D&D 5E 5E low level monster skill checks

[iserith]

I just keep that simple. Moving at half pace gives passive checks. Actively searching for secret doors (ie the party stops and does their thing) I would agree would cause the PC doing so to lose that perception for a kobold sneaking up.

The rogue scouting ahead and disarming a trap or opening a lock would be another example that I think I see more often. That rogue could have an awesome passive perception but if he's focused on disarming a trap then there's an argument against using it while those kobolds sneak up behind him. Blindsense starting at 14th level is more applicable in that situation.

Okay. The way I look at it is kind of a "zoom in" or "zoom out" situation. So if you zoom in, you might have characters declaring specific, say, "exploration tasks" in a given area. Being that those are not repeated tasks, if there's any uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure, we'll have an ability check. If we're zoomed out, characters are covering a lot of ground, performing tasks repeatedly in the doing, and we're looking at things from a high level as with Activites While Traveling. That's when things get resolved with passive checks.

 

[iserith]

My only question is why would searching for secret doors preclude one from noticing traps? Seems like the character looking closely at walls and floors would be equally amenable to finding either.

I mean, fill in the blanks here with any reason that makes fictional sense in context. But chiefly I separate them out to create trade-offs and thus meaningful choices for the players. You can't do everything. You have to choose, which also reinforces teamwork.

 

[Ashrym]

My only question is why would searching for secret doors preclude one from noticing traps? Seems like the character looking closely at walls and floors would be equally amenable to finding either.

This I also agree with. Both are similar enough to be done simultaneously. "I investigate this wall because it caught my attention" type of reasoning. I think that gets into broader actions vs specifics. If the PC was specifically looking for a secret door I would probably give a passive check on a trap if it's also there because the PC knows he's looking for the door; active check. Because the PC is searching that area (the actual action, imo, regardless of being specific) I would use the passive check for the trap because I don't want to tip off the player.

Requiring the PC to state both actions gets repetitive / redundant, and then it gets into player vs character skills. A player might not remember to be specific on the SOP, but a character would still have the experience, training, and mindset not to miss it.

I find DM'ing often requires a broader view on what characters are actually doing at any given time. A specific action might include other actions that cross over, or might preclude them.

 

[iserith]

This I also agree with. Both are similar enough to be done simultaneously. "I investigate this wall because it caught my attention" type of reasoning. I think that gets into broader actions vs specifics. If the PC was specifically looking for a secret door I would probably give a passive check on a trap if it's also there because the PC knows he's looking for the door; active check. Because the PC is searching that area (the actual action, imo, regardless of being specific) I would use the passive check for the trap because I don't want to tip off the player.

Requiring the PC to state both actions gets repetitive / redundant, and then it gets into player vs character skills. A player might not remember to be specific on the SOP, but a character would still have the experience, training, and mindset not to miss it.

I find DM'ing often requires a broader view on what characters are actually doing at any given time. A specific action might include other actions that cross over, or might preclude them.

Are you telegraphing the presence of the traps or secret doors in your game specifically (rather than just "you're in a dungeon, so expect this sort of content)? Because I'm telegraphing, so players aren't typically going to poke around for a trap or secret door unless something about the environment may indicate one.

 

[coolAlias]

I mean, fill in the blanks here with any reason that makes fictional sense in context. But chiefly I separate them out to create trade-offs and thus meaningful choices for the players. You can't do everything. You have to choose, which also reinforces teamwork.

Sure, if I'm not at the front of the party, then I won't find any traps there before it's too late.

But if I'm in some random dungeon room examining floors and walls for anything that looks out of the ordinary, like a pushable brick, sconce, etc., I'm probably also going to notice the slot in the wall that a blade might come out of, or a hidden pressure plate, or whatever.

Once I notice these things, then it might be up to my Int (Investigation) to figure out if whatever I found triggers a trap or opens a secret door, but the things I'm looking for are pretty similar between the two.

This kind of goes back to if the "not noticing the clown because I was looking for rats" meme. As a player, I'd be pretty disappointed if I did well on my Wis (Perception) while examining a wall only to have a trap come out of that same wall moments later.

 

[Ashrym]

Are you telegraphing the presence of the traps or secret doors in your game specifically (rather than just "you're in a dungeon, so expect this sort of content)? Because I'm telegraphing, so players aren't typically going to poke around for a trap or secret door unless something about the environment may indicate one.

No, I don't. I believe that gives information to players they would not normally have. If I gave descriptions similar to telegraphing the presence of traps or secret doors it's based on the passive check results. Typically, if they fail to make a passive check they find the traps or whatnot the hard way or miss the secret door completely.

This avoids the player vs character skills and knowledge conflict better, imo.

 

[iserith]

Sure, if I'm not at the front of the party, then I won't find any traps there before it's too late.

But if I'm in some random dungeon room examining floors and walls for anything that looks out of the ordinary, like a pushable brick, sconce, etc., I'm probably also going to notice the slot in the wall that a blade might come out of, or a hidden pressure plate, or whatever.

Once I notice these things, then it might be up to my Int (Investigation) to figure out if whatever I found triggers a trap or opens a secret door, but the things I'm looking for are pretty similar between the two.

This kind of goes back to if the "not noticing the clown because I was looking for rats" meme. As a player, I'd be pretty disappointed if I did well on my Wis (Perception) while examining a wall only to have a trap come out of that same wall moments later.

This goes back in part to the "zoom in" and "zoom out" think I was referring to above. If we're talking repetitive tasks while traveling the dungeon, then the tasks may be separated out and passive checks are used to resolve uncertainty. If we're talking about something like the dungeon room you mention, we're not using passive checks there. Those will be ability checks, if any checks at all are needed and there might be a situation where you notice a trap while looking around for secret doors. In general though, and because I telegraph things, players are searching for one and not the other, so there may be some separation.

 

[iserith]

No, I don't. I believe that gives information to players they would not normally have. If I gave descriptions similar to telegraphing the presence of traps or secret doors it's based on the passive check results. Typically, if they fail to make a passive check they find the traps or whatnot the hard way or miss the secret door completely.

This avoids the player vs character skills and knowledge conflict better, imo.

Okay. I don't believe there is a conflict between player and character skills/knowledge personally, so this isn't a concern for me.

 

[Ashrym]

Okay. I don't believe there is a conflict between player and character skills/knowledge personally, so this isn't a concern for me.

I find telegraphing a trap (or whatnot) means player's realize it's there before even making the roll. That can change how they act or react regardless of the outcome of the roll. That's the reasoning behind passive checks not tipping players off.

The difference is just different playstyles in that regard. Telegraphing was the norm at one point and passive checks not tipping players off came after that. I think the take away for other people who want to DM would be to determine their approach and follow suit.

EDIT: I keep a small table of passive scores on my tablet. I use them regularly based on the actions of the NPC's or environment to which the PC's would react. I use active rolls based on the actions of the PC's.

 

[iserith]

I find telegraphing a trap (or whatnot) means player's realize it's there before even making the roll. That can change how they act or react regardless of the outcome of the roll. That's the reasoning behind passive checks not tipping players off.

As you say, it's a playstyle difference because I don't see an issue of realizing there's a trap there. They still have to act to find it, figure it out, and disable or avoid it. Those actions might come with ability checks attached, plus time, and probably wandering monster checks based on that time.

The difference is just different playstyles in that regard. Telegraphing was the norm at one point and passive checks not tipping players off came after that. I think the take away for other people who want to DM would be to determine their approach and follow suit.

Yes, that's how I would have done it in D&D 4e for sure.