who can shout first and loudest) for when we hit a new area or room. After watching this (and knowing my kids) i'm going to try a change with them, removing the perception check and replacing it with a 'Sensory Check'. I'm hoping this will be a way for both, them and me! to start using more of the proficiency checks and properly investigating areas!
Ginny Di had a very good video that goes right along with this that she published today (about not rolling for everything). Good to see great D&D minds thinking alike!
I've always felt that for the case of secret doors a perception check would tell the character "there's something not right about this bookcase". If the player asks *what* is wrong with it, that needs an Investigation check. This also helps turn "meta-gaming" into something reasonable "in world" because the character has a reason to keep turning their attention to this bookcase or calling the groups attention to it.
The problem with this is it gates all answers behind dice rolls. If the player can figure put the trap based on what the character perceives then that should be perfectly legitimate, otherwise what is even the player's role in 5e?
@@YMasterSexcept that's not what I was saying. I was highlighting what I feel is an in-game use difference between perception and investigation, not good/bad secret for design.
That being said, it's not *necessarily* locked behind dice rolls, even with my original example. If the bookcase slid side to reveal the door & the players say:
A) they will push/pull on the case - done! No investigation dice needed.
B) I'll check the bookcase - roll investigation to (potentially) give them the information about the secret door.
C) I'll check the books - roll investigation.
Basically specifics from players should get specifics from the DM. If they are dancing around it, then roll to see if they get more information. If they are vague, then roll for the chance of specifics.
Plus knowing that there's "something up" with the bookcase will make PCs unstoppable. If their investigation checks fail, then the group will tear down the entire wall to find out what's back there. (Particularly if there's a "completionist" in the group.)
@@AdrianParsons I get that it wasn't the intention behind what you were saying, but it is an unintended consequence of that line of thinking.
This was so freaking helpful. Thank you
Finally got my campaign PDF and I'm so overwhelmed reading all the information about your glorious city I definitely don't want to make people roll perception checks I just want to tell them how cool the thing you guys made is lol
Another great video guys!
An issue worth talking about is the Search action in combat.
It takes the Search action to look for an invisible or a hidden enemy, and it is often forgotten.
I had this issue till I figured something out when discussing this with my son.
1) A DM should never ask the player to roll a perception check. A perception check is a passive skill roll made by the DM when ever a player character would notice something off with out actually searching the area. I use a party role and than add the perception to it.
Example: Party enters a room with a hidden nook in the wall. Roll a party perception check to see if anyone notices the wall being odd.
2) If the party asks what do the see. No need to role, you already done it.
3) When the party begins to actively search/scan the room you do not do a perception check. Instead you have them role what is the equivalent of the search check, which in 5e is the investigate check. I would have each player role individually as not everybody in the party may be searching/scanning.
Example: Party enters a room with a hidden nook in the wall and fails their perception check. The rogue stats he is going to scan the room while the others guard the door. The rogue rolls an investigate check and notices something off with the wall that has the nook. If the opening mechanism is somewhere else in the room I would have him roll another investigate check (with advantage) as he is going from scanning to a more thorough search of the room expecting to find a switch.
There are always ways to check on perception that are about how the levels of success, intelegece, wisdom and how they looked and other skills that might effect what they see or dont see and determines on what I tell them or don't. IF there is a critical fail on a skill, a fake results happens which can interfere with other players success "Oh I head a loud bark.' " The other player who had a crit 1 "Nah, you just hearing things." the banter between the two might cause time to slipp that an encounter would happen. I also use skills to encourage players to think about how they intereact with the enviroment and each other. A historian would ask questions that a smith would not and vice versa. To me a skill is a knolwedge base for the players to draw from to get info, much as you guys said and allows for more information or more options for the players to interact with their enviroments, npcs or even other players.
I just wrapped up a campaign where I played a multiclassed Rogue/Cleric. By 20th level I had a +5 in wisdom and I took expertise in Perception. When you combined that with Reliable Talent I couldn't roll below a 27 on a perception check and our DM loves to call for Perception rolls.
It was awesome.
Even if I don't watch the video I like and comment for the algorithm. These guys have such amazing content.
I like the way TFS at the Table handle these kind of things (some of which you mention in this video) but if the players ever asked to make a perception check he would almost always follow up with "What are you looking for?" or "How are you searching?" or "What are you searching?" And that makes sense because if you're looking specifically for traps or a secret door you might not notice things you are not specifically looking for. Or for skill checks the DM might give two or more options that will lead to the same clue or conclusion.
