D&D 5E How do you do secret doors?

[Zero Cochrane]

I never liked Passive Perception. It was the DM setting the DC and either auto find or fail. The cleric had the best Wisdom and a passive score of 14, so he would automatically find most of everything. I never really use it unless someone is sneaking or something.

I do like having people roll things and I could see a Perception check here, maybe followed by Investigation to actually find how to open it. There are several threads here arguing back and forth about where and how to use either one. I liked going with Perception to notice something is wrong with the wall. Maybe some scratches on the floor, or a curtain wavering tells you something is wrong or out of normal. Now that people suspect something- they need to figure out what it is and how to get in it. Investigation is the minute looking for clues and knowledge on how things work. Figuring out that the sconce opens the door, or pushing in the button formed out of a carving drops a set of stone stairs. Indiana Jones type of things.

The only problem is if you have players that meta-game and stop to search things since you asked them to roll a perception. The other thing to consider is when you have 5 people rolling a check, you most likely get one rolling a good number and finding everything. This isn't bad since you put in secrets for the players to find and enjoy finding, even though the purpose of these secret doors is to keep people from finding them. It makes for a fun game though.

I have a simple solution. If a character's Passive Perception is = or > the search DC, the DM secretly rolls a Perception check to see if a secret door or a trap is noticed. Otherwise, the characters need to make active checks to find it. Drop a clue if they "need" to find it.

 

[iserith]

Regarding fixed DCs and passive checks, I don't really see an issue here. By there being a passive check, the DM is effectively establishing that, because of reasons, a standard approach for searching for a secret door while traveling the dungeon has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. It is now on the players to prioritize their activities while traveling accordingly. If they want to be certain to find most secret doors they come across, then they can, for example, assign one character to work together with another PP-15 character to hit DC 20 at the risk of both characters being automatically surprised if a lurking monster comes calling. If they don't care about secret doors or don't want to risk one or more characters being automatically surprised in certain situations, then they don't have to search for secret doors.

The DM isn't choosing winners and losers here. He or she is simply setting the mark that determines how the players assign their activities to the characters in the group.

 

[S'mon]

I have the door roll Stealth vs the PC's PP (really!)

 

[Al'Kelhar]

So, really quickly:

I agree with the approach of categorizing secret doors by their relative significance to the interest and/or success of the party and plot. More significance, more likely I'll devise ways in which the PCs will find the door.

I also don't use passive Perception as a catch-all for "you spot/smell/hear [something]" etc. I use passive Perception for "you spot/smell/hear [something out of the ordinary]". Passive Perception involves little or no higher mental activity - Perception provides information, not analysis. Information without analysis is nothing.

The guy with high passive Perception might notice the scuff marks on the floor near the wall, but unless they're something out of the ordinary for the particular circumstances, I don't even tell the player - because that's just tantamount to telegraphing that it is out of the ordinary. And what is "out of the ordinary" is dependent on the PC's passive Investigation - so the Wis 20, Int 8 cleric with proficiency in Perception "perceives" the scuff marks but has no hope of recognizing their significance, whereas Sherlock Holmes notices the scuff marks on the floor and concludes within a fraction of a second that they are not just ordinary scuff marks from hobnailed boots, but their depth and arc-shaped pattern suggest they've been made by some object opening outwards from the wall...

So, IMC, a Perception is good for spotting and avoiding the things that stand out from the ordinary - there is a person on the other side of that tree over there - but pretty useless for finding things that are deliberately designed to seem, or be concealed amongst, the ordinary (like a secret door).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Quickleaf]

So, really quickly:

I agree with the approach of categorizing secret doors by their relative significance to the interest and/or success of the party and plot. More significance, more likely I'll devise ways in which the PCs will find the door.

I also don't use passive Perception as a catch-all for "you spot/smell/hear [something]" etc. I use passive Perception for "you spot/smell/hear [something out of the ordinary]". Passive Perception involves little or no higher mental activity - Perception provides information, not analysis. Information without analysis is nothing.

