The concept of a “passive Perception score,” although somewhat derived from the Take 10 mechanics of 3^rd Edition, was introduced in the 4^th Edition of D&D. The basic concept is that, instead of having the PCs make Perception checks to see whether or not they spotted something, you pre-calculate a static value (10 + their Perception modifier) and simply compare that score to the DC of the Perception task.

Frankly speaking, it’s a bad mechanic that got even worse in 5^th Edition.

First, there’s no variation in result: PC A will always have a higher score than PC B, so PC B will never spot something PC A doesn’t see. This not only eliminates novelty (which can be valuable in its own right), the lack of variety is also inherently stultifying, making it more difficult for different players to take the lead in reacting to different situations.

Second, it combines poorly with bounded accuracy. The basic concept of bounded accuracy is that you push all the DCs into a small range with the expectation that the d20 roll will be relevant and then remove the d20 roll. The Dungeon Master’s Guide, for example, says “if the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine.” But any 1^st-level group, of course, will almost certainly have multiple PCs with a passive Perception score higher than 15.

Which brings us to the biggest problem, in my opinion, which is that in actual practice the whole thing is a charade. You, as the DM, will very quickly learn what the highest passive Perception score in your group is, which means that whenever you’re deciding what the Perception DC is, you’re really just deciding whether or not the DC is going to be higher or lower than the party’s score.

There’s nothing wrong with GM fiat, per se, but the passive Perception score ends up being this weird fake mechanic with a bunch of extra bookkeeping trying to mask what’s really happening. “No, no,” says the DM. “I didn’t arbitrarily decide you didn’t spot the trap! I decided that the DC to spot the trap was higher than your passive Perception score! Totally different!”

So, personally, I recommend that you don’t use D&D’s passive Perception scores. For a better way of handling perception-type checks — which can be used in a wide variety of RPGs, not just D&D — I recommend checking out Rulings in Practice: Perception-Type Tests.

With that being said, if you nevertheless want or for some reason need to use D&D’s passive Perception score, there are some best practices you can follow to do so to best effect.

MAKE A LIST

Ask your players for their passive Perception scores, write them down on a Post-It note, and attach that Post-It note to your GM screen.

This may seem obvious, but I’ve played in any number of games where the DM was constantly asking us what our passive Perception scores were, and there’s absolutely no reason for it. Collect them once, then use them instantly every time. Both the pace and the focus of play will be immensely improved.

Random Tip: While you’re doing this, go ahead and grab the PCs’ armor class, too.

Watch out for changing Perception scores. Some spells, abilities, and magic items may modify a character’s Perception score, grant them advantage on Perception checks, or the like. You’ll need to make sure to track this. (And, of course, you’ll also want to make sure you update your list when the PCs level up.)

In some groups, you may also discover that your players challenge surprise. When players see the mechanics being invoked, even if that’s just the DM asking for their passive Perception score, they’ll accept the outcome; but if it’s all being done invisibly behind your DM screen, some players will worry that they’re getting screwed over. “Did you remember that I have advantage on Perception checks in forests?”

The best way to handle this is to (a) make sure you’re getting it right, (b) reassure them, and (c) if it continues, have a transparent discussion about why you’re handling the passive Perception checks this way and how you’re doing it. You might find it effective to make a point of confirming their passive Perception scores at the beginning of each session, and you can also ask them to notify you whenever their passive Perception scores shift during a session.

(The next technique can also help with this, since they’ll at least hear the mechanics being invoked.)

REMEMBER DISADVANTAGE

One of the most overlooked rules in D&D 5^th Edition is that characters who are “distracted” are supposed to be at disadvantage on their passive Perception checks, which means that they should suffer a -5 penalty on their passive Perception score.

I recommend applying this aggressively in any situation where the PCs are not explicitly keeping watch and/or paranoid. Creeping down a dungeon passageway in hostile territory? On watch at night? You specifically said you were going to keep a lookout on the door while Arathorn ransacks the room? Great, you get your normal passive Perception score.

Arathorn, though? Apply the penalty. Also apply the penalty if the PCs are just walking down the street in a friendly city without any expectation of trouble or hanging out at a tavern with their friends.

