Passive vs active perception, again [questionnaire edition]

[Madeiner]

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but still i could not find a definitive answer even by googling quite a bit.
Just to be clear, i'm looking for RAI here, but also try to keep an open eye on the game balance/fun.

I'm going to list a few possibilities, and i ask you guys how you think RAI we should rule it.

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?

Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?

If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?

Some people say that you first check for passive perception; if it's not enough to perceive what you need to perceive, you roll for active perception. In a way, passive perception acts as a floor for your check (you can't ever score less than 10 on the die).
Hower, the manual says: (passive perception) Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again.
It can't clearly be intended as a floor, or the average would not be the 10 on the die.



The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?

If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?

If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?

What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.

Anyone can help shed some light?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Well, I can answer for how I'd rule. I don't know about RAI though...


Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?

Yes.


Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?

Yes.


If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?

Observant does not penalise you for looking, it gives you a bonus when you're not looking. There's a difference. It's a clumsy feat - logically it should give a bonus in both active and passive situations. I suppose they didn't do that because it would be too much power for a single feat.


The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?

Yes.


If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?

Yes. I often prepare dungeons well in advance of the party arriving - or even before the start of a campaign. So I don't know what their perception scores will be. Also, passive perception is not fixed. Maybe they decide to do without light in order to be stealthy, imposing disadvantage on their sight and a -5 to PP.


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function

Active, as before.


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?

It's obviously active. The question is whether you'd let them see the trap. I would not, because they're not looking in the right direction. If they were looking for gold on the ceiling, they would see it.


What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, I think.

I hadn't heard of that. I guess it's a way of reducing the difference between people who do or don't have the Observant feat.

[DanyBallon]

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but still i could not find a definitive answer even by googling quite a bit.
Just to be clear, i'm looking for RAI here, but also try to keep an open eye on the game balance/fun.

I'm going to list a few possibilities, and i ask you guys how you think RAI we should rule it.

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?
Yes


Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?
I'd say they do use active perception check for the first few round, then it become a repetitive task and fall into passe perception, unless something alert them.


If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?

The observant feat is tricky, but could be interpreted as a character not that perceptive, still noting that the birds are all silent out of sudden, etc.


Some people say that you first check for passive perception; if it's not enough to perceive what you need to perceive, you roll for active perception. In a way, passive perception acts as a floor for your check (you can't ever score less than 10 on the die).
Hower, the manual says: (passive perception) Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again.
It can't clearly be intended as a floor, or the average would not be the 10 on the die.

Yet this aspect is still tricky. As a DM, I do sometime use passive score as floor for certain chek, but it depends mostly on the DM


[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?

If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?

This happen only if you design your own adventures, and even then, you might want only a few of your character to find out that trap. This way they may feel important to the party by using a skill they invested into, also, even if you know the perception of your PC before hand, you never know what may happen before, maybe the character that was going to bypass the DC with is passive perception, is down, or suffer from a curse, etc.


If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?

If you decide that you always require active check, then modify observant to boost the skill and not just the passive score.


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function

Same as for the guards on duty, first few round, active, then passive


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?
Active investigation check for finding the gold nuget, and passive perception for the trap on the ceiling. Same goes if someone is actively looking for traps on a door/chest, but don't focus on the room itself.

I won't pretend that I have the right answer, but this is how I would rule passive/active checks

[JellyPooga]

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?
Yes. Bandits at Disadvantage (-5) to their Passive for not paying attention.

Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?
No

If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?
The characters sneaking up on the Guards are the "active" party in this scenario. The Guards aren't on the lookout for anything specific; they're just generally wary. As this is a repetitive use of the skill, they default to Passive Perception, even though they're "actively" guarding.


The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?
No. You only get to find hidden things if you actively search for them. Passive Perception allows you to notice things out of the ordinary, though; in this case, it might reveal an usual dispersion of dust on the floor or an odd looking stone in the wall. This would then allow an active search for traps, which, if it fails would not reveal a trap, just the oddity the players noticed.

If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?
This is why the correct answer to the last question is "no". What would be the point in putting a trap in that the GM knows the PC's will find, outside of extreme douche-baggery?

If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?
See above. In this particular scenario, Observant would help you notice a "detail" (as I call them in my notes) that would alert a PC to the fact that he might want to make an active check.

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Observant feat and its intended function
Observant only helps passive checks. In this case, it would be an active check every so many feet. Observant gives you better awareness of your surroundings, but doesn't help you find things if you're scrutinising every detail anyway.

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?
Are the nuggets hidden? No check required to find them if they aren't. Again, Passive Perception to notice a "detail" on the ceiling, but probably at disadvantage for specifying that they're searching the ground.

What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.
If you're actively looking for something under the bed, it's going to be easier to find it than if you're merely walking past that bed.


Anyone can help shed some light?
Hope I've helped. That's the way I run things, anyway.

[Madeiner]

Thank you guys

As of now, with three posters, i have three different answers to the most important questions :D
For now, we can say for sure that the rules are not clear enough.
Still, i found a lot of insight in your rulings, will have to keep those answers in mind to form a definite ruling for my table.

[Tanarii]

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?no. No stealth check is needed. Per PHB page 183 under other activities, characters who turn their attention to other tasks are not watching for danger, and do not contribute to a groups passive perception checks. What's good for the PCs is good for the Monsters. But I can't see them having absolutely no-one on watch. Now if you'd already taken out the guards they posted some distance away ...


Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?passive. Possibly at disadvantage (-5) if he's bored and not really paying attention.


[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?IMO passive investigation, but most DMs seem to use perception. I understand why, the PHB says so under 'finding a hidden object' on page 178. But to me that entire sidebar just screams out that it should be talking about investigation, not perception. Every time I read it I end up with a headache trying to understand the developer logic.

Passive traps just lying in a hallway have been fairly useless for a while now. I think passive checks started in 3e (maybe it was 4e). Most players I know hailed the end of pointless 'gotcha' traps.


