D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[iserith]

Oofta quoted above the rule from the 5e DMG that says: "You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing." I think that's pretty strong evidence that using passive perception in this manner is appropriate in 5e. (Unless you view doors and traps as different?)

I can't see that poster's posts, but I am very familiar with that section of the DMG.

Secret doors and traps are in my view different, though one could argue they both work as per the rules for finding hidden objects (Basic Rules, page 64): "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check." This section also sets forth a requirement of reasonably specificity for finding hidden objects.

The section on traps in the DMG is in my view poorly written and edited as it sits in contradiction to the rules for passive checks. The specific line you quote really works only in the context of Activities While Traveling (Basic Ruls, p. 67-68), which is how I presented how I handle such a thing to @Elfcrusher. This section conflates actions and checks as D&D 4e does. It refers to "active" and "passive" tasks which aren't a thing in D&D 5e but are a thing in D&D 4e. In order for it to work, one has to be running a game like D&D 4e where a passive check represents a character not making "active" use of a skill. Which is fine, if that's what one wants to do. I do not (being a proponent of running each game distinctly, according to their rules) and I don't think it's possible to square up the DMG with what the rules for ability checks and passive checks say outside of something like Activities While Traveling.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A passive check does not imply passive activity because a check is not an action.

But is "activity" required for a door to be seen passively? In my mind, the high passive score eliminates uncertainty, so it's not actually a check requiring activity. It just becomes part of the described environment.

Some characters have darkvision, but we don't (I hope) require them to declare an action in order to have the environment described in ways that differs from what those without darkvision would perceive.

 

[Bawylie]

Oofta quoted above the rule from the 5e DMG that says: "You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing." I think that's pretty strong evidence that using passive perception in this manner is appropriate in 5e. (Unless you view doors and traps as different?)

That’s a very good point.

I don’t do it that way. But the rules say you can. I’d argue it’s better not to because I like it better when players make decisions and take actions than when the system simply drops something into their lap (as can happen when an adventurer’s passive perception “pings” a trap).

Likewise, I feel the overall difficulty in 5E is rather low. And there are a number of little nerf-foam pads in the system I’m not fond of. But that’s down to personal taste. And the text here says “you can” and not “you must.” So I think we can all agree on allowances for personal taste, setting, genre, etc.

 

[Oofta]

So ... yep. Iserith disagrees with a book that was published months after the PHB. Funny how the book is "poorly written" when it doesn't agree with his interpretation.

I stand by my previous post, using passive checks is a reasonable option. One I sometimes use and other times I broadcast. Like the rules suggest.

A house rule I use sometimes is that it depends on the speed you are going through an area.

• Extreme caution: speed is 1/4 but you get advantage (+5) on passive perception checks.
• Cautious: speed 1/2, passive perception
• Normal: passive perception with disadvantage (-5)
• Fast: double normal speed, dashing through the dungeon, no passive perception.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just out of curiosity, how would phrase a passive Perception discovery of, say, a secret door, that avoids leading with "You..."

I have some ideas, but wondering how others would do this.

I focus on presenting what the PCs can directly perceive, and then describe those things as one would in a novel. “There is a [thing]” instead of “you see a [thing],” or if you want to get a little more colorful, “the flickering light of your torches reveals a [thing].”

It's an impression I get from some people. That everything must be broadcast. If it's always been assumed, then it's just a redundant clarification.

I always broadcast != one must always broadcast.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That’s a very good point.

I don’t do it that way. But the rules say you can. I’d argue it’s better not to because I like it better when players make decisions and take actions than when the system simply drops something into their lap (as can happen when an adventurer’s passive perception “pings” a trap).

Likewise, I feel the overall difficulty in 5E is rather low. And there are a number of little nerf-foam pads in the system I’m not fond of. But that’s down to personal taste. And the text here says “you can” and not “you must.” So I think we can all agree on allowances for personal taste, setting, genre, etc.

This is a fair point.

If you assume there isn't a character with high passive perception, is the presence of the door still telegraphed? If not, it's lame (in my opinion). And if it is, it's a shame to deny the players a chance to solve the puzzle by having one character just notice it without any effort.

