Do I *have* to use Passive Perception?

[heavyfuel]

I know that - as DM - I can very well do whatever I want, but - strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception?

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people)

[JNAProductions]

You don't have to.

But, in this case, I'd probably not have had them ALL roll, unless they're actually actively looking. What I do think might be reasonable, is to increase Passive Perception by 1 per two? three? some number of people working together, to max of Passive Perception +10 (representing that nat 20).

[NorthernPhoenix]

Unless you're playing AL, you don't have to and I personally prefer not to.

[Zhorn]

I'd vote there should be some mechanic in effect that makes a group of creatures doing a thing more effective than a single creature doing a thing, and if there isn't a method you're happy with by RAW, then making something new is perfectly fine.

Recently I've started to treat individual outcomes as modifiers for group efforts (both for players and monsters), using the same formula ability score modifiers are determined.

example: say there's one guard on patrol with a passive perception of 14. single guard, single value, no issue.

Add a second guard. it should be a more effective watch, but their passives are still 14 each.
OR that second guard's 14 turns into a +2, so the pair of them patrolling makes their passive perception into a 16.
Add a third and it's now a 18.

it's not a perfect system, but as long as your groups are kept to a relistic size and you don't go overboard with exactly how many assists are allowed t stack together, it gives a consistent way to increase checks.

[DMThac0]

The answer is: DM discretion.

You need to determine whether the creatures are actively looking for trouble or not. If the answer is yes, roll, if the answer is no, passive (or no roll).

In the example you provided, it is implied that the enemies were on the alert so they rolled their perceptions. If, however, the enemies were playing dice and the Rogue tried to sneak by, then it would be passives. They aren't actively looking for trouble.

[JNAProductions]

Also, note that when your Rogue PC hits level 11, there's a good chance that even a Nat 20 will fail to spot him.

+13 (Expertise Stealth, +5 Dex) and floor of 10 on die means you need +3 Perception minimum to spot, and that goes up to +5 in two levels when proficiency increases.

And here's the thing-that's okay. Your player's Rogue will be an absolute boss at sneaking, able to stealth past ordinary guards without breaking a sweat and completely reliably. Let them feel awesome, let them feel stealthy. And for the love of god do NOT just declare everything has blindsight/tremorsense/whatever and negate their awesomeness. (Which is not to say they should NEVER get spotted, just that most foes shouldn't spot 'em until they choose to get noticed, or there's literally not anywhere to hide.)


I'd vote there should be some mechanic in effect that makes a group of creatures doing a thing more effective than a single creature doing a thing, and if there isn't a method you're happy with by RAW, then making something new is perfectly fine.

Recently I've started to treat individual outcomes as modifiers for group efforts (both for players and monsters), using the same formula ability score modifiers are determined.

example: say there's one guard on patrol with a passive perception of 14. single guard, single value, no issue.

Add a second guard. it should be a more effective watch, but their passives are still 14 each.
OR that second guard's 14 turns into a +2, so the pair of them patrolling makes their passive perception into a 16.
Add a third and it's now a 18.

it's not a perfect system, but as long as your groups are kept to a relistic size and you don't go overboard with exactly how many assists are allowed t stack together, it gives a consistent way to increase checks.

Yeah, I suggested something similar above, only scaling WAY less quickly.

Six people looking together is the equivalent of a nat 20 with just Passive Perception 14 under that system.

[Gallowglass]

I know that - as DM - I can very well do whatever I want, but - strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception?

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people)

In my opinion <-- putting this here

the point of passive perception is to reduce the complexity and reduce the number of rolls you make on the DM side (as well as give a target for the PCs when they aren't actively doing something but could passively notices something)

Are you obligated to use it? no. You are not obligated to use any rule. the base RAW of the game stipulates that. When I started 3rd edition, I absolutely HATED the take 10 and take 20 rules and I quickly disallowed it as a DM. Later, as I got to play under other DMS I came to understand the point of them and now I happily include them.

But I would point out a few things you may not have considered:

1> The rogue character invested in stealth in order to be sneaky. By taking away the passive perception rule, you are only making it more difficult on him and anyone else who invests in skills. They are already at a disadvantage compared to spell casters and other classes who your rule is not, in any way, going to inconvenience. In other words you are only hampering the weakest classes.

2> I would argue that a group of five guards are likely hampering each other more than helping each other. They each are probably slacking off a little because they feel there are others there to help do the work, they are probably chatting amongst each other. The subtle body movements of the other guards are constantly disrupting their peripheral vision and distracting the other guards. In other words, five guards guarding a door are a less effective method than a single guard who is not distracted and fully focused because he knows he's on his own.

3> If you argue instead, that they are "helping" each other, you could use the aid other rules and give them a passive perception with an additional +2 for each alert guard. Then check the rogue against that. That would, I think, emulate what you are trying to say which is "more people means it should be harder" while still giving the rogue a fair idea of whether he thinks a risk is worth it or not.

4> In your ruling, if I was the rogue, I wouldn't bother trying to sneak past a group ever again. Of course a group of five are going to see me, someone is going to roll well.

5> Think of any classic trope scenario in a book or TV or movie where the rogue sneaks deep into an enemy camp in order to free the damsel from the warlord's tent. Well that guy had to sneak past a few hundred guys. So, yeah.... that's not even remotely possible in your world.

*shrug* time to get this thief killed off so I can make another wizard. You've just completely nullified the point of my character. If you just want us to depend on casting spells and roll aggressively through every obstacle, just say so. But don't give me an impossible challenge and pretend its possible.

[heavyfuel]

You don't have to.


Unless you're playing AL, you don't have to and I personally prefer not to.

Where can I find this in the book?


I'd vote there should be some mechanic in effect that makes a group of creatures doing a thing more effective than a single creature doing a thing, and if there isn't a method you're happy with by RAW, then making something new is perfectly fine.

Recently I've started to treat individual outcomes as modifiers for group efforts (both for players and monsters), using the same formula ability score modifiers are determined.

example: say there's one guard on patrol with a passive perception of 14. single guard, single value, no issue.

Add a second guard. it should be a more effective watch, but their passives are still 14 each.
OR that second guard's 14 turns into a +2, so the pair of them patrolling makes their passive perception into a 16.
Add a third and it's now a 18.

it's not a perfect system, but as long as your groups are kept to a relistic size and you don't go overboard with exactly how many assists are allowed t stack together, it gives a consistent way to increase checks.

That's good, but doesn't solve the problem of "either they all spot him or no one spots him".


The answer is: DM discretion.

You need to determine whether the creatures are actively looking for trouble or not. If the answer is yes, roll, if the answer is no, passive (or no roll).

In the example you provided, it is implied that the enemies were on the alert so they rolled their perceptions. If, however, the enemies were playing dice and the Rogue tried to sneak by, then it would be passives. They aren't actively looking for trouble.

