I know this will probably be a controversial post. But has anyone outright banned the Observant feat in their games?
I am just starting Dungeon of the Mad Mage and when a player took the observant feat I told them to swap it out for another. I have been troubled by this feat for awhile. I like to play an honest game and if a player rolls well or uses an ability in a way I didn’t expect I like to let the dice fall where they may. However when you get a player with a Passive Perception of 20+ it ruins so many scenarios. I like to build suspense and mystery and Passive Perception / Investigation outside bounded accuracy makes this extremely difficult.
If you raise the DCs then that punishes everyone. If you try and get around it by making the trap / door / object somehow hidden from a passive perception then you are punishing the player that took the feat. I haven’t found a fix that I am happy with so I just removed it. Thoughts?
If memory serves, during travel you need to be moving at a slow pace for your passive perception to be more helpful for detecting traps and noticing things. Without the "Dungeon Delver" feat, you suffer a -5 to your passive perception for detecting traps and secret doors when moving at a normal pace. I could be wrong on this, but I think that is how it works.
You also need to keep in mind that rogues and bards could potentially get a passive perception that high simply by having expertise in perception.
We had a whole four page thread about passive perception recently. It comes down to how you as the DM want to play it. Banning the feat is one viable option if it suits you and your table. Another option is dropping hints in your description that would prompt a player to have their character act in a way to trigger the perception. Others felt that if passive perception was above a level, then the character automatically noticed a thing. I don't subscribe to that point of view. Remember, passive abilities are about the player and the dice, not the character and the in-game activity.
To sum up my feelings on this I think banning it unjustly punishes a player for making a choice they feel optimal simply for the sake of a false sense of tension and discovery. I agree that Observant does take the risk out of being caught by a trap, or not finding the secret thing that may be in a room. However, that is no different than a familiar that can potentially negate ambushes and give you semi-permanent advantage on your attack rolls. Both decisions are extremely beneficial to the player, and the party as a whole, and both come at a cost. While the familiar may be a minor cost, a utility spell vs a combat spell, it can come at the same cost as Observant; the cost of an ASI or initial feat from variant human. In the end it's a player choice and they should not be restricted from the way they want to play.
Working with the Observant feat is tricky, but it's the most rewarding approach that a DM can take. Simple changes to how you describe things can make Observant feel like it's working without giving away "everything". TexasDevin summarized the viewpoints that the threads covered briefly, and they are the most common views in my experience. A DM can say "You glance into the room, you see a bunch of things, then you move on". Since, even with the Observant feat, they never entered the room the feat doesn't kick in and they don't get any new information. A DM could say "You glance into the room, you see a bung of things, and Thordak notices a hidden door on the East wall". Here the Observant feat allows you to passively beat the DC and you find the door. Lastly, and one that I'm more prone to use, you could say "You glance into the room, you see a bunch of things, and Thordak notices a strangeness about the East wall". Until the player says they're entering the room and looking around, the Observant feat only allows more information but not the door. This last one gives a nod to the Observant feat and still requires the player to make an active decision to check out that strangeness.
There are a great number of things that the players can choose to do to optimize their characters that can make a DM's life difficult. The biggest thing that helps with handling these challenges as a DM is experience. The more you play the game, the more you try different things to work with the choices they make, the easier it will be for you to just roll with it. If you simply trim off the things you don't want to deal with, the more you restrict the game for your players. In the end you may end up with a 3 page list of "house rules" describing what the players can't do. I feel that the best thing do to is find a "yes, but" that you can use rather than negating or removing options from the players. As you start to take that mind frame you'll find that your abilities as a DM grow more diverse and you'll be able to handle just about anything the players handle with grace and ease.
I know that advantage and disadvantage do not stack, but are the +5 and -5 to passive abilities cumulative? That is to say if you were in dim light, you get a -5 to your passive perception. If you were also moving at a fast pace, would you get an additional -5 to your passive perception? Or would this fall under the stacking disadvantages definition?
I'm going to lean toward stacking similar effects but not the same, so Shield spell + Shield item. Movement is not the same as lightly obscured, however, both do have the ability to affect the perception (sight). The trick here though, is if the creature has Darkvision, then you're going to negate the -5 for dim light but still gain the -5 for movement.
However when you get a player with a Passive Perception of 20+ it ruins so many scenarios.
I would challenge this statement; why do you claim it ruins so many scenarios?
Think about it - one uncharitable way to interpret your meaning is "it's not any fun, unless the Players fail" ( which I think is just being a dick ). However...
... a more generous interpretation is "it's not any fun, unless there is some dramatic tension around whether or not the Players will find this information, or not". At which point I must ask "dramatic tension, for who?". The Players don't know the clues exists. They are not saying "wow - I wonder if I'll find that diary which has clues as to who the assassin really was, or not!". To them, clues either exist, or they don't. If they make a roll, or figure out the clue, it's largely the same for them ( although that's a debatable point - some Players do like the dramatic tension of "damn, I rolled really poorly! I wonder what else I could have found out!" ). You can still preserve dramatic tension for Players even if you say " ... and Thorgar, you notice that one of the inlaid panels on the left side of the desk seems to be a bit loose in its frame ... " - how do they open the panel? Is it trapped? Did the Rogue really roll high enough to spot a trap if it is there?
