Passive perception

[Sirithhyando]

Hi everyone,

I need some help about passive perception.
I've got a player who's passive perception is way too strong. I feel like he would almost always hear everything or see everything.
I fear the player isn't enjoying the game as much as he should because i often ask him to roll instead of using his passive.
The player in question is my usual DM, but for this game, i wanted to try be the DM and also he wanted to be the player from time to time so here we are.
I'd like to know how you usually use passive perception.
For now, when i judge that the character are in a stressful situation, i make them roll for it.

We're playing Hoard of the Dragon Queen, i'll post the rest in spoiler if someone is playing this game and doesn't want the spoiler.


When they enter the cave in the camp, they get to some stairs going down.
There's a trap on the stairs.

At the moment, there's not really anything stressful so i would use my player passive perception and say something like "you get the feeling that the stairs are often used but some places, no one seems to put their feet on", obviously they'll know right away there's a trap there.
So instead of taking the passive perception, i'd prefer to make them roll so i can at least not give them the hint.


So, truth is, i'm really novice when it come to be the DM and i'd love your advice on this kind of situation so that my players are going to have fun.

Thanks everyone !

[hymer]

I'd like to know how you usually use passive perception.

Fortunately for me, I've already established that it's more fun if the players roll than if I roll. If someone went for a really high PP, they'd already know they shouldn't expect the world from it.
If I were in your shoes, I'd start by taking the conversation with him, see what he thinks. Maybe you can agree on something that makes everybody happy. But that said, if stuff can be noticed at a DC the PCs can reach, it should be okay that they reach it. So basically, I'd let him have his fun with it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Honestly, if a player has optimised for passive perception, it's probably best to just let them have that. Their whole thing is that they do see all the traps and hidden monsters.

There are ways around it, of course. He can't see something that is flat-out invisible. You could talk up a master trap-smith who can hide things so well even this PC has trouble, and use them as a recurring antagonist. You could devise traps that can't be avoided even if they are detected (maybe even using magic so that the trap doesn't trigger for its creators). You have to ask yourself though: are those things fun for anyone?

[Sirithhyando]

It's a premade game so i've kept the traps that are there.
Of course, something that goes unnotice and kills a PC without any warning isn't fun. Though a trap that doesn't have a chance of killing is not a well made trap. :smalltongue:

Anyway, thanks for the answers, i'll talk to him about it and see how he sees it.

[RickAllison]

It's a premade game so i've kept the traps that are there.
Of course, something that goes unnotice and kills a PC without any warning isn't fun. Though a trap that doesn't have a chance of killing is not a well made trap. :smalltongue:

Anyway, thanks for the answers, i'll talk to him about it and see how he sees it.

Killing isn't necessary, resource attrition is. Splitting the party (so they can't focus their forces for an upcoming battle), requiring items or spells to overcome, or tipping off enemies so they can ambush, have more forces ready, or even get the treasure moved so the entire reason a standard party is there is put into jeopardy.

[ad_hoc]

1. If a character is good at something, they should be good at it. By the same token, if no characters were good at something, then they should struggle with that deficit.

2. The problem with rolling for things like perception is that with 4 or 5 rolls, someone will usually roll high. So you are back where you started. Instead, you can treat the PP as a DC and roll against it for the trap or whatever. If the trap requires a 15 PP to notice, then roll d20 +3 and compare it against the PP of the party.

3. Circumstances matter. Is there dim light (or no light for darkvision)? Then -5 PP. Marching order is also important, if it is a creature sneaking up behind the party and the character is in front, then they're not going to notice the creature.

[Tanarii]

Check the rules on Passive Perception from the Adventuring Chapter:
"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."

And

"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission."

In other words, passive perception isn't some kind of always on radar. It doesn't apply if the character is doing some other activity that prevents it's use (Navigating, Tracking, Foraging, Map-making), and not all characters necessarily have a chance for it to work.

That said, if the character is in the front rank, exposing himself to danger, and concentrating on what's going on around him (ie not mapmaking, tracking, etc etc), then he absolutely should notice anything his passive perception is in excess of. Especially poorly designed trap triggers that depend entirely on not being seen, and are easily avoided once noticed.

[Sirithhyando]

Killing isn't necessary, resource attrition is. Splitting the party (so they can't focus their forces for an upcoming battle), requiring items or spells to overcome, or tipping off enemies so they can ambush, have more forces ready, or even get the treasure moved so the entire reason a standard party is there is put into jeopardy.
Oh, i didn't thought about it that way, thanks :smallsmile:


1. If a character is good at something, they should be good at it. By the same token, if no characters were good at something, then they should struggle with that deficit.
I absolutly agree with you on that point, it's just that i dont seem to be able to surprise them in any way. I suppose it's just me as the DM that need to be inventive on ways to surprise them. :smalltongue:


2. The problem with rolling for things like perception is that with 4 or 5 rolls, someone will usually roll high. So you are back where you started. Instead, you can treat the PP as a DC and roll against it for the trap or whatever. If the trap requires a 15 PP to notice, then roll d20 +3 and compare it against the PP of the party.
That's a good way to see it, i'll use that method when i think the situation is good for it.


3. Circumstances matter. Is there dim light (or no light for darkvision)? Then -5 PP. Marching order is also important, if it is a creature sneaking up behind the party and the character is in front, then they're not going to notice the creature.
Mmm, it's true that in the example i gave, they are in a poorly torch-lit cavern and the character is human (no darkvision). So the DC to see things is higher.

Thanks everyone :smallbiggrin:

edit :

In other words, passive perception isn't some kind of always on radar. It doesn't apply if the character is doing some other activity that prevents it's use (Navigating, Tracking, Foraging, Map-making), and not all characters necessarily have a chance for it to work.

That said, if the character is in the front rank, exposing himself to danger, and concentrating on what's going on around him (ie not mapmaking, tracking, etc etc), then he absolutely should notice anything his passive perception is in excess of. Especially poorly designed trap triggers that depend entirely on not being seen, and are easily avoided once noticed.
Thanks, i think i did have in mind that it was kind of a always on radar. This is going to help a lot.

[Vogonjeltz]

I fear the player isn't enjoying the game as much as he should because i often ask him to roll instead of using his passive.

A check is never going to be a lower result than the subject's passive perception.

Which is to say, if they would notice it based on comparison with passive perception, they notice whatever it is, period. Checks are only when the outcome is in doubt (i.e. the DC is higher than their Wisdom (Perception) score).


In other words, passive perception isn't some kind of always on radar. It doesn't apply if the character is doing some other activity that prevents it's use (Navigating, Tracking, Foraging, Map-making), and not all characters necessarily have a chance for it to work.

That only applies to long distance travel. If you're in a scene, at a location, or happen to be a Ranger in the correct terrain type, you're going to be 'on'.

That being said, if someone isn't a Ranger and has a great passive perception, they should probably not choose to engage in distracting activities while traveling. Tasks like Navigation should probably be relegated to the people with terrible perception (amusingly).

[SilverStud]

I've always run it so that things (not creatures. things) that were actively hidden have to be actively searched for.

Ask your player what he's doing to search for traps. Is he watching the floor, the ceiling, the walls? I know the trap you're talking about (collapsing stairs into fungi, right?). If he's not looking at the ground, then he won't notice it. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Ask your player what he's doing to search for traps. Is he watching the floor, the ceiling, the walls? I know the trap you're talking about (collapsing stairs into fungi, right?). If he's not looking at the ground, then he won't notice it. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

"I search for traps."

"Where do you search for traps?"

"Can't we save some time by assuming my experienced trap-searching character can pick some appropriate places to search corresponding to my skill level?"

"Nope, no fun."

"So this thing I'm supposed to do well is actually just a number on my character sheet."

"Yup. Haha." *punches kitten*

[NNescio]

"I search for traps."

"Where do you search for traps?"

"Can't we save some time by assuming my experienced trap-searching character can pick some appropriate places to search corresponding to my skill level?"

"Nope, no fun."

"So this thing I'm supposed to do well is actually just a number on my character sheet."

"Yup. Haha." *punches kitten*

That's how it used to work in older editions. And we liked it!

[hymer]

"I search for traps."

"Where do you search for traps?"

"Can't we save some time by assuming my experienced trap-searching character can pick some appropriate places to search corresponding to my skill level?"

"Nope, no fun."

"So this thing I'm supposed to do well is actually just a number on my character sheet."

"Yup. Haha." *punches kitten*

How about rolling a skill check to see whether you get to roll an appropriate skill check? Or a to-hit to see if you manoeuvre cleverly in combat? An Arcana check to see if you place your Fireball where it gets the most enemies?

[Sirithhyando]

A check is never going to be a lower result than the subject's passive perception.
I have to say that i do not agree with this. Innatention is something that can happen to everyone, the chance that the roll would be way lower is low. In a stressful situation, you have so much things to look at everywhere that your passive wouldn't do much, you have to actively look for somethings.
So, yes, a rolled perception can be lower than the passive. Especially if you have the observant feat (that's the one that gives +5 at your passive right?)


That being said, if someone isn't a Ranger and has a great passive perception, they should probably not choose to engage in distracting activities while traveling. Tasks like Navigation should probably be relegated to the people with terrible perception (amusingly).
That's a good point, and a funny one too. :smalltongue:


Ask your player what he's doing to search for traps. Is he watching the floor, the ceiling, the walls? I know the trap you're talking about (collapsing stairs into fungi, right?). If he's not looking at the ground, then he won't notice it. You can probably see where I'm going with this.
Yup, that's the trap from the example (and there's more later too with a few hint that i'm wondering how the player should be able to realise lol).


"I search for traps."

"Where do you search for traps?"

"Can't we save some time by assuming my experienced trap-searching character can pick some appropriate places to search corresponding to my skill level?"

"Nope, no fun."

"So this thing I'm supposed to do well is actually just a number on my character sheet."

"Yup. Haha." *punches kitten*

That's how it used to work in older editions. And we liked it!
:smalltongue: Seems like things were rougher back in the days. Though now that you say this, i know my player (who's my usual DM), have often done this. "Perception? No problem, where are you looking?" And yes, it did bring some annoyment some times, but overall, i think it made me love the game even more.
It goes beyond that's written on a sheet of paper.
So here's something else i could apply. Just ask where he's looking and up the DC if what he sould be seeing isn't where he's looking. (other sign can exist beside just vision :smallwink:)

[Mandragola]

i'll talk to him about it and see how he sees it.

This here is the best thing to do. It's probably a thing he's come up against himself as a DM.

One thing I would say is that he's obviously spent resources on getting such a high PP. Maybe he's taken observant, raised his wisdom and so on. It's a shame in that situation to nerf this guy's character - which is what you're talking about doing. If you'd rather that no character automatically spots traps then the best thing would be if nobody brought a character who automatically spotted them. The best option might be to change the character, allowing him to reallocate the resources he spent on his PP.

The idea of changing a character in play may seem anathema to some people, but sometimes it's the simplest way out of a problematic situation that neither player or DM anticipated when the characters were created.

[Sirithhyando]

This here is the best thing to do. It's probably a thing he's come up against himself as a DM.

Funny you're saying this, i literally talked to him about it an hour ago. :smalltongue:

I told him my worries, that i was afraid to take out the fun with mechanics in play that he would always see and that at the same time, i was afraid to unconsciously nerf his character by trying to give him a chance to miss a trap or anything else that may or may not happen in the futur.

Yes, it seems i did nerf his character but only once so he never mentionned it and didnt mind.

So i asked him his view on the sunject and i really liked the answer.

For him, the passive perception will give him a hint that something is wrong. When he knows something is wrong, he can now make an active perception to determine what's wrong.
So the passive would be more general while the active would be more specific.

As an example, he told me that if a goblin is following stealthily the group with a stealth check of 15. His passive (over 20) would tell him that he feels that they're being followed though he wouldn't know the source, the number and would only know a general location. Then an active perception could tell him those unanswered questions.


One thing I would say is that he's obviously spent resources on getting such a high PP. Maybe he's taken observant, raised his wisdom and so on. It's a shame in that situation to nerf this guy's character - which is what you're talking about doing. If you'd rather that no character automatically spots traps then the best thing would be if nobody brought a character who automatically spotted them. The best option might be to change the character, allowing him to reallocate the resources he spent on his PP.
No, their need to be a way to detect them and the general feeling is a good thing. Though if i use the "general feeling" only when there's something to be found, the fun would be lessen so i have to find ways to keep him focused because sometimes it can be a false alarm.


The idea of changing a character in play may seem anathema to some people, but sometimes it's the simplest way out of a problematic situation that neither player or DM anticipated when the characters were created.
For me, if the player doesn't like the character as he is now, i'll let him change some things as long as it still make sense with the character and with what he experienced so far. Or if he completly dislike his character, i'll make sure to find a way to make him change character altogether. Though a character wouldn't switch from fighter to sorcerer, that would be an entirely new character.

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback, it's always nice to have outside input. :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

I kinda like that. A high PP ensures he is never Surprised (the condition), but he could still be surprised (the general meaning).

[Kurt Kurageous]

By rule, it's an ability check without a die roll.

What I do is tell my players (when they actively search) to roll, but only tell me if the die roll is above a ten. Thus they can do better than their passive, but never worse.

[Segev]

I admit that I've never understood why that feat gives a bonus to PASSIVE perception, but not active perception. Making it so that whether the DM thinks you should roll or not is going to make a 25% difference in your chance of success is pretty lousy.

[BurgerBeast]

I admit that I've never understood why that feat gives a bonus to PASSIVE perception, but not active perception. Making it so that whether the DM thinks you should roll or not is going to make a 25% difference in your chance of success is pretty lousy.

I think this is an example of the writers having a different understanding of the rules.

I operated under the misconception that passive and active checks were differentiated on the basis of whether the character was being active or passive. This is flatly wrong despite some indications in the PHB that some people seemed to write parts of the PHB with this misconception.

Someone on this forum corrected me, by pointing out that active and passive refer only to the out-of-game resolution. Essentially: passive means no roll and active means roll. Frankly, its a hard habit to kick.

Granted it is an assumption that the writer of the observant feat may have had this misconception, but if he (or she) did, the mistake makes perfect sense. Being observant in the sense of the feat could conceivably allow you to "notice things without looking for them" (i.e. passively, in the incorrect sense).

[D.U.P.A.]

I would make a player roll just when he is about to step on the trap. If he fails, he triggers the trap. If he succeeds, he has option to stop and assess the situation or just willingly step in the trap.

[Segev]

I would make a player roll just when he is about to step on the trap. If he fails, he triggers the trap. If he succeeds, he has option to stop and assess the situation or just willingly step in the trap.

Okay, so you would not let him gain the benefits of his passive perception bonus in this case.

In what cases would you allow him to use passive perception, and thus get the +5 from his feat?

[Vogonjeltz]

I have to say that i do not agree with this. Innatention is something that can happen to everyone, the chance that the roll would be way lower is low. In a stressful situation, you have so much things to look at everywhere that your passive wouldn't do much, you have to actively look for somethings.
So, yes, a rolled perception can be lower than the passive. Especially if you have the observant feat (that's the one that gives +5 at your passive right?)

I meant that because the passive is used automatically, characters active check would only be useful in noticing things they didn't automatically see (as laid out below). That being said, there are also rules in place for things like traveling quickly providing disadvantage (or a -5 for the passive score).

The rule for searching is to apply passive, then active if the player uses the search action. Those rules are found on PHB 177 under the Hiding rules.

The Activity while Traveling subsection (PHB 182-183) provides a distinct exception to the general rule in that the activities listed under "Other Activites" are done specifically in place of "Noticing Threats".

The rule for noticing enemies prior to combat is laid out in Chapter 9 of the PHB (PHB 189) and also in Chapter 8 of the DMG (DMG 243).
Passive score is also used for noticing traps automatically (DMG 121) which in no way precludes the opportunity to search for traps, which would be the active check.


