Did I do this right? 28 passive perception.

[Spo]

Working on a level 11 ranger for a 1 shot. Wisdom 20 (so plus 5), proficiency in perception (+ 4 at this level); the ranger ability that lets you double your proficiency in perception (so another +4) and observant feat (+ 5 to passive).

So if passive perception is 10 + 5+4+4+ 5 that seems kinda high.

Am I missing something? Maybe I don’t need it that high so I should pick another feat. Thanks

[Ignimortis]

Everything adds up. Honestly, it's a fun gimmick, especially if you get a source of Truesight somewhere.

[Mastikator]

If you can grab a Sentinel Shield you'd be at 33 passive perception

[animorte]

I recently did the exact same thing with my Ranger and Observant. Very nice indeed. Of course it all depends on whether the DM pays it any attention (but doesn't everything?).

[kazaryu]

Working on a level 11 ranger for a 1 shot. Wisdom 20 (so plus 5), proficiency in perception (+ 4 at this level); the ranger ability that lets you double your proficiency in perception (so another +4) and observant feat (+ 5 to passive).

So if passive perception is 10 + 5+4+4+ 5 that seems kinda high.

Am I missing something? Maybe I don’t need it that high so I should pick another feat. Thanks

you did the math correctly. and...i mean 'need' is a tricky term.

for one, it depends on how your DM runs stealth. some DM's don't roll stealth vs passive perception...if thats the case then observant doesn't really matter.
similarly, if the DM doesn't every try to have enemies hide...passive perception doesn't matter as much (especially not that high).

and then on a more meta level, even if the DM does do the above things (and throws in traps that also check against passive perception like they're theoretically supposed to) you may still reduce the overall fun at the table if its completely impossible for things to hide from you. a 23PP is still high, and you should still spot most things, but at least there's still some tension to it. OTOH, this may not be a problem at all, it is just a one-shot after all.

so..yeah, idk if thats helpful but thats my thoughts on the matter

[diplomancer]

Yeah, I'd either get a different feat or a different expertise choice. Feels kinda of a waste otherwise, unless your DM uses particularly stealthy enemies.

It can even trigger a (bad) reflex on the DM; "My goodness, this guy's passive Perception is 28, I'd better have traps be DC30 or he will see all of them!".

[LudicSavant]

It can even trigger a (bad) reflex on the DM; "My goodness, this guy's passive Perception is 28, I'd better have traps be DC30 or he will see all of them!".

I would just let them see all of the traps. And even give a note to self to regularly give the PC useful or interesting extra info in my descriptions.

And anyways, seeing a trap is only one step of getting by it.

[diplomancer]

I would just let them see all of the traps. And even give a note to self to regularly give the PC useful or interesting extra info in my descriptions.

And anyways, seeing a trap is only one step of getting by it.

Yeah, that's the right way to handle it. But not all will do so, specially the less experienced ones.

[Witty Username]

And anyways, seeing a trap is only one step of getting by it.

To add to that, their is probably a decent argument that detection is the least interesting step.

I know at least Questing Beast did some videos talking about traps, and his oppinion was that having a roll or check to detect trap is generally bad for gameplay because their is no player action involved, prefering traps with no hidden elements and more failing if the players don't understand what is presented.

[LudicSavant]

To add to that, their is probably a decent argument that detection is the least interesting step.

I know at least Questing Beast did some videos talking about traps, and his oppinion was that having a roll or check to detect trap is generally bad for gameplay because their is no player action involved, prefering traps with no hidden elements and more failing if the players don't understand what ispresented.

Yeah, there's a lot of obstacles where detecting them really doesn't solve the problem. False Appearance is a classic example.

[Segev]

Yeah, there's a lot of obstacles where detecting them really doesn't solve the problem. False Appearance is a classic example.

It's worth noting that False Appearance also is not penetrated by perception. It's absolute. So even if your players are convinced that that gargoyle-shaped statue is actually a gargoyle, they don't know for sure no matter how high their perception. Of course, nothing stops them from attacking it to find out. This is where halls lined with such statues, most or all of which are just statues, are useful!

[LudicSavant]

It's worth noting that False Appearance also is not penetrated by perception.

Yes, it's a classic example of something that's not solved by perception.

It's not absolute -- there's ways to detect monsters concealed by False Appearance. Perception just isn't one of them.