The only time you should ever need to use active perception/investigation is if you're in combat (when actions are a thing) and want to blow your action to roll a die, hoping to get a higher value than the average. You can do this at other times of course, but as a DM I'm likely to rule you 'took 20' to save time.

[JellyPooga]

For now, we can say for sure that the rules are not clear enough.

It's entirely possible that the rules are intentionally open to interpretation. Some people might want to use Passive for everything, to expedite play and "cut to the chase". Others might only use it rarely, or not at all (my last 5ed GM I played under outright said that passive scores don't exist in his game; he didn't like them).

Myself, I distinguish between "active" and "passive" and follow these steps;

1) Is there an "active" skill user?
- If "Yes", go to (2)
- If "No", go to (4)
2) Is there more than one "active" skill user?
- If "Yes", all active users roll opposed
- If "No", go to (3)
3) Is there opposition to the roll?
- If "Yes", determine Passive opposition, roll
- If "No", set DC, roll
4) Is there a reason to check passive scores?
- If "Yes", compare Passive checks against Passive opposition or DC.
- If "No", don't.

[Ninja_Prawn]

It's entirely possible that the rules are intentionally open to interpretation. Some people might want to use Passive for everything, to expedite play and "cut to the chase". Others might only use it rarely, or not at all (my last 5ed GM I played under outright said that passive scores don't exist in his game; he didn't like them).

Yeah. The DM is in charge of the rules. As far as I'm concerned, that's how it should be - what's the point of having a DM if a robot could do the job? That's what video games are for.

[Tanarii]

Myself, I distinguish between "active" and "passive" and follow these steps;I like that. I assume that means you don't use Passive perception or investigation for traps and hidden objects?

[JellyPooga]

I like that. I assume that means you don't use Passive perception or investigation for traps and hidden objects?

As a rule, no I don't. In certain cases, I might allow a Passive Perception to notice something that isn't particularly well hidden (like the corner of a note sticking out from beneath a rug), or if someone has particularly high Passive Perception they might notice a "detail" that could prompt them to make an active check, but if you want to look for something you need to look.

IMO, Investigation should never be used passively; by it's nature it's an "active" skill. Either you're investigating or you're not; you can't investigate out of the corner of your eye or happen to catch some investigating as you pass by a conversation!

[Ninja_Prawn]

IMO, Investigation should never be used passively; by it's nature it's an "active" skill. Either you're investigating or you're not; you can't investigate out of the corner of your eye or happen to catch some investigating as you pass by a conversation!

Counter-example:

"I spend all day reading books in the library, hoping to find a clue to this mystery."

[Theodoxus]

I like passive skills in general - what I find frustrating happens in the game I'm currently playing. The players have PP scores between 12 and 15, except for my rogue, who has a 19 (16 Wisdom and Expertise for the win!). This means I'm the only one seeing things most of the time. I'd suspect that's true for most tables - one character is getting all the notes, disseminating information and hogging table time while the less observant are twiddling their thumbs. More often than not, this creates metagame issues, where players jump in before their characters are notified. This is a slippery slope situation - generally a game starts off ok, with players being respectful, but as it becomes obvious that I'm the only one catching clues, they want to have more impact on the game.

Outside of multiclassing to Rogue or grabbing Observant, low PP characters are pretty screwed.

[Tanarii]

IMO, Investigation should never be used passively; by it's nature it's an "active" skill. Either you're investigating or you're not; you can't investigate out of the corner of your eye or happen to catch some investigating as you pass by a conversation!well, obviously your system doesn't cover the idea of 'taking ten' = passive. Certainly I dont have a problem with PCs moving along a dungeon corridor at normal speed while exploring, but alert, using passive perception (for creatures) and investigation (for traps/hidden things). But they're alert not distracted, so no -5 penalty. And they're not Doing something else like mapping or foraging, so they actually get to make a check.

Other than my personal rule (and most DMs I play with) of using perception for creatures and investigation for traps/doors/hidden things, that seems to be the actual rules too.

1) are you doing something else? If yes, you can't use any perception or investigation.
2) are you aware, but distracted? If yes, use passive p/i at -5 (Edit: I think this applies if you move at double speed too.)
3) are you aware, alert, and moving at normal speed? If yes, use passive p/i.
4) are you using an action in combat to make a check this round? If yes, make a check.

Id have to dig in to my book, but IIRC the rules don't use active rolls while in the exploration phase of the game.

[HarrisonF]

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

The first thing is that "passive" and "active" are descriptions of the check, not of the state of the person doing them. If you can remove that from your mind, it becomes much more clear.

Passive checks are used when something is being done repeatedly. The classic example is searching for traps in a hallway or standing guard. While having to roll perception every ten feet is some people's definition of exciting, the game moves much faster when you don't have to do that.

Without passive perception, you will end up failing a large amount of checks due to pure luck of the d20. Put three traps in a hallway and your high perception guy will fail against one almost every time.

Yes, I set a fixed DC for traps, and I don't know if they will pass or not. For example, if the party doesn't have a light or they are rushing, they are at disadvantage for finding traps which is -5 which may make the difference. And it also means that the rogue with the observant feat will basically find all traps when not rushing in the dark, which I am fine with as well since they specialized in that.

I use passive skills checks for many things, including skills like investigation. Whenever there is no time constraint and no problem from failing, you should just use the passive version and continue the story. This can solve a lot of the problems people have with the skill system, such as the barbarian randomly being better at researching arcana then the wizard.



Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?
Yes. Depending on how lax they are and their state may have disadvantage.



Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?
Yes. The guards will also eliminate large amounts of places they may sneak up from since they have line of sight on it. It will depend heavily on the terrain and might give advantage as well.



The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?Yes.


