D&D 5E Traps and DCs

[slaughterj]

Why is a player asking to make a check, passive or otherwise, at all? That's not their role. It's the DM's role to determine if a check is required after the player describes what he or she wants to do.

A PC may ask to make a check because they want to investigate something further or take any sort of action. If a PC thinks the treasure room may be trapped, they may well want to take an action and survey the room and take an active Perception check, rather than waltz in cautiously and just relying on their passive Perception. If a PC wants to hunt/forage for food while the party is traveling overland, they are implicitly asking to make a Survival check. If a PC wants to persuade the barkeep to reveal some information, they may ask to make a Persuasion check. Players tend to take initiative and an active role in playing their characters, asking to make checks to make things happen in the game, not just passively relying on a GM to tell them when to make a check, though obviously a GM may ask for a check based on what the players say they want their characters to do.

 

[slaughterj]

Ambushes don't need passive perception at all. The DC of the ambush should have been determined before the group ever got there. Ask for a perception roll and 5 seconds later you know who is ambushed and who is not. The ambush is going to happen right in that moment, so it's not is if the roll gives anything away, and if the encounter jumps out at them before you have them roll, the tension will be there as they all roll.

So when are you using passive Perception at all in the game, if not for ambushes?

And how are you determining the DC of the ambush? Are all 4 Orcs rolling separately? (That's doomed to fail, someone will roll low.)

There appear to be three options, to have a contest if PCs are being ambushed, either:
1. Rely on PCs' passive Perception, and have 1 or more Stealth rolls by the hidden foes (too many rolls is a problem as someone would invariably roll low and thus never succeed, unless you use a system like an extended multiple checks challenge, and just take the top half).
2. Set a static DC (how though?), and have the PCs roll an active Perception check (very hard to surprise the whole party though, as someone is bound to roll high).
3. Have the ambushers and the PCs each roll (a real mess and no chance to hide if all are rolling outright, someone will roll low to hide, so again use some sort of alternative like a single die and each apply their Perception to it or extended group check challenges).

Offhand, without looking, I don't recall which is RAW, but I prefer #1 for simplicity, the possibility that all could be surprised (ambushers could get modifiers favorable for location chosen or time taken, unfavorable for large numbers, etc.), but without making hiding impossible (the result if there are too many rolls involved).

 

[slaughterj]

I agree, which is why I advocate taking as clever an action as you like, then (if desirable) fictionally justifying why your "dumb" character was capable of that. I see no value in reining in my hard-earned player skill when I can easily use it and justify why it jives with established characterization.

Yes, veering off-topic, but I agree as well, and extend it further to say that I don't agree with players using characters' bad tendencies, negative traits, etc. to act as justification for a-hole play, i.e., you can role-play the bad traits, but only up to a point and not to a point where it detracts from the party, the game experience for the other players, etc.

 

[iserith]

A PC may ask to make a check because they want to investigate something further or take any sort of action. If a PC thinks the treasure room may be trapped, they may well want to take an action and survey the room and take an active Perception check, rather than waltz in cautiously and just relying on their passive Perception. If a PC wants to hunt/forage for food while the party is traveling overland, they are implicitly asking to make a Survival check. If a PC wants to persuade the barkeep to reveal some information, they may ask to make a Persuasion check. Players tend to take initiative and an active role in playing their characters, asking to make checks to make things happen in the game, not just passively relying on a GM to tell them when to make a check, though obviously a GM may ask for a check based on what the players say they want their characters to do.

The safer play is not to leave your fate to a swingy d20 and to strive for automatic success by describing a solid goal and approach. Therefore, it makes very little sense to ask to make checks... unless the DM subscribes to the "Roll With It" method, thereby asking for checks for just about everything the PCs do. Of course, that can come with a pretty significant drawback as the DMG says.

As a player, I never ask to make an ability check. I strive for automatic success by trying to remove uncertainty as best I can.

As a DM, I ask players not to ask to make ability checks because it's not their role to determine uncertainty, which is what asking for a check means. Further, simply asking to make a check doesn't adequately describe what the player wants the character to do which leads to the DM having to presume character action. Doing so can create issues at the table.

 

[slaughterj]

The safer play is not to leave your fate to a swingy d20 and to strive for automatic success by describing a solid goal and approach. Therefore, it makes very little sense to ask to make checks... unless the DM subscribes to the "Roll With It" method, thereby asking for checks for just about everything the PCs do. Of course, that can come with a pretty significant drawback as the DMG says.

As a player, I never ask to make an ability check. I strive for automatic success by trying to remove uncertainty as best I can.