In practice, this blunts the problems with how bounded accuracy interacts with passive Perception scores. It also encourages the players to be more specific with how they interact with and observe the world, instead of just coasting through the game on auto-pilot. (This is particularly important in making traps work right, for example.)

ROLL THE DC

You can sidestep the system being a camouflage of busywork for DM fiat by assigning a modifier and then rolling the DC of the check instead of assigning a static DC.

Basically take the DC you would have assigned (10 = Easy, 15 = Moderate, 20 = Hard, etc.), subtract 10, and use the remainder as the modifier for a d20 roll. (You can do the same thing with prewritten adventures that list a static DC.)

This is what you already do with Stealth checks, of course, but it may feel weird doing it for something like noticing the rune faintly inscribed on the ceiling.

The point, of course, is to reintroduce variability to the check so that you can make non-fiat rulings. (For example, I can decide the run is moderately difficulty to notice with a +5 check; but I don’t know whether or not the rogue with a passive Perception score of 18 will spot the rune or not.) But you nevertheless retain most of the advantages of using passive Perception scores, because you’re not making a roll for every individual PC (which would be time-consuming and also have a drastic impact on the probability of the check.)

RANDOM SPOTTING PRIORITY

Once the Wisdom (Perception) DC is set, you’ll know which PCs, if any, successfully noticed whatever the target of the check was.

If there are multiple PCs who succeeded on the check, randomly determine which of them noticed the target first.

This is a simple way of systemically spreading the “spotting something” spotlight around, giving different players an opportunity to call attention to a cool tapestry, sneak a gem into their pocket, or determine what the group’s reaction to approaching goblins might be.

Is this “fair” to the PC with the highest passive Perception score? Frankly, yes. Note that they’ll still get spotting priority more often than anyone else in the group, because (a) they’ll participate in more spotting priority checks than other PCs and (b) there will be some checks where they’re the only PC to succeed.

Alternative: If it’s a combat situation — or a potential combat situation — you might use Initiative checks to determine first spotter.

VARIANT: LET PERCEPTION RIDE

An alternative method for passive Perception scores would be to have the group roll Perception checks at the beginning of a delve, raid, or session and then let the result ride as their passive score for the run.

This means that for some sequences the rogue will have the highest passive Perception score and in other sequences it will be the barbarian or the wizard. It will move around the table, creating variable outcomes over time.

VARIANT: TAKE 0

To lessen the importance of passive Perception without completely eliminating it, base passive Perception scores on Take 0 instead of Take 10. In other words, a character’s passive Perception score is simply equal to their Wisdom (Perception) modifier.

Particularly at Tier 1, this will mean that passive Perception may not even succeed at Easy tasks. That’s okay, because in surprise situations you’ll be calling for a rolled Wisdom (Perception) check in these cases. It will also encourage the players to make active Perception checks, engaging with the environment to find stuff instead of just relying on their passive scores to take care of it.

In practice, when using this variant, you’re really just keeping a list of the lowest possible Wisdom (Perception) check possible, so you know the threshold at which it becomes pointless to roll the dice and you should just tell the PCs what they see.

Remember, of course, that this also applies to the NPCs.

Alternative: Base passive Perception on Take 5, so the score is 5 + the character’s modifier. Combined with consistently applying disadvantage for distraction, this will often create a baseline similar to Take 0, but with passive Perception still having a bit more of a meaningful role in the system.

Astonishingly dense arcane runes cover every side of incredibly complex origami structures. In some places, translucent onion-skin has been layered over the paper, creating sections in which the runes are overlaid with each other, forming inscrutable and ever-shifting patterns.

A proper understanding of the origami folds — and the multiple orientations in which they are designed to be read — allows one to begin unraveling a truly innovative method by which glyphs of warding can be interwoven.

INTERWOVEN GLYPHS

Interweaving glyphs of warding requires an Intelligence (Arcana) check (DC 10 + the total level of the interwoven glyphs). Interwoven glyphs of warding are:

• Simultaneously triggered.
• More difficult to find and disable, increasing the DC of the checks to do so by +2 per additional glyph.
• More difficult to identify, requiring an Intelligence (Arcana) check of DC 10 + the total level of the interwoven glyphs of warding.