The guy with high passive Perception might notice the scuff marks on the floor near the wall, but unless they're something out of the ordinary for the particular circumstances, I don't even tell the player - because that's just tantamount to telegraphing that it is out of the ordinary. And what is "out of the ordinary" is dependent on the PC's passive Investigation - so the Wis 20, Int 8 cleric with proficiency in Perception "perceives" the scuff marks but has no hope of recognizing their significance, whereas Sherlock Holmes notices the scuff marks on the floor and concludes within a fraction of a second that they are not just ordinary scuff marks from hobnailed boots, but their depth and arc-shaped pattern suggest they've been made by some object opening outwards from the wall...

So, IMC, a Perception is good for spotting and avoiding the things that stand out from the ordinary - there is a person on the other side of that tree over there - but pretty useless for finding things that are deliberately designed to seem, or be concealed amongst, the ordinary (like a secret door).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Given how you DM, when would you use Perception for a structure/hazard/trap/object (i.e. not for a hidden creature)?

 

[Quickleaf]

Regarding fixed PCs and passive checks, I don't really see an issue here. By there being a passive check, the DM is effectively establishing that, because of reasons, a standard approach for searching for a secret door while traveling the dungeon has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. It is now on the players to prioritize their activities while traveling accordingly. If they want to be certain to find most secret doors they come across, then they can, for example, assign one character to work together with another PP-15 character to hit DC 20 at the risk of both characters being automatically surprised if a lurking monster comes calling. If they don't care about secret doors or don't want to risk one or more characters being automatically surprised in certain situations, then they don't have to search for secret doors.

The DM isn't choosing winners and losers here. He or she is simply setting the mark that determines how the players assign their activities to the characters in the group.

I thought about this some more. My objection is that there's no secret, no mystery, no wonder in having secret doors be noticed by passive Perception score X. You just notice it. Period. Cut and dried.

At that point, the game is being played during character creation and not at the table – it becomes a question of "OK, gang, we want a balanced party, so somebody needs to aim for a high Perception score to be the secret door & trap guy." I've seen variations of that conversation happen with 3 different gaming groups.

It's kind of the same criticism Mike Mearls made of the ranger's Natural Explorer class feature combined with the Outlander background feature. In some ways, that class feature / background combo obviates a lot of wilderness exploration rather than engaging with it. The idea being that a player who chooses a ranger PC wants to engage with wilderness exploration with meaningful choices rather than "OK, you successfully scavenge food and drink for your party and avoid getting lost in the Bramblemire."

Similarly, but perhaps less obviously as no class is associated with secret doors... players who want to discover secrets, enjoying that feeling of they themselves making a connection, and then get to make meaningful choices about those secrets... those kind of players are given "Ok, you notice a secret door behind the bookshelf." And it's ok, but it's kind of a let down. The player isn't realizing anything. There's little sense of discovery. The DM might as well just have said "You come to a door."

EDIT: I should add that my critique is not leveled against 5th edition, but is about how Dungeons & Dragons has handled secret doors across editions and across adventures as far as I can recall.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Given how you DM, when would you use Perception for a structure/hazard/trap/object (i.e. not for a hidden creature)?

Well, when the structure/hazard/trap/object is "out of the ordinary, in the particular circumstances"!

So, for example, passive Perception might help spot the trip wire stretched across the dungeon hallway at shin-height, because such a thing would be a typically unusual thing to see in the hallway. However, if the dungeon floor consists of large flagstones which are not perfectly laid (and hence, like all paving, has "moved" a bit, leaving irregular gaps between the flagstones), passive Perception is not going to help out with identifying the flagstone that's the pressure plate trigger for the trap.

Also, just as a comment on an earlier post, I don't buy the whole "if they've spent resources on buffing their Perception score, they should be rewarded with spotting more stuff" argument. Gaining proficiency in Perception is practically no "spending of resources", particularly on a whole-of-party basis (you only need one PC with exceptional Perception), and a PC with high Wisdom can also be found in just about every 5E party (and Int is very much now the dump stat - which is also another reason I play Investigation as the key "find interesting stuff" skill).

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Quickleaf]

Well, when the structure/hazard/trap/object is "out of the ordinary, in the particular circumstances"!