If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?Yup. I tend to not have such boring traps, but if I did then they have a fixed DC. Players can get advantage or disadvantage for certain actions so it can definitely vary as well.


If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?

Use the passive and the feat. In rare cases where I can't determine how skilled the craftsman is, then I might roll up a semi-random DC.



Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function
If there is no drawback to failure, then I would use passive, but with advantage given. If just looking could set off the trap, then I would do active with success finding it, and failure activating.



Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?
Passive with no advantage.



What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think. Some things might be harder or easier if specifically looked for. I rarely do this.

[Safety Sword]

I think it's easy to work these out.

If players tell you they are looking for something (and it is there to spot) set a DC and make it an active check.

If players don't tell you they're looking for something but you think they should have some chance to spot it, it's passive.

[Tanarii]

I just went and reread the Basic Rules. They are:


1) Adventuring, Traveling: Use Passive Perception to detect threats. Your DM may only allow certain ranks to check. -5 if you travel at fast speed. If you take other activities than watching for threats (map making, foraging, tracking, navigating) you can't use your passive perception.
2) Combat Action, Search: Make a Perception or Investigation check to find something.
3) Hiding. Stealth vs Passive Perception.
4) Perception Check: spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.
5) Investigation Check: look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues. Note: includes deducing the location of a hidden object.
6) Finding a Hidden Object: When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
7) Passive checks: Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

That's the rules. Have fun making them work together. :)

My interpretation is as before: If you're traveling (which includes exploring a dungeon on a minutes scale), you make passive checks for perception (per the traveling rules) and investigation (per the passive checks rule of taking 10). If you take an action in combat, you get to roll a extra check. If the DM tells you to roll a check, you get to roll a check. Done.

Also IMO #6 directly directly contradicts #5. Investigation says it's used to look around for clues, and includes deducing the locaiton of a hidden object. But then the Finding a Hidden Object sidebar instead says to use Perception for that very same task.

Edit: formatted as list

[JellyPooga]

Counter-example:

"I spend all day reading books in the library, hoping to find a clue to this mystery."

Just because you're rolling a dice, doesn't mean it doesn't take a long time in-game. Searching for clues in this way, in a game I was running at least, would be an active check taking (probably) 1d4+3 hours (or something like that). If the library was specialised toward the subject you were researching, I'd grant Advantage.

If you said "I spend all day reading books in the library, do I find anything interesting?" Then I might use Passive Investigation, I suppose. You're not specifically looking for something, but you might stumble across something interesting. I'd probably give you 1d3 snippets of information, plus one for every 5 points your Passive Investigation is over a DC based on the size and/or quality of the library. Not all of these snippets would be useful or pertinent to the adventure, but they'd be interesting!


Id have to dig in to my book, but IIRC the rules don't use active rolls while in the exploration phase of the game.

The biggest problem with this approach is it's quite possible for a level 1 Variant Human Rogue to have a Passive Perception of 10+3 Wisdom+4 Perception Expertise +5 Observant = 22. It's not even going to be that far of a stretch to imagine that being a not unusual build either. Unless you start setting DC's in the 25-30 range (i.e Very Hard to Nearly Impossible), that Rogue will find everything forever. For me, that's just not fun. Tell the Rogue that he's noticed something unusual and call for an active check if he wants to have a closer look and he's back down to a "mere" +7 modifier (still awesome for level 1) to find it; assuming I let him use Perception to search for a trap instead of Investigation...If he fails this active roll, he suspects there's a trap there, but doesn't know what it is because he can't find it.

I find it makes traps and trapfinding a lot more entertaining on both sides of the table; they get to do a bit of the old-school "player input to character skills" thing and I get to think up fiendish clues as to what the trap might be. Better by far than simply checking a DC against a Passive Perception and saying "you find a pit trap" or "you fall in a pit trap".

[Safety Sword]

I just went and reread the Basic Rules. They are:

1) Adventuring, Traveling: Use Passive Perception to detect threats. Your DM may only allow certain ranks to check. -5 if you travel at fast speed. If you take other activities than watching for threats (map making, foraging, tracking, navigating) you can't use your passive perception.
3) Combat Action, Search: Make a Perception or Investigation check to find something.
2) Hiding. Stealth vs Passive Perception.
3) Perception Check: spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something.
4) Investigation Check: look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues. Note: includes deducing the location of a hidden object.
5) Finding a Hidden Object: When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
6) Passive checks: Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

That's the rules. Have fun making them work together. :)

My interpretation is as before: If you're traveling (which includes exploring a dungeon on a minutes scale), you make passive checks for perception (per the traveling rules) and investigation (per the passive checks rule of taking 10). If you take an action in combat, you get to roll a extra check. If the DM tells you to roll a check, you get to roll a check. Done.

Also IMO 5 directly directly contradicts four each other. Investigation says it's used to look around for clues, and includes deducing the locaiton of a hidden object. But then the Finding a Hidden Object sidebar instead says to use Perception for that very same task.

In the case of Number 5, you make an active check to search for a secret door. For instance, something odd about a wall where the secret door may be located. Then you use Investigation to work out how to open the door.

Investigation is deductive reasoning and logic. Perception is noticing something odd or out of place.

[Tanarii]

Using that same logic, traps should take 2 checks: Perception (maybe passive) to figure out there's a threat or something strange, and Investigation to figure out how the hell the thing works so you can try and disable it.

That makes traps a lot more dangerous.

[JellyPooga]

That makes traps a lot more dangerous.

As well they should be...

After all, they're not there to be found and bypassed; they're there to stop intruders. Usually by killing them. If every other level 1 Rogue can casually discover even high quality traps, what's the point of them being there at all?

[Tanarii]

I wasn't complaining. I like it.

Except for where it makes Rogues need Wisdom. I hate that. Even the PHB seems to think Int for Investigation is an important thing for Rogues, per their quick build. The only reasonable reason they could think that is for Trap searching purposes.

