Is Passive Perception really this dumb/powerful?

[Mongobear]

I have a player who nearly every session/new campaign tries to abuse some vague errata/ruling that makes it so your Active Perception (AP) checks can never be lower than your Passive Perception (PP) score. In so far, as he will go out of his way to make sure get always has at least a 20+ PP, and almost always takes Observant and hunts for a Sentinel Shield, aiming for a 30+ PP.

I fully believe this so called ruling isn't real, or at least has been vastly mis-quoted out of context, and cannot actually find it specifically, nor any such cases where others have asked a similar question and been given an answer that supports the high PP side of things, if anything, it's been the opposite.

Is this actually a real ruling/errata somewhere on Twitter/Sage Advice, or is this player just rules lawyering a bunch of unrelated stuff and grossly throwing the AP vs PP situation out of the water?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Your player is essentially correct. They should not be rolling at all unless the DC is higher than their passive; if they have a passive perception of 30, they should almost never be rolling perception checks and instead should automatically be perceiving most things unless a monster with an extremely high stealth modifier rolls extremely well. If the DC is higher than their passive, then you may ask them to roll, but if there's a sliding scale of success, you should give them the result based on their passive, not the number they rolled for active perception.

[Mongobear]

Your player is essentially correct.


Is there like an official ruling/errata/tweet that says this somewhere? or is this your interpretation of the PHB, in the same vein as the player is claiming it's how this works? Because I have googled this topic for several hours across multiple subreddits, sage advice, twitter responses, and other resources and havent seen anyone else claiming this was how it works.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to note is that perception, by itself, is really only a "killer app" against getting surprised. Which in my experience (both as DM and player) isn't all that super frequent. And simply having Alert handles that without needing to jack your PP up to the sky.

Perception simply says "there's something here." It doesn't tell you what, how, or how it needs to be interacted with. Not even for traps, at least by default. Investigation is your "figure out how it works and how to bypass it" trait. A trap that can be avoided trivially if detected...isn't a very threatening trap without further considerations (like things forcing to toward it). Perception's great and all, don't get me wrong.

But having it be super high often just isn't worth it. Unless the DM is giving untoward weight toward it and slighting the other related ability check proficiencies by doing so.

[Amnestic]

Relevant rule sections:-

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 GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

Here’s how to determine a character’s total for a passive check:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

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

The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules.



Hiding
The GM decides when circumstances are appropriate for 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.

You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase.
An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet.

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

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 GM 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.

What Can You See? One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in “The Environment.”

Since it represents the 'average' of a task done repeatedly, the passive score certainly applies during things like dungeon crawling or otherwise keeping eyes out, to avoid you rolling a new check every six seconds/minute/ten minutes of game time.

Given that it mentions hiding from another creature as a case for passive perception, it's generally understood that this applies in combat as a floor as well, though you could definitely make an argument that in high stress situations - since you're not doing it repeatedly - you should rely on active checks only.

This podcast (https://dnd.wizards.com/podcasts/dragon-talk) apparently with Crawford apparently includes the following section, at around 23:20, further in support of it being a floor.


Passive perception vs. Active perception: The passive perception score represents the minimum, the baseline, of your awareness. So anything or anyone trying to Stealth check upon you has always to overcome your passive perception score. Even when you decide to make an active Perception check, and that roll + modifier is lower than your Passive Perception score, the Passive Perception score still counts as the DC to overcome for a Stealth check. Making an active Perception check means that you want to try to "beat" your Passive Perception score, and hence try to increase the DC for a Stealth check. This is true for both combat and non-combat situations.

That said, if they want to invest a feat or two, class levels, and a skill proficiency...that seems fine?
And if they keep doing it and you're finding it's taking away your fun, you can always ask them to tone it back a bit.

[Trask]

I have also heard of this ruling, although I don't know its source (EDIT: Oh its in the PHB...lol). It does make logical sense for it to be true, but then all it takes is one player focusing on boosting their Passive Perception for Perception checks to become almost trivial. I do this; Characters preoccupied with something other than looking out for danger while exploring/fighting/socializing have a -5 on their Passive Perception. That way if when exploring the dungeon a character declares that they will keep lookout they get full benefit, but not if they are doing something else. Thereby it doesn't punish the player for building their character that way, but it also creates reasonable parameters within which their super-senses work to their full benefit.

[diplomancer]

There are some other considerations here. Like the fact that " The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank." or that "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."

Those two rules are both in chapter 8 of the PHB. So even a very high passive Perception is not a catch-all.

[da newt]

An awesome PP does have some limitations.
For example if you have 60' of dark vision and something is 65' away in the dark you can't see it.
If something is invisible, you can't see it (although if it makes a noise you could hear it or if it's standing in fresh snow you could see it's footprints).
If your line of sight is blocked you can't see it.
Illusions require physical interaction or an active investigation.

As a DM you can always leave sentinel shields, etc. out of your adventures, but yeah - a really high PP is very handy for a professional adventurer. If one of your players wants to invest a feat and expertise and ASI's in WIS, they can be really good at that one thing.

When I DM, some traps and secret doors can be perceived (a false canvas floor over a spike pit), but others can't. In order to find the well hidden ones you must actively investigate for them or use magic.

[Chronos]

You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are. You never use both at once, so it can never be a floor.

And the fact that Crawford disagrees further supports this, because seriously, he's always wrong.

[Dr.Samurai]

There are some other considerations here. Like the fact that " The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank." or that "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."

Those two rules are both in chapter 8 of the PHB. So even a very high passive Perception is not a catch-all.


You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are. You never use both at once, so it can never be a floor.

And the fact that Crawford disagrees further supports this, because seriously, he's always wrong.
I agree with both of these.

The PHB says that if you're busy doing something else, you don't contribute your Passive Perception to noticing threats or dangers. The DM should have the party give a marching order, which is useful anyways for traps and ambushes. This may limit who can even perceive threats and when. Then the DM should have the party establish who is doing what. Someone should be tracking/navigating. If no one is foraging/map making, then they may be able to contribute depending on marching order. Unless they are doing something else like ritual spellcasting. Point being that while you may not be actively looking, you also can't be distracted to make use of your Passive Perception.

And I agree with Chronos in that I don't think Passive Perception is supposed to be a minimum. It's supposed to be a convenience for the DM to simply refer to a static number when assuming the players are alert for danger. But if the player tells you they want to roll a perception check, then you ignore Passive Perception and take their roll, whether higher or lower than their passive.

They will likely complain that this doesn't make sense; how can they roll lower when they are actively looking but achieve a higher result when they're not trying? It's a game element meant to assist the DM, not establish a minimum Perception score for the player.

[Aimeryan]

I agree with what the other posters have put thus far about acting as a floor. I wish to add, however, that you can only perceive what your senses pick up - which means you can essentially just hide things behind/inside mundane objects.

For example, say there is a hidden safe. The safe is hidden behind a mirror hung on the wall. What does your passive Perception give you? 'There is a mirror on the wall.' Now, maybe you could notice that the wood of the frame of the mirror is slightly discoloured on one side - a DC 25 check -, or maybe thats not a thing and it would require a truly god Perception to notice anything off - a DC 35 check. If you don't want passive Perception to give away the safe, then you can essentially have it so that they have to purposefully choose to look behind the mirror - and then the safe is obvious anyway.

Another example is, there is a hidden key. It can be found in the maid's cupboard, inside one of the pockets of a dark blue coat. A story involving the maid often slipping out in the middle of night, always wearing a dark blue coat, can clue people in on where to look. A passive Perception score isn't doing anything here.

[LudicSavant]

You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are.

The Player's handbook examples for when to use Passive rolls specifically includes cases when you're actively trying to find something.

The "Passive" in the name refers to the player being passive (by not rolling) rather than the character being passive (by not trying to look).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The Player's handbook examples for when to use Passive rolls specifically includes cases when you're actively trying to find something.

The "Passive" in the name refers to the player being passive (by not rolling) rather than the character being passive (by not trying to look).

I agree with this. And the previous poster. And those that mentioned cases where you can't use PP (navigating, etc). High PP is great, but it's not game breaking unless the DM is giving it extra power.

[LudicSavant]

One thing to note is that perception, by itself, is really only a "killer app" against getting surprised. Which in my experience (both as DM and player) isn't all that super frequent. And simply having Alert handles that without needing to jack your PP up to the sky.

Perception simply says "there's something here." It doesn't tell you what, how, or how it needs to be interacted with. Not even for traps, at least by default. Investigation is your "figure out how it works and how to bypass it" trait. A trap that can be avoided trivially if detected...isn't a very threatening trap without further considerations (like things forcing to toward it). Perception's great and all, don't get me wrong.

But having it be super high often just isn't worth it. Unless the DM is giving untoward weight toward it and slighting the other related ability check proficiencies by doing so.

This is correct. All Perception does is let you notice a thing is there. It doesn't let you understand a mechanism or even necessarily let you understand that the thing is dangerous, which is why all the Perception in the world won't help against False Appearance or many illusions -- the difficulty in such cases isn't seeing the danger, but understanding it.

For that you need Investigation or knowledge skills.

[Segev]

If you're relying on calling for active perception to ensure that they can't auto-succeed, you're probably doing something incorrectly. That way lies passive perception never mattering at all, and if the player invested, say, a feat into making their PC good at it, that's cheating them.

About the only time that passive perception should NOT apply is when the character's ongoing awareness would not be useful. Maybe he has been quite distracted by something, and is just now focusing, or has just had one very specific thing that has a DC to notice happen around him when he was not paying attention and thus his passive perception wouldn't apply.

You can get away with it if, for example, he's busy picking a lock or engaged in deep conversation with somebody, and somebody sneaks by. The focus might mean he's not passively observing his environment, so you call for a roll.

But in general, you should treat it as a floor, because you shouldn't be calling for perception rolls unless the PCs are going out of their way to look for something. Otherwise, they're using their passive perception. Most DMs still call for perception rolls when something sneaky happens, but if you're not treating that as a floor, then calling for rolls is... well, usually it's fine. It's six of one, half dozen of another, and you're actually giving a party that's all rolling a higher chance of somebody rolling well. But if a PC has invested in Observant, for instance...you're invalidating their feat if you call for perception rolls for anything they're not looking for actively. And if they ARE looking for it actively, and find it with less than their passive perception value on the dice, you ahve to ask: why didn't they notice it passively?

It's hard to justify.

[Sigreid]

I built a character like thus in cyberpunk a long time ago. Everything was channelled towards perception like she was a living sensor. The party loved her...the DM cussed at me a few times before commenting how cool she was. Lol

[Mongobear]

If you're relying on calling for active perception to ensure that they can't auto-succeed, you're probably doing something incorrectly. That way lies passive perception never mattering at all, and if the player invested, say, a feat into making their PC good at it, that's cheating them.

About the only time that passive perception should NOT apply is when the character's ongoing awareness would not be useful. Maybe he has been quite distracted by something, and is just now focusing, or has just had one very specific thing that has a DC to notice happen around him when he was not paying attention and thus his passive perception wouldn't apply.

You can get away with it if, for example, he's busy picking a lock or engaged in deep conversation with somebody, and somebody sneaks by. The focus might mean he's not passively observing his environment, so you call for a roll.

But in general, you should treat it as a floor, because you shouldn't be calling for perception rolls unless the PCs are going out of their way to look for something. Otherwise, they're using their passive perception. Most DMs still call for perception rolls when something sneaky happens, but if you're not treating that as a floor, then calling for rolls is... well, usually it's fine. It's six of one, half dozen of another, and you're actually giving a party that's all rolling a higher chance of somebody rolling well. But if a PC has invested in Observant, for instance...you're invalidating their feat if you call for perception rolls for anything they're not looking for actively. And if they ARE looking for it actively, and find it with less than their passive perception value on the dice, you ahve to ask: why didn't they notice it passively?

It's hard to justify.

For context, I am not the current DM, but I plan to take over in a few months when our current game comes to an end. (Same group members, just the current DM and I swapping roles.)

The issue is this player trying to abuse PP is the worst kind of rules lawyer/power gamer imagineable. His current character has uber-invested into PP, and he will literally pull the same 'trick' every session, multiple times. We walk into a new room, and he just does a circuit through it immediately and says if anything is in the room, he sees it, because his PP is something like a 31 or something. And every time we get to a point the DM calls for an active check, he just "lol, 31 cuz im hacking!".

I am fairly sure that the DM is mixing up the intended use of Investigation and Perception all the time, so the problem player is getting entirely too much mileage out of the Feats/skill investments than he should be, and it is starting to bleed into the way others play, by them either dejectedly not bothering to roll for Perception checks, or them incorrectly applying the "floor" result to checks which it shouldnt apply to.

I just want to nip this in the bud and fix the rules clashing now, so that it's not an immediate issue in my own games in the coming months, because I know the argument is coming already. Toddler level temper tantrums arent out of the question when this player doesnt get his way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just want to nip this in the bud and fix the rules clashing now, so that it's not an immediate issue in my own games in the coming months, because I know the argument is coming already. Toddler level temper tantrums arent out of the question when this player doesnt get his way.

To me, this is a strong signal that there are issues here that the rules cannot help you with. Anyone who throws toddler level temper tantrums over not getting their way will not be persuaded by rules. They're not using rules, they're weaponizing them. And that's a battle you cannot win. Because logic, reason, and general rules of reading have nothing to do with any of this. The text itself has little to do with it. They'll likely ignore anything you bring to bear on them.

That kind of thing needs an OOC conversation and (likely, if it's as presented) not playing with them. Rules are fairly irrelevant.

[Mongobear]

To me, this is a strong signal that there are issues here that the rules cannot help you with. Anyone who throws toddler level temper tantrums over not getting their way will not be persuaded by rules. They're not using rules, they're weaponizing them. And that's a battle you cannot win. Because logic, reason, and general rules of reading have nothing to do with any of this. The text itself has little to do with it. They'll likely ignore anything you bring to bear on them.

