Even if a character has high AC. It doesn't make them virtually untouchable. Flanking and/or Aid/Help rules will grant advantage for enemies to attack. "sacrifice" a creature to knock the PC prone. Allowing others to get close and gain advantage. Combined with other tactics and the multi-attacks that PC will still take plenty of hits. Having such a high AC isn't a big issue since that character will have crappy Int, Wis and/or Charisma. You can easily wound and deal with them if using the tools the game presents. It is not dastardly at all as long as the enemy you put in front of them makes sense to be there. And of course not use them every time.
Cleric at my table. I've let him gain proficiency in heavy armor. because i'm nice like that. With spells and such he can go from 21AC to 23-24. 2 Hobgoblin Iron Fists can deal with him in physical attacks just fine. Just use proper tactics and plenty of their multi-attacks will land. taking him down gradually without him being able to even land a hit in between due to Shadow Jaunt. He got cocky for being "unkillable" for a while. Use that overconfidence against them. Especially since the past they had a fight with an AoE charm effect as lair action. That wiped out almost the entire party. So its isn't as if the player is unaware of the trade off and risks. The decision of how to build and invest in their character is theirs in the end. Let them enjoy that investment in both the pro's and cons.
@texas
I suppose that would depend on the situation. If someone tries to scry and does an active role. Then using the passive perception of the PC to notice it makes sense. especially if you're written it down and don't have to ask the player for the number. Otherwise you'd be giving it away regardless. seeing how most people meta-game whether they try to or not. It makes sense to do it this way.
You aren't actually undermining my point, you're making it. You also set a double-standard against me saying: When players invest in something very specific it often comes with a trade off in another area. Just accept it being there instead of punishing the player with meta bullshit. What I highlighted from your post seems like a specific meta game counter.
There are many ways of keeping me from being an invulnerable juggernaut. All fair game from my own point of view. As far as adding a challenge to someone's extraordinary Passive Perception? I've listed a few of the options available, as there are significantly less of them. You could also remember conditions like distance, lighting, cover, etc
I dont think that particularly changes my initial statement of being careful about changing it [and any mechanic] part way through a game.
The AC one both fit in the same type of encouter. Even targeting your weaker stats with spells wouldnt detracted from you still being pretty much untouchable for physical damage. Where as removing/altering perception could take out someone's whole vision of being a scout at the expense of being less effective in combat.
However both seem to agree that depends on the table...
I'll tell you what, casting a spell against me like Illusory Dragon that can do more damage to me than an actual dragon, considering I can fail most saves pretty easily, seems pretty much the same thing as countering my ability to be "untouchable for physical damage". Let's not quibble over semantics.
As I mentioned over and over, countering someone's passive perception all the time is not what I suggested, ever!
not every post has to "undermine" or whatever your weird assumptions are.
Seeing how we're dealing with the Red Hand of Doom with countless hobgoblins/goblinoids. It is not a meta solution at all to throw hobgoblins at players. They'd run into them eventually anyway. And since this is a side element where the Oni and hobgoblins use disguises to infiltrate the city of humans it makes perfect sense for them to be there. With the option for the players to investigate, gain information and prepare. the player was getting cocky at being "invincible", not even bothering to investigate into elements and taking them at face value. Assuming he'd survive whatever it would be. and that is what might have cause the PC to die tomorrow. As long as it makes sense for the enemy to have such resources. Use them. Nothing meta about it. Meta is when I'd just throw a succubus, cambion and other out of place enemies at them just to mess with the PC. it is never, and should never, be the intention to mess with a player. there is nothing wrong with making adjustments, within reason, to keep things interesting and challenging. If you're not adjusting your story to what the players do you're a bad DM. same applies to not adjusting encounters to some degree. a fine line for sure. unfortunately, i've noticed, that most DM's that are entering the hobby have 0 understanding of basic wargaming and tactics. assuming DND is all about story and happy joy joy feels and pseudo-dramatic moments that have no real impact. Which is a key element to DND as well as the story/roleplay aspect.
