Clarification and discussion of passive perception. Am I missing something?

[originalginger]

Imagine for a moment this scenario. Frank the Fighter, Wanda the Wizard, and Roger the Rogue are exploring a dungeon together. They all three have a passive perception of 13.

They enter a chamber of a catacomb from the south. There are three exits - to the east, a large a arched door with arcane ruins on it, apparently scratched into the door with a gemstone. To the north an open doorway with a pressure-plate trap designed to imitate the appearance of a raised threshold. To the west, a large portcullis with tell-tale marks that indicate someone struck the bars with a war hammer. To notice these details, you have to have to pass a perception roll of 12.

Rules as written (as I understand them) - Everyone notices all of these things, fighter, wizard, and rogue alike notice runes, trap, and battle damage alike. If you make the DC on these details a 14 instead of 12 nobody notices anything. This makes NO sense to me.

This seems more plausible -

The fighter might notice that the gate has damage from a weapon, he sees the tell tale marks of how a hammer would damage the gate, the apparent angle of attack, etc. The wizard and rogue just see an old worn down and dented up gate.

The wizard will instantly recognize the runes on the door as significant. Even if he does not know exactly what the runes say, he can still observe the depth and shape of the scratches, recognize a common symbol among unfamiliar ones, etc. The fighter and rouge just see a scratched up door.

The rogue sees the tell tale signs of a set trap. Newly laid wood that does not match the frame, tiny holes in the door frame that will release gas or darts, etc. The Fighter and wizard just see a mismatched repair job on the door frame.

Does the system account for this somehow? Am I misunderstanding something entirely?

[Suichimo]

You're missing that somethings shouldn't be subject to skill checks. Upon coming in to the room, the Wizard notices the runed arch. The skill check would tell you what carved the runes. The Fighter would notice the battle worn gate. The check would tell you what made the scars. All three would notice the last door, because you need to be hyper paranoid to survive D&D, and would logically deduce that each door is trapped.

[FadeAssassin]

Does the system account for this somehow? Am I misunderstanding something entirely?

I don't beleive you are misinterpreting it. By RAW Passive perception works as Shown in your first Example.

That being said, I think your second Sceneerio works better for roleplay reasons.

[Slipperychicken]

Here's my interpretation, based on the following passages.


When you hide, there’s a chance
someone will notice you even if they aren't searching.To
determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM
compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s
passive Wisdom (Perception) score, [...]



Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores o f the
characters to determine whether anyone in the group
notices a hidden threat.


Use the characters'
passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine
whether anyone in the party notices a secret door
without actively searching for it. Characters can also
find a secret door by actively searching the location
where the door is hidden and succeeding on a Wisdom
CHAPTER 5 j ADVENTURE ENVfRONMENTS
104
(Perception) check. To set an appropriate DC for the
check, see chapter 8.


A character
actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom
(Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can
also compare the DC to detect the trap with each
character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to
determine whether anyone in the party notices the
trap in passing.

Basically, if the player doesn't declare his intention to look for details like that, then the DM compares the PC's passive perception score to the DC. If the player declares that he's actively looking, then you can make him roll for it. EDIT: Also, if the DM is fed up with his players interrupting his narration with reminders that their characters are, indeed, still actively and diligently scrutinizing their surroundings, then he can tell his players to shut their mouths because he is using their passive scores instead.

[jaydubs]

Well, there's the perception check to notice the particular something. But in some cases you can add a second skill check to correctly interpret it. More to the point though, try to get out of the mindset of X class is always the best at Y thing. Instead, look at what skills the individual characters actually invested in. It's entirely feasible that the rogue isn't the best trapfinder, the fighter doesn't know the most about weapon marks, and the wizard doesn't know the most about magical runes. For instance:

Let's say the perception check to notice runes and the scratch marks was 12. And the perception check to notice the trap was 14.

First, the party comes across the trap. Our rogue is actually an easily distracted fellow, not prone to notice such things. But, our fighter used to be a scout in the army, reflected in the fact that he has a perception of 14 while the rogue and wizard have perceptions of 12. Our fighter points out the trap, and the party avoids it.

Next, all 3 notice the strange runes scratched into the door. But our wizard friend was far too busy doing other things in wizard school, and didn't really study his ancient arcana (not proficient in knowledge (arcana)). Luckily, our rogue is actually an arcane trickster, and he read through all the ancient arcane tomes he could get his hands on. He deciphers the runes on the door.

Lastly, all 3 notice the scratches on the portcullis. But the scratches are just a bit too random for our fighter to understand - it's not like they teach crime scene investigation in the army. But our wizard didn't just sleep instead of studying during wizard school - he part-timed with the city guard to pay his tuition (he has proficiency in investigation). He tells the rest of the party that someone was trying to break the portcullis with a war hammer.

We can have much more interesting and diverse characters by just dropping the traditional X does Y class routine.