They weren't actively looking for the rogue. They were sitting and talking. Still stupid that either they all notice the Rogue or no one does.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They weren't actively looking for the rogue. They were sitting and talking. Still stupid that either they all notice the Rogue or no one does.

Those that are alert but not actively searching get to use PP (and have a chance). Those that are distracted either use PP at disadvantage (-5) or don't get to use it at all (have no chance). Those that are actively searching a particular place right this second because they're alerted to the presence of an intruder get to roll.

More people doing something usually makes it worse, not better. Trust me--I teach teenagers. One, by himself, is usually pretty observant. Two together is much worse, and a larger group is basically blind to everything around them.

[RedMage125]

They weren't actively looking for the rogue. They were sitting and talking. Still stupid that either they all notice the Rogue or no one does.

If they weren't actively looking then Passive Perception should be the only one used. Making a Wisdom (Perception) check is an Action, specifically one of two options of the "Search" action.

Now, I'd agree that if there's a group, there's a greater chance of being noticed, so a house rule of "+2 to Passive Perception for each guard" is reasonable, but so is "they're all basically assisting one another, which gives advantage on checks, which means a +5 to the Passive". If the Rogue can still sneak past that, he deserves to. But if they were distracted, that's Disadvantage (-5 to Passive). Since they're all kind of half-***ed "helping" but all distracted, I'd say just go with regular Passive to reporesent this.

[heavyfuel]

In my opinion <-- putting this here

the point of passive perception is to reduce the complexity and reduce the number of rolls you make on the DM side (as well as give a target for the PCs when they aren't actively doing something but could passively notices something)

Are you obligated to use it? no. You are not obligated to use any rule. the base RAW of the game stipulates that. When I started 3rd edition, I absolutely HATED the take 10 and take 20 rules and I quickly disallowed it as a DM. Later, as I got to play under other DMS I came to understand the point of them and now I happily include them.

But I would point out a few things you may not have considered:

1> The rogue character invested in stealth in order to be sneaky. By taking away the passive perception rule, you are only making it more difficult on him and anyone else who invests in skills. They are already at a disadvantage compared to spell casters and other classes who your rule is not, in any way, going to inconvenience. In other words you are only hampering the weakest classes.

2> I would argue that a group of five guards are likely hampering each other more than helping each other. They each are probably slacking off a little because they feel there are others there to help do the work, they are probably chatting amongst each other. The subtle body movements of the other guards are constantly disrupting their peripheral vision and distracting the other guards. In other words, five guards guarding a door are a less effective method than a single guard who is not distracted and fully focused because he knows he's on his own.

3> If you argue instead, that they are "helping" each other, you could use the aid other rules and give them a passive perception with an additional +2 for each alert guard. Then check the rogue against that. That would, I think, emulate what you are trying to say which is "more people means it should be harder" while still giving the rogue a fair idea of whether he thinks a risk is worth it or not.

4> In your ruling, if I was the rogue, I wouldn't bother trying to sneak past a group ever again. Of course a group of five are going to see me, someone is going to roll well.

5> Think of any classic trope scenario in a book or TV or movie where the rogue sneaks deep into an enemy camp in order to free the damsel from the warlord's tent. Well that guy had to sneak past a few hundred guys. So, yeah.... that's not even remotely possible in your world.

*shrug* time to get this thief killed off so I can make another wizard. You've just completely nullified the point of my character. If you just want us to depend on casting spells and roll aggressively through every obstacle, just say so. But don't give me an impossible challenge and pretend its possible.

1 - Yes, he did. And yes, he is sneaky. Over 8 levels I can count on one hand the number of times his stealth failed. Being sneaky isn't the same as "I am unnoticeable by all"
2 - They weren't helping, they just each had their chance of detecting the rogue.
3 - Doesn't fix the all or nothing problem
4 - There should be an inherent risk to trying to get the jump on 5 guys
5 - I don't usually take tropes into consideration when make ruling in my games. There are plenty of stupid tropes out there

*sigh* gotta love how the forum presumptions often work. I didn't give any challenge, the rouge went out of his to look for trouble. It was completely the player's choice. How about we stop assuming things?


Those that are alert but not actively searching get to use PP (and have a chance). Those that are distracted either use PP at disadvantage (-5) or don't get to use it at all (have no chance). Those that are actively searching a particular place right this second because they're alerted to the presence of an intruder get to roll.

More people doing something usually makes it worse, not better. Trust me--I teach teenagers. One, by himself, is usually pretty observant. Two together is much worse, and a larger group is basically blind to everything around them.

Yeah, I try not to compare the abilities and behaviours of elite hunters with those of teenagers.

[Gallowglass]

1 - Yes, he did. And yes, he is sneaky. Over 8 levels I can count on one hand the number of times his stealth failed. Being sneaky isn't the same as "I am unnoticeable by all"
2 - They weren't helping, they just each had their chance of detecting the rogue.
3 - Doesn't fix the all or nothing problem
4 - There should be an inherent risk to trying to get the jump on 5 guys
5 - I don't usually take tropes into consideration when make ruling in my games. There are plenty of stupid tropes out there

*sigh* gotta love how the forum presumptions often work. I didn't give any challenge, the rouge went out of his to look for trouble. It was completely the player's choice. How about we stop assuming things?


Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you actually wanted people's advice, not just fishing for people to agree with you. I often mistake that on this forum.

[NecessaryWeevil]

It sounds like your biggest concern is that it makes no sense for everyone to notice the rogue. So what about this? Roll once, using the best skill among the group of guards. Roll with advantage, because they're aiding each other in the sense that one might be looking in a certain direction that others aren't, one might blink when others don't, one might have a better sightline.

Then, if the roll succeeds, it means the rogue is spotted. You can interpret that roll however you like, given your understanding of the situation. It might mean they all spot the rogue at once, if that makes the most sense. It might mean one leaps to his feet and points. Interpret it in whatever way is least problematic to your sense of reality.

[Keravath]

As a DM, you choose when to use passive perception in general and of course can apply it in a home game as you like. In AL, things work based on RAW.

The example of hiding on page 177 of the PHB describes how it is supposed to work RAW.

"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."

Active perception check is used for someone who is actively looking for you.

"You can't hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet."

"The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. Also, the question isn’t whether a creature can see you when you’re hiding. The ques*tion is whether it can see you clearly."

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

This makes it quite clear, that RAW, passive perception is used when they aren't searching. This represents the average result of a typical perception check.

-----

Let's consider your example.

1) There are 5 guards, not one.
- are they paying attention or searching? If No, then use passive perception.
- However, since there is more than one guard that might notice it would be reasonable to give the group of guards advantage on the check to see if at least one of them notices the rogue. This increases their passive perception by +5.

2) Is there actually somewhere for the rogue to hide? If the guards aren't paying any attention but are looking in the direction where the rogue is standing then their stealth roll doesn't matter since they are clearly visible. If you try to walk down a corridor towards a couple of lazy guards standing at a door ... stealth doesn't matter ... you can't sneak up on them if they can see you. On the other hand, if the rogue wants to cross an open doorway to a guard room, the chances are reasonable but because there are multiple guards the DM could give them advantage on the check then determine which, if any, of the guards noticed the rogue.

