D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

[Kobold Boots]

If a character is on guard duty and remaining alert to dangers, passive Perception can be used to resolve whether he or she notices threats. If he or she does anything at least as distracting as foraging, tracking, drawing a map, or navigating, then the character is no longer alert to dangers and passive Perception score does not apply - the character just fails to notice the threat. The exception is a ranger in favored terrain traveling for 1 hour or more because he or she can both remain alert to danger and perform another task.

In combat, most creatures are alert to danger while the fight unfolds and so passive Perception applies here, too, when resolving if the character notices a hidden threat.



"Passive" in "passive check" refers to there being no roll, not that the character is not actively doing something. They are. In the case of passive Perception, the character is actively remaining alert to danger over time. If he or she does some other task as mentioned above, then he or she isn't and passive Perception does not apply.

Fair, so in using your definition then, should a character be sleeping.. what would wake them in the event of an assassination attempt except for passive perception vs. assassin's stealth check?

Serious question because this does come up and whenever possible, I like to be consistent.

Thanks,
KB

 

[5ekyu]

Depends entirely on whether the outcome is in doubt. If the guards are drunk, then stealthing past them may require no check at all. In other words, an auto-success. If the lock is very simple, and the one picking it very experienced at picking locks, then asking for a roll may be a waste of everyone's time.



No. But I think it is a little bit silly to have the players roll perception checks to spot their friend in a crowd, when narratively it may be in the best interest of the story for them to meet up. This is of course assuming a situation where neither person is trying to deliberately hide from the other. Sometimes rolls can get in the way of the flow of the game. In such cases I lean more towards no-roll.



You phrase it in a perhaps overly complicated way, so allow me to try and rephrase it a bit more clearly for anyone else reading this.

Whether a character 'knows' some bit of knowledge is determined by a few factors in my campaigns:

-Is it common knowledge?
-Would the player's character be likely to possess the knowledge, given his class and backstory?
-The stated approach of the player.

If I am in any doubt whether the player knows the information given the above rules, I may ask for a roll AFTER the player has stated an action. If the resolution is not in doubt however, I may hand the information to my players immediately, with no roll required.

This means that any player would recognize the statue of the king, but the cleric may be the only one who recognizes a statue of a saint. Since it would be in doubt whether the other party members recognize the saint, they would need to make a check after asking me (their DM) if they know the saint. This of course also goes for any other rephrasing of the same question. Basically, if they decide to investigate, or ask me for information, that is when I decide if the outcome is unclear.

A stated approach could be: "Does the statue have a plaque? If so, I read the name underneath the statue." If the name is on a plaque underneath the statue, then there is no chance for failure, and no roll is needed. There is no need for me to hide the info behind a die roll if this is the case.

I believe this is better than having everyone who enters the room immediately make a perception or knowledge check to identify the statue. Because what would be the outcome of failure here? One or two people fail their checks and their characters don't know who the statue is? But if someone succeeded at their check, then basically everyone at the table now knows the outcome, regardless of what their characters know, and you've basically forced half the table to roll for no good reason. If you instead wait for someone to take an action to investigate the statue, you cut a lot of time wasted on meaningless rolls, and focus instead on what the players choose to have their characters do. A lot of DM's seem to use this auto-roll style as a sort of clumpsy trick for getting 'someone' in the party to obtain some bit of expository information. But if that is the case, just hand your players the information right away. Why beat around the bush?

Thanks for the answers.

Where we differ is that i dont have two tiers of skills... One set where auto-success is determined by character skill and circumstance and another which adds "what i as gm want." In my experience the more that division exists the more impact it has on the desirability of characters built that focus on one or the other.

Additionally, when you ask what would be the point of rolls entering the room, outcome of failure... It is exactly that **some** of the characters would know stuff the others dont determined by the character stats and the outcome.

This means the ones with the invrstments see gains and opportunities the others dont. They see advantages and can choose to share them or not, perhaps to exploit them for themselves.

This is just like a character with good stealth scouting ahead ginding some bit of interesting stuff and pocketing it and then deciding whether or not to share.

In a "table/party" stylr gane where the four pieces are a unit taking on ehatever dungeon or challenge this msy not matter and may be seen as needless conplications, but in a game/style of play where they are still treated as individuals (even when working as a team) it makes a difference.

Could i dispense with the rolls and only give the info to the better chars, sure but since i dont deny other characters a chance at stealth simply because they are the worst in the party i dont treat knowledge or perception checks that way either.

Different strokes.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think the worst decision WotC made in the 5e ruleset is choosing to name "repetitive actions requiring no rolls", "passive".

The passivity is with the players not the characters. The character is actively pursuing their action as the player sits back and lets them get on with it. In other words the character is always taking actions (unless they're sleeping ).

I once found a better term, which now eludes me, but it was something like "constant", or "continuous" or something like that. "Rolling" would also work but that would just open up another massive can of worms!

What were they thinking with "passive"? It's been a major source of ongoing confusion!

I'm of the opinion that the choice of word was accurate and the way it's described is not. Perception is one of those things that's always been a pain.

 

[iserith]

I think the worst decision WotC made in the 5e ruleset is choosing to name "repetitive actions requiring no rolls", "passive".

