I wonder if the 20 PP trap is an artifact from the playtest? Passive perception was not in the playtest and instead you had standard checks. Oddly the perception checks DC were 10, 20 and 30???

Quote from: Scutter;837339I think for me it's also waste of a good trap and also effort (not that the DM is out to deliberately kill pcs).

For example, the DM decides to have a swinging blade trap and details it as such. Takes him all of 5 minutes as he's written down a nice little theme/scene setting blurb when it is encountered. He sets the DC at 12. The cleric comes along with a PP of 13 and the trap is completely bypassed.

Wasted effort.

Perhaps not the best example because the DM could still narrate his trap effort without the bits of adventurer hanging off the contraption, but it serves as an example.

This does not sound like wasted effort to me at all. The adventurers found a trap before it triggered. Can they/will they disarm it? Will it slice one of their number even so? Perhaps this particular trap was a bit more noticeable because it was falling apart due to age, or from having been maintained by creatures who weren't sophisticated enough to have designed it in the first place. But now they know that there are traps about and they should be careful.

Does every unopened door, missed secret door, or unencounterd monster represent wasted effort? I don't think so, nor do I think a spotted trap is wasted effort.

If these *were* wasted effort, then the only way to avoid that wastage would be to railroad your players through all of your lovingly crafted material.

To me, wasted effort would be going 9/10ths of the way toward making an adventure, and then stopping just short to create a short story instead.

Build something where many things could happen, and then play to find out what happens. That's my 2 cent take, anyway.

Also, Justin Alexander's series on Jaquaying the Dungeon highlights how "wasted effort" can really help produce a superior product.

Quote from: Scutter;837339I think for me it's also waste of a good trap and also effort (not that the DM is out to deliberately kill pcs).

For example, the DM decides to have a swinging blade trap and details it as such. Takes him all of 5 minutes as he's written down a nice little theme/scene setting blurb when it is encountered. He sets the DC at 12. The cleric comes along with a PP of 13 and the trap is completely bypassed.

Wasted effort.

Perhaps not the best example because the DM could still narrate his trap effort without the bits of adventurer hanging off the contraption, but it serves as an example.

How, exactly, is it a wasted effort for the PCs to have a trap they may be able to lure the ogre into?

Quote from: Old One Eye;837366How, exactly, is it a wasted effort for the PCs to have a trap they may be able to lure the ogre into?

Maybe his players don't think that way?

My main objection to the non-randomness of passive perception is that the character with the higher score always sees everything the character with the lower score sees; not so bad for traps, where it doesn't matter much which character spots it (assuming a cooperating party), but annoying for surprise, where I'd rather be a little surprised by who is or isn't surprised.

(Note that advantage also gives +5 to passive perception, so 20 isn't an entirely impossible score for a low level character to have.)

What people keep missing is that the passive checks are for when the PCs are just strolling along and the more naturally attentive characters will naturally spot so-n-so. But not everything has a passive chance to spot it. The DM can just as likely say there is no chance to spot a trap for example due to circumstance.

If you werent searching then thats that.

Another big thing is Perception grants only the surface impression. The hidden remains such until a proper active Search in the right area occurs. Further, it does not rationalize what is observed.

Hidden traps are more an encounter about active description on both the GM and player part. It is about exploration and investigation in detail. If you hand-wave it into "my high score solved it," instead of playing it out as the game has been written expecting you to do, then naturally it would be disappointing.

Finding a Hidden Object
When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.
(D&D 5e Basic .pdf, August 2014. p. 61.)

Perception.
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
(D&D 5e Basic .pdf, August 2014. p. 62.)

Investigation.
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
(D&D 5e Basic .pdf, August 2014. p. 61.)

Understand what a hidden trap means. Someone is trying to conceal an alarm or deterrent, while leaving a small telltale marker to avoid getting caught in their own device. Since they know where and what telltale clue to look for, and what to expect from their trap, this is more than enough for them, the creator, to avoid it in full.

But how can such a telltale clue, even if spotted, impart such knowledge upon those who do not know?

Let's say you have your trap leave a tidbit of curious detail sticking out from the environment. It leaves a clue to an unknown mystery, nothing more. It is not until it is actively Searched, by the descriptive process of either Perception or Investigation checks, that it relinquishes more info. A clue in no way passively explains to others what it means, or how any attached device resolves, without such effort.

Passive Perception fails gameplay when you have mere clue objects speak volumes of assumed detail without any dynamic effort between both parties.

Quote from: Opaopajr;837486Another big thing is Perception grants only the surface impression. The hidden remains such until a proper active Search in the right area occurs. Further, it does not rationalize what is observed.

Hidden traps are more an encounter about active description on both the GM and player part. It is about exploration and investigation in detail. If you hand-wave it into "my high score solved it," instead of playing it out as the game has been written expecting you to do, then naturally it would be disappointing.

Finding a Hidden Object
When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.

I feel like this conflicts with the dice roll.

If you say "I search the drawer" and the key is in the drawer, how could you miss that? It makes no sense. You'd open the drawer and there it is. So in that case you wouldn't even make a roll.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837530I feel like this conflicts with the dice roll.