That kind of thing needs an OOC conversation and (likely, if it's as presented) not playing with them. Rules are fairly irrelevant.

While I absolutely agree with you, the issue is that the place we play is the only space available in our town, and it just so happens to be their home, so it is either not play at all or deal with the random tantrums occasionally. For reference, the current DM is their room-mate, and they generally dont argue over such little details as much, but they are also likely responsible for the rules clashes making PP so much more powerful than it's intended to be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I absolutely agree with you, the issue is that the place we play is the only space available in our town, and it just so happens to be their home, so it is either not play at all or deal with the random tantrums occasionally. For reference, the current DM is their room-mate, and they generally dont argue over such little details as much, but they are also likely responsible for the rules clashes making PP so much more powerful than it's intended to be.

Ouch. I feel badly for you.

But yeah. My suggestion is to start at session 0 with "ok, here's how I'm planning to be run things. [...insert rulings you know about in advance here]. Rules discussions need to happen outside of sessions. I will consider requests to alter the rulings, but if I do not do so, my previous rulings stand." And then don't budge. Allow the tantrums, but tell them that they need to step away from the game until they can act civilly. And get the current DM to back you up (and agree to do so in advance, at session 0, publicly) on that last bit. So if the problem player throws a fit, the only one they're hurting is themselves.

Or something probably more politic than that. I'm bad at politic.

[Aimeryan]

For context, I am not the current DM, but I plan to take over in a few months when our current game comes to an end. (Same group members, just the current DM and I swapping roles.)

The issue is this player trying to abuse PP is the worst kind of rules lawyer/power gamer imagineable. His current character has uber-invested into PP, and he will literally pull the same 'trick' every session, multiple times. We walk into a new room, and he just does a circuit through it immediately and says if anything is in the room, he sees it, because his PP is something like a 31 or something. And every time we get to a point the DM calls for an active check, he just "lol, 31 cuz im hacking!".

I am fairly sure that the DM is mixing up the intended use of Investigation and Perception all the time, so the problem player is getting entirely too much mileage out of the Feats/skill investments than he should be, and it is starting to bleed into the way others play, by them either dejectedly not bothering to roll for Perception checks, or them incorrectly applying the "floor" result to checks which it shouldnt apply to.

I just want to nip this in the bud and fix the rules clashing now, so that it's not an immediate issue in my own games in the coming months, because I know the argument is coming already. Toddler level temper tantrums arent out of the question when this player doesnt get his way.

As mentioned previously, if it can be perceived then the passive Perception applies. Whether or not its high enough depends on how obvious it is. Most checks run through 10-30, so yeah, they are going to find most things that can be found this way - that is what they invested in.

However, do note that not everything can be found this way. The player can not say 'I do everything that could possibly find things' - they have to say what they are doing. So, the safe behind the mirror? If they say 'I check behind the mirror' then sure; they find the safe. If not, well bad luck. The DC can even move - so the DC for the slight discolouration at the edge might be too high at a casual look around, but if they say they want to look at the mirror closely? That DC comes down, they pass it, now they have a clue to look behind the mirror.

If there is a bookshelf that comes out of the wall, maybe there are scrapes on the floor; passive Perception can perceive them, and maybe the DC met. However, maybe this bookshelf doesn't scrape along the floor - then no luck. If they walk up to the bookshelf, noting the shape of the room seems off, and asks to check for a hidden door by knocking on the wall in various places; then passive Perception comes in if this is enough that something could be perceived by doing so (and they get a roll in addition, since they are now actively looking while having changed the conditions).

Thats the thing; sometimes, even often, things are not out in the open at first blush. The players need to do things, often specific things, in order to then have a chance at perceiving something - sometimes that chance is almost a given - looking behind a mirror and finding a safe; sometimes that chance is low for an average character but high for an expert - taking off their gloves and moving their hands around on a wall, finding a seam where a slight movement of air can be felt.

-------------


To me, this is a strong signal that there are issues here that the rules cannot help you with. Anyone who throws toddler level temper tantrums over not getting their way will not be persuaded by rules. They're not using rules, they're weaponizing them. And that's a battle you cannot win. Because logic, reason, and general rules of reading have nothing to do with any of this. The text itself has little to do with it. They'll likely ignore anything you bring to bear on them.

That kind of thing needs an OOC conversation and (likely, if it's as presented) not playing with them. Rules are fairly irrelevant.

To add on to this; you don't need to play by the rules, as long as this is stated before starting (session 0). You could say, 'In this campaign we wont be using passive Perception - you notice nothing in the world unless you actively look for it.' The player can then choose to make another build before going into it (or decide not to play if that is their wish).

[diplomancer]

Ouch. Delicate indeed. Let me ask you a question: why are you DM'ing next? Is it because you want to, or because current DM wants a break and to play for a while, and you're DM'ing to keep the game going?

In the first case your maneuvering space is more limited than in the second. But I think whether it's the first case or the second, at least speaking for my own feelings, I can live with another player having a "broken build" because of a bad ruling from the DM, but I can't remain DM'ing if a player insists that he gets to call the rules, not I (which is different from a player correcting me on a rule). Any player who believes he gets to call the shots on the rules against the DM can get the privilege of calling ALL the shots for all I care... by being the DM. "With great power, comes great responsibility"

[LudicSavant]

Keep in mind it's not the end of the world if a player can just see everything while searching.

Remember that seeing something is only one step to bypassing it. And in many cases, seeing it doesn't even help at all (for example, a character with 30 perception can see a Roper just fine, but can't discern that they're seeing anything other than a stalactite. Same goes for most illusions. And Perception is only a part of the solution for many traps). Also keep in mind that Passive Perception can't apply while you're undertaking other activities that consume your attention.

Really, all that Perception is doing is ensuring that when your attention isn't otherwise occupied, you get the full description of what everything in the scene looks, sounds, or smells like -- you don't get any information about how anything in the scene actually functions (that's covered by other skills like Investigation).

If anything, as a GM I would make a note to add extra description to reward the player for their investment in wanting to see/hear/smell everything.

[diplomancer]

I'm also remembering a meme here:
Something like, once the player gets to an ungodly Passive Perception, he starts "listening to whispering gibberish that no one else can hear", and "seeing distorted shadows flickering just at the corner of your eyes", and all other sort of lovecraftian horror your demented DM mind can think of😈 start rolling for insanity checks :p

[Tanarii]

No, your player is not correct. If you are undertaking an activity that prevents you from using your passive perception (examples given are foraging, tracking, navigating, etc) or aren't in a position to see the thing to be found / threat (examples given are not being n the front line of the marching order) you don't get to use passive perception.

In other words you have to be actively looking for passive perception to apply, and you have to be looking in the right place.

The passive in Passive Perception doesn't mean the character is passive. It means the player is passive, as in not having to roll any dice. They happen whenever the roll results must be secret to the player, or it's something being done repeatedly as your character goes and the DM doesn't want the player to roll over and over again constantly.

In addition, passive checks replace a rolled (not "active") check, so they aren't a floor. Usually if you try to look for something again and it was a passive check the first time, it's still a passive check (for the same reason the original was) the second time. (Edit: to reiterate: There is no such thing as "Active Perception")

The only normal case in which it's a "floor" is when a creature you know is there uses Stealth to hide in combat (requiring invisibility or total cover or the like), because hiding explicitly uses your passive perception to succeed. And then when you use the Search action in combat to find it, is neither a secret check (you know it's around somewhere) nor a task being done repeatedly (you are doing it once), so your check is a rolled check. In this particular case, the passive check was effectively a kind of floor for hiding in the first place since it had to beat it.

[Mongobear]

Ouch. Delicate indeed. Let me ask you a question: why are you DM'ing next? Is it because you want to, or because current DM wants a break and to play for a while, and you're DM'ing to keep the game going?

In the first case your maneuvering space is more limited than in the second. But I think whether it's the first case or the second, at least speaking for my own feelings, I can live with another player having a "broken build" because of a bad ruling from the DM, but I can't remain DM'ing if a player insists that he gets to call the rules, not I (which is different from a player correcting me on a rule). Any player who believes he gets to call the shots on the rules against the DM can get the privilege of calling ALL the shots for all I care... by being the DM. "With great power, comes great responsibility"

Partially because I want to, and partially to keep the game going. We havent gotten to play much in the last 2-3 years because of covis, and only recently started again a few months ago, albeit bi-weekly at best. I volunteered to take over, but also was the only one willing to begin with, as aside from the current DM, I am the only one even willing to do so. It is kind of a weird hobby I have, where in my free time, I am constantly tinkering and world-building, coming up with plot lines and adventures, and generally just designing D&D things.

I don't mind strong builds, what I can't stand is the attitude/demeanor this person has about things. Grandstanding about how rules work in a game system theyve never played before 2023, blatantly mis-quoting the books, rules lawyering 7 year old errata that has been changed in more recent material, and generally just "gas-lighting" other people to believe their claims and make the person actually correcting them look like the bad guy. But, in order to keep the group together, it is one of those necessary evils I will have to deal with, because nobody else is willing, and aside from this person, I have known the others for ~20 years.

I already plan to have a 'Session 0 Social Contract' that everyone needs to agree to regarding rules changes, errors, table etiquette, etc, but I don't trust how long it will last, just from past experiences.

[Tanarii]

The issue is this player trying to abuse PP is the worst kind of rules lawyer/power gamer imagineable. His current character has uber-invested into PP, and he will literally pull the same 'trick' every session, multiple times. We walk into a new room, and he just does a circuit through it immediately and says if anything is in the room, he sees it, because his PP is something like a 31 or something. And every time we get to a point the DM calls for an active check, he just "lol, 31 cuz im hacking!".Unfortunately this is a case where passive perception should be used for anything that a perception check could find. Because they don't know if anything is there, it's a secrete check, thus passive. (But if they try the same action again, it's still passive not rolled. Because it's still secret result from the player.)

Luckily that's not "if anything is in the room". It's anything that you as a DM put a perception check value on as being possible to find with a circuit of the room, as opposed without specifically searching in the right area, or spending N time to execute a more careful search. Anything with Perception DC "automatic failure" for a search executed visually by walking a quick circuit around it won't be found.

Which means you need to think about how long a more thorough search would take to make hidden things have a DC instead. And if they need to specify something like "I pull the bookcases down and move all the furniture" to possibly find something, and how long THAT would take. (I'm not suggesting pixel-bitching, just reasonable levels of specifying their actions.)

And then once you've decided how long that takes, they can take ten times as long to automatically succeed (per the DMG) if success is possible.

And then you need to have some kind of consequences for time use so they don't spend all day tearing up the walls of your adventuring site looking for hidden compartments. :smallamused:

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are. You never use both at once, so it can never be a floor.

And the fact that Crawford disagrees further supports this, because seriously, he's always wrong.

The problem with this is that there's no benefit to actually trying to find anything (on average). Specific to characters with poor PP there is a benefit because without looking they'd likely not find much. But... per the example given by the OP, characters with high (and especially very high) PP are better off not trying to find anything; there average is likely to find pretty much everything and the only thing they could do by rolling is increasing the likelihood that they fail. I don't want to be DMing and my high PP player looks at me and says: "I'm walking around the room NOT looking for anything."

[Brookshw]

The way I manage it is that perception, passive or active, can spot a creature that's hiding. For traps, secret doors, etc., a passive perception that might spot something tell you something is "off", but you need an active investigation check to actually find it. I find the distinction works well for my group and avoids people having perfect scanners built into their heads, ymmv.

[Anymage]

Partially because I want to, and partially to keep the game going. We havent gotten to play much in the last 2-3 years because of covis, and only recently started again a few months ago, albeit bi-weekly at best. I volunteered to take over, but also was the only one willing to begin with, as aside from the current DM, I am the only one even willing to do so. It is kind of a weird hobby I have, where in my free time, I am constantly tinkering and world-building, coming up with plot lines and adventures, and generally just designing D&D things.

I don't mind strong builds, what I can't stand is the attitude/demeanor this person has about things. Grandstanding about how rules work in a game system theyve never played before 2023, blatantly mis-quoting the books, rules lawyering 7 year old errata that has been changed in more recent material, and generally just "gas-lighting" other people to believe their claims and make the person actually correcting them look like the bad guy. But, in order to keep the group together, it is one of those necessary evils I will have to deal with, because nobody else is willing, and aside from this person, I have known the others for ~20 years.

How much have you talked with the rest of the table? The DM shouldn't necessarily have to do all the work alone, and especially having to juggle player management on top of running the whole rest of the world is going to be a mess. It'll burns you out, and leaves most of the other players sitting by the wayside while you have to devote disproportionate mental energies to handling the problem player. You're already seeing how bad habits tend to spread throughout the rest of the group if not checked. If you want to stop this from getting worse you need to know that the group will actively have your back and call the problem player out when he's being disruptive. It's not all on the DM, and thinking that it is will just make you burn out all the faster.

Incidentally, VTTs are a thing. Whether that's telegaming because it's hard to meet up physically otherwise, or finding a new group who lives somewhere else who can play around in one of your invented worlds. I'll hope you can keep your friend group getting together, whether it's over D&D or something else. (Board/card/video games have, at least IME, been less likely to have problem player meltdowns simply because the rules and play style are a lot more structured.) But if the D&D group is going to survive you're going to need the rest of the players to actively help stand up to the problem player and keep them in line.

[DarknessEternal]

The way I manage it is that perception, passive or active, can spot a creature that's hiding. For traps, secret doors, etc., a passive perception that might spot something tell you something is "off", but you need an active investigation check to actually find it..

Investigation is also a passive skill, see the Observant feat.

[MoiMagnus]

You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are. You never use both at once, so it can never be a floor.

And the fact that Crawford disagrees further supports this, because seriously, he's always wrong.

Have you an example where you are trying to find something actively but didn't have the opportunity to passively find it beforehand? Or even afterhand?

If there is something you can see with your PP, shouldn't you be entitled to automatically see it at the beginning of the round, before you even choose to use your action to make an active perception check? Or at worst just after you stopped to actively search?