[JellyPooga]

I wasn't complaining. I like it.

Except for where it makes Rogues need Wisdom. I hate that. Even the PHB seems to think Int for Investigation is an important thing for Rogues, per their quick build. The only reasonable reason they could think that is for Trap searching purposes.

I'm a big fan of Rogues and always have been since the days when they were Thieves. I've long held that Rogues should have decent Wisdom and Intelligence; stupid Rogues (well, criminal ones anyway) die or go to jail, they don't get successful. Being dull is OK for the goons and common scum (cutpurses, burglars, etc.), but for real Enforcers and Agents (i.e. those that make it to having a Class level) you need a bit of savvy.

Rogues are cunning, they're witty, they're dashing, they come up with the plans and know the local customs, they can puzzle out the riddles and second-guess the bad-guys. They're not the leader; that job goes to someone who enjoys being a target. They're the second in command, the brains behind the brawn and the ones that really get things done without worrying too much about the morality or motivations behind it.

Rogues, in my mind, should have good mental scores. Perhaps not 16+ good, but I like to see a nice array of 14's on a 5ed Rogues Int/Wis/Cha, even if it costs me some Con.

[Safety Sword]

I wasn't complaining. I like it.

Except for where it makes Rogues need Wisdom. I hate that. Even the PHB seems to think Int for Investigation is an important thing for Rogues, per their quick build. The only reasonable reason they could think that is for Trap searching purposes.

Intelligence (Investigation) is the standard check I ask for to work out how something works in my campaign.

[JackPhoenix]

I wasn't complaining. I like it.

Except for where it makes Rogues need Wisdom. I hate that. Even the PHB seems to think Int for Investigation is an important thing for Rogues, per their quick build. The only reasonable reason they could think that is for Trap searching purposes.

It's not exactly D&D, and it's not 5e, but it worked that way in DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online), based on 3.5 rules: To find a trap (or a secret door, or a hiding enemy), you used passive Spot skill (wisdom-based) to notice there's something strange near you...a feeling of danger for traps, draft for the hidden door...and then you had to use active Search skill (intelligence-based) to actually find where exactly the door/trap control box (to disable the trap)/trap itself (to see where not to step) is. Spot skill is much more important (unless you run the dungeon for the n-th time to know where the traps are from the memory), because you can use various boosts (spells, items, abilities) to boost your Search, but you'll have to know where to use it in the first place...it makes sense and it works similarly to 5e Perception/Investigation

[Tanarii]

I think my thinking got programmed by 3e, but especially the NwN game. Search (Int based) = find traps & hidden things. Spot/Listen (Wis) = find creatures using hide/MS (respectively). So I still associate those ability scores & derivative skills with those activities.

Habitual thinking can be hard to break. ;)


Intelligence (Investigation) is the standard check I ask for to work out how something works in my campaign.
I'm leery of that being part of 'all things are Skill checks' trap. If you mean how a thing you can observe & possibly experiment with (object, trap, chemical reaction, a new recipe, a computer program) yeah I'm with you. Although the way it's worded, Investigation seems to be a broad 'deduce things' (aka Sherlock Holmes) skill. That covers almost anything that's not memory/recall, learning, or covered by one of the other three Int skills already. Very broad skill really.

[Malifice]

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?

Yes.


Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?


Yes.


If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?

You're not penalized.

Your stealth score is compared to the passive perception scores of the creatures youre sneaking up on. It sets your Stealth DC.

If you succeed then you are hidden, however any creature actively looking for you ALSO gets to make a Perception check as an action (the Search action) to find you.

So a searching creature effectively gets to double dip.


Some people say that you first check for passive perception; if it's not enough to perceive what you need to perceive, you roll for active perception.

They're correct, but only if the creature youre hiding from is actively looking for you as an action. The active check takes an action to perform (specifically the Search action). If they arent looking for you (theyre using their action to cook food, chill out, chat to each other etc) then they dont get a check (and its passive only).


The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?

Yes.

If they're moving at a slow pace they can also actively search for traps as they move. If they have the dungon delver feat they can actively (i.e. roll) seach for traps when moving at a fast pace.


If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?

Yes I am OK with it.

Not all PC's have the same passive perception scores. Its entirely possible that the point man has a lower perception than the trap and stumbles into it. Or is at disadvantage for some reason lowering his passive perception (moving quickly, looking the wrong way, posioned, exhausted etc).

Also; you're the DM. I generally set the DC above 4/5 of your PC's passive perception. I know my Elf druid has a passive of 17. The Rogue has a passive perception of 13. My traps are usually around a DC of 15 to spot.

Laughable when the Rogue stumbles into them all the time. He usually gets the joy of hearing the Druid call out a warning just as he falls into the spiked pit.


If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?

I am OK with it, and there is no need to ignore passive. Just set your DC's accordingly.


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function

Both. But theyre moving at half speed (effectively taking the search action every round). They can do it at full speed and with advantage if a PC has the Dungeon Delver feat.


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?

DM's call. I would probably use passive perception (theyre looking in the wrong spot) with disadvantage (-5).


What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.

Never seen it. Source?

[steppedonad4]

The best and simplest explanation I've ever seen was that the DM references passive numbers whilst the players ask for active numbers. If the players haven't noticed something due to their passive score then it's not noticeable by anything other than an active check. It's up to the players to call for an active check and never up to the DM to ask for one.

[Vogonjeltz]

I know this topic has been discussed many times, but still i could not find a definitive answer even by googling quite a bit.
Just to be clear, i'm looking for RAI here, but also try to keep an open eye on the game balance/fun.

I'm going to list a few possibilities, and i ask you guys how you think RAI we should rule it.

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?

Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?

If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?

Passive perception is when you aren't specifically trying to perceive if something is there. A perception check is for when you are deliberately trying to see if something is there.

