D&D 5E Passive Perception

[DaveDash]

For those wanting to nerf passive perception:

A Wizard (or Cleric) can wander around with Detect Magic on basically all day and detect all your magical traps (and hidden magical stuff), thus a player who has invested in the observant feat (or invested in perception) *should* be able to wander around and detect all your traps as well. Not using Passive Perception in this instance is nerfing your players.

The trick is to make it much harder to bypass traps than detecting them. Sure, they can detect all those traps, but getting around them is another issue. I personally make traps go off if the person attempting to disarm them rolls lower than 5 or less than the DC, to keep the danger of traps still in the game.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I'm not Astrosicebear, but I'll take a crack at your question.

It is arguably more satisfying for a player to listen to a DM describing the environment and make decisions on what to do such that the trap is revealed without needing to make a check. The player has removed the uncertainty through good play and that's a thing to be rewarded in my view.

However, that does require the DM to telegraph hidden threats in such a way that the player isn't required to pixelbitch to find the thing which is what Astrosicebear seems to think passive Perception is designed to mitigate. There must be some sign of the trap's presence that is described by the DM in a way that invites exploration and removes the chance of the trap being a gotcha. Most DMs in my experience totally fail at this, however.

Ime telegraphing all traps doesnt work - every trap just gets bypassed.... you may as well not use traps at all. Some gotcha's as a result of poor perception checks is good for the game. I like a mix of sometimes telegraphing, sometimes using checks for initial clues. Keeps suspense and reasonable players wont "pixelbitch" (unless the table likes that style), esp if the DM simply declares "there's no traps in this room" to keep things moving.

 

[Psikerlord#]

For those wanting to nerf passive perception:

A Wizard (or Cleric) can wander around with Detect Magic on basically all day and detect all your magical traps (and hidden magical stuff), thus a player who has invested in the observant feat (or invested in perception) *should* be able to wander around and detect all your traps as well. Not using Passive Perception in this instance is nerfing your players.

The trick is to make it much harder to bypass traps than detecting them. Sure, they can detect all those traps, but getting around them is another issue. I personally make traps go off if the person attempting to disarm them rolls lower than 5 or less than the DC, to keep the danger of traps still in the game.

You just change Observant to give adv on perception and investigation checks.

 

[DaveDash]

You just change Observant to give adv on perception and investigation checks.

I think it makes more sense to allow the +5 still (which is effectively advantage on a passive), and then also allow advantage on active checks. Otherwise it plays out a bit off (players never actively look for stuff, since their passive is generally better).

 

[keterys]

You can nuance the situation a little -

For example, Tripwire: Perception 15, +1 per foot from it; -5 in dim light - means that marching order and light matters, which at least supports D&D. It also becomes extra relevant when there are goblins waiting in ambush there as well _so that the trap is relevant during an encounter_. Suddenly someone darting ahead of the scout can trip it. Put the tripwire just around a corner, with someone shooting through arrow slits and someone to melee just on the other side of the tripwire, and even DC 10 can be a problem. (Had this exact situation in an adventure)

Also, you can have the PP DC be fairly difficult but have a tag like "If PCs are specifically searching the floor or shine a light at the floor, the tripwire is noticed automatically." - that way you reward player agency. There's still a little pixel bitching there.

Personally, I'd avoid random traps that are part of the scenery as you walk around as anything other than window dressing. If you have a pitfall on the trail, it's not there to make a PC fall into it. It's there to let them know there are hunters, things to be wary of.

And then you have another pitfall setup to be relevant during the ambush, or to protect a flank. Even if it's fairly obvious.

 

[iserith]

This is all very true. However, I personally tend to go to a PP "check" (DM roll vs PP) first, to see if any players notice something based on that, in part to reward those players that invest in stats, skills and feats that bump PP up (I do have a player with the Observant feat).