Someone on this forum corrected me, by pointing out that active and passive refer only to the out-of-game resolution. Essentially: passive means no roll and active means roll. Frankly, its a hard habit to kick.

That someone was not only wrong, they were actively misleading you in being so wrong.

Passive scores are for determining if a character notices something in passing. Active checks are for when the character determines a particular course of action. This is delineated in both the Hiding rules and the Trap rules in the PHB and DMG in numerous locations.

Passive scores can also be representative of the average of checks done multiple times, but that use does not encompass everything they do or are used for.

[MaxBoguely]

Adding my voice to the chorus of "If he's good at it, let him be good at it." You don't need a trap that surprises the party to tell a good story or create tension. Even so, there are still ways to do that, and the fact that it feels like this character catches everything will make those moments all the more impactful.

From what I recall, like most there is nothing particularly compelling about that particular trap...it's just a trap in a place. It's an obstacle to overcome, and one of the ways for PCs to overcome it is to notice it before it becomes a problem. I would argue most traps are this way.

[RickAllison]

Adding my voice to the chorus of "If he's good at it, let him be good at it." You don't need a trap that surprises the party to tell a good story or create tension. Even so, there are still ways to do that, and the fact that it feels like this character catches everything will make those moments all the more impactful.

From what I recall, like most there is nothing particularly compelling about that particular trap...it's just a trap in a place. It's an obstacle to overcome, and one of the ways for PCs to overcome it is to notice it before it becomes a problem. I would argue most traps are this way.

Additionally, the party becomes complacent at their perfect trap-detector. They become reliant on him without realizing it. Then the DM splits him off from the party and watches them squirm as they realize they don't have Detect Traps prepared, no high alternative Perception scores, and are otherwise much worse :smallbiggrin:

[NNescio]

Additionally, the party becomes complacent at their perfect trap-detector. They become reliant on him without realizing it. Then the DM splits him off from the party and watches them squirm as they realize they don't have Detect Traps prepared, no high alternative Perception scores, and are otherwise much worse :smallbiggrin:

Find Traps kinda suck even in its niche, since it doesn't reveal the specific location of the trap. It just tells you that traps are present, plus the "general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense. " If you're going to be using this spell, you're likely to suspect traps are present anyway.

Plus, well, you need to recast it every 120 feet under ideal conditions. Dungeons (where you're likely to find traps) are likely to have twisty passageways which break off LoS far more frequently.

Our party would just resort to Mage Hand/Unseen Servant + 10 foot pole poking flagstones/ceilings/walls instead if we don't have a trapfinder. Or Shape Water a heavy mass of water down the corridor. Conjurers can summon 3 foot pole if needed (in case the traps destroy all your 10' poles), and Shape Water can also produce 5 foot poles (or a heavy ice bowling ball for rolling down the corridor).

Worse comes to worse (especially if the traps are magically keyed to creatures and mechanical triggers), Conjure spells can also be used to detect traps, but only Level 3 ones (e.g. Conjure Animals) are efficient enough (and it might sorta count as animal cruelty). Moon Druids and Barbarians can also facetank traps if needed (both these classes can also get high passive perception).

[BurgerBeast]

That someone was not only wrong, they were actively misleading you in being so wrong.

Passive scores are for determining if a character notices something in passing. Active checks are for when the character determines a particular course of action. This is delineated in both the Hiding rules and the Trap rules in the PHB and DMG in numerous locations.

Passive scores can also be representative of the average of checks done multiple times, but that use does not encompass everything they do or are used for.

Check the comments from Ironforged, here (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3ike8n/passive_perception_vs_active_perception/).

[mephnick]

Take advantage of his perception and use traps (which are generally boring and useless as resource sinks anyway) as tools to achieve world-building and atmosphere. I want the Ranger to be able to clearly see that this trap isn't rotten wooden spikes in a rough pit like they just saw with the kobolds; they are bone spikes glistening with poison sitting at the bottom of a pit lined with slippery algae obviously set by lizardfolk. Use the characters' strengths to enhance your game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Check the comments from Ironforged, here (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/3ike8n/passive_perception_vs_active_perception/).

Yes I see where he pulled a sentence out of context and highlighted a small portion of it. I also see he in no way referenced the specific rules on hiding, noticing threats and the like.

So yeah, he's totally off base.

[Erys]

Additionally, the party becomes complacent at their perfect trap-detector. They become reliant on him without realizing it. Then the DM splits him off from the party and watches them squirm as they realize they don't have Detect Traps prepared, no high alternative Perception scores, and are otherwise much worse

This.


Take advantage of his perception and use traps (which are generally boring and useless as resource sinks anyway) as tools to achieve world-building and atmosphere. I want the Ranger to be able to clearly see that this trap isn't rotten wooden spikes in a rough pit like they just saw with the kobolds; they are bone spikes glistening with poison sitting at the bottom of a pit lined with slippery algae obviously set by lizardfolk. Use the characters' strengths to enhance your game.

And especially this.

[Segev]

There is a guy hiding behind a tapestry in the hallway. You walk into the hallway. Does the DM compare the hiding guy's stealth to your passive perception, or to your active perception?

There is a trap on the door you're about to open. Does the DM use your passive perception, or ask for you to roll active perception to notice it before you trigger it?

You're on watch and a band of bandits are sneaking up on your camp. Does the DM compare their stealth checks to your passive perception or ask you to roll to perceive?

You're looting a room after beating its monsters. Does the DM ask you to roll to see if you perceive the secret door, or compare its DC to your passive perception?

You're looting a room that seemingly has no monsters in it. Does the DM compare the mimic's DC to your passive perception, or ask you to roll to perceive that the treasure chest is actually a dangerous predator?



Please, when answering these questions, consider why you answer as you do. I am honestly unable to tell what delineates when a DM "should" use passive perception vs. active rolling for perception. I can't see a rule (written or clearly implied) to judge which is appropriate; it seems to me that any rule could become a blanket "always use rolling" or "always use passive" one, without having to force the logic.

[JellyPooga]

High Passive Perception (or at least the possibility of it) is what caused one of my GM's to remove the rule for passive checks from his game. Needless to say no-one took Observant in that game! It can be a problem for GMs who aren't used to the mechanic or dealing with it in actual play; after all, it's possible for a Lvl.1 V.Human Rogue to have a PP of 22 (or 27 if he can arrange to have Advantage)...that's a higher Passive score than many characters can roll with a natural 20.

For me, the trick is in when to use passive scores and when to ask for a roll. Passive scores are a "cheat" for GMs who either don't want to bother rolling too many dice OR who don't want to give the game away by asking. Passive Scores Are Not For Players. I know I'm going to get some flak off of someone for saying this, but IMO it's the intention of the rule.

Players can optimise their passive Perception or Investigation (particularly) or any other skill they think will get a lot of passive use, but in actual play, they aren't the ones who'll be saying "Hey GM, can I use my Passive Perception?"...if they do, the answer is almost always an emphatic "No". If a Player is asking to use Perception, nine time out of ten they're rolling a dice. That's why Observant gives such a huge bonus; because the Player has no say when that bonus will be used. The bigger bonus is to compensate the fact the the player has little to no control over when it will be used. Opinions may vary, though.

Now, having (hopefully) established that Passive Perception is the domain of GMs only, how do we use it? It's a Player set DC for the GM to try and beat. Ta-daa! It's the first time I've really seen it in a D&D edition that Players get to set a DC for the GM, but there it is, even if the Players have very little control over it. They do have some; character build being the primary one, but even in game, they can arrange to get Advantage or carelessness may impose Disadvantage; either of which will swing that DC by a massive 5 points either way.

So, as the GM, you have a DC to beat. Also as the GM, you have the option of just deciding something will happen or of rolling the dice. Never forget this.
- If you need a Player to find the *FOO* for plot to happen, then they will find it, regardless of how bad their Perception (passive or otherwise) is. Use Perception as a timer, rather than a binary switch; high Perception = find quickly, low Perception = find slowly.
- The other option is basically for surprise; whether it's a trap, a monster sneaking up or locating a non-critical hidden treasure, these are all things I think should be rolled. Not by the Player, because once you ask for a roll, the jig is up. Whether they pass of fail, they know something's coming unless you subscribe to the "Random Rolls" GMing style of casually and randomly rolling dice and asking for rolls for no reason (which is a pain in the butt...don't do this).

Instead, we turn to Passive Perception; our Player-set DC. Monsters obviously get to roll Stealth against this DC; pass and they surprise the party, fail and they're spotted. Traps and hidden treasures also roll, using whatever skill you deem appropriate; a trap might use the trapmakers Int(Trap Makers Kit) skill, for instance, or a treasure hidden behind a mirror frame might use the Sleight of Hand or Stealth of the one who hid it (or an arbitrary figure if you're unsure).

Why does this work? Because even a low positive modifier has a chance of beating even an optimised Passive Perception. Just having proficiency and a flat-average Ability Score is (just about) enough to equal a Perception optimised for Passive at level 1. It also works because the players can see you rolling a dice; they don't know what it's for, but they know the RNG got involved; it's a comforting thought as a player, that the GM isn't just "making it up" or ignoring your abilities, even if you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Now, it's important to note that Passive Perception is NEVER used as a "minimum" for an active Perception roll. As I said before, Players don't get to use Passive Scores. Level 11 Rogues have Reliable Talent...that's a high level ability that you shouldn't be freely duplicating for everyone at level 1.

The use I described above is for the Players generally being wary and keeping their eyes open for hidden things; adventurers are not morons and are never on low-alert in dangerous places unless a Player specifically tells you he's playing a complete idiot (in which case, use your judgement). You should assume the players are on the look-out for traps and danger, including moving at a slower pace and the rest of it. That accounts for any extra time it takes to utilise PP.

If a player actively asks to search an area, whether for traps or for monsters or treasure; they have to use their regular Perception modifier against whatever the DC to find the thing is. Does this make it better to not actively search if your Passive score is better than your regular score? No, it doesn't. Relying on Passive means you have no control over what gets searched; saying "I look behind the mirror", for example, to find something concealed there probably negates the requirement to make a Perception check at all! A Passive Check might point out that the dust around the mirror looks disturbed, prompting a search there, but just saying you look there is an auto-pass (assuming it's in plain sight once you get behind the mirror). Similarly, if a Player walks into a room and says;
"I search for treasure!"
the appropriate response is not;
"Ok roll"
it's;
"How long are you taking?"

If the player responds with "only a round or two" or "not long", then ask for a Perception roll; they're only giving it a quick once over, they'll probably miss some things they might otherwise have found if they took some time over it. Then again, they might just get lucky and stumble across something they'd otherwise be unable to find or have a flash of insight that leads them to the *FOO*. Rolling is appropriate.

If the player responds with "as long as it takes" or "10 minutes" or something, then use Passive Perception so you don't have to ask for a roll every minute or what-have-you. If you take my advice above, then you'll probably be rolling (once) against their PP, so there's still a luck factor involved for the players that want to complain about having to use PP being unfair. Be sure to remind them that getting Advantage (e.g. the Help action) gives a flat +5 bonus and that monsters and DCs tend not to have massive scores in, well anything (and those that do are to be rightly feared!). It should placate any whining. You can set a flat DC for PP to defeat, but what would be the point? You know your players and their abilities; you may as well shove a binary switch on it; either you've already decided they'll find the *FOO* by setting a DC lower than the highest PP in the party or not, by setting it higher.

"So how is that not letting Players use Passive scores?" you ask. It's because although the Players have asked to take time to search, they don't always have the time they need. If a group of wandering monsters is approaching, for example, then they might only have time to make a Perception roll (non-passive), which would again be appropriate; did they luck-out and find the thing or did the time-limit they didn't know about foil their attempt? They don't choose when to use Passive scores; you do.

"So why is being generally wary the same as taking loads of time?" is something I expect someone will ask. It's because, mechanically, they function the same way; you're "cheating" by replacing a whole heap of player rolls with one check that you, the GM, make. It's the quality of what the players find that changes. If they're just generally being wary, they get hints; you point out that dust has been disturbed near a secret door or the dirt in the cracks of a flagstone looks suspiciously new or well-packed or whatever. You give a clue as to something that might (or might not) be there. Be sure to give these out when you beat their DC too; a failed perception check (on the players part) doesn't always mean they see nothing at all; it can just as easily mean they see something that turns out to be nothing! They can then act on the clues and progress from there, turning that hidden thing (whatever it is) into a mini-puzzle to solve instead of just a pointless drain on resources and time (both in and out of game).

If they're actively searching, taking their time over it, you can give the game away a little; tell them they find a pressure plate instead of well-packed dirt in a crack, tell them the next step in solving your mini-puzzle. They've had the foresight to go beyond merely being wary, so reward them with an extra clue; not only do they find the pressure plate, but someone also notices an odd crack around the torch sconce. Leave it to them to discover which is the trap and which is the switch, but the "active" check (note that we're still using Passive Perception here) that takes time should reveal more than either a "quick" check or general wariness. After all, they've spent a resource (time) to get the result, so should get an appropriately better result.

"So how do you set the DC's and/or modifiers involved" is the next question, I guess. This one's pretty easy. If a creature is involved, then use whatever the appropriate skill is; usually Stealth. Use Passive or regular as appropriate for the situation. In the case of traps or hidden items, you've likely got a fixed DC in whatever adventure module or rulebooks you're using. Retrofit that DC into a modifier for when you're rolling against the Players PP, or just use that DC when they're rolling themselves. Easy.

E.g. the DC to spot a Hidden Pit (DMG pg.122) is 15. If the players ask to do a quick search of a corridor, they roll regular Perception against this DC and find it or not. If they're just generally being wary or ask to take time, refit that DC:15 into a +5 modifier against the Passive Perception of the players, taking into account that the Players likely have Advantage if they're taking time to actively search and probably don't if they're just being wary.

Will they find it, won't they? Using Perception, Passive or otherwise, should NEVER be an auto-pass for anything but plot-critical scenarios. That does nothing to create any kind of drama or tension and turns adventure design into a series of binary switches. The only auto-passes you should be giving are on plot-critical tests where the roll or score the players get determines the quality of success, not the chance of success.

[Isidorios]

E.g. the DC to spot a Hidden Pit (DMG pg.122) is 15. If the players ask to do a quick search of a corridor, they roll regular Perception against this DC and find it or not. If they're just generally being wary or ask to take time, refit that DC:15 into a +5 modifier against the Passive Perception of the players, taking into account that the Players likely have Advantage if they're taking time to actively search and probably don't if they're just being wary.

Will they find it, won't they? Using Perception, Passive or otherwise, should NEVER be an auto-pass for anything but plot-critical scenarios. That does nothing to create any kind of drama or tension and turns adventure design into a series of binary switches. The only auto-passes you should be giving are on plot-critical tests where the roll or score the players get determines the quality of success, not the chance of success.

So you are just punishing characters who are optimized to be observant/actually taking the observant Feat by continuing to have a random chance of failure to notice reasonably easy to spot traps that they wouldn't fail to notice by RAW. Because you rolling your 20-sided random number generator is somehow adding "dramatic tension" to a stroll down the corridor.
When what it's actually doing is making the party super-paranoid about going down corridors, since you are probably using it on NON trapped corridors, otherwise they'd know that something is up when you start rolling dice in empty corridors.
This doesn't create drama OR tension, btw.
If you want to hit the guy with 20 passive with a dramatic trap, have intelligent enemies seal doors behind them and in front of them in a corridor, and pull a lever on the other side of the door to start filling the chamber with gas/liquid/whatever, and then start having the party figure out how to get out of there. Or make a trap more interesting than a DC 15 Pit Trap.

You can do a lot of things without screwing with the RAW in silly ways.

[jas61292]

Now, it's important to note that Passive Perception is NEVER used as a "minimum" for an active Perception roll. As I said before, Players don't get to use Passive Scores. Level 11 Rogues have Reliable Talent...that's a high level ability that you shouldn't be freely duplicating for everyone at level 1.

