Hmm..user, whats your passive perception again?

>Players never roll perception unless I specifically tell them to
You want them to roll perception nonstop instead, dipshit?

>Alright Bob, roll perception
I ROLL PERCEPTION TOO!

It wouldn't be that bad if perception was the only skill they didn't use, but my players don't try to use any of their skills unless explicitly told. It's gotten to the point where they're letting the guy they're interrogating call the shots because nobody has thought to use the speech-based skills that they are proficient in.

Well in fairness, speech based skills are retarded and you should be able to play this shit by having a conversation.

How the fuck should they know that they're supposed to roll a skill unless you tell them to?

Part of my session prep is prerolling spot for each member and each room, and hinting that an active search with perception is advisable if they roll exceptionally high.

I keep the drama and suspense up by also not hinting if they fail, and hinting that they should keep trying into absolutely nothing if there's a critfail (and sometimes just rattling the bones and frowning during it like they made a surprise Will or Reaction save.)

I prevent the "I roll Perception until I roll a 20, or make you roll Perception for me 30 times" issue by having random encounter tables and giving every monster nearby its own perception check, at DC 0 or so as in RAW, to hear the powergaming chucklefucks tearing the room apart for a minute straight.

Intuition, listening to the description without being specifically told "you can hear the wall ticking, roll Perception and a Reflex save", and applying the rules as written about roaming monsters so that there's a significant but mitigatable penalty for blind-searching when there's nothing.

Ever heard of taking I N I T I A T I V E?

>I want to roll [x] to accomplish [y]
>I want to accomplish [y]. What should I roll?
>Could I roll [z] instead of [x] in this situation?

>22
>Really? that high? let me see your sheet...mmm ok, you don't see anything strage. Ok, surprise attack guys, you're flatfooted

>roll in a non stressful situation
They asked for it, I take 10 or 20 if it's possible everytime

Speech skills are useful for GMs who don't necessarily know what an NPC would believe or be scared of. Rolling to resolve these issues is consistent with the way the rest of the game is designed. I agree that speech skills shouldn't be mind control, at least at early levels, but they have their place.

It's even worse when the game has an entire stat dedicated to that type of shit. It's always a trap option.

Do you guys give players multiple options for certain rolls or give bonuses based on background information or classes? I've given players a dex or strength check when a troll through a giant branch at them. They could roll either to half damage (strength to use BIG MUSCULES to deflect or dexterity to roll with it).

I've also given the fighter a bonus on knowledge to identify weaponry or anything unique about a warrior's stance or whatever.

That sounds like something I'd decide to do and then never end up doing because I forgot. I like to think I'm a good DM but I always forget to get descriptive and misremember rules. Feels bad man.

It's ok dude I make roughly 50% of the shit up as I go along

Those additional rolls are just extras. They aren't set in stone and I don't give them out all the time. A reflex/dex save for a fireball is normal but I may give the Wizard the option for an intelligence save to half damage since he also knows fireball and knows the weaknesses of casting the spell.

Just let your party know you'll throw them a bone every once and awhile, but don't expect it every time.

p.s. It also makes them hate you less when you really fuck with them by making them fight hard shit or nigh unavoidable damage to increase tension

You can't roll lower than your passive perception fyi.

Also passive perception has a -5/+5 if your disadvantaged/advantaged.

>ask to search room
>DM says we find nothing
>leave room
>DM gets audibly frustrated
>"why didn't you guys search the fireplace?"

I CHEKCHED THE WHO0LE ROOM YOU FUCKING FGUCK FACVE I HATE UUUUUUU

>adventuran, minding my own business, hiking to the next town
>DM: "You notice a man wwith a trenchcoat on coming your way."
>Ok, my character is already a paranoid fuck, I shift my hand toward my flintlock pistol
>DM: He continues to approach, blocking your way
>Tell NPC to move out of my wway
>Starts to run at my guy
>"Ok fuck this I shoot him"
>Roll nat 20
>Get sneak attack bonus so I roll all the sneak attack dice twice
>Deal assloads of damage
>"The shot grazes his shoulder as he charges right for you then stops and teleports behind you"
>NPC: "Interesting, seems like your father trained you well"
>...