In other words, that's not technically a floor, but anything you can see by rolling less than your PP in an active check is something the GM should already have signaled to you.

I guess that if you're using some spy glass or other tool to increase your perception range but "too impractical to use it continuously", you can argue you only get the bonus of this tool to your active perception and not the passive one. But that's not really common in my games.

[JackPhoenix]

Investigation is also a passive skill, see the Observant feat.

Anything can be passive skill if the GM say so. But (with the exception of opposing Stealth, which has an use explicitly stated in the rules), the decision to use passive skill is entirely on the GM. I've never used Investigation as a passive skill, and changed Observant to use Insight instead, as Investigation is about deduction, not observation.

[Aimeryan]

Anything can be passive skill if the GM say so. But (with the exception of opposing Stealth, which has an use explicitly stated in the rules), the decision to use passive skill is entirely on the GM. I've never used Investigation as a passive skill, and changed Observant to use Insight instead, as Investigation is about deduction, not observation.

If you see a bright clear smeared blood trail on a pristine white floor with one end having a small pool of blood and the other end meeting a closed door, anyone is going to be able to deduct that something was forced to bleed and then was dragged into that room and the door closed behind them. Its not something that really requires a roll for - it would passively be passed. Someone with higher investigation should likewise be able to do something with a similar situation that was not so obvious to most people, but would be to them.

Requiring a roll should be for when there is actual doubt in that character's ability to do that thing in that situation. We measure this with the passive score - if the DC is higher, it is going to need a roll to beat. For most things this will then prompt the player to do so, with Perception that changes because the player doesn't know they need to do so usually - they may be suspicious for other reasons though (like a sign saying 'Danger! Minefield!' is likely going to get them actively searching for mines even if they didn't passively see any).

[Brookshw]

Investigation is also a passive skill, see the Observant feat.

Hence requiring an active check to actually find things or have something more than a sense something is "off".

[Anymage]

When Mongobear says that passive scores are treated as the floor, I'd like a bit of clarification. Does he mean that players feel like they can take the passive score on turn x and then actively roll on turn x+1 (possible, although if they have no time pressures I'd be inclined to let them have an effective take 20 or just straight out give it to them period), or does he mean that the players are expecting to have the effects of Reliable Talent without being level 11+ rogues. I've seen enough problem players to know that the latter is a very possible interpretation.

As for passive vs. active use, I use the spirit of take 10 rules. If it's a minor scene, I'll let you use the passive score or just straight out give it to you. If there's a stressor, a consequence for failure, or if a failed roll would change the situation and complicate/prevent future rolls, I'm more likely to ask for a roll of the dice.

[Tanarii]

Have you an example where you are trying to find something actively but didn't have the opportunity to passively find it beforehand? Or even afterhand?Any roll that didn't require a secret result and was being done one time.


If there is something you can see with your PP, shouldn't you be entitled to automatically see it at the beginning of the round, before you even choose to use your action to make an active perception check? Or at worst just after you stopped to actively search?Everyone repeat after me: There is no such thing as an "active" perception check.

Either the thing being checked for is a task being done repeatedly by the character as they go, or the result of the roll needs to be kept secret from the player so they can't metagame. -> Passive Check

Neither of those are true, it's a one time check not being done repeatedly as they character goes, and the player can know the result of the roll -> (normal or rolled) Ability Check

The character has ten times as long and there are no consequences for failure and the task isn't impossible -> DMG automatic success rule.

You only get one of these. It's not one followed by the other. And unless something changes, if it was a Passive Check in the first place (ie result is secret from the player) then it's still a Passive check if they try again. And if it wasn't (e.g. Search Action in combat for an enemy you know is around) it's still a normal rolled Ability Check if they try again.


Anything can be passive skill if the GM say so. But (with the exception of opposing Stealth, which has a use explicitly stated in the rules), the decision to use passive skill is entirely on the GM. I've never used Investigation as a passive skill, and changed Observant to use Insight instead, as Investigation is about deduction, not observation.
I use passive Investigation all the time. After all, it's a task being done repeatedly while the character goes along (deducing the location of traps) AND the result of the rolls can't be known by the player.[B]

Even when not exploring for traps, a one time check to deduce any clues in a room being searched, it's still passive, because the result of the roll can't be known by the player.

If you're using it as perception to find a trap/clue first and investigation to analyze it after, then your method makes perfect sense.

[Dr.Samurai]

It depends on party composition.

If no one in the party has a good perception modifier, then Passive Perception can't really be relied on because they will never beat the DC. The DM has to call for active rolls to give the players a chance.

If, on the other hand, a single person has a godly perception modifier and achieves an "average" roll of 30, then there is no point in even hiding anything behind a perception check so long as that person is actively trying to spot things.

And you can respond to either of these with "that's the point", meaning a party with a poor modifier should never spot anything, and a party with a godly modifier should always spot everything. But I don't think that's actually the intent; to turn these rolls into auto failures and successes every single time.

EDIT: On second thought, I suppose it is the point insofar as it represents your average roll and if you've neglected or prioritized your modifier then that is what it represents. But it seems weird to have this part of the game eschew dice rolls and just cross your arms and say "you'll fail pretty much all the time or succeed pretty much all the time".

[Silly Name]

For me, passive Perception does two things:

First, it sets the DC for anyone trying to Stealth against your character. If your passive Perception is 15, any Stealth check lower than that fails to avoid being detected by you. This is also, I think, why monsters have their passive Perception explicitly listed in their statblocks, so that DMs can know what's the DC for when characters try to Stealth against them.

Likewise, it's the number I, the DM, check whenever the characters enter a room and there's something not immediately obvious in it but which could be noted by observant characters: "The corridor to the throneroom of Genericus Villanius is decorated with frescoes of his conquests. Hidden among the pictures is a secret sliding door (Perception DC 15 to detect) [...]" This is also limited by the fact that the current situation leads to the assumption that the characters aren't checking every inch of the room - if they start analysing the room, and aren't in a rush, then I'll use passive Investigation.

It's not, however, a floor to normal Perception checks. If, for example, the players are in an area of complete dark, without sources of illumination nor darkvision, and want to try and orient themselves towards a source of noise (assuming a situation where they can't just wander until they find it, so maybe combat or there's hazards if they go the wrong way), that's a normal Perception check, and if they roll less than 10 on their dice, that's the result.

Or, for a less niche example, maybe the PCs are trasvering a forest and hear a sudden noise of something big approaching. I call for a Perception check to see if they can discern where the source of the noise is coming from, and if they fail they get jumped by the owlbear - this is because the scenario here is a split-second scene, so I feel like active Perception fits better.

[tchntm43]

The original question, and the subsequent arguing back and forth in this thread, as well as other reasons related to keeping the game fun, unpredictable, and engaging, are why I opt to simply not use passive checks at all in the games I run.

[Dr.Samurai]

The original question, and the subsequent arguing back and forth in this thread, as well as other reasons related to keeping the game fun, unpredictable, and engaging, are why I opt to simply not use passive checks at all in the games I run.
This is probably the way to go.

[Mongobear]

When Mongobear says that passive scores are treated as the floor, I'd like a bit of clarification. Does he mean that players feel like they can take the passive score on turn x and then actively roll on turn x+1 (possible, although if they have no time pressures I'd be inclined to let them have an effective take 20 or just straight out give it to them period), or does he mean that the players are expecting to have the effects of Reliable Talent without being level 11+ rogues. I've seen enough problem players to know that the latter is a very possible interpretation.

As for passive vs. active use, I use the spirit of take 10 rules. If it's a minor scene, I'll let you use the passive score or just straight out give it to you. If there's a stressor, a consequence for failure, or if a failed roll would change the situation and complicate/prevent future rolls, I'm more likely to ask for a roll of the dice.

In this instance, the player with a 31 PP doesnt even bother rolling active checks, he just says its a 31, and assumes he auto-passes since it is extremely difficult to out Stealth that at our current levels.

This has bled into the rest of the party, and when they are rolling active checks, if they roll below a 10, they just shrug and grab the d20 and say "Whelp, I can't get lower than my PP, so... 15!" Which I am 100% convinced isn't how the rule is supposed to work. (Mind you, this is in conjunction with the DM calling for active checks in situations where I am relatively sure we should be using Investigation instead, but despite effort actually trying to explain it to him, the problem player always interjects, causes a tangential argument, and we just give up.)

EDIT - Also for relevance, can you actually define what a "normal Perception check" is supposed to be? The problem play keeps linking us a block of text/list from, what he claims is dnd beyond, and says that's what the skill covers, but he won't link us to the actual page or source of that list, so for all we know he made it up or its from like, a homebrew/wiki.

[da newt]

I kinda like the pathfinder idea of something you can do when exploring / traveling - but you have to choose one thing you are actively doing. I think passive skills would work well this way. PC #1 - i'm looking for tracks (survival), PC #2 - i'm looking for bad guys hiding (perception), PC #3 - I'm looking out for traps (investigation), I'm looking for magic crap (arcana), I'm creeping (stealth), etc ...

[Silly Name]

This has bled into the rest of the party, and when they are rolling active checks, if they roll below a 10, they just shrug and grab the d20 and say "Whelp, I can't get lower than my PP, so... 15!" Which I am 100% convinced isn't how the rule is supposed to work. (Mind you, this is in conjunction with the DM calling for active checks in situations where I am relatively sure we should be using Investigation instead, but despite effort actually trying to explain it to him, the problem player always interjects, causes a tangential argument, and we just give up.)

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the rules is it stated that your passive score is to be treated as the bare minimum result of a check... Further reinforced by the Rogue's level 11 Reliable Talent feature, which (effectively) does that for skills in which the rogue is proficient.

Here's the relevant text on passive checks:


A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result 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.

Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check: 10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

Notice how the very first line clearly says that "A passive check is a [...] check that doesn't involve any die rolls."

Frankly, I don't even understand why the player is doing this (apart from some sense of smugness over "winning" DnD): with a +21 to Perception, the lowest they can roll is a 22, which is plenty enough to basically pass almost all DCs.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

In this instance, the player with a 31 PP doesnt even bother rolling active checks, he just says its a 31, and assumes he auto-passes since it is extremely difficult to out Stealth that at our current levels.

What do you feel is lost from players discovering secrets using their passive perception? And to add on to that question, what do you think is lost when a player who has invested heavily into passive perception benefits from their investment when it comes to discovering secrets? It is important to keep in mind this player spent character resources that could have been spent instead on combat capability, different types of utility, or healing, and instead spent them on passive perception, which means that not missing anything is extremely important to this player, more so than other important character facets. As for out stealthing, you could use creatures with expertise, invisibility or even magic items, but honestly, just let players be good at the thing they've specialized into.

[Mongobear]

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the rules is it stated that your passive score is to be treated as the bare minimum result of a check... Further reinforced by the Rogue's level 11 Reliable Talent feature, which (effectively) does that.

Here's the relevant text on passive checks:


I think it was answered earlier, apparently Jeremy "I don't understand my own rules" Crawford gave an answer in an interview that said quite literally that PP is a floor/bare minimum for those checks, and all sorts of Rules Lawyers/Power Gamers have taken it as gospel ever since.




Notice how the very first line clearly says that "A passive check is a [...] check that doesn't involve any die rolls.

Frankly, I don't even understand why the player is doing this (apart from some sense of smugness over "winning" DnD): with a +21 to Perception, the lowest they can roll is a 22, which is plenty enough to basically pass almost all DCs.


Technically it isn't a +21, Observant gives a +5 to PP specifically, and he has a Sentinel Shield which gives advantage, which is another +5 to PP, technically rn he only has a +11 Perception from proficiency + expertise + wisdom modifier, and he can increase it further a few points by maxing Wisdom, then as we level and getting higher proficiency (and an Ioun Stone too if we ever find one.)

[Dr.Samurai]

What do you feel is lost from players discovering secrets using their passive perception? And to add on to that question, what do you think is lost when a player who has invested heavily into passive perception benefits from their investment when it comes to discovering secrets? It is important to keep in mind this player spent character resources that could have been spent instead on combat capability, different types of utility, or healing, and instead spent them on passive perception, which means that not missing anything is extremely important to this player, more so than other important character facets. As for out stealthing, you could use creatures with expertise, invisibility or even magic items, but honestly, just let players be good at the thing they've specialized into.
I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. There isn't a feat to take for combat that has a similar impact. This appears to be stacking these modifiers sky-high, and then treating it as a floor, resulting in auto-passing any DC (assuming max 30). Nothing really lets you stop "trying" or "rolling" in combat. You're still going to miss, you're still going to get hit, you're still going to fail saves, etc.

This is just... you no longer have to do anything for Perception anymore, you just always pass.

And that seems really out of place in 5E.

[Mongobear]

What do you feel is lost from players discovering secrets using their passive perception? And to add on to that question, what do you think is lost when a player who has invested heavily into passive perception benefits from their investment when it comes to discovering secrets? It is important to keep in mind this player spent character resources that could have been spent instead on combat capability, different types of utility, or healing, and instead spent them on passive perception, which means that not missing anything is extremely important to this player, more so than other important character facets. As for out stealthing, you could use creatures with expertise, invisibility or even magic items, but honestly, just let players be good at the thing they've specialized into.

I don't think anything is technically lost, it is more just the attitude in which these decisions were made. It wasnt some "cool interaction we discovered at the table" the player went to a minmax/power gamer forum a few years ago (possibly this one, now that I think about it), saw some dumb abuse of game interaction posts, and ever since deliberately goes out of his way to use as many of them as he can to "win at D&D" with every character he makes, then laughs and giggles like an idiot whenever it causes the DM's plan to kind of fall apart because the newest flavor of unintended rules interactions do something that isn't covered by your standard monster manual statblock.

And lately, as I mentioned previously, his attitude/approach has started bleeding into the rest of the table, and everyone is throwing around the misquoted 'Passive Perception = Floor' ruling and it's just not healthy for the group.

