D&D 5E (2014) Passive Perception

[Astrosicebear]

What about that tripwire across the hallway?

Surely it's more satisfying for a player to spot it rather than a game mechanic? I understand what you're saying but it doesn't cover all bases. I think that's my main beef with PP; not so much how it is used, but that it's a grey area. For me at least.

Yes it is more satisfying for the player to spot it. But if they werent looking, and the DC exceeded their PP, then they trip it. Maybe it will make them more vigilant.

If I design a dungeon that includes traps, usually I place a minor, but difficult to detect trap very early on. Maybe that DC 18 tripwire, that is a silly rope-log that does 1d6 or something. But it makes the PCs vigilant. If PP spots it, then they also are vigilant.

I do not agree with stupid silly traps DMs put in place to punish PCs. DC 25 lvl 1 traps that release beads of force from the ceiling crushing the floor which drops 500ft into a gelatinous cube.

 

[iserith]

"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."

The Basic Rules do mention that some reasonable amount of specificity is required for a character to have a chance at spotting a hidden object. What you describe above, however, does not seem reasonable to me and is an example of a DM poorly adjudicating the situation. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't play the way you describe.

Given a tripwire near a door, I'm going to telegraph the trap in some fashion. Perhaps there is a scorch mark on the door itself, for example. That might be signs of a battle or a fire that rolled here sometime in the past... or it could be a trap. When the player says "I search the flagstones around the door for anything suspicious," then my response is "You find a tripwire." There is no roll here. Why? Because the player is searching exactly where the tripwire is - in front of the door. There is no need for a roll here because the player's good decision-making has removed the uncertainty from the situation.

If, on the other hand, the player says "I search the door-frame around the door for anything suspicious," then I decide this search has uncertainty because it's possible the character notices the tripwire while examining the door frame. I ask for an ability check. If the roll is successful, the character finds the tripwire. If the roll is a failure, then the character finds the tripwire, but he has almost set it off with his foot my accident - one wrong move and the trap goes off. "What do you do?"

Now let's say the player describes searching somewhere other than the door for traps. The character has no chance of spotting the tripwire because he is not looking in the right place. There is no roll here.

 

[Astrosicebear]

The Basic Rules do mention that some reasonable amount of specificity is required for a character to have a chance at spotting a hidden object. What you describe above, however, does not seem reasonable to me and is an example of a DM poorly adjudicating the situation. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't play the way you describe.

Agree.

If there is a hidden compartment under the rug in a room. I would assign a high DC to finding it via a curosry search, say 18. If the PC says they are searching the room, quickly, I apply a penalty, if they are taking their time, i leave the DC. If they specifically say they are moving the rug, looking under the bed, its an automatic success for finding traps/hidden things.

The PC told me what he was doing, the dice do not need to be involved, it doesnt further the story or serve a purpose.

 

[KarinsDad]

Agree.

If there is a hidden compartment under the rug in a room. I would assign a high DC to finding it via a curosry search, say 18. If the PC says they are searching the room, quickly, I apply a penalty, if they are taking their time, i leave the DC. If they specifically say they are moving the rug, looking under the bed, its an automatic success for finding traps/hidden things.

The PC told me what he was doing, the dice do not need to be involved, it doesnt further the story or serve a purpose.

Although you are not using passive perception here.

Slightly off tangent, but I have read here on the boards about a lot of DMs who do not want there to be a secret door (or a hidden compartment under the rug) unless the players find them. They think that in order for the DM to spend the time crafting elements of his game world, he wants the players to find those elements. What good is creating entire rooms of places to adventure under the rug if the players never find it? Granted, there is a difference between small compartment with maybe a few items in it and an entire level of dungeon, but the point remains.

Personally, I think that the passive perception mechanic has some inherent flaws that a DM might want to consider not just using the same mechanic each time. Using group stealth for PCs trying to ambush vs. passive perception seems to work ok, but using it for ambushing NPCs is problematic. There are minor bugs with using (active or passive) perception (being opposed by a random DC, or a static DC) like:

1) The same PC is always the one to notice things (in the case of ambush by NPCs, the same PCs are rarely surprised because of high passive perception, the same PCs are often surprised, there is never a case of the high perception PC being surprised and the low perception PC not being surprised).

