[4e] Passive or Active?

[Hashmir]

As a (brand-new) DM, I've been a little uneasy about using passive and active Perception and Insight checks. I've been having a little trouble trying to express my confusion in words, but I'll give it a shot.

See, the PHB and the DMG suggest that most checks will use the player's passive scores. But it seems to me that if any of the players have Perception and Insight mods of 10+, then this reduces the potential for surprise -- after all, if the elf has a perception of +13, she'll always notice that the statue is unstable, and that the wyrmpriest is holding some ropes that lead to the wall.

Now, I don't think the system is broken; I think that I don't know how to use it properly. What am I missing? Do the DCs end up making this a nonissue? Is there ever a time when a "passive" check warrants a roll (like noticing traps)? Should I just make players roll if their passives won't cut it?

What do you guys do?

[jmbrown]

Do the DCs end up making this a nonissue?

Yes.

Given the incremental nature of DCs, only specialists will be able to outwit specialists. Passive perception is only 10 + skill so a monster with the same skill points in stealth has a 50% chance to beat the passive check.

[Hashmir]

Yes.

Given the incremental nature of DCs, only specialists will be able to outwit specialists. Passive perception is only 10 + skill so a monster with the same skill points in stealth has a 50% chance to beat the passive check.

That makes sense for opposed checks, but what about set checks to "notice" things? For instance, in Dungeon Delve and other WotC material, there are descriptions for battles that tell you what PCs notice based on their checks. The DCs are generally 10 to 17, for the 1st-level ones.

Are those designed to reward players for having high Perceptions? Is it standard practice to have the party roll if their passives don't cut it? (That's what I do, at least.)

[Nightson]

Are those designed to reward players for having high Perceptions? Is it standard practice to have the party roll if their passives don't cut it? (That's what I do, at least.)

Yep and nope at least for me. Generally passive checks mean I know if a PC is going to see something or not. I also roll perception and insight checks in secret so players can't metagame to know whether they likely succeeded or not. But that last one is probably more then most DMs do.

[jmbrown]

Are those designed to reward players for having high Perceptions? Is it standard practice to have the party roll if their passives don't cut it? (That's what I do, at least.)

Both yes and no. The DMG page 42 gives DCs based on level. DC 15 for a level 1 character is moderate meaning a trained character will have little problems. If you feel it's still too easy, then bump up the DCs by 2 points until you find a sweet spot.

Don't ever roll for the party in the case of passive skills. Passive represents what they're likely to see based on average activity. If they're actually actively looking for something, they'll roll themselves. Having the DM roll in secret for passive skills is basically giving players a 2nd chance to notice something they're otherwise not looking for.

[Gralamin]

That makes sense for opposed checks, but what about set checks to "notice" things? For instance, in Dungeon Delve and other WotC material, there are descriptions for battles that tell you what PCs notice based on their checks. The DCs are generally 10 to 17, for the 1st-level ones.
Those probably come from Page 42 of your DMG.


Are those designed to reward players for having high Perceptions? Is it standard practice to have the party roll if their passives don't cut it? (That's what I do, at least.)
Yes, and no. Tell a player they don't notice anything more with a quick glance. Then they can spend actions / time actually looking after the battle if they want.


Both yes and no. The DMG page 42 gives DCs based on level. DC 15 for a level 1 character is moderate meaning a trained character will have little problems. If you feel it's still too easy, then bump up the DCs by 2 points until you find a sweet spot.
DC 15 has been the hard value for a long time (See Errata)

[Gametime]

The main reason is twofold.

1) Reducing time.
2) Not letting the players know there's something to find.

I like passive perception, but it's a personal thing. #1 isn't a huge deal, and #2 can be dealt with in other ways. It DOES usually indicate to players, if you ask for a perception roll, that something important's afoot.

You can roll for the players (which annoys some players, but most understand the need for the DM to not give something away out of character). Or you can ask for perception checks all the time, whether there's something important to find or not. Personally, I prefer the former method because the latter gets really annoying (especially when there's usually no payoff), but your mileage may vary.

[Mando Knight]

DC 15 has been the hard value for a long time (See Errata)

Note that a character using a trained skill with the Main Stat bonus will almost always beat this value, especially if it's not an ACP skill and they've got a racial/background bonus to it. (An 18 Cha Dragonborn has +11 to trained Intimidate at level 1, for example. +13 with a background synergy.)

[Hashmir]

Thanks for the advice; it makes a lot more sense now.

As for not letting players know there's something to see, I like the "have your players roll three d20s at the beginning" method. Of course, 4e basically supplanted that with passive checks, but it's still nice for initiative and such.