Also his investment was a single Feat, that's not exactly a massive loss considering we don't play by AL standards, and roll stats. So a lot of us have plenty of ASI's to burn on "RP Feats" like Observant or similar.

[Silly Name]

I think it was answered earlier, apparently Jeremy "I don't understand my own rules" Crawford gave an answer in an interview that said quite literally that PP is a floor/bare minimum for those checks, and all sorts of Rules Lawyers/Power Gamers have taken it as gospel ever since.

Whenever this sort of reasoning comes up, I like to remind people "if it's not in the books, it's not in the rules". Crawford saying stuff in an interview (or posting it on Twitter) isn't errata nor RAW - it's simply Crawford's opinion, and it's not automatically a correct interpretation of the rules (see him saying you can't use Twinned Spell on Dragon's Breath, which requires a very conterted reading of the targeting rules).


Technically it isn't a +21, Observant gives a +5 to PP specifically, and he has a Sentinel Shield which gives advantage, which is another +5 to PP, technically rn he only has a +11 Perception from proficiency + expertise + wisdom modifier, and he cant increase it further a few points by maxing Wisdom, then as we level and getting higher proficiency (and an Ioun Stone too if we ever find one.)

Still a pretty hefty modifier... but one that could still fail a check if he rolls low. So I see why he's trying to abuse the rules. Yeah, this player is very much trying to abuse and twist the rules in his favor. So, really, this isn't really a rules problem - it's a problem player.

[Aimeryan]

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the rules is it stated that your passive score is to be treated as the bare minimum result of a check... Further reinforced by the Rogue's level 11 Reliable Talent feature, which (effectively) does that.

For Perception, it is not technically the floor, but it is practically most of the time. This is because you are always perceiving your surroundings unless doing something that takes all your focus (lockpicking is the common cited example). So, the passive has already occurred by the time you do any rolled result, so the passive is essentially the floor.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. There isn't a feat to take for combat that has a similar impact. This appears to be stacking these modifiers sky-high, and then treating it as a floor, resulting in auto-passing any DC (assuming max 30). Nothing really lets you stop "trying" or "rolling" in combat. You're still going to miss, you're still going to get hit, you're still going to fail saves, etc.

This is just... you no longer have to do anything for Perception anymore, you just always pass.

And that seems really out of place in 5E.

I would say that is because the consequences for failing in combat are considerably different than simply failing a perception check, and combat is a much bigger part of the system than skill checks. There are plenty of ways to boost other skill checks to absurdly high levels where you have virtually zero chance of failure, passive perception is just easier to do that with because it is a calculated result rather than a roll with a 1-20 variance.


I don't think anything is technically lost, it is more just the attitude in which these decisions were made. It wasnt some "cool interaction we discovered at the table" the player went to a minmax/power gamer forum a few years ago (possibly this one, now that I think about it), saw some dumb abuse of game interaction posts, and ever since deliberately goes out of his way to use as many of them as he can to "win at D&D" with every character he makes, then laughs and giggles like an idiot whenever it causes the DM's plan to kind of fall apart because the newest flavor of unintended rules interactions do something that isn't covered by your standard monster manual statblock.

And lately, as I mentioned previously, his attitude/approach has started bleeding into the rest of the table, and everyone is throwing around the misquoted 'Passive Perception = Floor' ruling and it's just not healthy for the group.

Also his investment was a single Feat, that's not exactly a massive loss considering we don't play by AL standards, and roll stats. So a lot of us have plenty of ASI's to burn on "RP Feats" like Observant or similar.

It sounds a lot like this particular player and his attitude rub you the wrong way rather than the mechanical interactions of his character's abilities, so this seems like something best solved at the table by talking to everyone involved rather than asking for rules advice, in my humble opinion.

[Silly Name]

For Perception, it is not technically the floor, but it is practically most of the time. This is because you are always perceiving your surroundings unless doing something that takes all your focus (lockpicking is the common cited example). So, the passive has already occurred by the time you do any rolled result, so the passive is essentially the floor.

The problem here is that the problem player wants to have their passive Perception to act as the floor even when it shouldn't. That should get nixed.

Yes, I agree that 90% of the time, you don't actively roll for Perception and just use the passive Perception score... but if and when the DM calls for a normal Perception roll, then you roll the die and abide by the results, especially considering this player is specifically adding bonuses to his passive Perception score to normal Perception checks, and acting as if he had the Reliable Talent feature, which he seemingly doesn't.

[Aimeryan]

The problem here is that the problem player wants to have their passive Perception to act as the floor even when it shouldn't. That should get nixed.

Yes, I agree that 90% of the time, you don't actively roll for Perception and just use the passive Perception score... but if and when the DM calls for a normal Perception roll, then you roll the die and abide by the results, especially considering this player is specifically adding bonuses to his passive Perception score to normal Perception checks, and acting as if he had the Reliable Talent feature, which he seemingly doesn't.

The examples provided, however, have been of situations where passive Perception should apply, which presents an issue if that player is not being allowed that having built their character around it without there being a session 0 saying these rules are being changed. There are very few situations where passive Perception shouldn't be in play, so I would expect questions more around those exceptions.

Like, if the player is picklocking, can they hear someone creeping up on them? If so, can passive Perception be used? If so, what is the DC - is it higher than by sight? Etc.

[Segev]

The problem with this is that there's no benefit to actually trying to find anything (on average). Specific to characters with poor PP there is a benefit because without looking they'd likely not find much. But... per the example given by the OP, characters with high (and especially very high) PP are better off not trying to find anything; there average is likely to find pretty much everything and the only thing they could do by rolling is increasing the likelihood that they fail. I don't want to be DMing and my high PP player looks at me and says: "I'm walking around the room NOT looking for anything."Unless the character has the Observant feat, rolling has advantages to those with high passive perception, as well, in that they can roll ridiculously high. But with Observant, they have to beat a 15 on the die to beat their passive.


The original question, and the subsequent arguing back and forth in this thread, as well as other reasons related to keeping the game fun, unpredictable, and engaging, are why I opt to simply not use passive checks at all in the games I run.Just make sure you tell your players not to take the Observant feat, then!


I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. There isn't a feat to take for combat that has a similar impact. This appears to be stacking these modifiers sky-high, and then treating it as a floor, resulting in auto-passing any DC (assuming max 30). Nothing really lets you stop "trying" or "rolling" in combat. You're still going to miss, you're still going to get hit, you're still going to fail saves, etc.

This is just... you no longer have to do anything for Perception anymore, you just always pass.

And that seems really out of place in 5E.People will argue that the Archery fighting style - available through a feat - or that Sharpshooter or GWM have similar effects, if not identical ones.

Having just played in a session where nobody could roll above a 12 on a perception check when we had multiple shots at it for a crucial bit of plot that seems to be the only way to penetrate an obvious problem that we are nonetheless barred from doing anything about by having zero clues we haven't pursued (and those we have wind up being stonewalled), I sympathize more with players than DMs when it comes to "well, I'll just make a PC who can't fail perception checks." Missing things is almost never going to enhance fun. I get that the DM would like to spring things on the players from time to time, but...if a player puts that much effort into not having things sprung on him, he should get away with it. (Also, there are ways to do it, anyway; a number of monsters have "false appearance" traits that make no amount of Perception able to recognize them as what they are, for instance.)



To the OP: Can you outline when you would use passive perception, and when you wouldn't? If you can do that, and lay it out for the table ahead of time, making it clear that passive scores are not a floor, it will allow players to plan accordingly.

I will warn you that you should expect efforts to stack on even more bonuses to the raw roll, though. If a player deliberately builds for high perception, he'll build for high perception no matter what you do. He wants to notice things, and does not like missing them, so he will do what he can to build for that.

And I can't blame him, personally. Knowing there's something going on that only my failure to roll high enough on perception is keeping me from participating in, or worse, is keeping me from being allowed to defend myself and the party against? That isn't fun.

[Tanarii]

For Perception, it is not technically the floor, but it is practically most of the time. This is because you are always perceiving your surroundings unless doing something that takes all your focus (lockpicking is the common cited example). So, the passive has already occurred by the time you do any rolled result, so the passive is essentially the floor.
No. This is wrong in several ways.

You aren't always perceiving your surroundings.
You don't use passive just because you are perceiving your surroundings.
You don't use passive first then roll second. If you make a perception check, you do one or the other.


Technically it isn't a +21, Observant gives a +5 to PP specifically, and he has a Sentinel Shield which gives advantage, which is another +5 to PP, technically rn he only has a +11 Perception from proficiency + expertise + wisdom modifier, and he can increase it further a few points by maxing Wisdom, then as we level and getting higher proficiency (and an Ioun Stone too if we ever find one.)Yeah they make a design mistake with Observant. It should have given advantage to both rolled and passive checks. That way one isn't better than the other, and the +5 to passive wouldn't stack with advantage.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Unless the character has the Observant feat, rolling has advantages to those with high passive perception, as well, in that they can roll ridiculously high. But with Observant, they have to beat a 15 on the die to beat their passive.

Just make sure you tell your players not to take the Observant feat, then!

People will argue that the Archery fighting style - available through a feat - or that Sharpshooter or GWM have similar effects, if not identical ones.

Having just played in a session where nobody could roll above a 12 on a perception check when we had multiple shots at it for a crucial bit of plot that seems to be the only way to penetrate an obvious problem that we are nonetheless barred from doing anything about by having zero clues we haven't pursued (and those we have wind up being stonewalled), I sympathize more with players than DMs when it comes to "well, I'll just make a PC who can't fail perception checks." Missing things is almost never going to enhance fun. I get that the DM would like to spring things on the players from time to time, but...if a player puts that much effort into not having things sprung on him, he should get away with it. (Also, there are ways to do it, anyway; a number of monsters have "false appearance" traits that make no amount of Perception able to recognize them as what they are, for instance.)



To the OP: Can you outline when you would use passive perception, and when you wouldn't? If you can do that, and lay it out for the table ahead of time, making it clear that passive scores are not a floor, it will allow players to plan accordingly.

I will warn you that you should expect efforts to stack on even more bonuses to the raw roll, though. If a player deliberately builds for high perception, he'll build for high perception no matter what you do. He wants to notice things, and does not like missing them, so he will do what he can to build for that.

And I can't blame him, personally. Knowing there's something going on that only my failure to roll high enough on perception is keeping me from participating in, or worse, is keeping me from being allowed to defend myself and the party against? That isn't fun.

I think you've mis-understood my point; perhaps I haven't made it clearly. If there is no floor, and it's a choice between rolling or using passive, then yes, of course someone with high perception could roll really high. However, most of the time someone with really high perception is going to be making the DCs passively, so they only increase their odds of failure (from 0% to some %) by rolling. Because of this, so long as PP is a thing, it needs to be a floor. Otherwise the high PP character benefits from deliberately not actively looking.

[Aimeryan]

No. This is wrong in several ways.

You aren't always perceiving your surroundings.
You don't use passive just because you are perceiving your surroundings.
You don't use passive first then roll second. If you make a perception check, you do one or the other.

Yeah they make a design mistake with Observant. It should have given advantage to both rolled and passive checks. That way one isn't better than the other, and the +5 to passive wouldn't stack with advantage.

Yup, the exception was there in my text.
Passive applies anytime you are constantly doing something. See the above exception for when this is not the case.
Indeed, you are usually always applying passive Perception, and the DM can choose to have you roll when you do something appropriate.

So, example; You are on watch tonight. Throughout the watch your passive Perception is at play. At some point while on the watch you get a Message come through that a well-known thief's plans have been discovered and in the plans it states he will hide tonight in a certain bush until the guard change. Advantage to passive Perception (i.e., +5) for detecting something in that bush since your focus will be drawn there (similarly, Disadvantage may well apply to Perception elsewhere - a potentially clever ploy to get around the guard!). You don't detect anything. You decide you want to look at the bush more thoroughly, saying to the DM 'I want to look intently at that bush.' 'DM: Alright, roll Perception.'

[Esprit15]

Why not just mix passive perception at your table and let Observant give advantage on Perception and Investigation checks? Seems like way less headache than determining when to do passive or active.

[tchntm43]

Just make sure you tell your players not to take the Observant feat, then!

I've never had a player request to take this feat, so it's never come up... That said, I'd prefer to adjust the feat based on a no-passives campaign than remove it entirely. Most likely I'd just remove the "passive" words from the description, which makes it somewhat better, but still not broken.

[Segev]

I've never had a player request to take this feat, so it's never come up... That said, I'd prefer to adjust the feat based on a no-passives campaign than remove it entirely. Most likely I'd just remove the "passive" words from the description, which makes it somewhat better, but still not broken.

Certainly, I wouldn't complain as a player taking Observant if it was a flat +5 to all Perception/Investigation checks! :smallcool:

[Tanarii]

You decide you want to look at the bush more thoroughly, saying to the DM 'I want to look intently at that bush.' 'DM: Alright, roll Perception.'
DM: "Okay. What's your passive perception?"

It's still a secret check the player can't know the result of the roll. It's a passive check again.


Why not just mix passive perception at your table and let Observant give advantage on Perception and Investigation checks? Seems like way less headache than determining when to do passive or active.
The only reason folks find it a headache is they are stuck in "passive vs active" thinking.

It's really easy.

1) Does it automatically succeed or fail? No check.

2) Is the player going to have to roll constantly because their character is doing something over and over again, as in each section of a room or while traveling along a corridor? Passive.

3) Can the player not know the result of the die roll because it would give away metagame information? Passive.

4) Can the player just roll again and again because the character is doing the same thing in one place until they succeed? Take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

5) Can the best people in the group pull up the worst, and the worst pull down the best? Group check.

