D&D 5E Passive skills - rolling for DC's

[cheops]

I seem to recall that this was a thing in some of the playtests, or maybe it was in one of the L&L columns or something. Anyway, I really like the idea of rolling for, as an example, the trap's DC. Instead of simply comparing passive perception/investigation to a static DC.

If this is no longer happening, I'm thinking it's simply a matter of rolling d20 + (static trap DC - 10) anyway.

Is this not a thing anymore, and if not, why? Do you plan to use similar rules in your own games?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I haven't heard anything about this changing. Mike Mearls said that it was the final version about a month or two before the DMG was completed. It's always possible they changed their mind after that. But I doubt it.

The problem is that the rules for how to adjudicate Perception checks vs Traps or hidden objects are all in the DMG. So, right now no one KNOWS what the rule is one way or the other until the DMG comes out.

Which is a read disadvantage to having some rules in the DMG and then releasing it months after the PHB.

 

[77IM]

FYI, in the Lost Mine of Phandelver, the passive DCs for noticing secret doors are typically 5 points higher than the active searching DC. For example, it will say something like, "You can spot the hidden door with a Wisdom (Perception) check, DC 10, or you spot it automatically if your Passive Perception is 15 or better." So the passive score is really there to catch easy stuff. To notice a properly concealed trap probably requires an active roll.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I expect the DMG will include rules about rolling for a trap DC, a kind of trap "stealth check". Otherwise you get the invidious position of auto detect or auto fail against a trap, which might kill a PC, which is simply lame.

I didnt realise there was an earlier playtest version where you did roll trap DC. That is excellent to hear and makes me more hopeful that the DMG will include more options on traps.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I didnt realise there was an earlier playtest version where you did roll trap DC. That is excellent to hear and makes me more hopeful that the DMG will include more options on traps.

They added passive perception back into the game very late. In one of the last playtests. People went online to say "PP is back? But static DCs and PP don't make sense...it means you either auto fail or auto succeed." Mike Mearls tweeted that he was solving that by making all traps and hidden doors roll with a stealth modifier to determine the DC:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/427871296760713216

But there were no more playtests after that. So we never got to see that rule in action.

We know that they Lost Mine of Phandelver was written BEFORE they made that change to the DMG. So was Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

So, none of the published adventures use that mechanic, but as far as I can tell the last beta version of the DMG that all the authors were working off of was written prior to Mike Mearls changing the rule.

Given, it was in January that they "tested" the new rule, so they may have decided that it didn't work for some reason. But I'm still holding out hope that the rule is in the DMG and traps are always supposed to roll vs the PCs PP.

 

[Psikerlord#]

They added passive perception back into the game very late. In one of the last playtests. People went online to say "PP is back? But static DCs and PP don't make sense...it means you either auto fail or auto succeed." Mike Mearls tweeted that he was solving that by making all traps and hidden doors roll with a stealth modifier to determine the DC:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/427871296760713216But there were no more playtests after that. So we never got to see that rule in action.

We know that they Lost Mine of Phandelver was written BEFORE they made that change to the DMG. So was Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

So, none of the published adventures use that mechanic, but as far as I can tell the last beta version of the DMG that all the authors were working off of was written prior to Mike Mearls changing the rule.

Given, it was in January that they "tested" the new rule, so they may have decided that it didn't work for some reason. But I'm still holding out hope that the rule is in the DMG and traps are always supposed to roll vs the PCs PP.

thanks very much for that link - assuming that option is in DMG that makes perfect sense to me. I wish someone had told me this earlier, I was whinging about static trap DC vs passive PC as soon as I read the starter set/phb - I immediately disliked that interaction. I want at least one side rolling, and it makes sense to me that it be the DM - coz it's easier for the DM to not tip off the players this way.

Very promising indeed. I am reeeeally looking forward to DMG. Cheers!

 

[cheops]

Thanks for clering this up everyone, I was a bit confused about this after a couple of session plying through Lost Mine of Phandelver. I'm stoked that this still seems to be the way things are moving, it just makes so much sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've been doing this in my game so far, even without knowing if it's in fact going to be the real rule or not.

My rogue player took the Observant feat at 1st level, and thus his Passive Perception is like 20 (+3 WIS, +2 perception proficiency, +5 from feat)... so I knew from the beginning that actually using "hidden" traps were not going to be all that useful all that often. Thus, I've taken to doing what I've done a lot in previous editions and created trap DCs based upon the supposed INT checks of the people setting them. I roll (1d10+10) + INT of the monster/person who set the trap to generate the DC (occasionally throwing in the proficiency bonus or double proficiency bonus if the creature might logically have an affinity to traps-- like kobolds for example). This gets me DCs where I can honestly say are possible for him to miss in those rare occasions.

And yeah... I roll 1d10+10 rather than a 1d20 (like a normal check) just because since Passive skills get those free 10 points, I want my traps to get the same, otherwise there's *really* no point to even try to use them.