D&D General "I make a perception check."

[GMforPowergamers]

For this to be at all a "fair" challenge (as in the actually implementing in an adventure sense) there would have to be some kind of reason telegraphed that there is a room behind the wall, ideally multiple clues as such. The players find a map, the players see someone run into the corridor and when they investigate - no one is there, that sort of thing.

But let's assume the players have good reason to suspect there is a way past the wall - how do they go about finding out the way?

again... detect magic is the only thing I can think of... mixed with identify

BUT I will over and over again say that I am always surprised at the ingenuity of my players so maybe I missed something obvious

 

[Mort]

I game tuesday nights... I am going to ask my players what they would think if I ran this in a random corridor in a dungeon

mye guess is they would not like it but I will report back

I suspect, in an actual session, it depends on the leadup and on what's behind the wall (and on how motivated they are to get behind that wall etc.). But sure.

 

[Mort]

again... detect magic is the only thing I can think of... mixed with identify

BUT I will over and over again say that I am always surprised at the ingenuity of my players so maybe I missed something obvious

The main point was to present a (IMO) fairly standard (but not easy) find the secret door scenario and see the various approaches. Because, based on the rhetoric, they would seem to be extremely different. Anyway, thanks for engaging.

 

[Mort]

I think the handling of Difficultly Class is a key difference in DMing around these parts and may be getting in the way of understanding. Some feel the DC is set ahead of time - which makes sense based on how some rules and how the published adventures are written. Others feel that it is better to judge the DC of a task in the moment - which makes sense based on how Xanathar's publishes suggested DCs for tool applications, the fact that not every situation can be covered by a rule, and that not every possible character action can be encapsulated in a set DC for a given scene in a published adventure. Some likely sit on the fence between these two positions.

The table from the DMG (p 238):

It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table.

Typical DCs

Task	DC
Very easy	5
Easy	10
Moderate	15
Hard	20
Very hard	25
Nearly impossible	30

I'm in the second camp and feel the adventures far too often are gating important information or pathways behind seemingly set-in-stone DCs. I much prefer to set DCs in the moment based on the situation and the goal/approach of the PC. This also prevents any subconscious bias about a "set" DC needing to be overcome and allows clever play to bypass obstacles more often with auto-successes than mostly needing lucky rolls.


This topic probably deserves a thread of its own...

I'm in the second camp. I definitely think many things can be done to lower a DC from any that is presented.

Frankly, that's what granting advantage does - but I think that's too limiting. There should be plenty more ways (usually) to affect most DCs than to just push for and gain advantage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The main point was to present a (IMO) fairly standard (but not easy) find the secret door scenario and see the various approaches. Because, based on the rhetoric, they would seem to be extremely different. Anyway, thanks for engaging.

i am wondering and hope someone else comes up with something other then 'get lucky doing it' or the detect magic trick

 

[iserith]

I see that becuse in your mind (and correct me if I am wrong) the ONLY reason to roleplay or give details or to try to work inside your character is if it gives a mechanical bonus?

again... to have fun at the table.

okay i will bite.

I think of roleplaying at it's core being when I get into character and play out that role. When sitting around at the tavern and telling stories that's role playing. When I decide to freeze when I see my character's dead father in the distance that is role playing.

baring some outside circumstance yes we agree

i mean... it doesn't make a mechanical advancement or mechanical advantage... I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. It matters in the narrative, I mean sometimes what inn you stay at CAN matter... and the benefit is when YOU (or any player) really want to MAKE it more important to the shared narrative you can just give details then.

again... so is the only reason you play the role is to get benfits?

I think this just further reveals that we think about roleplaying differently. My definition, taken from the rules, includes things like sitting around the tavern and telling stories or having a reaction to the character's dead father, but also includes every other thing the character does, thinks, and says that I establish. But so far as I can tell from your posts, much of this doesn't matter at all in the game except as "narrative," whatever that means, or "fluff" as you said upthread. Whether I use a random argument with the king or one that is based on the very things he is saying, I'm still rolling, it doesn't affect the DC, and I don't have a chance at getting adv/disadv from the DM. I can't even get Inspiration for adding to the "narrative" or "fluff." To me, these incentives need to be aligned for the game to work as intended.

 

[Charlaquin]

Deciding which proficiency applies is fair. But, again, you have decided that it must be a passive and that it cannot possibly be active. This bothers me, but you keep saying it shouldn't bother just because the DM can make up whatever justification they want. That's not a good argument in my mind.