If you say "I search the drawer" and the key is in the drawer, how could you miss that? It makes no sense. You'd open the drawer and there it is. So in that case you wouldn't even make a roll.

You then have never searched for something and totally missed it when it was sitting right there in plain sight. Let alone in a jumble of other items. But yeah. Sometimes it should be pretty obvious.

The pit trap with the simple cloth cover is relatively obvious. Hence its DC 10. Which brings up the bemusing problem that this sort of trap cannot catch most animals who have a superior passive perception.

Quote from: Omega;837533You then have never searched for something and totally missed it when it was sitting right there in plain sight. Let alone in a jumble of other items. But yeah. Sometimes it should be pretty obvious.

The pit trap with the simple cloth cover is relatively obvious. Hence its DC 10. Which brings up the bemusing problem that this sort of trap cannot catch most animals who have a superior passive perception.

Well, the animals might sense something off about it, but that doesn't mean they have the intellect to deduce what that means.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837537Well, the animals might sense something off about it, but that doesn't mean they have the intellect to deduce what that means.

But they will have the common sense/instincts to know that something is wrong and avoid it. Sometimes cuing off things unexpected. So take the time to conceal your trap better and get the DC up to 15.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837530I feel like this conflicts with the dice roll.

If you say "I search the drawer" and the key is in the drawer, how could you miss that? It makes no sense. You'd open the drawer and there it is. So in that case you wouldn't even make a roll.

Uh, no. It makes complete sense, and I disagree with you entirely. Did you read the example in full?

Which piece of furniture? Which drawer of it? Do you move stuff around to search?

The box already answered your question in full, in both setting the scene and how to resolve it.

"For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau." [...] "You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."

"Any chance of success" means it is a variable, and thus dependent on player-provided active context. The key is not in "any drawer, plainly atop everything else inside." The key is in "the top drawer" of "a bureau," "hidden beneath a set of folded clothes." The GM is free to work this process of back and forth with their players as they see fit, yet in no way is it a freebie.

And the example further explicitly points out a method of searching that has zero percent chance of success:  "If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result."

You must tell the GM what you're doing. What you tell the GM affects your resulting success anywhere from "no chance" to "any chance." Explicitly the text is telling everyone Descriptive Details Matter.

In fact, this was summarized above the very example with, "In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success."

No, I feel the box described everything that was necessary in understanding how to implement hidden objects. How you choose to read the degree of complexity about how 'descriptive details matter' is your own campaign decision. But they already voiced that Hidden Objects are a player-context dependent challenge whose DC is determined by the interplay of the descriptive details involved. The active Search mechanic, let alone the passive Perception mechanic, in no way circumvents the presence of this dynamic -- that's the GM not reading thoroughly the text's explicit opinions on the matter.

What I mean is if you get THAT specific, to the point where you say you look under the folds of the clothes in the drawer, then what's the point of rolling at that point? Wouldn't you just say "yeah you found the key amongst the folds of the clothes."

I guess you could analogize it to taking 10. Or 20. Because if they're being so thorough then a roll seems unnecessary.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837552What I mean is if you get THAT specific, to the point where you say you look under the folds of the clothes in the drawer, then what's the point of rolling at that point? Wouldn't you just say "yeah you found the key amongst the folds of the clothes."

I guess you could analogize it to taking 10. Or 20. Because if they're being so thorough then a roll seems unnecessary.

I just use common sense.  If the player's specificity would no longer render an item hidden, no need to roll anything.  

Rolling for a search check has a whole lot to do with speeding up that aspect of the game rather than having the player specify exactly everything they are doing to look around.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837552What I mean is if you get THAT specific, to the point where you say you look under the folds of the clothes in the drawer, then what's the point of rolling at that point? Wouldn't you just say "yeah you found the key amongst the folds of the clothes."

I guess you could analogize it to taking 10. Or 20. Because if they're being so thorough then a roll seems unnecessary.

Ahh, now I see where you are coming from. And yes, I can see "pixel-bitching" -- the term derived from old Adventure genre video games whereby you had to click on the right pixel to open a door let alone anything else -- as a valid concern here. However, that is a matter for GM and Players to hash out to their liking.

For some tables hand waving away the details is useful to their style of play. For others, especially ones with more detective "cloak and dagger" style of play, all those details matter. That whole contextual range cannot be fully covered by mechanics and thus has to rely on GM and Player judgment negotiating their acceptable levels of descriptive detail.

e.g. Imagine if you were investigating a desk bureau for a hidden key. But you also had limitations, such as time constraints, or setting risks, such as avoiding alerting others that the desk had an intruder. In that context, Searching on the surface, or thoroughly within drawers and under stuff, matters -- as does Sleight of Hand in leaving more things undisturbed.

I believe the challenge here is undoing thinking relying on the mechanistic answer Take 10 or Take 20 provided, and moving to the older, assumed answer of descriptive exchange. Back then it was understood not everything needs a roll (I see Old One Eye beat me to it). And in those cases you'd similarly not care whether someone had a high Search skill or Passive Perception value.

But there will be moments where it does matter. And that's incumbent on the GM to figure out what those contextual details are. And that sets up how GM & Player descriptive exchange resolves it.