Weirdness of Passive Checks

[SpikeFightwicky]

Howdy folks,

I thought I had a handle on passive checks going by the PHB definition. It represents the average result for a task done repeatedly (the example in the book being searching for secret doors over and over again), or if the DM wants to use a skill check result in secret. The PHB gives many examples of using passive checks specifically for Perception (and the one is even on the PHB and in monster stat blocks). Observant gives, among other things, a bonus to passive Investigate. So how does that work? Suppose a secret door requires perception DC 22 to spot, and Investigation DC 18 to figure out its mechanisms. If no one has a passive perception high enough, and no one actively rolls high enough, passive investigation does nothing, right?

So what throws a wrench into this is what's in the Curse of Strahd adventure. There's at least one point where they say that someone is hiding. The passive perception required to spot them is 15. However, if someone decides to actively try to spot someone before entering the room, the DC is 12. So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active? I assumed there wouldn't be a difference.

[loki_ragnarock]

Howdy folks,

I thought I had a handle on passive checks going by the PHB definition. It represents the average result for a task done repeatedly (the example in the book being searching for secret doors over and over again), or if the DM wants to use a skill check result in secret. The PHB gives many examples of using passive checks specifically for Perception (and the one is even on the PHB and in monster stat blocks). Observant gives, among other things, a bonus to passive Investigate. So how does that work? Suppose a secret door requires perception DC 22 to spot, and Investigation DC 18 to figure out its mechanisms. If no one has a passive perception high enough, and no one actively rolls high enough, passive investigation does nothing, right?

So what throws a wrench into this is what's in the Curse of Strahd adventure. There's at least one point where they say that someone is hiding. The passive perception required to spot them is 15. However, if someone decides to actively try to spot someone before entering the room, the DC is 12. So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active? I assumed there wouldn't be a difference.

Dude, I've been banging my noggin against that one for a fair minute myself.

The answer is; DCs aren't writ in stone, and the designers are just going to do what feels right to them.

For me; perception is always passive, anything active is always investigation. Other's'll do it different, and good on 'em.

[Unoriginal]

Howdy folks,

I thought I had a handle on passive checks going by the PHB definition. It represents the average result for a task done repeatedly (the example in the book being searching for secret doors over and over again), or if the DM wants to use a skill check result in secret. The PHB gives many examples of using passive checks specifically for Perception (and the one is even on the PHB and in monster stat blocks). Observant gives, among other things, a bonus to passive Investigate. So how does that work? Suppose a secret door requires perception DC 22 to spot, and Investigation DC 18 to figure out its mechanisms. If no one has a passive perception high enough, and no one actively rolls high enough, passive investigation does nothing, right?

So what throws a wrench into this is what's in the Curse of Strahd adventure. There's at least one point where they say that someone is hiding. The passive perception required to spot them is 15. However, if someone decides to actively try to spot someone before entering the room, the DC is 12. So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active? I assumed there wouldn't be a difference.

In principle a passive investigation situation would be when someone says "can I investigate X huge area?" and the DM doesn't want to do multiple INT (Investigation) checks.

Passive Perception is when you are not actively trying to spot something, and as a result a DM can decide that being active makes it easier to spot something (ex: the person hiding is nervous and wouldn't react well to a PC attentively checking things vs just passing by).

However, remember that those are not Perception checks or Investigation checks, they're WIS check and INT checks with the relevant proficiencies applying.

[Keravath]

It's a tough one.

The difference between passive and active checks is that in one the player is passive and does not roll dice and in the other the player is active and does roll dice.

A passive check can be used for a task done repeatedly (for which there are no consequences of failure - like a time limit or the possibility of breaking something or setting of an alarm on a failed check) or in a situation where the DM wants to determine an outcome without notifying the players that something is going on by having them roll dice.

However, whether an interaction is resolved using a passive or active check, the character must still be taking the appropriate action to enable a check to be made.

A character doesn't have a passive perception because the character is doing nothing, not paying attention, not looking around - in that case they have no perception at all and could well automatically fail any perception checks. A character has a passive perception when they are actively looking for things.

Passive skills are also for narrative purposes. If characters passive skills are sufficiently high the players never know that a skill check was involved. The DM narrates that certain characters notice something IF the characters are taking the appropriate action AND there is no time limit or other consequence.

"Suppose a secret door requires perception DC 22 to spot, and Investigation DC 18 to figure out its mechanisms. If no one has a passive perception high enough, and no one actively rolls high enough, passive investigation does nothing, right?"

In this example, a if the characters are looking around then the DM takes a look at their passive perceptions - if anyone is 22 or higher the DM narrates the specific characters seeing some very difficult to notice detail that may indicate a secret door. If no one has a sufficiently high passive perception, then the DM can ask the players to roll a perception check (active). If anyone rolls 22 or higher the DM can narrate the character surprisingly noting the detail revealing the door.

However, they don't know how to open it. Perhaps some of the characters say that they are taking a closer look to figure out how it works. The DM checks the passive investigation of the characters who are actually investigating. If it is 18 or higher the DM narrates to the character(s) finding the mechanism to open the door. If the passive score isn't high enough even though the characters are actively investigating the DM can then ask for an investigation check.

However, what if the party is being chased? They don't have the time to spend carefully looking around - they can't repeatedly perform the task to get an average result. In this case, the DM might just ask for perception and investigation checks as the characters carefully but quickly look around and then investigate.

"The passive perception required to spot them is 15. However, if someone decides to actively try to spot someone before entering the room, the DC is 12. So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active? I assumed there wouldn't be a difference."

Unfortunately, both the sources and rules are inconsistent on passive skills. The rules I use above are based on the PHB where passive and active refer to the players not the characters. It is a very common misconception that passive and active refer to the character actions.

The difference between the passive and active check DCs here could have several explanations - the creator wanted characters with a high passive perception to automatically notice the hidden creature if they were looking. However, they also wanted the task to not be that difficult even for characters with a lower perception ability. Another possibility, is that the author thought that passive and active referred to the character actions and so passive perception happens when characters aren't paying attention and they thought that this would not make sense so passive checks should be higher than active ones. I prefer to think that the designer just wanted to reduce the difficulty of noticing the creature for characters that didn't have a high perception score to start with but it could go either way.