So, Bandits eating, passive.
Bandits set guards, guards get active, rest get passive.
Normally your Perception score caps at 15, if you have Observant you get a 20 automatically. Active perception checks would still be capable of getting as high as 25 total (roll 20 + 5 wisdom modifier), and in any event your active perception can only one-up your passive perception. i.e. You will passively notice anything that a 20 beats, if you make the active check you have the opportunity to notice something up to the 25.

So you won't be penalized, in point of fact you're just guaranteed at least that high a value.


Some people say that you first check for passive perception; if it's not enough to perceive what you need to perceive, you roll for active perception. In a way, passive perception acts as a floor for your check (you can't ever score less than 10 on the die).
Hower, the manual says: (passive perception) Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again.
It can't clearly be intended as a floor, or the average would not be the 10 on the die.

If you finish up that paragraph it says (bolded to emphasize that you should not use half a sentence out of context): "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."


The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?

If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?

If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?

What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.

Anyone can help shed some light?

Last edited by Madeiner; Today at 10:12 AM.

Yes, they detect the trap if their perception score is equal to or higher than the DC to detect the trap. That's how they are supposed to work. An active check would only be used if the characters deliberately search for traps and even then it would only matter if it exceeds their perception scores.

The benefit is that it raises the floor of their ability to perceive things. You don't ever ignore the score, the check just doesn't matter unless it exceeds the score.

Passive. (gold and ceiling trap, they aren't looking for traps anyway).


no. No stealth check is needed. Per PHB page 183 under other activities, characters who turn their attention to other tasks are not watching for danger, and do not contribute to a groups passive perception checks. What's good for the PCs is good for the Monsters. But I can't see them having absolutely no-one on watch. Now if you'd already taken out the guards they posted some distance away ...

That's only for doing other specific tasks while traveling, this scenario is while resting in camp, they would still get to contribute their perception scores, but seeing as this is a group of bandits they probably have identical perception scores making it a distinction without meaning.


It's entirely possible that the rules are intentionally open to interpretation. Some people might want to use Passive for everything, to expedite play and "cut to the chase". Others might only use it rarely, or not at all (my last 5ed GM I played under outright said that passive scores don't exist in his game; he didn't like them).

Eh, I don't think they're open to interpretation, the rules are pretty plainly laid out and for use in very specific scenarios. In any event, a perception score automatically contests a stealth check, whereas a perception check requires an active choice to contest a stealth check. So there's overlap there. I would probably argue with your last GM as he's really putting the screws to Rangers by doing that. A ranger with Observant and a 20 wisdom and proficiency in perception would have a passive perception of 32 (10 + 6 proficiency + 5 wisdom mod + 6 in favored terrain + 5 observant buff = 32) making them certain to see anyone trying to hide without even trying (maximum stealth check would be 20 + 12 expertise + 5 dex mod or 27). By skipping that they could get as low as 18, which is quite the nerf.

I do like your flowchart idea, but it would need to take into account that a passive check happens automatically first. (i.e. If you have a high enough perception score, you'll notice those monsters skulking in the shadows before you even think to search for them).

[broodax]

I am genuienly surprised at some of the answers here. The way I read the rules, stealth is opposed by passive perception in almost every single case. The only time stealth is opposed by active perception is during combat, when an enemy uses their action to try to find a hidden foe. Then, maybe in some very rare cases out of combat when a stealther has not been noticed, but something else makes the perceptor look EXTRA close.

Character decides to sneak up on bandits, using cover. The bandits are eating and generally not thinking they might be ambushed. Is it stealth check vs their passive perception?
Yes - Passive.

Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?
No, passive still.

If you responded "yes" at the last question, what is the intended use of the "Observant" feat (+5 passive perception)? Why would you be penalized for actively looking for threats?
Doesn't apply, and makes observant work the way it should - it helps you notice things in general. It doesn't help you search for a foe during combat.



Some people say that you first check for passive perception; if it's not enough to perceive what you need to perceive, you roll for active perception. In a way, passive perception acts as a floor for your check (you can't ever score less than 10 on the die).
Hower, the manual says: (passive perception) Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again.
It can't clearly be intended as a floor, or the average would not be the 10 on the die.

This severely nerfs stealth, giving every enemy an extra chance to make a stealther fail.


The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?
Traps are funny, and the rules are not clear on how they should be noticed. I think that yes, either they notice with their passive perception or at least they are given a VERY large clue that they need to inspect further.

If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?
Here is where DMing comes in. If they aren't paying attention, maybe they don't get a passive check. If they are moving fast, maybe they get a -5. If you go with the second option above, that perception allows them to notice a clue, but they still need to search, then there's no real disconnect.

If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?
No, you should still use passive in almost all cases, but be judicious with your modifiers, when to apply it, or use the 2-check system for traps.

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function
Still passive - no way the game means you to roll every 5 feet.

Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?
Use DMing - apply a penalty or determine that no check is allowed because they don't have eyes in the back of their heads.

What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.
This I think is a problem with how some of them are written. I don't think this should ever really happen.

Edit: this plays out well with the group check rules, too. When a group is stealthing, you have them all roll, then see if half of them beat the DC (i.e. the passive score of the perceptors). If you are trying to roll for every perceptor, I don't know what you do in this case, other than just totally nerf stealth by having groups of guards almost always notice something (given a few rolls, a group of guards will likely have one high roll, which is enough to notice and sound the alarm).

[Safety Sword]

Edit: this plays out well with the group check rules, too. When a group is stealthing, you have them all roll, then see if half of them beat the DC (i.e. the passive score of the perceptors). If you are trying to roll for every perceptor, I don't know what you do in this case, other than just totally nerf stealth by having groups of guards almost always notice something (given a few rolls, a group of guards will likely have one high roll, which is enough to notice and sound the alarm).

I would categorise multiple guards on watch as "favourable conditions" and just grant the group a roll with advantage.

