D&D 5E How do you handle secret doors?

[jgsugden]

The rule is so surprisingly uncomplicated that it is almost hidden in the DMG. We also know that a lot of people don't actually read the DMG so I think the OP is excused for not noticing it...

If you're a DM and have not read the DMG essentially cover to cover, you're less prepared than the designers of the game intend for the DM to be. They didn't write the DMG for it to be ignored - they wrote it for the DM to know and use. It is part of the game RAW.

I use the rules from the DMG, but the way I set my DCs is a bit more complicated. I figure out who made the secret door, and why, and how skilled they might be in doing it. Then I set DCs according to the capability and resources of the being that made it.

I also have semi-disadvantage and semi-advantage options in my game. If you get semi-advantage, you get to reroll if you fail by 4 or less on your first roll (and you then use the higher roll). Semi-disadvantage forces you to reroll if you get succeed by four or less (and use the lower). For passive perception, it gives you +3/-3. This makes passive perception modifiers go from -5 / -3 / even / +3 / +5. That gives you a big range. I use these disproportionately with perception and investigation, and less often with other d20 rolls.

 

[aco175]

I tend to use Perception to find hidden doors and things that can be seen without interacting with them and Investigation when you need to interact with something to find a latch or button or such. "Finding" the door also means that you know how to open it.

A hall behind the curtains- Perception
A hall where the candlestick holder needs to be turned- Investigation. If I'm feeling generous then there may be a Perception check to gain advantage on the Investigation check by noticing something like wax on the floor where the candle is turned.

 

[jgsugden]

I tend to use Perception to find hidden doors and things that can be seen without interacting with them and Investigation when you need to interact with something to find a latch or button or such. "Finding" the door also means that you know how to open it...

For me, it is generally a question of whether it is instantaneous or takes time. Something that you just sense is controlled by Wisdom/Perception, where if you need to spend time putting the pieces together or comparing different things to draw a conclusion, it is Intelligence/Investigation.

That being said, if a player says, "I'm going to use Investigation to look around" and I had anticipated a Perception check would be needed, I tell them to roll their investigation check and then tweak the DC based upon the circumstance. You might see the oddly colored stone (perception) or figure out that the pattern of stones has an aberration (investigation), but either way you can find the stone thathides the secret compartment.

 

[Charlaquin]

In 5e, there is no default procedure for secret doors afaik.

I ask my players to describe exactly what they are doing, and if they are doing a thing that might reasonably find the secret door, I'll let them find it and describe how the opening mechanism is hidden (so they could use again if they want). If they are doing something sort of close, then I'll let them roll perception or investigation.

How do you handle?

What you describe here seems to me to be exactly how the 5e rules describe Investigation and Perception work generally. It is also how I handle it.

 

[Charlaquin]

edit: but otherwise your post has me thinking I might try running something with more intentional time-keeping, with the players knowing there's a 'wandering monster' check every X minutes (where 'wandering monster' is shorthand for 'problem you wouldn't have had if only you weren't so slow'). That kind of gives you an automatic "consequence of failure" of almost any task, doesn't it?

I do this. Highly recommend it. Generally once per hour is my interval for checking for complications (with wandering monsters being a possible complication, where it makes sense). Highly recommend giving it a try; as you observed, it insures pretty much every action has a consequence for failure, the consequence being wasted time.

 

[jgsugden]

I do this. Highly recommend it. Generally once per hour is my interval for checking for complications (with wandering monsters being a possible complication, where it makes sense). Highly recommend giving it a try; as you observed, it insures pretty much every action has a consequence for failure, the consequence being wasted time.

Why a set schedule? That seems very artificial.

