5ed's Passive Perception
I find it pointless. I think I understand it, but if it were a choice of using PP or a pre-determined bunch of d20 rolls to check off in secret, I'd much rather go with the latter.
Walking down a corridor, the pc in front spots a trap (DC 12) with his PP 13. Automatic finds on some traps? It sort of makes placing traps, and more to the point, giving them DCs silly. So they won't spot all traps, true, but they will spot the traps they do spot; automatically. That's the part I can't parse. There's a disconnect somewhere.
What am I missing?
PP is what happens when the players aren't actively searching or for the DM to roll against to keep from spoiling surprise.
If the players are actively searching a room they would roll to find traps. If they are walking down a hallway and not looking for danger they would only notice the trap if their PP was high enough.
To keep players from knowing that there is a hiding monster when they aren't actively looking the DM can roll the monster's Hide roll and compare it to PP.
It is simply a way to reduce the number of rolls and to provide a target for the DM to resolve without the player's knowledge.
Quote from: Scutter;8363025ed's Passive Perception
I find it pointless. I think I understand it, but if it were a choice of using PP or a pre-determined bunch of d20 rolls to check off in secret, I'd much rather go with the latter.
As snoogums points out, one of the uses of passive perception is to reduce rolling and keep things on the down low. If you don't mind that, or have an alternative system you like (such as the pre-rolled list you mention), then that works.
Quote from: Scutter;836302Walking down a corridor, the pc in front spots a trap (DC 12) with his PP 13. Automatic finds on some traps? It sort of makes placing traps, and more to the point, giving them DCs silly. So they won't spot all traps, true, but they will spot the traps they do spot; automatically. That's the part I can't parse. There's a disconnect somewhere.
What am I missing?
It's unclear to me how giving a trap in DC is silly in this context. The DC still sets the bar whether you're using passive perception or not. Some traps they do spot will not be traps they would have automatically spotted. Passive perception checks aren't generally in lieu of active perception checks.
In your example, let's say 13 is the highest PP in the group. The saw your DC 12 trap, and then disarmed it. And now they come across a trap that has a spot DC of 14. They don't automatically notice it. Are they cagey after discovering the first trap, or do they walk blithely on? If the latter, then the trap is sprung. If they decided to explicitly look around, then a perception roll is made against that DC. Some DMs roll that for the players so they don't know if they rolled high or low, some let the players roll. Some choose to use a group/assisted roll, some don't.
Some DMs will assign a different DC for passive and active perceptions checks, depending on the situation. I think I've heard that this has been done in one of the official 5e adventures, but I've only read Phandelver and I don't recall seeing it done in there.
This situation, along with stealth, is an area where there's some intentional vagueness for latitude. Adjust to taste.
Thanks for the feedback
I think I'm more narked with the automatic detection part. It's too binary
Quote from: Scutter;836317Thanks for the feedback
I think I'm more narked with the automatic detection part. It's too binary
Personally I have the 'Trap' make a stealth check to represent how well its creator did at hiding it combined with how favorable the current circumstances are. It's a bit of an abstraction but I prefer it to automatic detection or having the player's roll.
As an example. In one of the 5e modules there is a passive 15 (perception) chance to notice a door is different from the rest the PCs have encountered. Me and Jannet haven't a chance. Kefra though makes it at her current level. But say back when she was level 5, she would have just bare made it.
Another example is a Gray Ooze hiding. Its a Dex (Stealth) check vs our passive perception. Say the ooze rolls a 2. Adding its stealth bonus of +2 that means we all spot it. But if it had rolled a 17 then none of us would have spotted it hiding at level 5. But Kefra could at her current level.
Its essentially to cover casual things that you do not want to tip the PCs off to its presence if they fail. And saves time. Some stuff you are just going to notice when walking along and on general alertness.
Quote from: Scutter;836317Thanks for the feedback
I think I'm more narked with the automatic detection part. It's too binary
Uh have you looked at most of the mechanics in D&D? All editions?
The most noticeable: AC is binary. You hit or you don't. Done. And you can add Saving Throws, as well. And that's been the basis of the system for almost 41 years now.