I don't agree with everything you had to say, but this is so true, and so critical. Passive perception is not interchangeable with other uses of Perception, and is absolutely not a minimum. Passive is a tool of the DM, and players should never be invoking it. When they roll, they roll. Passive does not come into play.

[JellyPooga]

So you are just punishing characters who are optimized to be observant/actually taking the observant Feat by continuing to have a random chance of failure to notice reasonably easy to spot traps that they wouldn't fail to notice by RAW. Because you rolling your 20-sided random number generator is somehow adding "dramatic tension" to a stroll down the corridor.

How am I punishing anyone? The character that optimised for Passive Perception still has a significantly greater chance of discovering the trap compared to his non-optimised companion. Further, as I mentioned, the "binary switch" trap (i.e. he either finds it automatically or doesn't, automatically, because you've got a set DC and a set PP, both of which you know ahead of time) punishes the optimised guy more than my method; his optimisation counts for nothing because had he not taken Observant he'd still either find it or not, depending on whether you, the GM, wanted him to or not. Having a RNG means that the dice are deciding, not you and that empowers a player who has stacked the odds in their favour. Not the opposite.

Take the example of the level 1 Rogue I mentioned vs. the Hidden Pit. Using the RAW (which I'm not totally convinced it is, but let's assume it is) where his PP auto-finds it. The pit may as well not be there. By putting something with DC:15 in, up against a PP of 22, that DC is irrelevant; anything with a DC lower than 22 will automatically be discovered. Anything with a DC over 22 won't ever be found. You might as well write "The PC's find this trap", or not as the case may be, instead of giving it a DC. You decided, not the player or the dice or his Observant feat. You've taken away his agency and replaced it with your own.

Notice how both the Observant and non-Observant Rogue automatically find this trap using your RAW; who's punishing who, now?

On the other hand, using my method, our Rogue has PP 22 against the traps 1d20+5. Any roll, on the dice, of 17 or lower means the Rogue finds it. Compared to the same Rogue without Observant, who needs me to roll 12 or lower, our PP:22 Rogue is significantly better off because he took Observant; his agency to be a better trap spotter is actually being realised. The trap actually functions like, well, a trap is supposed to (i.e. there's a chance of succumbing to its effects and a chance of avoiding it), instead of either a waste of time (auto discover) or an automatic HP penalty (auto fail), or whatever the trap does.

If our Rogue only does a quick search (i.e. he makes a Perception roll), he's no better off than the non-Observant guy, sure, but that's the point of Passive; he doesn't get to choose when he uses it. It's a massive bonus, let's not forget that, so having it automatically find every hidden thing is boring. It's why there are dice in the game in the first place; to create tension and drama. Use those dice. It's what they're for.


If you want to hit the guy with 20 passive with a dramatic trap, have intelligent enemies seal doors behind them and in front of them in a corridor, and pull a lever on the other side of the door to start filling the chamber with gas/liquid/whatever, and then start having the party figure out how to get out of there. Or make a trap more interesting than a DC 15 Pit Trap.

This is a great idea and you can do that too, but my method also allows you to include "simple" traps that actually serve a purpose beyond an arbitrary and entirely GM-decided delay or penalty.

The reason I use the method I describe above is because it gives players the agency to manipulate the odds in their favour (or against them, if they're careless), without giving them a "free pass". Sometimes, you do give them a free pass, but not because their character build says so, but because the player has taken an action to earn it; actively looking behind the painting instead of just rolling a dice or in this case, letting a static, predetermined value decide.

[JeenLeen]

I was going to post this to the Simple RAW Q&A thread, but after seeing this thread maybe it isn't so simple. My DM isn't sure of the rules, so I said I'd ask here.

I'm a level 4 Rogue (expertise in perception) taking Observant. With the feat, I now have 21 passive perception.
Let's say I'm in a room, and I want to search it for hidden doors or traps or something.
The whatever has a DC of 15 to find. (I think I heard there are different DCs for passive and active searching, but I'm not sure as I haven't DMed. But let's say both are 15 for simplicity's sake.)
I'm actively searching, so I roll Perception. I roll badly, and 14 or lower.

Do I see the whatever by RAW?
Worst case RAW would seem to be if I would have seen it had I not actively searched, but actively searching nullified my passive perception, so now I miss it. (Punishes me for searching.)
DMing is thinking that what happens if I don't notice it due to actively searching, but I passively see it. At least, that seems to make the most sense. If I had let the DM talk more before saying I roll, maybe he would have had time to notice my PP compared to the DC and told me about it before I rolled.

[Demonslayer666]

That's how it used to work in older editions. And we liked it!

This is how I still run my game with traps.

I don't let the players automatically see a trap. They have to search for them in order for it to be detected. It takes time and effort to look for a trap. It slows them down.

An easy trap is boring, and doesn't even belong in the dungeon IMHO. It's as futile as designing encounters that use no resources. Little to no value.

I really like the idea of "something is amiss" if their passive can spot it. I think I will use that.

[ad_hoc]

I was going to post this to the Simple RAW Q&A thread, but after seeing this thread maybe it isn't so simple. My DM isn't sure of the rules, so I said I'd ask here.

I'm a level 4 Rogue (expertise in perception) taking Observant. With the feat, I now have 21 passive perception.
Let's say I'm in a room, and I want to search it for hidden doors or traps or something.
The whatever has a DC of 15 to find. (I think I heard there are different DCs for passive and active searching, but I'm not sure as I haven't DMed. But let's say both are 15 for simplicity's sake.)
I'm actively searching, so I roll Perception. I roll badly, and 14 or lower.

Do I see the whatever by RAW?
Worst case RAW would seem to be if I would have seen it had I not actively searched, but actively searching nullified my passive perception, so now I miss it. (Punishes me for searching.)
DMing is thinking that what happens if I don't notice it due to actively searching, but I passively see it. At least, that seems to make the most sense. If I had let the DM talk more before saying I roll, maybe he would have had time to notice my PP compared to the DC and told me about it before I rolled.

You are confused by the terms 'active' and 'passive'.

'...can represent the average result of a check done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again..." PHB pg. 175

Also, I find it strange that in your group the players choose when they roll dice.

In my groups the players describe what their characters are doing. The DM determines whether they are successful, they fail, or if the outcome is in doubt. If it is the latter, the DM then either asks the player to make a roll or the DM rolls.

[JeenLeen]

You are confused by the terms 'active' and 'passive'.

'...can represent the average result of a check done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again..." PHB pg. 175

Also, I find it strange that in your group the players choose when they roll dice.

In my groups the players describe what their characters are doing. The DM determines whether they are successful, they fail, or if the outcome is in doubt. If it is the latter, the DM then either asks the player to make a roll or the DM rolls.

I admit I do not have a good grasp of when passive checks come into play with 5e and how they function. Doesn't Passive Perception come into play when one is entering a place with something hidden (be it a door, trap, treasure, or guy in stealth), to see if you happen to spot it?

As for when rolling dice, I guess it would make more sense for me to say I search, then wait for him to tell me to roll, but I generally roll then just to save time since that's usually the response.

I feel my question is valid, but perhaps it should rather be:
Would I spot the whatever as soon as I look in the room, thus precluding the need to actively search?

[Segev]

You are confused by the terms 'active' and 'passive'.

'...can represent the average result of a check done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again..." PHB pg. 175

And this is really where I get confused. When can't it be that?

And when your "average result" is higher than your average if you actually did roll it repeatedly...what sense does THAT make?

[jas61292]

And this is really where I get confused. When can't it be that?

When the DM says so....


And when your "average result" is higher than your average if you actually did roll it repeatedly...what sense does THAT make?

Ultimately, its a poorly designed feature. What it should probably do is give advantage to perception. Yes, that would still be a +5 passive by rule, despite advantage really only being like a +3.3, but it better approximates it so that you are always better than "average."

[Vogonjeltz]

There is a guy hiding behind a tapestry in the hallway. You walk into the hallway. Does the DM compare the hiding guy's stealth to your passive perception, or to your active perception?

There is a trap on the door you're about to open. Does the DM use your passive perception, or ask for you to roll active perception to notice it before you trigger it?

You're on watch and a band of bandits are sneaking up on your camp. Does the DM compare their stealth checks to your passive perception or ask you to roll to perceive?

You're looting a room after beating its monsters. Does the DM ask you to roll to see if you perceive the secret door, or compare its DC to your passive perception?

You're looting a room that seemingly has no monsters in it. Does the DM compare the mimic's DC to your passive perception, or ask you to roll to perceive that the treasure chest is actually a dangerous predator?



Please, when answering these questions, consider why you answer as you do. I am honestly unable to tell what delineates when a DM "should" use passive perception vs. active rolling for perception. I can't see a rule (written or clearly implied) to judge which is appropriate; it seems to me that any rule could become a blanket "always use rolling" or "always use passive" one, without having to force the logic.

1) Passive, it's not a search.

2) Passive, it's not a search.

3) Passive, it's not a search.

4) Passive, it's not a search.

5) Passive, it's not a search.

The distinction is that none of these are the players saying:

1) I want to search the hallway. (active)

2) I want to look for traps on the door before opening it. (active)

3) I'm on watch, I want to walk around and see if anyone's hiding out nearby. (active)

4) We've killed the monsters, we want to search the room for secret doors/traps/etc... (active).

5) I want to examine that chest more closely. (active)

Passive assumes the characters are just going about their business and have no suspicions in mind. Active is the character following up on a specific active suspicion.


Now, it's important to note that Passive Perception is NEVER used as a "minimum" for an active Perception roll.

No this is totally wrong.

Perception scores are applied before players even consider a check. They're there to see if the player simply notices a thing without trying. That's why the check can never truly be below the score, because the score was already applied. If the score was enough to notice whatever, then it's already been seen.


I was going to post this to the Simple RAW Q&A thread, but after seeing this thread maybe it isn't so simple. My DM isn't sure of the rules, so I said I'd ask here.

I'm a level 4 Rogue (expertise in perception) taking Observant. With the feat, I now have 21 passive perception.
Let's say I'm in a room, and I want to search it for hidden doors or traps or something.
The whatever has a DC of 15 to find. (I think I heard there are different DCs for passive and active searching, but I'm not sure as I haven't DMed. But let's say both are 15 for simplicity's sake.)
I'm actively searching, so I roll Perception. I roll badly, and 14 or lower.

Do I see the whatever by RAW?
Worst case RAW would seem to be if I would have seen it had I not actively searched, but actively searching nullified my passive perception, so now I miss it. (Punishes me for searching.)
DMing is thinking that what happens if I don't notice it due to actively searching, but I passively see it. At least, that seems to make the most sense. If I had let the DM talk more before saying I roll, maybe he would have had time to notice my PP compared to the DC and told me about it before I rolled.

You would see the hidden door before you even ask to search. If your Perception score exceeds the trap DC, you simply notice it without having to make a search check.

So if there were 2 traps in a room, and one was DC 10 and the other was DC 20 and you have a Perception score of 15, you'd see the DC 10 trap immediately, but you'd have to search to be able to locate the DC 20 one. Unless, however, you did something that would automatically reveal the existence of the trap (DMG 121). Same thing with Secret Doors (DMG 103).

Observant is so extremely valuable because it makes it probable that a character will automatically notice DC 15 or higher hidden doors, traps, or monsters.

[jas61292]

1) Passive, it's not a search.

2) Passive, it's not a search.

3) Passive, it's not a search.

4) Passive, it's not a search.

5) Passive, it's not a search.

The distinction is that none of these are the players saying:

1) I want to search the hallway. (active)

2) I want to look for traps on the door before opening it. (active)

3) I'm on watch, I want to walk around and see if anyone's hiding out nearby. (active)

4) We've killed the monsters, we want to search the room for secret doors/traps/etc... (active).

5) I want to examine that chest more closely. (active)

Passive assumes the characters are just going about their business and have no suspicions in mind. Active is the character following up on a specific active suspicion.



No this is totally wrong.

Perception scores are applied before players even consider a check. They're there to see if the player simply notices a thing without trying. That's why the check can never truly be below the score, because the score was already applied. If the score was enough to notice whatever, then it's already been seen.



You would see the hidden door before you even ask to search. If your Perception score exceeds the trap DC, you simply notice it without having to make a search check.

So if there were 2 traps in a room, and one was DC 10 and the other was DC 20 and you have a Perception score of 15, you'd see the DC 10 trap immediately, but you'd have to search to be able to locate the DC 20 one. Unless, however, you did something that would automatically reveal the existence of the trap (DMG 121). Same thing with Secret Doors (DMG 103).

Observant is so extremely valuable because it makes it probable that a character will automatically notice DC 15 or higher hidden doors, traps, or monsters.

Literally everything here is wrong.

"Passive" refers to the player, not the character. If the character is not actively looking around, they don't use passive because they don't get a perception check at all.

Your implication is that a person is better at looking when they don't look. That is wrong and not supported by game mechanics.

[JellyPooga]

"Passive" refers to the player, not the character.

This. So much this.

As I've mentioned, characters in a dungeon or otherwise doing their job (i.e. not in down-time, largely speaking) are not morons humming "Zip-a-de-doo-dah" to themselves and staring at the ceiling or into the middle distance; they're aware of their surrounding and wary. Their Passive Perception is used because it's not necessary for the Player to state every five minutes that they're on the lookout for anything interesting, dangerous or out of the ordinary. That's already assumed because adventurers who weren't would be dead very quickly.

[Vogonjeltz]

Literally everything here is wrong.

"Passive" refers to the player, not the character. If the character is not actively looking around, they don't use passive because they don't get a perception check at all.

Your implication is that a person is better at looking when they don't look. That is wrong and not supported by game mechanics.

That is not what I said at all.

More importantly the rules literally support every statement I made, this is pure RAW:

DMG:
page 103 on Secret Doors: "Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it."
Page 104 on Concealed Doors: "Normally, no ability check is required to find a concealed door. A character need only look in the right place or take the right steps to reveal the door. However, you can use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether any of them notices tracks or signs of a tapestry or rug having recently been disturbed."
Page 120-121 on Detecting and Disabling a Trap: "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."
Page 243 on Noticing Other Creatures: "Otherwise, compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as explained in the Player's Handbook."

Speaking of the Players Handbook:
page 177 on Hiding: "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."
Same section: "Passive Perception. 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"
Page 175 on Passive checks: "A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result of 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."
Page 182 on Noticing Threats: "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat."
Page 189 on Surprise: "Otherwise, the DM compares the Dexterity (Stealth) checks of anyone hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of each creature on the opposing side. Any character or monster that doesn't notice a threat is surprised at the start of the encounter."

These are some of the most basic rules of the game and written out repeatedly in section after section.

The words really mean exactly what they say, active is active, passive is passive. I don't know how you got mislead in the first place as nothing in the book suggests this isn't the case.

[Telok]

Keep the high perception score. As a DM running that adventure you want it.

I read that adventure and it's sequel when I was making my spreadsheet of WotC approved skill DCs. There's a potential TPK trap in there, some traps with no perception DCs, and at least one WTF perception check that I still remember. Read ahead, do your homework (having monster stats ready and knowing how they compare to your party), and don't worry too much. He'll spot most of the stupid "take annoying damage out of combat" crud and nothing awesome is gated behing a perception check.

[BurgerBeast]

That someone was not only wrong, they were actively misleading you in being so wrong.

Passive scores are for determining if a character notices something in passing. Active checks are for when the character determines a particular course of action. This is delineated in both the Hiding rules and the Trap rules in the PHB and DMG in numerous locations.

Passive scores can also be representative of the average of checks done multiple times, but that use does not encompass everything they do or are used for.

I went back and re-read all the relevant parts I could find. I found no support for your broad claims.

It is true that the rules specifically call for passive Wisdom (Perception) checks to oppose Dexterity (Stealth) checks in the case of hiding. And it is true that the rules call for passive Wisdom (Perception) checks in the case of secret doors or traps when the players do not specify that they are searching for these things.

Nothing else about your claim rings true.

Passive/Active refers to (no die roll)/(die roll). That's it.