When I put a dungeon together, I set it at the moment the party will first arrive, and then I think about how the inhabitants (and their beighbors, potentially) will act during the time that will follow. I plan for creatures to move from one location to another, or for creatures from outside the complex to visit, etc... as it fits into the story of the location. Then, I let things play out however they play out based upon PC actions and how that interacts with my script... including having the inhabitants react to discovering signs that the PCs have been there. It is a more organic experience and it tends to create a richer game for my players, and for me as a DM.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I've found that these sorts of clues give away too much, and players don't really feel like they've done something on their own. I prefer to give them a hint that there are rooms they haven't discovered, to which they conclude there must be a secret door somewhere that they haven't discovered, so they start looking at their maps trying to figure out where it must be. If I've really done my job right they remember a clue I previously gave them in passing (that they weren't supposed to pick up on at the time), but usually I have to give them new hints once they start looking in the right place(s). But because they are intentionally looking, and the hint is in response to their actions, the revelation of those clues doesn't feel like a giveaway, it feels like something they accomplished. It's really fun when they finally solve the puzzle.

But....it takes a lot of prep.

Perhaps I was unclear in the post - these clues are either placed in a larger description full of other details; or what the players glean from a successful skill check (e.g. perception or investigation). The players then need to describe how they search and what they do to uncover specifics; or ask for more detail about things they've already noticed. (And hope they've understood the clues correctly to be a secret door rather than a trap). "What do the scratches look like?" "I press on the wall stones with my 10-ft pole." "I knock on the walls". "I scour the hallway ahead and behind for something like a panel, button, or lever." "I try to wiggle the sconces." Further information provided as appropriate that, if I'm doing my job correctly, leads them in the right direction. The situation becomes a puzzle of sorts, as you were discussing. Of course, the whole exchange needs to be simple enough to take up only a minute or two or one runs the risk of boring the players and/or losing their attention.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's an option. Taken to the extreme, if you stop playing the game, you solve all the problems you have with it.

Sure, but why get rid of the fun stuff?

Honestly, 90% of secret doors add nothing to the game except frustration. Do they sometimes make sense from a narrative standpoint? Sure. Do they create interesting play scenarios? Almost never.

They’re an artifact from early editions of the game which were focused on dungeon delving and involve exploration turns and wandering monster checks and resource management.

Removed from that mode of play, all they really appear to be is a roadblock for progression gated behind a skill check. Or in the case of some GMs, behind arbitrarily specific action declarations like “I run my hand along the underside of the fireplace mantle”.

If the game isn’t focused on delving, then the interesting stuff is likely whatever’s behind the door, not just finding the door. Skip that nonsense and get on with it, I say.

There’s already far too much “not quite yet” in D&D. No reason to find additional spots to insert more.

 

[Li Shenron]

In addition... randomness is overrated.

Yes.

I actually love randomness as a method to generate adventuring situations/encounters (i.e. random tables) as well as my own characters (not just rolling ability scores but sometimes going as far as rolling everything just to see what comes up), but that's a different thing.

For game resolution, I have my own way of thinking that randomness is rather for when I am undecided. Most of the times my players wouldn't need to roll. If there's a hidden door that looks like a bookshelf, all they need to do is tell me they want to inspect the bookshelf for hidden doors. But maybe if I am not convinced their team is capable enough, I might still make them roll.

Despite the de-emphasis on randomness, I think we are handling things differently, if I am reading your post correctly... when you write "they should find it" if they have enough high score. I still want the player to make at least some decision in order to find it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why a set schedule? That seems very artificial.

Well the purpose is to make time a meaningful cost. For that to work, players need to be able to see the doomsday clock ticking away, or the next roll for complications creeping closer each time they decide to spend 10 minutes searching for a secret door, or picking a lock, or casting a ritual spell or whatever.

When I put a dungeon together, I set it at the moment the party will first arrive, and then I think about how the inhabitants (and their beighbors, potentially) will act during the time that will follow. I plan for creatures to move from one location to another, or for creatures from outside the complex to visit, etc... as it fits into the story of the location. Then, I let things play out however they play out based upon PC actions and how that interacts with my script... including having the inhabitants react to discovering signs that the PCs have been there. It is a more organic experience and it tends to create a richer game for my players, and for me as a DM.

I mean, I also do that. The complications roll is in addition to that, to insure there’s always time pressure, and that the advancement of time is highly visible to the players.