In all premade adventures I've read discovering a secret door requires a Wisdom (Perception) check (live or passive). That's ok, but wouldn't it also require a succesful Intelligence (Investigation) check to actually discover how to open the secret door?
(and I guess the same could be said about traps...)
It's perfectly reasonable as a DM to make this required. As you've said, it's written that discovering a secret door (or a trap) requires a successful Perception check. If it feels appropriate to require a successful Investigation check to figure how how to open said door (or disarm said trap), then it's perfectly reasonable to have that become part of the interaction!
Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, this thread seems to indicate otherwise. It's certainly not underused in my experience.
As for which type of check to use to figure out how to open the door, that depends on the door itself. Some have intricate locks using some sort of pattern that needs to be completed, that'd best be solved through Investigation. If they're opened with a hidden latch or button, that likely falls under Perception (and the PCs might well find the button first, and the door only when it opens up). And some may not be locked at all, with the door being secret considered to be sufficient security.
I mainly have my players roll investigation. Passive perception is dependent on what the character is doing, strolling down a corridor not really caring then they won’t spot that trip wire until they are on top of it regardless of how high their passive is. If a player says, checking for traps and secret doors, I have them always roll investigation with assistance if someone is helping them look.
I would say that the OP is right: The check for finding a secret door, and where it is (like the check for traps or etc) is perception, but to figure out how to open it (or how to disarm the trap) would be intelligence-based, possibly investigation. There may also be a dexterity-based element for the fine motor control needed to activate the mechanism.
However, generally people look to do just a single check, not several in a row, and will choose the dominant skill. I would posit that the dominant skill in "find and open a secret door" is perception, because finding a secret door is likely to be more difficult than opening it once found.
I try to use Perception and Investigation together. You kind of have to or you get a situation where the party just uses the one they are best at when they need to find anything.
Perception uncovers sensory information. Cracks in the wall, a breeze coming from behind the bookcase, scrapes in the floor. Investigation takes those clues and makes deductions with them - there is a secret door here.
If you do really well with Perception and find a lot of clues, you can probably figure things out with passive Investigation. Our brains are constantly processing information and looking for patterns, that's how I interpret PI.
If you do really well with Investigation, you can jump to a conclusion with just the few clues you might find with passive Perception.
So for a hidden door I might set a DC of 30, and compare that with the sum of both Perception and Investigation checks. If either roll crits or gets above 25, that's also a success regardless of the other.
This is not ideal. As a rule I don't like multiple checks to do one thing. But I think 5e has done a really poor job of differentiating these skills and it's the best way I have found to make sure they both matter.
The other thing I'll mention is that I never put something vital behind a secret door. You need the game to go on whether the party finds it or not, so don't get yourself in a situation where the party is stuck because they failed their check to find the door. If you lock something behind die rolls, always be prepared for the possibility they will fail.
I think it'd depend on how the secret door is built and described. If you can just push on it and it opens, then I would not require an additional check. If it requires some thought to work out how to open it, then I would require a check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
In all premade adventures I've read discovering a secret door requires a Wisdom (Perception) check (live or passive). That's ok, but wouldn't it also require a succesful Intelligence (Investigation) check to actually discover how to open the secret door?
(and I guess the same could be said about traps...)
It's perfectly reasonable as a DM to make this required. As you've said, it's written that discovering a secret door (or a trap) requires a successful Perception check. If it feels appropriate to require a successful Investigation check to figure how how to open said door (or disarm said trap), then it's perfectly reasonable to have that become part of the interaction!
Yeah, I also think so ;)
Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, this thread seems to indicate otherwise. It's certainly not underused in my experience.
As for which type of check to use to figure out how to open the door, that depends on the door itself. Some have intricate locks using some sort of pattern that needs to be completed, that'd best be solved through Investigation. If they're opened with a hidden latch or button, that likely falls under Perception (and the PCs might well find the button first, and the door only when it opens up). And some may not be locked at all, with the door being secret considered to be sufficient security.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mainly have my players roll investigation. Passive perception is dependent on what the character is doing, strolling down a corridor not really caring then they won’t spot that trip wire until they are on top of it regardless of how high their passive is. If a player says, checking for traps and secret doors, I have them always roll investigation with assistance if someone is helping them look.
I would say that the OP is right: The check for finding a secret door, and where it is (like the check for traps or etc) is perception, but to figure out how to open it (or how to disarm the trap) would be intelligence-based, possibly investigation. There may also be a dexterity-based element for the fine motor control needed to activate the mechanism.
However, generally people look to do just a single check, not several in a row, and will choose the dominant skill. I would posit that the dominant skill in "find and open a secret door" is perception, because finding a secret door is likely to be more difficult than opening it once found.
It will probably be underused at some tables or in some games. I feel it is misused in a great many, though, as a "detailed perception" check.
I try to use Perception and Investigation together. You kind of have to or you get a situation where the party just uses the one they are best at when they need to find anything.
Perception uncovers sensory information. Cracks in the wall, a breeze coming from behind the bookcase, scrapes in the floor. Investigation takes those clues and makes deductions with them - there is a secret door here.
If you do really well with Perception and find a lot of clues, you can probably figure things out with passive Investigation. Our brains are constantly processing information and looking for patterns, that's how I interpret PI.
If you do really well with Investigation, you can jump to a conclusion with just the few clues you might find with passive Perception.
So for a hidden door I might set a DC of 30, and compare that with the sum of both Perception and Investigation checks. If either roll crits or gets above 25, that's also a success regardless of the other.
This is not ideal. As a rule I don't like multiple checks to do one thing. But I think 5e has done a really poor job of differentiating these skills and it's the best way I have found to make sure they both matter.
The other thing I'll mention is that I never put something vital behind a secret door. You need the game to go on whether the party finds it or not, so don't get yourself in a situation where the party is stuck because they failed their check to find the door. If you lock something behind die rolls, always be prepared for the possibility they will fail.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think it'd depend on how the secret door is built and described. If you can just push on it and it opens, then I would not require an additional check. If it requires some thought to work out how to open it, then I would require a check.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Or it could be something for the players to figure out. A check might result in a clue though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].