Thoughts on passive perception

[Brightersidegam]

So, this is one of those things that, at our table, seems to get ignored a lot, and I'm wondering, what are y'alls take on passive perception?

Jeremy Crawford described passive perception as "always on," (So long as you're conscious) and that the only time to roll a perception check is if you ask if you can see anything more (actively perceive), our you do not have the ability to perceive your environment naturally (sleeping comes to mind). He also says that rolling lower then your passive just means you don't see anything more. (I'd post the link to the interview, but I haven't talked enough yet :p)

I, in particular, like this. I also know this is kind of the "take ten" mechanic of older editions. Yet my table and DM keeps asking for perception checks, and while it's possible that the passive perception is still being taken into account, and I'm not aware of it (very possible, I can be pretty oblivious), I'm getting the feeling that they adhere to the roll off mechanic of "perception vs DC." Nothing wrong with that, of course, though it does kinda spoil some surprises (we've all heard the stereotypical stories), and makes feats like "observant" a lot less powerful.

So what do you guys think of passive perception, when don't you guys use it, is it possible to get less then it should you role, could you just, say, default to your passive if you don't want to risk rolling lower? Also, your thoughts on other skills that could be passive (investigation, insight, others)

[TheFryingPen]

Overall I like the idea of PCs not being blind to things when their players don't explicitly mention what their characters are looking at at the very moment. Also asking for perception can be quite a big "meta-spoiler". The downside is, that some characters passive perception can pretty easily beat 80-90% of the other players' rolls. And that noticing things becomes pretty boring / binary.

I've always seen it as a replacement for rolls in situations where the DM would have to ask for perception rolls, but doesn't want to ask players, because then they'd suspect something is there. The PHB also mentions this as an example on page 175. But I wouldn't allow it to always notice everything as if you were actively trying to look for things.

E.g. it makes sense that adventurers in a dungeon (which is known or can be expected to be trapped) move with enough caution to passively notice traps or other hidden threats.
It would make less sense if, for example, that the characters causally going for a shopping tour in a city will passively notice a hidden door in one of the houses' walls.

In cases similar to the last example I'd suggest to impose a disadvantage (-5) on the passive perception, or the other way around, give advantage on perception rolls (if a player for some reason, like a little hint you mentioned some time, takes a closer look). Which is kind of the same if the DM adjusts the DCs accordingly, but it could feel better for the players taking a clue to roll with advantage. That way you're still encouraging players to look out for things and not think "meh, if there ever was something our wisdom / perception proficiency party member would already have noticed".

What could be a good practice as well is only allowing passive perception to detect clues (whether important or not, to keep it exciting) for an active perception. Something like "As you approach the door, you notice that the wood is old and rotten, but the handle has been replaced recently". That way, players benefit from the passive perception ("I should take a further look at that") and if they succeed on the active one they make sure something is there. If the same DC is used for the clue and the hidden object / contraption I'd again give Advantage for the active one. And if they fail the active one, the players may still choose to act with caution, but do not know what's there.
That way both passive and active perception have their place. There's also no reason to make the roll at least the passive score and no downside to attempting the roll when you do it this way. And again, you allow the perception player to play his/her strength but also give other characters a chance to inspect things. You can also drop hints to magical phenomena and have the spotter work with the arcana specialist to make out whats happening.


As for other skills, I think insight could be one working similar to passive perception in general, since by my understanding it is the social perception. E.g. if an NPC is trying to deceive the players he should have to overcome their passive insight, giving players a roll in this situation might very well raise suspicions and spoil things. Passive stealth might be a thing in situations where it's hard to detect you anyway (fog, darkness + distance) and there's no particular reason for you to do something that catches attention. Investigation makes more sense to me as the skill to use when you already have a clue, so it's more active than perception by nature. You could make it passive to detect further clues though. All knowledge-related checks could be used as a passive score when you want to converse with a NPC about topics in that field (since that could basically be a few knowledge checks in a row) and their bonus could add to passive perception for detecting related things (noticing a particular plant or natural hazard for example).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that people make perception out to be THE skill. It's not. Perception by default, active or passive, only tells you what you perceive that's abnormal.

* The tracks go around a piece of ground.
* These flagstones are offset from others in a way that's different from the rest.
* There are small holes in the wall.

Etc.

