D&D 5E Consequences of Failure

[Xetheral]

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.

I freely acknowledge that the rules may not be as tightly written as one would like. But, poorly written or not, I think the inclusion of these rules is strong evidence against your claim that passive tasks aren't a thing in 5e. If they're in the books, doesn't that make them part of this edition?

By my count, there are at least four explictly-supported uses for passive perception in the rules:

1. To resolve repeated tasks.
2. To avoid rolling dice during task resolution.
3. To notice hidden traps, doors, etc.
4. To set the DC when opponents try to remain unnoticed.

To my understanding, all are presented as optional with the exception of #4, which defines the default DC unless the DM opts to change it.

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.

Absolutely. I don't think it's mandatory at all, I just think it's worth acknowledeging that it's supported in 5e.

 

[iserith]

I freely acknowledge that the rules may not be as tightly written as one would like. But, poorly written or not, I think the inclusion of these rules is strong evidence against your claim that passive tasks aren't a thing in 5e. If they're in the books, doesn't that make them part of this edition?

By my count, there are at least four explictly-supported uses for passive perception in the rules:

1. To resolve repeated tasks.
2. To avoid rolling dice during task resolution.
3. To notice hidden traps, doors, etc.
4. To set the DC when opponents try to remain unnoticed.

To my understanding, all are presented as optional with the exception of #4, which defines the default DC unless the DM opts to change it.

To accept the traps section in the DMG as true outside of the context of Activities While Traveling, you have to be willing to contradict the rules for ability check and passive checks which are more fundamental to the functioning of the game as a whole in my view. I'm unwilling to do that just to accommodate what looks to me like an error written by someone who was thinking of another game at the time.

Play in my D&D 4e game and, yeah, that's how passive Perception will work. But not in my D&D 5e game.

Absolutely. I don't think it's mandatory at all, I just think it's worth acknowledeging that it's supported in 5e.

I think that depends on one's definition of "supported." I would certainly not hang any arguments on that section outside of "it says this thing." Because it does. It just doesn't make any sense when taken with the rest of the rules as I see it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Does this mean you would never have a secret door revealed just because somebody with high passive Perception walked past it, without them stating they were looking for it?

If so, I think this is one place I would do things differently than you.

I think @Charlaquin did a nice job a bit further back explaining the futility in using Passive Wisdom (Perception) to "allow" certain characters to discover set things. That's where my thinking is going on this one, anyway. I may only be using it for opposed roll situations going forward (mostly Dex (Stealth) and Dex (Sleight of Hand) situations).

For a while I did also use Passives to gate telegraphs as well - you’d only feel the draft coming from the secret door if your passive Wisdom (Perception) was high enough, for example. But what I found was that it only served to make certain features of the environment impossible to find. Either I set the DC higher than the highest passive Perception in the group and they would never find it, or I set it lower and play proceeded as described above, where players might or might not find it depending on if they pick up on the hint. Pretty soon I found myself not setting any DCs higher than the highest passive Perception in the group, and not long thereafter I realized there was no point in setting those DCs in the first place.

Back to the secret door example, the process of telegraphing by the DM might provide some subtle clues about the existence of a secret door while the subsequent situational approach and goal provided by the player might provide more clues or outright lead to the discovery (with or without a roll).

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

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.

Interesting.

Would you tell something...as in, describe the environment...to somebody with a relevant skill proficiency, or background, or something else, differently than you would to somebody who doesn't have that proficiency/background/etc.?

I guess I'm seeing "passive Perception vs. DC" as simply a quantified version of the same thing. But maybe you wouldn't do either.

 

[Bawylie]

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.

I read your post as “we don’t play in the manner you’re describing and I don’t think anyone does.”

I clarified to say I had played that way and wasn’t saying anyone else had or does play that way.

Nothing in your comment made me think anything other than “I should take the opportunity to clarify my position.”

 

[5ekyu]

Many editions ago, iirc, elves had a chance to find a secret door simply by virtue of wandering near it. And they were so common (in games I played, though not necessarily anyone else’s games, which I am sure are delightful) that we were suspicious if we concluded a dungeon and DIDNT find one.

These days, I am more likely to write in a specially locked door (big and obvious with a specialty key) than a secret door. But from time to time I do use secret doors and telegraph them. And unless someone is declaring that’s what they’re searching for, and they’re either reasonably close or expend sufficient time looking, they won’t find it. The players know this, though. Often they decide to mark the room and come back later for a thorough search rather than burn an hour scouring.

Yeah, yes olde days had some odd ducks, to be sure.

For my own purposes, I draw a firm line between inobvious and secret.

In obvious means it's a perception DC to spot. Whether passive or active its just a factor of being observant enough. Mentally to me it's like spotting in dim light or lightly obscured, it can happen or not, more likely for some.

Secret is different. It us more akin to heavy obscured or total darkness... it fails against direct observation unless certain circumstances are met. Even then it may be in obvious. You see this in very basic mode throughout the rules and scenes in 5e with cases like "to spot the secret door, you have to be within 5' and make a DC 15 check".

I rarely use secret doors and their ilk in ways that just allow passive checks. There may be relatively easy ways to meet the conditions but not ones that boil down to just passive checks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

That's great.

But I was trying to answer the objection that I was "fabricating" flaws that didn't exist. Did I address that concern sufficiently?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think goal and approach with consequential failure works great for scenarios that meet these criteria:

1. The scene and the characters, people etc in it are fully pre-created with enough detail that you can fully judge the given goal and approach.

2. The meaningful consequence for failure (or lack thereof) is obvious enough to be preknown to the dm.

I don’t see the style working on any example without those 2 criteria.

In addition, I’m also not sure that those 2 criteria can be found in most scenes that arise in a typical game.

Large towns with many NPCs prevent detailing every person. Unforeseen details that players may want to interact with often prevents criteria 1 from being met.

Event sequences where players start going in a direction somewhat different than the dm preplanned for often make picking out the potential meaningful consequences for an action on the fly quite difficult.

I guess Some play styles may avoid these things but I think most do not.

 

[iserith]

Interesting.

Would you tell something...as in, describe the environment...to somebody with a relevant skill proficiency, or background, or something else, differently than you would to somebody who doesn't have that proficiency/background/etc.?

No. Ability checks come into play only after the players have described what they want to do. So when the DM has described the environment, the players do stuff. The narration of the results of their actions may then be informed by ability checks and skill proficiencies if their actions have uncertain outcomes and meaningful consequences for failure. The results of those actions may then open up additional options in the environment and the loop starts all over again.

I realize that a lot of DMs keep track of what characters have which proficiencies so they can change their description of the environment accordingly. I don't see why that is necessary or even beneficial. It gets worked out when the players do stuff.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Btw, none of those appear to me to be house rules, just rulings that fit the guidelines already provided. They seem to fit just fine into the definitions and guidelines for advantage, disadvantage and when to allow passive checks.