6) Otherwise: roll normal Ability check

[Keravath]

I have also heard of this ruling, although I don't know its source (EDIT: Oh its in the PHB...lol). It does make logical sense for it to be true, but then all it takes is one player focusing on boosting their Passive Perception for Perception checks to become almost trivial. I do this; Characters preoccupied with something other than looking out for danger while exploring/fighting/socializing have a -5 on their Passive Perception. That way if when exploring the dungeon a character declares that they will keep lookout they get full benefit, but not if they are doing something else. Thereby it doesn't punish the player for building their character that way, but it also creates reasonable parameters within which their super-senses work to their full benefit.

According to the rules, a character preoccupied with doing something else other than looking out for danger doesn't have a passive perception at all.

"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. "

The rules in the travel section impose disadvantage (-5) to passive perception checks when the party is moving quickly but the character is still paying attention.

Also, characters are usually assumed to be paying attention to their surroundings unless a player specifies that they are doing something else. They probably shouldn't have to say that they are paying attention in order for their passive perception to work, they should have to say that they are doing something else, or just not paying attention (for whatever reason) for their passive perception to not work. Passive perception requires the character to be paying attention and looking in order for it to function at all. (The passive refers to the player being passive and not rolling dice, not to the actions of the character).

[Keravath]

A couple of things to keep in mind about passive checks -

1) The only way the players know that they happened is because the DM narrates what is found/deduced/noticed/seen to the character/player(s) that noticed it. This helps the player feel good about the choices they made for the character since they get to find things that the others might find more difficult.

2) So, how do you limit the character with the high passive perception from dominating the searching/finding aspect of the game? They are only one character, they can't be in all places at once. If the party wants to search a room, it is going to take a very long time if only the character with the highest passive scores searches the room. The DM asks the players what area of the room they want to look at first and then resolves the actions of each player. If the barbarian searches the desk they still might find the secret drawer while the high passive perception character may have no trouble finding the secret door. Every character contributes because the character that is really good at the one skill can't be everywhere at once. They will still find more things than the other characters but it doesn't have to be everything, there is still room for the other characters to contribute as long as the DM runs it that way.

3) Passive checks do not apply if the action is being taken once. This means that if you are searching for a hidden door in a combat situation then everyone has to roll since the effect is only being resolved one time. In addition, if the action can have consequences then an active roll is required. For example, if a character is picking a lock and on a roll of 5- the lock is jammed and unpickable then a roll is required, perhaps even multiple rolls, since the die roll itself can have a consequence - it is a situation where it is not an identical task done repeatedly because there can be a consequence to a failed attempt. Other than that, for tasks that can be repeated or which reveal meta game information then use the passive checks.

4) Keep in mind that a passive check refers to the PLAYER being passive. The player doesn't roll dice. It is a check that is resolved while the player remains passive. It is NOT the character being "passive". If the character is not taking an appropriate action to engage the required skill (eg perception, investigation etc) then the character does NOT have a passive skill that can be applied since they aren't using the skill.

[JackPhoenix]

If you see a bright clear smeared blood trail on a pristine white floor with one end having a small pool of blood and the other end meeting a closed door, anyone is going to be able to deduct that something was forced to bleed and then was dragged into that room and the door closed behind them. Its not something that really requires a roll for - it would passively be passed. Someone with higher investigation should likewise be able to do something with a similar situation that was not so obvious to most people, but would be to them.

Not by the rules. If something doesn't require a check, there's no check. Passive ability scores don't enter the picture.


Requiring a roll should be for when there is actual doubt in that character's ability to do that thing in that situation. We measure this with the passive score - if the DC is higher, it is going to need a roll to beat. For most things this will then prompt the player to do so, with Perception that changes because the player doesn't know they need to do so usually - they may be suspicious for other reasons though (like a sign saying 'Danger! Minefield!' is likely going to get them actively searching for mines even if they didn't passively see any).

Yes, and no. it's true there's only a check if there's a doubt about the outcome of a situation (and if the outcome is meaningful, within reason... death is a meaningful consequence, and people do trip and die walking down stairs, but you shouldn't have the player roll every time their use stairs), but that has nothing to do with passive score, and it's certainly not measured by passive score. DCs < 10 exist.

[Aimeryan]

DM: "Okay. What's your passive perception?"

It's still a secret check the player can't know the result of the roll. It's a passive check again.

Its a secret roll, not a passive check and not a secret check. The player knows the check is occuring, they just don't know the results of the dice. All rolls can be done without the player knowing the dice result, if the DM so wishes.

A passive check is explicitly a check without rolling dice, using a 10 in place. It is naturally secret, although a distracted DM is usually a sign something is up.

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls.

[Aimeryan]

Not by the rules. If something doesn't require a check, there's no check. Passive ability scores don't enter the picture.

If you mean the DC is 0, then sure. Any DC higher than 0 requires a check, even if it is impossible to pass. It is just you wont be rolling since there is no point. Passive checks don't roll anyway, so if they pass the check then it automatically means the character was capable of doing the action without a roll.


Yes, and no. it's true there's only a check if there's a doubt about the outcome of a situation (and if the outcome is meaningful, within reason... death is a meaningful consequence, and people do trip and die walking down stairs, but you shouldn't have the player roll every time their use stairs), but that has nothing to do with passive score, and it's certainly not measured by passive score. DCs < 10 exist.

Which is why I specified roll, not check.

[Tanarii]

Its a secret roll, not a passive check and not a secret check. The player knows the check is occuring, they just don't know the results of the dice. All rolls can be done without the player knowing the dice result, if the DM so wishes.

A passive check is explicitly a check without rolling dice, using a 10 in place. It is naturally secret, although a distracted DM is usually a sign something is up.

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls.

If you're going to quote a rule, don't excise the sentence that disproves your point:
A passive check i s 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.

A passive check is for avoiding repeated checks or for a secret check when the player can't know the result of the roll / that a roll even happened.

Edit: the assumption here is one of two things happen:
1) dice are rolled openly so the player knows the result of a roll and that a roll happened
2) the DM uses a passive check so they don't know the result of a roll or that a roll even happened

If a DM instead chooses to roll dice for a player, that's a whole 'nother thing. There are some players that are perfectly happy for the DM to roll for them behind a screen. There are others that don't want the DM to roll things for their character, because it's their character! Passive checks sidestep that issue, as well as not even telegraphing that a roll even occurred. No metagame information is given. Of course, the unwritten assumption here is the DM has character passives already and doesn't need to ask the player for the value.

[Mongobear]

Lol, the above response is almost word for a word part of an argument I have had at my table with the problem player, down to the letter of what was copy/pasted as a reference, and the response about excising part of the full rule.

Weird deja vu moment...

[JackPhoenix]

If you mean the DC is 0, then sure. Any DC higher than 0 requires a check, even if it is impossible to pass. It is just you wont be rolling since there is no point.

No, I mean the DC is N/A. There's no DC, because there's no check. And no, if the task's impossible to pass, there's no check, if the task's impossible to fail, there's no check either.


Passive checks don't roll anyway, so if they pass the check then it automatically means the character was capable of doing the action without a roll.

That's tautological. Yes, passing a check that doesn't involve a roll means you're capable of passing a check that doesn't involve a roll. Duh.

[Aimeryan]

If you're going to quote a rule, don't excise the sentence that disproves your point:
A passive check i s 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.

A passive check is for avoiding repeated checks or for a secret check when the player can't know the result of the roll / that a roll even happened.

Edit: the assumption here is one of two things happen:
1) dice are rolled openly so the player knows the result of a roll and that a roll happened
2) the DM uses a passive check so they don't know the result of a roll or that a roll even happened

If a DM instead chooses to roll dice for a player, that's a whole 'nother thing. There are some players that are perfectly happy for the DM to roll for them behind a screen. There are others that don't want the DM to roll things for their character, because it's their character! Passive checks sidestep that issue, as well as not even telegraphing that a roll even occurred. No metagame information is given. Of course, the unwritten assumption here is the DM has character passives already and doesn't need to ask the player for the value.

Which part? This?:

when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice

It is literally not a roll if you don't roll the dice. It is a check, but not a roll. There is no secret passive roll check.

[Tanarii]

Which part? This?:

when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice

It is literally not a roll if you don't roll the dice. It is a check, but not a roll. There is no secret passive roll check.
Right. There are no secret rolls. Just passive checks.

[Aimeryan]

Right. There are no secret rolls. Just passive checks.

There are definitely secret rolls - when the DM doesn't allow the player to know the result of the dice. That is not a passive check, however; by dint of literally making a roll. Nor is a secret roll a secret check by default since it says nothing about whether the player knows the check is happening or not (if in person, they probably know you are rolling for something) - just that they don't know the result of the dice.

Passive checks don't need to be secret either, but unless the DM outright tells the player it usually is because the cues to key the player in are missing. Its like using Subtle metamagic, and is one of the major reasons to use passive checks (the other being repetition).

[Keravath]

There are definitely secret rolls - when the DM doesn't allow the player to know the result of the dice. That is not a passive check, however; by dint of literally making a roll. Nor is a secret roll a secret check by default since it says nothing about whether the player knows the check is happening or not (if in person, they probably know you are rolling for something) - just that they don't know the result of the dice.

Passive checks don't need to be secret either, but unless the DM outright tells the player it usually is because the cues to key the player in are missing. Its like using Subtle metamagic, and is one of the major reasons to use passive checks (the other being repetition).

Secret rolls where the DM rolls FOR the players is a DM specific thing. I've never used them and never would. If a character is using their abilities to resolve a situation then I have the player roll or I use their passive skill if the character is taking an appropriate action. I won't roll for them.

How do I keep meta information from the players? I occasionally ask for a roll when there is nothing to be found so that the players never know for certain whether there is something to be found or not if I ask them to roll.

Finally, if the DM is using passive checks properly, the only way the players know that they happened is because the DM directs information to specific characters (who the DM directs the information to is the only cue that a passive check might have occurred). The players never know that if their characters had different passive skills then the DM might have asked for a die roll.

[Aimeryan]

Secret rolls where the DM rolls FOR the players is a DM specific thing. I've never used them and never would. If a character is using their abilities to resolve a situation then I have the player roll or I use their passive skill if the character is taking an appropriate action. I won't roll for them.

How do I keep meta information from the players? I occasionally ask for a roll when there is nothing to be found so that the players never know for certain whether there is something to be found or not if I ask them to roll.

Finally, if the DM is using passive checks properly, the only way the players know that they happened is because the DM directs information to specific characters (who the DM directs the information to is the only cue that a passive check might have occurred). The players never know that if their characters had different passive skills then the DM might have asked for a die roll.

Rolling for the player and keeping the roll secret is definitely something that should occur - Stealth checks come to mind; otherwise, the player knows that if they roll low not to bother, or to just keep using the Hide action until they get a roll they are happy with. I'm aware not all DMs do this.

There are also rolls the players never roll in the first place - anything that is not their character will fall into this. Monsters making Saving Throws are an example. Whether or not the DM keeps the roll secret is up to them - there is reason to not let the players know that the monster passed because they rolled high, keep them guessing.

In any case, my point was merely that they exist within the game, whether or not the DM chooses to use them - since Tanarii claimed there are no secret rolls (and it wasn't blue text, so if its sarcasm thats on him!).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rolling for the player and keeping the roll secret is definitely something that should occur - Stealth checks come to mind; otherwise, the player knows that if they roll low not to bother, or to just keep using the Hide action until they get a roll they are happy with. I'm aware not all DMs do this.

Yeah, this isn't a thing that should ever happen (the bold). That's pure bad-meaning meta-gaming. Players can't "keep using the Hide action until they get a roll they are happy with." And anyone who pulls that kinda crap isn't someone I want to play with. Save-scumming (which is the closest equivalent) isn't something that works at the table top.

I trust my players to play things straight. In return, I show that trust by not rolling for them. Game moves much smoother that way.

That isn't to say I don't roll in secret--I do. But only for things the world is doing.

[Dr.Samurai]

The roll represents the action for Hiding. If they roll and roll low, it means they didn't Hide as well as they would have liked. It doesn't mean they get to keep trying.

You're not declaring a roll, you're declaring an action. Once you've taken it, the roll represents how well you did it.

DMs shouldn't allow players to just keep rolling until they get a roll they like.

[diplomancer]

The roll represents the action for Hiding. If they roll and roll low, it means they didn't Hide as well as they would have liked. It doesn't mean they get to keep trying.

You're not declaring a roll, you're declaring an action. Once you've taken it, the roll represents how well you did it.

DMs shouldn't allow players to just keep rolling until they get a roll they like.

Exactly. This "keep trying until you roll high enough" only makes sense in combat... and it then has a significant cost.

[Slipjig]

If your player has built his character around this, including investing multiple feats... maybe just let him have it? I mean, food stops being relevant as soon as somebody gets Goodberry, and puzzles with a vertical component mostly become trivial as soon as the party can cast Spider Climb (let alone Fly).
Maybe just build your adventures with the assumption that this PC is going to notice everything. Heck, maybe ADD a few instances of supposedly-stealthy ninjas failing to ambush him, just so he can feel cool.
As for his shady non-citation that he refuses to provide, be ready to say, "This is what the PHB and DMG say. If you want me to reconsider for next time, send me a link to an actual rules source."

[Aimeryan]

The roll represents the action for Hiding. If they roll and roll low, it means they didn't Hide as well as they would have liked. It doesn't mean they get to keep trying.

You're not declaring a roll, you're declaring an action. Once you've taken it, the roll represents how well you did it.

DMs shouldn't allow players to just keep rolling until they get a roll they like.

Agreed, but the rules as written are poor here:

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.


The check is kept until discovered or until you stop hiding. If you want to stealth into a castle and are little distance away, you take the Hide action and because the DM rolls it in the open you know the dice rolled 4 and your result is therefore 10, are you a) going to try and stealth past the guards regardless; b) go with some other plan; or c) stop hiding (away from the guards) and take the Hide action again?

Now c) is obviously going to cause a fuss in most tables that are not 'well, thats the RAW'. However, that leaves either a) which is daft to willingly do, or b) which is still metagaming.

The only obvious solution is not know the result of the dice roll.