Intelligence (Investigation) tells you what might be going on. Perception only tells you that there's something to investigate. As a result, having a high passive just serves as a floor: if there's no circumstances forbidding/diminishing passive perceptions (such as actively foraging, navigating, etc), you automatically notice anything with a DC lower than your passive.

In my experience, the best way to run things is for them to be easy to notice, but hard to deal with. Take that classic swinging pendulum blade trap. It's obvious, but it still takes good timing (a good DEX check) to dodge. This also prevents them from getting frustrated at having to pixel hunt (coming from the point-and-click games where you have to run your cursor over every pixel seeing if it will change). The clues should be easy to find. Putting them together should be difficult. Otherwise you run the risk of the players missing 90% of the area, all those fun things you built for them to get involved with.

[Spiritchaser]

So what do you guys think of passive perception, when don't you guys use it, is it possible to get less then it should you role, could you just, say, default to your passive if you don't want to risk rolling lower? Also, your thoughts on other skills that could be passive (investigation, insight, others)

I pretty much have it “always on” with the caveat that many circumstances will result in -5 from disadvantage.

It works but... I had a high wis paladin take the observant feat AND the UA perceptive feat.

She was basically a walking perceptatron.

It did make a LOT of ambush predators very much less problematic, and it very significantly impacts play balance in a stealth heavy campaign.

I would go so far as to say that with this interpretation of the rules, a stealth heavy campaign and that UA feat, the combination is the most powerful feat combination the PCs have taken, badly eclipsing PAM+EE+GWM on a hexblade in terms of overall impact on party performance.

Nobody says you have to use that UA, but prodigy could do the same, and there’s nothing stopping a bard taking observant.

[Pex]

Given my opinion on 5E skills, I know this is not 5E's fault. The usefulness of passive perception is dependent on the DM, and there's nothing the rules can do about it. It is part of the DM's fun to throw surprises at the party, even Honest True no "tyrannical DMing" intent it's just for fun surprises. A PC's passive perception being high and used can prevent that from happening. Instead of setting a DC a passive perception can pick up, the DM fiats "Suddenly X happens" or at least tells players to roll. More traps require Investigation even though the rules say Perception because the DM doesn't want the PC with Observant Feat finding all the traps just for existing. The DM has an instinctive feel of not wanting PCs getting away with stuff at no cost. It's ok for PCs to do so in specific things players purposely built their character to do, but the DM also has a valid viewpoint on the matter.

Some DMs can adapt to Observant PCs finding many traps for free. They're fine with it because despite knowing there's a trap the party still has to deal with it somehow - bypass, disarm, go another way, suffer it anyway. You're only just not having a preliminary die roll. The sense of loss of the DM not surprising the party is made up by players not bemoaning they rolled low so want someone else to try until they roll high to feel confident at those times the DM says they find no trap and there really isn't any.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I pretty much have it “always on” with the caveat that many circumstances will result in -5 from disadvantage.

It works but... I had a high wis paladin take the observant feat AND the UA perceptive feat.

She was basically a walking perceptatron.

It did make a LOT of ambush predators very much less problematic, and it very significantly impacts play balance in a stealth heavy campaign.

I would go so far as to say that with this interpretation of the rules, a stealth heavy campaign and that UA feat, the combination is the most powerful feat combination the PCs have taken, badly eclipsing PAM+EE+GWM on a hexblade in terms of overall impact on party performance.

Nobody says you have to use that UA, but prodigy could do the same, and there’s nothing stopping a bard taking observant.

Note that it may make the ambush irrelevant against that one character, but everyone else can be surprised. Surprise checks against each character individually.

Then again, my bard took Alert. It's saved her a bunch of times, since our dice hate us for perception checks...

[Spiritchaser]

Note that it may make the ambush irrelevant against that one character, but everyone else can be surprised. Surprise checks against each character individually.

Then again, my bard took Alert. It's saved her a bunch of times, since our dice hate us for perception checks...

All the party has stealth proficiency or expertise, they generally operate in low or no light and run pass without trace.

She will generally see the foe as the party creeps forward, and is typically (although not always) able to inform the party before they get right on top of... whatever it is and I start thinking about if I should be applying disadvantage to party stealth, or flat out ruling it as impossible.

[mephnick]

Note that it may make the ambush irrelevant against that one character, but everyone else can be surprised. Surprise checks against each character individually.

Also remember if you are navigating or foraging or doing anything else while traveling you do not get your passive perception to notice threats at all unless you are a ranger.