[Tanarii]

So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active?First of all, stop using the term "active". There is no such thing as active checks, and calling them that causes all sorts of confusion, usually about if the character is doing something or not, which is irrelevant to a Passive check. They're call "Passive checks" because the player isn't rolling a die.

So call them passive vs rolled checks.

How do I arbitrate passive vs rolled? Easy:
- is the check something being done repeatedly or the fact you're rolling or the result need to be kept secret from the player? Passive check. You typically don't also get to make a rolled check btw, especially if it still needs to be secret it's just a passive check again.
- is this a one time task, or something where the result doesn't need to be kept secret from the player? Rolled check.

Note there is a case where you get to use both passive and rolled checks: A creature you are aware of successfully hides on its turn vs your passive perception, then you use the Search action to roll a check on your turn. Since you know the creature is or was around, the result of the search check doesn't need to be kept secret.


I assumed there wouldn't be a difference.The only difference in the Core Rules is the Observant feat. And Personally, I don't think it should be. It should just give advantage on Perception/Investigation checks (which translates into +5passive). That way it's the same for passive and rolled.

[sayaijin]

I think it makes perfect sense that an active perception check would be lower than a passive one. As others have said, in one scenario it's your character's natural (passive) observation without any effort - like you walking on a forest path and just randomly noticing an animal moving. The other is your character actively looking around for an animal. In the second situation, you're more likely to find it.

[Tanarii]

So what throws a wrench into this is what's in the Curse of Strahd adventure. There's at least one point where they say that someone is hiding. The passive perception required to spot them is 15. However, if someone decides to actively try to spot someone before entering the room, the DC is 12. So... how do you arbitrate passive vs active? I assumed there wouldn't be a difference.
I skipped this, but the answer is one of:
- players know the creatures are there, so players can make a rolled check.
- the module writers are making the same mistake many other do, and confusing "passive" with the PC being passive, and made up something called "actively try to spot". If the players don't know they are there (so the result needs to be kept secret), PCs "actively trying to spot" still results in a passive check.

[Lupine]

So, my funky way to do it is that I give less success on a passive roll than an active one.

So, passive perception will tell you that something snapped behind you, or maybe even that something is (poorly) sneaking up on you — but not who or what that something is.

Similarly, passive investigation on that trap, you would get basic information on the mechanisms of a trap, and maybe the information that it is disarmable, but to know how to disarm it takes an active roll. Another example is that passive investigation would tell you that the length of the drawer doesn’t match the depth of the desk, but would not tell you anything as to why.

Carry this to other examples, passive medicine would tell you that person is poisoned, rather than ill, but it would take an active roll to determine what types of poison it is.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always been of the belief that passive skills are to be rolled against - a player should never be referencing their passive skill totals. If a player wants something done, they roll for it, otherwise the DM rolls against the player (and their passive skill).

As for Perception vs. Investigation, there's no perfect answer. I've divided them as "Detection through Movement" and "Detection through Sensibility". Or, to put simply, Perception helps you detect ambushers, while Investigation helps you detect traps.

Sure, that's not how the books do it, but we wouldn't be pondering this if they were perfect, now would we?

A long while back, I had asked a similar question on RPG.SE (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/131239/when-is-passive-investigation-used). I got an answer, guest-starring our local KorvinStarmast and Tanarii!

[Unoriginal]

I would put it that way:


Wisdom with Perception proficiency is looking around and noticing there is an odd linear bump in the sand that's filling the corridor, which allows you to see it's actually a trap's trigger wire when you look even closer. Intelligence with Investigation proficiency is analyzing the corridor, understanding that having an trap at a given spot would make sense, and examining the spot to confirm the hypothesis.

Or in other words: WIS is using senses, INT is applying methodology.

[Tanarii]

I've always been of the belief that passive skills are to be rolled against - a player should never be referencing their passive skill totals. If a player wants something done, they roll for it, otherwise the DM rolls against the player (and their passive skill).
I agree, that would have been better. I can't believe it didn't come up in playtest, complaints about fixed DC vs fixed PP were endemic right after release.

It's fairly easy to implement though. Just roll for the trap/hidden compartment, using a bonus of DC-11. (At least I think it's 11, to account for the switching of over/under.)


Or in other words: WIS is using senses, INT is applying methodology.
Agreed and I understand why they left doubled down on that way with Perception and Investigation, but I'd have been happier with Sense (usually Spot/Listen) and Search. Not that Search is totally clearly different. But that's how I still tend to default to them.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would put it that way:


Wisdom with Perception proficiency is looking around and noticing there is an odd linear bump in the sand that's filling the corridor, which allows you to see it's actually a trap's trigger wire when you look even closer. Intelligence with Investigation proficiency is analyzing the corridor, understanding that having an trap at a given spot would make sense, and examining the spot to confirm the hypothesis.

Or in other words: WIS is using senses, INT is applying methodology.

I guess the problem isn't determining the differences as to how each is used, but exactly when a DM should pick one over the other, preferably in a way that has a 50/50 split.

That's why I split it by Traps vs. Stealth, anything less-simple than that is just going to be shoehorned into Perception because that's just what people do.

But that was just my solution for it, so that it doesn't get in my way when DMing and so players know what to expect between the two. Does anyone got other ideas for dividing them simply in a 50/50 split?

[Osuniev]

I agree, that would have been better. I can't believe it didn't come up in playtest, complaints about fixed DC vs fixed PP were endemic right after release.

It's fairly easy to implement though. Just roll for the trap/hidden compartment, using a bonus of DC-11. (At least I think it's 11, to account for the switching of over/under.)


Yep, that's how it's done for creatures hiding, but I've done it for Passive History, Passive Arcana, Passive Nature, etc.

Basically whenever I want to determine "does the character know something" without telling the players there is something to know.
Although I'd say that since I often PRE-ROLL this kind of checks, I end up in a session where there isn't much difference.

[Osuniev]

But that was just my solution for it, so that it doesn't get in my way when DMing and so players know what to expect between the two. Does anyone got other ideas for dividing them simply in a 50/50 split?

Anytime it's about spotting something, then I would make it a Wisdom check, although I will often offer my players a Wisdom (Investigation).

When I consider that the characters HAVE noticed things, I would allow an Intelligence (Investigation). So Traps, Mechanism, figuring out what happened on a crime scene...