[Keravath]

Rolling for the player and keeping the roll secret is definitely something that should occur - Stealth checks come to mind; otherwise, the player knows that if they roll low not to bother, or to just keep using the Hide action until they get a roll they are happy with. I'm aware not all DMs do this.


I think we must run things a bit differently. In my case, the players state what the character is actually doing. "Hiding" isn't a thing until there is someone to see them. A character is always hidden if no one is around to be aware of them :). So, in my case, the player states that the character is sneaking past the guards or that they will hide behind the wall then pop out and shoot an arrow. I then have them roll stealth to evaluate success or failure of the stated action in the context of the current situation and NPCs.

They don't get to roll stealth over and over until they get a good number, that isn't how my game works.

The same goes for every other skill - if the character applies insight to assessing the truth in the comments of an NPC then they don't get to keep rolling over and over. The character evaluates the statements once and receives an answer. Of course, the player may infer that a high number indicates success and a low number failure but that isn't always the case since the DC could be particularly high, low or non-existent (e.g. What is the DC to detect a creature is lying when they are telling the truth as they believe it?). I'll have them roll insight and might even tell the character that they think the NPC is lying if they roll particularly low.

There are, however, some tasks that can be done repeatedly - in which case, I get to use passive checks :) - the character doesn't get to roll over and over unless they do something differently or the circumstances change.

However, there is the edge case of DCs that are theoretically possible, but where a passive check can not succeed. If the die roll fails and if it is a task that can be attempted repeatedly without consequence then I'll ask the character how long they want to attempt the task and if the time is long enough then I will narrate whether the character eventually succeeds or whether they just give up when the allocated time limit is reached.

[tchntm43]

The issue with stealth checks can be solved by only having them roll the check when it matters.

Player: I want to sneak up on the orc.
DM: Okay, you're trying to be stealthy. What are you doing now?
Player: I'm going to use those bushes for cover and try and get a surprise attack on the orc.
DM: Cool. You go through the bushes and think you have a good opportunity to attack. You want to do it now?
Player: Yes, I go for the attack.
DM: Okay. Roll a stealth check to see if your attempt at being sneaky was successful.

[Dr.Samurai]

Agreed, but the rules as written are poor here:

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.


The check is kept until discovered or until you stop hiding.
Agreed. Are you saying that you don't like the way the rules handle Stealth?

If you want to stealth into a castle and are little distance away, you take the Hide action and because the DM rolls it in the open you know the dice rolled 4 and your result is therefore 10, are you a) going to try and stealth past the guards regardless; b) go with some other plan; or c) stop hiding (away from the guards) and take the Hide action again?
I don't see how these are actual options.

Either you are being sneaky or you are not. There is no "you roll and only choose to Stealth when you like the roll".

In rolling the result of 10, you are already choosing your action. You don't have a choice to "try and stealth... regardless", you are already doing it. Same with option B, you can't go with another plan because you are already enacting your plan.

Option C makes no sense because the Stealth only matters when someone is contesting it. So there's very little rationale for this occurring in game. If there's no one around to contest the roll, then your low roll doesn't matter. If there is someone around to contest the roll, then dropping out of Stealth means you're no longer trying to hide, likely a worst outcome than having a 10 Stealth check.

It seems like this approach to Stealth is really blurring the lines between an in-game narrative and the mechanics of the game. Like the players are suspended in time until they roll a result they like, and then they proceed using Stealth.

Now c) is obviously going to cause a fuss in most tables that are not 'well, thats the RAW'. However, that leaves either a) which is daft to willingly do, or b) which is still metagaming.

The only obvious solution is not know the result of the dice roll.
If you are sneaking and the fighter's armor scrapes against the cave wall and makes a loud screeching noise... there is no way to take that noise back. There's no amount of re-sneaking that is going to prevent nearby enemies from hearing that noise. And it seems to me that "rolling until you like the result" is treating the game in exactly this way, which doesn't make sense to me.

[diplomancer]

I believe Aimeryan is basically treating the whole process as the beginning of the process. So, yes, if you try to sneak past someone, you will first try to go behind some bushes when you're not in line of sight of whomever you're trying to hide from, and not try to do it in full view of them. But the "hiding" here is not simply going behind an obstacle; it's going behind an obstacle and attempting to be silent when someone can detect you. And if you do that and roll below the Passive Perception of whomever you're trying to hide from? They've noticed you, your attempt at Stealth failed.
Sure, you can stop trying to hide and try instead to convince the guard that you had a perfectly legitimate reason to be sneaking behind a bush. But that's not a Stealth check anymore. It's a pretty hard Persuasion/Deception check.

[Slipjig]

The same goes for every other skill - if the character applies insight to assessing the truth in the comments of an NPC then they don't get to keep rolling over and over. The character evaluates the statements once and receives an answer. Of course, the player may infer that a high number indicates success and a low number failure but that isn't always the case since the DC could be particularly high, low or non-existent (e.g. What is the DC to detect a creature is lying when they are telling the truth as they believe it?). I'll have them roll insight and might even tell the character that they think the NPC is lying if they roll particularly low.

I handle this by rolling their Insight in secret, contested by the target's Deception (if the target is lying).

Lying target:
Player wins: "Target is being deceptive"
Player loses: "You can't get a read"
Player loses by 5 or more: "Target is being truthful"

Truthful target:
Insight success: "Target is being truthful"
Insight Failure: "You can't get a read"
Nat 1: "Target is being deceptive"

[Doug Lampert]

Is there a cost to failure? If yes, then you pay the cost if you roll the dice and fail.

The cost to failing stealth is that the enemy spots you. If you want to roll stealth 50 times when there's no enemy arround, fine, you have a 20 on your die for evading all the non-existent enemies, but the moment there's an enemy there you have to roll stealth to evade his notice, and THAT roll has a cost to failure.

Rolling stealth till you do well makes exactly as much sense in the narative as swinging your sword in an empty room till you roll a 20, and then insisting on the next combat that you crit because your attack roll was a 20. Nope. Your attack roll on empty air was a 20, now roll an attack against the orc.

Your stealth to hide from no one at all was a 20, now roll for the actual enemy.

[diplomancer]

I handle this by rolling their Insight in secret, contested by the target's Deception (if the target is lying).

Lying target:
Player wins: "Target is being deceptive"
Player loses: "You can't get a read"
Player loses by 5 or more: "Target is being truthful"

Truthful target:
Insight success: "Target is being truthful"
Insight Failure: "You can't get a read"
Nat 1: "Target is being deceptive"

Insight is one where I think the DM just rolling Deception (behind a screen, naturally) against Passive Insight works quite well.

[Jakinbandw]

An awesome PP does have some limitations.
For example if you have 60' of dark vision and something is 65' away in the dark you can't see it.
If something is invisible, you can't see it (although if it makes a noise you could hear it or if it's standing in fresh snow you could see it's footprints).
If your line of sight is blocked you can't see it.
Illusions require physical interaction or an active investigation.

As a DM you can always leave sentinel shields, etc. out of your adventures, but yeah - a really high PP is very handy for a professional adventurer. If one of your players wants to invest a feat and expertise and ASI's in WIS, they can be really good at that one thing.

When I DM, some traps and secret doors can be perceived (a false canvas floor over a spike pit), but others can't. In order to find the well hidden ones you must actively investigate for them or use magic.

Wasnt there a big argument a whild ago where people took the stance that because of invisibility, lacking the ability to see something doesnt mean a character cant percieve it. They can still accurately pinpoint things they cant see from sound, scent, vibrations, and the like?

[Dr.Samurai]

I believe Aimeryan is basically treating the whole process as the beginning of the process. So, yes, if you try to sneak past someone, you will first try to go behind some bushes when you're not in line of sight of whomever you're trying to hide from, and not try to do it in full view of them. But the "hiding" here is not simply going behind an obstacle; it's going behind an obstacle and attempting to be silent when someone can detect you. And if you do that and roll below the Passive Perception of whomever you're trying to hide from? They've noticed you, your attempt at Stealth failed.
Sure, you can stop trying to hide and try instead to convince the guard that you had a perfectly legitimate reason to be sneaking behind a bush. But that's not a Stealth check anymore. It's a pretty hard Persuasion/Deception check.
Yeah, I suspect I am missing something about their point because it's not clear to me how they're treating Stealth.

In our games, we let the DM know if we're trying to be stealthy or not (and sometimes the DM asks us first). If we are, the DM asks for Stealth checks. We roll. At some point, the rolls become relevant and we either pass or fail.

I don't really get how you get these do-overs or take-backs, and I can't really imagine that conversation with my DM. We would have to handle Stealth very differently than we do now.

Is there a cost to failure? If yes, then you pay the cost if you roll the dice and fail.

The cost to failing stealth is that the enemy spots you. If you want to roll stealth 50 times when there's no enemy arround, fine, you have a 20 on your die for evading all the non-existent enemies, but the moment there's an enemy there you have to roll stealth to evade his notice, and THAT roll has a cost to failure.

Rolling stealth till you do well makes exactly as much sense in the narative as swinging your sword in an empty room till you roll a 20, and then insisting on the next combat that you crit because your attack roll was a 20. Nope. Your attack roll on empty air was a 20, now roll an attack against the orc.

Your stealth to hide from no one at all was a 20, now roll for the actual enemy.
The comparison to combat is apt because it's much more clear that we declare an action and the success of that action is represented by the die roll.

So I say "I am going to attack the goblin!" and I roll. When the die lands and my total results in a 7, I don't get to say "Hmm... now do I proceed with this attack action and miss, or do I go with another plan?". It's done already. You've performed the action you wanted to take, and you've likely failed at it.

Wasnt there a big argument a whild ago where people took the stance that because of invisibility, lacking the ability to see something doesnt mean a character cant percieve it. They can still accurately pinpoint things they cant see from sound, scent, vibrations, and the like?
I think you're referring to the "don't say you're using Stealth, just tell the DM you're moving in such a way as to not alert anyone of your presence" thread :smallamused:.

[Mongobear]

Wouldn't the example of "im being sneaky while I try to get into the castle." constitute using a "Passive Stealth" score in the same way "I am slowly advancing down the cave, being on guard for ambushes." is the main way you would use Passive Perception?

Since you are doing the same activity over and over again, I would assume this qualifies for the need to apply the passive score. I wonder how many people would flip their lid over that ruling.

I think I have found my answer for the situation moving forward as far as how I will handle this situation (and many others similar to it) so I guess this thread can be turned more into the Active vs Passive debates it has become recently.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Wouldn't the example of "im being sneaky while I try to get into the castle." constitute using a "Passive Stealth" score in the same way "I am slowly advancing down the cave, being on guard for ambushes." is the main way you would use Passive Perception?

Since you are doing the same activity over and over again, I would assume this qualifies for the need to apply the passive score. I wonder how many people would flip their lid over that ruling.

I think I have found my answer for the situation moving forward as far as how I will handle this situation (and many others similar to it) so I guess this thread can be turned more into the Active vs Passive debates it has become recently.

I generally wouldn't agree with this. For me, there would need to be a roll each time the player (or monster) got near enough to someone who could detect them. They might be quite silent and out of view in one section (a good roll), then make a mistake in the next.

[DragonBaneDM]

I've got a PC with a ridonkulously high Passive Perception in my group, and I lean into it: I use it as a reason to plot/lore dump. I've kinda got my group trained to know that if I start a sentence with, "Because the shifter has a Passive Perception in the high 20s..." I'm about to explain something that I really really wanted them to see or introduce something critical, RP the sharing of information and then letting the casters and history buffs see if they can figure out why the shifter's eyes were drawn to this rune halfway up the tree that they can just barely make out themselves. Unless it's a moment where I want to make the rogue's player feel like a badass, show there's room left for their infamy to grow/show that my world is bigger than just the continent they're on, or there's a vampire assassin, high CR fiend, or something else that should be [I]almost/I] as good at hiding as she is seeking, I stopped trying to roll Stealth for true threats a while back.

The intelligent baddies of my world knows who the party is, who's in them, and are just as aware of a cat-girl they can't hide from as they are the fact that the group has a pyromancer and a telepath in it. If a villain from my Eberron heard another villain saying "I will use invisibility to ambush on these so called heroes", they'd bust out laughing to their face. Real threats all use illusions now. Illusions are chic, illusions are in.

Her personality makes it easy, though. My Perception Optimizer Player happens to be extraordinarily chill, doesn't really optimize anything else about her character, and hasn't sunk any more resources than a +3 Wis mod and single class Rogue 11 class features into this, along with roleplaying a cautious catlike personality.

Your P.O.PC might be a bit more abrasive or really be trying to put that number front and center. Knowing that strength, planning around it, and calling it a superpower or "so good I have to use it as a plot device and plan my world around it" not only helps keep our relationship as friends playing a game intact, but like...I know what's gonna happen to this group now that we've got 7th level spell slots, and dangit if I can use the Exploration Pillar being kinda EZMode in my campaign to make the martial player feel relevant heading into the next Tier I'm gonna do that.

[Mongobear]

I generally wouldn't agree with this. For me, there would need to be a roll each time the player (or monster) got near enough to someone who could detect them. They might be quite silent and out of view in one section (a good roll), then make a mistake in the next.

Doesn't that go against the exact wording of why Passive checks are a thing?

Like if you're constantly "being sneaky" while breaking into a castle and evading the guards/inhabitants, isn't that the same kind of situation where you are slowly going through a dungeon "constantly checking" for traps/ambushes?

It would be a series of repeated rolls for the same skill doing the same thing. Why would one of them be Active and the other Passive?

[JackPhoenix]

Doesn't that go against the exact wording of why Passive checks are a thing?

Like if you're constantly "being sneaky" while breaking into a castle and evading the guards/inhabitants, isn't that the same kind of situation where you are slowly going through a dungeon "constantly checking" for traps/ambushes?

It would be a series of repeated rolls for the same skill doing the same thing. Why would one of them be Active and the other Passive?

