That's one of the things I'm trying to get a handle on--when and when not to perform passive checks for players. It's usually a Spot check.
Traps and Search
- Thread starter Water Bob
- Start date
That's one of the things I'm trying to get a handle on--when and when not to perform passive checks for players. It's usually a Spot check.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
I agree that traps are there for PC's to find, not for a DM to point out beforehand. Smart PC's will do the requisite Search to make sure things don't blow up, fall down, etc. Extra smart characters will have some ablative defenses in case they aren't as awesome as they'd like to be.
No skill is "always on." One of the main points of skills is to actively use them. One of the main points of roleplaying is to play the role, meaning specifying actions among other things.
No skill is "always on." One of the main points of skills is to actively use them. One of the main points of roleplaying is to play the role, meaning specifying actions among other things.
Last edited:
Vegepygmy
First Post
I disagree. Certain skills call for opposed checks, which require the opponent to make a (passive) skill check. Listen and Spot, obviously. Sense Motive, in certain situations (for example, being feinted in combat).
And Knowledge checks arguably should be passive; rarely do you have to actively think about something to know it. You just do (or don't).
Tovec
Explorer
For my games, I guess it boils down to how our games have evolved with our groups.
Yes, a spot check might be appropriate to determine "something's up" but I wouldn't make it easy for them to notice right away.
I do agree a search check is voluntary, so I would insist the player ask for it before giving them one and telling them what was up with the chest.
In our games however, we've modified how trapfinding (as per rogue ability or in general) works. I just want to preface by saying, this variant works in our games and I can understand it may not work in yours! It is a houserule but it is one that has been created to speed up gameplay. Anyway, what we do is allow anyone with trapfinding the chance to say "okay roll a spot/search/listen/smell check to determine if traps exist". If they fail the attempt they do not realize a trap is there and have a chance of triggering it. The benefit of this feat is to allow a party to wander down a hall without having the rogue scanning each 10 feet of passageway to detect traps. Basically its a small meta-gaming rule which gives the trapfinder a free check to find out something is wrong. Further checks may be necessary to find it but the first check enables them to know "something aint right" at least.
Random and tangent-y but hope it helps. I'm not explaining well either, it is almost 3 am here. I need some sleep.
Yes, a spot check might be appropriate to determine "something's up" but I wouldn't make it easy for them to notice right away.
I do agree a search check is voluntary, so I would insist the player ask for it before giving them one and telling them what was up with the chest.
In our games however, we've modified how trapfinding (as per rogue ability or in general) works. I just want to preface by saying, this variant works in our games and I can understand it may not work in yours! It is a houserule but it is one that has been created to speed up gameplay. Anyway, what we do is allow anyone with trapfinding the chance to say "okay roll a spot/search/listen/smell check to determine if traps exist". If they fail the attempt they do not realize a trap is there and have a chance of triggering it. The benefit of this feat is to allow a party to wander down a hall without having the rogue scanning each 10 feet of passageway to detect traps. Basically its a small meta-gaming rule which gives the trapfinder a free check to find out something is wrong. Further checks may be necessary to find it but the first check enables them to know "something aint right" at least.
Random and tangent-y but hope it helps. I'm not explaining well either, it is almost 3 am here. I need some sleep.
kitcik
Adventurer
I think that passive spot checks need to be allowed (for the reasons someone else stated above).
However, I assign a higher DC to a passive check, unless the person is clearly in a situation where they are diligently looking around.
For instance, if you are walking through jungle, you would generally be on the lookout so I would allow a passive spot check with a normal DC.
In the case of a trap, I would often not allow a spot check at all depending on the type of trap. In this case, since there are noticeable holes in the chest, I would allow like a DC 30 passive spot check.
airwalkrr
Adventurer
In the case of Knowledge checks, I always require the PC to ask to make the roll, but it is always a free action. I don't tell the PCs to roll a Knowledge check every time the opportunity presents itself. The player ought to at least come up with the idea to plumb the depths of his mind for useful information before useful information can remembered.
That's an interesting idea. I think I'd use the "by two" rule and pop up the DC two points.
Jackinthegreen
Explorer
Two points might be lenient. For example, being distracted means a -5 to the check. A character not actively using a skill might be called distracted since they're not focused on the task of using the skill.
kitcik
Adventurer
I would go anywhere from -2 to -10 depending on the situation, but I think -5 as a rule of thumb is good.
Greenfield
Adventurer
A Spot check may (or may not) tell them that there is a pattern of holes among the ironwork on the chest. It might also reveal the maker's mark, whether the smith who hammered out the strap hinges was left handed, what type of wood was used to make the chest, or what kind of finish was used to preserve the wood.
What I'm saying is, unless the trap maker is an idiot (entirely possible if it's spotted by a DC14), the details that reveal the trap could be seen, but would lack significance.
To identify them as anything other than ornamental features would call for a Search check, and specifically by someone with the trap-finding class feature. And that generally has to be asked for.
Now some DM's presume that the Rogue will always check for traps before tinkering with a chest or lock. Others don't.
A couple of guys in our group had their "Standard operating procedure" for doors, windows, stairwells and containers. Two stand guard, watching forward and back, one would hold a shield to partially protect the Rogue (give him an excuse for an Evasion in case something go boom), and the Rogue would check for traps.
There were variations of course, depending on what sort of problem they were facing. Still, one might declare, "We S.O.P. the door", and I know what they're doing. positions are presumed, dice get rolled, and things happen (or not) as a result.
That sort of "standard practice", once established, may replace the specific call of "I check for traps", but outside of that I generally expect someone to ask for the Search check.
Why do I say the trap maker is an idiot to give it a DC 14...
By the book, if it's DC 14, it doesn't even qualify as a "simple trap".
What I'm saying is, unless the trap maker is an idiot (entirely possible if it's spotted by a DC14), the details that reveal the trap could be seen, but would lack significance.
To identify them as anything other than ornamental features would call for a Search check, and specifically by someone with the trap-finding class feature. And that generally has to be asked for.
Now some DM's presume that the Rogue will always check for traps before tinkering with a chest or lock. Others don't.
A couple of guys in our group had their "Standard operating procedure" for doors, windows, stairwells and containers. Two stand guard, watching forward and back, one would hold a shield to partially protect the Rogue (give him an excuse for an Evasion in case something go boom), and the Rogue would check for traps.
There were variations of course, depending on what sort of problem they were facing. Still, one might declare, "We S.O.P. the door", and I know what they're doing. positions are presumed, dice get rolled, and things happen (or not) as a result.
That sort of "standard practice", once established, may replace the specific call of "I check for traps", but outside of that I generally expect someone to ask for the Search check.
Why do I say the trap maker is an idiot to give it a DC 14...
SRD said:
By the book, if it's DC 14, it doesn't even qualify as a "simple trap".
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
How do I disarm traps? Does Thieves' Tools do anything?