Just let them have the feat. If I understand it just lets you lip read. and a +5 to passive perception and passive investigation.
The rules for passive checks are dysfunctional enough that you should never permit anything that specifically only applies to passive checks.
you mean how people apply it is dysfunctional. treating it in the similar vain as "taking 10" is just dumb.
No, the whole thing is dumb. Going from automatically missing a secret door at passive 14 to automatically spotting it at passive 15 is just bad mechanics, and the lack of clarity about when and how they're even supposed to be applied, with even the writers being inconsistent, make it worse.
not every post has to "undermine" or whatever your weird assumptions are.
Seeing how we're dealing with the Red Hand of Doom with countless hobgoblins/goblinoids. It is not a meta solution at all to throw hobgoblins at players. They'd run into them eventually anyway. And since this is a side element where the Oni and hobgoblins use disguises to infiltrate the city of humans it makes perfect sense for them to be there. With the option for the players to investigate, gain information and prepare. the player was getting cocky at being "invincible", not even bothering to investigate into elements and taking them at face value. Assuming he'd survive whatever it would be. and that is what might have cause the PC to die tomorrow. As long as it makes sense for the enemy to have such resources. Use them. Nothing meta about it. Meta is when I'd just throw a succubus, cambion and other out of place enemies at them just to mess with the PC. it is never, and should never, be the intention to mess with a player. there is nothing wrong with making adjustments, within reason, to keep things interesting and challenging. If you're not adjusting your story to what the players do you're a bad DM. same applies to not adjusting encounters to some degree. a fine line for sure. unfortunately, i've noticed, that most DM's that are entering the hobby have 0 understanding of basic wargaming and tactics. assuming DND is all about story and happy joy joy feels and pseudo-dramatic moments that have no real impact. Which is a key element to DND as well as the story/roleplay aspect.
You sir, need to realize that you are a hypocrite that rationalizes every thing you think to be right and everyone else to be wrong. I don't mean that as an insult although I'm sure you will take it that way. Your egocentricity is going to stand in the way of you having a meaningful debate with many people here.
All the stuff in Italics is your rationalization for using a meta game tactic because it was explainable within the context of the game setting. I won't disagree that it is acceptable. So to then, should be my opinion that sometimes you may alter DCs to reflect a greater challenge to Passive Perception.
The part I put in bold print is a paraphrase of what I've already said here about making changes that affect the PC abilities.
Hey, getting back to the OP's scenario, Umbral Sight gives the player darkvision, which lets you see in darkness as though it were dim light. In dim light character have disadvantage on perception check rolls (for sight) and -5 passive perception (for sight). The answer I see here is to put traps in darkness to lower his passive perception, requiring the group to provide light sources. Have monsters nearby waiting to ambush anything with a light - the monsters should have dark vision and ranged attacks with a range larger than the radius of a torch, so they can shoot from darkness / dim light (disadvantage for dark vision to see them lurking, no chance for anyone without dark vision)
Your PC can still spot the traps in dim light with a DC of 13 or lower, or he can spot almost all traps if the group risks a light.
He gets his good perception with a dangerous trade off, and in bright light he can still catch most traps.
Obviously do this sparingly throughout the whole campaign, don't screw your players over for doing something you don't like.
So a side from missing my point, you seem to be taking everyone making a different opinion as a personal attack and your really arent that important. So I'll be refraining from continuing this circular discussion.
I think that what sgtscott near the beginning said is the method if you don't want it, say so during the session 0.
The later comments of making them spot able but not solvable also sounds like a good solution and helps get the rest of the party involved. It also feels like an evolution of the traps as they go to tougher locations rather than just all of a sudden the "scout" can't spot anything.