At my table, 95 % of the value of Investigation proficiency is for the intel search my players do during downtime. Wisdom and Perception are way more useful while adventuring, and I'm fine with that. But I play Gritty Realism (so there's one week of downtime every long rest) and my campaigns are mystery-heavy and Combat As War (so there's lot of incentive for researching things). It might not work for everyone.

[Tanarii]

As for Perception vs. Investigation, there's no perfect answer. I've divided them as "Detection through Movement" and "Detection through Sensibility". Or, to put simply, Perception helps you detect ambushers, while Investigation helps you detect traps.



That's why I split it by Traps vs. Stealth, anything less-simple than that is just going to be shoehorned into Perception because that's just what people do.
I tend to default to the same. Largely because I think you deduce traps, and perceive stealthy creatures. There are some parts of a trap you might just see without deducing the intent of it, but they won't necessarily flag it as a threat.

[Unoriginal]

I would say when to use which is that WIS with Perception is when you're just taking in the surroundings while INT with Investigation is when you're against the wall checking if there's any hollow sound or lose brick indication of a possible secret cache.

Or as another example: WIS (Perception) is for noticing there's a faint smell of lemon in the room and shards of glass on the floor, INT (Investigation) is sniffing around the room to see from where the smell originate and trying to puzzle the shards together in their mind until they got a concept for the item the shards formed + determining what kind of impact could have caused the item to break this way + ....

[Tanarii]

Or as another example: WIS (Perception) is for noticing there's a faint smell of lemon in the room and shards of glass on the floor, INT (Investigation) is sniffing around the room to see from where the smell originate and trying to puzzle the shards together in their mind until they got a concept for the item the shards formed + determining what kind of impact could have caused the item to break this way + ....
The only downside to that is two rolls don't make a right.

Unless you're willing to think about the resulting probability curve when you set your DCs, of course.

[ad_hoc]

Posting just to reinforce that passive doesn't refer to character action rather instead just describes that the player isn't rolling for it.

[Eric Diaz]

Seems to me like passive checks are similar to the "take 10" rule from 3e.

I use both ideas together, mixing 3e with 5e (crazy, I know):

Passive checks and taking 10
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls; instead, treat the check as if the d20 roll resulted in a natural 10. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
If not being threatened or distracted, a character may choose to “Take 10” instead of rolling the dice. This is the same as transforming the check into a passive check instead of rolling.
The GM might rule that any situation that involves no randomness and no risk is a passive check (for example, trying to find out if you know how to identify a certain coat of arms, etc.). In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

[Stabbey]

I think that there is a difference between looking and not looking. If you walk down a road, your passive perception is used. If you say "Do I see anything near that overturned cart", then your DM calls for an active check, you are spending your action to look more carefully and you can roll higher than would be possible for your passive perception, with the downside that you can also roll lower. There are also cases where the DM knows that no one in the current group has passive perception high enough to auto-pass, and the DM calls for an active perception check, unprompted.


For other skills like Arcana or History, the DM might tell the relevant character, "Because of your skill in History, you know that..."


Seems to me like passive checks are similar to the "take 10" rule from 3e.

I use both ideas together, mixing 3e with 5e (crazy, I know):

Passive checks and taking 10
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls; instead, treat the check as if the d20 roll resulted in a natural 10. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
If not being threatened or distracted, a character may choose to “Take 10” instead of rolling the dice. This is the same as transforming the check into a passive check instead of rolling.
The GM might rule that any situation that involves no randomness and no risk is a passive check (for example, trying to find out if you know how to identify a certain coat of arms, etc.). In some cases, an action is a straight test of one’s ability with no luck involved. Just as you wouldn’t make a height check to see who is taller, you don’t make a Strength check to see who is stronger.

You're not mixing both ideas together. You're just replacing the 5e rule with the 3e rule. The 5e rule is that a passive skill check is 10 + [your skill modifier]. For that reason "take 10" is NOT the same as transforming the check into a 5e passive check without rolling.

Your use of the "take 10" rule punishes players who are good at that sort of task, because now everyone has the same chance to pass the same check regardless of whether they chose to invest in that skill or not. It's less satisfying.

I think that the "take 10" rule was removed because if you don't want your players to roll, don't make them roll. Getting them to ask to take 10 just wastes time. If you don't want failure to lock players out you can say "it takes you longer than what you were hoping, but you succeed".

[Tanarii]

I think that there is a difference between looking and not looking. If you walk down a road, your passive perception is used. If you say "Do I see anything near that overturned cart", then your DM calls for an active check, you are spending your action to look more carefully and you can roll higher than would be possible for your passive perception, with the downside that you can also roll lower. There are also cases where the DM knows that no one in the current group has passive perception high enough to auto-pass, and the DM calls for an active perception check, unprompted.

This has lots of things wrong with it. Starting with you have to be looking to use any perception based sight rolls at all. In fact the PHB is explicit on this, if you're engrossed in another activity (e.g. given: navigating, foraging, mapping, tracking) instead of looking for threats you don't get to use passive perception to notice them at all. If you are, you get to use passive perception.

But also "active checks" aren't a thing. If your spending your action to look more carefully it's still a passive check if the thing is still secret. And the DM should be calling for passive perception or not based on the rules for using passive checks, not based on the value of the player scores.

OTOH the last one does make for some problematic interactions when it's done BtB, static PP vs static DC, as previously noted.

[Mutazoia]

I look at it like this:

A passive investigation would be you walking through the food court at the mall and noticing your neighbor sitting at a table. You were not looking for your neighbor, you just happened to notice him as you were looking for an empty table for yourself.

An "active" investigation would be something like, you and a friend are at the food court and you have gone to different stalls to get food. Once you have your food, you are actively looking at all the faces at the tables trying to find your friend.

Passive perception is your characters' ability to notice details in the world around him without standing around and studying everything in sight. It's noticing movement out of the corner of your eye or seeing the tiny scuff marks on the floor where a bookcase has been moved while your looking at the titles of the books. It's noticing a slight scent on the breeze and identifying it as perfume (or cologne) without having been aware of anyone else nearby. It's hearing the sound of a hammer striking wood timed to coincide with a peal of thunder.

Passive perception checks are Wisdom based because you are subconsciously noticing a detail out of the corner of your eye, rather than an Intelligence-based investigation where you are thinking about a specific thing you are actively looking for, and intentionally trying to find it.

In a nutshell, an "active" investigation check is you tearing your house apart trying to find your god-dammed car keys before you are late to work, whereas a passive perception check is you hearing your keys jingle in a pocket of your jacket as you grab it off the back of the chair.