What follows is only my opinion:

1. you should use passive checks when an active check would "give away info" - for example if there is a hidden item in a room, asking a player to roll a perception check and then saying "okay, you don't notice anything" is often worse than just using the passive score.

2. you should use passive scores if the behaviour is sustained and routine. Most PCs maintain a standard level of awareness during their travels, and this is represented by passive perception.

3. you should use passive scores when the activity is routine. If you have the PCs hiking through a tough bit of mountain, there might be areas with various DCs. You might assign athletics DCs to a few areas: a DC 17 climb, a DC 15 jump, and a DC 19 climb. If the entire party has passive athletics of 19+, you could just gloss over the whole thing. If they have a member with a passive 14, well, he could manage with advantage (+5), so you just narrate it... you have some trouble at three points, but your companions help you along. If someone has 13 or lower, though. That 19 spot presents a difficulty and might involve a scene.

Generally: I think the DM should never adjust DCs to match the group. By remaining as unbiased as possible, and setting DCs that you would set for a typical group, you allow the choices made by players in character creation to be rewarded in play.

If someone has a passive perception of 24? Then they will see every ambush coming a mile away. Cool. Let them. There are other ways to challenge such a party.

[BurgerBeast]

Please, when answering these questions, consider why you answer as you do. I am honestly unable to tell what delineates when a DM "should" use passive perception vs. active rolling for perception. I can't see a rule (written or clearly implied) to judge which is appropriate; it seems to me that any rule could become a blanket "always use rolling" or "always use passive" one, without having to force the logic.

For the most part you are right. It just so happens that the examples you chose involve perception specifically versus hiding enemies or traps. These are specifically called out in the rules and almost always the creature hiding rolls stealth and the person perceiving uses passive perception.

The reason in these cases is that these are called out in the PHB and DMG as specific rules that override the general rule.

You could come up with other examples using other skill contests and use different results.

I do personally like to use the old 3.5 mentality of the take 20/take 10/roll. If you're a police investigator with hours to scour the place for evidence, you can just take 20. If you're there for a short time but able to remain calm and put in a focussed effort, you can take 10 (passive score). You'd also be aware that you almost certainly missed a few details. If the stakes are higher, whether due to time constraints or danger, and you know it, you will need to roll.

[ES Curse]

Here we come to an important dynamic for 5e skills: Investigation vs Perception. Perception sees the trap's physical form; Investigation allows you to realize how it works. When a character perceives something, they know where it is and how it looks, but not necessarily what it is. A really smart (or insane) trapsmith might construct something so alien in design that simply knowing something's there won't save you. Also, describe EVERYTHING in detail. If you only ever mention things like "there are tiny holes in the wall, just large enough for a dart to fit through" when there's a trap, PP becomes a nonmagical Detect Traps. Throw out a few red herrings for your eagle-eyed friend to waste time on if his Investigation isn't high enough to clearly tell what's a trap and what's for decoration.

For the quick and sleazy way, just throw a few illusions over traps so you have to succeed on Intelligence checks instead of Perception.

[JellyPooga]

If someone has a passive perception of 24? Then they will see every ambush coming a mile away. Cool. Let them. There are other ways to challenge such a party.

This is why I use Passive Perception the way I do (as described in my previous posts); if someone in the group has a score that high, they're going to want to use it, BUT the problem is that their score is SO high that without the GM fudging (normally accepted as a Bad Thing) no ambush, trap or hidden thing is safe from their prying eyes and that's boring, so the GM finds other ways to challenge the party, resulting in that player not getting to use their ability.

Sure, the GM might throw the player a bone every now and then, but on the whole, RAW Passive Perception encourages GMs to bury their head in the sand with regard to hidden things when someone comes along with a character optimised for it. "Oh, this guy has PP 24. Great, er...I'll just take out this ambush here, put this MacGuffin in plain sight (why bother having it hidden?) and have more guardians to compensate...what else? Hmm, Oh I know, I'll make this door a secret door; he'll find it automatically anyway, so it doesn't matter and it sounds cooler than a regular door".

To use an analogy:

Imagine a homebrew Barbarian Path that, combined with other feats, etc. made a character so good at killing Goblins (for example) that any goblin that he comes across is just dead. No point in even rolling the dice, really; it's that efficient a build. With Goblins simply not being a challenge any more, the GM would like to stop including Goblins in the game; they've become boring because every fight with them is a non-affair. Unfortunately, the Barbarian player has a whole character designed to kill goblins as effectively and efficiently as possible, so the GM is at an impasse.

What's the solution to the problem here? Is it to introduce increasingly tougher Goblins that only that one character can deal with? No. You change the thing that made goblins boring in the first place. It's the hombrew Barbarian Path that caused the problem, so you change it so that goblin-slaying stays interesting.

Same with Perception. I don't care if the RAW are the RAW...the interpretation of them that (functionally) a PP higher than 20 auto-finds everything forever is dull, uninspiring and ultimately boring, in addition to punishing anyone who actually wants a PP higher than 20.

Don't get me wrong, PP kinda works when no-one is really optimised for it; when PP scores are in the 10-15 range, having Dis/Advantage counts for a lot and there's a whole variety of scenarios you can play with, as a GM, to use the varied PP's in the group. When a level 5+ Rogue with Expertise in Perception comes along, even without Observant, however, it really starts to throw the game out of whack. Sure, you can still keep the rest of the party on the hot-foot in ambushes sometimes, or if the party splits up, but as long as that Rogue is around it's just not worth bothering to hide anything and the Rogue is going to feel gipped for putting Expertise in Perception because he's not using it. It's circular. As GM, it's your job to both challenge your players and give them the agency to use their characters the way they want to be; Passive Perception, as written, kinda screws with one or t'other.

At least in my experience.

[Erys]

Same with Perception. I don't care if the RAW are the RAW...the interpretation of them that (functionally) a PP higher than 20 auto-finds everything forever is dull, uninspiring and ultimately boring, in addition to punishing anyone who actually wants a PP higher than 20.


Re-posting for relevance.


Additionally, the party becomes complacent at their perfect trap-detector. They become reliant on him without realizing it. Then the DM splits him off from the party and watches them squirm as they realize they don't have Detect Traps prepared, no high alternative Perception scores, and are otherwise much worse


Take advantage of his perception and use traps (which are generally boring and useless as resource sinks anyway) as tools to achieve world-building and atmosphere. I want the Ranger to be able to clearly see that this trap isn't rotten wooden spikes in a rough pit like they just saw with the kobolds; they are bone spikes glistening with poison sitting at the bottom of a pit lined with slippery algae obviously set by lizardfolk. Use the characters' strengths to enhance your game.

Naturally, what you do in your own game is your own. But a high passive perception can actually add dynamics to a game.

[JellyPooga]

Naturally, what you do in your own game is your own. But a high passive perception can actually add dynamics to a game.

With regards to the first example (courtesy of RickAllison); that's punishing the high PP guy even more! "So we'll just gloss over everything Perception based until you're not playing and then make something exciting happen to everyone else. No, not you, you're not there. You've only got yourself to blame, really." Great for everyone else I guess, but not so much for the guy that specifically wanted his character to be the Perception guy.

As for the second (from mephnick), this is just set dressing and doesn't require Perception at all. Sure, you get the opportunity to "dress" more "set" with PC's that have high Perception (passive or otherwise), but let's take a look at that specific example; two pits, one a crude kobold construction, the other a more complex, if primitive, trap. Neither appears to be covered or hidden in the description, so Perception isn't really an issue here; assuming the PC's have sufficient light, you can just tell them those details regardless of Perception scores, if all you're looking to do is dress the set and create atmosphere.

If they don't have light or they otherwise actually require a Perception check, because this is supposed to be, you know, a *trap*, then you don't want to give away the trap until either they successfully spot and/or disarm the danger, or they actually spring the trap. In this case, revealing the slippery algae-lining of the lizardfolk pit is something that you'd probably want a Perception check for and there should be a chance of failure, otherwise it's not a trap at all and neither the GM nor the players should be bothering to waste time with it. A trap is only a challenge if there's a risk of failing to avoid it. RAW Passive Perception takes away a very large part of that risk.

[Tanarii]

That only applies to long distance travel. If you're in a scene, at a location, or happen to be a Ranger in the correct terrain type, you're going to be 'on'.

That being said, if someone isn't a Ranger and has a great passive perception, they should probably not choose to engage in distracting activities while traveling. Tasks like Navigation should probably be relegated to the people with terrible perception (amusingly).It applies to all movement and traveling. Inside a dungeon, in an urban area, in wilderness. Long distance and short distance. It applies to going down a dungeon corridor just as much as traveling between cities.

I agree if everyone is inside a room already and looking around it, they all get their passive perception. And probably passive investigation too.

[Tanarii]

I
That someone was not only wrong, they were actively misleading you in being so wrong.

Passive scores are for determining if a character notices something in passing. Active checks are for when the character determines a particular course of action. This is delineated in both the Hiding rules and the Trap rules in the PHB and DMG in numerous locations.

Passive scores can also be representative of the average of checks done multiple times, but that use does not encompass everything they do or are used for.
That is not correct. Passive scores, with the exception of passive perception, always represent either the average performance of a task being done repeatedly or a check the DM wants to keep hidden. The term 'passive' absolutely means 'player does not make a die roll' and has nothing to do with the character actively or passively doing something.

Passive Perception is the exception in that it has several call-outs for when it is allowed to be used by a character not actively using an action to make a check. This of course causes massive confusion, especially when people try to actively mislead people into thinking that the 'passive' in passive check has anything to do with the character being passive or active.

[Segev]

1) Passive, it's not a search.

2) Passive, it's not a search.

3) Passive, it's not a search.

4) Passive, it's not a search.

5) Passive, it's not a search.

The distinction is that none of these are the players saying:

1) I want to search the hallway. (active)

2) I want to look for traps on the door before opening it. (active)

3) I'm on watch, I want to walk around and see if anyone's hiding out nearby. (active)

4) We've killed the monsters, we want to search the room for secret doors/traps/etc... (active).

5) I want to examine that chest more closely. (active)

Passive assumes the characters are just going about their business and have no suspicions in mind. Active is the character following up on a specific active suspicion.


So... any time there's something to notice, you use passive perception. You use "active" perception if the player asks to roll. But...if passive perception is used any time something is there to be found, why would the player ever need to ask to search? Shouldn't he always fail any time he asks because if he asked there wasn't anything there? Or are you arguing that passive perception is an effective minimum on perception rolls, because the only reason to ask to perceive (triggering a roll) is in hopes the roll will roll higher than 10 (or 15, if you have the Observant feat)?



To the others who've commented, I thank you for your replies... but it still doesn't answer my question.

What I'm getting at is... when SHOULD the DM just use passive perception, assuming he's running the game without a module telling him "use passive perception here?"

When is his saying, "Roll perception" inappropriate?

When SHOULD a player need to say, "I would like to roll perception," if the DM is using passive perception properly?

[BurgerBeast]

(snip)

I think the RAW answer is that it is up to the DM. You can use whichever you like, except in those cases specifically called out. I'm sorry to not be more helpful but I think that's all you get. I'll see if I can't come up with something better, but yeah, for now perception seems a bit like the knowledge skills in that they seem best to be passive.

[djreynolds]

There is a guy hiding behind a tapestry in the hallway. You walk into the hallway. Does the DM compare the hiding guy's stealth to your passive perception, or to your active perception?

There is a trap on the door you're about to open. Does the DM use your passive perception, or ask for you to roll active perception to notice it before you trigger it?

You're on watch and a band of bandits are sneaking up on your camp. Does the DM compare their stealth checks to your passive perception or ask you to roll to perceive?

You're looting a room after beating its monsters. Does the DM ask you to roll to see if you perceive the secret door, or compare its DC to your passive perception?

You're looting a room that seemingly has no monsters in it. Does the DM compare the mimic's DC to your passive perception, or ask you to roll to perceive that the treasure chest is actually a dangerous predator?


Please, when answering these questions, consider why you answer as you do. I am honestly unable to tell what delineates when a DM "should" use passive perception vs. active rolling for perception. I can't see a rule (written or clearly implied) to judge which is appropriate; it seems to me that any rule could become a blanket "always use rolling" or "always use passive" one, without having to force the logic.

Some common sense finally, thanks. Passive perception is not radar. It is like Spiderman's Spider senses, but I see as you must be calm or in the moment and focused. To me passive perception is a combination of experience (in the form or proficiency), common sense (wisdom), and the tempo of the situation.

If a player, everytime comes in a room and has a routine upon entry, say I look up, left and right, to me he is playing the game. The DM will often say, in the room its so many feet by so many feet, with such and such decorations. If your player is asking about this stuff his passively taking in the room and gets his +10, but if the fighter just walks right over to the glinting sword... he's not taking anything in.

I use passive perception as a warning to players taking everything in and paying attention to details. The lit candles adorn the room, wizard asks are they magical, who lit these and how long ago, and the rogue asks if they are valuable. To me the wizard is open able to passively perceive the area, the rogue is not cause he's thinking how much are these candle sticks worth.

There is a guy hiding behind a tapestry in the hallway. You walk into the hallway. Does the DM compare the hiding guy's stealth to your passive perception, or to your active perception?

No, your passive perception tells you something is off, and now you can start to actively use investigation and perception in the hallway. What are paying attention to here? Are you my dwarven cleric checking out the stonework or the bandage on the fighter's arm? But here the cleric may be told by the DM to perform a medicine check on the fighter's arm

There is a trap on the door you're about to open. Does the DM use your passive perception, or ask for you to roll active perception to notice it before you trigger it?

Tempo dependent

Yes, you are on guard sort of, you know to always check doors. So it tingles you spider senses to stop. Now where is the trap on the door, well now you have to actively find it with through search.

Now if you are barreling through the hallway while being chased, passive perception is not up and running. If you are mapping a dungeon or navigating a map, your focus is there.

If you are walking around in a eerie castle your passive perception is up and running, but not when you are fleeing from undead.

You're on watch and a band of bandits are sneaking up on your camp. Does the DM compare their stealth checks to your passive perception or ask you to roll to perceive?

Experience and proficiency dependent

Yes, you are on watch and hopefully not day dreaming. But here a roll maybe needed and/or an exact order of events of what you are doing. Are standing still and listening, are you walking around, does every little noise distract you?

You're looting a room after beating its monsters. Does the DM ask you to roll to see if you perceive the secret door, or compare its DC to your passive perception?

Common sense, wisdom

No, to me the light blub goes off and it says there is something else. Are you actually paying attention, or are you counting coins?
When everyone is looting did you ask the DM is there any pictures on the wall, what does the stone work look like, where did that arrow go when I missed. But you are just focused on the looting, no.

You're looting a room that seemingly has no monsters in it. Does the DM compare the mimic's DC to your passive perception, or ask you to roll to perceive that the treasure chest is actually a dangerous predator?

Tempo, experience, and wisdom

Yes and no, are you experienced enough to know, say as like a gazelle drinking at the river that something is always lurking and dash away from the crocodile in the last second? Or are you trying to cross the river in mad dash. You may know there is danger but you are willingly to take the risk, because you are dying of thirst or the lions are right behind you.

If a player does not ask, that means he/she is not paying attention and does not get passive perception, IMO. And no rolls for any perception checks. Get off your cell phone and play the game and stop eating all the chips I brought in.

In our current game, my cleric has a high passive perception, but if I'm jaw-jacking with the wizard on what spells we need to prepare or checking out the fighter for scrapes do I notice the lurker-above, I say no.

Passive perception is not radar. Now if I'm on patrol and running point, yes my passive perception is on and radar is tracking. But if I have the map and compass, no. But though in that instance with navigating I may not perceive danger I may pick up something in the foliage or landscape, like this tree is odd, hey druid look at this tree or slant or depression.

I will allow PCs who are searching for a trap a cumulative degrading DC, "you're getting warmer" same for secret doors. And I will tell them if nothing is present after a thorough search.

