D&D 5E Things that make you go Hmmm, Starter Set **spoilers**

[DEFCON 1]

Am I misreading it?

"If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is twelve or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."

This says to me that if the party is not searching for traps (i.e. has not told the DM that they are doing this), the character in the lead does not get a chance at an auto-spot.

At that point, the character in the lead gets to roll.

Here's the thing I'm seeing with this... it's the idea that the guy in the lead doesn't get to roll for the trap at all... unless he's stated he's searching for traps. So that second sentence "Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap." only comes into play as the second half of the previous sentence.

So if no one is searching for traps... no one will notice it passively *and* no one will get to roll to spot it. They will automatically run into it.

However... if someone is searching for traps, they start by 'Taking 10' per se. If that's enough, (passive Wisdom / Perception 12 or higher) the PC spots the trap automatically without rolling. However, if the passive perception doesn't auto-find it... the player gets to roll an active Wisdom (Perception) check in the hopes of rolling higher than a 10 (and thus higher than his passive number) to find it.

Basically, what it come down to is anyone who is searching for traps can roll to find it, and any roll lower than 10 is considered a 10 for the check (IE the passive Perception number.) Anyone not searching for traps has no chance of noticing the trap at all.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's the thing I'm seeing with this... it's the idea that the guy in the lead doesn't get to roll for the trap at all... unless he's stated he's searching for traps. So that second sentence "Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap." only comes into play as the second half of the previous sentence.

So if no one is searching for traps... no one will notice it passively *and* no one will get to roll to spot it. They will automatically run into it.

However... if someone is searching for traps, they start by 'Taking 10' per se. If that's enough, (passive Wisdom / Perception 12 or higher) the PC spots the trap automatically without rolling. However, if the passive perception doesn't auto-find it... the player gets to roll an active Wisdom (Perception) check in the hopes of rolling higher than a 10 (and thus higher than his passive number) to find it.

Basically, what it come down to is anyone who is searching for traps can roll to find it, and any roll lower than 10 is considered a 10 for the check (IE the passive Perception number.) Anyone not searching for traps has no chance of noticing the trap at all.

This is a reasonable interpretation.

However, you are the first person to mention it. Which means that these two sentences are probably not clear.

A better paragraph might have been:

"Nobody in the party gets to spot this trap unless the character in the lead is searching. If searching for traps, that character spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is twelve or higher. Otherwise, that character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."


Hence, I'm glad I brought it up. I am ok with your interpretation. It might be what they meant. Hopefully, other DMs will read what you wrote here.

 

[Essenti]

*snip* Basically, what it come down to is anyone who is searching for traps can roll to find it, and any roll lower than 10 is considered a 10 for the check (IE the passive Perception number.) Anyone not searching for traps has no chance of noticing the trap at all.

It's the part where it says, "...the character in the lead..." which makes it confusing. Why is that wording even in there? If they are all searching, why can't the others notice it passively?

Maybe it was meant to be worded as "NOT searching for traps." If they are not searching for traps, only the character in the lead gets the passive check to notice it. Then, the "otherwise" would mean that someone in the group IS searching for traps, which affords them the opportunity to make an active check.

The way it is currently worded is kinda goofy and not very intuitive.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a reasonable interpretation.

However, you are the first person to mention it. Which means that these two sentences are probably not clear.

A better paragraph might have been:

"Nobody in the party gets to spot this trap unless the character in the lead is searching. If searching for traps, that character spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is twelve or higher. Otherwise, that character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."


Hence, I'm glad I brought it up. I am ok with your interpretation. It might be what they meant. Hopefully, other DMs will read what you wrote here.

Yeah... the only reason I'm sort of thinking in this direction is due to how they seemed to have wanted searching to go in all facets of the game. They made it a point to say that if a player was looking for treasure or whatnot, that they'd have to actually state what it was they were searching through, not that they could just make a blanket "I search!" and automatically get to roll and find anything that they rolled higher than. So if the hidden treasure was under a secret compartment in a chest... the player was required to state "I search the chest" in order to get to make the roll to find the secret compartment. If they didn't mention the chest when they went through searching a room... they automatically did not find it.