I would argue that Observant feat takes a lot of uncertainty, and thus dramatic tension, and thus "fun", out of the game, mostly for the DM. So what you are proposing is taking away a tool in the Player arsenal, to preserve your fun. Now, the fun of the DM is every bit as important as the Players - but I'm not sure this is a fair trade off. It may be better to find other ways to preserve DM dramatic tension.
Another way of looking at the Observant Feat is: If you have a Character with an Observant Feat, they're going to be pretty much guaranteed to get clue X, if they investigate location ( or person ) Y, so you don't need to plan nearly as many contingencies for how to get crucial clues to them. You can predict - with pretty high confidence - whether or not the Party will get a clue. You can use that.
If you plan your clues cleverly, Observant Feat isn't going to ruin your game ( apart from taking away your personal dramatic tension around that clue ). You know that the investigator character is pretty much guaranteed to spot the secret compartment, containing the diary. OK - don't put the whole plot complete with names and diagrams in the diary! Put in clues and hints, which the Players can put together to point them at the next person/place/situation for them to investigate. If they - the Players - can figure out where to go, or who to talk to, they've got a great chance to get the information - but they still need to be able to personally put those clues together. And whether the Players can figure out that they should go talk to that person over there, or investigate that other location - that's still a point of uncertainty and dramatic tension for you.
If you're dealing with a dungeon crawl, then maybe the "bad guys" have figured out that the Party will figure out they're being tailed, or observed. OK - a smart enemy can use that to their advantage: herd or lead the Party. Adapt their tactics to the idea that the Party is likely to be able to sense them.
In short - don't cripple your Players' abilities solely to preserve your uncertainty and dramatic tension, via the mechanics. Use the reduced uncertainty about them getting clues to your advantage. Plan your clues well. And you can take your personal uncertainty/tension/fun from whether or not your Players can figure out where and how to focus their efforts and abilities, even if the uncertainty about whether or not they can succeed once they figure that out, is almost gone.
It's more complicated here, because you're using a pre-written module, rather than creating something from whole cloth - so it probably involves you adapting the module ( I'm not familiar with it ), and there's a whole discussion there about whether or not the clues in that module are well designed if Observant Feat breaks the adventure.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Since observant gets so much criticism for being strong, I have house ruled it to be +4 rather than +5, if a slight change to the numbers can ease potential issues that seems like a good approach to me, at least during my first campaign.
Building on the idea of the observant character noticing something strange or out of place but not telling them everything immediately. Mix it up a bit, sometimes that loose panel is just a loose panel, or the protruding/sunken stone is just shoddy workmanship. This means when the party is investigating and get a roll that is kind of ok it leaves the question of did they fail to find something because it is very well hidden, or did they fail to find something because there is nothing to find. This also helps with the general issue of the party always investigating everything that is specifically mentioned, because if it was mentioned it must be vitally important and makes the exploration a bit more organic.
I do agree with most of the posts above and have tried all of the methods above to some degree. However I have found that as soon as you say something like “Thordak notices a strangeness about the south wall.” The players will always investigate further and find the hidden door or thing. You can of course throw in lots of extraneous detail to try and counter this. But that goes against good story telling and bogs down a game.
Secret doors, hidden items and to some extent traps, perform a specific role in the story. With extremely high Passive Perception they are just doors, items and visible hazards. The environment already has lots of those.
On the issue of player fun vs my fun. I am all about player fun. My pleasure comes from giving my players an engaging environment, believable monsters and just enough tension and moral discomfort to make their choices meaningful.
I can work around high passive perception, by using light, cover and other complex environmental shenanigans. But they mostly seem like the DM actively working against the players. Thanks for you well thought out comments. I know I will continue to work on this aspect of the game. Like light and cover the rules never quite work as smoothly as I would like.
I do agree with most of the posts above and have tried all of the methods above to some degree. However I have found that as soon as you say something like “Thordak notices a strangeness about the south wall.” The players will always investigate further and find the hidden door or thing.
Cool, now they have an opportunity to overcome a problem using skills and good ideas. And bad ideas, of course…
Non-combat challenges are great, as long as the choices, costs and consequences are meaningful.
"I try saying the magic word we heard the vizier use yesterday." Rewards the PCs for investigation and stealth.
"I press on all the torch sconces to find a hidden lever." Rewards a player for giving their character Investigation proficiency. Do the players have time to search?
"I smash it with my maul." The player has made a choice - get through the door easily at the cost of alerting everyone around them.
"I cast passwall." The player has made a choice - get through the door without alerting everyone, at the cost of a spell slot.
If there isn't a meaningful cost and there isn't a ticking clock then, as you say, they just find the door. They are still rewarded for choosing to take proficiency and a feat on Perception, however, because if they hadn't, they would never have found the secret at all and they would have missed out.
You could change the feat to give advantage on checks instead, thereby involving the players in the checks instead of using passive perception. Alternately, give hidden objects a skill rating instead of a DC and roll their skill vs the characters' passive perception.
Secret doors, hidden items and to some extent traps, perform a specific role in the story.
Sure - what is that?
Edit: I'm not actually trying to be a flippant smartass :) I'm actually wondering what role these play in your style of story? I really don't use them much, myself.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Secret doors, when used properly, can be placed to help exposition through discovery, as well as the ability to find items that the party may otherwise not have access to at the moment. I used a secret door to be the opening to the story proper in my Sunday group. They were trying to figure out where a Lich had run off to in an old temple, they knew he was there because the black dragon they spoke to said so. I used a bit of trickery in that they found the location of the secret door but they could not find the mechanism to open it. Eventually they just broke the door and made their way.