Sorry, but for ME, that statement is just silly.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;836325Uh have you looked at most of the mechanics in D&D? All editions?
The most noticeable: AC is binary. You hit or you don't. Done. And you can add Saving Throws, as well. And that's been the basis of the system for almost 41 years now.
Sorry, but for ME, that statement is just silly.
I hear what you are saying and second it. Almost all results in D&D boil down to yes or no.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;836313I think I've heard that this has been done in one of the official 5e adventures, but I've only read Phandelver and I don't recall seeing it done in there.
In LMoP in Cragmaw Castle there's a tripwire trap with a passive DC of 20, but an active DC of 15. Or maybe it was 10. Either way if they just waltz near it they are never going to notice with passive perception.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836334In LMoP in Cragmaw Castle there's a tripwire trap with a passive DC of 20, but an active DC of 15. Or maybe it was 10. Either way if they just waltz near it they are never going to notice with passive perception.
Kefra's passive perception just hit 19. Compared to my 8 and Jan's 7. But in a couple of her animal forms Kefra's perception was equal or better till she hit level 10. Guess who gets point?
I like a system where one side rolls more than a system where both sides roll - but generally I want at least one roll. So I like passive perception 4E style (despite generally hating 4E), but 5E was a bit too far.
Binary is kind of the wrong word for it since its not actually a yes/no its 'Always Yes' or 'Always No'. The equivalent of always hitting AC 17 because your attack is +7.
I'd probably go with 'deterministic'.
IMC I've just been rolling checks for the PCs when they might spot something, usually 1 check vs the point man's Perception, with a fairly low DC. Seems to work. I don't like Passive Per's automatic success vs fixed DCs; it's ok if used as a target number vs a monster stealth roll.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;836325Uh have you looked at most of the mechanics in D&D? All editions?
The most noticeable: AC is binary. You hit or you don't. Done. And you can add Saving Throws, as well. And that's been the basis of the system for almost 41 years now.
Sorry, but for ME, that statement is just silly.
It's a roll that's too binary wherein players don't have to roll for it either. The two instances don't sit well with me.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836334In LMoP in Cragmaw Castle there's a tripwire trap with a passive DC of 20, but an active DC of 15. Or maybe it was 10. Either way if they just waltz near it they are never going to notice with passive perception.
So what was the point in giving it a DC of 20 in the first place if nobody at the table had a chance to spot it?
Quote from: Scutter;836355It's a roll that's too binary wherein players don't have to roll for it either. The two instances don't sit well with me.
In 5e it is mostly used for things that can be casually spotted while walking along. IE: A basic open pit trap is a passive DC 10. But a concealed pit trap is an active perception of 15.
It speeds things along and allows the DM some options. As a DM I think it is ok. I use it sparingly for mostly casual spot stuff. As a player its funny as the DM we are gaming with looooves traps. But Jan and myself have abysmal passive perception so we would walk into even the unconcealed pits probably if Kefra were not handling the passive trap detection.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;836344I like a system where one side rolls more than a system where both sides roll - but generally I want at least one roll. So I like passive perception 4E style (despite generally hating 4E), but 5E was a bit too far.
Binary is kind of the wrong word for it since its not actually a yes/no its 'Always Yes' or 'Always No'. The equivalent of always hitting AC 17 because your attack is +7.
I'd probably go with 'deterministic'.
Always Yes and Always No is binary. It's Answer 1 or Answer 2.
Quote from: Scutter;836356So what was the point in giving it a DC of 20 in the first place if nobody at the table had a chance to spot it?
Because it's well concealed enough that you need to be actively looking for it it to find it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836334In LMoP in Cragmaw Castle there's a tripwire trap with a passive DC of 20, but an active DC of 15. Or maybe it was 10. Either way if they just waltz near it they are never going to notice with passive perception.
Ah, so it was in there! Thanks
Thanks all for the feedback
Quote from: Matt;836380Always Yes and Always No is binary. It's Answer 1 or Answer 2.
If I flip a coin with a head on both sides, is that 'binary'?