So by the same token... I assume the same is true for traps. You have to state specifically "I'm searching for traps" in order to get a roll. Don't say you're looking for traps... you don't get to roll to find traps. And at least in the case of this one trap in the Starter Set... they must have wanted to imply that *if* you were looking for it, it actually was rather easy to find (thus the auto-success of DCs up to the PC's passive perception, and a roll to find any DCs higher.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's the part where it says, "...the character in the lead..." which makes it confusing. Why is that wording even in there? If they are all searching, why can't the others notice it passively?

Maybe it was meant to be worded as "NOT searching for traps." If they are not searching for traps, only the character in the lead gets the passive check to notice it. Then, the "otherwise" would mean that someone in the group IS searching for traps, which affords them the opportunity to make an active check.

The way it is currently worded is kinda goofy and not very intuitive.

Without seeing the actual full wording of the paragraphs in both places KarinsDad mentioned the two checks appeared, it's hard to figure out what actually is meant or implied. So yeah, it's probably just worded weirdly and could have been made clearer. But at least I can understand why they wrote it the way they did, wherein they wrote it basically as "Do this. Otherwise do that." and just understood it to be two halves of the same process, rather than two entirely separate processes. And if they've read those sentences enough times and know what they were meaning to say by what they wrote... the idea that it could be interpreted the second way might not even be realized by them. And I guess even outside pairs of eyes didn't notice any potential incongruity.

 

[KarinsDad]

Without seeing the actual full wording of the paragraphs in both places KarinsDad mentioned the two checks appeared, it's hard to figure out what actually is meant or implied. So yeah, it's probably just worded weirdly and could have been made clearer. But at least I can understand why they wrote it the way they did, wherein they wrote it basically as "Do this. Otherwise do that." and just understood it to be two halves of the same process, rather than two entirely separate processes. And if they've read those sentences enough times and know what they were meaning to say by what they wrote... the idea that it could be interpreted the second way might not even be realized by them. And I guess even outside pairs of eyes didn't notice any potential incongruity.

The pertinent text for the first one (without going through the lengthy paragraph and throwing out more spoilers) is:

"If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap. If the character fails to notice the trap,..."

Note: All but one PC has a 13 Passive Perception.

The pertinent text for the second one (without giving away what it is):

"The character in the lead spots the XXX automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is 15 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to spot the XXX. If the trap isn't detected, ..."

Note: None of the PCs has a 15 Passive Perception.


So for the first one, 80% of the PCs can make the check, so they threw in the "if the characters are searching for traps" sentence in order to not make it basically automatic.

For the second one, 100% of the PCs cannot make the check, so they did not bother with a sentence "if the characters are searching for traps" sentence in order to give the PCs "a little chance".

They did two different things based on the DC, not based on consistency.

 

[redrick]

The pertinent text for the first one (without going through the lengthy paragraph and throwing out more spoilers) is:

"If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap. If the character fails to notice the trap,..."

fwiw, I understood this text as meaning that characters would only avoid the trap if they are actively searching for it. I agree that the wording might be a little confusing (especially because I'm used to the idea of passive perception being invoked when characters are not actively searching for something). The good news is that this is not a death trap by any stretch, and if the characters trigger it, it simply provides another opportunity for players to interact with the world around them without necessarily facing any significant setbacks. It's a nice in-game way of saying to the players, "hey, there are going to be traps and stuff out there and you might want to think about looking out for them." I also assumed that my players would probably not be looking for the trap and would, therefore, probably trigger it. I give them even odds as to whether or not they would think to look for the next trap. (I haven't run the adventure yet so no operating only on conjecture.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

I was objecting to your statements:

"You say you want more, cheaper items per player"

"That sounds pretty unappealing to me, making magic items plentiful and generic."

I do not want cheaper items. Where did I say that?