[Justin Sane]

All the party has stealth proficiency or expertise, they generally operate in low or no light and run pass without trace.

She will generally see the foe as the party creeps forward, and is typically (although not always) able to inform the party before they get right on top of... whatever it is and I start thinking about if I should be applying disadvantage to party stealth, or flat out ruling it as impossible.
Your party is working together, with a coherent theme, and playing smart. You should be thankful, and do give them moments where they can shine.
As for constructive feedback, have you tried throwing scenarios that can't be ambushed at them? For example, the classic bar brawl, the public challenge, and so on?

[Spiritchaser]

Your party is working together, with a coherent theme, and playing smart. You should be thankful, and do give them moments where they can shine.
As for constructive feedback, have you tried throwing scenarios that can't be ambushed at them? For example, the classic bar brawl, the public challenge, and so on?

A ticking clock when slinking is too slow, a companion who needs a torch, an actual bona fide well lit area... “negotiations” with bandits... but not more than 1/4 of the time.

[Brightersidegam]

These are all great, love the varied responses. I've been thinking about this since last night, and I've been more hung up on the observant feat itself.

The way I see it, it's basically a feat to be more like Sherlock Holmes. I like the idea of passive investigation, but it could be that it only exists with people with this feat. They're tuned into the world in such a way that others just don't get. Yea, this turns some scenarios into trivial road bumps, but done of the other feats do the same thing in different situations (And they surprise you! "I'm alert, go first, and stick them with a sharpshooter three times!" This is a fighter, level 4)

Other things that could be interesting is having ones own high passive perception work against them. Shadows in the dark that are vaguely humanoid, is that an ambush? In this case, roll an active perception to double take, really make them paranoid. It could be (I think this has been said to an extent) that it could give vague details, and actively perceiving things gives you the full detail (even if the passive is still a floor, you could till that, until they actively search, you don't get full details)

Just a few things I was thinking. Again, a payee sold feel like they made a bad decision when they choose a feat, it's a significant choice (less so with observant, since it gives you one ASI), but tailoring around that feat and skill should also be a thing (you see the deactivation lever on the other side of the trap)

[Lunali]

All the party has stealth proficiency or expertise, they generally operate in low or no light and run pass without trace.

She will generally see the foe as the party creeps forward, and is typically (although not always) able to inform the party before they get right on top of... whatever it is and I start thinking about if I should be applying disadvantage to party stealth, or flat out ruling it as impossible.

Are you doing group stealth checks or individual? If individual, they basically are already at disadvantage. Group stealth checks on the other hand should only apply in situations where party members can help each other out with it, mostly only if they're trying to use stealth while actually travelling.

[Spiritchaser]

Are you doing group stealth checks or individual? If individual, they basically are already at disadvantage. Group stealth checks on the other hand should only apply in situations where party members can help each other out with it, mostly only if they're trying to use stealth while actually travelling.

Individual.

More creatures are always going to be harder to hide in a situation like that, and I think individual rolls do a reasonable job of simulating it.

That said, with pass without trace, high dex and proficiency or expertise in stealth, it's typically not a problem. They tend to operate in (or arrange) full darkness when they can, as such even with darkvision, most things they're up against have disadvantage on perception checks.

The party does as well, but the warlock has devil's sight, and the paladin has an outrageous passive perception, so they typically don't have issues.

Normally a party will want a light source to avoid traps, but they've been able to see the important things so far.

There have of course been one or two epic fails.

And one instance where some of them, and a foe passed each other in black silence, neither the wiser.

[Lunali]

That said, with pass without trace, high dex and proficiency or expertise in stealth, it's typically not a problem. They tend to operate in (or arrange) full darkness when they can, as such even with darkvision, most things they're up against have disadvantage on perception checks.

Even creatures with darkvision should have light sources in friendly (to them) territory, doing something to their light should alert them to the likely presence of enemies.

Also, having a high stealth roll doesn't make you invisible, anything with a clear line of sight will still see you at a reasonable distance.

[Tanarii]

Jeremy Crawford is wrong. The PHB tells us so. Chapter 8 adventuring describes several ways you might not get to use Passive Perception to notice threats. These include not being in the front rank, or back rank for threats approaching from behind. And undertaking tasks which require your attention, such as Foraging, Mapping, Navigating, or Tracking. So clearly it is not "always on".