Hidden items are always one of my favorite things to put in places. Journals/books giving information about a person, plot, location, or whatever is important to the story. Maps buried under piles of paper, a magic trinket or item tucked away in an obscure location. Most of them are there to put a little life into the places they're exploring so it feels like people lived there or used the location for more than a casual stroll or an experiment in how to kill hapless people.
I don't use traps heavily, I find that they have more impact if they fit the locations rather than a way to resource gouge parties. I had trip wires placed on a stair trap that would set the stairs into a slope, just like the cartoons. The owner of the house used his second story as a place to research mechanical marvels so he made it almost impossible to get up to his lab if you didn't know how to disable the trap. There is a group searching an ancient temple in one of my games, they are searching everywhere for traps, however they haven't left the common rooms. I don't see why people would put excessive traps in areas that are heavily trafficked and used for daily chores. When they start to get to the more important locations, that's when the traps will start to show, the designers of the temple would want to keep whatever is important safe.
Secret/hidden things tell a story, insinuate importance, and can be used for exposition.
Fair enough - I very much like that summary "Secret/hidden things tell a story, insinuate importance, and can be used for exposition" :)
I very much agree with the desirability of making a place feel real and lived in. A place isn't just a placeholder in a game, it's meant to be part of a world, with it's own purpose, history, and story.
However - the dramatic purpose of hidden things is fulfilled by the very fact that someone has attempted to hide it. So - no - @GayleG- it is not the case that "With extremely high Passive Perception they are just doors, items and visible hazards" - they are doors, items, and hazards which are called out to have specific dramatic significance, whether or not the Player spots them automatically, or not.
Consider that secret diary, behind a hidden panel, in the side of the desk.
There are 3 possibilities here:
One member of the Party has a high passive perception via Observant Feat. They will spot the loose panel. Not a question.
One or more of the Party has a high perception - they may spot it - and they succeed.
One or more of the Party has a high perception - they may spot it - and they fail.
In scenario #1, and scenario #2 - the fact that someone has attempted to keep it hidden gives it importance.
In scenario #1, and scenario #2 - the Players still have no idea how to open it, whether it is trapped, whether it is alarmed, etc. - it's not an "instant win" by any means.
In scenario #3 - the clue just doesn't exist. It has no special narrative import. It has no bearing on the story at all. It might as well not be in the adventure at all.
Scenario #1, and #2 are functionally equivalent.
All you are doing is by insisting that that the Players can't ever automatically spot clues, is holding out the possibility that you can convert scenario #1 to scenario #3; you are preserving the possibility that the clue is useless.
From a Player perspective, there is no dramatic tension here. Either they see the clue ( through roll or feat ), or the clue never exists as far as they are concerned ( very unlike combat rolls, or jumping over chasms, or other skill checks where they can see the possibilities of success and failure before they roll ).
From a Player perspective, the fact that someone attempted to hide the clue, gives it narrative importance - whether or not they rolled well, or spotted it through the Feat.
What is it that you think you are protecting through preserving the Player's possibility of failure here?
You claim this it is not your own dramatic tension through uncertainty ( aka screwing over Player design forethought, to preserve your own fun ) - but I don't see anything else here to protect.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think folks have made a number of really good comments. However, just to add to them :)
I am in the camp that Observant doesn't break anything and having the players notice things is good rather than bad.
1) Keep in mind that the players do NOT know there is anything present anywhere in the dungeon. The only chance they have to notice something is if they either have sufficiently high skill that it can be narrated or if they succeed at a die roll. From a player perspective, hidden items supply NO dramatic tension since by definition the players and the characters don't know it is there.
- setting off a trap that you didn't notice - do some damage, kill someone or cause a status effect. DM says "sorry you didn't notice it"
- missing a secret door or hidden book with plot information - players just go on not receiving the treasure or the information none the wiser - absolutely no dramatic tension at all unless the DM tells them afterward "Guess what you missed!" ... which is just cruel meta-gaming ... the characters would never know this.
- basically, NOT finding things does nothing for the players ... the only one in suspense about it is the DM ... and the DM really needs to get out of that mindset since they are adjudicating the world interaction, not taking sides.
2) Passive perceptions does NOT mean the character is PASSIVE ... at all. If you walk up a hallway with your eyes closed and hands over your ears you are NOT going to see that pit and WILL fall right in no matter what your passive perception score might be. If you walk up a hallway, chatting to the other characters in the party or drawing in your map book you will ALSO not notice the scratches in the floor indicating the presence of a hidden door. In order for your perception skill to be applicable to a given circumstance the character MUST be applying it, they have to be looking carefully and searching.
In the example above where a character just glances into a room, they are not likely to notice anything at all unless they take a careful look. All passive means is that the player is not rolling dice and is using their average skill value to determine the check result because the DM does not want them to roll dice. The character MUST still be acting appropriately to make the skill check applicable to the circumstance.
3) This does mean that most characters with the observant feat will tend to notice traps, hidden doors or other anomalies. This actually ADDS tension since once these are noticed the characters have to figure out the significance and in terms of traps have to figure out how to bypass or disarm them. Finding a number of traps just makes the party be more cautious and know that the area is dangerous. Dealing with this can be fun but setting them off as you blunder into them generally isn't fun. Rolling dice and failing to roll well throughout this process doesn't add any tension in my experience.