If after someone got a passive pecepertion that is causing you difficulties and you want to change it id still stick with the advice of mentioning the change to them before hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Hey, getting back to the OP's scenario, Umbral Sight gives the player darkvision, which lets you see in darkness as though it were dim light. In dim light character have disadvantage on perception check rolls (for sight) and -5 passive perception (for sight). The answer I see here is to put traps in darkness to lower his passive perception, requiring the group to provide light sources. Have monsters nearby waiting to ambush anything with a light - the monsters should have dark vision and ranged attacks with a range larger than the radius of a torch, so they can shoot from darkness / dim light (disadvantage for dark vision to see them lurking, no chance for anyone without dark vision)
Your PC can still spot the traps in dim light with a DC of 13 or lower, or he can spot almost all traps if the group risks a light.
He gets his good perception with a dangerous trade off, and in bright light he can still catch most traps.
Obviously do this sparingly throughout the whole campaign, don't screw your players over for doing something you don't like.
You see though, this is exactly the kind of "meta game" or difficulty handicap that some people are arguing against, lol! Good game.
Hmmm, I don't see it as meta gaming. Kobolds and Goblins spring to mind as creatures both intelligent enough and reliant on traps who would use this ambush tactic regularly, especially if they've seen humanoids able to disarm their traps... The traps become the bait. Just insert some savvy Kobolds into a cave and let them do what they do... not meta in my opinion, at least no more so than literally anything a DM does
You see though, this is exactly the kind of "meta game" or difficulty handicap that some people are arguing against, lol! Good game.
Situational modifiers are not meta gaming, as long as they're situational modifiers you'd use anyway. There's nothing weird about traps being in locations that also don't have light sources. Meta gaming is "the PCs acquired a new capability, and suddenly all the NPCs are doing things differently".
Thanks for the contributions and debate to this thread! It's given me a lot of differing ideas and solutions to work with. I definitively never intended to get into a DC arms race with my players, so that was not on my table, just to clarify my original statement. I'm also glad to see there is many differing opinions on this mechanic, and others agreeing it to be a confusing/difficult issue.. I wasn't sure if it was just me.
I think what I'll be doing from now on is:
Continuing the practice of when a player with a high Passive enters an area, I point out anything they can see that falls below the DC check, but;
Take Giblixs' advice and not explicitly say what they are looking at, and instead drop clues to get them to 'stop walking'. (i.e. not say "you see a trapdoor" but instead say "a section of the floor appears to sit lower than the area around it"). I think this probably makes the most sense, since there is a difference between Int checks and Wis checks. Like being able to say 'there is a half circle scraped into the floor against this wall' for a Wis check, verses understanding could imply a hidden door with the Int check.
Put less emphasis when designing my traps to be on having them be sprung, and more on how they work (and can be foiled).
Using the table from the RAW which Wtfdndad shared to better gauge the DC I should be setting in the first place (I was apparently low-balling it since I intended a trap to be hard to find).
Factoring in modifiers such as darkness, and placing traps in more intelligent places, as suggested by Rockchewer and Pantagruel666 to change player scores.
It honestly does seem like a lot more work for me to keep the drama in the game during dungeon crawling, just because one of my players has a really high Passive Perception, but I guess that's the job I signed up for.
Hmmm, I don't see it as meta gaming. Kobolds and Goblins spring to mind as creatures both intelligent enough and reliant on traps who would use this ambush tactic regularly, especially if they've seen humanoids able to disarm their traps... The traps become the bait. Just insert some savvy Kobolds into a cave and let them do what they do... not meta in my opinion, at least no more so than literally anything a DM does
I agree, they are also smart enough - or wily enough - to place less well hidden traps in choke points and ambush locations. The party stops to disarm the trap, or circumvent them somehow and boom - ambush time as half a dozen kobolds open up with ranged weapons.
As a DM I like to formulate the adventure and let my PCs succeed if they want to be super-perception detectors. Like others, instead of “you see 3 traps and a secret door” I use “you see a raised part of the floor here and a crooked brick over there”. Whether they have high enough investigation to figure out what it is, is next.