The DM decides how to resolve actions based on their best judgment and their understanding of the rules. Based on my best judgment and understanding of the rules, I would resolve attempts to look around with passive perception, because people do that constantly. Maybe you would rule differently, and if I were playing at your table, I would accept your ruling, because that’s how the game works.

Let's say that they make the decision to search then. Why not just say "You don't find anything of note" and move the clock hands forward? If you want to give them a consequence for choosing to search a room with nothing in it, you totally can without having them actually search anything.

That is indeed what I would do. I’m not sure why you assume otherwise.

So, why do you not do that and instead have them search the room manually when you know there is nothing noteworthy in it.

There are only two ways to search the room: surveying it generally, which I resolve with passive perception; or “manually” searching, which I need a declaration of goal and approach to resolve, so I can assess if the appropriate can succeed or fail to achieve the goal, and if both are possible, what roll to call for to resolve that uncertainty. If there’s nothing to be found in the room, that should be clear enough from the initial description, but if for some reason the players want to search “manually”, the results will indeed be failing to find anything without a roll.

Why do you not know? If there is nothing going on involving Shar, then an idol to Shar wouldn't have any importance to what is going on, correct?

Just because there’s nothing going on involving Shar right now, doesn’t mean there might not be later. In fact, if I had placed the idol to Shar randomly, that might inspire me to add some sort of Shar involvement. Rolling prep is a big part of sandbox play. Of course, even if I do expand the campaign to include some Shar-related stuff, I don’t know when or if the players will encounter it. That’s not up to me.

And I have done so when taking an action that I do not take repeatedly. Which isn't a passive check.

You don’t repeatedly use your senses to determine your surroundings? I find that hard to believe.

Wait. The only way that arrow would be important is if they end up encountering a dragon later and they use it? That has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about things like the Dragon-Slaying arrow being in the secret room because it is a clue that the Duke was once secretly an adventurer, a secret he is hiding. It is important because it informs something else and gives them context or reveals things about the location or an ongoing plotline.

I don’t prep plots.

It sounds like you are using "important" to mean something like "I didn't know that pipe was going to be important until they used it to bar the door". It wasn't important when they found it. They found something unimportant and utilized it (which is why my inventory is always full of miscellanous stuff) I'm talking important as in it tells the PCs something they didn't know before, or confirms something they suspected.

Any information could tell the PCs something they didn’t know before or confirmed something they suspected. Again, I know all sorts of information about the things I put in my campaigns, so if that’s what you mean by important, then I guess everything is important.

If you just have random treasure that may or may not be worthless, that's not actually important.

What? I don’t see how by the definition you just used. Random treasure may convey all sorts of information the players didn’t already know.

But you heard them make the plan. The plan that you knew you would regulate to a passive check and would not be a roll. Would you not tell them that?

You’re going to have to be more specific about what plan I hypothetically heard for me to answer that. I was under the impression that the players said they wanted to follow the goblin and find where it was hiding (or something like that, it was like two days ago at this point, so I don’t remember the details perfectly). Bardic Inspiration could absolutely be useful in doing that. If I had known that the players hoped to try and find the goblin without entering the room it’s hidden in or interacting with anything in the environment at all, sure, I would probably have warned them that bardic inspiration is unlikely to help much.

They declared an action, with a clear goal and approach. That action was to search for traps by moving to the center of the room.
They could succeed in finding the trap. They could fail to the find the trap. And it has consequences for failing to find the trap.

Since the trap happens to be in the center of the room, do they get to roll to find the trap?
Yes I did. Moving to the center of the room to look for traps. That is an action, you clearly can picture it, it gives positioning. It has every single factor you have asked for. Do they get to roll to find the trap?

Wait, hang on. Their goal was to find out if there were any traps in the room, and their approach was to move to the center of the room? And there was a trap that is triggered by moving to the center of the room, which they didn’t notice with their passive perception? Then, yeah, when they get to the center of the room, I would describe the initial trigger being set off - what was it, a pressure plate? So I’d describe the feeling of something sinking under their weight and the sound of a click, then ask what they do. They could then tell me what they do to try and avoid the trap, which could result in them avoiding it without having to make a saving throw. If their action wouldn’t help them avoid the trap, I would still give them a saving throw to avoid it. So, again, there are many points at which they could have avoided the trap. I would first of all have telegraphed it in the initial description, which could give them enough information to know not to step in the center of the room. I would second of all have compared their passive perception to the DC to spot the trap, and if it was higher, just told them they noticed it. I would third of all have given them a chance to avoid the trap without a save after perceiving it’s initial activation and before taking any damage or other negative effects. And if they didn’t manage that I would finally have given them the chance to avoid it with a saving throw.