In a recent adventure, the party I was in had two characters with a passive perception of 26. One due to observant and the other due to having advantage on wisdom(perception) checks due to another effect. It didn't break anything. It didn't prevent us from failing to figure out traps and accidentally set them off. It didn't reduce the tension since it just emphasized that we were in a dangerous place.
Perhaps your experience is different but in the games I have played where characters with this feat were present they ended up getting a bit of the spotlight for noticing things that everyone else missed and that was fun for both the player and the DM. The rest of the party appreciated it since it helped with finding some nasty traps and bypassing some dangerous situations which were just as much fun for the PLAYERS to feel successful by avoiding as opposed to employing brute force.
I think this also speaks to the purpose of a secret door in a story. By it's nature, a secret door might be found or it might not be found. If the thing behind the secret door is essential to the progression of the story, you can make a strong argument that it should not be secret at all since the possibility of it not being detected is not acceptable for forward progress.
If the secret door leads to something optional and the party misses it, then the story can advance and the players may proceed none the wiser
If the secret door leads to something optional and high passive perception makes it a sure thing the party will find it, then the fact it is a secret door is more of an afterthought
If the secret door leads to something required and the party misses it, then you're stuck from a narrative standpoint
If the secret door leads to something required and high passive perception makes it a sure thing the party will find it, then the fact it is a secret door is more of an afterthought
In the case of 1, I think it's fine for the DM to play games with dropping subtle hints to see if the players pick up on your prompting and deliberately probe further into things. In the case of 2, then the DM should either crank up the DC of the secret door or put something behind it that the DM is ok with players accessing quickly and without much narrative overhead. In the case of 3, the DM runs the risk of painting the party into a corner story-wise. In the case of 4, I think the story is likely better off with a guarded door or some other challenge that would make traversing the door a process aside from finding the door itself.
There's another reason the DM may want to delay the knowledge of a secret despite a player having high PP and that is timing. If a hidden monster wants to wait until players approach or until they pass by, you might reward high PP instead by making that character the only one who is not surprised on the first round of combat, or the high PP character notices the creature trying to sneak out the back of the room once the party has gone by. Same with a secret door.
If the secret door leads to something optional and the party misses it, then the story can advance and the players may proceed none the wiser
If the secret door leads to something optional and high passive perception makes it a sure thing the party will find it, then the fact it is a secret door is more of an afterthought
If the secret door leads to something required and the party misses it, then you're stuck from a narrative standpoint
If the secret door leads to something required and high passive perception makes it a sure thing the party will find it, then the fact it is a secret door is more of an afterthought
In the case of 1, I think it's fine for the DM to play games with dropping subtle hints to see if the players pick up on your prompting and deliberately probe further into things. In the case of 2, then the DM should either crank up the DC of the secret door or put something behind it that the DM is ok with players accessing quickly and without much narrative overhead. In the case of 3, the DM runs the risk of painting the party into a corner story-wise. In the case of 4, I think the story is likely better off with a guarded door or some other challenge that would make traversing the door a process aside from finding the door itself.
I am in perfect agreement with your #1 scenario. It's missed, it's optional, it has no impact.
#2 and 4: The door is not an afterthought if you provide the proper context and narrative. Searching an abandoned house, you find a secret door behind a false panel in a wall. Everything in the house up to this point has indicated this is a middle class family that enjoyed their various books, musics, art, etc. in other words, mundane. When you find this secret door inside is a bookshelf with a number of tomes regarding the study of oozes. There is a table with notes on various locations oozes have been found. There is a lock box in the corner when opened that contains a magic trinket that the party can use. This type of thing gives context to the purpose of the secret room. Where as, if you simply say, you find a secret door, inside is a lock box, the rogue picks the lock and you find a magic trinket, you provide no context and the room is an afterthought.
#3: The door may be missed but you are not stuck in your narrative if you've considered the fact it could be missed. It is easy enough to have them come across information elsewhere that would indicate the presence of a hidden room/passage/thing using other mediums. A ghost roaming the house, a journal that talks about the hidden room, a former butler that speaks of unknown construction done to a room. You're only stuck if you forget that there is both success and failure to handle in the story.
#4b: Yes sometimes it is better to forego the secret door for a different prop such as guards or puzzles, it really depends on what you're trying to convey with the story.
Don't forget that passive perception means nothing, if you can't actually see/sense the item. You can make things optional, or required, based on whether the clue is out in plain site, or under a rug, even with a high PP character.
If something is optional - and you really want there to be uncertainty about them finding it - put it out of sight: under the desk, under the rug, behind the books - places where they wouldn't "percpet" it until they actually search. But doing this all the time stretches believably. Players with high perception should gain some benefit from it. No one has ever said, "you know, the Barbarian is doing too much damage; it's ruining my combat encounters; I'm going to disallow swords" - that's the point of a Barbarian. The point of a high PP investigator is to uncover clues that most people would not.
If you start "dropping subtle hints" - it's not optional in the DM's mind, so just give them the clue. Make it obvious, or make it hidden in such a way that you know that the high PP character will see it.