Feel free to invent your own definitions, but if you can't define the difference between 'having a roll to see if it works, yes/no' and 'automatic hit' there may be a problem with them.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;836439If I flip a coin with a head on both sides, is that 'binary'?
Do you even know what 'binary' means? Bi means 2. Binary is a corruption of Latin meaning Two Together.
It's also the core of a lot of things, like light switches. On/Off. Computers use Binary as it's core operational system. A series of linked On/Off or Binary options strung together to form things like programs and animations and computations. Just because you pass a certain number at all times, doesn't mean you'll pass every number.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;836439Feel free to invent your own definitions, but if you can't define the difference between 'having a roll to see if it works, yes/no' and 'automatic hit' there may be a problem with them.
Wait, auto hit? Where's that coming from. Let's say you have a Passive Perception of 14. You come across something that's DC 13. You pass. But if you come across (and you will) something that's DC 15, you fail. That's pretty binary to me. Either you pass the DC or you don't, whether or not you're actually rolling for that result means nothing. It's an On or Off proposition.
So I have no idea why you're taking offense to this, but that's how it is.
Another thing I like about the passive perception is that it makes the wisdom stat more relevant. If you have a low score or used it as your junk stat then you pay the price. My Warlock has a low Wisdom because I rolled in order and got 7. Jans is low because that is where she placed her 5 roll.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;836451Do you even know what 'binary' means? Bi means 2. Binary is a corruption of Latin meaning Two Together.
It's also the core of a lot of things, like light switches. On/Off. Computers use Binary as it's core operational system. A series of linked On/Off or Binary options strung together to form things like programs and animations and computations. Just because you pass a certain number at all times, doesn't mean you'll pass every number.
Wait, auto hit? Where's that coming from. Let's say you have a Passive Perception of 14. You come across something that's DC 13. You pass. But if you come across (and you will) something that's DC 15, you fail. That's pretty binary to me. Either you pass the DC or you don't, whether or not you're actually rolling for that result means nothing. It's an On or Off proposition.
So I have no idea why you're taking offense to this, but that's how it is.
I explained my position already back in post #11. We're done here.
I would take passive perception to mean just what it sounds like: your default level of attentiveness to the world around you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;836881I would take passive perception to mean just what it sounds like: your default level of attentiveness to the world around you.
And that's how the game treats it. At least from what the 'official' adventures I've run claims.
Quote from: jadrax;836320Personally I have the 'Trap' make a stealth check to represent how well its creator did at hiding it combined with how favorable the current circumstances are. It's a bit of an abstraction but I prefer it to automatic detection or having the player's roll.
that is automatic detection you are just randomising the DC of the passive perception score. One assumes that the trap doesn't get to reroll its stealth if the party come back this way....
Quote from: Omega;836460Another thing I like about the passive perception is that it makes the wisdom stat more relevant. If you have a low score or used it as your junk stat then you pay the price. My Warlock has a low Wisdom because I rolled in order and got 7. Jans is low because that is where she placed her 5 roll.
Except of course Wisdom is a really stupid stat to use for perception and it exposes the fact that D&D shoudl have bitten the bullet and included a Perception stat as a separate item back in 2e.
So basically then, use PP as and when you feel it is necessary
Quote from: jibbajibba;836909Except of course Wisdom is a really stupid stat to use for perception and it exposes the fact that D&D shoudl have bitten the bullet and included a Perception stat as a separate item back in 2e.
Well we have passive perception which essentially is a 7th character stat now. You just dont roll for it. I could easily see rolling for perception as a stat if someone wanted to.
Quote from: Scutter;836911So basically then, use PP as and when you feel it is necessary
Or when an event says to. The open pit trap I mentioned is one. The DMG rules specifically say traps are detected on a passive perception vs the traps listed DC. IE: The basic pit trap is a DC 10. A concealed pit is a DC 15, and so on. Or any given monster with stealth that decides to hide in ambush. It makes its stealth check and that becomes the PCs PP DC. OK?
Everything else. Yes. When the DM or module writer feels it makes sense for it to be applied.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;836439If I flip a coin with a head on both sides, is that 'binary'?