[Asbestos]

Elf with Wisdom as a primary score and trained in Perception. They will never not auto-spot 'level appropriate' fixed DCs, even hard ones. It will also be difficult for monster Stealth checks to beat them.
5 (Trained) + 4 (Stats) + 2 (Racial) = 21 Passive Perception. This character isn't some optimized crazy thing with 20 in their main stat, its just a regular elf! The standard Elf Ranger has something like a 19 Passive Perception. Even a 'hard' DC in the original 'too difficult' tables of the holy page 42 are nothing to these guys. I had a 1st level Elf in my party that could blow past most paragon and some epic DCs for Perception if they dared to roll.

ELVES!

Does anyone have a solution to these using passive perception to prevent their DMs from hiding anything?

[Hashmir]

Yeah, I suspect I've felt a little odd about it precisely because my very first 4e character was an elven ranger, with of course has a natural Perception of +11.

One thing I've considered implementing, if I could find an objective criteria, was something where passive checks tell you where to look, but not what's there. For instance, passive would tell you the kobold is holding something, but you would need to roll to see that it's a rope.

Partially, this is because if one character has an optimized perception check, then the whole campaign might be lacking in proper surprises from traps and such, without artificially inflating the DCs. Of course, this is an appropriate reward for a character who is good at Perception, but it sort of feels like there's nothing to compare that reward to.

I mean, it doesn't exactly feel rewarding when your passive checks shows you everything, because you never see it in action. All you know is that this world isn't very surprising.

[Thajocoth]

The DCs for most things were originally 5 higher. I use the old DCs and lean towards hard checks. The PCs STILL hit almost every DC actively while passives have rarely ever effected anything. If they miss something, it's almost always because they didn't roll which is an extremely rare case.

Additionally, passives are what you get when you "take 10", so in battle or any other situation I wouldn't allow taking 10 in, I don't allow passives.

As a matter of fact, in the last skill challenge I had, the players were hitting super-hard (hard + 5) checks without fail. (They decided to track a dragon by it's scent through sewers days after it had passed... And succeeded a barrage of 4 DC 29 perception checks at level 8. The new DCs list 19 as a hard check for level 8.)

[Asbestos]

Additionally, passives are what you get when you "take 10", so in battle or any other situation I wouldn't allow taking 10 in, I don't allow passives.

Problem is Perception isn't so much a combat skill as a pre-combat skill.

[erikun]

I use passive perception/insight to describe the setting for the players. Dusty floor, walls are cumbling, yada yada, elf can see hole that appears to lead to another room. I certainly don't punish players for having a high perception check, because most likely they have it because they want their character to be perceptive.

I would certainly hate for my high WIS, Insight trained character to be rendered useless simply because my DM suddenly decided that everyone we meet would be vague and unreadable. Heck, the whole reason I trained in the skill was that I would be good at it!

As for making active checks, I (as the DM) roll against passive perception if an NPC is actively doing something to avoid notice. A guard patrolling a wall has a static DC to be noticed from the ground, but a thief sneaking along the same wall would be a roll against passive perception.

The players only roll if they say "I look around" or are actively trying to spot something/detect if someone is lying/etc.

[Thajocoth]

Problem is Perception isn't so much a combat skill as a pre-combat skill.

Combat isn't the only situation for which taking 10 isn't possible. Basically any time adrenaline's flowing... Escaping rising lava? Climbing beyond 15 feet? Bantering with a villain? No taking 10 unless closing your eyes for a few seconds while talking at normal volume and doing a jumping jack couldn't really effect anything.

[Kurald Galain]

after all, if the elf has a perception of +13, she'll always notice that the statue is unstable, and that the wyrmpriest is holding some ropes that lead to the wall.

Yes. The way this works out in most printed modules that I've seen, is that either a party has a perception specialist and they always find everything, or they have no such specialist and never find anything. In some cases the adventure writer got tired of the former and therefore made the DC so high that nobody can see it anyway.

[Artanis]

I always figured the passive scores were intended as a time-saving OOC shortcut, similar to how Take 20 is a time-saving OOC shortcut.

With Take 20, any time a player would say, "I keep rolling until I get a natural 20", you don't bother rolling 20 time, and just give them the same IC effect as if they had done so (since you'll average 20 rolls to get a nat 20, of course). Likewise, with the passive skill scores, it gives them the IC effect of constantly asking for Take 10 checks without having to say it and give results eleventy-three times per room.


...I hope I was coherent with that :smallredface:

[Kurald Galain]

I always figured the passive scores were intended as a shortcut, similar to how Take 20 is.

That is correct.

I had a DM once who rolled for search and spot checks every step. That was very annoying and didn't actually help anyone. In that, taking 10 is an improvement; but it does mean that the DM can tell in advance which traps the party will find and which they won't - so in essence it comes down to fiat: your DM will tell you the location of traps that he wants you to find.

What I do (when needed) is roll ten perception checks for the party rogue and write down the results. Then each time he comes near something he could have spotted, I use the leftmost result from that list and cross it out. Best of both worlds, imho.

[dsmiles]

For me, it depends on the situation.
Example 1:
"The characters are walking down the corridor." (Passive Perception)

Example 2:
"The characters are cautiously advancing down the corridor, checking for anything unusual." (Active Perception)

Same situation, different character actions.