The PHB also tells us when to make Passive checks:
- when something is a task being done repeatedly
- when it's a secret check

The first is not the same as the exact same task being done repeatedly for ten times as long, which is instead covered by the DMG automatic success rule. For example looking for threats in the front rank as you travel is passive perception (a task being done repeatedly as you travel). Whereas scanning part of a room for traps or secret doors for an extended period of time is an automatic success (a single task being done for ten times as long).

Perception is often a secret check, so passive often applies. But not (for example) if you take the Search action in combat for a creature you know is there somewhere, like an invisible creature or one that just used the Hide action. That's rolled, because there's no need for it to be secret and you're doing it once.

Edit: to be clear, the word "passive" in passive checks does NOT mean something you're doing passively. JC also said this, and it's also wrong. The PHB defines what a passive check is as above. When you're doing something repeatedly (which is often actively doing something), or it's a secret check (which can also be active).

[Brightersidegam]

Jeremy Crawford is wrong. The PHB tells us so. Chapter 8 adventuring describes several ways you might not get to use Passive Perception to notice threats. These include not being in the front rank, or back rank for threats approaching from behind. And undertaking tasks which require your attention, such as Foraging, Mapping, Navigating, or Tracking. So clearly it is not "always on".

The PHB also tells us when to make Passive checks:
- when something is a task being done repeatedly
- when it's a secret check

The first is not the same as the exact same task being done repeatedly for ten times as long, which is instead covered by the DMG automatic success rule. For example looking for threats in the front rank as you travel is passive perception (a task being done repeatedly as you travel). Whereas scanning part of a room for traps or secret doors for an extended period of time is an automatic success (a single task being done for ten times as long).

Perception is often a secret check, so passive often applies. But not (for example) if you take the Search action in combat for a creature you know is there somewhere, like an invisible creature or one that just used the Hide action. That's rolled, because there's no need for it to be secret and you're doing it once.

Edit: to be clear, the word "passive" in passive checks does NOT mean something you're doing passively. JC also said this, and it's also wrong. The PHB defines what a passive check is as above. When you're doing something repeatedly (which is often actively doing something), or it's a secret check (which can also be active).

See, and this is why I always take things said in an interview with a grain of salt. Like, sure, it came straight from the lead designers mouth, but it also contradicts, to an extent, what's actually in the book. This is why you always talk with your DM, and be sure what or how they want to rule it.

Some might say "that's not how it is in the book," while others might go "Well, if JC said it..." and then some others have a completely different idea! That's sort of the glory of table top gaming though, isn't it? It's different for everyone.

[Spiritchaser]

Even creatures with darkvision should have light sources in friendly (to them) territory, doing something to their light should alert them to the likely presence of enemies.

Also, having a high stealth roll doesn't make you invisible, anything with a clear line of sight will still see you at a reasonable distance.

To the first, sometimes, certainly not if they too are trying to hide, or the PCs have done something about the light, or if the creatures are... well, Creatures

As to the second, I’m not sure how many empty rooms or barren planes show up in a typical adventure. Certainly I’d suggest using them at least somewhat sparingly.

[mephnick]

while others might go "Well, if JC said it..." and then some others have a completely different idea! That's sort of the glory of table top gaming though, isn't it? It's different for everyone.

It would be more glorious if Crawford actually understood the system he's managing.

[Sjappo]

I hardly even ask for Perception checks any more. I stopped using them. And players stopped asking for them. Which in term stopped an overused skill from being to dominant.

I only use PP. I describe a scene and I tailor the description to the PP of the various PC.

"When you round the corner you see a fallen tree blocking the road. Everybody besides the Big Dumb Fighter notice that the tree has been cut, and been cut recently. Mr. Observent notices some creature crouching behind the tree but with his spearhead sticking through the branches. What do you do?"

Just looking around doesn't reveal more information, like the other 15 Goblins hiding in the woods. They need to do some thing active, like poking around in the forest, to notice the other Goblins. I might ask for a Perception or Investigation check depending on the situation.

I use the various knowledge skills the same way.

Anyway, YMMV but it stopped my players from going for Perception checks en mass and always beating them because there is always someone getting an 18 if al 6 of them try.