Assuming the rogue has somewhere to hide, then just apply advantage to the passive check and the figure out which of the guards noticed the rogue since the check with advantage is higher than each individual passive perception. Basically, if the rogue rolls low, then everyone notices, if they roll above the individual passive perception but less than the passive with advantage then some notice and if they are sufficiently sneaky then no one notices.

The only issue here is that the roll is made by the rogue and depends on their skill at stealth. If they are good at it, and circumstances allow, then they won't get noticed very often.

I think the advantage mechanic on passive perception handles the situation described quite well without making sneaking almost impossible by giving each guard an active check even if they aren't searching.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I try not to compare the abilities and behaviours of elite hunters with those of teenagers.

This is a known issue across the whole spectrum of capabilities. Adding more people on watch is a negative if they're allowed to talk to each other. Having a passenger in the car and talking to them is (within epsilon) just as distracting as talking on your cellphone. If they really wanted to keep watch, then they'd be separated and intent, not sitting around talking. That's the behavior of amateurs, not the elite. More people is not uniformly better. If they're allowed to talk, it's either a net negative or it's a wash at best.

If every one gets a roll, sneaking becomes practically impossible (the chances of 1 in 5 getting a natural 20, which is high enough to detect most non-high-level sneaks is over 20%, and if you don't need a 20 those numbers go up real fast). It also takes 5x as long to adjudicate. Each and every 6 seconds, which guarantees that the rogue will be spotted unless his bonus is so high that even a 20 isn't enough.

Passive Perception is a simple way of doing things. To solve the "all or none" issue, you can assign some of them advantage (those more alert) and some disadvantage (those less alert), shifting each one by +-5.

[CorporateSlave]

1 - Yes, he did. And yes, he is sneaky. Over 8 levels I can count on one hand the number of times his stealth failed. Being sneaky isn't the same as "I am unnoticeable by all" Which is why if he were to roll a (1) he would probably be noticed relatively often. He's rolling dice to Stealth, that's where the chance of failure comes in.


2 - They weren't helping, they just each had their chance of detecting the rogue.
...and because their Passive Perceptions happened to be the same, none should have noticed the rogue. Giving them active checks means they were all actively searching for someone. You just made your Rogue player's PC into an idiot who tried to sneak past 5 guys actively looking for him, rather than the 5 guards generally milling around that the player thought his PC was sneaking past.


3 - Doesn't fix the all or nothing problem
This is only a "problem" because you don't personally like it, it also happens to be the way it is written to function. Perhaps rather than doing away with a major game mechanic (with a Feat attached to it even) in a way that severely handicaps any Stealth based character, you could just make one guard a "commander" and give him a +2 to Passive Perception? Or just vary their Passive Perceptions randomly in their stat blocks? Seems like the simple and balanced way to solve this (kind of an) issue without screwing with the rules so much.


4 - There should be an inherent risk to trying to get the jump on 5 guys
And the risk is that the rogue will roll low and get spotted (or that he has misjudged them, and one is a ranger or something with a very high Passive Perception that he wasn't aware of or something similar) By having all 5 roll, it is almost a guarantee he will be spotted. And if not this time, then next maybe next time. The risk is increased well beyond what the player should expect going by the RAW.


5 - I don't usually take tropes into consideration when make ruling in my games. There are plenty of stupid tropes out there
Usually this argument comes from someone who wants to stick strictly to the RAW, when it doesn't allow for a heroic trope of some kind.


I didn't give any challenge, the rouge went out of his to look for trouble. It was completely the player's choice.

Did the player realize when he made the Stealth attempt (and further, when he designed a Stealth-centric PC) that you were going to handicap his Stealth ability so severely? Unless this was all made clear in Session Zero, I would hardly call anything about this "completely the player's choice."

[heavyfuel]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you actually wanted people's advice, not just fishing for people to agree with you. I often mistake that on this forum.

It's not fishing for agreement. I asked a simple question: "Do the rules say I have to use passive perception?". It's a simple yes or no question. If the rules say I indeed have to, then I admit that what I'm doing is a houserule, which is going to be maintaned regardless of people agreeing with me or not. (although I'd be open to a slightly different houserule like the one NecessaryWeevil provided below)


It sounds like your biggest concern is that it makes no sense for everyone to notice the rogue. So what about this? Roll once, using the best skill among the group of guards. Roll with advantage, because they're aiding each other in the sense that one might be looking in a certain direction that others aren't, one might blink when others don't, one might have a better sightline.

Then, if the roll succeeds, it means the rogue is spotted. You can interpret that roll however you like, given your understanding of the situation. It might mean they all spot the rogue at once, if that makes the most sense. It might mean one leaps to his feet and points. Interpret it in whatever way is least problematic to your sense of reality.

That is one solution


This is a known issue across the whole spectrum of capabilities. Adding more people on watch is a negative if they're allowed to talk to each other. Having a passenger in the car and talking to them is (within epsilon) just as distracting as talking on your cellphone. If they really wanted to keep watch, then they'd be separated and intent, not sitting around talking. That's the behavior of amateurs, not the elite. More people is not uniformly better. If they're allowed to talk, it's either a net negative or it's a wash at best.

If every one gets a roll, sneaking becomes practically impossible (the chances of 1 in 5 getting a natural 20, which is high enough to detect most non-high-level sneaks is over 20%, and if you don't need a 20 those numbers go up real fast). It also takes 5x as long to adjudicate. Each and every 6 seconds, which guarantees that the rogue will be spotted unless his bonus is so high that even a 20 isn't enough.

Passive Perception is a simple way of doing things. To solve the "all or none" issue, you can assign some of them advantage (those more alert) and some disadvantage (those less alert), shifting each one by +-5.

It doesn't really take longer. It's not one roll per round, it's one roll. Period. This one roll determines how attentive they were at that particular time. A person doesn't maintain contant levels of attention at all times, and adding +/- 5 to (dis)advantage also doesn't deal justice to a person's attentiveness. You don't have 3 levels of attentiveness.

[DMThac0]

A person doesn't maintain contant levels of attention at all times, and adding +/- 5 to (dis)advantage also doesn't deal justice to a person's attentiveness. You don't have 3 levels of attentiveness.

You are right, there aren't 3 levels of attentiveness in real life, there are multiple levels of attentiveness. Let's say the Rogue rolled a 14 on the die, how do you adjudicate a 15 on the die vs a 16? That's reflective of multiple levels of attentiveness. Does one see the Rogue better? Does one become more aware of the Rogue? Do you need to describe the differences between the two?

I believe the game uses a binary approach: succeed or fail.

The game doesn't use multiple levels of perception, instead it uses circumstantial bonuses or deficits to reflect those multiple levels of attentiveness: Advantage and Disadvantage.