Clearly. If someone told me they were going to search a room, I'd know what they are doing and where they were. Seems reasonably specific to me.

Why does it matter EXACTLY how they are searching the room? There are many ways I could go about running too, multiple techniques and styles, each with pros and cons. But I don't need to ask someone HOW they are running. They are running, that is good enough.

So I can determine if their approach could succeed in achieving their goal or or fail to do so, and if both, set a difficulty and call for an appropriate check.

And here it is again. What matters is "did they declare an action which springs my trap".

It isn't about not understanding or not knowing, it is that you want them to state exactly what they are doing, so there is no question if they triggered the trap. Even if their action is to specifically look for traps so they don't spring them, you need to know if they randomly guessed the wrong thing to say, so that they actually sprung the trap before they get the chance to look.

In the case of a room with a trap in it, sure. In another case, such as a room with a concealed door, I also need to know what they’re doing specifically so I know if they find the concealed door or need to make a check to do so. There are many hypothetical scenarios where specificity I’d necessary to adequately determine results.

And if this isn't the case? Then you could just remind them that failing the roll could result in any hazards in the room being activated. If they agree, then they also can't complain to you about the fact that they triggered the trap. Simple fix.

Sure, that’s a way someone could do it, but that leaves the fictional action very abstract, which is not my preference.

Because unless you state "This is from Tyr" to a group of people who aren't from Tyr, no one knows to make up the fact that they are from Tyr.

They don’t have to know to do it. They might do it anyway. Or they might not. That’s also ok.

Because "you fail without even getting a chance to try" sucks. I'd rather have some chance of success than zero chance of success.

And I’d rather have zero chance of failure than some chance of failure. Especially since a failed roll always has consequences, whereas simply failing due to there being no chance of success often just means no change. But different strokes, you prefer to roll, I prefer to avoid rolling. It’s all good.

I can get the same backstory of people and relationships in magic school without them needing to make up a new fact every time they encounter something magical in the world. And it will be far more coherent and far easier to work into the story naturally than something they made up on the spot so they didn't need to risk rolling when they encountered swamp magic for the first time.

What, by making all that background detail up before play even starts? No thank you. I’m not interested in reading a bunch of lengthy player backstories before play has even started; I find that very dull, and in my experience it leaves little room for the characters to grow during play; people get stuck on “what would my character do” based on things they already decided before the game even began, instead of acting organically and figuring out why their character did what they did.

Are you inside of or outside of the 45° cone of vision?

Is your shape matching the expected shape of the angle of vision, or are you creating odd contours which will draw the eye?

Have you matched your breathing to common patterns so the subtle shift of movement won't draw attention?

Ask masters of stealth, and they will give you a LOT more than "get behind something, don't move, don't make noise". Things that a +17 master of stealth knows to do, that you do not, because you are not a +17 master of stealth.

None of those things are relevant to making the decision to hide or where to hide. Yes, they are relevant to staying hidden, if that is uncertain, and are thus accounted for in the +17 when you make a stealth check.

 

[HammerMan]

i am wondering and hope someone else comes up with something other then 'get lucky doing it' or the detect magic trick

Okay I have been lurking for over a day now but I think it’s safe to enter this part without being dragged into the “can you name a skill” thing


Handprints and footprints.

I would have a passive perception motive hand prints on each and the if they pay attention or look at all go with investigate or survival (tracking) to notice that the foot prints don’t stop at the lamps so they must touch them on the way by.

 

[Charlaquin]

no... still no

If There is something hidden that has a DC to find it and I ask to look for something (even if what I describe is very general or only similar to what the thing is) and you tell me not to roll, that you already told me what I saw... then I got surprised by something (an attack) that I feel I should have had a chance to notice I would expect an explanation.

IF you put a door behind an object and interacting with that object was the only way (BUT a gurenteed one) to find it and we spent any length of time trying to figure out where the door was I would also like an explanation...

the things i need explained are diffrent though

in the first one "Why didn't I get a chance to see it"
in the second one "What made you think us moving each object till we found it would be fun?"


I would not run either that way...
the first I would give them the active check and let the dice fall where they may

the second I either A) would not have a weirdly specific door, or B) would just tell the high perception character (there always is one) they notic it as part of room description

@Swarmkeeper asked you, if there was a door concealed behind a tapestry, how would you determine if the PC found it, and what would you do if they failed a check to search the room and then said they look behind the tapestry. You said you would use passive Perception. If I have misunderstood how you would resolve that, by all means, clarify.

 

[Maxperson]

what does that even mean on a post... like in D&D it's an action but on the post?

It means that they are done having a discussion with the person they disengaged from and that person should stop responding to them.