Nothing this cool ever happens in any of the games I play. Let's trade GMs.

>enemy wearing trenchcoat

Obviously you had the memes coming to you

Eh.. this kind of railroading isn't too b

>Teleports behind you

DM is shit

>>Players never roll perception unless I specifically tell them to
That's how it works: They say what their characters want to do, you tell them what to roll, you tell them what the roll means.
Now, if at no point their characters even search for traps that's another matter. You should just tell them to start doing that instead of trying to trick them into a revelation.

>enter an abandoned bell tower and fight a giant that was hiding in it
>ask to search the room for any traps or secret doors
>get a 34 on perception check
>"nothing sticks out"
>decide to go up the stairs to explore
>"The bells from above suddenly start to fall, everyone roll relfex"
>everyone but the sorcerer fails
>Each individual party member is taking around 30, not bad. I'll live
>"user you take 51 points of damage"
>Health was at 40, con is 11
>"user falls from the stairs and gets crushed by the bell"

>hello
>[I roll diplomacy: 18!] Hello
>what is your name?
>[I roll diplomacy: 2!] My name is Adventurer Sworddude!
>what are you doing in my house?
>[I roll diplomacy: 10!] Looking for treasure or a quest!

Fuck you.

Also applies to these dumb faggots:

So, a lot of people in this thread are bitching about bad ways to handle passive checks, but what are some of your preferred ways? I'm trying my hand at running a Pathfinder game soon, and don't want my players feeling like they should search for traps every 10 steps.

user, in a situation like this, you HAVE to draw your katana.

user was a hologram the entire time.

>dorf party member searches for traps
>rolls like shite
>is absolutely sure that archway is trapped and we can't go that way or we die.

Oh man, all the time.
Sometimes it's a bonus to a roll, but usually it just means their character has some extended insight into a situation (which might in turn give a bonus to something else). I want every character to be able to shine in their niche, and it's a wonderful way to share information about a situation or the setting without gambling on them making the dice roll to become more involved.

Need them to know something to progress? Just so happens that so-and-so's history as a 'junkyard engineer' lets him know that the insurgents' mecha are just a bit too new to be scrounged from any of the regions' battlefields--so they've got that lead they need to progress the plot. They're now super invested in solving the mystery of who is supplying the terrorist cells.
And then there's a series of deaths and natural disasters delaying the game for almost three months. And then one of us had to move to Spain on short notice for work. They never got to find out that it's the Martian colonists behind it.

;_; Damn you user for making me feel.

Okay? The guy had no reason to doubt anything you said so all of your diplomacy rolls succeed, I guess.

>You can't roll lower than your passive perception fyi.

I'm gonna need a source for this.

Not him, but Crawford has said a few times that the intention is that your passive skill scores are intended to be a competency floor. I might be able to dig up an example in a bit, if you want.
It's basically just standard "Take 10" rules approached from a different angle. If there's no good reason to fail, assume they can make their passive [whatever] with little fuss.

(and it bears noting that his stance is also "use Passive scores however makes sense to you," so it's not a hard and fast thing at all, just how it was conceived)

All the time. "You have proficiency with that, right? You can just do it, no need to roll", "You're from this city, right? You immediately recognise the name". Or maybe they do roll, but the consequences of success/failure are more in their favour than if they didn't have proficiency.

But I tend to play fast and loose with the rules in general. We should probably try a different system after this campaign.

I personally don't like taking 10s or 20s. It promotes laziness and bad habits. At its worse it becomes "I take a 20 to search the room, what do I find?"and they expect to find all the hidden things without having to actively explore.

>Who's at the back?

>in what order did you guys enter the room?

>user, what is your anal circumference attribute?

>insight is a skill that you have to choose when to roll
>it's not a passive ability

>wants players to roll perception every 5 minutes
Idiot...

Actually, when do you roll Insight actively? It seems much more niche than the other skills in 5e.

I can see trying to figure out how to approach someone without directly interacting with them, but even then it would be mostly secondary to the other social skills.

According to my GM, players have to say that they roll insight to find out if someone is saying the truth and that there isn't such a thing as passive insight.

I say that it is bullshit, it should be just like perception.