Feel free to invent your own definitions, but if you can't define the difference between 'having a roll to see if it works, yes/no' and 'automatic hit' there may be a problem with them.
I assume this is (1) a joke, or (2) English is a foreign language to you (and presumably Latin and all Latin-derived tongues as well), or (3) you don't actually know what binary means.
I'm not up on all the 5e rules.
Is the Passive Perception modified by the environment?
Like... I'd expect people in a dungeon to be on their toes a lot more than if they're in a familiar 'safe' area... at home or a favorite inn.
Would a trap set in their house by assassins have a better chance of escaping notice because they're relaxed and not assuming danger? Would you give that trap a higher DC against PP?
Quote from: Simlasa;836987I'm not up on all the 5e rules.
Is the Passive Perception modified by the environment?
Like... I'd expect people in a dungeon to be on their toes a lot more than if they're in a familiar 'safe' area... at home or a favorite inn.
Would a trap set in their house by assassins have a better chance of escaping notice because they're relaxed and not assuming danger? Would you give that trap a higher DC against PP?
Their PP is the same no matter what.
You set the DC on the trap. So just set it to what you think is appropriate. If you think it should be easy to spot, then give it a lower DC.
Passive perception assumes they aren't paying anything any special attention and are just waltzing along. If they actually look for stuff specifically you make a roll with their active Perception score.
The mechanic is the DM just decides whether or not someone notices? Why do you need a score for that?
The DM decides the DC their passive perception needs to beat to notice it, if they aren't actively looking for it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;836909Except of course Wisdom is a really stupid stat to use for perception and it exposes the fact that D&D shoudl have bitten the bullet and included a Perception stat as a separate item back in 2e.
The issue there is that you can 'train' yourself to be more observant and perceptive.
But then again, Wisdom isn't the only 'stupid' stat, take Strength for example. It makes you better to hit things in Melee? How? (Well, I have my own answer to that, but it's not the official one.) There are a lot of 'stupid' stats in D&D, about the only is Dexterity. And that's pushing it.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;836993Their PP is the same no matter what.
You set the DC on the trap. So just set it to what you think is appropriate. If you think it should be easy to spot, then give it a lower DC.
Passive perception assumes they aren't paying anything any special attention and are just waltzing along. If they actually look for stuff specifically you make a roll with their active Perception score.
If you are moving at a run then your passive and active perception checks are penalized a -5. Also other vision obscuring effects can impact your perception checks, and a DM could make a simple DC 10 trap harder to spot of the area was somehow obscured such as fog, a water layer, etc.
A blinded or status blinded character automatically fails any check that requires sight. Which would include most traps and hiding.
Quote from: Omega;837053If you are moving at a run then your passive and active perception checks are penalized a -5. Also other vision obscuring effects can impact your perception checks, and a DM could make a simple DC 10 trap harder to spot of the area was somehow obscured such as fog, a water layer, etc.
A blinded or status blinded character automatically fails any check that requires sight. Which would include most traps and hiding.
Also, also, perception checks are at disadvantage in dim light, or with dark vision in total darkness. Not sure that's relevant, but for some reason I get joy in pointing that out.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;837162Also, also, perception checks are at disadvantage in dim light, or with dark vision in total darkness. Not sure that's relevant, but for some reason I get joy in pointing that out.
Wow really. Then that DC 20 passive perception in Cragmaw Castle is hilarious now because it's in pitch black.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;837171Wow really. Then that DC 20 passive perception in Cragmaw Castle is hilarious now because it's in pitch black.
For starting characters? What is the point to setting it so absurdly high?
Or. The 20 takes into account that is IS pitch black? That is why it is so high?
Quote from: Omega;837179For starting characters? What is the point to setting it so absurdly high?
This is a major part of why I dislike PP
Quote from: Omega;837179For starting characters? What is the point to setting it so absurdly high?
Or. The 20 takes into account that is IS pitch black? That is why it is so high?
It doesn't say anything about the darkness being the reason.
Just that the DC is 20.