[malachi]

As a DM, you have the full discretion of determining how many guards see the rogue if the rogue fails to beat their PP (or PP+5 if you give advantage for being a group). If the rogue's stealth check isn't high enough, simply determine from the situation you've described how many guards notice the rogue. In the case of guards, they're going to alert the others to someone sneaking around the moment they discover it, so it doesn't matter how many see the rogue to start with - after the initial reaction, they'd all know where the rogue was.

The one case I can think of where this would be different is if there was a group of people with mixed agendas and the same PP - in which case you might want to roll for Perception or set DCs such that getting 19+ means no one sees rogue, getting a 14-18 means one group (roll randomly or determine ahead of time, as you see fit) sees the rogue, or getting a 13 or lower means both groups see the rogue.



The chances of at least one character in a group of 5 to roll a 15+ is ~83%. The chances of that happening and the rogue rolling a 10 or less is ~42%. So, assuming the rogue has +9 to stealth and the guards have +4 to perception, the rogue would be discovered by individual rolling at least 42% of the time.

When I threw it into excel with 10,000 contested checks, I saw that the chance for the rogue to be discovered, rolling for each, is:
30% 1 guard
45% 2 guards
53% 3 guards
58% 4 guards
61% 5 guards
63% 6 guards
65% 7 guards
66% 8 guards
67% 9 guards
68% 10 guards
69% 11 guards
69% 12 guards
70% 13 guards
70% 14 guards
71% 15 guards
71% 16 guards
71% 17 guards
71% 18 guards
72% 19 guards
72% 20 guards

Which is all interesting, since it looks like advantage in a contested check comes out to +3, not +5 like is commonly said. Also, you could go off of this list to come up with what you consider to be a correct chart for increased DC for larger group sizes.

[Hail Tempus]

They weren't actively looking for the rogue. They were sitting and talking. Still stupid that either they all notice the Rogue or no one does. By allowing everyone in a group to roll against the rogue's stealth check, you're greatly increasing the chances of the rogue getting caught.

Assuming a group of 5 guards with a passive perception of 10, a typical first level rogue with expertise in stealth (+7 total) has a 90% chance of sneaking past the guards.

Now flip that around- On average, that first level rogue will roll 17 on his stealth check. If the guards each get to make an active perception roll, each has a 20% chance of spotting him, but the chances of one or more of them spotting him is about 67%.

So, by allowing an active perception check in a situation where the guards weren't actively on alert, you'd be making it significantly less likely that the rogue will successfully sneak past the group.

Letting each guard roll only serves to screw over stealthy players, and encourage the players to say "screw it" and always rely on brute force.

[Emongnome777]

2> I would argue that a group of five guards are likely hampering each other more than helping each other. They each are probably slacking off a little because they feel there are others there to help do the work, they are probably chatting amongst each other. The subtle body movements of the other guards are constantly disrupting their peripheral vision and distracting the other guards. In other words, five guards guarding a door are a less effective method than a single guard who is not distracted and fully focused because he knows he's on his own.

This.

Citation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Notice: To test the concept of "noticing," Latane and Darley (1968) staged an emergency using Columbia University students. The students were placed in a room—either alone, with two strangers or with three strangers to complete a questionnaire while they waited for the experimenter to return. While they were completing the questionnaire, smoke was pumped into the room through a wall vent to simulate an emergency. When students were working alone they noticed the smoke almost immediately (within 5 seconds). However, students that were working in groups took longer (up to 20 seconds) to notice the smoke. Latané and Darley claimed this phenomenon could be explained by the social norm of what is considered polite etiquette in public. In most western cultures, politeness dictates that it is inappropriate to idly look around. This may indicate that a person is nosy or rude. As a result, passers-by are more likely to be keeping their attention to themselves when around large groups than when alone. People who are alone are more likely to be conscious of their surroundings and therefore more likely to notice a person in need of assistance.

[RickAllison]

Which is all interesting, since it looks like advantage in a contested check comes out to +3, not +5 like is commonly said. Also, you could go off of this list to come up with what you consider to be a correct chart for increased DC for larger group sizes.

The +5 isn't a true approximation of the probability, it's the modifier 5e assigns for advantage/disadvantage on passive for simplicity because that is the greatest equivalent modifier (if you needed to get an 11, dis/advantage is equal to - or +5 in terms of how it affects the likelihood of success). At the extremes (2 or 20), it's equivalent to a modifier of 1. They just give you the benefit of the max modifier, especially since the relevant levels of the check are usually going to be more like +4 and up, the +3 average is only there because the extremes tank the rating.

[malachi]

The +5 isn't a true approximation of the probability, it's the modifier 5e assigns for advantage/disadvantage on passive for simplicity because that is the greatest equivalent modifier (if you needed to get an 11, dis/advantage is equal to - or +5 in terms of how it affects the likelihood of success). At the extremes (2 or 20), it's equivalent to a modifier of 1. They just give you the benefit of the max modifier, especially since the relevant levels of the check are usually going to be more like +4 and up, the +3 average is only there because the extremes tank the rating.

Got it. I think I knew that in the past, but then I forgot :p

[Nhorianscum]

I know that - as DM - I can very well do whatever I want, but - strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception?

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people)

The help action give's advantage which raises passive perception by a passive +5 so yes a group is better at searching than an individual by these rules.

No it's not really fair to the rouge to roll for each NPC separately. The law of averages makes sneaking without "ahahahaha" stealth skill practically impossible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The help action give's advantage which raises passive perception by a passive +5 so yes a group is better at searching than an individual by these rules.

No it's not really fair to the rouge to roll for each NPC separately. The law of averages makes sneaking without "ahahahaha" stealth skill practically impossible.

And such "realism" (falsely so called, but :shrug:) just makes it so having magic is that much better. Because magic beats those pesky concerns. Now you need pass without trace and/or invisibility + silence to even have a chance of sneaking up on someone. Which is how we get the "martials are useless" debates.

[Contrast]

Where can I find this in the book?

The book assumes you will be using passive checks. But if you, as the DM, don't want to use them it's not like the D&D police are going to burst through your windows and make you. :smallconfused:

You should probably let your players know if you don't intend to use them though as it does alter the math (specifically in this case, sneaking past groups or the party themselves being snuck up on are vanishingly less likely) on some things and there are some feats which would be much less worthwhile.

Edit - I guess if you really want a book reference I'd point to p6 of the PHB where it says the DM decides what happens when a player decides to do something. You decide what the appropriate resolution method is for resolving what happens when a player tries to do a thing. The game has provided you with passive tests but if you think another method is better *shrugs*.

[DMThac0]

The book assumes you will be using passive checks. But if you, as the DM, don't want to use them it's not like the D&D police are going to burst through your windows and make you. :smallconfused:

You should probably let your players know if you don't intend to use them though as it does alter the math (specifically in this case, sneaking past groups or the party themselves being snuck up on are vanishingly less likely) on some things and there are some feats which would be much less worthwhile.