Each glyph of warding must be cast in sequence and without interruption. If the sequence is interrupted or the Spellcraft check fails, the glyph of warding spells are all lost to no effect.

The total level of glyphs is based on the level of the casting of glyphs of warding for explosive runes, or the level of the stored spell for spell glyphs.

ADVANCED SYMBOLOGY

Among the origami notes describing the interweaving of glyphs of warding, there is also an incomplete treatise analyzing how symbol spells could also be interwoven (both with each other and with glyphs of warding).

If completed, this advanced methodology would also raise the saving throw DC of all interwoven glyphs or symbols to the highest DC among all of the interwoven glyphs and symbols.

However, because the research has never been completed, a PC interested in these techniques would need to finish perfecting them as a downtime research project. (See p. 338 of So You Want To Be a Game Master.)

This material is covered by the Open Game License.

Phandalin and the surrounding region of the Sword Coast have featured in three D&D adventures:

• Lost Mine of Phandelver
• Dragon of Icespire Peak
• The Shattered Obelisk

Each of these adventures have featured a slightly different versions of a region map drawn by Mike Schley. At the moment, I’m specifically interested in the various versions of the map designed to be given to the players as a handout. The best of these is probably the poster map found in the D&D Essentials Kits (to accompany Dragons of Icespire Peak), but all of them are fatally flawed as player maps because they spoil the adventures — not only showing locations that the PCs don’t know about yet (“Boy, I wonder if Icespire Peak — the only mountain labeled on this map — will be significant at some point…”), but frequently showing hidden sites that the PCs are supposed to go on adventures in order to locate.

NPC: But where could Cragmaw Castle be?! Nobody knows!!!!

Players: It’s right there.

NPC: If only someone could find it!

Players: It’s right there.

NPC: It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma, baked into a souffle!

So I wanted a version of the map I could actually give to the players. I also, for purely personal reasons, wanted a version of the map without the hex grid.

Fortunately, you can purchase a digital map pack from Mike Schley that includes multiple versions of the map, including one with no grid and no labels.

The only catch, though, is that I don’t want NO labels… I want some labels: The roads. The major cities. And so forth. And I suspect I’m not the only one.

So what I’ve done is to create label layers that will let you control exactly which labels you want on your version of the map:

• Roads & Cities
• Regions
• Mountains
• Thundertree & Helm’s Hold
• All Layers

To use these labels:

1. Download the files below.
2. Buy the map pack from Mike Schley (also linked below).
3. Load the no-label map from the map pack into any graphic program that allows you to easily add and edit layers. Then add the PNG layers you want.

The layer files should line up perfectly with the map and with each other.

Alternatively, I’ve included a PSD file that you can use with Photoshop. (You’ll still need to add the no-label map from Schley as the background layer.)

Download the Layer Pack

Download the PSD File

Buy Mike Schley’s Map Pack

ALTERNATIVE MAPS
Phandalin Hexmap
Reveilled’s Phandalin Player Map

I’ll be appearing on the Wandering DMs livestream today at 12pm CT to discuss Adapting Content for D&D and So You Want To Be a Game Master. If you don’t see this until later, that’s okay! The podcast is archived on Youtube and you can watch any time!

Dan & Paul host Justin Alexandrian, creator of the Alexandrian and the new book So You Want to be a Game Master, for an in-depth chat on the best ways to adapt content to and from D&D and other RPGs. What tricks work well? What things should you avoid? And what content is simply incompatible with other systems?

Watch Now!

You can find links to my previous appearance on Wandering DMs at the Alexandrian Auxiliary.

I’ve previously reviewed the D&D Starter Set (2014) and the D&D Essentials Kit (2019). Now we turn our eyes to the third major introductory boxed set for D&D 5^th Edition: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle.

In 2022, the original D&D Starter Set was discontinued and replaced with D&D Starter Set: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle. I suspect that, as I discussed in my review of the Essentials Kit, the primary motivation for this change remained the desire to create a new product that could be marketed to big box stores which had stopped carrying the original Starter Set: As we’ll see, very little is altered or upgraded here, and the only substantive change — replacing the Lost Mine of Phandelver adventure with the new adventure Dragons of Stormwreck Isle — could hardly be motivated by a lack of faith in the original adventure material, since plans were simultaneously made to repurpose the adventure as the opening act of the Phandelver and Below: The Shattered Obelisk campaign book.