The higher your passive perception, the more likely you are to hear the jingle and associate that sound with your car keys rather than lose change.

[Tanarii]

A passive investigation would be you walking through the food court at the mall and noticing your neighbor sitting at a table. You were not looking for your neighbor, you just happened to notice him as you were looking for an empty table for yourself.

An "active" investigation would be something like, you and a friend are at the food court and you have gone to different stalls to get food. Once you have your food, you are actively looking at all the faces at the tables trying to find your friend.
Same common misconception that doesn't match what the PHB says passive checks are for. I'm just going to call it out every time someone makes it in this thread, instead of breaking it down each time.:smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

The only downside to that is two rolls don't make a right.

Unless you're willing to think about the resulting probability curve when you set your DCs, of course.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean.

[sayaijin]

Same common misconception that doesn't match what the PHB says passive checks are for. I'm just going to call it out every time someone makes it in this thread, instead of breaking it down each time.:smallamused:

Crawford described passive Perception as creating an always-on floor score reflecting a character's minimum level of awareness of their surroundings.

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
(9 minutes in)

[Stabbey]

This has lots of things wrong with it. Starting with you have to be looking to use any perception based sight rolls at all. In fact the PHB is explicit on this, if you're engrossed in another activity (e.g. given: navigating, foraging, mapping, tracking) instead of looking for threats you don't get to use passive perception to notice them at all. If you are, you get to use passive perception.

But also "active checks" aren't a thing. If your spending your action to look more carefully it's still a passive check if the thing is still secret. And the DM should be calling for passive perception or not based on the rules for using passive checks, not based on the value of the player scores.

I don't agree with any of this. Your assertion is that when a player is engaged in an activity, they are completely and totally blind and deaf. If they're out foraging, they can't hear or see anything no matter how many sticks that monster creeping up on them snaps.

I also don't agree with your assertion that there is ONLY passive perception and no such thing as active perception. Why does Perception appear twice, once on the skills list and once on the character sheet if there is no such thing as active perception? It shouldn't be on the skill list if it's only supposed to ever be used as a passive.


I think Mutazoia has the right take and explained what I was trying to say better.

[Tanarii]

I don't agree with any of this. Your assertion is that when a player is engaged in an activity, they are completely and totally blind and deaf. If they're out foraging, they can't hear or see anything no matter how many sticks that monster creeping up on them snaps.

I also don't agree with your assertion that there is ONLY passive perception and no such thing as active perception. Why does Perception appear twice, once on the skills list and once on the character sheet if there is no such thing as active perception? It shouldn't be on the skill list if it's only supposed to ever be used as a passive. It isn't support by the rules on passive checks, which are pretty simple and straight forward in what they're used for.

I think Mutazoia has the right take and explained what I was trying to say better.
Both you and Mutazoia are propagating a commonly heard misconception that makes the rules work harder and more complicated than intended, causing DMs and players alike to struggle with Passive in general and Passive Perception in particular.

You're also the first two to do so in this thread, after multiple others pointing out that it was a misconception. Sorry if it seems like jumping down your throat about it, but this thread had actually avoided the misconception up to your post and even stated repeatedly that it was a misconception.

That's a big change since the earlier days of 5e, when the misconception was rampant and awareness that it was a misconception was uncommon.


Sorry, I don't get what I mean.
Sorry Unoriginal, I was going for the pithy joke. I meant that a second roll at any DC is worse than just a single roll against the first DC, it will always be lower odds. Unless you lower the DC of the first check. It was a joke comment about needing to be aware that cooking for multiple rolls can potentially drastically lower the odds of success, and keeping an eye on the chance of success if you're calling for them.

[Keravath]

I don't agree with any of this. Your assertion is that when a player is engaged in an activity, they are completely and totally blind and deaf. If they're out foraging, they can't hear or see anything no matter how many sticks that monster creeping up on them snaps.

I also don't agree with your assertion that there is ONLY passive perception and no such thing as active perception. Why does Perception appear twice, once on the skills list and once on the character sheet if there is no such thing as active perception? It shouldn't be on the skill list if it's only supposed to ever be used as a passive.


I think Mutazoia has the right take and explained what I was trying to say better.

I think that many of the posters in this thread have cited the relevant rules in the rulebook. Passive has nothing to do with the character actions. If they aren't doing something relevant to the task then they don't get a check at all. Here are some of the relevant rules.

phb 175

"PASSIVE CHECKS
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

This is EXACTLY what a passive check is defined by the rules. Either the DM wants to resolve the situation without rolling dice OR the character is taking a repeated action. Note that there is NO reference to the character being "passive". The character is NOT doing nothing. The character is performing a task repeatedly.

Feats like Observant make no sense with the interpretation that the character is doing nothing - the feat increases the passive perception and investigation. "Oh, this character is great at noticing things when they aren't trying or with their eyes closed but as soon as they try looking they can't notice anything any better than any one else". The feat is completely inconsistent with the idea that passive refers to the character doing nothing.

There are lots of other rules references too ...

phb p182

"ACTIVITY WHILE TRAVELING
As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group's journey.
...
NOTICING THREATS
Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat.
...
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."

If the character is doing something that focuses their attention on something OTHER than looking for threats - do not have a "passive perception". They are not doing a perception relevant task - they are distracted - they don't get a check.

This is what the rules say and there are other reference. "Passive" skills are the player being passive - not rolling dice. It has nothing to do with the character. The character needs to be doing something relevant to get a check.

Finally, an example from Lost Mines of Phandelver.

"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."

If the characters are searching for traps - they can find the trap with a passive perception of 12 or higher. If the characters are NOT performing the specific required action then the passive check doesn't apply but the author decided to give folks who are walking along the trail and are still likely looking around and paying attention even if not specifically looking for traps the opportunity to make a perception roll to see if they notice the trap. In both cases, the character is actively looking at their surroundings. If the character was walking along reading their book then they would likely just trigger the trap without a check being required or if the DM was being generous they might give them a roll at disadvantage.

In either case, "passive" refers to the player rolling dice and has nothing to do with the character actions.

phb p174

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Ability checks, passive or rolled, only apply when a character or monster attempts an action (or if the DM decides that one is needed to resolve a situation).