The book doesn't assume anything, it tells you to use Passive Perception in regards to stealth.


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,...

So yea, it's not an assumption, it's pretty well defined. If they aren't actively searching for you, you use passive Perception.

--

But as you have said, in the end it's up to the DM to decide if they want to do such a thing.

[KillingTime]

Try to remember that the game is not meant to be adversarial.
The DM's job is not to try to win, but to try to facilitate an enjoyable storytelling exercise for the players.

If the rules as written make it unlikely or impossible for the guards to spot a character then great. The character is being awesome, and that's the point of the game.
You will have plenty of time to show off your own awesome, with dungeon design and boss fights.
But when the rogue pumps their stealth to make it next to impossible for mook guards to spot them, then let them.

[SaigonTimeMD]

I know that - as DM - I can very well do whatever I want, but - strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception?

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people)

When your players are looking for something, say a hard-to-find item hidden in a desk, do you let each one of them search it individually, one after the other, or do you use the advantage/group rule on p.175 of the PHB?

[Nhorianscum]

And such "realism" (falsely so called, but :shrug:) just makes it so having magic is that much better. Because magic beats those pesky concerns. Now you need pass without trace and/or invisibility + silence to even have a chance of sneaking up on someone. Which is how we get the "martials are useless" debates.

It's nice when the effective DC of reliably sneaking past a group of +0 passive dudes get's jacked from 15 to 20, and the effective DC for 1 dude goes from 10 to 20.

So our rouge cannot reliably sneak past a single 1/4 critter until...level 11.

Seems realistic.

(Probably still better than the game where my PC had a passive perception of 30 and the DM just set the DC's for noticing basic things to 31+ to "keep the game involved". In Tier 2.)

[Tawmis]

You don't have to.

But, in this case, I'd probably not have had them ALL roll, unless they're actually actively looking.

Well, if they're actively looking, isn't that PERCEPTION vs PASSIVE PERCEPTION?

[holywhippet]

I'd only use regular perception if the guards have an actual reason to be on the lookout as others have said. If you did use regular perception, I'd also not make it an all or nothing result if a guard rolled high enough to notice the PC unless they were doing something stupid like moving out in the open. A guard might catch a glimpse of them and move over to check. Give the PC a chance to roll another stealth roll or come up with a good hiding place to see if they can evade detection.

[Xihirli]

If the guards were helping each other keep watch that raises their passive by 5.

[TyGuy]

Do you think you should treat the PCs the same way?

If all of the party is together, is it equally silly for them to fail a passive perception? Shouldn't it be nearly impossible for them to fail at spotting a trap or sneaking NPC?

If you don't think the PCs should get the same treatment then shame on you Mr adversarial DM.

[Tanarii]

You don't have to use passive perception.

The purpose of passive scores is to save the player from having to roll dice repeatedly (e.g. every ten feet as they go along searching for traps), or from knowing a die was even rolled (i.e. giving away there was a reason for a check been made; also the player knowing the result of the die roll can give away possible failure / success information).

They are a DM tool. You don't have to use them if you don't care about either of those.

In the particular case of passive perception, there are two other considerations:
1) for stealth it makes it check vs DC (set by enemy score) instead of check vs check. That's usually a good thing in terms of making the results not too variable, but definitely has impact when it's vs a lot of possible percievers.
2) for fixed DC targets (traps, secret doors) it makes it DC (the percievers score) vs DC (the hidden things score). That's actually kind of a bad thing, as it makes it highly invariable.

[GreyBlack]

Are you running an Adventurer's League game? Then no. If so, then yes.

I don't make the rules, I just bitch about them.

[Tawmis]

Do you think you should treat the PCs the same way?

If all of the party is together, is it equally silly for them to fail a passive perception? Shouldn't it be nearly impossible for them to fail at spotting a trap or sneaking NPC?

If you don't think the PCs should get the same treatment then shame on you Mr adversarial DM.

Why wouldn't the PCs fail a passive perception of a rogue sneaking up on them? If the PCs are engaged in a conversation around a campfire; or even if there IS a campfire at all, the crackling wood could/would hide the sound of a rogue who might be stepping on dry leaves and branches.

So yeah; I would agree. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you gander at that! :smalltongue:

[Cybren]

No you do not have to use passive perception

[Spacehamster]

I know that - as DM - I can very well do whatever I want, but - strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception?

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people)

In this case I would have rolled a d20 to see how many of the guards that were looking in the general direction your rogue player were sneaking, 1-4 and one of them watching 5-8 two and so on, at least if they were not on high alert ofc.

[Mordaedil]

If the guards are not paying attention, they should be using passive perception to notice the rogue.

Have the player roll his stealth check and compare it against their passive check. If the rogue fails, roll for each guard to get the idea who notices the rogue first. The odds are that if they notice an intruder, they will call out to their fellows that there is an intruder. If you feel like that is inappropriate, you could have the guards that succeed against the stealth check investigate while the others stay behind and continue what they were doing.

Basically, I suggest you just use the passive check to verify if the player succeeded at bypassing inattentive guards.

If they are guards on duty and not slacking off, use active checks.

Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

[Tanarii]

If they are guards on duty and not slacking off, use active checks.

Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.Except that "paying attention" is supposed to use passive perception. And slacking off / distracted is supposed to use passive perception -5 (for disadvantage).

You don't have to do it that way, but that's how the system is designed to be used.

If a character / NPC / monster is doing something repeatedly over and over again (on watch and paying attention), that's what passive scores are for. So you don't have to roll dice for the PCs every 6 seconds, whether or not there is something for them to look for.

If they're doing it one time right now (peeking out a slot in the door to check the coast is clear), that's what rolled scores are for.

[Cicciograna]

My take on this, feel free to reject my opinion.

If these 5 enemies were on guard duty, and actively trying to hear noises and suspicious sounds, they DO NOT use passive perception, they get to roll because they're devolving their attention to the task itself of "being perceptive".

If, on the other end, these 5 creatures were just idly standing there, I'd say that whatever noise THEY make would mask external noises: maybe they're chatting and not paying attention to the surroundings, and their chatter covers up whatever disturbance your Rogue could be causing. In this guise, I'd just use passive perception without any kind of bonus, and if your Rogue's roll was low enough so that they hear him, I'd just rule that only one does and tells the others. After all, if he's been discovered, it doesn't really matter how and by whom, the fluff of the revelation is up to you.

If you wanted to add some spice, you could rule that only one of the has a larger passive perception than the others, and one smaller, just to simulate some kind of variability: like, three out of five guards have PP of 12, one has 11 and one has 13.

[Bigmouth]

You want the simple yes or no answer?
Yes. You do have to use Passive Perception. No ifs or maybes. Yes.
It is a core rule. It is not optional in any way. If you aren't going to use it, you should inform the players so that they can make characters appropriately. The decision to not use PP is an active nerfing of your rogue player.