The reasoning seems like, "We want them to get hit by this trap, unless they are paying attention and looking out for one."
Quote from: Omega;837179For starting characters? What is the point to setting it so absurdly high?
Or. The 20 takes into account that is IS pitch black? That is why it is so high?
Going back to look at it, Cragmaw Castle is dimly lit during the day, and completely dark during night. So, the natural light varies. Apply torches and infinite light cantrips liberally.
But the light doesn't seem to have anything to do with the disparity in the active and passive DCs.
Perhaps the particular trap is an object lesson for the players. Don't bother to check the rubble you're walkng over and you get the DC 20 passive. Do bother to check and you get the DC 10 active.
Since Phandelver is pretty sandboxy you might have 2nd to 4th level PCs there, so someone who invested in the Observant feat could spot the trap passively.
But really, I have no clue why they chose those particular values.
That could be it then. A "Pay attention or get nailed" sort of lesson. Similar to the start of Hoard of the Dragon Queen where direct assaults and attacking everything will tend to get you killed ASAP. Then again 5e has alot of those moments where the modifiers are rolled right into the listing. Like the majority of the MM entries. Could even be a typo.
Who knows. Seems odd. But there is no way to tell what it means I guess.
I 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.
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 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/13085/roleplaying-games/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.
Quote from: jibbajibba;836909Except of course Wisdom is a really stupid stat to use for perception and it exposes the fact that D&D shoudl have bitten the bullet and included a Perception stat as a separate item back in 2e.
Wisdom seems sensible for perception to me.
Quote from: RPGPundit;838034Wisdom seems sensible for perception to me.
Some people want a stat for everything.
Skills and Powers gave players exactly that and they bitched about it.
Strength = Stamina & Muscle
Dexterity= Aim & Balance
Constitution = Health & Fitness
Intelligence = Reason Knowledge
Wisdom = Intuition & Willpower
Charisma = Leadership & Appearance
Intuition acted alot like perception.
I liked Skills & Powers stat divide. However I reworded DEX into Coordination and Reflexes/Senses because I also didn't like the "all wise animals, all the time" trope. That split made it easier to stat other humanoid/demihumans without always requiring +WIS stuff in their template.
But then attributes in 2e had different mod progressions with wider stretches of normal. And attribute mods didn't cascade into as many things, thus weren't mission critical to squeeze out every last drop. Given how many things DEX touches in 5e, how consistent mod progression is, and how many things it cascades into, I wouldn't house rule it in 5e without other changes first.
Not so sure DEX is as vital as some claim if you are a non-spellcaster aside from the slight AC bump or for DEX saves.
Back to PP. While doing a list for Kefra on various animals noted an interesting thing. Almost none of the normal animals (or even abnormal ones) have a PP over 13. Eagle, Hawk and Panther hit 14.(As do the Giant Eagle and Giant Elk.) Giant Owl hits 15.
DEX also affects initiative, most ranged weapon attacks, finesse, 3 skills, and one of the two responses allowed in Grapple and Shove contested rolls. Atop of AC and Saves already noted. We're going to have to agree to disagree here.
As for the animals, I do like what they did with the Keen [Sense/s] as a Special Trait. Giving Adv on certain senses, and by extension +5 to their Passive Perception on that specific sense, helps avoid design clutter. Does require a bit more system familiarity and cross-referencing, but meh, what're ya'gonna do?
Quote from: Omega;838082Some people want a stat for everything.
Skills and Powers gave players exactly that and they bitched about it.
Strength = Stamina & Muscle
Dexterity= Aim & Balance
Constitution = Health & Fitness
Intelligence = Reason Knowledge
Wisdom = Intuition & Willpower
Charisma = Leadership & Appearance
Intuition acted alot like perception.
Like so much of Skills & Powers, the problem was in implementation, not concept. The concept was fine--allow ability scores to be subdivided for those who really want to get down into the fine details of character definition--but the execution was such that many of the pairings were unbalanced, especially given D&D's tendency to reward specialization, the way the bonus curve worked, and the ability to allow a 4-point differential between subabilities. Strength was the worst offender, since Stamina only really applied to encumbrance and carrying capacity, things a lot of groups handwaved anyway.