I'll also admit, that in a typical party, the range of PP can be pretty narrow, so either using the "compare to DC" method or "roll the trap's Stealth" method, it's often an all or nothing proposition. In the case of all PCs failing, then I'll still likely prompt them with something about a potential threat, though probably not with the same amount of detail had one of them made the check. Of course, if it's a not terribly damaging trap, I may go ahead and let them spring it on a missed check just as a warning. "I've got a pungi stake in my foot. We must be on the right track!"

Basically, I let the mechanic do the heavy lifting first to see if I even need to make a DM call.

The approach I'm trying now is to remove anything that has anything to do with passive checks from the game. I don't think the mechanic fits the D&D 5e paradigm.

 

[iserith]

Ime telegraphing all traps doesnt work - every trap just gets bypassed.... you may as well not use traps at all. Some gotcha's as a result of poor perception checks is good for the game. I like a mix of sometimes telegraphing, sometimes using checks for initial clues. Keeps suspense and reasonable players wont "pixelbitch" (unless the table likes that style), esp if the DM simply declares "there's no traps in this room" to keep things moving.

What do you mean by "bypassed?" If you mean found and avoided, then that's the approach working correctly: The players were given information, engaged with the exploration pillar, made good decisions that removed uncertainty, and avoided the danger.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Not spotting a trap, and setting it off is not as engaging as spotting the trap and trying not to set it off.


When a player stumbles into a trap, the DM gleefully, or sullenly rolls damage. Its viewed by the player as mitigating resources, or stupid traps, or whatever because they aren't a rogue so what difference does it make.

When a player spots a trap, regardless of being skilled in trapfinding or disarming, now there is conflict, tension, and you put choices in the player's lap. Do they try to figure it out, set it off, experiment or disengage and move on? You've created an interactive experience, not a reactive one.

Passive Perception is a great tool to engage the players directly, without involving the metagame of "DM:Roll a perception check in this seemingly empty room" and ruining the moment. If they choose to search or whatever, again player choice is always favorable.

 

[wedgeski]

Say there's a trap and it has a DC 15, anyone with a PP 15+ spots it just by passing close by it? Sure I could raise the DC to 21 or something, but that defeats the idea of PP; I may as well just ditch it.

Yes, as long as circumstances permit, it should be spotted. The tripwire or pit trap is the classic case. The blow-dart hidden behind the cut-out eyes of the portrait? Maybe not so much, depending on how it's activated. Not all traps are equal.

I like my players to be vigilant and self aware and actively search around for things (traps, secret doors, etc). I don't want them passively spotting this and that just by being in the vicinity. A case of, unless the 'thing' is glaringly obvious, if my players don't tell me they're searching the floor by the entrance they won't spot the trip wire running across its base.

"I search the flagstones around the door for anything suspicious." "Roll Perception." "12" "You don't find anything."
"I search the door-frame around the door for anything suspicious." "Roll Perception." "14" "You don't find anything."
"I search the door panels for anything suspicious." "Roll Perception." "19" "You don't find anything."
"I search the space between the bottom of the door and the floor." "Roll Perception." "6" "::chuckles evilly:: You don't find anything."

 

[delericho]

What about that tripwire across the hallway?

It's probably not all that interesting anyway. The tripwire trap is almost invariably set up such that the party detects it with one roll and then disarms it with a second; or they fail to detect it, it triggers, and one or more character takes moderate (and easily healed) damage.

In which case, passive perception is a massive boon, because it saves you having the party spotter calling for perception rolls every step along the way (which is actually smart, if annoying, play - there might be a trap there, and if there is a trap then it should probably be where you don't expect it).

With traps, you're generally better going for so-called "encounter traps" which are easy to detect but really hard to disarm - instead, the party must interact with the trap mechanisms in some way to get past the trap. Or terrain traps, where the trap is actually a battlefield feature in some other encounter, which either the PCs or the monsters can use to their tactical advantage.

But if you must use the tripwire trap, it should probably be really hard to find using passive perception (or a perception roll), there should be clues in place so that the players can realise that it's there, and if triggered it should have a real good chance of killing a PC.