[Trickery]

I don't recommend you make DM decisions based on what makes sense to you. You should make decisions based on what's good for your players. Is this rule of yours going to make the game more enjoyable for your players? That's the only question.

[Ganders]

What if the five guards had been in five separate rooms? Would you have each of them roll, or would you have each of them use their passive perception? Would the rogue need to roll his stealth five separate times to see how sneaky he was in each room, or use the first stealth roll for all five rooms?

I believe RAW says once you start sneaking you keep your first roll until you're no longer hidden, potentially for many hours through many rooms. So... I would use just one stealth roll from the rogue, not separate rolls for each room. And I would use each guard's passive perception, whether they're all in the same room or not.

The stealth rules have a rather limited scope; they work best after an encounter has begun, preferably after initiative has been rolled. It's reasonable to fall back to general skill-check rules outside of encounters. In which case it's a judgement call to decide how many encounters it constitutes. Is the question 'can he sneak into the palace' or is the question 'can he sneak into the first room' followed by 'can he sneak down the hallway' followed by 'can he sneak into the library'? If it's the former, it's ok that it's easy. If it's the latter, they might not all be Stealth checks -- one of them might be Acrobatics, and one might be Deception. The difference is significant.

Here's my take on passive perception: When the question is 'did you step on a twig or not?' or 'is your gilly suit good enough to make you look like a bush?' it really doesn't matter if there's 100 people nearby or just one. If you don't snap a twig you'll be quiet enough to fool them all at once. So everyone-uses-passive works great. On the other hand, if the question is 'can I dash across the well-lit room on tip-toes at the exact moment he looks at his watch or glances out the window?', it makes a huge difference whether it's one person or 100.

Rather than muck with the Stealth rules, I would prefer the rather dubious ruling that the latter question is NOT a stealth check. I'd go with exiting cover ends stealth automatically (much like standing in plain sight in the center of a well-lit room). I'd rather say "you are no longer hidden... but you can make a Dex check to see if you time it just when he looks out the window." (various proficiencies might apply -- Stealth, Deception, or even Insight). I'd either use multiple rolls or a higher DC if the question is "are all 100 of them looking out the window at the moment you dash across?".

[Cantankerous80]

ive always seen PP as the threshold for players to even get to make a perception roll. its all about what you set the DC at. several bandits hiding in the bushes along the road. one of them farts. DC13 set for PP. characters with a PP of 13+ get to make the perception roll, "did that bush just blow ass"? The less casually aware characters may have just assumed it was the barbarian leading the group, if they even heard it at all.

[denthor]

Make it easy.

20 plus perception = X

Have the player roll. 1d20 + hide in shadows =Pass if higher then X

Second player roll move silent 1d20+move silent=Pass if higher then X.

We have all said "did I hear(see) something?"

Now your guards have reason to look if one of the two fail.

Nat 20 passive should just incur a slight problem not be a atuo fail in this case.

[Tanarii]

My take on this, feel free to reject my opinion.

If these 5 enemies were on guard duty, and actively trying to hear noises and suspicious sounds, they DO NOT use passive perception, they get to roll because they're devolving their attention to the task itself of "being perceptive".Your opinion is wrong, as far as what the rules tell us to do. The rules say that paying attention to the task of being attentive, repeatedly (ie over a period of time), uses passive perception. You only roll if it's looking once.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Would a Dex 8 scrub in padded armour be allowed the chance those five guards might all roll ones?

I imagine passive perception would be held up as realistic there. But if you feel so strongly that the rogue should be penalized no doubt it goes the other way? Unless this is a DM vs the players problem

[Trickery]

The RAI seems to me to be as follows:

The enemy has heard or noticed something amiss and is actively looking for hidden creatures - perception roll (or investigation).
The enemy is on guard duty or is otherwise alert - passive perception.
The enemy is having a conversation or is otherwise distracted - passive perception -5.

You may notice that it's therefore easy for a rogue with expertise to sneak past distracted guards or quietly sneak into a camp at night, provided the Rogue doesn't draw attention to himself. I believe that's the intent.

[Cicciograna]

Your opinion is wrong, as far as what the rules tell us to do. The rules say that paying attention to the task of being attentive, repeatedly (ie over a period of time), uses passive perception. You only roll if it's looking once.

That's why I called it an opinion rather than presenting it as the ultimate truth :smallsmile:


The RAI seems to me to be as follows:

The enemy has heard or noticed something amiss and is actively looking for hidden creatures - perception roll (or investigation).
The enemy is on guard duty or is otherwise alert - passive perception.
The enemy is having a conversation or is otherwise distracted - passive perception -5.

You may notice that it's therefore easy for a rogue with expertise to sneak past distracted guards or quietly sneak into a camp at night, provided the Rogue doesn't draw attention to himself. I believe that's the intent.

This actually makes a lot of sense.

[Keravath]

Except that "paying attention" is supposed to use passive perception. And slacking off / distracted is supposed to use passive perception -5 (for disadvantage).

You don't have to do it that way, but that's how the system is designed to be used.

If a character / NPC / monster is doing something repeatedly over and over again (on watch and paying attention), that's what passive scores are for. So you don't have to roll dice for the PCs every 6 seconds, whether or not there is something for them to look for.

If they're doing it one time right now (peeking out a slot in the door to check the coast is clear), that's what rolled scores are for.

If the guards are actually on watch but not actively searching then use their passive. If they are sitting around playing cards and completely ignoring to keep watch then the rogue might not even need to roll for stealth except to see if they trip and make enough noise for the distracted guards to notice.

If the guards are actually guarding but not actively searching - use the passive. If they are actively searching, passive is a floor but they could roll higher. If the guards are distracted doing something else then either disadvantage or an auto success for the rogue would be appropriate. If there is more than one guard actually watching then giving them advantage on the passive check would be appropriate.

However, you are absolutely right - the guards have to actually be watching in order to get to use their passive perception. Using passive requires the character/NPC be taking an action appropriate to the application of the skill though most of the time, most people, will still be looking around even if they aren't watching or searching which can be sufficient attention to justify the use of passive perception.

[KorvinStarmast]

TLDR: are you familiar with the rule on group checks?

strictly from a RAW perspective - am I obligated to use Passive Perception? Wrong edition. In 5e, the DM's judgment is called on explicitly in the text of the rules. See Chapter Seven, using Ability Scores. with that said ...

1. Are you obligated? No, but if you use it then your life is easier as a DM. The rogue makes one roll and you see if it passes the passive abiilty check of the guard/guards.

2. On the other hand, per chapter seven, you as DM are acting well within your role to assign disadvantage to the Rogue's roll due to the circumstance of anything that you feel wold make their attempt less likely to succeed. There being 5 guards is a very reasonable circumstance.

You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage (as explained in chapter 4, “Personality and Background”). The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. D&D 5e, Rulings > Rules.
A simple answer is also: have the Rogue's Stealth roll be with disadvantage. You are the DM, the rules call on you to do that where the circumstances fit.