There is nothing in the ability checks section that indicates a character is elligible for an ability check when they are doing nothing. Ability checks are used to resolve when a character is doing something ... not being "passive".

Anyway, this has been discussed a lot and it is still a common misconception that passive skills (especially perception) refer to the character doing nothing - which clearly makes no sense.

Passive stealth? Passive lockpicking? Passive insight? Passive Athletics? Passive Arcana? Passive Religion?

Every skill has a passive version ... you could use passive athletics for using rocks around a farmyard, passive arcana for research or evaluating a rune or glyph, passive insight for judging whether a speech is mostly true or false, passive lockpicking for opening a lock with no consequences of failure ... the list goes on ... every skill has a passive counterpart and most of these make no sense if one tries to think that the character is doing "nothing".

[Unoriginal]

Note that if enemies aren't trying to hide, you don't need a check to notice them, it happens as they enter the PCs' sensorial range.

[Mutazoia]

Same common misconception that doesn't match what the PHB says passive checks are for. I'm just going to call it out every time someone makes it in this thread, instead of breaking it down each time.:smallamused:

"... or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

So, you mean the rules state that the character, who is not actively looking for something, has a chance to see it anyway?

That's exactly what I just said in my previous post. That line in the rules clearly states that a character doesn't have to be actually looking for the monster to have a chance at noticing it.

"As you are walking along the street at night, you notice a slight movement in the shadows in the alley to your left."

The character is just walking from point A to point B and not in actively, sorry you appear to hate that word, intentionally making the conscious effort to constantly scan his surroundings for "movement in the shadows" as he does so.

I believe YOU are the one with the misconception.

[Sigreid]

IMO the reason is that the writers of their adventure content are overly dictatorial on how the party should do things and extremely inconsistent.

[Asisreo1]

For investigation, the rules are clear:

"When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check."

Translation: When you're trying to connect the dots on something, you use Investigation.

Example: I need to find a way to open this door with a cylindrical lock mechanism. I am in a room with a book, a scroll in its tube, and an optical prism. These things are clearly visible, yet not at all out of place in context. I roll Investigation. On success, I notice that the scroll's tube is the same diameter as the lock mechanism.

Example 2: I need to figure out where the hidden book is. I've searched (perception) but couldn't find it. Instead, I want to deduce its location. I Roll Investigation. I figure out it can't be in the bookshelf because the book is too valuable to be lying around. I also reason that it isn't in the safe because the safe is too small for a book of this size. It must be under the desk somewhere! Eureka, we found it!

[SpikeFightwicky]

[...]
Finally, an example from Lost Mines of Phandelver.

"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."

If the characters are searching for traps - they can find the trap with a passive perception of 12 or higher. If the characters are NOT performing the specific required action then the passive check doesn't apply but the author decided to give folks who are walking along the trail and are still likely looking around and paying attention even if not specifically looking for traps the opportunity to make a perception roll to see if they notice the trap. In both cases, the character is actively looking at their surroundings. If the character was walking along reading their book then they would likely just trigger the trap without a check being required or if the DM was being generous they might give them a roll at disadvantage.
[...]


Actually that's interesting. The player in the lead has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 13, but no one is searching for traps. Does the DM still call for the DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check from the lead character? It seems interpretable in either direction.

[ad_hoc]

"... or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

So, you mean the rules state that the character, who is not actively looking for something, has a chance to see it anyway?

That's exactly what I just said in my previous post. That line in the rules clearly states that a character doesn't have to be actually looking for the monster to have a chance at noticing it.

"As you are walking along the street at night, you notice a slight movement in the shadows in the alley to your left."

The character is just walking from point A to point B and not in actively, sorry you appear to hate that word, intentionally making the conscious effort to constantly scan his surroundings for "movement in the shadows" as he does so.

I believe YOU are the one with the misconception.

Noticing a hidden monster is an example used by the rules but is just an example.

Nothing there says that the character can do so without looking for hidden monsters.

If a monster isn't hidden then most characters will notice them even if doing something else.

This all makes perfect narrative sense and of course the DM is allowed to make rulings to fit specific situations. For example maybe a character is distracted but only marginally, so maybe they get perception at disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

I believe YOU are the one with the misconception.Afraid not. If a PC is not looking, they don't get to use perception at all.

Please note that the rules assume PCs walking while not doing something that would stop you from looking for threats to be the same as looking for threats. Because adventurers.

Which makes sense. Theres really no such thing as "passively" looking. Either you're looking, or you're doing something else that's stopping you.

[Narsham01]

"... or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

So, you mean the rules state that the character, who is not actively looking for something, has a chance to see it anyway?

That's exactly what I just said in my previous post. That line in the rules clearly states that a character doesn't have to be actually looking for the monster to have a chance at noticing it.

"As you are walking along the street at night, you notice a slight movement in the shadows in the alley to your left."

The character is just walking from point A to point B and not in actively, sorry you appear to hate that word, intentionally making the conscious effort to constantly scan his surroundings for "movement in the shadows" as he does so.

I believe YOU are the one with the misconception.

This is relatively clear according to the rules already quoted in the thread.

I am sitting and typing this reply right now. I am not attempting to do a cartwheel. I automatically fail at trying to do a cartwheel, because I am not trying to do one. I have to actively try to do a cartwheel to succeed, but I could easily fail if I'm not very agile.

The source of the confusion is that "perception" seems like seeing and hearing things. If I'm walking down a busy street, surely I'm always seeing and hearing (if I have those senses), regardless of anything else I'm doing?

But that isn't what "perception" means as a skill. If a creature the size of a bus rolls around the corner of a building down the block and screeches to a halt, I don't need a perception check (active or passive) to notice it. I see it because it is unmissable. But suppose I'm walking down a city street looking for a particular person I want to meet. That would call for a passive perception check in game terms based on the difficulty in picking said person out, and it would be passive because I don't know if that person is even present yet.

Same situation, but I get a text message, and I proceed to get caught up in a heated thread online about passive perception checks. I am still able to see and hear. But I am focusing on my phone and posting to the thread: if my friend shows up down the street, I am not going to see her because I am no longer looking. In fact, she might notice me and come over without any special attempt at stealth, and if the thread is heated enough, could stand there for five minutes before I notice and look up.

Passive perception requires you to be looking out, not distracted by doing something else. While it is true that someone busy mapping COULD notice the ambush up ahead, the convention of the game system is that you are too distracted to do so; if you aren't "actively" looking out for something, you can't detect it with your "passive" perception.