[Malifice]

I am genuienly surprised at some of the answers here. The way I read the rules, stealth is opposed by passive perception in almost every single case. The only time stealth is opposed by active perception is during combat, when an enemy uses their action to try to find a hidden foe.

Why on earth can't you actively search for something outside of combat?

The guards resting inside the camp are relying on passive perception (theyre busy relaxing and eating). The lookout (assuming he is doing his job) is taking the search action and scanning for threats (he gets to roll active perception). Thats what lookouts are for.


Same as above, but the bandits have guards on lookout. Should they roll active perception?

No, passive still.

No, the lookouts are actively searching in this case. They do get a perception check.


Traps are funny, and the rules are not clear on how they should be noticed.

No, traps are not a special case. They are noticed just like everything else is.


Here is where DMing comes in. If they aren't paying attention, maybe they don't get a passive check.

No, if they arent paying attention thats when they DO use passive perception. Passive perception is what you notice when you are not making any effort to search for something. Possibly with DM imposed disadvantage if they are really distracted.

If they are actively searching they get to make an active perception check instead.


Edit: this plays out well with the group check rules, too. When a group is stealthing, you have them all roll, then see if half of them beat the DC (i.e. the passive score of the perceptors).

Group checks dont apply to steath checks. If I can hear the fighter in full plate, then i am alert to danger and can hear the party approaching.

[Tanarii]

Definitely don't use group checks for stealth checks. The PHB is pretty explicit on that. It has an entire sidebar about splitting your party so that high stealth characters can do their thing without clumsier party members around on page 185.

[HarrisonF]

No, the lookouts are actively searching in this case. They do get a perception check.

No, if they arent paying attention thats when they DO use passive perception. Passive perception is what you notice when you are not making any effort to search for something. Possibly with DM imposed disadvantage if they are really distracted.


This is wrong. You are conflating the word "passive" with when they make the check, not the type of check. A passive check just means that it uses a fixed roll and can be used when people are actively doing things repeatedly, it has nothing to do with whether the person is "passive" or "active".

Think of it like taking 10 from older editions. If you are doing something repeatedly, such as standing watch for 8 hours, you don't roll perception every 6 seconds. Instead you use your passive perception since it is effectively the average over a long time.

[Malifice]

This is wrong. You are conflating the word "passive" with when they make the check, not the type of check. A passive check just means that it uses a fixed roll and can be used when people are actively doing things repeatedly, it has nothing to do with whether the person is "passive" or "active".

Think of it like taking 10 from older editions. If you are doing something repeatedly, such as standing watch for 8 hours, you don't roll perception every 6 seconds. Instead you use your passive perception since it is effectively the average over a long time.

From the Player Basic:

Noticing Threats
Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot.

While traveling at a fast pace, characters take a –5 penalty to their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to notice hidden threats.

The next paragraph states that they get to apply passive perception at all times they are not actively doing something else (drawing a map, navigating, foraging or tracking).

A creature that is actively searching for an enemy in specific circumstances, is entitled to a perception check. See the Search action.

[Tanarii]

Malifice you just made his case that actively looking for danger still falls under passive perception. Because that's what you are doing when you are exploring ... keeping an active eye out for danger. As you say, at all times, unless you are doing something else, per the next section.

[Malifice]

Malifice you just made his case that actively looking for danger still falls under passive perception. Because that's what you are doing when you are exploring ... keeping an active eye out for danger. As you say, at all times, unless you are doing something else, per the next section.

Keeping an eye out for danger is one thing. Actively searching for danger is another thing all together.

If your players declare they're searching a door for traps, you let them roll perception (the Search action) right? Its no different if a PC is on lookout and actively searching for monsters approaching down a hallway.

PC's walking around in a dungeon (at the default slow pace) can apply passive percpetion to detect enemies (unless theyre mapping or otherwise distracted). The Rogue up the front is presumably actively searching for traps and monsters as he advances (scanning the ground for tell tale signs of pit traps, listening at doors etc) so he gets a perception check.

[Madeiner]

Keeping an eye out for danger is one thing. Actively searching for danger is another thing all together.

If your players declare they're searching a door for traps, you let them roll perception (the Search action) right? Its no different if a PC is on lookout and actively searching for monsters approaching down a hallway.


But do they get the benefit of passive perception as they are approaching the door, but have not made their active check yet?
Because this basically means passive perception is the minimum check they are gonna roll. It's like taking 10 and then rolling to see if you can get better.

But passive perception (taking 10) explicitly says it's the average result you get if you do something over and over. If you do the door thing over and over, (and you have a +0 modifier), 10 is not your average result. Your possible results are from 10 minimum (passive floor) to 20 maximum, and 10 cannot be the average.

[Tanarii]

If your players declare they're searching a door for traps, you let them roll perception (the Search action) right?Nothing indicates the player can control getting an active skill check without spending the Search Combat action. But yeah, I'd probably tell a player to roll once when he specifically checked the door.


Its no different if a PC is on lookout and actively searching for monsters approaching down a hallway.

PC's walking around in a dungeon (at the default slow pace) can apply passive percpetion to detect enemies (unless theyre mapping or otherwise distracted). The Rogue up the front is presumably actively searching for traps and monsters as he advances (scanning the ground for tell tale signs of pit traps, listening at doors etc) so he gets a perception check.it is different though. Because the rules say it is. There's no accommodation for taking 20, or rolling every round. There's no accommodation to move at a slower speed while getting passive checks at a bonus or making active checks. Both the traveling rules and the passive rules tell you to do the same thing in that circumstance ... Use the passive score.

Now, do I think that makes sense? Sorta kinda. The player might get lucky one round but be looking away from the trap (or whatever), and unlucky another while looking right at it. He's not taking 20 to carefully search each square, that would slow movement to a crawl. And Even in a five foot wide hallway he needs to move at 1/4 speed to check each wall once and the floor and ceiling. In any larger space, taking a ten average works way better than a massive number of checks at a crawl, as long as your paying attention, ie not distracted (-5) or doing something else completely (no score).