>entire tiled room
>how much did your character weigh again?

I think you're right, because "he's totally not lying! Crystal clear, even your 2 is enough to tell! Honest!", rolling for the player behind the screen feels dishonest, and there is no reason not to roll at every opportunity. So using a passive value definitely makes sense.

>con is 11
Your own fault, really

I went from 14 to 11 due to ability drain from a fight right before the bell tower ;-;

>when you are playing an overweight fighter and get on to an old wooden bridge

>OSR where the GM describes everything in the room if you ask
While OSR culture is more explicit about this, the ideas are applicable to every roleplaying game:
-Players describe their characters' thoughts and actions, and only roll dice when their GM calls for a roll.
-The GM should only employ random elements like die rolls when an outcome is truly uncertain or in doubt.
-When an outcome is certain (i.e. there is only one plausible or acceptable outcome), then random elements are not necessary and the GM should simply narrate the outcome
-Players can and should be consulted as appropriate to help decide whether random elements are appropriate at any given time (Well okay, I added this one in myself, but experience bears it out).

These can and should be applied to all roleplaying games. It makes for more a more sensible and consistent roleplaying experience which rewards good decision-making, instead of leaving everything at the mercy of the RNG.

Never mind then.

I'm sorry

>allright, you take 20 for ever search check.
>for how many days do you have rations again?

>You take 20 for your perception check to find a hidden switch.
>The kobold guard patrol passing by, the gelatinous cube hunting for dinner two rooms over, and the sewer rats in the tunnel below each take 20 on their perception check to find adventurers loudly moving furniture, whacking their 10-foot pole into walls, and lighting extra torches for better vision.

Give me one good reason why all Perception, Investigation, and Stealth checks shouldn't be rolled by the DM behind a screen so that players won't metagame around shitty rolls, such as acting extra cautious, not trusting their actions, or every player suddebly wanting to help

In fact, give me one reason why literally every single skill check shouldn't be handled by the DM in the sake of keeping players honest

Extra load on DM, less interactivity from players. If you have good players, they just deal with low rolls and roleplay it by being overconfident for example.

It's fair to assume someone knows when they were bad at being Stealthy in particular - they heard the branch crack under their feet too, felt the tip of their scabbard scrape against the wall, stumbled while distracted and had to snap back to attention to recover.

Since Stealth is opposed and there's a 20-point swing in their target number, it also doesn't reveal too much about whether rolling low and not getting caught means a distracted guard, an unperceptive one, or there being no guard at all.

>GM rolls stealth
>Ask for passive perception
>27
>You dont notice anything, you are surprised for the first round of combat

>Player rolls stealth
>31 with a natural 20
>NPCs notice him immediately
>Other PCs havent seen him, and he gets killed while "stealthed" from the party, and they have to beat his stealth check to find his dying body.

This is the GM that made me realize that no game is better than a fucking terrible GM.

I wasn't even that Rogue, and the GM just held his "hurr, I GM, I make rules, no question me" stance. That kind of shit attitude would have destroyed the group sooner or later, so might as well be aa soon as possible.

Please my passive perception is 31 and I see clearly for a mile.
Nothing escape from my sight.

>>Player rolls stealth
with a natural 20
>asks for a roll whem the players have no chance of succeeding
Dropped. Also drop him out of a nearby window.

That's fucking ridiculous. Doing a campain where all the characters are blind would be pretty neat though.

>tfw you know every stat on your players' character sheets, but their reaction to you asking things like that is the best

>"I search the room"
Get the fuck out. I told you what the room looks like, tell me what each of you are doing. If you need to roll something I'll tell you what to roll and when to roll it.

This sounds interesting. Imagine a party consisting of people who have lost sight due to some extreme reasons which makes regeneration not a viable solution. Their experience has given them some other limited sight-like sense, tied to the characters, for example a dwarf could get tremorsense. They band up together in a quest to regain sight.

Sounds cool, I was thinking more small scale like the entire campain consisting of trying to escape from a dungeon or something.

This, everytime. For every skill.

Often GMs leave out super critical information, which makes some players jaded enough to say this.