[Yakk]

A high-wisdom (attribute), trained (skill choice), elf (racial bonus) is someone who has invested a lot into perception. They are ridiculously awesome at it.

In general, that elf won't be surprised by mere goblins. In fact, you can use the elves ridiculous perception as a plot hook: feed the elf information that you might otherwise filter through a DM NPC (as you leave, you notice the king's advisor's dagger is coated in something -- make a nature check).

Similarly, someone with insane Arcana is simply going to know when something magical is going on, and can detect magic items with no effort. And someone with insane insight is going to be nearly impossible to fool: NPCs who lie to that PC will give themselves away.

[Indon]

My DM not only does passive checks by the book as described above, but he also runs passive Dungeoneering checks to see who's heard about given monsters.

[Asbestos]

I'm tempted to feed the overly perceptive characters red herrings. Is this too evil?

[dsmiles]

I'm tempted to feed the overly perceptive characters red herrings. Is this too evil?

Not as far as I know. Mwahahahahaha. Some people jump at shadows, some don't.

[Zincorium]

I'm tempted to feed the overly perceptive characters red herrings. Is this too evil?

Depends on what you mean by red herrings. If it's things that are misleading but have a perfectly good explanation, it's fair.

If you're simply giving them bad information, then prepare for the players to get pissed at you.

[DSCrankshaw]

Well, one thing I do is avoid opposed checks. They're too swingy. The active party always rolls, while I use the passive value for the other party. This also means that I use the passive values for skills which aren't usually used that way. For example, if I have an enemy hiding from the PCs, then he makes a Stealth roll against their passive Perceptions. On the other hand, if the PCs are looking for an enemy they suspect is out there, they make Perception rolls against his passive stealth. So whoever spends an action makes the roll, and the other character is passive. I think this system works pretty well.

Now, when it comes to noticing traps and secret doors and the like, I use the passive score with a penalty (usually -5). That way it's still worthwhile for the players to make active checks if they think something might be there that they've missed, and they have a 75% chance of doing better than their passive check. (In early WotC published adventures, where the DC is higher, I use the same method, just subtract 5 from the DC.)

I haven't done this for knowledge checks about monsters and such, partly because I haven't really thought of it, and partly because if players want to know about monsters, I can just tell them to roll the check. Plus, it's a fun randomness factor, "Well, yes, I know all about dragons. I took a class in them. It's just that I happened to doze off during the session on green dragons." I'd probably apply the same rule as above (-5 penalty to passive) to see if they knew something that they wouldn't know they were supposed to roll for.

[dsmiles]

Eh? Passive rolls for detecting traps? NEVER!!!!!MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
PCs must always state that they are checking for traps if they want to check for traps.

[Yakk]

Eh? Passive rolls for detecting traps? NEVER!!!!!MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
PCs must always state that they are checking for traps if they want to check for traps.
I check for traps. I walk forward, checking for tracks every square. I check to see if the walls are illusionary. I roll insight -- is this person telling me a lie? I do an arcana check to detect for magic. I walk 5'. I check for traps. I do an arcana check to detect for magic. I roll insight -- is the wall going to attack me? I walk 5'.

...

No thank you. :)

[Kurald Galain]

No thank you. :)

Precisely.

Some DMs believe that your character won't look at the ceiling (and so forth) unless you explicitly say so. I consider this bad DM'ing (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/words_that_end_in_gry.png) and pretty annoying. Instead, your character looks at the ceiling if he's got a decent perception score, because that's what the perception stat means.

[dsmiles]

As a DM, I don't usually put traps in anything other than doors, chests, etc...
Maybe once or twice in an adventure (spanning 3-4 IRL weeks) will you find a trap in a hallway or in the middle of the room.

[Yakk]

As a DM, I don't usually put traps in anything other than doors, chests, etc...
Maybe once or twice in an adventure (spanning 3-4 IRL weeks) will you find a trap in a hallway or in the middle of the room.
But why doesn't this still encourage them saying "I'm quickly checking for traps" every 5 feet? (I mean, it isn't any fun, which is a good reason not to do it)

I suppose an answer to that is "the DM will proceed to invent an undetectable trap/consequence that goes off if the players spend too much time searching, thus punishing the players, that wouldn't exist if the players didn't choose to spend time searching for traps"?

Passive Perception is supposed to represent that: the ability to notice "hey, there is a trap" without having to explicitly search for it.

Naturally, something like "you take a -5 penalty to passive perception if you aren't going over things slowly". Players can decide if, by default, they go slowly or not. And now you have less need for players to say "I check for traps" every room and at every door (which, to me, seems less than interesting: communication that isn't surprising doesn't carry much information value).

[dsmiles]

To each his (or her) own. My players enjoy the games I put together for them, and that's all that matters to me.

[Yakk]

Sure: and it works. I've played that way, and you can have fun doing it!