I strongly disagree with the DM artificially "cranking up the DC", or nerfing abilities to get the story outcome and timing the DM wants. If this DM is going to control the story events and timing that closely, do they need Players? They can just write a book. In my mind, I set up the situation, design the NPCs, design the places, adjudicate actions, and have NPCs act & react in plausible ways. That's it - the events of the story are in the hands of the Players.
I think secret doors, or hidden clues, which are obvious to high PP players, do have a purpose, as per DMThac0, above - it's a narrative hint to the Players: this is of significance to the bad guys; they tried to hide it. You could make it a guarded door, or trapped door - as per your suggestion - and convey the same significance; it's just a different flavor - and I think occasionally throwing out a "congratulations, you get a reward for putting some forethought into your Character design, have some information that everyone else would have missed" is a good thing.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know this will probably be a controversial post. But has anyone outright banned the Observant feat in their games?
I am just starting Dungeon of the Mad Mage and when a player took the observant feat I told them to swap it out for another. I have been troubled by this feat for awhile. I like to play an honest game and if a player rolls well or uses an ability in a way I didn’t expect I like to let the dice fall where they may. However when you get a player with a Passive Perception of 20+ it ruins so many scenarios. I like to build suspense and mystery and Passive Perception / Investigation outside bounded accuracy makes this extremely difficult.
If you raise the DCs then that punishes everyone. If you try and get around it by making the trap / door / object somehow hidden from a passive perception then you are punishing the player that took the feat. I haven’t found a fix that I am happy with so I just removed it. Thoughts?
If memory serves, during travel you need to be moving at a slow pace for your passive perception to be more helpful for detecting traps and noticing things. Without the "Dungeon Delver" feat, you suffer a -5 to your passive perception for detecting traps and secret doors when moving at a normal pace. I could be wrong on this, but I think that is how it works.
You also need to keep in mind that rogues and bards could potentially get a passive perception that high simply by having expertise in perception.
We had a whole four page thread about passive perception recently. It comes down to how you as the DM want to play it. Banning the feat is one viable option if it suits you and your table. Another option is dropping hints in your description that would prompt a player to have their character act in a way to trigger the perception. Others felt that if passive perception was above a level, then the character automatically noticed a thing. I don't subscribe to that point of view. Remember, passive abilities are about the player and the dice, not the character and the in-game activity.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The two most recent threads about passive Perception and such can be found:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/35377-passive-perception-and-passive-investigation
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/35538-roll-perception-vs-passive-perception#c2
To sum up my feelings on this I think banning it unjustly punishes a player for making a choice they feel optimal simply for the sake of a false sense of tension and discovery. I agree that Observant does take the risk out of being caught by a trap, or not finding the secret thing that may be in a room. However, that is no different than a familiar that can potentially negate ambushes and give you semi-permanent advantage on your attack rolls. Both decisions are extremely beneficial to the player, and the party as a whole, and both come at a cost. While the familiar may be a minor cost, a utility spell vs a combat spell, it can come at the same cost as Observant; the cost of an ASI or initial feat from variant human. In the end it's a player choice and they should not be restricted from the way they want to play.
Working with the Observant feat is tricky, but it's the most rewarding approach that a DM can take. Simple changes to how you describe things can make Observant feel like it's working without giving away "everything". TexasDevin summarized the viewpoints that the threads covered briefly, and they are the most common views in my experience. A DM can say "You glance into the room, you see a bunch of things, then you move on". Since, even with the Observant feat, they never entered the room the feat doesn't kick in and they don't get any new information. A DM could say "You glance into the room, you see a bung of things, and Thordak notices a hidden door on the East wall". Here the Observant feat allows you to passively beat the DC and you find the door. Lastly, and one that I'm more prone to use, you could say "You glance into the room, you see a bunch of things, and Thordak notices a strangeness about the East wall". Until the player says they're entering the room and looking around, the Observant feat only allows more information but not the door. This last one gives a nod to the Observant feat and still requires the player to make an active decision to check out that strangeness.
There are a great number of things that the players can choose to do to optimize their characters that can make a DM's life difficult. The biggest thing that helps with handling these challenges as a DM is experience. The more you play the game, the more you try different things to work with the choices they make, the easier it will be for you to just roll with it. If you simply trim off the things you don't want to deal with, the more you restrict the game for your players. In the end you may end up with a 3 page list of "house rules" describing what the players can't do. I feel that the best thing do to is find a "yes, but" that you can use rather than negating or removing options from the players. As you start to take that mind frame you'll find that your abilities as a DM grow more diverse and you'll be able to handle just about anything the players handle with grace and ease.
I know that advantage and disadvantage do not stack, but are the +5 and -5 to passive abilities cumulative? That is to say if you were in dim light, you get a -5 to your passive perception. If you were also moving at a fast pace, would you get an additional -5 to your passive perception? Or would this fall under the stacking disadvantages definition?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm going to lean toward stacking similar effects but not the same, so Shield spell + Shield item. Movement is not the same as lightly obscured, however, both do have the ability to affect the perception (sight). The trick here though, is if the creature has Darkvision, then you're going to negate the -5 for dim light but still gain the -5 for movement.
edit: BoboBoombang corrected me.
Nope! It (Devils Sight) allows you to see in Darkness, not dim light like dark vision. Cheap? Yes. Still is, though.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
I would challenge this statement; why do you claim it ruins so many scenarios?
Think about it - one uncharitable way to interpret your meaning is "it's not any fun, unless the Players fail" ( which I think is just being a dick ). However...