I am not very good at theatre of the mind styles of play so I adopt a lot, like a staggering amount, of battle maps. This has single handedly removed the entire "I roll perception on the room" or "what do I see" because I tell my players, what you see, is what your characters see. This leads to "I see a large desk here, can I check it out further?" "sure player! Roll perception, or investigation if you want to dig a little beyond just seeing things". Best thing I've ever done lol
I like that you talk about perception after doing a video on the soul knife rouge. I hate abilities that say you can turn a fail into a success with perception, insight. Stealth, and deception. You don’t fail these checks you just don’t garnish more information and most of the time stealth sets a perception dc not the other way around unless it’s passive perception.
This is a great episode for both players and DMs. Really clears things up.
Perception and investigation are different but often work together. The rules specifically mention perception for finding hidden doors and traps so I would have players roll for those purposes. However, it doesn't say that they know that it is a trap. Their perception told them something was "off", but investigation would tell them what that "off" might mean. Perception would tell you that something is "off" while walking down the road, but investigation would tell you that it is an ambush and what kind. Perception made it so you couldnt be surprised and investigation would tell you there are 4 people about to drop a net on you.
Perception = Something seems off over here
Investigation = This is what the off thing means
Once, the players were on a crossroads situationswith two possible paths, and I left them to talk among themselves to decide as a group where to go next (and also, I went to the bathroom real quick because as a DM you gotta take those chances to leave the table). When I came back they hadn't talked, instead one of them had ALREADY ROLLED a perception check and told me "what do I see?". Not only was uncalled for, the best part was that I wasn’t even at the table for that roll.
These are some of my favorite videos, the ones that deal with game mechanics
The DM for one of the games I play allows us to contest certain skill checks that he asks for with a different one as long as we can make it make sense within the context.
One scenario we had was my character and another player, fairy, were trying to hide from the BBEG but the fairy saw something shiny and (to their nature) wanted to run out of cover after it. My character wants to hold them back but has a low strength stat. So instead I asked to use medicine and grab them by the achilles, using the pain from that to keep them from moving.
Buuut since it was painful, she screamed and we got found anyways. Still cool that it happened that way.
Great video for DMs. I have been doing some of these already. Thanks for the new ideas.
One thing I used to do playing the White Wolf games back in the 90s was have each success be a question that the players could ask. It should work with any dice pool mechanic. I think Star Trek Adventures even formalizes this.
It seems to work well for knowledge acquisition skills, in that it both keeps the actual human players around the table engaged, but also allows the character's aptitudes to differ from the player's (which seems to be a major point of having character attributes).
Next do Charisma checks(persuasion, deception, intimidation, perfromance) as if people who play has less charisma than their characters, i have seen so many DM ask the players to 'convince them' before allow an ability check, but never have seen a single dm ask a player to lift 1000lb before ask for an athletics check
Really good topic and enjoyed your analysis and suggestions. Until skill checks came to be a central exploration mechanism in 3e, players had to describe what they were doing to be successful when looking for something hidden (or use an information-gathering spell such as augury, detect magic, locate object, etc.). And it was incumbent on the DM to be descriptive without giving everything away. The back-and-forth dialog between players and DM created story moments and encouraged theater-of-the-mind play instead of stat-sheet-focused play. Because the use of skill rolls to do things in-game has become so prevalent as many player's default style, I have had to regularly remind my players to describe what their character is doing and then I will decide what kind of roll is required, if any.
I enjoy using perception for other senses besides sight if not enough information was given. The phrase I use is " I would like to or may I perceive X" and usually explain what sense I'm using
Thank you guys. Great video! I love the examples, would like to hear more of them as you illustrate your points.
Really dug this video! Great info on a often misused skill.
First thing I tell anyone who sits to play at a table where I'm the DM (usually during session 0) is that they should not say things like "I'd like to make a X check to assess Y". It is the DM's prerogative to ask for checks when they are relevant. I usually refer them to the very basic but often ignored basic descriptions in the PHB:
1- Page 6: "The play (...) unfolds according to this basic pattern: 1- DM describes environment. (...) 2- Players describe what they want to do. (...) Sometimes resolving a task is easy (...) but the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap or some other circumstance might make it challenging (...). In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. 3- The DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions."
2- Page 174: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attemps an action (other than an attack) that has a chance for failure"
This implies that players expecting to roll perception checks to learn what they can about a specific scenario should instead be asking questions like: "what do I see in this room?" or "I want to check under the rug for a trapdoor". The DM now has to determine the circumstances of the situation and decide if a roll is needed. For example, the DM might have a note saying that a successful DC 15 investigation check lets the players discover that a trapdoor is under the rug, but if a character wants to directly go and lift the rug that check is now unnecessary.
The trick is to ride the balance between prompting players to be descriptive and creative and rewarding them with success without needing to roll the dice and making sure that you are asking for a healthy amount of dice rolls, because as we all know, players love to roll dice.
Pallid elf is one of my favorite races when it’s allowed, because of how valuable it can be to have advantage on all insight and investigation checks.
Great breakdown and specific examples. Thanks guys!
Ginny Di just did a video very very similar to this (though it's for too many rolls in general), both her video and this one are excellent sources of info!
Fantastic video, thanks for the gift!
My player wanted to use the smithing in our kind of skills to improve his artificers armor. Make the fists this more damaging by adding retractable blades to them. I said it would take about a month of downtime and make it a skill challenge. The party had some downtime after a nasty boss fight. He aced the rolls and described them beautifully. So I granted him a little something extra. In addition to the added damage he was able to fire the blades out and recall them in a similar way to the bracer of flying daggers.
Thank you for doing these guides, Dudes, they are fun, informative and well made :D
Hey guys, yall are awesome! I really appreciate the hard work you put into your videos! They are awesome and very informative! So recently I completely dove back into D&D, and I wanted my charecter to be able to play at any store or convention, similar to how the old RPGA system use to work! I found that in 5th eddition we now have the adventurers league! But there almost no videos discussing what it is or how you join or how it works. Could you guys maybe make a video shedding some light on the topic?? Ether way thanks yall for everything you do and keep up the good work! :)
That was an excellent video. Thank you so much for the ideas and explanation.
That was some really good advice guys. Thanks.
A very, very good advice, even for experienced GMs. Thank you for the upload.
This is why in 3.5 there was Spot, Search, and Listen skills, a lot of skills have been combined in 5th which is good for simplicity. However, it has caused problems with the explanations of the different skills, the reason I think that Spot and Listen where important is probably because if you can smell it you've already inhaled the gas, if you can taste it you've probably already ingested it, and if you can feel it the rogue has already stabbed you in the back. Int is the dump stat for like 11/13 of the classes and wis is a good saving throw which is why Perception (Spot and Listen) has encroached into Investigations (Search) territory.
I remember the old thing of "Do you make your Rogue be able to detect a trap is there before it goes off, or find the off switch afterwards."
But D&D is a team game so you have the Cleric notice there is a trap, the Fighter activates it, the Wizard finds the off switch, and the Rogue disarms it.
make both fails and successes interesting. I like it.
Some very good tips and tricks were given in the second half of the video.
What I struggle with as DM is thieves tools checks to open doors or chests.
What do I do with these if they fail, can they try again or can I say the opportunity is gone? If anyone has an answer I'll gladly hear it.
I use the pizza analogy when I think about perception skill checks in particular, but also investigation and insight.
You can see, smell and touch each topping but you can’t see the sauce because it’s hidden. You might be able to smell the sauce but honestly, that would be a perception roll. You might have a reasonable suspicion the sauce underneath is red, but just to be certain it’s not white, better roll. Also the crust is made of cauliflower which you wouldn’t have known just by looking at it. Sometimes you have to eat evidence to know what it’s made of…
Seriously. Perception is more than a reasonable expectation of what can be sensed. It also involves luck. That’s why you’re rolling a dice every time you want to use it…
Thanks for the puns guys! Already brightening my snowy March afternoon!
Real helpful video,do one on hiding,stealth.Even after all this time with 5e,people are getting confused still over the wording.
My players were trying to make it out of a forest before nightfall to avoid gnolls and i told them i was going to do a skill challenge where they could (reasonably) use any skill and explain how they would use it to help them get out. Instead of just looking around (perception) to find their way back, our barbarian used athletics to run as far ahead as he could to find the right path forward. It was a high dc but he did it.
Great video guys. I do have a different opinion on asking for an investigation check to find traps and hidden doors. So my scout/gloomstalker with advantage, expertise in perception and the alert feat goes to do his scouting thing, I say I want to look for traps and the DM asks for an investigation check, OK I roll a 10-1 for a 9. It’s all clear guys, aren’t I a great scout.
Again great vid and great tips, I hope this makes it a better experience for my players
I often mix skills together. An example is a player discovering a dead body and wanting to figure out how the person was killed. In this case, I will ask the player to roll both medicine and invesitgation. I then combine the scores to see if they beat the DC I have set and to decide how much detail they gain. A lower score might let them know the victim was stabbed to death. While a higher score may let them know they were stabbed precisely through the heart with curved dagger blade.