I do not want to make magic items generic. Where did I say that?

These phrases are your interpretation of what I said, not what I said.

Relax. Seriously.

Given that there is no (cash) market for magic items, and no opportunities to buy them, I used "cheaper" in terms of emotional rewards for the players. You took me literally, and that's fair enough. I thought we were actually talking about the module.

You do talk about magic items being replaceable and upgradeable, which, yes, I understand to measn that you see them without individuating characteristics other than their simple +1 or +2 bonus. Again, that's your right. It's not what's in the module, but whatever.

You do say

I do want more items than the 2 items handed out in 4 levels in the first 80% of the module. Not more overall, but more than 2 in 4 levels and then 5 in 0.5 levels.

So it's pretty clear to me that within the context of the module, I did not misrepresent you. Sure, you can take my words to mean something silly, and if you only see value in terms of some cash exchange "cheaper" was the wrong word. Since that's not what either of us is talking about, though, that seems to be a distraction.

I've tried to suggest that your concerns are not shared by all, and that for me the starter module is paced well enough that I'm not concerned. In fact: I like the pacing. It differs from previous editions, and (to me) that's a virtue.

If you're going to go on, though, and say (as you do)

I think it stupid to pull out most of the bells and whistles of magic items in the last 2 hours a 12 hour set of adventures and the last 3 items in the last 45 minutes.

I'm not seeing any genuine attempt to understand what's going on, only a priori prejudices. I hope I'm wrong, but it's no longer interesting to try to explain how reasonable people might have a different point of view.

 

[KarinsDad]

Relax. Seriously.

Given that there is no (cash) market for magic items, and no opportunities to buy them, I used "cheaper" in terms of emotional rewards for the players. You took me literally, and that's fair enough. I thought we were actually talking about the module.

You do talk about magic items being replaceable and upgradeable, which, yes, I understand to measn that you see them without individuating characteristics other than their simple +1 or +2 bonus. Again, that's your right. It's not what's in the module, but whatever.

You do say



So it's pretty clear to me that within the context of the module, I did not misrepresent you. Sure, you can take my words to mean something silly, and if you only see value in terms of some cash exchange "cheaper" was the wrong word. Since that's not what either of us is talking about, though, that seems to be a distraction.

I've tried to suggest that your concerns are not shared by all, and that for me the starter module is paced well enough that I'm not concerned. In fact: I like the pacing. It differs from previous editions, and (to me) that's a virtue.

If you're going to go on, though, and say (as you do)


I'm not seeing any genuine attempt to understand what's going on, only a priori prejudices. I hope I'm wrong, but it's no longer interesting to try to explain how reasonable people might have a different point of view.

I wonder how many times you used the word "you" in your little post here (and in your earlier posts where you pontificated on my assumptions, and here with my prejudices, etc.).

I'm not the one who needs to relax.


It's simple. Too many magic items at the end of the module. Not enough magic items in the beginning and middle of the module. That was my only point. I thought I made that clear in my last post, but evidently not. Period. End of my POV. I mean nothing else. I am prejudice in no other way. I have no other assumptions here. I hope that is now clear to you, but it evidently wasn't in my last post.

And yes, I totally understand that not everyone will agree with that position. Yup. That's how it works.


Please feel free to pontificate some more nonsense about how I think, and what I said previously, and what assumptions I make, and how I want this, and how I want that, and how you can take one phrase out of context and make it mean a bunch more stuff that I didn't mean, and how I do not understand that other people might not share my point of view, etc., etc., etc., yada, yada, yada. And use the word "you" a lot (the sign of an enlightened post when one talks a lot about the other person).


Relax. Seriously. Go play D&D.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's simple. Too many magic items at the end of the module. Not enough magic items in the beginning and middle of the module. That was my only point.

I don't see this claim in points 5 and 6 of the OP. If this was the point, it is indeed a simple matter of taste, and I shouldn't have answered it.

Go play D&D.

Game starts in just under 2 hours!