So Wizards of the Coast’s intention seems to have been a direct swap from one Starter Set to another with as little change as possible. The first question is: Was this a good idea?

Well… probably not. The Essentials Kit had already featured a bunch of substantive improvements in the 5^th Edition introductory boxed sets, all of which Stormwreck Isle rolls back:

• The dice set is incomplete.
• The booklets lack cardstock covers.
• Character creation is once again missing.

So rather than continuing to refine and improve the introductory box format, Dragons of Stormwreck Isle is, prima facie, a big step backwards in a way that feels like a completely unforced error.

Unfortunately, things don’t improve once you start reading the booklets.

RULEBOOK v. RULEBOOK

In terms of basic mechanics, the Starter Set Rulebook in Dragons of Stormwreck Isle is largely identical to the one found in the original Starter Set.

A closer comparison, however, reveals that a bunch of material has been removed. Some of this is just weird, like missing gold piece costs for armor (but not for weapons). But there’s also some pretty deep cuts, like the section on adventuring gear being gutted to a tiny fraction of the equipment originally covered.

More immediately obvious is that only a fraction of the spell list from the original Starter Set has been included. Similarly, over in the adventure booklet, the bestiary has also been reduced to a fraction of its original size (and the selection is far more limited in its breadth).

I heaped praise on the original Starter Set for not being designed as a disposable product: It felt like a complete game, and (with the exception of character creation being missing) could easily support a DM who wanted to run multiple Tier 1 campaigns.

The net effect of all these degradations to the rulebook, unfortunately, means that this is NOT true of Dragons of Stormwreck Isle. This is a boxed set you use once and then throw away. It’s an advertisement for a fully functional game, and you pay for the “privilege” of being told that you should have bought a different product.

So the question of whether or not Dragons of Stormwreck Isle is, in fact, a product that you should buy – whether for yourself or someone else interested in playing D&D for the first time — is going to almost entirely come down to how good the included adventure is.

DRAGONS OF STORMWRECK ISLE

SPOILERS FOR THE ADVENTURE!

Something else missing from Dragons of Stormwreck Isle are the sidekick rules from the Essentials Kit, which were super useful because they allowed first time DMs to start running the game even if they could only find one or two people interested in joining them.

Stormwreck Isle tries to plaster over this lack by simply suggesting that players could play multiple pregen characters. This isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but it does lead to some truly terrible advice:

A player with two characters should treat one of them as their main character and the other as a sidekick, there to help out but probably not engaging in a lot of dialogue.

If you kinda squint and try to give them the benefit of the doubt, you can see the potentially good intention of making sure that a new player doesn’t feel overwhelmed trying to roleplay multiple characters. But what they actually told the player to do is dissociate from the game world and treat characters as if they were game piece tokens.

Which is… not great.

In fact, there’s a lot of “not great” when it comes to how Dragons of Stormwreck Isle instructs both players and GMs in how to play the game. One of the things that made Lost Mine of Phandelver a great introductory adventure was that it was an excellent exemplar of what D&D adventures should look like and how they should be run. Sadly, this is not the case with Stormwreck Isle.

Instead you get bad boxed text that, for example, repeatedly takes control of the PCs away from the players and turns them into puppets.

The DM is instructed to have the world level up with the PCs. (Oof.)

There’s a section of the adventure where the PCs have the opportunity to tame a trained owlbear that’s lost its owners and gone slightly feral. This is really cool! … but then the adventure says, “Oh, no! The PCs aren’t allowed to have cool things!” and goes to great lengths to erect contrived barriers to prevent the PCs from actually using their trained owlbear.

These are all terrible lessons to be teaching new DMs by both instruction and example.

Is this intentional?

Mostly not, I suspect. The adventure is simply sloppy, careless, and amateurish in its execution, and therefore sets a sloppy, careless, and bad example for the DM.