[Asisreo1]

Okay, first we should separate the case of Specific vs General.

Generally, a Passive Ability Check is an Ability Check that the DM has decided to use to illustrate a hidden roll or an action that's repeatedly done.

A player can't force any type of check unless a feature says so. They can only ask and get told what they need to do. So if you're the DM and decide "This is a Passive Check," there's no need to imagine what it would be like if it was an active check. Its not, its Passive.

Example: I want to hold a weight beyond the limit of my Strength Score x 15 and the DM says I can make a Passive Check. Okay, my Passive Strength Score is a 14. The DM interprets that to mean I can hold it for 5 minutes. Alright, I could ask for a Strength Check instead, but its in rather poor taste and the DM is within his rights to refuse.

---------

Now on to the specific: Perception and noticing an enemy.

Perception, in general, is a measure of how well you perceive things. If you want to make a perception based on sight, the object must be in your field of view. If you want to make a perception check based on sound, the object must be within earshot and making noise.

Perception in the case of finding a creature is almost always based on sound unless the DM determines your target is within nose-shot and can be smelled (not everything has a distinct, detectable scent). A creature is automatically detected as soon as the creature is clearly visible (unless the DM rules otherwise i.e. rogue going for a melee sneak attack). If the creature does not desire to be detected, they must make a Dexterity (Stealth) check when the DM decides. When a creature is actively searching for the creature, they must contest the hidden creature's Stealth check with their own Perception Check.

If a creature isn't actively searching for you, you make a stealth check vs their Passive Perception Score. If you succeed, they don't notice you. If you fail, they notice you and discover you. Now, a DM (or Adventure Designer) does not need to make their creatures do a stealth check, instead opting for a Passive Stealth check that works just like a regular Stealth Check. If it beats your Passive Perception, or more commonly written: "If the party fails the DC 13 Perception Check [(Which is automatically Passive if you're traveling without doing something distracting)]," you are surprised by it.

Wordy, I know. Here's some examples.

Example: I want to sneak past some guards. I try to hide behind a nearby bush. The DM asks me to make a Stealth check against their Passive Perception of 11. I get a 12 and succeed. Great, but to get from here to there, I need to get out of this bush and walk in the open, but the guards will clearly see me. My pet causes a distraction so now their backs are turned. I continue sneaking, no longer in hiding and my stealth check before is void. I get close enough to potentially be in earshot and I have to try to hide my noises, so I make another stealth check. I pass again and successfully sneak out.

Example 2: I want to just explore a dungeon with my eyes pealed for danger. The DM asks for my Passive Perception and he says I notice a wire across the ground (He does not say its a tripwire!). I deduce its probably a trap and walk over it. I go into the next room and I actively search for traps. The DM asks where exactly I'm looking, I reply "The treasure chest." I make a Perception roll at the DM's request and I pass. The DM says I notice a small latch under the lip of the chest. I ask to investigate the hatch to figure out what it does without activating it. I make an Investigation check and fail, so I don't know what it does. I don't activate it and try to pick the chest. The chest shoots out a poison needle because I activated the trap.

These are some examples of how Perception and Passive Perception is supposed to work. They're long but should help players/DM's still confused.

[Eric Diaz]

At this point I'm both unsure and amazed of the amount of confusion 5e was able to create with a few paragraphs.

[Tanarii]

At this point I'm both unsure and amazed of the amount of confusion 5e was able to create with a few paragraphs.
It's definitely in a bracket above 3e or 4e, it did it with a single word!

All kidding aside, every edition of D&D had major confusion it caused with a few paragraphs, sentences, or even single words. But in this case, 5e really did cause this particular with one particular word. "Passive".

If they hadn't named the rule Passive Checks, and from that the far more ubiquitous Passive Perception, the mistaken theory that it was about characters being passive would never have gotten started.

Imagine if it was called No Roll Perception instead. The rule would be identical, the intent would be identical, but there'd be no confusion about it, and none of this "active checks" not-a-rule terminology either.

[Eric Diaz]

You're not mixing both ideas together. You're just replacing the 5e rule with the 3e rule. The 5e rule is that a passive skill check is 10 + [your skill modifier]. For that reason "take 10" is NOT the same as transforming the check into a 5e passive check without rolling.

Your use of the "take 10" rule punishes players who are good at that sort of task, because now everyone has the same chance to pass the same check regardless of whether they chose to invest in that skill or not. It's less satisfying.

I think that the "take 10" rule was removed because if you don't want your players to roll, don't make them roll. Getting them to ask to take 10 just wastes time. If you don't want failure to lock players out you can say "it takes you longer than what you were hoping, but you succeed".

Wait, I didn't get the second paragraph. The take 10 rule is d20+modifiers, which includes skills.

The third paragraph makes sense, might be better to make it an automatic success.

[Eric Diaz]

It's definitely in a bracket above 3e or 4e, it did it with a single word!

All kidding aside, every edition of D&D had major confusion it caused with a few paragraphs, sentences, or even single words. But in this case, 5e really did cause this particular with one particular word. "Passive".

If they hadn't named the rule Passive Checks, and from that the far more ubiquitous Passive Perception, the mistaken theory that it was about characters being passive would never have gotten started.

Imagine if it was called No Roll Perception instead. The rule would be identical, the intent would be identical, but there'd be no confusion about it, and none of this "active checks" nonsense either.

Fair enough. I think one thing that makes things difficult is that they do not give many examples of Passive Checks other than Passive Perception, which confuses things further.

(Of course, they could've used the expression "take 10", instead...)

[Mutazoia]

Passive perception requires you to be looking out, not distracted by doing something else. While it is true that someone busy mapping COULD notice the ambush up ahead, the convention of the game system is that you are too distracted to do so; if you aren't "actively" looking out for something, you can't detect it with your "passive" perception.

Which makes absolutely no sense at all.

Sorry-not-sorry. I'm not going to buy into that.

You see, if I'm "actively" looking for an Orc, then I need to make a skill check to see it. If I'm not "actively" looking for an Orc, it doesn't disappear, nor does it get to walk straight up to me and get a free attack because I wasn't actually TRYING to see if it was there.

Passive checks are for the DM to give you a chance to notice things that you are not currently aware you should be looking for. (Amongst other things.) Otherwise, a party would be wiped out by a handful of Kobolds.