Still, assuming I'm creating this adventure for a specific group, I might put in such a door (or other "thing") just to throw a bone to the player with high passive Perception.

 

[5ekyu]

You may have missed it, but I started with “for me.” By which I meant to indicate I was speaking of my own experiences.

I’m not commenting on games you or anyone else play in or have played in, which I am sure are delightful.

What in my comment made you think I was saying anything otherwise? I did not comment on whether or not you were talking about other, just agreeing with you and pointing out that the thing you describe is really not being playstyles others have been describing as the way they play.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, ok. That's much more respectful. And if you don't see an issue there's no reason to change how you play.

But if you are curious about why I do see an issue, here are some things that have long bugged me about some of the more traditional ways of rolling dice:

Rolling for things like stealth or forgery before an adversary tries to detect it:

This gives the player too much information about their probable success. E.g., in the case of a really low roll, the player now knows they are likely going to fail with that attempt. So you either let them keep trying until they get a roll they like, or you force them to "roleplay pretending to not know they failed", which is not a form of roleplaying I like. Or if they roll high, they proceed with too much confidence, which I think is less fun than a little bit of uncertainty/paranoia.

Making zero-consequence, "no progress" ability checks, such as "looking for traps" or knowledge checks:

Again, if the player rolls low the only reason to not keep rolling until you roll well, or for everybody in the party to chime in with, "Can I roll, too?" is to arbitrarily disallow it. That feels artificial to me, and it also creates a split between the character's state of mind and the player's state of mind, in the sense that the character thinks they gave it a good shot and is reasonably sure of the result, but the player knows it was just a bad roll. That's something I care about.

On the flip side, if the player rolls a natural 20 they have no doubt about the outcome, but the character might still have doubts. "Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's no traps...but, you know, I might have missed something." Again, that sort of "being in your character's headspace" is important to me.

Now, in all these cases the DM could be making secret rolls, but that's also something I find distasteful.

A totally fair reaction to both of my constraints (shared headspace, no secret rolls) is "Well, if you're going to be so picky no wonder you have problems." But that was exactly my reaction to the requirement about random outcomes in the wedgie scenario: well, if you're going to insist you get a random result, no wonder you can only see one way of resolving it.

I don't think there is a perfect solution. I just enforce a "sometimes it's not reasonable to retry", and yes sometimes multiple players chime in. Sometimes I allow it, sometimes not. For a fair number of things I require proficiency before someone else rolls. If the check is so easy you don't need proficiency then there's no need for a roll in the first place. If you know someone else in the group is a history expert but you are not it's rare that you wouldn't just trust the expert.

In other words, there are times when I limit group checks depending on the scene. Unless the group has a telepathic bond, I limit table talk. If I were doing an online game I would probably do a private chat for check results.

When retries are allowed is a judgement call.

 

[5ekyu]

Could you explain the bolded part?

I'm afraid I'm inclined to interpret that to mean something along the lines of, "You are trying to tell the rest of us how to play..." But I hope I'm wrong.

I hit send prematurely in a long post and the edit with the more complete and longer response just went up.

 

[iserith]

But is "activity" required for a door to be seen passively?

The DM can decide that a door is seen for any reason he or she wants without reference to mechanics. If we're talking about a hidden object as the rules lay out and the fact that it is hidden makes searching for it by the usual means uncertain, then we may go to ability checks to resolve it.

In my mind, the high passive score eliminates uncertainty, so it's not actually a check requiring activity. It just becomes part of the described environment.

Some characters have darkvision, but we don't (I hope) require them to declare an action in order to have the environment described in ways that differs from what those without darkvision would perceive.

A passive check is just a kind of ability check that doesn't use dice rolls. Ability checks require that a character attempts an action that has a chance of failure, an outcome that is uncertain, and a meaningful consequence for failure. Characters can't attempt actions unless the player says they do. Therefore, a DM can only use a passive check to determine an outcome if the player has stated an action that is being performed repeatedly (such as searching for secret doors over and over again), and that action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. It isn't a case of a character "not actively using a skill" as it is in D&D 4e.

This doesn't stop anyone from resolving this however they like, of course. It just can't be squared up with the rules in my view, for whatever that's worth.