[90sMusic]

Passive perception determines what you see without having to roll because you aren't actively listening.

And yeah, if you get it really high, you ARE going to see and hear nearly everything. That is how it is supposed to work and it only gets that high if the player actually wants to get it that high because that is what they want out of it. It costs them things to get it that high, whether attuned items, feats, or attribute increases.

For you to just wave your hand and invalidate their build and how they want their character to function simply because YOU, as the DM, want players to miss things for whatever reason is just bad DMing imo.

It's as bad as those railroad conductor DMs who completely invalidate how a spell works or what a spell does or rewrites the game's core rules on the fly just to prevent players from solving a "problem" in a way other than how they intended. And instead of owning up to the fact that they lacked foresight in their design and simply learning from the experience for use in the future, they just snap their fingers and say "nope, doesn't work because I said so".

Sometimes players with high passive perception will be able to see stealthing enemies or notice aspects of a room or even see traps without really even actively looking for them. Those characters are very observant and that is fine. I mean if you are going to BS your players and have things you absolutely don't want them to be able to pickup, just make the DC something ridiculous like 30 or something along those lines. The player is 100% justified in being unhappy that you are invalidating an aspect of their character simply because you don't know how to deal with it. The thing is, you don't really have to deal with it. Let it play as the rules intended. It is OK for one of your players to have high passive perception, it doesn't break the game, and it's no different than if they has simply rolled 10 every time. It is not a big deal, there is nothing that needs to be fixed.

[djreynolds]

Passive perception determines what you see without having to roll because you aren't actively listening.

And yeah, if you get it really high, you ARE going to see and hear nearly everything. That is how it is supposed to work and it only gets that high if the player actually wants to get it that high because that is what they want out of it. It costs them things to get it that high, whether attuned items, feats, or attribute increases.

For you to just wave your hand and invalidate their build and how they want their character to function simply because YOU, as the DM, want players to miss things for whatever reason is just bad DMing imo.

It's as bad as those railroad conductor DMs who completely invalidate how a spell works or what a spell does or rewrites the game's core rules on the fly just to prevent players from solving a "problem" in a way other than how they intended. And instead of owning up to the fact that they lacked foresight in their design and simply learning from the experience for use in the future, they just snap their fingers and say "nope, doesn't work because I said so".

Sometimes players with high passive perception will be able to see stealthing enemies or notice aspects of a room or even see traps without really even actively looking for them. Those characters are very observant and that is fine. I mean if you are going to BS your players and have things you absolutely don't want them to be able to pickup, just make the DC something ridiculous like 30 or something along those lines. The player is 100% justified in being unhappy that you are invalidating an aspect of their character simply because you don't know how to deal with it. The thing is, you don't really have to deal with it. Let it play as the rules intended. It is OK for one of your players to have high passive perception, it doesn't break the game, and it's no different than if they has simply rolled 10 every time. It is not a big deal, there is nothing that needs to be fixed.

I see your point, but perception isn't like those new cars that automatically start breaking. If a player comes into a room and says, "is anything off" you get your passive perception. Its not automatic like its a 50ft radius force field of perception.

Whereas, if the just walk in. I'm not automatically giving you the keys to the city.

As long as the player is playing and taking in the area, they get any bonuses afforded to them. But if they come back and say, "hey my passive perception is 20 and I should've seen or heard that." I may say no if while playing they were not paying attention.

I think it depends on the actual players, as a DM I reward effort.

Some players just sit there and are doing online trades.

[rollingForInit]

I played a rogue at level 7 that had 23 Passive Perception, and advantage on all Perception checks that relied on sight. The first from Expertise in Perception+Observant, the second part from a magical item.

It was a lot of fun, and nobody in the group, DM included, had any issues with it. The DM would allow her to see basically everything that could be seen without any conscious effort. She'd notice traps if she went first, some secret doors and such, enemies very rarely managed to sneek up on them when she was awake. While hanging around cities, my DM would give me all kinds of minor details about characters. Someone wore a strong perfume, someone had some small piece of jewelry, etc.

At times you might want to counter super high perception. It can easily be done by having the threat approach from a direction they cannot see (e.g. behind if they are going first), have traps that are magical in nature and are only visible with Detect Magic or something similar, invisible creatures, Zone of Silence, or just some custom enemies that have super good stealth.

[djreynolds]

I played a rogue at level 7 that had 23 Passive Perception, and advantage on all Perception checks that relied on sight. The first from Expertise in Perception+Observant, the second part from a magical item.

It was a lot of fun, and nobody in the group, DM included, had any issues with it. The DM would allow her to see basically everything that could be seen without any conscious effort. She'd notice traps if she went first, some secret doors and such, enemies very rarely managed to sneek up on them when she was awake. While hanging around cities, my DM would give me all kinds of minor details about characters. Someone wore a strong perfume, someone had some small piece of jewelry, etc.

At times you might want to counter super high perception. It can easily be done by having the threat approach from a direction they cannot see (e.g. behind if they are going first), have traps that are magical in nature and are only visible with Detect Magic or something similar, invisible creatures, Zone of Silence, or just some custom enemies that have super good stealth.

How are you playing the character?

Are you actively engaged with the game and DM and asking questions?

Is it just an automatic thing.

Obviously your PC invested in this and deserves the rewards.

I think DMs do not like it being used like its a magical awareness, though to be honest a rogue's skill could be said to border on magical as they are so good at them.

It is you walk into a room and perceive, is there a distance radius for stuff?

[90sMusic]

I see your point, but perception isn't like those new cars that automatically start breaking. If a player comes into a room and says, "is anything off" you get your passive perception. Its not automatic like its a 50ft radius force field of perception.

Whereas, if the just walk in. I'm not automatically giving you the keys to the city.

As long as the player is playing and taking in the area, they get any bonuses afforded to them. But if they come back and say, "hey my passive perception is 20 and I should've seen or heard that." I may say no if while playing they were not paying attention.

I think it depends on the actual players, as a DM I reward effort.

Some players just sit there and are doing online trades.

DM's can do what they like, but what you're describing is arbitrarily punishing your players for not being invested in your game. You shouldn't have to punish them to make them want to be involved, you should make the story interesting enough for them that they want to be engaged in it.

I have seen DM's pull that kind of crap, where you walk into a room with a very obvious wooden trap door on the otherwise stone ceiling leading up to a new area. Imagine yourself, in reality, walking into a room like that. The ceiling is featureless except for a 3 by 3 foot wooden square. It is painfully obvious to anyone, you shouldn't have to say "I WANT TO SEARCH FOR XXX" and it is even worse when DM's make you specify "I WANT TO SEARCH FOR XXX ON THE CEILING!" because it is ridiculous. Some things are obvious, they stand out, they shouldn't require a perception check to notice unless most folks in the party have very low passive perception for whatever reason.

As a DM you have to decide what is and what isn't important for the game and for the narrative of the story. If you force your players to actively roll for every single activity, it's no wonder they are so bored they are checking their stocks instead of paying attention. Trivial tasks shouldn't require a lot of player input, it's like rolling a strength check to turn a doorknob to open a door that isn't locked on the offchance they roll a 1 and somehow fail to do it.

A lot of traps are somewhat easy to spot with fairly low DCs, passive perception can and should pick them up with ease if it is higher than the DC. And that is fine. That is that player's role int he party, to be the observant one and let them feel like they are actually contributing to the party and the game. Even if it is passive and doesn't require roling, it rewards the player for some of the character choices they have made and makes them feel like they are actually benefiting from it. The other players feel the same way, their team mate is contributing something valuable to the group. If you turn everything into a roll fest, remove passive scores and all that, you're just arbitrarily punishing your players for no reason.

Having a high passive perception is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. And you can use it to your advantage in your story telling. If they become very complacent with that score doing all the work for them and they get to the point where they stop wanting to actively roll perception to look for traps, throw in a couple that they can't beat with their passive, that will be hard to see. Then when they just waltz in the room and take an explosion to their face, they realize maybe they should try looking around a little harder.

You have got to remember the thing that so many DMs always, always forget. It is a game, the players are there to have fun, they want to be heroes and do interesting things. If you literally force them to do things, they don't enjoy it because they have to do it. If you punish them arbitrarily they don't enjoy it. If you invalidate feats and attributes they chose and make them mean nothing, they don't enjoy it. You have to ask yourself: Are you DMing because you want your players enjoy the game or are you doing it entirely for yourself? A lot of DM's do it for themselves. They treat games like fanfiction they write and want it to play out word for word like a script and force their players to jump through all the hoops. If you loosen the reins and let your players just have a little fun, you'll see surprising results.

I make mysteries and leave little clues here and there for them to find. It makes them search places pretty hard to find them. But they don't have to. It isn't part of the main storyline or anything like that, usually just little side quests or lore information or sometimes just getting closure for something that happened earlier in the story to a named NPC or something along those lines. It makes them happy to get these bits of information and they know they miss it sometimes, so they always stay on the lookout for that kind of thing. If I just forced them to sit in a room and roll dice until they succeeded and they HAD to have that info to progress, it isn't very fun or interesting. If I made their passive perception useless and only allowed them to see if they rolled high enough actively and only when they said they were looking (without prompting) and only in the very specific place they want to look, that isn't fun.

I can't even imagine that honestly... "I want to look at the floor." *roll* "I want to look at the ceiling" *roll* " I want to look at the left wall" *roll*. Or perhaps it's "I want to look at the floor, ceiling, walls, under the furniture, check for loose stones, yadda yadda yadda" *roll* and if THAT is the case, all that is essentially implied when they are rolling perception in the first place. Of course they are looking for traps in the usual places, or course they are keeping an eye out for hidden monsters while they are in a dungeon full of who-knows-what where danger could be hiding literally anywhere.

Treat people with respect and treat their characters like you would treat real people and don't just assume their character is an idiot and get killed by the large spider monster hanging on the ceiling above them just because they didn't say they wanted to roll to actively look directly above them. Reminds me of this terrible DM I had one time who said our party had to roll perception (with a DC of like 15 no less) to see if we heard the combat happening in a bubble of magical darkness when the battle was happening literally 30 feet away. I mean seriously? Armor shuffling around, swords impacting swords and armor, all the clanking and grunting and shuffling, but yeah, totally can't hear that without a high enough roll right? haha. :)

Decide what is important to the narrative and to the enjoyment of the players and you'll have far better results. You don't have to turn every activity into a huge ordeal or penalize your players because you don't want them to notice something. There are plenty of ways within the rules of the game to have stealthy enemies creep up unnoticed without just making excuses why that goblin who rolled a 6 on stealth is still hidden behind that little bush from your 21 perception ranger and unnoticed.

I treat passive perception like this basically... You walk into a room, there's a book on the table that is opened. High enough passive perception, you notice that it is one of those Where's Waldo books and it's on the Beach page where everyone is in swimwear. Some less observant people might not notice the book there without actively searching around the room. And in either case, you're not finding waldo unless you take the time to look for him. Or if you walk into the breakroom and there is a big box of Krispy Kreme donuts laying there, opened, you're gonna notice and you'll be able to tell how many are left with a quick glance without actively dedicating any thought or time to it. Maybe you don't notice a couple of them are stuffed with jelly, but you see them regardless. That's another thing, perception isn't binary. It isn't just "you see this" or "you don't see this". There are degrees. You can see a guy walking down a shadowy street without too much difficulty most of the time, but you probably can't get a good look at his face and his features without more directed observation.

Anyway i'm going to sleep. I'm more tired than an 18-wheeler.

[JellyPooga]

As a DM you have to decide what is and what isn't important for the game and for the narrative of the story. If you force your players to actively roll for every single activity, it's no wonder they are so bored they are checking their stocks instead of paying attention. Trivial tasks shouldn't require a lot of player input, it's like rolling a strength check to turn a doorknob to open a door that isn't locked on the offchance they roll a 1 and somehow fail to do it.

This is an important point; you don't need to roll Perception or check Passive Perception for everything even remotely perception based. Most things you just see/hear/smell. Only if it's hidden (whether deliberately or accidentally) should you even be considering checking against a DC. It's practically rule 1 for GMing that you only ask for a check or make a check when it's dramatically or narratively appropriate.


A lot of traps are somewhat easy to spot with fairly low DCs, passive perception can and should pick them up with ease if it is higher than the DC. And that is fine. That is that player's role int he party, to be the observant one and let them feel like they are actually contributing to the party and the game. Even if it is passive and doesn't require roling, it rewards the player for some of the character choices they have made and makes them feel like they are actually benefiting from it. The other players feel the same way, their team mate is contributing something valuable to the group. If you turn everything into a roll fest, remove passive scores and all that, you're just arbitrarily punishing your players for no reason.

The problem with a set score vs. a set DC is that it's not a case of the characters skill vs. the deviousness of the hidden thing, it's just the GM deciding if he wants the party to find the thing or not; the player doesn't actually have much, if any, agency to influence it. If the GM wants it to be hidden and sets an arbitrarily high DC so your PP:28 Rogue can't find it, it didn't actually matter if that Rogue had 28 or 20; the GM set the DC to beat your PP. It's binary. If the GM only wants there to be a chance of finding it, he's got no tool beyond asking for a Perception roll to model that and your Rogue taking Observant won't come into play; his agency to get a benefit from that feat has been removed in either case.

Introduce the dice roll to Passive checks and the Rogue is playing ball. Take a PP:28 Rogue vs. a Hidden Pit (DC:15); using the method I've described in ealier posts, the Rogue will always find that trap, even with a roll. A DC:20 trap, on the other hand, has a chance of evading the Rogues notice; he'll still find it 9 times out of 10 (literally), but there's that chance he'll fail to find something that's supposed to be Hard to find. Up against a DC:25 trap, his odds are down to about 1-in-3 of failure, so he's still finding most things of that difficulty and against the Near Impossible (DC:30), he's actually got a chance of finding that thing passively (a little under a 50% chance), instead of none. Introducing a RNG to Passive checks empowers the Players build and play choices, not the opposite.

Here's the thing. The only time you make a check is when something is in doubt as to whether it will succeed or not. When there's absolutely no chance of failure (or of success), you just don't roll the dice (or in this case, check against your Passive Perception), as I said before. Like your Str check vs. the door handle; it's not worth bothering with. If there's doubt, you're rolling the dice; it's what they represent in the game; the doubt over your chances of success.

Noticing something obscure or hidden, whether you're searching for it or casually glancing around, almost always carries a risk of failure; even when you know where you left your keys, you sometimes can't find them. Distraction plays a big part; whatever is going through your head at the time, what catches your eye, perhaps someone said something to you or a bird flew past the window and so forth. Luck is also a factor; maybe your keys fell behind the sofa or you accidentally knocked them off the table when you were moving the post and didn't notice. Now, if you're really perceptive, you can shave some of the odds off; you can get good at finding things, but those distractions and flukes still happen and no-one is perfect.

Here's the other thing; the game is set up for checks to be Roll vs. DC (see previous comments on when to make a check in the first place). Usually it's the Players that are rolling against the GM's DC, because they're the ones taking the actions. When they're not taking actions, uh, actively it falls to the GM to introduce the random factor of the equation. Sure he can take out that factor at his option; that's the GM's prerogative, but he shouldn't do it routinely because down that road lies GM-Story-Time and the dreaded railroad tracks. Using PP as a static score vs. a static DC is routinely taking out the random. It would be like making every monster attack score 10+their attack bonus; if their static attack score beats your AC it will always beat it and vice versa. Yeah, some GM's will fudge an attack roll, but not as a rule or regularly; that's taking out the "game" and replacing it with narration. Sometimes good or necessary, but not all the time. Perception is no exception.

[djreynolds]

As I mentioned its game play style. Some people and players don't want they easy game.

They want something in depth.

I love that a rogue skills border on magical and I do not make players roll for much.

I do not make players investigate every inch of the room,

But this discussion is that some DM are not going to give you something for nothing, all I ask for is, "I walk in the room, and what do I perceive." If you walk in a room say that, cause its not automatic.