Do I *really* think it makes sense? Not really. ;) Its a mechanic trying to loosely emulate something and be simple.

[ryan92084]

My 2 coppers



The players are about to enter a dungeon. There's a trap in the hallway, but they believe it's safe. Do they detect the trap if the DC is under their passive perception score?
Unless the trap is something super obvious like a bear trap in the middle of the floor I'd say they notice something is off (disturbed ground, holes in wall, that cage has an elaborate pulley system, etc) that allows them to then easily find the trap if they so choose.


If you said yes, are you ok with the fact that the DM already knows the DC for the trap, and the passive perception scores for characters, so when he prepares the adventure, he basically decides if the PC spot the trap or not, with no uncertainty involved?
That's fine


If you are not okay with that (i'm not), should you require an active check, ignoring the passive score? In that case, what is the benefit of the Observant feat?
I am ok with it so n/a


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for traps. Active or passive perception? Please still consider the Obsevant feat and its intended function
Active for searching


Same as above, but the PCs state they are looking for gold nuggets on the ground, while the trap is on the ceiling. Active or passive?
Passive


What is the intended effect of having different passive/active DCs for things? I heard it happened in some official adventures, with the active DC being lower, i think.
Being neither the writer nor having encountered the situation it's hard to say. Using the iconic candle stick switch as an potential example I'd say it's much harder to notice it's anything more than what it appears when just looking about but pretty obvious when you are looking for it.

[Malifice]

Nothing indicates the player can control getting an active skill check without spending the Search Combat action. But yeah, I'd probably tell a player to roll once when he specifically checked the door.

Huh?

Player: I search the door looking for anything unusual. In particular I peer into the keyhole, looking for any gears or tumblers that shouldnt be there.

DM: Roll perception.


There's no accommodation to move at a slower speed while getting passive checks at a bonus or making active checks.

Yes there is. If you move at full speed you get disadvantage (-5) to your perception checks (passive perception score).


But do they get the benefit of passive perception as they are approaching the door, but have not made their active check yet?

Assuming they are moving slowly and are alert to danger and not distracted by anything else (mapping etc) then yes they do. If they are moving at normal pace, they get passive perception at -5 (disadvantage). If theyre distracted (fleeing from a monster, engaged in conversation with another player etc) then they dont apply passive perception.


But passive perception (taking 10) explicitly says it's the average result you get if you do something over and over.

Thats not how its defined at all.

[Madeiner]

[B]
But passive perception (taking 10) explicitly says it's the average result you get if you do something over and over. If you do the door thing over and over, (and you have a +0 modifier), 10 is not your average result. Your possible results are from 10 minimum (passive floor) to 20 maximum, and 10 cannot be the average.



Thats not how its defined at all.

Page 175, PHB:

"A passive check is a special kind o f ability check that
doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent
the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as
searching for secret doors over and over again,"

[Tanarii]

Huh?

Player: I search the door looking for anything unusual. In particular I peer into the keyhole, looking for any gears or tumblers that shouldnt be there.

DM: Roll perception.that's why I said I'd probably give it to them.


Yes there is. If you move at full speed you get disadvantage (-5) to your perception checks (passive perception score).

Assuming they are moving slowly and are alert to danger and not distracted by anything else (mapping etc) then yes they do. If they are moving at normal pace, they get passive perception at -5 (disadvantage). If theyre distracted (fleeing from a monster, engaged in conversation with another player etc) then they dont apply passive perception.
Actually, it's Fast that gives out the -5 penalty. Normal speed has no penalty. All Slow does is allow you to Stealth. But searching everything, as opposed to the occasional door, with active checks is going to slow your character down a lot more than Slow speed. Let alone slowing down the game.


Thats not how its defined at all.Yes it is: "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

[Malifice]

Page 175, PHB:

"A passive check is a special kind o f ability check that
doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent
the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as
searching for secret doors over and over again,"

'Can' represent.

It also represents your passive sensory radar.

I can see a car coming without actively looking for cars. I might spot a spider on the wall without actively looking for spiders.

[Safety Sword]

'Can' represent.

It also represents your passive sensory radar.

I can see a car coming without actively looking for cars. I might spot a spider on the wall without actively looking for spiders.

This is how is has to work. Otherwise the the game gets bogged down in minutiae.

Player: I look for anything unusual on the wall.
DM: A giant spider eats your face.
Player: WHAT?! I was looking there.
DM: It's not unusual to find giant spiders on cave walls. You didn't say you were looking for usual and unusual things...

I don't think that anyone would actually behave like this, but you're opening the dungeon door, so to speak.

If my players tell me "I search the wall", that tells me their attention is on the wall. I give them a perception check to search the wall. I also think it would be harsh to not give them a minimum of their passive result on that check. It still means that their other senses are still on. So they use their passive check to detect "other stuff not related to that wall".

[Tanarii]

'Can' represent.

It also represents your passive sensory radar.

I can see a car coming without actively looking for cars. I might spot a spider on the wall without actively looking for spiders.No. It represents one of two things, and it tells you what they are in the quote.
1) "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
2) or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Passive Perception vs Stealth is not passive searching. It's something that is being used by the DM to determine if active searching has succeeded in secret, without rolling the dice. Passive Perception or Investigation while looking for something isn't passively looking, it's the average result for a active task done repeatedly.

Clearly the devs made a labeling error using the term Passive for 'Take 10' & 'Roll in Secret 10'. I just did a quick search for the term 'Passive' in the Basic Rules, and I couldn't find anything that indicated that it really is passive instead of actually searching/looking. In fact, the -5 for being distracted or moving fast, or inability to use it while doing something else, fits completely. You can't search and notice things as effectively when you're distracted and not actively paying attention, and you can't notice them at all when you're head down in something else.