A Kobold hides on the ceiling and skewers the mage. Nobody expects Kobolds to be on the ceiling so nobody was looking at the ceiling for Kobolds. Instant surprise attack.

Now the party is looking at the ceiling for more Kobolds, and two more charge out of the shadows and skewer the cleric. Nobody was looking for Kobolds in the shadows, so nobody can see them. instant surprise attack.

Now the party is looking for Kobolds on the ceiling and in the shadows, so two more pop out of a trap door in the floor. Nobody was looking for trap doors in the floor, nor were they looking for Kobolds behind (underneath) them, so nobody can see them. Instant surprise attack.

Hell, two Kobolds could walk up to the party while holding up a blanket in front of them. As nobody is looking for Kobolds behind blankets, nobody can see them. Instant surprise attack lol.

One Kobold simply holds his hand in front of his chest. Nobody is looking for Kobolds holding their hands in front of their chests, so nobody can see him. (yes I'm getting a bit silly with these but you get the point.)

running things your way turns the entire party into a group of Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal. If you can't see it, it can't see you and therefore you don't exist. Or more specific to your point, if your not trying to see it, you can never see it, so it can mess you up at it's leasure.

[Tanarii]

You see, if I'm "actively" looking for an Orc, then I need to make a skill check to see it. If I'm not "actively" looking for an Orc, it doesn't disappear, nor does it get to walk straight up to me and get a free attack because I wasn't actually TRYING to see if it was there.

Passive checks are for the DM to give you a chance to notice things that you are not currently aware you should be looking for. (Amongst other things.) Otherwise, a party would be wiped out by a handful of Kobolds.
You are mistaking a character actively looking out for danger with somehow being passive.

The rules are pretty straight forward. If a PC is "actively" looking out for danger and unknown threats, the player uses passive perception. If a PC is "actively" doing something else that prevents them from doing that, such as navigating, tracking, foraging or mapping, the player doesn't get any check at all.

It's only if a PC is looking for something they can't currently detect but know is there that the player rolls a check. Like a creature that has just hidden.

[Mutazoia]

You are mistaking a character actively looking out for danger with somehow being passive.

The rules are pretty straight forward. If a PC is "actively" looking out for danger and unknown threats, the player uses passive perception. If a PC is "actively" doing something else that prevents them from doing that, such as navigating, tracking, foraging or mapping, the player doesn't get any check at all.

It's only if a PC is looking for something they can't currently detect but know is there that the player rolls a check. Like a creature that has just hidden.

Let me simplify this even further.

Arguments have been made that unless a character is looking for danger, he is not going to see it.

So by that logic, if a PC is at home and has no reason to be looking out for "danger", he will be totally unable to notice the assassin who has broken into his home to kill him. So the PC cooking dinner (active doing something else) will be totally unaware of someone walking up behind him with a big knife. The Assassin doesn't even need to make a stealth roll because, as the PC isn't "actively" looking out for danger while he cooks dinner in his own home, he will not be able to detect the assassin before he's shanked.

Or

The PC is cooking dinner and gets the benefit of a Passive Perception check to see if he hears a floorboard creak behind him, alerting him to someone else in the room, despite the fact that he is "actively" doing something else that interferes with "being on the lookout for danger" (using his cooking skill).

Which makes more sense?

I think you are getting too caught up in RAW as opposed to RAI. You should know by now that WOTC has a bad habit of writing rules in convoluted sentences, and breaking them up over multiple chapters that make them confusing at best.

Now, I'm not saying you are completely wrong. The rules do state that a Passive Perception check can be used to represent an average result value for a task performed over a long period of time, such as "being on the lookout for danger." I AM saying that you are wrong by trying to enforce the opinion that that is ALL Passive Perception is for. Even the designers have come out and said that Passive Perception is a baseline score for how aware you are of the world around you that, for example, you don't have to be aware of an invisible person in a room to be able to have a chance to be aware of their presence. You become aware simply by noticing the dust motes in the air moving around a seemingly empty space, for example. Something you would be able to notice with a high Passive Perception score.

Or you may not know there is a secret door in a room, and you may not be actively looking for one "just in case", but with a high enough Passive Perception, you may notice a slight breeze coming through an otherwise nondescript wall, or scratches on the floor, or what have you.

You don't have to be actively looking for something for your Passive Perception to pick it up.


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. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.

In this case, a creature that is not looking for you, and has no reason to suspect danger, still has a chance to detect you by comparing your stealth roll to their Passive Perception. There is no reference here to the creature "actively looking for danger" This totally invalidates your argument that people have to be looking out for danger to get a Passive Perception check.

[Vegan Squirrel]

At the danger of wading into a heated argument... I can see both sides of the most recent exchange. The passive perception rules are pretty clear that a passive check isn't, by its nature, an inactive check. It's a tool, a way to resolve things without rolling. If you're still arguing against that, you're actively ignoring the written rules.

That said, it's only in the travel rules that you're specified to lose your passive perception while doing something else. Presumably, it's doing something else while traveling that makes it so difficult to perceive things. So in the case of cooking in your home, I think you'd still get to use your passive perception, though possibly at disadvantage (-5) since you're distracted. I think that fits within the rules, which give the DM pretty wide latitude to run things their own way. But it doesn't change the fact that passive check =/= inactive character.

Another very common passive check, in my experience, is passive insight, since you want characters to have a chance to pick up on deception without alerting the players to that fact if they fail.

[Tanarii]

That said, it's only in the travel rules that you're specified to lose your passive perception while doing something else. Presumably, it's doing something else while traveling that makes it so difficult to perceive things.
Unless you're doing something very strange, you're either traveling (which includes exploring / moving around an adventuring site), or you're in an encounter.

The only grey area for passive perception in particular is in a non-time dependent encounters (ie ones that don't use the round based system) in a single location. Because once you're in a time dependent encounter, the assumption is you stop doing everything that isn't looking out fo threats. When not in an encounter, the assumption is you might be doing something that isn't looking out for threats.

I agree there is a potential grey area in what the assumption should be in regards to looking out of threats in a non-time dependent encounter. Personally I think the DM should figure out what the players are doing, and either rule that they're looking out of threats (and using PP) or not looking out for threats because they're engrossed in another activity (don't use PP), or somewhere in between (PP with disadv for -5).