Many DMs do not like passive perception because players are playing the game like its a computer game.

My players are bit more immersed, that's how they play.

I have a barbarian ask me if he can passive intimidation, sounds cool. You're bad *ss and you scare people, with positives and negatives. Let's try it out.

For some DMs, and I'm on the fence, you have to work for it. You go in the room, and I'll tell you something in strange and that is your is passive perception cue to actively perceive and investigate.

You hear a rustle in bushes, I'm not telling you hear 5 orcs, I want to know are you going to be taking an action now to take perception check, then I tell you maybe see 4 orcs because your darkvision only goes out 60 feet, etc...

I use passive perception as a cue.

[Vogonjeltz]

I went back and re-read all the relevant parts I could find. I found no support for your broad claims.

It is true that the rules specifically call for passive Wisdom (Perception) checks to oppose Dexterity (Stealth) checks in the case of hiding. And it is true that the rules call for passive Wisdom (Perception) checks in the case of secret doors or traps when the players do not specify that they are searching for these things.

Nothing else about your claim rings true.

You didn't find the text in the DMG or PHB? How peculiar.

Also, it's not a check if it's passive, it's a score. Active attempts are checks.



Passive/Active refers to (no die roll)/(die roll). That's it.

Wrong, as demonstrated at length in post 45. There are no less than ten citations there proving that fact.

As the rest of your post was some kind of opinion editorial I've cut it for being baseless and without merit.


That is not correct. Passive scores, with the exception of passive perception, always represent either the average performance of a task being done repeatedly or a check the DM wants to keep hidden. The term 'passive' absolutely means 'player does not make a die roll' and has nothing to do with the character actively or passively doing something.

Passive Perception is the exception in that it has several call-outs for when it is allowed to be used by a character not actively using an action to make a check. This of course causes massive confusion, especially when people try to actively mislead people into thinking that the 'passive' in passive check has anything to do with the character being passive or active.

Tanarii, it actually is correct, I pulled it directly from the PHB:
"Such a check can represent the average result..." (can of course means only sometimes).
"or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine the whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." (PHB 175)

Perhaps it's just confusion from semantics, but perception is something that's always happening, unlike for example, acrobatics. You don't have to active it. That's why passive perception is just what happens when you're not actively making a perception check.


So... any time there's something to notice, you use passive perception. You use "active" perception if the player asks to roll. But...if passive perception is used any time something is there to be found, why would the player ever need to ask to search? Shouldn't he always fail any time he asks because if he asked there wasn't anything there? Or are you arguing that passive perception is an effective minimum on perception rolls, because the only reason to ask to perceive (triggering a roll) is in hopes the roll will roll higher than 10 (or 15, if you have the Observant feat)?



To the others who've commented, I thank you for your replies... but it still doesn't answer my question.

What I'm getting at is... when SHOULD the DM just use passive perception, assuming he's running the game without a module telling him "use passive perception here?"

When is his saying, "Roll perception" inappropriate?

When SHOULD a player need to say, "I would like to roll perception," if the DM is using passive perception properly?

Passive perception is the effective minimum because it's what you'd notice without trying.

Perception checks on the other hand are used whenever the player wants to have their character deliberately look around for something.

The active result can be higher than the passive result, or it might just return no more information than the character already had. There's little harm to making a search (beyond time expended) because the result might be higher than your passive check and some DCs are going to be higher.

The DM should use the score for Perception whenever there's a chance characters might notice a hidden creature or object (trap, etc...).

The benefit of it is that the DM can determine if one of the players notices the snare without telling the players that there's something there. If you all walk into a room and I say: Make a perception check. You're going to be suddenly suspicious about the whole thing and act differently than you would have.

If, on the other hand, I use your perception scores (which I as DM should already know) I can determine if anyone sees that snare before the players do anything at all upon entering the room. Then if one player just happens to be cautious, they might search before crossing to the door, or maybe they aren't cautious and trip the trap.

The player should need to say they want to make a search for X. It doesn't matter what X is, but that's the time to roll the perception check. Until that time, the DM should just be applying the character scores to see what the players do or don't automatically notice.

Edit: Also, for the naysayers, the DMG straight up tells the DM to use the score even when the character is totally distracted on page 240: "For example, imagine a wizard is running down a dungeon corridor to escape from a beholder. Around the corner ahead, two ogres lie in wait. Does the wizard hear the ogres readying their ambush? You look at the wizard's passive Wisdom (Perception) score and consider all the factors weighing on it.
The wizard is running, not paying attention to what's ahead of him. This imposes disadvantage on the wizard's ability check. However, the ogres are readying a portcullis trap and making a lot of noise with a winch, which could grant the wizard advantage on the check. As a result, the character has neither advantage nor disadvantage on the Wisdom check, and you don't need to consider any additional factors."

[BurgerBeast]

You didn't find the text in the DMG or PHB? How peculiar.

I still haven't. I'm not the only one, either.


Also, it's not a check if it's passive, it's a score. Active attempts are checks.

I don't care. It works the same way. Doesn't it? Isn't a 21 passive perception still a 21 passive perception, whether I refer to it as a score or a check?


Wrong, as demonstrated at length in post 45. There are no less than ten citations there proving that fact.

Not a single thing in post 45 demonstrates what you think it demonstrates. The error you are making is known as "generalizing the specific." You don't get to point to rule that are specifically about noticing traps and secret doors, etc. and then say: therefore, all skills work this way. Not especially when the general rules for all skills directly contradict you.

Unfortunately, you're not particularly good at understanding things, so I'm not sure why I keep trying to help you.


As the rest of your post was some kind of opinion editorial I've cut it for being baseless and without merit.

Oh, yeah. The part that I said was all my opinion? Next time, maybe just don't read things that you don't want to read.

[Erys]

There are no less than ten citations there proving that fact.

x2

...And somehow, burgerbeast doesn't agree with the facts; insisting he is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. :smallmad:

[rollingForInit]

How are you playing the character?

Are you actively engaged with the game and DM and asking questions?

Is it just an automatic thing.

Obviously your PC invested in this and deserves the rewards.

I think DMs do not like it being used like its a magical awareness, though to be honest a rogue's skill could be said to border on magical as they are so good at them.

It is you walk into a room and perceive, is there a distance radius for stuff?

I don't play her any longer, but it was both. Sometimes I'd ask about something in particular, like what something smells like, if the character saw something interesting, etc. Sometimes the DM had already prepared for what my character would see.

There was no radius or anything. I don't remember what her magical item did exactly, but it was based on the Robe of Eyes from the DMG. So advantage on sight-related checks. So if there was anything she could see, she did. I mean, the DM could still set DC's on important stuff. Someone could still roll 23+ on a stealth check, and then her passive wouldn't notice it.

The DM didn't automatically reveal all kinds of hidden things either. For instance, if looking for hidden doors, my character might spot it immediately if it were obvious to something really observant. But it could also be hidden from sight, and thus require an Investigation check instead.

[djreynolds]

I don't play her any longer, but it was both. Sometimes I'd ask about something in particular, like what something smells like, if the character saw something interesting, etc. Sometimes the DM had already prepared for what my character would see.

There was no radius or anything. I don't remember what her magical item did exactly, but it was based on the Robe of Eyes from the DMG. So advantage on sight-related checks. So if there was anything she could see, she did. I mean, the DM could still set DC's on important stuff. Someone could still roll 23+ on a stealth check, and then her passive wouldn't notice it.

The DM didn't automatically reveal all kinds of hidden things either. For instance, if looking for hidden doors, my character might spot it immediately if it were obvious to something really observant. But it could also be hidden from sight, and thus require an Investigation check instead.

Thank you.

I always find it important how others play the game.

I asked because we have a player who took dungeon delver, and the 3rd perk is she can search for traps at normal pace.

But her complaint was, since her passive perception was so high with expertise and observant she found the 3rd perk odd ?

So I gave her another skill with expertise, she rolled and got history.

But my question is how does dungeon delver feat fit into all this passive perception thread and especially it's 3rd perk concerning movement?

Again, thanks for you candor.

[Segev]

Oddly, when you quote 10 citations that say "the sky is blue," and then insist that this "clearly demonstrates" that the rules supposedly say that you have to wear red cardigans on Tuesday, people don't find your citations particularly persuasive.

[djreynolds]

I guess you mean me.

The dungeon delver feats 3rd perk concerns movement while, "you can search for traps at a normal pace, instead of at a slow one."

I'm hoping this line in the feat, might steer the conversation into kinder realms.

Now I'm looking for more clarification really because there is only RAI, which is fine but players do invest in the game but so do DMs.

So I do use passive perception as a cue, hey you sense traps, you might want to slow down and watch where you are going.

But there is the gray area of the game where a DM must judge on something.

I mean no insults, just looking to hear everyone's opinion.

[Vogonjeltz]

I still haven't. I'm not the only one, either.

I don't care. It works the same way. Doesn't it? Isn't a 21 passive perception still a 21 passive perception, whether I refer to it as a score or a check?

Not a single thing in post 45 demonstrates what you think it demonstrates. The error you are making is known as "generalizing the specific." You don't get to point to rule that are specifically about noticing traps and secret doors, etc. and then say: therefore, all skills work this way. Not especially when the general rules for all skills directly contradict you.

Unfortunately, you're not particularly good at understanding things, so I'm not sure why I keep trying to help you.

Oh, yeah. The part that I said was all my opinion? Next time, maybe just don't read things that you don't want to read.

The distinction is that you roll for a check, and you don't for a score.

The rules for hiding and noticing hidden creatures are the general rules. They are just repeated ad nauseam throughout both the DMG and PHB.

I actually pointed out when responding to Tanarii that not every skill is going to have a passive use case. It's located directly below the part where I responded to you: " Perhaps it's just confusion from semantics, but perception is something that's always happening, unlike for example, acrobatics."

And I delete opinions because this thread is about the written rules, not how you'd like them to be, and removing them reduced the length of the quote.

[BurgerBeast]

The distinction is that you roll for a check, and you don't for a score.

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think you might have missed the part where I said I don't care. I get it. I don't care.


The rules for hiding and noticing hidden creatures are the general rules. They are just repeated ad nauseam throughout both the DMG and PHB.

No, they are not. They are the rules for hiding and noticing hidden creatures. Those are specific uses of specific skills. The general rules are the rules that govern all skills.


I actually pointed out when responding to Tanarii that not every skill is going to have a passive use case.

And you are wrong. The DM can use the passive skill in any situation he sees fit, unless the rules specifically say he can't for any given case.


It's located directly below the part where I responded to you: " Perhaps it's just confusion from semantics, but perception is something that's always happening, unlike for example, acrobatics."

This has nothing to do with the rules at all because active/passive does not refer to whether the character is passive or active. It refers to whether there is a roll (active) or no roll (passive).


And I delete opinions because this thread is about the written rules, not how you'd like them to be, and removing them reduced the length of the quote.

Good for you.

I'm just trying to help you with your reading comprehension, or at least restrict the damage caused by your inability to just you. I don't want others to read your posts and think you're right. I hope they'll just read for themselves and see the truth of the matter.

[djreynolds]

Reliable talent is at 11th level, and this is basically rolling a 10 on your proficient skills. This is 11th level for a rogue.

Passive perception is level 1, almost the same, in regards to the 10.

Has anyone asked on sageadvice about passive perception?

[BurgerBeast]

Reliable talent is at 11th level, and this is basically rolling a 10 on your proficient skills. This is 11th level for a rogue.

Passive perception is level 1, almost the same, in regards to the 10.

Has anyone asked on sageadvice about passive perception?

Remember that anyone saying that passive perception serves as a "floor" for perception checks does not have the rules on their side. This is a house rule. If a check is needed, the DM should call for passive or active, but not both.

A passive check is just as restrictive as it is beneficial. It's a floor, but it's also a ceiling. While a +7 to a skill makes a 27 possible, you are still limited to a 17 passive score (you're welcome, Vogon).

The rogue ability introduces a floor to active checks (but not a ceiling - where passive score is 17 and 17 only, a check using reliable talent can still hit 18-27). As has previously been mentioned in the thread, using the passive score as a floor somewhat undermines the rogue ability - so you are right to mention it.

[djreynolds]

Every player and DM deals with this.

The +10 passive score just seems powerful. My cleric at 10th level in CoS, because of the tome of understanding, has 22 in wisdom, and proficiency in perception, so I'm sporting a +10. That's a 20 passive perception, doesn't that seem powerful.

I get using a passive score, because if I ask the player to roll its the same thing. He will stop and begin to actively search, there is no surprise or danger.

And I know players focus on this skill as it comes up always, so I'm stuck with either upping DCs, which is really unfair to the players. Or the game breaks apart and every time my cleric walks into room, here is the secret door on your left.

I usually, when I DM use it as a cue to stop and look for the players. But this discussion comes up for me as a DM in one game and a player in another.

Now in PHB there is the -5 for 2 instances, a bigger list is needed with varying pros and cons.

[Sneak Dog]

I get using a passive score, because if I ask the player to roll its the same thing. He will stop and begin to actively search, there is no surprise or danger.

And I know players focus on this skill as it comes up always, so I'm stuck with either upping DCs, which is really unfair to the players. Or the game breaks apart and every time my cleric walks into room, here is the secret door on your left.

Do your players like metagaming? It sounds rather out-of-character to me to arbitrarily decide this area is worth searching, as opposed to the others.

If the metagaming is an irrevocable thing and you want to give the secret door a chance to be hidden, have the secret door roll a 'stealth' check or have it require an investigation check.

For the 'stealth check: Subtract 10* from the DC, then add 1d20 and check against their passive perception. You now effectively rolled how well a person hid it.
For the investigation check: if it isn't in plain sight, perception won't find it. So if there is a cupboard in front of a secret door, or a magical spoon is hidden in a drawer, it'll require investigation.

*It might be 11, not sure who is supposed to win on a tie with passive perception vs. passive stealth.

[djreynolds]

Do your players like metagaming? It sounds rather out-of-character to me to arbitrarily decide this area is worth searching, as opposed to the others.

If the metagaming is an irrevocable thing and you want to give the secret door a chance to be hidden, have the secret door roll a 'stealth' check or have it require an investigation check.

For the 'stealth check: Subtract 10* from the DC, then add 1d20 and check against their passive perception. You now effectively rolled how well a person hid it.
For the investigation check: if it isn't in plain sight, perception won't find it. So if there is a cupboard in front of a secret door, or a magical spoon is hidden in a drawer, it'll require investigation.

*It might be 11, not sure who is supposed to win on a tie with passive perception vs. passive stealth.

They know the rules too well.

I want the players to have fun... and at least pretend they're scared of any of my adventures.

I hope I'm doing the right thing by not just letting them walk around like they are lords of the world, I want them to become that.

I have a lot military guys and they are... whip smart with the tactics as it is. They love to destroy my pitiful plans.

But as expert players they do understand that I have to up the ante in order to keep them interested.

That's why I come to this site, to stay on top it. Everyone advice on here is simply the best. I value all of it.

[Tanarii]

x2

...And somehow, burgerbeast doesn't agree with the facts; insisting he is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. :smallmad:

Because Vogon is wrong. He's taking one specific passive skill with special callouts on using it in what he claims is not active fashion by the PC, even though the PC must still be paying attention, as opposed to doing something else. And then trying to generalize that to all passive skills. In direct contradiction to what the rules explicitly tell us that passive skills do as a whole. In addition, at no point is not searching defined as passive and searching as active, that's a definition he's trying to cram down our throats.

And then trying to defend his incorrect rationalization by hinging it on intentionally choosing the wrong interpretation of the word can, which is being used to distinguish between an either or situation in the given sentence. Not an optional situation.

Passive in passive skill use means no roll by the player. Even for Passive Perception that definition holds. If you choose to interpret 'searching' as active, as opposed to 'paying attention' as active, it also happens to line up with the PC being non-active for that particular skill.

[Segev]

This once again comes down to the fact that having "passive" vs "active" checks be 100% arbitrary is a bad thing, especially when the average "passive" score can be better than the average "active" roll.

