D&D 5E Solution to the problems with Passive Perception!

[iserith]

If a DM builds a dungeon he has to constantly chose the DC for all of the traps he lays in it, and as most DMs know their players passive perceptions, this means a conscious choice over whether players will detect them or not.

I don't remember the PCs' passive Perception scores so I don't have this problem. I'm also not sure it's a problem, even if the DM does know the passive Perception scores so long as he or she is reasonably consistent as to the DCs (for example, I generally only use DCs from 10 to 20), telegraphs traps and other hidden dangers, and sets things up so the players can make trade-offs to increases their chances of success. So I've never been clear on what issue the random DC method is trying to solve.

While on the other end of the issue DMs could just not use passive perception and therefore have little to no control over traps.

I'm not sure what this means.

I handle it this way (taken from a recent thread on the topic):

First, I describe the environment in general to set up the adventure location. Next, I ask the players what their characters do while exploring, again, in general. This is their exploration task. They know the DCs by pace going in so they can array their party as they see fit. I make a note of this, but I can't narrate a result until it becomes relevant later.

Now I continue to describe the environment as the characters explore. Embedded in that description are clues telegraphing the existence of hidden things - traps, monsters, secret doors, etc. (These are "free" clues that some of you appear to gate behind the passive Perception score.) If someone has chosen to undertake an exploration task that might reveal these hidden things and meets the required passive score, then I tell them they have found something. That might be a pressure plate or tripwire or the outline of a door in the wall, something like that. Bottom line is that it's explicit - I'm no longer beating around the bush with clues at this point since they've found it because that is what the check resolves. If they do not meet the required passive score, then they have only the clues I already provided to go on. They can spend some time poking around more specifically or trying to deduce the relevance of those clues and they might roll or might have automatic success (or failure) depending on what they describe. ("Time" generally means I'm making a wandering monster check.) I narrate the results of the adventurers' actions accordingly. Sometimes failing a check means they find the hidden thing, but I make a wandering monster check because it took a while or made noise, etc.

I set it up this way because the "free" clues in the description provide agency to the players to change the fate of their characters by the decisions they make during play, both when they chose their exploration task and marching order but also in that moment. Telling them they found the trap's trigger or secret door due to their passive check result rewards their choices in play and the ones they may have made when building the character. And, as mentioned, discovering the hidden thing is only the beginning of the challenge. Now comes the investigation, deduction, and efforts to avoid or disarm the trap, open the secret door, or what have you.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

…I did not want my players rolling perception every time they enter a room;

Umm, I hate to sound harsh here, but passive perception is the solution to that problem. It is a tool that the GM can choose to use to reduce the number of time dice need to be rolled, either to reduce tedium (roll Perception please, once for each 10 feet of tunnel, for the next quarter of a mile) or to decrease metaknowledge (hey, the GM asked us to rol Perception, everyone be on alert!).

Replacing characters rolling for each observable thing with the GM rolling for each thing solves the metaknowledge problem, but doesn't reduce the workload for the GM (in fact, it increases it).

The problem is that there is this massive misconception that passive skills are for when characters are not being active. Passive perception has nothing to do with characters actively searching or not. Characters are always searching unless they are doing something that takes all their attention (like navigating or foraging).

From the PHB: A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

Now the PHB doesn't help this misconception by contradicting the above quote in the same chapter, but that's a rant for another time.

 

[Nostalgia Ward]

I like this idea. One of the issues I have with Passive Perception is I keep forgetting about it being there in the first place! Your solution is amazing. Thanks for posting that!

 

[iamntbatman]

Here's an idea. It would require more work for the DM but could result in a more meaningful trap-hunting experience for players. For every trap, set a DC. This is the DC for active perception checks. Then, for every trap, also list a modifier determined by who set the trap in the first place. I'd consider a handful of stat blocks for possible trap-making creatures (either current inhabitants or dungeon builders). Dex mods for mechanical traps, Str for things like rockfalls. Add in proficiency for relevant skills like tinker's tools or athletics, if applicable. Magic traps could get Arcana or spellcasting ability mod bonuses. Add a flat bonus (+5 or so?) if the trap was built by the same people who built the space, in order to account for clever hiding of traps in the actual construction vs. traps built by current inhabitants on top of old construction. Write down the mod total for each trap, and as players come across them roll against their passive perception (which you'd have listed). If they otherwise call for active checks, use the set DC (which could be 8+ the mods described above, probably).

 

[Wulffolk]

When i DM, and place a trap somewhere, I roll a handful of dice at the time I do the write up. Those are the rolls that are made to notice the trap. The first character that I think has a chance to notice it has their modifier added to the first roll. That determines whether or not I let them in on it. I do the same for each PC that might notice it. This way it is possible that Mr Hawkeye ( with the super high passive perception) might miss something that Mr FourEyes happens to get lucky and notice. That solves the problem of the scout ALWAYS being the one to notice something and the other guy NEVER getting the chance to be the hero.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The first character that I think has a chance to notice it…

That is a very important point. Only players whose characters are in a position to notice the trap even get a chance to roll.

In a single-file passage this means only the first and second character (and you could argue the second character is at disadvantage from trying to notice things past the first character). It doesn't matter how good the WIS\Perception of the last person is, they have no chance of noticing a trap before the first person walks into it.

Other activities might also prevent WIS\Perception rolls, like navigating and mapping.