>GM describes room
>Proceeds assuming we were told everything
>in the next room we are ambushed from behind
>GM: "You didn't check the other door in the room you just passed through :^)"
>You didn't say there was more than 1 door
>GM:"Well you didn't ask, and you never specified you were looking around the room to check for more doors :^)"

If he had at least said it was hidden, but no, after the encounter we returned to the previous room, and then he went
>"You now notice the door, and feel incredibly stupid for not noticing the very obvuous door the first time. You think to yourself, that you should probably proceed more carefully in the future."

So some people automatically assume GMs are assholes. Prove us wrong, and it will stop.

I am GMing 80% of the time, and I do my very best to so this. A GM who gets stupid questions, is a GM who have not yet shown himself to be a trustworthy and friendly GM yet. This isnt on you, but on the horde of retarded GMs that are ruining it for the rest of us.

They're actively exploring ingame, or do you prefer they roll for every square?

literary my last GM, every situation required to roll 16+ to even have a chance

>20 passive perception
>Never miss a thing
>Laugh

That's really frustrating. Giving an accurate depiction of your players' surroundings is an essential skill for a GM and if you fail to convey an accurate picture of your designs, the onus is on you to cover that.

Put the traps in obvious places and be consistent. If there is a treasure at the end of the dungeon put a trap there, to stop the rushing greedy fucks.

Just to be fair, in most sytems perception mechanics are a fucking mess.

But yeah, shitty GMing

Just WRITE IT DOWN ALREADY

I just think that's best when the GM describes the most striking things when the players enter the room, like people, doors, windows, basic furniture and unusual stuff like bigass paintings or things out of place, like a corpse.
Everything that isn't actively hidden will be described when the players aks for it.
Things actively hidden may require a roll if the players actively look for it, like a gold purse hidden in the mattress or a hidden roll to notice clues to it, like an air breeze close to a hidden door.

Don't roll if there isn't anything there. "But then won't the players metagame?" Yes, they will. That's a good thing. It means they'll stop wasting attempts on empty walls, and only repeatedly search if there's actually something that matters if they find it or not. Add in a time constraint of some form, like random monsters (which give significantly reduced XP), and now they can ask whether or not it's useful to keep searching or if it's better to move on.

Also this. If their passive scores is high enough to notice something, tell them "because of your keen perception, you notice X."

See above. Also, . Traps should always have an internal logic and consistency, and once you figure that out, then the players should always be able to figure them out logically.

People tend to forget that taking 10/20 includes failing many times before you succeed - because it's meant for checks that have no consequences, but would take an assload of time IG to do. You should only use it for picking locks and other circumstances that make you go "Did I pass? No? No consequences? Can i roll again?".

Taking 20 to thoroughly check a room? You activate the first trap you stumble into. Take 20 again? You activate the next one.
No traps in a room? While you inspect every inch of the room, the wizard at the end of the dungeon has more time to prep spells, the cultists get closer to finishing their demon summoning ritual, the wandering monsters get closer to the party from all the noise you make failing a bunch of times in order to get that 20.

I don't believe you to be competent enough to pull that off.

>Failing while taking 10/20
That's not what taking 10/20 is you moron.

Taking the roll means you basically rush. If you miss anything, it is because you didn't look properly.

Taking 20 means you spend a lot of time combing carefully through the area. Not blundering around and knocking things over.

n-no shut up my interpretation is the only correct one

>take 20
>
>To assume that a character makes sufficient retries to obtain the maximum possible check result (as if a 20 were rolled on d20).
>Taking 20 takes as much time as making twenty separate skill checks (usually at least 2 minutes).
>Taking 20 assumes that the character fails many times before succeeding, and thus can't be used if failure carries negative consequences.
>Source: PHB

You fail a perception check by not noticing the trap, not by walking into the fucking trap you stupid moron.

And guess what happens if you fail to notice the floor tile trap, and then walk up close to the hole in the wall to make sure it's a hanging-pole socket or peephole and not a dart trap.

>and then walk up
Here's your mistake.

Yeah, that is a mistake. Almost like someone failed a check.

No, you're the one who made the mistake. I didn't walk up to shit. Don't play the game for me.

Then don't take 20.

>GM can't deal with the players succeeding
Typical insecure control freak.