... a more generous interpretation is "it's not any fun, unless there is some dramatic tension around whether or not the Players will find this information, or not". At which point I must ask "dramatic tension, for who?". The Players don't know the clues exists. They are not saying "wow - I wonder if I'll find that diary which has clues as to who the assassin really was, or not!". To them, clues either exist, or they don't. If they make a roll, or figure out the clue, it's largely the same for them ( although that's a debatable point - some Players do like the dramatic tension of "damn, I rolled really poorly! I wonder what else I could have found out!" ). You can still preserve dramatic tension for Players even if you say " ... and Thorgar, you notice that one of the inlaid panels on the left side of the desk seems to be a bit loose in its frame ... " - how do they open the panel? Is it trapped? Did the Rogue really roll high enough to spot a trap if it is there?
I would argue that Observant feat takes a lot of uncertainty, and thus dramatic tension, and thus "fun", out of the game, mostly for the DM. So what you are proposing is taking away a tool in the Player arsenal, to preserve your fun. Now, the fun of the DM is every bit as important as the Players - but I'm not sure this is a fair trade off. It may be better to find other ways to preserve DM dramatic tension.
Another way of looking at the Observant Feat is: If you have a Character with an Observant Feat, they're going to be pretty much guaranteed to get clue X, if they investigate location ( or person ) Y, so you don't need to plan nearly as many contingencies for how to get crucial clues to them. You can predict - with pretty high confidence - whether or not the Party will get a clue. You can use that.
If you plan your clues cleverly, Observant Feat isn't going to ruin your game ( apart from taking away your personal dramatic tension around that clue ). You know that the investigator character is pretty much guaranteed to spot the secret compartment, containing the diary. OK - don't put the whole plot complete with names and diagrams in the diary! Put in clues and hints, which the Players can put together to point them at the next person/place/situation for them to investigate. If they - the Players - can figure out where to go, or who to talk to, they've got a great chance to get the information - but they still need to be able to personally put those clues together. And whether the Players can figure out that they should go talk to that person over there, or investigate that other location - that's still a point of uncertainty and dramatic tension for you.
If you're dealing with a dungeon crawl, then maybe the "bad guys" have figured out that the Party will figure out they're being tailed, or observed. OK - a smart enemy can use that to their advantage: herd or lead the Party. Adapt their tactics to the idea that the Party is likely to be able to sense them.
In short - don't cripple your Players' abilities solely to preserve your uncertainty and dramatic tension, via the mechanics. Use the reduced uncertainty about them getting clues to your advantage. Plan your clues well. And you can take your personal uncertainty/tension/fun from whether or not your Players can figure out where and how to focus their efforts and abilities, even if the uncertainty about whether or not they can succeed once they figure that out, is almost gone.
It's more complicated here, because you're using a pre-written module, rather than creating something from whole cloth - so it probably involves you adapting the module ( I'm not familiar with it ), and there's a whole discussion there about whether or not the clues in that module are well designed if Observant Feat breaks the adventure.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Since observant gets so much criticism for being strong, I have house ruled it to be +4 rather than +5, if a slight change to the numbers can ease potential issues that seems like a good approach to me, at least during my first campaign.
Building on the idea of the observant character noticing something strange or out of place but not telling them everything immediately. Mix it up a bit, sometimes that loose panel is just a loose panel, or the protruding/sunken stone is just shoddy workmanship. This means when the party is investigating and get a roll that is kind of ok it leaves the question of did they fail to find something because it is very well hidden, or did they fail to find something because there is nothing to find. This also helps with the general issue of the party always investigating everything that is specifically mentioned, because if it was mentioned it must be vitally important and makes the exploration a bit more organic.
You may find it less troubling if you remember that Perception does not let you find traps.
It only lets you find symptoms.
"Ahead of you, Aerith's amazing Perception notices several of the flagstones are a different colour than the rest. What do you do?"
"As you walk along the tunnel, Bob smells a chemical-like smell. What do you do?"
I do agree with most of the posts above and have tried all of the methods above to some degree. However I have found that as soon as you say something like “Thordak notices a strangeness about the south wall.” The players will always investigate further and find the hidden door or thing. You can of course throw in lots of extraneous detail to try and counter this. But that goes against good story telling and bogs down a game.
Secret doors, hidden items and to some extent traps, perform a specific role in the story. With extremely high Passive Perception they are just doors, items and visible hazards. The environment already has lots of those.
On the issue of player fun vs my fun. I am all about player fun. My pleasure comes from giving my players an engaging environment, believable monsters and just enough tension and moral discomfort to make their choices meaningful.
I can work around high passive perception, by using light, cover and other complex environmental shenanigans. But they mostly seem like the DM actively working against the players. Thanks for you well thought out comments. I know I will continue to work on this aspect of the game. Like light and cover the rules never quite work as smoothly as I would like.
Cool, now they have an opportunity to overcome a problem using skills and good ideas. And bad ideas, of course…
Non-combat challenges are great, as long as the choices, costs and consequences are meaningful.
"I try saying the magic word we heard the vizier use yesterday." Rewards the PCs for investigation and stealth.
"I press on all the torch sconces to find a hidden lever." Rewards a player for giving their character Investigation proficiency. Do the players have time to search?
"I smash it with my maul." The player has made a choice - get through the door easily at the cost of alerting everyone around them.