As a DM, I ask players not to ask to make ability checks because it's not their role to determine uncertainty, which is what asking for a check means. Further, simply asking to make a check doesn't adequately describe what the player wants the character to do which leads to the DM having to presume character action. Doing so can create issues at the table.

Sure, a PC may strive for certainty, but practically speaking, a lot is resolved by a roll. The PC knows the barkeep has some useful information, the PC thinks through the options and decides that slipping some gold and being persuasive may be the best way to get it. That generally leads to a roll to determine success, perhaps modified by the NPC friendliness system and actions taken to make the check easier, but there is still a roll to check for success nonetheless.

For a trap, a PC may spot the tripwire, and elect to not risk trying to disarm it, and instead just safely step over it, avoiding the need to make a check. But they might decide it better to try to disable it now, and avoid risking it if they later have to beat a hasty retreat, so they make the disarm skill roll to check for success.

Some things can be resolved without a check, but many do require it or warrant it.

 

[iserith]

Sure, a PC may strive for certainty, but practically speaking, a lot is resolved by a roll. The PC knows the barkeep has some useful information, the PC thinks through the options and decides that slipping some gold and being persuasive may be the best way to get it. That generally leads to a roll to determine success, perhaps modified by the NPC friendliness system and actions taken to make the check easier, but there is still a roll to check for success nonetheless.

For a trap, a PC may spot the tripwire, and elect to not risk trying to disarm it, and instead just safely step over it, avoiding the need to make a check. But they might decide it better to try to disable it now, and avoid risking it if they later have to beat a hasty retreat, so they make the disarm skill roll to check for success.

Some things can be resolved without a check, but many do require it or warrant it.

I don't dispute that a roll may be required to resolve uncertainty. What I'm saying is it's the DM who calls for that check after the player describes what the character is doing, if what the player describes has an uncertain outcome in the eyes of the DM. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. Success-seeking players will tend to do their best to remove uncertainty.

If the DM thinks that most or all actions are uncertain, then he or she risks diminishing roleplaying as the players realize it's the dice rather than their decisions and characterizations that always determine success. They are as a result encouraged to maximize their characters builds according to the checks the DM asks for the most and engage with the game accordingly - mechanical process ahead of narrative input.

By everyone sticking to their individual roles and the DM balancing deciding on outright success or failure with calling for checks, players are encouraged to balance paying attention to and engaging with the game world in addition to making solid character builds.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Traps often are set by creatures to provide them notice of invaders, so timing is often quite important actually. Plus, as many keep mentioning in the context of traps in various threads, timing for dealing with a trap often matters due to the potential for wandering monsters who may show up while you are spending time dealing with a trap.

I've never ever run into a situation where it was important for me to adjudicate whether checking for the trap requires an action or not. Wandering monsters are completely unrelated because combat has its own time system which is completely unrelated to what you did before combat started (except for the surprise rules, but even those don't check for whether a previous activity was an action or not).

I assume you are playing in some weird way here, but I can't really help with it unless you give a concrete example on how you play such a "check for trap takes an action -> some problems arise because of that" situation.

What is your point with this? I don't ask for an active check, I use passive unless a PC asks to use an active.

You said you would like to use active checks but can't use them because players would then feel alert that there is something. But if losing an active perception check would immediately result in something bad happening, then you wouldn't have that problem in the first place. So, problem solved?

How is there a misinterpretation? RAW, traps have set DCs. Traps are found by Perception (generally, some could be by Investigation). Perception is either passive or active. If someone is not actively searching, they are relying on passive. Seems pretty straight-forward to me.

"Passive" in 5e isn't actually referring to "not actively doing it". In the rules it is described as "Doing the same action repeatly". So even passive perception assumes the characters are actually searching for traps. And in any case, if the player's passive perception isn't high enough, you can still - as DM - ask him to do an active roll. And that's actually in the sense of the rules if you go by the example described in the starter set. So that problem is solved too, without having to change any of the 5e rules.

 

[slaughterj]

I've never ever run into a situation where it was important for me to adjudicate whether checking for the trap requires an action or not. Wandering monsters are completely unrelated because combat has its own time system which is completely unrelated to what you did before combat started (except for the surprise rules, but even those don't check for whether a previous activity was an action or not).

I assume you are playing in some weird way here, but I can't really help with it unless you give a concrete example on how you play such a "check for trap takes an action -> some problems arise because of that" situation.

Nothing weird at all, and no reason to assume so. Here's a concrete example. The party is advancing through the dungeon. The scout spots signs of a trap ahead. Further ahead, they hear an advancing monster patrol. The party wants to try to disable or circumvent the trap fast enough to get past it and slip into a side room ahead and avoid being noticed by the approaching patrol. See, that wasn't very hard or weird.