2) If the DM uses static DCs for hidden things, either the PCs always find something, or never find it (shy of the DM changing the DC as per your example).

3) Using active perception means that the math will result in PCs almost always finding something (unless the DM sets the DC extremely high).

4) Using active perception means that players will change their behavior because they know that the DM called for a perception check.

I just find both active and passive perception to be a wonky tools at times.

I don't have a good solution, but I often try to resolve these types of issues by having the "closest PCs" or the "trained PCs" or some other criteria with an active roll where not everyone in the party is rolling. Either that, or I set the DC quite a bit higher and have everyone roll. If I have a secret door, the PCs do not have to find it in my game.

And as you say, changing the DC for when PCs are actively searching as opposed to passively looking seems to be a useful compromise as well.


But one of the only times I use passive perception tends to be for monsters when the PCs are trying to use group stealth to ambush them. It's just too wonky of a tool to use all of the time as per the OP's concerns.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Although you are not using passive perception here.

Correct. For me, Passive Perception will never "spot" a hidden compartment under a rug.

I agree, obscure, hidden treasure serves no purpose. When I read adventures that put super hard locked chests or high DC perception checks to find items, I wonder why... why design the item or put it there, just to have it missed.

If something is meant to be hidden, I telegraph it early and often. If the players dont pickup on it, too bad so sad. They cant rely on PP to find everything. It may find that trapped floorboard, but it wont find the secret cache.

 

[wedgeski]

I agree, obscure, hidden treasure serves no purpose. When I read adventures that put super hard locked chests or high DC perception checks to find items, I wonder why... why design the item or put it there, just to have it missed.

Because discovering the super-hard chest or ultra-well-hidden secret door by accident or by virtue of looking for it are only two ways the secret may be found. Maps, information from NPC's, and clues elsewhere in the module might all make the search easier or auto-succeed. The old old "three ways to find important clues" rule applies equally well to delicious and lucrative secrets.

 

[KarinsDad]

Correct. For me, Passive Perception will never "spot" a hidden compartment under a rug.

A different DM might allow it. As you walk over the rug, you notice something not quite right.

I agree, obscure, hidden treasure serves no purpose. When I read adventures that put super hard locked chests or high DC perception checks to find items, I wonder why... why design the item or put it there, just to have it missed.

If something is meant to be hidden, I telegraph it early and often. If the players dont pickup on it, too bad so sad. They cant rely on PP to find everything. It may find that trapped floorboard, but it wont find the secret cache.

Sounds kind of like how I play it.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Because discovering the super-hard chest or ultra-well-hidden secret door by accident or by virtue of looking for it are only two ways the secret may be found. Maps, information from NPC's, and clues elsewhere in the module might all make the search easier or auto-succeed. The old old "three ways to find important clues" rule applies equally well to delicious and lucrative secrets.

With those telegraphs or bread crumbs, yes that is acceptable. But Ive seen plenty of adventures where in random room B for some random reason, in the corner of the wall is some DC 40 hidden compartment that has some random magic item. That bugs the hell out of me.

 

[iserith]

With those telegraphs or bread crumbs, yes that is acceptable. But Ive seen plenty of adventures where in random room B for some random reason, in the corner of the wall is some DC 40 hidden compartment that has some random magic item. That bugs the hell out of me.

I have an issue with adventures that list a DC at all for anything. I don't think a DC gets assigned until the DM has heard the player describe his action (goal, approach). So why an adventure would list a DC in the absence of player input is a little odd to me. I take it as a suggestion, if that. Some adventure writer doesn't get to tell me that my player's approach has an uncertain outcome no matter what - determining whether the outcome is uncertain and what DC is appropriate is my role as DM!

 

[KarinsDad]

I have an issue with adventures that list a DC at all for anything. I don't think a DC gets assigned until the DM has heard the player describe his action (goal, approach). So why an adventure would list a DC in the absence of player input is a little odd to me. I take it as a suggestion, if that. Some adventure writer doesn't get to tell me that my player's approach has an uncertain outcome no matter what - determining whether the outcome is uncertain and what DC is appropriate is my role as DM!

This seems a bit harsh. The adventure designer is doing the best he can for many thousands of DMs, not just you. If you do not like the DC, change it. No harm, no foul.

But an adventure without DCs would be a poorly designed adventure IMO.