But that's the best general policy to take away as the RAI of the rules anyway, for use in all situations.

[Stabbey]

I will look forward to telling my DM that actually, I don't need to roll a stealth check, because the creature is busy doing [something which is not actively looking for enemies], therefore according to the rules they don't actually have any way to perceive me.

I'm sure that will go over well.

[Man_Over_Game]

I will look forward to telling my DM that actually, I don't need to roll a stealth check, because the creature is busy doing [something which is not actively looking for enemies], therefore according to the rules they don't actually have any way to perceive me.

I'm sure that will go over well.

The funny thing is, Stealth Checks are basically the only reliable reference for using Passive Skills, yet it's also the most frustrating example to work with.

Since a creature can make an Active Perception Check against someone that's hiding, and someone that's hiding has to naturally succeed against that same person's Passive Perception, it basically rules it in favor as "Everyone's Passive Skill Checks are on all of the time, and it acts as a minimum level for opposing checks".

So if I have a Passive Perception of 20, I roll a Perception Check of 12 to find you, and you rolled a 15 on your Stealth, I still spot you. And since that's basically the only example of how Passive Skills work, I guess that's how everything is supposed to work, right?

Or maybe Passive Perception is only checked when Initiative starts, so does that mean I'm Hidden indefinitely until I start combat or someone rolls an Active Perception Check?

The system's busted. Try to make sense of it if you want, but I'm a realist and I say that they just screwed it up to the point where it's up to us to figure out how to actually work the damn thing.

The problem isn't actually the debate between "Is a Passive Skill something you're constantly doing, or what you're passively doing", but it's that every player has this stupid notion that you're constantly using "Perception" for everything, and of course they were dumb enough to use Passive Perception as the only working example of a Passive Skill. If we just change it so that you're only using Perception when you say you are (that is, devoting time into doing it, such as the Search Action), then the problem magically fixes itself.


Coincidentally, nerfing Perception (and in turn, buffing Stealth) in this way does have the nice consequence of making Assassins relevant and makes Inquisitives actually have a use for their BA Search.

[schm0]

The reason the DCs are different is a narrative one.

One may assume that, narratively speaking, a character who is always looking for danger is bound to be distracted, bored or complacent, or simply miss something at first glance. The passive score, after all, is mathematically equivalent to an average result. Some are higher, some are lower, but the average is your passive score. Hence, the DC for passive scores can (and sometimes should) be higher.

Think of the narrative difference here. A player walks into a room and says nothing. They are alert for danger and items of interest, yes, just like they were in the last room. The only thing that would apply in this situation is their passive score. But is there anything special about this room that makes the character more curious, perhaps enough to ask the DM for more detail? If so, an ability check is called for. The DC here can change because, narratively speaking, the character has taken a special interest in this room. The details of the room are brought into sharper focus, the character hones in her senses and attempts to perceive more.

Using Curse of Strahd as an example, there is an object that specifically states it can not be found passively. It doesn't matter if you have the Alert feat, it doesn't matter if you have darkvision or 20 Wisdom and Perception Expertise. The item of interest is so obscured that it simply does not register as something of note to someone who is constantly looking. The DC for the ability check to discover this item is correspondingly high. Now, narratively, why would we do this? Because some things are so obscured that they are easily missed on first glance, even to the most inquisitive among us.

Of course, the rules don't state any of this, because it can not assume for the DM the nature of the object that is visible, the method of concealment, and the surrounding environment. It simply lays the ground work for the mechanics and how they are typically used. So while the rules do not say the DCs must be the same, the converse is also true. The author of the module here is saying: "You need to pay special attention to discover this thing. If you do, you are more likely to discover it."

(Now, all that said, there is some confusion that bears merit, and that is what others have pointed out: passive here refers to the type of mechanic, not the attitude of the character. While a passively perceiving character may miss an object, it does not mean that they are searching passively. It simply means the mechanic used does not require a roll. I don't think that's the case with the OP, but I did want to acknowledge it.)

[Tanarii]

I will look forward to telling my DM that actually, I don't need to roll a stealth check, because the creature is busy doing [something which is not actively looking for enemies], therefore according to the rules they don't actually have any way to perceive me.

I'm sure that will go over well.If the creature is engrossed in another activity and the Dm won't let you just walk up and tap them on the shoulder, scaring the crap out of them, yeah ... you probably should bring up how they just missed a hilarious opportunity. :smallamused:



The problem isn't actually the debate between "Is a Passive Skill something you're constantly doing, or what you're passively doing", but it's that every player has this stupid notion that you're constantly using "Perception" for everything, and of course they were dumb enough to use Passive Perception as the only working example of a Passive Skill. If we just change it so that you're only using Perception when you say you are (that is, devoting time into doing it, such as the Search Action), then the problem magically fixes itself.You only ever use any check when the DM says to make one, or uses your passive score to make one for you.

But agreed they would have been better off with explicit examples of Passive Athletics and Passive Stealth.

[Samayu]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]No Roll Perception

Yes!


It's a tool, a way to resolve things without rolling.

Yes!

The passive scores are set up as an average roll for the character. It seems obvious to me that they should only be used when the GM doesn't want you to roll. Like if they don't want you to know you're rolling, or if you should be making a large number of checks.

But Crawford screwed things up (even worse) when he said that if characters would never have less than average on a passive check, then they should never have less than average on an active check either.

[Tanarii]

But Crawford screwed things up (even worse) when he said that if characters would never have less than average on a passive check, then they should never have less than average on an active check either.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Yeah, he really screwed up on that one. But that was years after the mistake that "passive means the PC is not doing something" had unfortunately sunk into the subconscious of too many in the gaming community, especially in regards to passive perception. He was probably exposed to it constantly from the community, since he's in the thick of things as the de facto Wizards PR guy for D&D. He's made that kind of mistake lots of times, and then had it quoted back as if it were a ruling.

I love Crawford as the Sage and think he's a breath of fresh air for Sage Advice Compendium, and it's always worth listening to what he has to say outside of that. But that doesn't mean he always gets it right. In the case of something as complicated as Stealth (even in 5e), it's totally unsurprising he'd make mistakes.

[Angelalex242]

What's funny is the observant feat making characters that have it semi afraid to make active checks. Because they're likely to be worse than that observant boosted passive.

Particularly if you get expertise on a wisdom based character.

That's "You notice Olidamara and Loki sneaking up behind you."