To add variability. Without at least one active check involved, you'd just be comparing passive Stealth vs passive Perception, and the result would always be the same. You could either always sneak around the same creature (or a creature with the same PP), or you'd be always caught.

[Tanarii]

Doesn't that go against the exact wording of why Passive checks are a thing?

Like if you're constantly "being sneaky" while breaking into a castle and evading the guards/inhabitants, isn't that the same kind of situation where you are slowly going through a dungeon "constantly checking" for traps/ambushes?
Yes sneaking as you go should be Passive Stealth. The problem is the devs wrote the rules in a way where this break by causing a passive vs passive. Since a Stealth check is always supposed to be vs Passive Perception initially. Which, if the character becomes aware of the enemy, is an exception to the normal Passive rules.

I understand d their reasoning: Players could well not know there is an enemy to hide from, so rolling g perception checks for each enemy may give away meta information.

But when a character is sneaking as they go and encounters creatures and becomes aware of them, if this exception didn't exist it would normally be Passive Stealth vs DM rolled Perception checks. Since the DM doesn't need to worry about keeping info secret from the enemy, they wouldn't need to worry about Passive checks for them.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

To add variability. Without at least one active check involved, you'd just be comparing passive Stealth vs passive Perception, and the result would always be the same. You could either always sneak around the same creature (or a creature with the same PP), or you'd be always caught.

This kind of logic is where I live. If there's more than one possible interpretation and one works (in this case adds some variability to the result) then that's the one I'm going with.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes sneaking as you go should be Passive Stealth. The problem is the devs wrote the rules in a way where this break by causing a passive vs passive. Since a Stealth check is always supposed to be vs Passive Perception initially. Which, if the character becomes aware of the enemy, is an exception to the normal Passive rules.

I understand d their reasoning: Players could well not know there is an enemy to hide from, so rolling g perception checks for each enemy may give away meta information.

But when a character is sneaking as they go and encounters creatures and becomes aware of them, if this exception didn't exist it would normally be Passive Stealth vs DM rolled Perception checks. Since the DM doesn't need to worry about keeping info secret from the enemy, they wouldn't need to worry about Passive checks for them.

Using passive Perception against Stealth check also means everything's resolved with one roll instead of rolling for every creature involved separately, which saves time and makes things easier on the GM. It also makes Stealth more reliable against groups: more rolls means higher chance *someone* rolls high enough to notice the sneaking creature.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Using passive Perception against Stealth check also means everything's resolved with one roll instead of rolling for every creature involved separately, which saves time and makes things easier on the GM. It also makes Stealth more reliable against groups: more rolls means higher chance *someone* rolls high enough to notice the sneaking creature.

Yeah. And having to roll Stealth individually against each successive possible observer basically guarantees that stealth will fail.

I play Stealth with a "carry it forward" model--you roll Dexterity (Stealth) once at the beginning of the stealth sequence. That roll persists (and is compared serially against each observer's passive) until you do something active that resets things--engage in combat, do something loud, have a conversation with someone, etc. Individual "walking through the castle" parts, even if the environment is changing, don't trigger new Stealth checks.

So yes, you could reset your Stealth and try again...but only by triggering a scene with consequences. Getting seen by a guard. Ambushing a guard. Yelling and throwing things. No free re-dos. For anything. Every check has to have meaningful consequences for both success and failure that move the narrative along. "Status quo but 6 seconds later" isn't a meaningful consequence in many circumstances. Combat? Yes. Because it means they have a chance to go, and 6 seconds is the clock tic for the game loop. Exploration? Nah. Those are more like 10 minute clock tics.

[kazaryu]

In this instance, the player with a 31 PP doesnt even bother rolling active checks, he just says its a 31, and assumes he auto-passes since it is extremely difficult to out Stealth that at our current levels.

This has bled into the rest of the party, and when they are rolling active checks, if they roll below a 10, they just shrug and grab the d20 and say "Whelp, I can't get lower than my PP, so... 15!" Which I am 100% convinced isn't how the rule is supposed to work. (Mind you, this is in conjunction with the DM calling for active checks in situations where I am relatively sure we should be using Investigation instead, but despite effort actually trying to explain it to him, the problem player always interjects, causes a tangential argument, and we just give up.)

EDIT - Also for relevance, can you actually define what a "normal Perception check" is supposed to be? The problem play keeps linking us a block of text/list from, what he claims is dnd beyond, and says that's what the skill covers, but he won't link us to the actual page or source of that list, so for all we know he made it up or its from like, a homebrew/wiki.


ok so here is the official rules about perception, bolding mine.


Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.

there's a relevant blurb attached to that


When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.

In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.

from this we know that perception is useful for finding things. *but* if you're looking for something specific, generally, you need to know what you're looking for. So a 'quick walk around the room' (i think you mentioned at some point the player was doing that) isn't guaranteed to reveal anything hidden, regardless of passive perception. meanwhile taking a more thorough search (that takes much longer) may be guaranteed to reveal something hidden (for example a key under a folded towel).

its between these 2 extremes that the passive/active perception checks takes place. other have given lots of advice as to how to decide whether or not to use passive perception. Is the character distracted in some way? (i.e. there's a time limit, someone dear to the character is in mortal danger, there's something in the room actively drawing attention. that type of thing). how long does the character have? as tanrii correctly pointed out, or at least implied. not all skill checks are a single action. if they want to 'search the dresser' and you decide it will take them 1 minute to do, and they only have 1 minute to spend. then thats just 1 attempt, passive perception can't apply to that at all, since there aren't enough attempts to average.

speaking of averages, there's another reason we use passive perception. if its something that you kinda assume the character is doing all the time (i.e. im constantly taking the search action) then over the course of a long time period, you can instead use passive perception to represent that.

personally, i'd only use passive checks as an average so long as its over a long period of time, and the overall activity is homogenous. i.e. characters are on watch, they're travelling, things like that. for dungeon use, if they're in a position to use passive perception as an average, then i'd let players auto succeed regardless unless they're looking for a specifically hidden device. but in that scenario i'd use passive perception determine if the player has a chance of noticing the device, and decide from there if its automatic or if they need to roll (again, depending on the other factors. but thats specifically me, not necessarily a rules thing


Overall, IMO the second biggest thing to keep in mind when it comes to this discussion, is investigation


Investigation
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.

as you can see, there is some small amount of overlap and a ton of adjacency between perception and investigation. at least when it comes to searching rooms. and its a common problem for DM's trying to decide when to use which. my rule of thumb is 'if its based on literally seeing the thing then use perception. if deduction is required, use investigation'

So perception might tell you that a torch is flickering....but investigation would tell you that that implies airflow, and that means there's probably a hidden passage behind that wardrobe there. However, perception might just...notice the gap between the wardrobe and the wall and possibly get a glimpse of the passageway.

as for your initial question: i can find nowhere in the phb, DMG, or eratta that in any way make the claim that your passive score is the floor for a check..any check. and all language regarding passive scores is permissive, not definitive (i.e. it 'can be used...') with the exception of stealth, and i believe noticing traps. So that behavior is just...straight up not supported by the rules. as far as i can tell anyway.

further, i agree with tanrii that the examples given for when passive checks can be used...tend preclude an active check. for example, as an average of multiple checks (in previous editions this was known as 'taking 10') or when you want to make a check in secret. (like if monsters are stealthing, or (for passive insight) if someone is lying to the party).

[Lunali]

You use passive perception when you're not specifically trying to find something. You use active perception when you are. You never use both at once, so it can never be a floor.

And the fact that Crawford disagrees further supports this, because seriously, he's always wrong.

This is the opposite of how I typically use it. When you're actively trying to find something, you're making a series of checks that average out to your passive perception. When you're not actively trying to find something, you make a single roll to see if you happen to notice it.

The main point is that passive vs active refers to the player, not the character.

[Tanarii]

The main point is that passive vs active refers to the player, not the character.
Which is why it's better to stop calling it "active". That's not an official term, it's one players made up.

Passive vs rolled. Still not official, but at least it makes it clear it has nothing to do with the character being passive.

[Lunali]

Which is why it's better to stop calling it "active". That's not an official term, it's one players made up.

Passive vs rolled. Still not official, but at least it makes it clear it has nothing to do with the character being passive.

Passive is the problem more than active. When you call it passive perception it sounds like the character is being passive. Unfortunately, that is official so not likely to change.

[HomeBrewStu]

DM: "Okay. What's your passive perception?"

It's still a secret check the player can't know the result of the roll. It's a passive check again.


The only reason folks find it a headache is they are stuck in "passive vs active" thinking.

It's really easy.

1) Does it automatically succeed or fail? No check.

2) Is the player going to have to roll constantly because their character is doing something over and over again, as in each section of a room or while traveling along a corridor? Passive.

3) Can the player not know the result of the die roll because it would give away metagame information? Passive.

4) Can the player just roll again and again because the character is doing the same thing in one place until they succeed? Take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

5) Can the best people in the group pull up the worst, and the worst pull down the best? Group check.

6) Otherwise: roll normal Ability check

I've been playing the Passive Checks for players wrong, that list makes loads of sense, it's getting printed and stuck on my screen

On the stealth debate, the DMG says
If neither side is being stealthy, creatures automatically notice each other once they are within sight or hearing range of one another. Otherwise, compare the Dexterity (Stealth) check results of the creatures in the group that is hiding with the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the other group, as explained in the Player's Handbook.

I've been playing it that there is no need to make a roll when the players start being stealthy, that just means the guards dont see/hear them as soon as they come close. If they wish to sneak by etc then the stealth check can be rolled by the players against the Passive Perception of the guards, i would let the players make that roll as the consequence is immediate and obvious, its not a Passive Check, there's no need for it to be hidden, (other than possibly the guards are letting them through because its a trap, but even then, if Nigel the paladin rolled a 1 and dropped his shield he should be suspicious.) They continue on being stealthy and the next set of guards they meet they make another stealth roll.

Is that correct?
EDIT- i dont mean correct, sound like a reasonable way of doing it?

[Mongobear]

Is that correct?
EDIT- i dont mean correct, sound like a reasonable way of doing it?

Logically? Yes, that makes perfect sense. This issue is that by WotC's own wording, it isn't how I interpret the "when doing the same action over and over, repeatedly." By their own definitions, a group constantly sneaking around a castle would be being 'passively stealthy' using the base 10 +/- modifiers result. A rolled stealth check would be used when they're quickly stashing an item down their pants or under a rug or something right before being searched.

[Tanarii]

Hiding from another creature could in theory be considered a specific beats general rule. Ie the specifics of the hiding rule (roll vs opponents passive) overriding the general rule (use passive when doing something repeatedly as you go).

Of course, in almost anywhere else there's a check, it's usually considered the other way around. Any place it calls for a check is the general rule, and special use "rolls" (automatic success, passive, group) as the specific alternative rules that kick in when they apply.

[Veldrenor]

The only reason folks find it a headache is they are stuck in "passive vs active" thinking.

It's really easy.

1) Does it automatically succeed or fail? No check.

2) Is the player going to have to roll constantly because their character is doing something over and over again, as in each section of a room or while traveling along a corridor? Passive.

3) Can the player not know the result of the die roll because it would give away metagame information? Passive.

4) Can the player just roll again and again because the character is doing the same thing in one place until they succeed? Take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

5) Can the best people in the group pull up the worst, and the worst pull down the best? Group check.

6) Otherwise: roll normal Ability check

Based on this, in what situation should Wisdom(Perception) be a rolled check, or should it always be passive?

[Mongobear]

Based on this, in what situation should Wisdom(Perception) be a rolled check, or should it always be passive?

I assume something like "while casually travelling across a large cavern, you suddenly notice something dart between rock formations at the edge of your vision. Roll Perception to see if you noticed details about what it was."

You aren't "in guard mode" or actively being aware of your surroundings, you just business as usual walking around and something odd triggers one of your senses. a sudden situation requiring a check with possible penalties/ramifications for failure.

[Lunali]

Based on this, in what situation should Wisdom(Perception) be a rolled check, or should it always be passive?

I typically use it mostly for instantaneous events. The PCs will find out about the information either way, perception just determines if they notice in time or not.

[Tanarii]

Based on this, in what situation should Wisdom(Perception) be a rolled check, or should it always be passive?
Whenever it's a one time check for trying to find something that you know is around somewhere, it's not being done over and over on different areas as they travel, and there is a question of success or failure.

Example:
finding a creature that just hid in combat by using the search action.

An example where I'd use Intelligence (Investigation), but could also be Wisdom (Perception) depending on the DM:
Player has the character search a specific object or small area (e.g. section of floor or door frame) for traps, the search requires physical interaction and will trigger the trap if it fails. So they only get one shot and meta information doesn't matter.
(Note that for this one it's far more common to have this check be secret and thus passive, and have the actual trigger be either interacting with it after failing but thinking it looks safe, or failing a check to disable it success.)

-------

Edit: Note that with the second one, the DM could certainly use this methodology to allow a rolled check for traps after a passive one if the player wants to 'try again' to roll higher than their 'floor' of Passive Perception. Basically tell the player "Yes, you can try again and roll a check, but if there's a trap and you fail, you'll trigger it."

Otoh this doesn't work so well with secret doors. IMO better approach is just let the PC take ten times as long and if they can succeed, they do. Of course, time must be a meaningful resource for that to be a meaningful choice, between taking a chance with Passive Perception/Investigation, or taking ten times as long to automatically succeed if it's possible. I used regular Random Encounters, so IMC it was always a meaningful decision.

[Veldrenor]

Whenever it's a one time check for trying to find something that you know is around somewhere, it's not being done over and over on different areas as they travel, and there is a question of success or failure.

Example:
finding a creature that just hid in combat by using the search action.

An example where I'd use Intelligence (Investigation), but could also be Wisdom (Perception) depending on the DM:
Player has the character search a specific object or small area (e.g. section of floor or door frame) for traps, the search requires physical interaction and will trigger the trap if it fails. So they only get one shot and meta information doesn't matter.
(Note that for this one it's far more common to have this check be secret and thus passive, and have the actual trigger be either interacting with it after failing but thinking it looks safe, or failing a check to disable it success.)