[originalginger]

Okay. As a follow-up: A rogue is in "full scouting mode" - she has taken point, is moving at half speed, attempting to be quite, and is observing the the path ahead watching for any signs of traps, looking for things that look out of place, etc. Basically gathering recon, noting anything that catches her eye as unusual in order to then report back to the party to confer on how to proceed.

Does this mean the player is required to do sneak and perception rolls every turn? Does this just use the passive perception? Is it Passive perception plus a bonus to the modifier?

[Suichimo]

Okay. As a follow-up: A rogue is in "full scouting mode" - she has taken point, is moving at half speed, attempting to be quite, and is observing the the path ahead watching for any signs of traps, looking for things that look out of place, etc. Basically gathering recon, noting anything that catches her eye as unusual in order to then report back to the party to confer on how to proceed.

Does this mean the player is required to do sneak and perception rolls every turn? Does this just use the passive perception? Is it Passive perception plus a bonus to the modifier?

Should be one sneak check, enemies have to beat that with their perception, and many perception rolls from the Rogue.

[Slipperychicken]

Does this mean the player is required to do sneak and perception rolls every turn? Does this just use the passive perception? Is it Passive perception plus a bonus to the modifier?

The game seems to assume that passive perception scores are used for perception, but not for stealth (since asking for perception rolls will often alert players that their characters have something to look out for). A DM could do either, depending on which seems most expedient. If all those rolls seem cumbersome, then he can elect to use passive scores instead. In this case, I would suggest using passive scores to cut down on the number of rolls needed.

If the DM has chosen to use passive scores, and the rogue would have advantage on her checks, that would add +5 to the rogue's passive score.

[originalginger]

More to the point though, try to get out of the mindset of X class is always the best at Y thing. Instead, look at what skills the individual characters actually invested in...

We can have much more interesting and diverse characters by just dropping the traditional X does Y class routine.

Actually, my rogue plays against type in other was. She is charitable, gives more than their fair share of gold and spoils, and keeps less for herself. She won't steal from allies, any type of working class NPC. She is not that kind of thief.

But I did build her to be good at scouting, her primary job being to take point, act as a scout, disable traps, unlock doors, and covertly take out sentries with her bow to clear a path. Then she defers to those with stronger backs and heavier armor in battle, taking a backseat to the melee fighters, and making sneak attacks at range with her bow.

There was a rules disagreement about whether I should have gotten a roll to detect traps while scouting before my character gave the go ahead and my allies subsequently blundered into a trap and were injured.

To Slipperychicken "
If the DM has chosen to use passive scores, and the rogue would have advantage on her checks, that would add +5 to the rogue's passive score."

What determines if she has advantage? Could I just tell my DM I take point and go into "scouting mode" and so long as I don't get spotted and pass all the rolls I am asked to make, get advantage on my passive perception? I would generally be moving at half speed, and be maybe 50 - 60 feet (2 turns) ahead of the party, moving from intersection to intersection, checking each room than waving the party on if I deem it safe. (the logic being that if I have to turn tail and run, I can use my next move action to fall back, while the party moves ahead, putting us more or less back together for combat within one turn.)

[Demonic Spoon]

There are only two places in the rules (that I have seen, anyway) where passive scores are explicitly stated to be used over active scores - that is with Stealth and detecting secret doors. Everywhere else, passive skill checks are considered to be an optional DM tool. I recall someone who played the official adventures saying that in those, there were passive perception DCs to see certain things, but they were substantially higher than the active perception check to see those same things.

You can say that any perception check can be replaced with passive perception, but it is by no means RAW (unless by "RAW" you mean 'the rules give the DM infinite freedom, and one of the things he could do is this').

[Myzz]

also of note, preception just lets you notice it... not make deductions about what you see. That being investigation


Imagine for a moment this scenario. Frank the Fighter, Wanda the Wizard, and Roger the Rogue are exploring a dungeon together. They all three have a passive perception of 13.

They enter a chamber of a catacomb from the south. There are three exits - to the east, a large a arched door with arcane ruins on it, apparently scratched into the door with a gemstone.<requires a deduction> To the north an open doorway with a pressure-plate trap designed to imitate the appearance of a raised threshold <again making a deduction about the raised threshold>. To the west, a large portcullis with tell-tale marks that indicate someone struck the bars with a war hammer. (To notice these details, you have to have to pass a perception roll of 12.)

Rules as written (as I understand them) - Everyone notices all of these things, fighter, wizard, and rogue alike notice runes, trap, Raised Threshold and battle damage alike. If you make the DC on these details a 14 instead of 12 nobody notices anything. This makes NO sense to me.

You can let players know what they see, but I like to shy away from making deductions and guesses for them. If you use passive investigation however, now you would clue them in to the stuff I struck out. You can use the same DC for the passive invesitigation check, but only the Rogue and maybe Wiz would likely be at 12+ since INT is usually considered a dump stat...

of course that is way more involved than just using the passive perception. Using the passive perception to give them all that info would streamline the game, someone is likely to have a decent WIS