"I cast passwall." The player has made a choice - get through the door without alerting everyone, at the cost of a spell slot.
If there isn't a meaningful cost and there isn't a ticking clock then, as you say, they just find the door. They are still rewarded for choosing to take proficiency and a feat on Perception, however, because if they hadn't, they would never have found the secret at all and they would have missed out.
You could change the feat to give advantage on checks instead, thereby involving the players in the checks instead of using passive perception. Alternately, give hidden objects a skill rating instead of a DC and roll their skill vs the characters' passive perception.
Sure - what is that?
Edit: I'm not actually trying to be a flippant smartass :) I'm actually wondering what role these play in your style of story? I really don't use them much, myself.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Secret doors, when used properly, can be placed to help exposition through discovery, as well as the ability to find items that the party may otherwise not have access to at the moment. I used a secret door to be the opening to the story proper in my Sunday group. They were trying to figure out where a Lich had run off to in an old temple, they knew he was there because the black dragon they spoke to said so. I used a bit of trickery in that they found the location of the secret door but they could not find the mechanism to open it. Eventually they just broke the door and made their way.
Hidden items are always one of my favorite things to put in places. Journals/books giving information about a person, plot, location, or whatever is important to the story. Maps buried under piles of paper, a magic trinket or item tucked away in an obscure location. Most of them are there to put a little life into the places they're exploring so it feels like people lived there or used the location for more than a casual stroll or an experiment in how to kill hapless people.
I don't use traps heavily, I find that they have more impact if they fit the locations rather than a way to resource gouge parties. I had trip wires placed on a stair trap that would set the stairs into a slope, just like the cartoons. The owner of the house used his second story as a place to research mechanical marvels so he made it almost impossible to get up to his lab if you didn't know how to disable the trap. There is a group searching an ancient temple in one of my games, they are searching everywhere for traps, however they haven't left the common rooms. I don't see why people would put excessive traps in areas that are heavily trafficked and used for daily chores. When they start to get to the more important locations, that's when the traps will start to show, the designers of the temple would want to keep whatever is important safe.
Secret/hidden things tell a story, insinuate importance, and can be used for exposition.
Fair enough - I very much like that summary "Secret/hidden things tell a story, insinuate importance, and can be used for exposition" :)
I very much agree with the desirability of making a place feel real and lived in. A place isn't just a placeholder in a game, it's meant to be part of a world, with it's own purpose, history, and story.
However - the dramatic purpose of hidden things is fulfilled by the very fact that someone has attempted to hide it. So - no - @GayleG- it is not the case that "With extremely high Passive Perception they are just doors, items and visible hazards" - they are doors, items, and hazards which are called out to have specific dramatic significance, whether or not the Player spots them automatically, or not.
Consider that secret diary, behind a hidden panel, in the side of the desk.
There are 3 possibilities here:
In scenario #1, and scenario #2 - the fact that someone has attempted to keep it hidden gives it importance.
In scenario #1, and scenario #2 - the Players still have no idea how to open it, whether it is trapped, whether it is alarmed, etc. - it's not an "instant win" by any means.
In scenario #3 - the clue just doesn't exist. It has no special narrative import. It has no bearing on the story at all. It might as well not be in the adventure at all.
Scenario #1, and #2 are functionally equivalent.
All you are doing is by insisting that that the Players can't ever automatically spot clues, is holding out the possibility that you can convert scenario #1 to scenario #3; you are preserving the possibility that the clue is useless.
From a Player perspective, there is no dramatic tension here. Either they see the clue ( through roll or feat ), or the clue never exists as far as they are concerned ( very unlike combat rolls, or jumping over chasms, or other skill checks where they can see the possibilities of success and failure before they roll ).
From a Player perspective, the fact that someone attempted to hide the clue, gives it narrative importance - whether or not they rolled well, or spotted it through the Feat.
What is it that you think you are protecting through preserving the Player's possibility of failure here?
You claim this it is not your own dramatic tension through uncertainty ( aka screwing over Player design forethought, to preserve your own fun ) - but I don't see anything else here to protect.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think folks have made a number of really good comments. However, just to add to them :)
I am in the camp that Observant doesn't break anything and having the players notice things is good rather than bad.
1) Keep in mind that the players do NOT know there is anything present anywhere in the dungeon. The only chance they have to notice something is if they either have sufficiently high skill that it can be narrated or if they succeed at a die roll. From a player perspective, hidden items supply NO dramatic tension since by definition the players and the characters don't know it is there.
- setting off a trap that you didn't notice - do some damage, kill someone or cause a status effect. DM says "sorry you didn't notice it"
- missing a secret door or hidden book with plot information - players just go on not receiving the treasure or the information none the wiser - absolutely no dramatic tension at all unless the DM tells them afterward "Guess what you missed!" ... which is just cruel meta-gaming ... the characters would never know this.
- basically, NOT finding things does nothing for the players ... the only one in suspense about it is the DM ... and the DM really needs to get out of that mindset since they are adjudicating the world interaction, not taking sides.
2) Passive perceptions does NOT mean the character is PASSIVE ... at all. If you walk up a hallway with your eyes closed and hands over your ears you are NOT going to see that pit and WILL fall right in no matter what your passive perception score might be. If you walk up a hallway, chatting to the other characters in the party or drawing in your map book you will ALSO not notice the scratches in the floor indicating the presence of a hidden door. In order for your perception skill to be applicable to a given circumstance the character MUST be applying it, they have to be looking carefully and searching.