It makes the DM have to ask himself, "Do I want to give the PC a +5 to his average check or not?" This isn't supposed to be what you're considering.

The worst part is, even though they give "represents an action performed repeatedly" as what a passive check is for...there's no real connection of that to what such things might be in game.

I STILL cannot, reading the rules, figure out when, if I am the DM, I should be calling for a roll or just comparing to passive scores. Nor why, if I arbitrarily decide to check passive scores, Bob's PC suddenly is much more likely to notice the goblin hiding behind the curtain than if I ask people to make perception checks. (Let's say Bob's passive score, with the +5 from Observant, is exactly what he needs to spot the goblin, for sake of argument.)

[Tanarii]

The worst part is, even though they give "represents an action performed repeatedly" as what a passive check is for...there's no real connection of that to what such things might be in game.
How is that hard? Any time the player would need to be rolling over and over again, use passive. Any time it's a one time check, use a roll.

Examples of where you find it difficult?

I agree Observant only adding to passive checks is weird as hell due to the general nature of passive checks. But given Passive Perception has special callouts on when and where to use it instead of active (which generally line up with the 'DM needs to make a secret check' scenario), I don't usually find it hard to use in play.

[Segev]

How is that hard? Any time the player would need to be rolling over and over again, use passive. Any time it's a one time check, use a roll.

Examples of where you find it difficult?

I agree Observant only adding to passive checks is weird as hell due to the general nature of passive checks. But given Passive Perception has special callouts on when and where to use it instead of active (which generally line up with the 'DM needs to make a secret check' scenario), I don't usually find it hard to use in play.

I've given examples previously.

Goblin hiding behind a curtain: call for a roll or use passive perception?

Important clue in the image of the tapestry, hinting that the corpse is a fake: passive or active perception?

Invisible wizard meditating in a corner: passive or active perception to notice him as you walk in?

Trap on the floor: passive or active perception?

Trap on the treasure chest you're about to open: passive or active perception to notice before you trigger it?

Somebody picks your pocket in a crowd: passive or active perception to notice?



Please explain why, in each case, you pick one, and the other is inappropriate. In particular, put yourself in the position of a player with Observant who has a DM who too often rules "active," and in the position of a DM who has a player that always argues for "passive" because he has Observant; you need to be able to make the justification for your choice hold up no matter which side if the point you're on.

[Erys]

I STILL cannot, reading the rules, figure out when, if I am the DM, I should be calling for a roll or just comparing to passive scores. Nor why, if I arbitrarily decide to check passive scores, Bob's PC suddenly is much more likely to notice the goblin hiding behind the curtain than if I ask people to make perception checks. (Let's say Bob's passive score, with the +5 from Observant, is exactly what he needs to spot the goblin, for sake of argument.)

Use passive whenever the PC's are not actively doing 'something', usually perception checks. So if the group is walking and not actively searching their surroundings and they pass a goblin hiding; if anyone has a passive score above the goblins hide he is noticed. Ties and below the goblin remains unseen.

The point is, in this case especially, if I as a DM ask for perception checks you as a player knows there is something hidden; and will likely react defensively even if nothing was successfully noticed. Using passive scores means you can set up potential surprise situations that are actual surprises for both player and character alike.

As for explaining how the observant feat works, you catch things out of the corner of your eye naturally; but that doesn't necessarily help you when you are actively looking about.

[Segev]

Use passive whenever the PC's are not actively doing 'something', usually perception checks. So if the group is walking and not actively searching their surroundings and they pass a goblin hiding; if anyone has a passive score above the goblins hide he is noticed. Ties and below the goblin remains unseen.

So... every time you'd ever call for a perception check, you use passive? When do you use active?

When WOULDN'T you let their passive perception notice something, but instead insist they roll?

[Tanarii]

Goblin hiding behind a curtain: call for a roll or use passive perception?

Important clue in the image of the tapestry, hinting that the corpse is a fake: passive or active perception?

Invisible wizard meditating in a corner: passive or active perception to notice him as you walk in?

Trap on the floor: passive or active perception?

Trap on the treasure chest you're about to open: passive or active perception to notice before you trigger it?All of those are Passive Perception as long as you are actively aware of your surroundings*, they could possibly observe it, and their general activity is likely to include them possibly observing it.

Personally I'd probably rule noticing the important clue in the tapestry would take active explicit examination of the tapestry, on the basis that a player would be unlikely to look at details of a tapestry as a normal part of entering a dangerous room. But they definitely are going to potentially observe the goblin or wizard (per the explicit stealth rules), and Traps (per the trap rules), and thief (per the explicit Sleight of Hand rules).

If you take the time to specifically search for something in particular, then it's either a check or automatic, depending on DM judgement of difficulty. For example, a player checking behind the curtain no longer needs to make a check, because the Goblin no longer has cover. But a check to find the Wizard is required, and opposed by their stealth check, as normal, because invisibility.

*ie not doing something else, per the Adventuring Chapter, preventing use of passive perception. The rules seem to assume that players are actively aware of their surroundings unless they explicitly tell you they are doing something else, like Mapping or Tracking. Note that at the DM's judgement you can also be actively aware of your surroundings, but distracted from it, for a -5 penalty to Passive Perception. That seems to be a middle ground between being (edit: fully) actively aware and not being actively aware of your surroundings.

[Segev]

First off, thanks for specifically answering my question. You've provided at least a clear line that these all are passive perception.


If you take the time to specifically search for something in particular, then it's either a check or automatic, depending on DM judgement of difficulty. For example, a player checking behind the curtain no longer needs to make a check, because the Goblin no longer has cover. But a check to find the Wizard is required, and opposed by their stealth check, as normal, because invisibility.

Two questions arise from this, though:

1) Doesn't this make passive perception essentially a "floor" for how poorly you can do? In the invisible wizard example, for instance, if passive perception auto-triggers, and then you can later say "I look around for an invisible wizard" and get a roll...

2) Are there situations where you would not grant passive perception automatically (as in, they walk in and you make sure their score doesn't reveal the hidden thing), but would call for them to make a roll?

[Tanarii]

First off, thanks for specifically answering my question. You've provided at least a clear line that these all are passive perception.Absolutely. My position is that Passive Perception is actively being aware of your surroundings, in the form of not doing something else, representing something done repeatedly: actively being aware of your surroundings over and over again.

At it's root, I'm not really disagreeing with people that say "passive perception = use when passive". I'm saying that visualizing/thinking of it that way is what leads to seeming contradictions (and associated weird DM rulings) where they don't need to exist.


Two questions arise from this, though:

1) Doesn't this make passive perception essentially a "floor" for how poorly you can do? In the invisible wizard example, for instance, if passive perception auto-triggers, and then you can later say "I look around for an invisible wizard" and get a roll...Yes. In situations where you are being actively aware of your surroundings, and that awareness means the PC is likely to notice something (even if it's just "something is out of place here"), it becomes a floor score. This is true for all passive skill use. That's why it's important that there are specific rules for when Passive Perception applies, and when it doesn't. For example, it doesn't apply if you are doing something else (specifically Mapping, Tracking, Navigating, or Foraging). And it doesn't apply if you aren't in a position to notice (examples given include being in specific party marching order ranks).

If you as a DM don't apply the adventuring rules, or only apply them in certain situations (ie on long overland wilderness treks), then you're going to have a bad time. Because you've just decided to rule Passive Perception is always-on radar.


2) Are there situations where you would not grant passive perception automatically (as in, they walk in and you make sure their score doesn't reveal the hidden thing), but would call for them to make a roll?Yes. Your example of subtle clues in a tapestry was a pretty good one. Although you could also rule that as using perception to notice something is out of place, and needing investigation to figure out the details. Similar to how Traps and Secret Doors are apparently supposed to work, although the rules for those are muddy as hell.

Edit: Also, the classic spotting a hidden drawer in a desk. You're not going to find that without telling me that you're looking through the desk. Although again, an argument can be made that it's an Investigation check instead. Kinda depends on what the player says they are doing.

Edit2: If you mean "call for a roll, without the player telling me they're doing X first", mostly no. I generally reserve active checks for things the player tells me the PC is doing NOW. And passive checks for things the player tells me the PC will be doing repeatedly when not doing anything else. And assume the default 'doing repeatedly' action is Passive Perception (being aware of their surroundings).

[Vogonjeltz]

Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think you might have missed the part where I said I don't care. I get it. I don't care.

Your text: "I don't care. It works the same way. Doesn't it?" asked a question. If you don't actually need to be corrected, don't ask rhetorical questions phrased so as to suggest you think the wrong answer is the right one.


No, they are not. They are the rules for hiding and noticing hidden creatures. Those are specific uses of specific skills. The general rules are the rules that govern all skills.

Noticing hidden things are general rules, and they aren't even "uses" of skills, because in every case that doesn't involve the Search action, they're passive.


And you are wrong. The DM can use the passive skill in any situation he sees fit, unless the rules specifically say he can't for any given case.

This has nothing to do with the rules at all because active/passive does not refer to whether the character is passive or active. It refers to whether there is a roll (active) or no roll (passive).

No that's a pretty firmly established concept, not everything can be done in a passive manner.
And the passive/active demarcation is established within the rules as cited enough times in this thread.


Reliable talent is at 11th level, and this is basically rolling a 10 on your proficient skills. This is 11th level for a rogue.

Passive perception is level 1, almost the same, in regards to the 10.

Has anyone asked on sageadvice about passive perception?

Yes, it's like being able to use scores (at a minimum) even for active use of skills. Why is that bad?


Remember that anyone saying that passive perception serves as a "floor" for perception checks does not have the rules on their side. This is a house rule. If a check is needed, the DM should call for passive or active, but not both.

A passive check is just as restrictive as it is beneficial. It's a floor, but it's also a ceiling. While a +7 to a skill makes a 27 possible, you are still limited to a 17 passive score (you're welcome, Vogon).

The rogue ability introduces a floor to active checks (but not a ceiling - where passive score is 17 and 17 only, a check using reliable talent can still hit 18-27). As has previously been mentioned in the thread, using the passive score as a floor somewhat undermines the rogue ability - so you are right to mention it.

Wrong on two counts.

1) The DM always compares the Passive Wisdom (Perception) score against the DC of hidden objects or the Dexterity (Stealth) check of hidden creatures to determine if the characters notice them without making an active search check. That's the rules as written, not a house rule.

2) It's not restrictive at all, the characters can always take a Search action which would use their check. Since they've already received the benefit of the passive score, the score only provides an effective minimum, never an effective ceiling (to the active check). Passive scores can also benefit from situational factors (advantage/disadvantage, Observant feat, etc...) so it's fairly malleable as well.


Every player and DM deals with this.

The +10 passive score just seems powerful. My cleric at 10th level in CoS, because of the tome of understanding, has 22 in wisdom, and proficiency in perception, so I'm sporting a +10. That's a 20 passive perception, doesn't that seem powerful.

I get using a passive score, because if I ask the player to roll its the same thing. He will stop and begin to actively search, there is no surprise or danger.

And I know players focus on this skill as it comes up always, so I'm stuck with either upping DCs, which is really unfair to the players. Or the game breaks apart and every time my cleric walks into room, here is the secret door on your left.

I usually, when I DM use it as a cue to stop and look for the players. But this discussion comes up for me as a DM in one game and a player in another.

Now in PHB there is the -5 for 2 instances, a bigger list is needed with varying pros and cons.

20 passive perception is just the mechanical consequence of maximizing your wisdom and training in the skill, if that's powerful, it should be, you put alot of character building resources into it. It's like virtually nothing escapes the Cleric's notice.

Consider this: The passive perception of a ranger with the observant feat, perception proficiency, maximized wisdom and in his favored terrain would be 32 (10+5+5+6+6). With advantage the Ranger would have an astronomical 37 passive perception.

A Rogue or Bard could also hit this if they bothered to pump their wisdom, but that's fairly unlikely given the lack of synergy with the rest of their class features.

It's also worth noting that the sample traps in the DMG have the following DCs: 10, 10, 15, 10, 15, none, 15; with traps most of the challenge is meant to come not from noticing it, but from the players disabling it or avoiding triggering it.

As for doors, you could use concealed doors instead of secret doors (i.e. covered with a tapestry or rug). You'd still want to consider having a DC to compare to passive wisdom to notice disturbances in dust or scuffing in the area. Otherwise the characters would simply have no clue that there's a secret or concealed door there at all.


In addition, at no point is not searching defined as passive and searching as active, that's a definition he's trying to cram down our throats.

- "When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something" PHB 193
- Entire Hiding Text Box on page 177 that specifies the distinction between actively searching for a hidden creature and noticing a hidden creature without actively seaching.
- "Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it." DMG 103
- Page 120-121 on Detecting and Disabling a Trap: "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."

I could go on with citations, but since you used the specific phrase of "at no point" 3 almost seemed like overkill.


And then trying to defend his incorrect rationalization by hinging it on intentionally choosing the wrong interpretation of the word can, which is being used to distinguish between an either or situation in the given sentence. Not an optional situation.

The claim I was defusing was that passive scores always represent the average of repeated attempts. This is patently false because they can be used for other things. That isn't relying on any meaning of the word can beyond the only verb meaning: to be able/permitted.


Goblin hiding behind a curtain: call for a roll or use passive perception?

Rules quotes to help:
DMG 243: "If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another. Otherwise, compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as explained in the Player's Handbook." Rule bolded.


Important clue in the image of the tapestry, hinting that the corpse is a fake: passive or active perception?

To notice the clue, or to deduce its relevance? Noticing is Perception, Deducing is Investigation (PHB 178 describes the differences between the two, as does DMG 238).


Invisible wizard meditating in a corner: passive or active perception to notice him as you walk in?

See DMG 243. If the Wizard is Invisible, but not hiding, automatic notice (nothing in the Invisibility condition alters this).


Trap on the floor: passive or active perception?

See DMG 120-121.
Active: "A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC."
Passive: "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."


Trap on the treasure chest you're about to open: passive or active perception to notice before you trigger it?

DMG 123, Poison Needle traps (a trap specific to "a treasure chest's lock, or in something else that a creature might open.") rely on Investigation to allow "a character to deduce the trap's presence from alterations made to the lock to accomodate the needle."

So, passive Investigation to determine without trying, check to determine via searching for traps.


Somebody picks your pocket in a crowd: passive or active perception to notice?

DMG page 116: "Pickpocket. A thief (use the spy statistics in the Monster Manual) tries to steal from a random character. Characters whose passive Wisdom (Perception) scores are equal to or greater than the thief's Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check total catch the theft in progress."


Please explain why, in each case, you pick one, and the other is inappropriate. In particular, put yourself in the position of a player with Observant who has a DM who too often rules "active," and in the position of a DM who has a player that always argues for "passive" because he has Observant; you need to be able to make the justification for your choice hold up no matter which side if the point you're on.

DMs should always be applying passive perception prior to the player asking to make a search or look more closely at something or whatever. This is demonstrated with every rule on the subject.


So... every time you'd ever call for a perception check, you use passive? When do you use active?

When WOULDN'T you let their passive perception notice something, but instead insist they roll?

No...he means every time the characters might notice something without actively searching the DM would refer to their passive scores. If the character wants to actively search, then you use the check.


But a check to find the Wizard is required, and opposed by their stealth check, as normal, because invisibility.

Only if they hid.

[BurgerBeast]

Two questions arise from this, though:

1) Doesn't this make passive perception essentially a "floor" for how poorly you can do? In the invisible wizard example, for instance, if passive perception auto-triggers, and then you can later say "I look around for an invisible wizard" and get a roll...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think I may have a helpful answer. I avoid the "floor" problem by not allowing a check to ever be attempted a second time unless conditions have changed. If passive perception has auto-triggered, then the check has been made, and the character failed to see the wizard. If a player then said "I look around for an invisible wizard" I would just narrate "you see no sign of one."