[Madeiner]

No. It represents one of two things, and it tells you what they are in the quote.
1) "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
2) or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Passive Perception vs Stealth is not passive searching. It's something that is being used by the DM to determine if active searching has succeeded in secret, without rolling the dice. Passive Perception or Investigation while looking for something isn't passively looking, it's the average result for a active task done repeatedly.

Clearly the devs made a labeling error using the term Passive for 'Take 10' & 'Roll in Secret 10'. I just did a quick search for the term 'Passive' in the Basic Rules, and I couldn't find anything that indicated that it really is passive instead of actually searching/looking. In fact, the -5 for being distracted or moving fast, or inability to use it while doing something else, fits completely. You can't search and notice things as effectively when you're distracted and not actively paying attention, and you can't notice them at all when you're head down in something else.

I like this explanation.
Would that mean that you do not get passive checks if you don't declare that you are actively searching for something?
That mean that you dont get to find the trap on the wall if you don't specify you are looking for traps? And the bandits eating at the camp don't get a passive check at all?
The guards, instead (or someone in combat, since it's assumed they are paying attention) get passive checks, but not active?

[Tanarii]

I like this explanation.
Would that mean that you do not get passive checks if you don't declare that you are actively searching for something?
That mean that you dont get to find the trap on the wall if you don't specify you are looking for traps? And the bandits eating at the camp don't get a passive check at all?
The guards, instead (or someone in combat, since it's assumed they are paying attention) get passive checks, but not active?I think the whole active/passive divide is artificial for out of combat.

So far as I can tell, the rules assume PCs are always actively paying attention for threats out of combat, and use the passive ability check rules to do so. No declaration is needed. They aren't passively 'noticing' anything, and they aren't 'actively' making rolls ... they're paying attention to the environment and looking for threats, and that's exactly what the passive ability checks represent. If they are distracted -5, if they are doing something else other than paying attention for threats, can't use their score.

It's pretty simple really. Where people get hung up is 1) They think they should get to roll for a check on top of that, out of combat.

So here's what the rules explicitly tell you:
1) Out of Combat (Exploration, Traveling) use Passive Perception to look for threats.
2) In Combat (Combat) use the Search Action to look for threats and find things.
3) Hide is always vs Passive Perception, even in Combat. You can take an action (per 2 above) to get an additional check.

I think it's that simple.

edit: rethought this and rewrote it.

[jkat718]

Bandit Camp w/out Guards: Bandits use Passive Perception. Optionally, PCs get advantage on attacks until seen.

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, which equals 10 + the creature’s Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

Bandit Camp w/ Guards: Bandits still use Passive Perception, but the guards also roll for Perception.

When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence.


Observant Feat: If the PCs don't surpass the bandits' Passive Perception, then the guards serve as a fallback, getting a chance to roll higher than their Passive Perceptions. If the bandits were Observant, then that fallback would be unnecessary.

Trap, w/out Looking: The PCs use Passive Perception.

You can…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.


DM Uncertainty: I would like to (truthfully) say that I don't look at the Passive Perception scores of my players' characters, but I can't. The DCs should really be independent of who's going to encounter them, and be based solely upon the objective difficulty instead, but I tend to coddle my players more than I'm willing to admit.


Observant Feat, redux: As above, rolling for Perception is a fallback in case Passive Perception fails. Having a higher Passive Perception through the Observant Feat obviates the need to roll.

Trap, w/ Looking: The PCs use Passive Perception, then roll for Perception.

A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC.

Trap, w/ Gold: The PCs use Passive Perception with disadvantage.
I don't really have a concrete piece of evidence for this. Honestly, I might clarify with my players exactly what they're doing, by saying something like, "You sure? You're going down this hallway, heads down, not looking around you, just focusing on the floor, trying to find these gold nuggets? Right? Okay..." That, or I'd offer them +5/advantage to their Passive Perception scores in regard to finding the gold nuggets in exchange for -5/disadvantage to their Passive Perception in regard to everything else. Knowing my players, though, they'd take the latter option almost every time. Personally, I'd just have the person with the first- or second-best Passive Perception score do that, and have everyone else act normally, but I'm not in charge of the party. :smallbiggrin:

Dynamic DCs: I like this mechanic in theory, but it doesn't really pan out in practice. I might use it for some strange effect, like an illusion or something, which disappears when you focus on it, or maybe a "corner-of-your-eye" monster, which you have to look for to be able to see. Other than for thematic reasons like that, I dislike this approach. On the other hand, I very much do like allowing information to be granted with a higher/lower DC based on which skill you use (for example, one could make a Wisdom (Survival) check to determine based on intuition whether a specific berry is poisonous, or Intelligence (Nature) check to see whether or not you ever came across this particular berry in your research.

[broodax]

I think the whole active/passive divide is artificial for out of combat.

So far as I can tell, the rules assume PCs are always actively paying attention for threats out of combat, and use the passive ability check rules to do so. No declaration is needed. They aren't passively 'noticing' anything, and they aren't 'actively' making rolls ... they're paying attention to the environment and looking for threats, and that's exactly what the passive ability checks represent. If they are distracted -5, if they are doing something else other than paying attention for threats, can't use their score.

It's pretty simple really. Where people get hung up is 1) They think they should get to roll for a check on top of that, out of combat.

So here's what the rules explicitly tell you:
1) Out of Combat (Exploration, Traveling) use Passive Perception to look for threats.
2) In Combat (Combat) use the Search Action to look for threats and find things.
3) Hide is always vs Passive Perception, even in Combat. You can take an action (per 2 above) to get an additional check.

I think it's that simple.

edit: rethought this and rewrote it.

Pretty much this exactly. I am super surprised that there's even a discussion about this, beyond the weirdness of traps. That weirdness being not so much in the DMG, but in how adventures are written.