D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[Uller]

Wait a second...the party is walking down a road with 20 bandits hiding in ambush and you wait until ALL 20 are in view before you tell the player of the party lookout? YMMV but I'd let the party know when the first bandit is in sight. As the action unfolds more bandits appear as characters move or the bandits take their turn.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EN World mobile app

 

[cmad1977]

Passive perception works fine. I think one issue is people assume perception is used to detect 'all the things ever!'. For me it really boils down to less 'all the things' and more 'the critical thing'.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

Passive perception works fine. I think one issue is people assume perception is used to detect 'all the things ever!'. For me it really boils down to less 'all the things' and more 'the critical thing'.

Or, as I see it, "the thing you're on the lookout for in general and nothing else."

You don't get a chance to spot all the hidden monsters and all the secret doors. Choose one or the other.

 

[Uller]

Or, as I see it, "the thing you're on the lookout for in general and nothing else."

You don't get a chance to spot all the hidden monsters and all the secret doors. Choose one or the other.

Right. In Lost Mines, only the party lookout's passive perception comes into play to find the goblins' traps on the trail if that lookout is looking for traps. If that fails, I let the lookout roll perception.

Edited for clarity.

 

[iserith]

Right. In Lost Mines, only the party lookout's passive perception comes into play to find the goblins' traps on the trail if that lookout is looking for traps. If that fails, I let the lookout roll perception.

Yep. For the general task of staying alert to hidden dangers, I lump both traps and monsters in that task. Traps, however, come with the added necessity of being in the right rank to notice them. So if you're staying alert to hidden dangers and bringing up the rear in the marching order, you'll get a chance to avoid surprise from any lurking monsters, but you won't notice any traps at the front of the party while you're traveling. Practically speaking, this means the character with the highest passive Perception is in the front, usually - and that's not always the rogue!

 

[Mistwell]

Right. In Lost Mines, only the party lookout's passive perception comes into play to find the goblins' traps on the trail if that lookout is looking for traps. If that fails, I let the lookout roll perception.

Edited for clarity.

Yes, the rules specify that you can call for a check only from a certain rank in the marching order or similar designation of person who is in a position to perceive the threat. A lookout, for wilderness travel, is that designated person.

 

[robus]

Passive Perception is not a good rule, as has been pointed out numerous times on this thread. In my game, characters make all perception checks normally but get advantage on their check if they are using their action to actively search or stay alert. This just makes it far easier. I have modified the Observant feat so that it is just expertise with Perception and Investigation (and +1 Int or Wis). Simple and straightforward.

I think it works best if it's used as a simple check for declared action that's repetitive. For example:

Rogue: "As we progress in this dungeon, I'm keeping an eye out for traps"
DM (notes): OK I'll make sure I check the rogue's PP against any trap DCs (if the rogue is first in marching order!)

Fighter: "I'm keeping a look out for any monsters lurking about"
DM (notes): OK, fighter PP against hidden monster's stealth

etc.

Just having Passive Perception be full on for all things breaks it IMHO. The players must declare their repetitive action for it to be applicable. It also makes it more immersive for the players I think. Because they're actually thinking about what would be best for them to be doing as they explore.

Edit: and now I see I'm just piling on

 

[Uchawi]

You can always treat passive skills in general as spider sense, or some indication that something is out of the norm, without stating what it is. Then let the player roll from that point forward depending on what clue or statement is provided by the DM. Or just use the take 10 or take 20 rule from 3e where it indicated something trivial, there is no penalty for failure, or can not be done in combat or duress. Since 4E and 5E have attempted to simply rules it is my opinion the intent of the previous rule was lost.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Passive perception works fine. I think one issue is people assume perception is used to detect 'all the things ever!'. For me it really boils down to less 'all the things' and more 'the critical thing'.

By the rules it IS used to detect 'all the things ever!'. Your passive perception is always on and spots all secret passages, hidden items, traps, and hidden creatures within your line of sight all of the time as long as your passive perception is equal to or higher than the DC to spot something.

On a side note, it is interesting that JC decided to spell this out. I've been wondering how they actually felt about PP since I first read the book. It said PP existed and if it exists then it really should be the "floor" of your perception. But allowing it to be the "floor" means that a large number of traps become completely useless. It really changes the feeling of the game when in one game you say "I walk forward" and the DM says "You fall into a pit and take 10 damage" and you say "I climb out and keep walking down the corridor" and the DM says "You fall into another pit and take 10 damage" VS a game where the DM says "Your passive perception of 15 lets you see 5 pit traps within sight, each one is 5 feet by 5 feet. You can see where the edges of the pits are so you can just step around them."

I'm honestly not sure which type of game I like better, but the different rules create very different games.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Oh, something else just came to mind. Although I like PP as a floor, I like of dislike the idea that if you roll high enough you might succeed. I like the idea of PP since it means a lot less rolling for trivial things. If people walk into a room, you can say "This is what you see" and list everything they can spot with their PP.

But if there is even a chance that they could roll higher than their PP and something could have been missed, then players are going to say "I search again to see if I missed anything" over and over again until they roll a 20. I think PP only works well if you can never make an active roll. Or at the very least if actively looking around around automatically raised your PP by 5 or 10. That way you knew that examining something closely once would be as high as you could ever roll and therefore would stop looking after you examined something once.

I guess the same effect could be had by only allowing any one PC one roll to spot something and not ever allowing another roll unless something changes. I kind of like that.