Here's the situation. The Rogue was trying to sneak past 5 enemies whose passive perceptions where the same, but since there are 5 enemies, there should at least be a chance of them noticing a threat. It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. So I rolled a perception check from them, and yup, a Natural 20 from one of them spots the Rogue.

Now, are there any rules supporting my decision? Or should I introduce it as an official houserule? (cuz there's no way I'm ever using passive perception individually for a group of 5 people) There is a rule called "group checks" that you seem to have overlooked. You could have checked to see of more of them succeeded than didn't if you were going to roll for them all.


Group Checks
When a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, the DM might ask for a group ability check. In such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren’t. To make a group ability check, everyone in the group makes the ability check. If at least half the group succeeds, the whole group succeeds. Otherwise, the group fails. So if that one 20 was the highest, and the next highest was a 14, and the rogue rolls a 17 (and all the rest lower numbers) then that 20 doesn't detect the rogue.

You ask for a rule? OK, theres' a rule that applies here if you want to use it.

[Moxxmix]

In addition to KorvinStarmast's very good points (the group check rules seem perfect for the scenario described), you might consider a house rule on Expertise (or rather, Double Proficiency in general) that I just came across, which I think works well to address (part of) the issue seen here.

Rule: All instances of "double proficiency" (such as Expertise) grant advantage to the skill roll instead of adding twice the proficiency bonus to the roll. This helps keep it more in line with the concept of bounded accuracy, which is used to good effect in combat.

As the OP's complaint was partially based on the balance of Passive Perception vs a player's roll, and Expertise skews the outcomes of that contested system in a way that bounded accuracy was explicitly introduced to fix, using advantage seems a better way of handling the potential results — perhaps moreso on contested results than passive checks, though. (But again, group check.)

[RickAllison]

In addition to KorvinStarmast's very good points (the group check rules seem perfect for the scenario described), you might consider a house rule on Expertise (or rather, Double Proficiency in general) that I just came across, which I think works well to address (part of) the issue seen here.

Rule: All instances of "double proficiency" (such as Expertise) grant advantage to the skill roll instead of adding twice the proficiency bonus to the roll. This helps keep it more in line with the concept of bounded accuracy, which is used to good effect in combat.

As the OP's complaint was partially based on the balance of Passive Perception vs a player's roll, and Expertise skews the outcomes of that contested system in a way that bounded accuracy was explicitly introduced to fix, using advantage seems a better way of handling the potential results — perhaps moreso on contested results than passive checks, though. (But again, group check.)

My primary complaint on that it isn’t hard to get on-demand skill advantage. It feels rather bad for rogues that their out-of-combat ability before level 11 is perhaps worse than any caster who can pick up Enhance Ability. “I’m an expert in these two skills!” *Sorcerer or whatever casts a spell,* “Now so am I. But I can switch mine around.”

[Moxxmix]

My primary complaint on that it isn’t hard to get on-demand skill advantage. It feels rather bad for rogues that their out-of-combat ability before level 11 is perhaps worse than any caster who can pick up Enhance Ability. “I’m an expert in these two skills!” *Sorcerer or whatever casts a spell,* “Now so am I. But I can switch mine around.”

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about that spell. Another way for magic to short-circuit skill. But you're right, if they both do the same thing, there's less value, particularly where you might have combined them.

On average, double proficiency and Enhance Ability provide about the same amount of bonus. To a certain degree, Enhance Ability would allow you to obsolete the rogue's skills anyway.

If I wanted to keep the rule eliminating double proficiency, I'd probably rewrite Enhance Ability to be closer to Reliable Talent. "Whenever the target makes a Str/Dex/etc check, if the roll is less than twice your magic ability modifier, instead treat it as equal to twice your magic ability modifier." That way a cleric with 18 Wis would make it so that you can't roll less than an 8, for example. Still ends up stepping on the rogue's toes wrt Reliable Talent, though, but avoids bounded accuracy issues while still being useful even with Expertise.

Regardless, it looks like that spell would conflict with things no matter how it's set up, if any change is made at all. Would need to spend more time thinking about it.

[RickAllison]

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten about that spell. Another way for magic to short-circuit skill. But you're right, if they both do the same thing, there's less value, particularly where you might have combined them.

On average, double proficiency and Enhance Ability provide about the same amount of bonus. To a certain degree, Enhance Ability would allow you to obsolete the rogue's skills anyway.

If I wanted to keep the rule eliminating double proficiency, I'd probably rewrite Enhance Ability to be closer to Reliable Talent. "Whenever the target makes a Str/Dex/etc check, if the roll is less than twice your magic ability modifier, instead treat it as equal to twice your magic ability modifier." That way a cleric with 18 Wis would make it so that you can't roll less than an 8, for example. Still ends up stepping on the rogue's toes wrt Reliable Talent, though, but avoids bounded accuracy issues while still being useful even with Expertise.

Regardless, it looks like that spell would conflict with things no matter how it's set up, if any change is made at all. Would need to spend more time thinking about it.

Honestly, I really like how Expertise works now. It makes the person be truly exceptional if they are already good at it, and lets them be competitive if they aren’t as good in the ability score. Most importantly, it’s in an area where bounded accuracy isn’t that important. Sure, a rogue can sneak by ordinary people effortlessly. Good on them. But the flip side is that there are features which can straight ignore the thief’s skill anyway, like blindsight. Same with Athletics and incorporealness, being too big, and Freedom of Movement. Deception and Zone of Truth.

Skill checks are the least worrisome thing in 5e, since you can only boost it so high. Rogues can be truly awesome at their specialty, let them.

[Lunali]

Either have the sneaky person roll or have the people guarding roll, don't do both. More guards make things more difficult by reducing the areas where it is possible to sneak, not by making it more difficult to stay hidden in those areas.

If stealth fails to beat perception they get spotted by one or more of the guards. Just because any of the guards could have spotted them doesn't mean they all spot them or that they all spot them at the same time

[heavyfuel]

There have been far too many replies for me to respond to them individually, so I'm just going to answer the ones that have drawn the most attention from me. That's not to say I haven't read and taken into consideration every other reply.


When your players are looking for something, say a hard-to-find item hidden in a desk, do you let each one of them search it individually, one after the other, or do you use the advantage/group rule on p.175 of the PHB?

Sure. Why not? It's not like 4 people can't be looking for the same thing.


Do you think you should treat the PCs the same way?

If all of the party is together, is it equally silly for them to fail a passive perception? Shouldn't it be nearly impossible for them to fail at spotting a trap or sneaking NPC?

If you don't think the PCs should get the same treatment then shame on you Mr adversarial DM.

Of course I think so! Rolled well enough? Congrats! You're not Surprised on the first round. Rolled not well enough? Too bad.

Seems equally stupid that the guy with high perception is ALWAYS the person spotting something. Like, the others don't ever notice something he might have missed. Ever. If he doesn't see it, no one else does.


Would a Dex 8 scrub in padded armour be allowed the chance those five guards might all roll ones?