So, for example, passive Perception might help spot the trip wire stretched across the dungeon hallway at shin-height, because such a thing would be a typically unusual thing to see in the hallway. However, if the dungeon floor consists of large flagstones which are not perfectly laid (and hence, like all paving, has "moved" a bit, leaving irregular gaps between the flagstones), passive Perception is not going to help out with identifying the flagstone that's the pressure plate trigger for the trap.

Also, just as a comment on an earlier post, I don't buy the whole "if they've spent resources on buffing their Perception score, they should be rewarded with spotting more stuff" argument. Gaining proficiency in Perception is practically no "spending of resources", particularly on a whole-of-party basis (you only need one PC with exceptional Perception), and a PC with high Wisdom can also be found in just about every 5E party (and Int is very much now the dump stat - which is also another reason I play Investigation as the key "find interesting stuff" skill).

Yeah, what's "out of the ordinary" depends entirely on the context. In a dungeon full a flaming braziers, the fact that one brazier's flame doesn't emit heat isn't going to be easy to pick up on. So sounds like what you describe for a PC with high passive Perception is dependent on the environmental context.

What about specifics of the PC involved? For example, if you had a dwarf (with Stonecunning) in that example of a dungeon with unevenly laid / uplifted flagstones, would you allow their passive Perception to identify a pressure plate trigger?

 

[iserith]

I thought about this some more. My objection is that there's no secret, no mystery, no wonder in having secret doors be noticed by passive Perception score X. You just notice it. Period. Cut and dried.

That sounds to me like an issue with presentation more than anything.

At that point, the game is being played during character creation and not at the table – it becomes a question of "OK, gang, we want a balanced party, so somebody needs to aim for a high Perception score to be the secret door & trap guy." I've seen variations of that conversation happen with 3 different gaming groups.

Sure, players will seek to optimize their chances of success. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing for players of a game to do. Does anyone object when a player suggests he or she has the best AC and HP (or whatever) so should be the tank? Does anyone bat an eye when the party puts forth the rogue as the guy or gal who needs to stealth ahead and check something out? These are all meaningful choices that happen both when the character is created or advanced and during play. Both sets of choices should matter in my view.

It's kind of the same criticism Mike Mearls made of the ranger's Natural Explorer class feature combined with the Outlander background feature. In some ways, that class feature / background combo obviates a lot of wilderness exploration rather than engaging with it. The idea being that a player who chooses a ranger PC wants to engage with wilderness exploration with meaningful choices rather than "OK, you successfully scavenge food and drink for your party and avoid getting lost in the Bramblemire."

In my experience, players are grateful when a player shows up with a ranger. He or she can perform two activities while traveling in favored terrain and that's quite valuable in an exploration challenge involving travel for an hour or more. The Outlander can forage while traveling with no chance of failure, but he or she can't perform any other task (unless he or she is a ranger in favored terrain), including staying alert to hidden dangers (which means automatic surprise if lurking monsters set upon the party), while doing so. These characters are still making meaningful choices during play, engaging with the situation as presented.

Similarly, but perhaps less obviously as no class is associated with secret doors... players who want to discover secrets, enjoying that feeling of they themselves making a connection, and then get to make meaningful choices about those secrets... those kind of players are given "Ok, you notice a secret door behind the bookshelf." And it's ok, but it's kind of a let down. The player isn't realizing anything. There's little sense of discovery. The DM might as well just have said "You come to a door."

Again, it sounds like a presentation issue here.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

...What about specifics of the PC involved? For example, if you had a dwarf (with Stonecunning) in that example of a dungeon with unevenly laid / uplifted flagstones, would you allow their passive Perception to identify a pressure plate trigger?

Hmm, it's not a situation I've had to adjudicate in 5E, as no PCs I've DM'ed have had such an ability, but I don't think I'd use passive Perception per se. I might, for example, roll a reasonably easy DC Int check (with advantage, to represent the PC's special ability), and if the check is successful, say to the player that when their character looks down the corridor, they are reminded of trap designs used by the dwarven architects to protect their homes - and then leave it to the player to tell me whether the PC actively searches (active Investigation) for traps in the corridor.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar