D&D 5E Does anyone play 5e Perception rules as written?

[Kobold Stew]

My hypothesis is no, they don’t. Certainly, I have not played in a game (or run one, tbh) in which the rules for perception have been followed as written. (I cannot think of a single time I have rolled Perception with disadvantage due to light levels alone.)

The rules I am thinking about involve the interaction of Darkvision, environmental lighting, and the Perception skill:

• Areas of dim light are lightly obscured, and give disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks. [PHB 183]
• Darkvision lets you see in dim light as in bright light, and in darkness as if you were in dim light. [PHB 184-85, and relevant race entries]
• Therefore, anyone using Darkvision to see in the dark should make their Perception rolls with disadvantage (or have -5 to their passive perception).

It is a truism on these boards that Perception is “the best skill in the game” or “the god skill” (though there are some dissenters). I suggest that this belief persists because people do not suffer penalties for having darkvision when seeing in the dark.

Assuming an “average” DC 15 check, then, a character with 12 Wisdom and proficiency in Perception, would need to be at level 9 before they have a passive perception that would hit it in daylight; that would be a passive 10 for darkvision in the dark.

Yes At the same time, I think that there are consequences if these rules were played as written:

• having a high perception score would remain very valuable, but perhaps would not be seen as a necessary skill to take.
• That's because even races with darkvision would spend more time establishing light sources routinely so that they can regularly hit “easy” DCs in dim light. That, in turn, means that the burden on the party of non-darkvision species is reduced.
• the Skulker and Observant feats suddenly become more effective. I do not think I have seen anyone take Skulker in 10 years; nevertheless, its third bullet point (that dim light does not impose disadvantage) suddenly makes Darkvision really effective (i.e. exactly as effective as it has been in the play I have seen).
  • Relevant to PHB 2024: I notice that in the playtest Skulker now gives Blindsight to 10’, and Observant doesn’t affect passive perception (the term isn’t used), but gives expertise on all Perception checks if you already have proficiency. Also, Darkvision is a defined term, and we haven’t been given its definition.

What are your thoughts? Do you play RAW? How does it work out?

 

[Peter BOSCO'S]

I run D&D every week at our store, normally for beginners, and I always play RAW. It takes explaining every single time as to why characters with Darkvision will still likely want a light source. It takes further explaining as to why lanterns are better than torches. I am interested in seeing the new rules, which will likely also confuse players.

 

[Minigiant]

I do

"Yes, you have darkvision. No, you don't see anything. Take 8 damage from the arrow that shot you. The other 2 missed."

 

[James Gasik]

I do play by RAW (even going as far as to use passive Perception as a "floor" for Perception checks) and it's kind of a pain in the rump, to be honest. I don't know why players see the word "darkvision" and think that light sources are unnecessary, but I rarely even hear so much as the words "I light a torch" or "I cast dancing lights".

This means that when I impose the -5 penalty to their passive Perceptions, they constantly blunder into ambushes and make encounters far more deadly for themselves than intended. This means that I constantly have to keep track of who can see what, and how far.

It's a hassle, and it just makes my job harder. I mean, it makes the player's lives harder as well, I suppose, but I really wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze when a medium encounter I thought would be a quick affair has my players wanting to rest in an inappropriate area or flee the area altogether.

What's going to happen is that inevitably the characters will get continual light cast on things, and someone will find a way to boost their Perception and/or Investigation checks into the stratosphere, and all of this futzing around with who can see what will fall away, which makes me wonder whether it was worth it in the first place, lol.

D&D is a game where characters are allowed to "opt out" of any of the hassles of the exploration pillar, apparently by design. I've been trying to make these things relevant in my current game, but I know the day will come when it simply stops mattering.

 

[ezo]

What are your thoughts? Do you play RAW? How does it work out?

Always. Our scout has a passive Perception 15, but knows when he relies on darkvision it drops to 10.

Also, since colour isn't seen, just shades of gray, vital things can easily be overlooked IMO.

Darkvision helps, but isn't the be-all-end-all thing in the game.

FWIW, this PC just gained the Skulker feat to help with this.

My hypothesis is no, they don’t. Certainly, I have not played in a game (or run one, tbh) in which the rules for perception have been followed as written. (I cannot think of a single time I have rolled Perception with disadvantage due to light levels alone.)

This surprises me. I've never run a game or played in one that DIDN'T enforce the RAW for this...

Of course, sometimes a little clarification/rulings had to be made, but eventually got sorted out.

 

[Seramus]

I definitely assign the -5 penalty if the characters are in Dim Light (or Darkness with Darkvision). That includes a -5 to their passive perception.

I also assign the +2 AC when shooting at an enemy engaged in melee with an ally, unless the archer has a nice clear line of fire. This tends to impact the Warlocks at my table most often.

 

[TiQuinn]

My hypothesis is no, they don’t. Certainly, I have not played in a game (or run one, tbh) in which the rules for perception have been followed as written. (I cannot think of a single time I have rolled Perception with disadvantage due to light levels alone.)

The rules I am thinking about involve the interaction of Darkvision, environmental lighting, and the Perception skill:

• Areas of dim light are lightly obscured, and give disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks. [PHB 183]
• Darkvision lets you see in dim light as in bright light, and in darkness as if you were in dim light. [PHB 184-85, and relevant race entries]
• Therefore, anyone using Darkvision to see in the dark should make their Perception rolls with disadvantage (or have -5 to their passive perception).

It is a truism on these boards that Perception is “the best skill in the game” or “the god skill” (though there are some dissenters). I suggest that this belief persists because people do not suffer penalties for having darkvision when seeing in the dark.

Assuming an “average” DC 15 check, then, a character with 12 Wisdom and proficiency in Perception, would need to be at level 9 before they have a passive perception that would hit it in daylight; that would be a passive 10 for darkvision in the dark.

Yes At the same time, I think that there are consequences if these rules were played as written:

• having a high perception score would remain very valuable, but perhaps would not be seen as a necessary skill to take.
• That's because even races with darkvision would spend more time establishing light sources routinely so that they can regularly hit “easy” DCs in dim light. That, in turn, means that the burden on the party of non-darkvision species is reduced.
• the Skulker and Observant feats suddenly become more effective. I do not think I have seen anyone take Skulker in 10 years; nevertheless, its third bullet point (that dim light does not impose disadvantage) suddenly makes Darkvision really effective (i.e. exactly as effective as it has been in the play I have seen).
  • Relevant to PHB 2024: I notice that in the playtest Skulker now gives Blindsight to 10’, and Observant doesn’t affect passive perception (the term isn’t used), but gives expertise on all Perception checks if you already have proficiency. Also, Darkvision is a defined term, and we haven’t been given its definition.

What are your thoughts? Do you play RAW? How does it work out?

I don’t for the reason that i found it a finicky thing to have to remember.

 

[Reynard]

Dark vision played RAW is almost useless. Dark vision played "typically" is OP. Learn from Shadowdark and just eliminate it.

 

[TiQuinn]

Dark vision played RAW is almost useless. Dark vision played "typically" is OP. Learn from Shadowdark and just eliminate it.

It’s been a PITA since the day it was introduced.

 

[Minigiant]

Dark vision played RAW is almost useless. Dark vision played "typically" is OP. Learn from Shadowdark and just eliminate it.

Nah

RAW darkvision is for exact what nocturnal and underground creatures use it for.

Fighting in melee.

Darkvision means you can fight in melee in darkness without missing all your attacks and not worry about archers.

Aka orc, goblin, and dwarf tactics.