[Segev]

Hm. So at least one person's dividing line is less "represents the same check made repeatedly/constantly" and more "represents them focusing on the task consistently." Does this mean that, if the party is mapping and tracking, you wouldn't allow them a passive perception to notice the ambushing kobolds' trap they're about to stumble into, but would grant them a d20 roll on perception to do so?

If I seem confrontational here, I apologize. I really am just having a very hard time figuring out when I should or should not, as a DM, say, "roll perception" as opposed to just checking passive. Or, as a player, when I should feel justified in saying, "Hey, DM, I know you like to have us roll perception every time it comes up, but I have a +5 to my passive perception. Can I just use that score?"

(I have a DM who always has us roll. I am tempted to take Observant anyway for the lip-reading, but...it's frustrating to get only half-a-feat.)

[BurgerBeast]

Hm. So at least one person's dividing line is less "represents the same check made repeatedly/constantly" and more "represents them focusing on the task consistently." Does this mean that, if the party is mapping and tracking, you wouldn't allow them a passive perception to notice the ambushing kobolds' trap they're about to stumble into, but would grant them a d20 roll on perception to do so?

I see why you came up with this distinction, but I'm not sure it's where my rationale was. I see passive perception as just a roll of 10+mod. So if upon entering the room, I have already resolved the action using passive perception, then it has been resolved. It's probably also worth noting that this might be a case-by-case thing. If the situation changes I allow re-rolls (my choice whether they are passive or active). But I spend a lot of time rationalizing on a case-by-case basis, and trying to be consistent.

I would grant neither. Upon the ambush being sprung, I would rule that the mappers/trackers are surprised and anyone else gets to use perception to avoid being surprised.


If I seem confrontational here, I apologize. I really am just having a very hard time figuring out when I should or should not, as a DM, say, "roll perception" as opposed to just checking passive. Or, as a player, when I should feel justified in saying, "Hey, DM, I know you like to have us roll perception every time it comes up, but I have a +5 to my passive perception. Can I just use that score?"

No worries. As a DM, I try to use the passive scores as much as possible. But even more than that, I try to write out which checks are passive and which are active so that I can be "fair" in the sense that I am not just randomly pulling it out of thin air for any given check.

The best advice I can give is to consider how you rule on knowledge skills and look for consistency between them and perception. Angry DM had a good article on it, in the past. Essentially, when the PCs enter a room with a religious symbol, it's a bit silly (to me, at least) for the DM to say "there's a statue" and then only if the player examines it to say "It's Tyr, god of justice" (or whatever). Anyone who has the requisite religious knowledge should just be fed that information because that's how it works in real life. Beyond that, it saves time and avoids meaningless die rolls.


(I have a DM who always has us roll. I am tempted to take Observant anyway for the lip-reading, but...it's frustrating to get only half-a-feat.)

Yeah. I just played a character with Observant. I suppose you'll have to talk to the DM, but at the very least you have the rules on your side in the case of the specific rules called out in the PHB.

[JellyPooga]

Hm. So at least one person's dividing line is less "represents the same check made repeatedly/constantly" and more "represents them focusing on the task consistently." Does this mean that, if the party is mapping and tracking, you wouldn't allow them a passive perception to notice the ambushing kobolds' trap they're about to stumble into, but would grant them a d20 roll on perception to do so?

If I seem confrontational here, I apologize. I really am just having a very hard time figuring out when I should or should not, as a DM, say, "roll perception" as opposed to just checking passive. Or, as a player, when I should feel justified in saying, "Hey, DM, I know you like to have us roll perception every time it comes up, but I have a +5 to my passive perception. Can I just use that score?"

(I have a DM who always has us roll. I am tempted to take Observant anyway for the lip-reading, but...it's frustrating to get only half-a-feat.)

I don't think it's so much a case of "in every situation X use Passive and every situation Y roll". To use your example situations;

Goblin hiding behind a curtain: call for a roll or use passive perception?Has the Goblin been hiding there a while, waiting in ambush? Have the PC's seen him, perhaps chased him around the corner and he's only just hidden? Are the Players asking if they can see a Goblin, or anyone, or that they're looking behind the curtain?

Important clue in the image of the tapestry, hinting that the corpse is a fake: passive or active perception?Again, what are the PC's doing? Are they just walking through the room? Doing a co-ordinated search of the room? Asking specifically if there's anything interesting on the tapestry? Looking behind the tapestry?

Invisible wizard meditating in a corner: passive or active perception to notice him as you walk in?This ones a bit more specific, but it's still dependent. How big is the room? What furniture is in the room? Is the Wizard sitting on a cushioned chair or the floor? Do any of the PC's have Detect Magic or See Invisibility up and running?

Trap on the floor: passive or active perception?Have the PC's asked to search that specific piece of floor? Are they just walking down the corridor or through the room? What else is on the floor (carpets/rugs, furniture, creatures)? How long are they taking to look for traps? What's going on in the room? Is there a fight occurring or other NPC's? Is there some terrain feature acting as a distraction, such as a lava pit, bridge or giant clockwork gears?

Trap on the treasure chest you're about to open: passive or active perception to notice before you trigger it?Again, have the PC's asked to search it? Are they attempting to pick the lock or just flinging the lid open? What's the mechanism of the trap and how does it trigger?

Depending on the answers to all these questions and more, the question of "Passive or Roll" will change. You, as GM, have to determine which you think will be most appropriate from the approach of the narrative, drama/action and fairness. That's why I think the rules are necessarily vague on the subject; there are no hard and fast rules as to when or when not to use Passive, only suggestions and guidelines for the GM to interpret.

[BurgerBeast]

Depending on the answers to all these questions and more, the question of "Passive or Roll" will change. You, as GM, have to determine which you think will be most appropriate from the approach of the narrative, drama/action and fairness. That's why I think the rules are necessarily vague on the subject; there are no hard and fast rules as to when or when not to use Passive, only suggestions and guidelines for the GM to interpret.

But how would these answers change your decision to use passive or to roll? This becomes complicated when you realize that an "active character" has no bearing on whether the check is passive or active. So what information is related to the decision, and in what way?

I don't think there is an answer. I think it is DM whim.

For me, the only difference is range and randomness of results. Given all the time needed and no pressure, I would think a score of 20+mods makes sense. Given a reasonable, or average degree of care, I would use the passive score. A guard keeping watch or a traveller looking for threats simply cannot sustain a high level of awareness. We all fall into a level of awareness that is economical in terms of energy expenditure according to the risk/reward involved. This level is represented by passive scores.

A carpenter working on his own home might be able to take the required time to "take 20" on all of his checks. But at work, where he is trying to get the work done at a reasonable pace with a reasonable amount of effort, he's "taking 10" because this is the level of quality he can sustain at this pace. If he has one important piece of wood and he wants to carve an intricate statue without ruining the piece wood, he'll have to roll. No second chances.

Under duress, where outcome is more random and there is no time to re-do the task, I would use rolls, unless there is no reason for the character to recognize the duress, or the rules specifically say otherwise.

To give an example, consider the classic movie-scene where a player is trying to break down a locked door to save friend from fire. Contrast this with trying to break down a typical locked door in a dungeon.

For the typical door, I would let the character use 20+mod. If they has a crowbar or other form of help, I'd let them use 25+mod. I would narrate that it takes about a minute to accomplish, but you eventually get it done. I would account for the time and noise when considering wandering monsters.

For the break down scene, if time is important, I would make the player roll out each attempt to burst through the door.

[Vogonjeltz]

I really am just having a very hard time figuring out when I should or should not, as a DM, say, "roll perception" as opposed to just checking passive.

The bright dividing line that the rules establish is that you always check against the characters passive scores.

You only ask for a check if characters are making the active choice to Search.

Pretty much the entire purpose of the Observant feat is a character can notice their environment, it's exactly what it says on the tin.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin

The same applies to passive and active checks, as demonstrated by every textual example. There are in fact no textual examples to contradict this, so any claim that passive doesn't really mean passive is just false.

[Tanarii]

I would grant neither. Upon the ambush being sprung, I would rule that the mappers/trackers are surprised and anyone else gets to use perception to avoid being surprised.Given that's the rules for certain undertaking tasks, or even being in the wrong party rank in the marching order to see the enemy coming.


The bright dividing line that the rules establish is that you always check against the characters passive scores.Except it isn't and you don't. The rules give explicit examples of when you don't get to use Perception. Undertaking certain tasks, or potentially not being in position to use it (ie party rank in marching order).

Edit: other than that, we seem to mostly use Passive Perception the same way.

Also, even though I didn't reply to it, I concede the DMG at least has two specific examples where it says literally says actively in reference to how the PC (not the player) is using Perception.

[BurgerBeast]

The same applies to passive and active checks, as demonstrated by every textual example. There are in fact no textual examples to contradict this, so any claim that passive doesn't really mean passive is just false.

Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of 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, 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.

- PHB 175

(And don't worry. I know that you never read this page. After all, it says Passive Checks.)

[Segev]

The bright dividing line that the rules establish is that you always check against the characters passive scores.

You only ask for a check if characters are making the active choice to Search.

That's pretty helpful, actually. My one (currently) remaining question is... when might they make an active choice to Search and expect to find something I wouldn't have allowed them to use passive perception to notice?


Fortunately, I can start to venture a potential answer to this one: perhaps the clue is hidden in the underside of the treasure chest's lid. No amount of passive perception would find it; they'd have to be actively searching to open a treasure chest and look up inside it.

[Tanarii]

That's pretty helpful, actually.Apart from it being wrong, as I noted above.


My one (currently) remaining question is... when might they make an active choice to Search and expect to find something I wouldn't have allowed them to use passive perception to notice?Any time you decide that for some reason the player doesn't get to make a passive perception check just for being actively aware of their surroundings, but then tells you the character does something explicit that would allow them to make a perception check.

Most common examples would be the ones I noted as being explicit in the rules already: They were concentrating on an adventuring task (Mapping, Tracking, Foraging, etc) or weren't in the right party marching order rank to be able to observe the thing being perceived. Certainly other things which might not be noticeable to a character who is actively aware just by looking around (denying a perception check), but would be to one that poked around, might qualify for a perception check.

Note that in the latter case, you could still rule it Passive Perception, not active. Provided it meets the qualifications for a passive check (edit: and it's not explicitly a rolled check somewhere in the rules): it's a task being done repeatedly, like rummaging through the closets and bed and chests in a chamber over 10 minutes; or it's a secret check for some reason (you don't want them to know the result of their roll and give away if something might have been there).

[Sneak Dog]

That's pretty helpful, actually. My one (currently) remaining question is... when might they make an active choice to Search and expect to find something I wouldn't have allowed them to use passive perception to notice?

Fortunately, I can start to venture a potential answer to this one: perhaps the clue is hidden in the underside of the treasure chest's lid. No amount of passive perception would find it; they'd have to be actively searching to open a treasure chest and look up inside it.

Welcome to investigation. It's a different skill in 5e and, from the top of my head, represents a character investigating a room looking for clues.

[Tanarii]

Welcome to investigation. It's a different skill in 5e and, from the top of my head, represents a character investigating a room looking for clues.Right. But Investigation represents a different way of thinking. Deduction, instead of Observation or Intuition.

Technically it's a different thing, even if there's often overlap mechanically during play.

[Vogonjeltz]

Given that's the rules for certain undertaking tasks, or even being in the wrong party rank in the marching order to see the enemy coming.

Except it isn't and you don't. The rules give explicit examples of when you don't get to use Perception. Undertaking certain tasks, or potentially not being in position to use it (ie party rank in marching order).

Touche on the rank order, but that is them not being in a position to notice the thing. By that same token, however, a search sometimes needs to be a qualified one in order to actually locate a hidden object (i.e. I want to search the drawer as opposed to I want to search the chest).

So, caveated as: Any time you could notice something the score is applied first.

It also didn't include the possibility of automatically noticing something if your actions would lead to its exposure, as in pulling back a rug that was concealing a hidden trap door.

1) You might have noticed it with passive perception (a lump in the rug).
2) You might find it through a check with the search action.
3) You might reveal it in the natural course of players describing what their characters do (pull back the rug to see what's underneath).


That's pretty helpful, actually. My one (currently) remaining question is... when might they make an active choice to Search and expect to find something I wouldn't have allowed them to use passive perception to notice?


Fortunately, I can start to venture a potential answer to this one: perhaps the clue is hidden in the underside of the treasure chest's lid. No amount of passive perception would find it; they'd have to be actively searching to open a treasure chest and look up inside it.

Yes, but the players never actually activate their passive score themselves,it's all done in advance by the DM who does the comparison in secret and then inform the players if there was something to be seen.

From the players perspective the DM might just say something like: Oh and Bob (who has the highest perception score) besides everything the group saw, you notice there's a small bump under the rug (perhaps the iron-ringed handle of a trap door).

And the thing hidden inside an object is a good example of something that probably would require an active search, or for the characters to simply do things that would reveal it automatically like opening a briefcase and seeing writing on the inner lid or lifting a rug and seeing the door hidden under it.


Apart from it being wrong, as I noted above.

A single specific exception does not make it wrong as a rule.

[Tanarii]

So, caveated as: Any time you could notice something the score is applied first.Thats pretty much the criteria I use.

Personally I allow using other passive skills in place of Passive Perception/Investigation (which I typically allow used together). If a player tells me they are repeatedly doing something else. The most common other choice is passive lore skills, which I allow as a batch job of all four skills. I know many DMs prefer to use Lore skills as 'check to see if you remember this specific fact' roll automatically when each individual thing to remember arises. But I prefer to use passive checks for paying attention to lore-related stuff as you go along, with checks reserved for when they tell me they're explicitly examining something. Very similar to passive perception really.


A single specific exception does not make it wrong as a rule.Its a pretty big exception for any standard Dungeon/Wilderness/Urban crawl.

(lots of IMO to follow) Players and DMs need to be mindful of tasks they'll almost always have people assigned to, and marching order, when it comes to adventuring. It's a frequently hand-waved thing by groups, but I think it's a fairly large part of D&D as designed to play. Tossing it out both looses part of the D&D experience and makes Perception an even more powerful skill than it already is.

[BurgerBeast]

I don't personally see the overlap between perception, investigation and knowledge/lore. For me, perception = can you sense it. Investigation = can you understand it? Knowledge/Lore = do you recognize its significance?

Example: a trap

Do you see the tripwire (or any other detectable sign)? - Perception
Can you figure out what it triggers, or how to avoid it? - Investigation
Do you know anything about its manufacture or what creatures might employ such a trap? - Lore/Knowledge

[Tanarii]

I don't personally see the overlap between perception, investigation and knowledge/lore. For me, perception = can you sense it. Investigation = can you understand it? Knowledge/Lore = do you recognize its significance?
That's pretty much the typical uses, leaving out lore's 'what do you know/remember about it'.

But investigation is also 'can you figure out where it might be?' That's subtlety different from perceiving something, but often results in the same thing: finding it.

[BurgerBeast]

That's pretty much the typical uses, leaving out lore's 'what do you know/remember about it'.

But investigation is also 'can you figure out where it might be?' That's subtlety different from perceiving something, but often results in the same thing: finding it.

Well, I will admit from the start that I am actively looking for distinctions because, as a DM, I want there to be clear lines between the three skills. This makes it easier for me to adjudicate, but it also makes it easier to communicate clearly to players, manage player expectations, and overall improve my game.

Keeping this in mind, "figuring out where something might be" can be subdivided based on method. If you are looking for signs, this would be perception, and if you are actively trying to deduce, this would be investigation. It may not be obvious to the player, but it should be obvious to the DM, who knows the answer. So you can consider the answer and work backward tho determine the type of check. Does that make sense?

[mephnick]

How I use it:

Perception - You smell a rotting stench coming from somewhere in the room. Seems stronger as you proceed.

Investigation - You follow the stench to the far corner of the room and find the faint outline of a hidden door. Yep, the stench is coming from the other side.

Knowledge - You know from your studies that a strong rotting stench is one characteristic of ghouls.