The passivity is with the players not the characters. The character is actively pursuing their action as the player sits back and lets them get on with it. In other words the character is always taking actions (unless they're sleeping ).

I once found a better term, which now eludes me, but it was something like "constant", or "continuous" or something like that. "Rolling" would also work but that would just open up another massive can of worms!

What were they thinking with "passive"? It's been a major source of ongoing confusion!

I know that D&D 4e framed passive checks as used when a character was not "actively using a skill." It's possible that worked its way into people's thinking and approaches on this matter and they carried it forward into D&D 5e. (If someone didn't play D&D 4e but uses this approach, it's possible he or she just picked it up from some other DM who did.) I can find no support in the D&D 5e rules for treating them that way though. And of course it won't make your game blow up if you do.

 

[robus]

I know that D&D 4e framed passive checks as used when a character was not "actively using a skill." It's possible that worked its way into people's thinking and approaches on this matter and they carried it forward into D&D 5e. (If someone didn't play D&D 4e but uses this approach, it's possible he or she just picked it up from some other DM who did.) I can find no support in the D&D 5e rules for treating them that way though. And of course it won't make your game blow up if you do.

Ah, that explains a lot!

 

[iserith]

Fair, so in using your definition then, should a character be sleeping.. what would wake them in the event of an assassination attempt except for passive perception vs. assassin's stealth check?

Serious question because this does come up and whenever possible, I like to be consistent.

Thanks,
KB

The poisoned dagger to the heart will probably wake them up.

But that's a gotcha unless it's telegraphed. So in this case I would have given the player some kind of warning of this possibility well before it came up so he or she could take steps to avoid a terrible fate. A simple alarm spell will thwart that assassin as might a hireling put on watch (or another PC).

 

[Imaculata]

Thanks for the answers.

Thanks for the questions as well.

Where we differ is that i dont have two tiers of skills... One set where auto-success is determined by character skill and circumstance and another which adds "what i as gm want." In my experience the more that division exists the more impact it has on the desirability of characters built that focus on one or the other.

I think you'll find cases where the DM wants something to 'happen' in almost any D&D campaign. But I think where I differ is how I deal with it. I've seen plenty of DM's try to force something upon the players by having them all roll perception checks until someone succeeds. My approach is to just not do that. Players roll only when they take an action. If I feel something needs to happen plotwise, or the players need to discover something, I just tell them.

I noticed this difference in yesterday's session, in which I was a player and not the DM. The DM had all of us make perception checks, because he obviously wanted to move the plot forward. Obviously someone is going to succeed at the check, and so the DM tells that player what they learn. But why even have these checks then? Why not either straight up tell the players what you want them to know, or wait until one player decides to investigate?

Additionally, when you ask what would be the point of rolls entering the room, outcome of failure... It is exactly that **some** of the characters would know stuff the others dont determined by the character stats and the outcome.

But you could still have that if only one player made a roll. Why force a roll on every player? Why not wait till one player takes an action first? I take issue with the idea of a DM presuming an action on the part of the player, and setting up a possibility for failure for something the players did not choose to do at all.

 

[robus]

I'm of the opinion that the choice of word was accurate and the way it's described is not. Perception is one of those things that's always been a pain.

Sure it's accurate with regards to their intended function for the rule in that the player has no need roll dice to resolve uncertainty with ongoing actions, but given the normal parlance for "passive" it is fraught with confusion as we continually get into arguments over active vs passive perception where there is not such thing as "active perception", but people naturally assume that passive means the opposite of active, and not actually "continuous" or "repetitive" as WotC intends.

 

[Kobold Boots]

The poisoned dagger to the heart will probably wake them up.

But that's a gotcha unless it's telegraphed. So in this case I would have given the player some kind of warning of this possibility well before it came up so he or she could take steps to avoid a terrible fate. A simple alarm spell will thwart that assassin as might a hireling put on watch (or another PC).

I hear you. I'm guessing there are differences to the way we do things simply because of my house rules forcing the interpretations down a path.

For example: I still allow coup de grace in my games in combination with the massive damage rules as I can't imagine having someone incapacitated not dying if someone has the time to slit a throat. Because of this, I need to have mechanics that offset some of the risk when a character is sleeping.. and this likely informs my perception mechanics.

 

[iserith]

I hear you. I'm guessing there are differences to the way we do things simply because of my house rules forcing the interpretations down a path.

For example: I still allow coup de grace in my games in combination with the massive damage rules as I can't imagine having someone incapacitated not dying if someone has the time to slit a throat. Because of this, I need to have mechanics that offset some of the risk when a character is sleeping.. and this likely informs my perception mechanics.

I've no issue with ruling in the moment, sans a formal house rule, that an incapacitated creature is dispatched if there's otherwise no pressure on the person doing the dispatching. When it comes to doing that to PCs though, there's a fairness issue and that comes down to telegraphing for me. I'm going to provide a warning e.g. "'Disrupt the operations of the Crimson Pact at your peril,' says the quirky NPC, 'for they are known to send hired assassins after those who thwart their plans!'" Heed it and you'll probably be okay. Fail to do so and that's on you.