[Lunali]

Jeremy Crawford described passive perception as "always on," (So long as you're conscious) and that the only time to roll a perception check is if you ask if you can see anything more (actively perceive), our you do not have the ability to perceive your environment naturally (sleeping comes to mind). He also says that rolling lower then your passive just means you don't see anything more. (I'd post the link to the interview, but I haven't talked enough yet :p)

IIRC he didn't say it was always on, but rather that almost any time you would get a roll to detect something with perception you would also be aware enough to have your passive perception active.

[Tanarii]

IIRC he didn't say it was always on, but rather that almost any time you would get a roll to detect something with perception you would also be aware enough to have your passive perception active.
That's still not necessarily right as a general rule. Passive checks replace active checks if they're a secret roll or for something being done repeatedly.

But in the case of passive perception it's often true. Because one of the most common uses for it is when a creature hides from you, which is explicitly against your passive perception. But if you knew it's there (somewhere) you can use a Search Action to look for it and make a rolled check. At that point it's neither secret, and it's being done once (this round), do not repeated.

But just trying to look again is often just another passive check. It's still something you don't know is there, so still a secret check, so passive again. Or automatic if you take ten times as long to be sure.

[Slipperychicken]

So what do you guys think of passive perception, when don't you guys use it, is it possible to get less then it should you role, could you just, say, default to your passive if you don't want to risk rolling lower? Also, your thoughts on other skills that could be passive (investigation, insight, others)

I like the idea and I wish they made a bigger deal out of it, making large parts of 5e not require die-rolls to resolve at all. We could just say "oh this character knows what he's doing and this task should be easy for him, we don't need a d20 to resolve this situation" for most issues. That would help move the emphasis away from mindlessly rolling the d20 every time someone does something, toward actual thought about what the characters are capable of and whether the outcome is in any doubt.


The mechanic's weak implementation in 5e however has left little impact on dnd gaming culture -its weak rules haven't shaken us from the "roll a die every time something happens" paradigm. Combined with a lack of skill guidance, the concept is all but worthless in actual games. Maybe doubling down on passive-checks is an idea for 6e.

[Pex]

I like the idea and I wish they made a bigger deal out of it, making large parts of 5e not require die-rolls to resolve at all. We could just say "oh this character knows what he's doing and this task should be easy for him, we don't need a d20 to resolve this situation" for most issues. That would help move the emphasis away from mindlessly rolling the d20 every time someone does something, toward actual thought about what the characters are capable of and whether the outcome is in any doubt.


The mechanic's weak implementation in 5e however has left little impact on dnd gaming culture -its weak rules haven't shaken us from the "roll a die every time something happens" paradigm. Combined with a lack of skill guidance, the concept is all but worthless in actual games. Maybe doubling down on passive-checks is an idea for 6e.

There are two problems with this, I lament. The first is not every DM will agree on what task is easy enough to warrant not needing a roll. Since the game doesn't provide benchmarks for skills people can climb trees in one game because they want to while in another they must roll and fail half the time. The second is more a DM issue than rules issue. Some DMs just can't accept the concept PCs can do things because they want to, and I'm not implying malice. It is instinctive to them there must be a chance of failure for everything. Otherwise there's no "challenge" - no risk no fun, etc.

You are right in that the game must explicitly tell DMs it's ok PCs can do things just because they want to. 5E does do that to a degree, but in practice it has shown what the DMG says is not enough. That I think relates to the first problem, the game itself does not provide distinct things PCs can do because they want to leaving it to the DM to figure it out.

What the game needs, in my opinion, is specifically Take 10/Take 20. Don't beat around the bush about it as the rules currently do. Be that specific. Use the numbers. I don't care if it's too meta. Let players choose to Take 10/Take 20. It will lessen the problem that one DM thinks climbing trees is DC 10, another DC 15, another DC 20. When a PC in his game wants to climb a tree or whatever skill, if Take 10/Take 20 is appropriate everyone knows if you need to roll or not.

[Willie the Duck]

I certainly like it on a conceptual level. It removes the challenge of either 1) trying to pretend the DM didn't just ask you to roll your perceptions, or 2) DM throwing up false, meaningless rolls. Likewise, it removes the both-ninja-and-victim-roll-d20 wonkiness/potential swinginess (yes, I've seen the analysis about how often it really makes a difference. It still bothers me if some skills are d20+X vs. D20+Y while other skill checks are D20+X vs DC.)

That said, It doesn't work great with the 5e skill system. First for the reasons Pex mentions. Also because of expertise, skill boosters that require a roll, and other things I'm forgetting now.