Personally, my favorite stat spread remains the group from Dragonlance: Fifth Age--Strength, Endurance, Agility, Dexerity, Reason, Perception, Spirit and Presence. It's the D&D lineup with Dexterity and Wisdom split up into more precisely defined components.
Quote from: Omega;837471What 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.
I like having passive perception as a reference but I don't like comparing static values to static values. So instead of giving traps and other hidden clues a static DC, I will give them a hide bonus as if it were an npc. That way, if actively searching it becomes an opposed roll and if not, a static perception vs a hide roll.
I like for there to be some variable factor in the mix. It is a bit too cookie cutter for my taste that a character with a passive perception of 13 will
never fail to notice a DC 12 hidden object and will
never happen to spot a DC 14 hidden object. I like for there to be a bit of variance in both situations. A very perceptive character could be distracted at just the wrong moment and a less perceptive character could be in the right place at the right time.
Except DEX isnt doing my Warlock much good, its not helping Kefra's Druid really either. She doesnt get even the AC bonus when in beast form. The only person in the group getting any real use aside from an AC bump out of DEX is Jan's archery Fighter. Moreso for the group I am DMing for. All of them are magic or melee. James' paladin has used a bow all of once I think.
So like all the other stats its situational. With the right group or player its vital. Otherwise possibly not as much.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;838195Like so much of Skills & Powers, the problem was in implementation, not concept.
Yeah definitly could have been done better.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;838216I like having passive perception as a reference but I don't like comparing static values to static values. So instead of giving traps and other hidden clues a static DC, I will give them a hide bonus as if it were an npc. That way, if actively searching it becomes an opposed roll and if not, a static perception vs a hide roll.
I like for there to be some variable factor in the mix. It is a bit too cookie cutter for my taste that a character with a passive perception of 13 will never fail to notice a DC 12 hidden object and will never happen to spot a DC 14 hidden object. I like for there to be a bit of variance in both situations. A very perceptive character could be distracted at just the wrong moment and a less perceptive character could be in the right place at the right time.
Hide still needs a skill roll so its not static.
I was actually surprised the traps did not have some sort of variable. Like the crafters skills being a factor. Like roll a d6 and on 1-3 subtract 1-3 from the DC and on a 4-6 add 1-3 to the DC to simulate the variables in the crafters skills.
Quote from: Omega;838229Except DEX isnt doing my Warlock much good, its not helping Kefra's Druid really either...
Off topic, I find the way you always refer to your two female fellow players by name, as if you expect the thread readers to know them, really weird. :confused:
Quote from: S'mon;838236Off topic, I find the way you always refer to your two female fellow players by name, as if you expect the thread readers to know them, really weird. :confused:
I dont expect anyone know them. And not just the female ones, Nox, James and Daern are male players. I am just being more respectful of the players rather than just nameless the Druid, the Fighter, the Sorcerer, etc.
I used to just name classes. But someone here I believe made a point that speaking of the adventurers that way made them read as less real, vital, whatever. So I've been trying not to do that anymore.
Me? I often refer to my players by their PC's name to their faces.
Quote from: RPGPundit;838330Me? I often refer to my players by their PC's name to their faces.
Yup. Same here. Simple and quite effective too
Quote from: Omega;838274I dont expect anyone know them. And not just the female ones, Nox, James and Daern are male players. I am just being more respectful of the players rather than just nameless the Druid, the Fighter, the Sorcerer, etc.
I used to just name classes. But someone here I believe made a point that speaking of the adventurers that way made them read as less real, vital, whatever. So I've been trying not to do that anymore.
I find it helpful for continuity among the gameplay experiences posts. Much better than "Druid and Fighter B walk into a bar..."
Quote from: Natty Bodak;838355I find it helpful for continuity among the gameplay experiences posts. Much better than "Druid and Fighter B walk into a bar..."
I'd rather have their character's names.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;838371I'd rather have their character's names.
Those are the character names I am referring two. Though for two its also their players names.