The basic structure of Dragons of Stormwreck Isle breaks down like this:

• The pregen PCs have personal goals that bring them to Stormwreck Isle, with all of them arriving on the same boat.
• They gain the patronage of Runara, a bronze dragon (appearing in human form) who runs the local monastery.
• They’re given the option of going on one of two different adventures.
• After going on the first adventure, they go on the second.
• With both adventures complete, Runara reveals herself and sends the PCs to the Clifftop Observatory, where her former apprentice (also a dragon) has turned to evil and is doing an evil ritual that the PCs need to stop.

This lacks the ambition of Lost Mine of Phandelver and feels fairly anemic by comparison, but is mostly inoffensive.

Notably, however, the reason Runara doesn’t send the PCs immediately to Clifftop Observatory (despite potentially apocalyptic stakes) is because they aren’t experienced enough and will likely die. Which is true.

… and yet one of the pregens has the personal goal of explicitly checking out the Clifftop Observatory. Which is trivial to locate and which they can just walk to at any time. The personal goal is a path straight to death.

This is just bad design. It’s setting a new DM up to fail.

The other major problem I have with Dragons of Stormwreck Isle is that everything is plagued by a severe lack of basic internal logic.

To take just one example, the island has been plagued for forty years by the zombies of dead sailors who have drowned when their ships have wrecked on the reefs north of the island.

It turns out the source of the problem is a cursed locket onboard the wreck of the Compass Rose. The zombie problem can be solved if the PCs take the locket to a gravesite on the island where the lover of the young girl who cursed the locket is buried. The PCs will know to do this because they’ll find the captain’s log of the Compass Rose in the wreck, the final entry of which describes the creation of the cursed locket, the zombies rising from the dead, and then concludes with:

I am securing her talisman with this book in my chest, in the hope that someone who comes after us may end this nightmare by bringing Altheia’s talisman to her husband.

So, first off: Why not just take the locket yourself? “Lemme just write this log entry, carefully lock it up, and hope somebody stops by!”

But more importantly, Runara sends them on this quest knowing the Compass Rose is the source of the zombie problem: If the PCs ask questions about the zombies, she tells them the ship is the source of the problem and sends them to check it out.

Remember: Runara is a bronze dragon. Which means she could have easily dealt with the zombies on the Compass Rose and solved the problem literally decades ago.

Instead she’s just sat around and watched people die for no reason.

THE VERDICT

Although it superficially looks similar to the original Starter Set at first glance, Dragons of Stormwreck Isle is a deeply crippled product. The bottom line is that, for as long as it remains available, the Essentials Kit is a massively superior introductory boxed set and it’s definitely the one you should buy.

This mostly leaves the question of whether or not you should buy Dragons of Stormwreck Isle in addition to the Essentials Kit, the core rulebooks, or whatever other method you choose as your introduction to D&D 5^th Edition. And that question, in my opinion, is going to depend almost entirely on the quality and utility of the adventure.

As a starter set adventure, of course, Dragons of Stormwreck Isle naturally invites direct comparison to Lost Mine of Phandelver. And, as I wrote in my review of the original D&D Starter Set, I think Lost Mine of Phandelver is the best introductory adventure D&D has ever had. So, first, a regression to the mean is perhaps inevitable. And, second, it’s pretty easy, in a direct comparison between the two, for us to be unduly harsh on Stormwreck Isle’s inadequacies.

Standing entirely on its own merits, therefore, how good is Dragons of Stormwreck Isle?

And I think the best answer I can give to that question is:

Mediocre.

The functional, but not daring, set pieces of the adventure are strung together with fraying filament, but the filament is never so rotten that it actually breaks. Its flaws, although myriad, never completely ruin the experience. This will never be a great adventure. It will rarely be a terrible one.

Overall, however, this leaves the D&D Starter Set: Dragons of Stormwreck Isle in rather rough shape: A crippleware rulebook wedded to a mediocre adventure, packaged with a barely adequate set of dice.

Perhaps the best case scenario we can hope for at this point is that, with the release of 2024 D&D (whatever we end up calling it), Wizards gets the opportunity for a do-over and will produce a new Starter Set that capitalizes on its previous successes instead of diminishing them.

Grade: C-

Rulebook Designer: Jeremy Crawford
Lead Adventure Designer: James Wyatt
Additional Adventure Design: Sydney Adams, Makenzie De Armas, Dan Dillon

Publisher: Wizards of the Coast
Cost: $19.95
Page Count: 80

Buy Now!