But don’t fret about it being too easy - someone that has spent a lot of effort in perception or investigation deserves to have some time in the sun, just like high charisma folks get to do a lot of the talking.
Try to design dungeons less on a certain type of gimmick (all traps!) and more on a theme instead (rescue the maiden from a dangerous dungeon!), this will let the PCs decide how they want to vanquish their foes rather than steamrolling them through a series of traps that you created.
ignore passive perception, and roll the player's perception check for them if they don't say they're looking for anything.... maybe make the dc harder if you feel like it because they aren't actively looking for anything.
This is how I do it, seems to work, but I could be overlooking something bad.
This is how I do it, seems to work, but I could be overlooking something bad.
You're causing high perception to have a chance of missing a check, and low perception have a chance of making a check. The horror! :)
Seriously, I only use passive perception when it's a target number for something or someone else making a check. Comparing a static number against another static number is just bad design.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You aren't actually undermining my point, you're making it. You also set a double-standard against me saying: When players invest in something very specific it often comes with a trade off in another area. Just accept it being there instead of punishing the player with meta bullshit. What I highlighted from your post seems like a specific meta game counter.
There are many ways of keeping me from being an invulnerable juggernaut. All fair game from my own point of view. As far as adding a challenge to someone's extraordinary Passive Perception? I've listed a few of the options available, as there are significantly less of them. You could also remember conditions like distance, lighting, cover, etc
I'll tell you what, casting a spell against me like Illusory Dragon that can do more damage to me than an actual dragon, considering I can fail most saves pretty easily, seems pretty much the same thing as countering my ability to be "untouchable for physical damage". Let's not quibble over semantics.
As I mentioned over and over, countering someone's passive perception all the time is not what I suggested, ever!
not every post has to "undermine" or whatever your weird assumptions are.
Seeing how we're dealing with the Red Hand of Doom with countless hobgoblins/goblinoids. It is not a meta solution at all to throw hobgoblins at players. They'd run into them eventually anyway. And since this is a side element where the Oni and hobgoblins use disguises to infiltrate the city of humans it makes perfect sense for them to be there. With the option for the players to investigate, gain information and prepare. the player was getting cocky at being "invincible", not even bothering to investigate into elements and taking them at face value. Assuming he'd survive whatever it would be. and that is what might have cause the PC to die tomorrow. As long as it makes sense for the enemy to have such resources. Use them. Nothing meta about it. Meta is when I'd just throw a succubus, cambion and other out of place enemies at them just to mess with the PC. it is never, and should never, be the intention to mess with a player. there is nothing wrong with making adjustments, within reason, to keep things interesting and challenging. If you're not adjusting your story to what the players do you're a bad DM. same applies to not adjusting encounters to some degree. a fine line for sure. unfortunately, i've noticed, that most DM's that are entering the hobby have 0 understanding of basic wargaming and tactics. assuming DND is all about story and happy joy joy feels and pseudo-dramatic moments that have no real impact. Which is a key element to DND as well as the story/roleplay aspect.
No, the whole thing is dumb. Going from automatically missing a secret door at passive 14 to automatically spotting it at passive 15 is just bad mechanics, and the lack of clarity about when and how they're even supposed to be applied, with even the writers being inconsistent, make it worse.
You sir, need to realize that you are a hypocrite that rationalizes every thing you think to be right and everyone else to be wrong. I don't mean that as an insult although I'm sure you will take it that way. Your egocentricity is going to stand in the way of you having a meaningful debate with many people here.
All the stuff in Italics is your rationalization for using a meta game tactic because it was explainable within the context of the game setting. I won't disagree that it is acceptable. So to then, should be my opinion that sometimes you may alter DCs to reflect a greater challenge to Passive Perception.
The part I put in bold print is a paraphrase of what I've already said here about making changes that affect the PC abilities.