In the example above where a character just glances into a room, they are not likely to notice anything at all unless they take a careful look. All passive means is that the player is not rolling dice and is using their average skill value to determine the check result because the DM does not want them to roll dice. The character MUST still be acting appropriately to make the skill check applicable to the circumstance.
3) This does mean that most characters with the observant feat will tend to notice traps, hidden doors or other anomalies. This actually ADDS tension since once these are noticed the characters have to figure out the significance and in terms of traps have to figure out how to bypass or disarm them. Finding a number of traps just makes the party be more cautious and know that the area is dangerous. Dealing with this can be fun but setting them off as you blunder into them generally isn't fun. Rolling dice and failing to roll well throughout this process doesn't add any tension in my experience.
In a recent adventure, the party I was in had two characters with a passive perception of 26. One due to observant and the other due to having advantage on wisdom(perception) checks due to another effect. It didn't break anything. It didn't prevent us from failing to figure out traps and accidentally set them off. It didn't reduce the tension since it just emphasized that we were in a dangerous place.
Perhaps your experience is different but in the games I have played where characters with this feat were present they ended up getting a bit of the spotlight for noticing things that everyone else missed and that was fun for both the player and the DM. The rest of the party appreciated it since it helped with finding some nasty traps and bypassing some dangerous situations which were just as much fun for the PLAYERS to feel successful by avoiding as opposed to employing brute force.
I think this also speaks to the purpose of a secret door in a story. By it's nature, a secret door might be found or it might not be found. If the thing behind the secret door is essential to the progression of the story, you can make a strong argument that it should not be secret at all since the possibility of it not being detected is not acceptable for forward progress.
In the case of 1, I think it's fine for the DM to play games with dropping subtle hints to see if the players pick up on your prompting and deliberately probe further into things. In the case of 2, then the DM should either crank up the DC of the secret door or put something behind it that the DM is ok with players accessing quickly and without much narrative overhead. In the case of 3, the DM runs the risk of painting the party into a corner story-wise. In the case of 4, I think the story is likely better off with a guarded door or some other challenge that would make traversing the door a process aside from finding the door itself.
There's another reason the DM may want to delay the knowledge of a secret despite a player having high PP and that is timing. If a hidden monster wants to wait until players approach or until they pass by, you might reward high PP instead by making that character the only one who is not surprised on the first round of combat, or the high PP character notices the creature trying to sneak out the back of the room once the party has gone by. Same with a secret door.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I am in perfect agreement with your #1 scenario. It's missed, it's optional, it has no impact.
#2 and 4: The door is not an afterthought if you provide the proper context and narrative. Searching an abandoned house, you find a secret door behind a false panel in a wall. Everything in the house up to this point has indicated this is a middle class family that enjoyed their various books, musics, art, etc. in other words, mundane. When you find this secret door inside is a bookshelf with a number of tomes regarding the study of oozes. There is a table with notes on various locations oozes have been found. There is a lock box in the corner when opened that contains a magic trinket that the party can use. This type of thing gives context to the purpose of the secret room. Where as, if you simply say, you find a secret door, inside is a lock box, the rogue picks the lock and you find a magic trinket, you provide no context and the room is an afterthought.
#3: The door may be missed but you are not stuck in your narrative if you've considered the fact it could be missed. It is easy enough to have them come across information elsewhere that would indicate the presence of a hidden room/passage/thing using other mediums. A ghost roaming the house, a journal that talks about the hidden room, a former butler that speaks of unknown construction done to a room. You're only stuck if you forget that there is both success and failure to handle in the story.
#4b: Yes sometimes it is better to forego the secret door for a different prop such as guards or puzzles, it really depends on what you're trying to convey with the story.
Don't forget that passive perception means nothing, if you can't actually see/sense the item. You can make things optional, or required, based on whether the clue is out in plain site, or under a rug, even with a high PP character.
If something is optional - and you really want there to be uncertainty about them finding it - put it out of sight: under the desk, under the rug, behind the books - places where they wouldn't "percpet" it until they actually search. But doing this all the time stretches believably. Players with high perception should gain some benefit from it. No one has ever said, "you know, the Barbarian is doing too much damage; it's ruining my combat encounters; I'm going to disallow swords" - that's the point of a Barbarian. The point of a high PP investigator is to uncover clues that most people would not.
If you start "dropping subtle hints" - it's not optional in the DM's mind, so just give them the clue. Make it obvious, or make it hidden in such a way that you know that the high PP character will see it.
I strongly disagree with the DM artificially "cranking up the DC", or nerfing abilities to get the story outcome and timing the DM wants. If this DM is going to control the story events and timing that closely, do they need Players? They can just write a book. In my mind, I set up the situation, design the NPCs, design the places, adjudicate actions, and have NPCs act & react in plausible ways. That's it - the events of the story are in the hands of the Players.
I think secret doors, or hidden clues, which are obvious to high PP players, do have a purpose, as per DMThac0, above - it's a narrative hint to the Players: this is of significance to the bad guys; they tried to hide it. You could make it a guarded door, or trapped door - as per your suggestion - and convey the same significance; it's just a different flavor - and I think occasionally throwing out a "congratulations, you get a reward for putting some forethought into your Character design, have some information that everyone else would have missed" is a good thing.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.