You said you would like to use active checks but can't use them because players would then feel alert that there is something. But if losing an active perception check would immediately result in something bad happening, then you wouldn't have that problem in the first place. So, problem solved?

I did not say I would like to use active checks. I simply noted issues with using them. While there may be less of an issue for surprise with active checks (assuming you circumvent the issue of too many active Perception rolls making Stealthy by ambushers practically impossible), as presumably the ambushers would then begin the surprise round, it does in fact work differently for traps. If a PC is asked to make a Perception roll while strolling down the dungeon hall, and rolls low, the PC may well be alerted to a potential issue and change his tactics to be more cautious, to start probing the floor with a 10' pole, etc. So it does have a potential for an impact to call for an active Perception roll.

"Passive" in 5e isn't actually referring to "not actively doing it". In the rules it is described as "Doing the same action repeatly". So even passive perception assumes the characters are actually searching for traps. And in any case, if the player's passive perception isn't high enough, you can still - as DM - ask him to do an active roll. And that's actually in the sense of the rules if you go by the example described in the starter set. So that problem is solved too, without having to change any of the 5e rules.

But here's the problem with that, which I raised in the initial post and several times since. If passive Perception is good enough, then PCs will simply auto-find simple traps, making them ineffective, boring, a waste of time, etc. Look back at what I originally wrote.

 

[Maxperson]

So when are you using passive Perception at all in the game, if not for ambushes?

And how are you determining the DC of the ambush? Are all 4 Orcs rolling separately? (That's doomed to fail, someone will roll low.)

There appear to be three options, to have a contest if PCs are being ambushed, either:
1. Rely on PCs' passive Perception, and have 1 or more Stealth rolls by the hidden foes (too many rolls is a problem as someone would invariably roll low and thus never succeed, unless you use a system like an extended multiple checks challenge, and just take the top half).
2. Set a static DC (how though?), and have the PCs roll an active Perception check (very hard to surprise the whole party though, as someone is bound to roll high).
3. Have the ambushers and the PCs each roll (a real mess and no chance to hide if all are rolling outright, someone will roll low to hide, so again use some sort of alternative like a single die and each apply their Perception to it or extended group check challenges).

Offhand, without looking, I don't recall which is RAW, but I prefer #1 for simplicity, the possibility that all could be surprised (ambushers could get modifiers favorable for location chosen or time taken, unfavorable for large numbers, etc.), but without making hiding impossible (the result if there are too many rolls involved).

Passive perception can be use for every ambush or no ambush, ever trap or no trap, or you can use like Iserith suggested and allow it when the player says something that would indicate passive perception is warranted. As for how I would determine the ambush, I'd roll once with whatever bonus orcs get. Look at combat. You don't roll initiative for all 4 orcs, so why would you roll stealth individually?

 

[Psikerlord#]

I did not say I would like to use active checks. I simply noted issues with using them. While there may be less of an issue for surprise with active checks (assuming you circumvent the issue of too many active Perception rolls making Stealthy by ambushers practically impossible), as presumably the ambushers would then begin the surprise round, it does in fact work differently for traps. If a PC is asked to make a Perception roll while strolling down the dungeon hall, and rolls low, the PC may well be alerted to a potential issue and change his tactics to be more cautious, to start probing the floor with a 10' pole, etc. So it does have a potential for an impact to call for an active Perception roll.



But here's the problem with that, which I raised in the initial post and several times since. If passive Perception is good enough, then PCs will simply auto-find simple traps, making them ineffective, boring, a waste of time, etc. Look back at what I originally wrote.

If the trap is imminent, similar to an ambush, I don't think there's any problem getting the PCs to roll active perception checks on the spot. If they make it, they spot the trap, well and good, if they fail, the trap goes off - move onto what happens next.

I agree PP vs static trap DC doesn't work, which is why I suggest just roll all the time and forget PP. But your idea of rolling the DC for the trap also works.

If you're worried about "tipping off" the player to a non-imminent trap, roll it secretly for him or get players to roll before the session, make a list of 10 rolls, and go down the list. Or backwards up the list. Or middle outwards. However you want to do it while keeping players in the dark.

The need for this this kind of secrecy though is extremely limited in my experience. Big set piece (what some might call "quality") traps tend to be telegraphed first, and then interacted with in a complex way. Simple resource attrition traps happen immediately, and so an active perception check in the open doesn't cause any issues, similar to an imminent ambush.