Hey, getting back to the OP's scenario, Umbral Sight gives the player darkvision, which lets you see in darkness as though it were dim light. In dim light character have disadvantage on perception check rolls (for sight) and -5 passive perception (for sight). The answer I see here is to put traps in darkness to lower his passive perception, requiring the group to provide light sources. Have monsters nearby waiting to ambush anything with a light - the monsters should have dark vision and ranged attacks with a range larger than the radius of a torch, so they can shoot from darkness / dim light (disadvantage for dark vision to see them lurking, no chance for anyone without dark vision)
Your PC can still spot the traps in dim light with a DC of 13 or lower, or he can spot almost all traps if the group risks a light.
He gets his good perception with a dangerous trade off, and in bright light he can still catch most traps.
Obviously do this sparingly throughout the whole campaign, don't screw your players over for doing something you don't like.
So a side from missing my point, you seem to be taking everyone making a different opinion as a personal attack and your really arent that important. So I'll be refraining from continuing this circular discussion.
I think that what sgtscott near the beginning said is the method if you don't want it, say so during the session 0.
The later comments of making them spot able but not solvable also sounds like a good solution and helps get the rest of the party involved. It also feels like an evolution of the traps as they go to tougher locations rather than just all of a sudden the "scout" can't spot anything.
If after someone got a passive pecepertion that is causing you difficulties and you want to change it id still stick with the advice of mentioning the change to them before hand.
All posts come with the caveat that I don't know what I'm talking about.
You see though, this is exactly the kind of "meta game" or difficulty handicap that some people are arguing against, lol! Good game.
Hmmm, I don't see it as meta gaming. Kobolds and Goblins spring to mind as creatures both intelligent enough and reliant on traps who would use this ambush tactic regularly, especially if they've seen humanoids able to disarm their traps... The traps become the bait. Just insert some savvy Kobolds into a cave and let them do what they do... not meta in my opinion, at least no more so than literally anything a DM does
Situational modifiers are not meta gaming, as long as they're situational modifiers you'd use anyway. There's nothing weird about traps being in locations that also don't have light sources. Meta gaming is "the PCs acquired a new capability, and suddenly all the NPCs are doing things differently".
I have NO problem with the ideas Rockchewer presents, I think they are quite ingenious really.
Thanks for the contributions and debate to this thread! It's given me a lot of differing ideas and solutions to work with. I definitively never intended to get into a DC arms race with my players, so that was not on my table, just to clarify my original statement. I'm also glad to see there is many differing opinions on this mechanic, and others agreeing it to be a confusing/difficult issue.. I wasn't sure if it was just me.
I think what I'll be doing from now on is:
It honestly does seem like a lot more work for me to keep the drama in the game during dungeon crawling, just because one of my players has a really high Passive Perception, but I guess that's the job I signed up for.
I agree, they are also smart enough - or wily enough - to place less well hidden traps in choke points and ambush locations. The party stops to disarm the trap, or circumvent them somehow and boom - ambush time as half a dozen kobolds open up with ranged weapons.
As a DM I like to formulate the adventure and let my PCs succeed if they want to be super-perception detectors. Like others, instead of “you see 3 traps and a secret door” I use “you see a raised part of the floor here and a crooked brick over there”. Whether they have high enough investigation to figure out what it is, is next.
But don’t fret about it being too easy - someone that has spent a lot of effort in perception or investigation deserves to have some time in the sun, just like high charisma folks get to do a lot of the talking.
Try to design dungeons less on a certain type of gimmick (all traps!) and more on a theme instead (rescue the maiden from a dangerous dungeon!), this will let the PCs decide how they want to vanquish their foes rather than steamrolling them through a series of traps that you created.
What I do:
ignore passive perception, and roll the player's perception check for them if they don't say they're looking for anything.... maybe make the dc harder if you feel like it because they aren't actively looking for anything.
This is how I do it, seems to work, but I could be overlooking something bad.
You're causing high perception to have a chance of missing a check, and low perception have a chance of making a check. The horror! :)
Seriously, I only use passive perception when it's a target number for something or someone else making a check. Comparing a static number against another static number is just bad design.