Sure he would. Why not?


TLDR: are you familiar with the rule on group checks?
Wrong edition. In 5e, the DM's judgment is called on explicitly in the text of the rules. See Chapter Seven, using Ability Scores. with that said ...

1. Are you obligated? No, but if you use it then your life is easier as a DM. The rogue makes one roll and you see if it passes the passive abiilty check of the guard/guards.

2. On the other hand, per chapter seven, you as DM are acting well within your role to assign disadvantage to the Rogue's roll due to the circumstance of anything that you feel wold make their attempt less likely to succeed. There being 5 guards is a very reasonable circumstance.
D&D 5e, Rulings > Rules.
A simple answer is also: have the Rogue's Stealth roll be with disadvantage. You are the DM, the rules call on you to do that where the circumstances fit.
There is a rule called "group checks" that you seem to have overlooked. You could have checked to see of more of them succeeded than didn't if you were going to roll for them all.
So if that one 20 was the highest, and the next highest was a 14, and the rogue rolls a 17 (and all the rest lower numbers) then that 20 doesn't detect the rogue.

You ask for a rule? OK, theres' a rule that applies here if you want to use it.

Very nice write up. Thanks!

I had indeed forgotten about group checks and will now forever ignore their existance.

[Toofey]

So the answer to this that you probably don't want to hear, and that I'm not seeing people say (I could have missed a post tho so no hate), is that this is the wrong place to ask this question, and this is very much a conversation to have with your players. Both because their imput should matter as they are part of the same game and because they should know the rules for character creation or in moment decision making.

[bloodshed343]

The rules as written use passive perception when determining whether a creature notices another creature that is trying to hide. I would come down strongly on the side of using these rules for stealth.

If your player has a character that is optimized for stealth and who has a background that explains how they acquired expertise in sneaking around, then changing the rules for stealth in such a way puts your player in the position of roleplaying a character who is constantly explaining why their character fails more often than not at the activity at which they've chosen to focus their expertise. This is a huge narrative impact: it could represent an opportunity for an interesting storytelling experience, but unless you and the player have discussed that specifically beforehand, then having enemies use opposed checks for stealth invalidates the player's choice mechanically and the character's choice in the narrative.

[sambojin]

I don't mind when the DM runs a roll of there's a group of enemies. He's said it just represents that there's usually one moderately perceptive person in any group, even if they're not specifically looking for anything out of the ordinary.

If they roll poorly, they're backed up by the rest of the group's passive perception. But it gives them a chance to roll well.

Honestly, as someone that usually plays as a Druid, with Pass with Trace almost always prepared, it makes it so it's not an auto-pass for the entire party, so I'm fine with it. It's more or less the same for Rogues that specced into stealth, except I didn't other than having a reasonable dexterity (+2/+3) and having the stealth skill (or changing into the correct wildshape), neither did anyone else in the group.

If it becomes a problem, then give that one observant mook advantage on the roll. But a group of 3+ creatures should get at least a roll, or Druids can make hiding a freebie in the right environment, for the entire party (as can Rogues for themselves, for no resource use).

At lvl3, I get 10PwT+2dex+2proficiency+d20 on my hide rolls when available with PwT up. There's not a lot out there with 15+ passive perception at that level anyway, and I've got a 70% chance to stay hidden against 20 passive perception. So, yeah, a roll is still fine, because otherwise it's an auto-success. The rest of the party gets pretty high odds too, with no speccing at all

[GooeyChewie]

It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it.

If that's your main concern, then just don't describe it that way. If the Rogue fails to beat the passive perception, have one (or more if they fail by a lot) of the enemies see the Rogue and point the player's character out to the whole group. Now they all see the Rogue without it feeling like they arbitrarily all got the same roll on a perception check, and nothing changed rules-wise.

[bloodshed343]

At lvl3, I get 10PwT+2dex+2proficiency+d20 on my hide rolls when available with PwT up. There's not a lot out there with 15+ passive perception at that level anyway, and I've got a 70% chance to stay hidden against 20 passive perception. So, yeah, a roll is still fine, because otherwise it's an auto-success. The rest of the party gets pretty high odds too, with no speccing at all

You still need to follow all of the rules of the Hidden Club or you fail automatically against any passive perception. That's where the challenge comes from. You can't even make a roll to become hidden if an enemy has clear line of sight to you. It doesn't work like an Elder Scrolls game where you just crouch down and the AI pretends you don't exist.

And if the enemy is actively searching for a creature, they make a perception check by RAW.

So in the situation you've described, you have a character who is trained in stealth and who has used a magic spell to make themselves even stealthier; this character can essentially always be hidden provided that the enemy can't see them, isn't looking for them, and doesn't suspect a reason to be looking for a creature in the first place.

That seems completely fine.

[Tanarii]

And if the enemy is actively searching for a creature, they make a perception check by RAW.
This is only true if the use the Seach action, which typically means youre in a time dependent situation where you only get to check once, to determine success in that slice or time. Typically in combat, but could also apply if they only check once.

If they're actively searching repeatedly, its either an automatic success if its possible to find you and they take ten times as long, or passive if its a secret check / done repeatedly.

My personal interpreation for automatic success is they'd have to be checking the same place over and over again, which is not a typical situation. And repeatedly would mean they're checking a couple of places or generally keeping an eye out. And secret check means they don't know you're somewhere there to begin with.

[Reynaert]

1 - Yes, he did. And yes, he is sneaky. Over 8 levels I can count on one hand the number of times his stealth failed. Being sneaky isn't the same as "I am unnoticeable by all"
In other words, he invested resources into being able to sneak very well.


3 - Doesn't fix the all or nothing problem
Did you give all five of the guards the exact same stat block?
If you see this as a problem, you should vary the stats on the guards.
Perhaps instead of them having a wis of 13, they might have a wis of 8+2d4 ?


4 - There should be an inherent risk to trying to get the jump on 5 guys
If you vary NPC stat blocks, the probability of having an extra-perceptive guard becomes larger the more guards you have.

[KorvinStarmast]

I had indeed forgotten about group checks and will now forever ignore their existance. You got me to laugh out loud such that both of my dogs looked up at me to see what was going on. Best wishes and happy gaming! :smallbiggrin:


It seems stupid to me that either they all notice it, or none of notices it. Well, heading toward a bit of verisimilitude ... when I was in a cockpit, and we had two pilots and sometimes one or two crewmen ... when it came to search and look out stuff, it was not that uncommon for one person to notice something different before the others did.

"Hey, did you see that?"
"Hey, did you hear that?"

Particularly in the Search and Rescue missions.

The group check lets you emulate that somewhat. (Rough approximation, at best).

[Whit]

I could see the use of passive perception with a +1 bonus per extra person. It makes perfect sense that a group of people would have a better chance to notice. I would nit roll individually as it takes to much time and increases probability. Instead If it were 5 guards I would increase it by 4. Passive fjrvindividual then add per extra