I thought of the hiding creature in combat situation as well, but that seems like it falls under the category of "the player can't know the result because that would provide metagame information." For example, a goblin ducks into some bushes and uses its bonus action to hide. A player moves up to the bushes and uses the search action. If the DM says "you don't find the goblin" to both a nat 2 and a nat 20, then in the former the player doesn't know whether the goblin's still in the bush and just hiding really well, while in the latter the player knows that the goblin probably moved to a different hiding place after breaking line of sight.

The second example seems really narrow, but makes sense. If opening the door will pull a trip wire on the other side, you have to open the door and risk setting off the trap in order to notice it.

[Lunali]

I thought of the hiding creature in combat situation as well, but that seems like it falls under the category of "the player can't know the result because that would provide metagame information." For example, a goblin ducks into some bushes and uses its bonus action to hide. A player moves up to the bushes and uses the search action. If the DM says "you don't find the goblin" to both a nat 2 and a nat 20, then in the former the player doesn't know whether the goblin's still in the bush and just hiding really well, while in the latter the player knows that the goblin probably moved to a different hiding place after breaking line of sight.

The second example seems really narrow, but makes sense. If opening the door will pull a trip wire on the other side, you have to open the door and risk setting off the trap in order to notice it.

Times when "the player can't know the result because it would provide metagame information" generally refer to times when the player doesn't know about the existence of the thing they might be perceiving.

As for the specific example you gave, I wouldn't have them roll perception. If the PC moves to a location where the NPC would no longer be hidden, they find them or determine that they aren't in that location. I would instead have them roll if they searched from their original location and would locate the goblin if they beat what it rolled for stealth. (unless it had somehow moved outside of where it would be possible to perceive them, such as teleporting away from the combat)

[da newt]

When I DM, if there are a group of folks / creatures who are on guard in some way, I use the +5 for ADV to passive perception for the group (as if some were helping) to signify the idea that multiple folks have a better chance to notice something than just one. This of course works both ways - PCs and badguys, but tends to improve verisimilitude IMO. As long as the party says they are looking out for XXX, I'm free with letting them find things, and it helps nerf the scouting / stealthing that tend to be more problematic than high perception IMO.

It does take a little away from some magic items / feats that also give ADV to perception, but it seems fair to me.

I also try to be realistic with things like combat in this room - how far away does everyone hear you cast shatter or does the sentry scream as you hack him w/ a sword? I never liked dungeon crawls where every room was like a hermetically sealed micro environment that didn't exist until you peer into the room.

[Tanarii]

I also try to be realistic with things like combat in this room - how far away does everyone hear you cast shatter or does the sentry scream as you hack him w/ a sword?If the first is as loud as a lawnmower (8 times as loud as a conversation), at 90ft it sounds like a conversation. If it's a vacuum cleaner loud, see below.

For the second assuming it's about a vacuum cleaner (twice as Loud as a conversation), at 90ft it is twice as loud as a whisper but four times quieter than a conversation. Or see above if you think it's closer to lawnmower loud.

So a shatter might interrupt creatures up to 90ft away if they're already talking or ambient noise is about that level. A shout probably wouldn't. But flip those to be the other if you like, because human shouting can def be as loud as a lawnmower and we don't know how loud shatter is.

Edit: 90ft decreases the perceived volume by 8x, or the difference between a conversation and a whisper.

[da newt]

Yup - physics is fun. So if the noise is loud enough to cause damage to creatures, stone, metal, and crystals how loud is it?

"the threshold of pain (caused by loud noise) is at 140 dB and sounds above 150 dB can affect your eardrums as well as internal organs. Sounds above 150 dB have the potential of causing life-threatening issues. " - random interweb quote.

"In close proximity to the source, the sound pressure level of thunder is usually 165 to 180 dB, but can exceed 200 dB in some cases." - Wikipedia

"Thunder is the sound caused by a nearby flash of lightning and can be heard for a distance of only about 10 miles from the lightning strike." NWS

"On the other hand, a human scream can reach decibel levels between 80 and 125 dB." - rando web quote

So shatter must be somewhere around 150 dB or more, right? A lawn mower is somewhere around 95 dB or mid scream range.

Every 3 dB is 2x loud, so '90ft decreases the perceived volume by 8x' is the same as 90' = 9 dB decrease, right? So a shatter of around 150 dB is as loud as a lawn mower/scream 5*90=450+ ft away?

Fantasy physics - what a great oxymoron ... :)

Check my maths - it's been a while since I took highschool physics.

[Segev]

Yup - physics is fun. So if the noise is loud enough to cause damage to creatures, stone, metal, and crystals how loud is it?

"the threshold of pain (caused by loud noise) is at 140 dB and sounds above 150 dB can affect your eardrums as well as internal organs. Sounds above 150 dB have the potential of causing life-threatening issues. " - random interweb quote.

"In close proximity to the source, the sound pressure level of thunder is usually 165 to 180 dB, but can exceed 200 dB in some cases." - Wikipedia

"Thunder is the sound caused by a nearby flash of lightning and can be heard for a distance of only about 10 miles from the lightning strike." NWS

"On the other hand, a human scream can reach decibel levels between 80 and 125 dB." - rando web quote

So shatter must be somewhere around 150 dB or more, right? A lawn mower is somewhere around 95 dB or mid scream range.

Every 3 dB is 2x loud, so '90ft decreases the perceived volume by 8x' is the same as 90' = 9 dB decrease, right? So a shatter of around 150 dB is as loud as a lawn mower/scream 5*90=450+ ft away?

Fantasy physics - what a great oxymoron ... :)

Check my maths - it's been a while since I took highschool physics.
While I fully support sources of Thunder Damage being loud enough to be heard far away, I will point out that it could also be resonance shaking things apart rather than sheer volume, especially with magic shaping the sound. But loudness would be a factor, and would also explain why the damage isn't material-focused without having to have really precise magical alterations to the sounds.

[Mongobear]

While I fully support sources of Thunder Damage being loud enough to be heard far away, I will point out that it could also be resonance shaking things apart rather than sheer volume, especially with magic shaping the sound. But loudness would be a factor, and would also explain why the damage isn't material-focused without having to have really precise magical alterations to the sounds.

Unless it specifically says something is extremely loud out to 300 feet or something, I always assumed "loud noise make damage" was bordering on the line of the human sensory range. Like a hyper-tuned Dog Whistle, that deals actual damage to people.

[Tanarii]

Yup - physics is fun. So if the noise is loud enough to cause damage to creatures, stone, metal, and crystals how loud is it?
Since the spell doesn't include any spell note about sound range it can heard at (c.f. Thunderwave and Knock), it must necessarily be no further than the distance at which battle cries and screams of pain can heard, at their furthest extent.

So call it 90 dB. Which is roughly the same as a lawnmower, which is why I used that.

[da newt]

Since the spell doesn't include any spell note about sound range it can heard at (c.f. Thunderwave and Knock), it must necessarily be no further than the distance at which battle cries and screams of pain can heard, at their furthest extent.

So call it no more than 120 dB.

I'm curious. Why do you assume the above? The spell doesn't include anything about how it defies the laws of simple physics and limits the range of sounds ...

[Tanarii]

I'm curious. Why do you assume the above? The spell doesn't include anything about how it defies the laws of simple physics and limits the range of sounds ...(updated my value it should be even lower)

Actually the spell doesn't make ANY noise that travels any appreciable distance, by its description. (By which I mean any noises described don't have a distance included)

I've just always ruled that means they can do up to the normal sounds of battle. Because going with that seems more sensible than "it's silent" or "it's silent outside the AoE" that arises from trying to go strictly by the rule of spells only do what they say they do.

Same with booming blade. Or lightning bolt. Or fireball. Or acid splash for that matter. Using them can be considered to fall under 'normal sounds of battle', which should be easily detectable in silence out to about 90ft-ish, a possible to detect over that range (e.g. some kind of perception check) by two conversing creatures.

[da newt]

Shatter:
A sudden loud ringing noise, painfully intense, erupts from a point of your choice within range. Each creature in a 10-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Constitution saving throw. A creature takes 3d8 thunder damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature made of inorganic material such as stone, crystal, or metal has disadvantage on this saving throw. A nonmagical object that isn't being worn or carried also takes the damage if it's in the spell's area.



- so your interpretation is that the above describes a magic sound roughly as loud as a lawn mower (95dB) for a duration of less than one round (6 seconds), but somehow does manage to damage creatures, stones, crystals, metal, and non-magical objects?

I've mowed a lawn before - although it took me like 2hrs I somehow managed to survive. What is 2*600*1/2 of 3d8? Maybe I'm a high level barbarian and don't even know it!




Sure - I get it. If a spell doesn't say you can hear it far away, then you limit how far that sound travels (it only occurs in it's AoE). A scream of 100dB (~average of 80-125) only alerts folks within 90' in your world. I can live with that ruling, but I don't think it's realistic IRL.

[Mongobear]

The noise from a lawnmower is loud, but at a low frequency, which likely explains the difference.

Shatter also likely causes physical vibrations in the rigid materials it damages due to said frequencies, vs the lawnmower which is just a slower rhythmic thumping sounds from the exhaust, blades, and motor running. It'd the difference between a garden hose and one of those high pressure water jets that slice through glass and stone like it was nothing.

[Tanarii]

Shatter:
Sure - I get it. If a spell doesn't say you can hear it far away, then you limit how far that sound travels (it only occurs in its AoE). A scream of 100dB (~average of 80-125) only alerts folks within 90' in your world. I can live with that ruling, but I don't think it's realistic IRL.
Well, it's clearly meant to be significantly less than 300ft, since that's what Knock and Thunderwave sound out too. Call it 180ft for all combat other than spells that specify 300ft if that makes you happier.

But personally I like it to be a lot less than half. Makes the limitation of using those spells meaningful.

Edit: it's also possible that shatter can't be heard at all outside its AoE. That the magic creating the effect only happens in the area specified.

[Segev]

Edit: it's also possible that shatter can't be heard at all outside its AoE. That the magic creating the effect only happens in the area specified.

This is a valid point. It's definite that the sound is not loud/resonant/whatever enough to cause damage outside of that area. Whether there's anything audible at all outside of it is unspecified.

I know most DMs I've played with have treated it as being audible and quite noticeable at least to the next room over in a dungeon.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's really easy.

1) Does it automatically succeed or fail? No check.

2) Is the player going to have to roll constantly because their character is doing something over and over again, as in each section of a room or while traveling along a corridor? Passive.

3) Can the player not know the result of the die roll because it would give away metagame information? Passive.

4) Can the player just roll again and again because the character is doing the same thing in one place until they succeed? Take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

5) Can the best people in the group pull up the worst, and the worst pull down the best? Group check.

6) Otherwise: roll normal Ability check

So in our current module, Gygax hid things behind certain other items, and the instructions for the DM are something like "If the characters check behind the 7th shield on the wall..." or "if they look under the 3rd hide strewn on the floor they find...".

It seems like Gygax was looking for players to be specific about their actions and where exactly they were looking. In this case, would it be passive because you're just checking the entire room?

[Mongobear]

So in our current module, Gygax hid things behind certain other items, and the instructions for the DM are something like "If the characters check behind the 7th shield on the wall..." or "if they look under the 3rd hide strewn on the floor they find...".

It seems like Gygax was looking for players to be specific about their actions and where exactly they were looking. In this case, would it be passive because you're just checking the entire room?

Generally, searching requires a specific target. A bush, a bookshelf, the top drawer of a desk, etc. "I search the room" is too vague if it is full of furniture and other decor that can reasonably hide something in/behind it. That being said, a lot of supporters of the "High PP means I see everything there is to see without rolling" argue that there will always be some kind of context clue to reveal something being hidden; scuff marks on the floor, slightly uneven wear on a brick that acts as a switch, a faint breeze flowing out from under the secret wall, etc.

EDIT - "Searching the room" also depends on the time frame the party has to do so. Are they at risk of being discovered by guard, or randomly attacked by wandering monsters? Then it should be a single active check in a specified area.

Are they in a hurry, and need to get back to their contact in 5 minutes before they get called away? Same single roll.

Is the thing they're searching trapped, and they risk injury if they haphazrdly rip open a drawer and rifle through it? Single roll, success means they spot the trap trigger before even starting their search. New challenge presented of bypassing that poison needle mechanism or the Alarm rune, etc.

Is it an abandoned building in a long lost forest with no signs of life besides them, and there's no threat of failure or consequence aside from time? They don't even need to roll. Time passes, and if there is something to find, they find it. (You can have them make rolls if they like rolling dice, but ignore the results or let the high roller be the one that discovers the McGuffin.)

This is an entirely reasonable point of view, the issue is the basis for the actual argument itself, Passive Perception being a minimum result for a rolled check, which to the detriment of many a group, is actually supported by Jeremy Crawford, to whom a LOT of groups and DMs use to answer their vague rules questions, whether he is actually correct or not. (I personally believe that a majority of his rulings make sense, but there are extreme cases like this one, Magic Missile being a single d4 roll for every missile, Twin spell Dragon's Breath, and a handful of others where he just doesn't understand the english language or his own game's rule terminology and is just blatantly wrong.

[Tanarii]

So in our current module, Gygax hid things behind certain other items, and the instructions for the DM are something like "If the characters check behind the 7th shield on the wall..." or "if they look under the 3rd hide strewn on the floor they find...".

It seems like Gygax was looking for players to be specific about their actions and where exactly they were looking. In this case, would it be passive because you're just checking the entire room?Gygax was, because there weren't character skills for things. Certainly not for things he considered player skill.

Of course, this often turns into pixel-bitching, playing the DM, or macro-searching. Introducing a character skill for searching has some downsides too. But it wasn't the worst idea.

But IMO just like any skill resolution, the player needs to give an intent and approach that can succeed, and the DM needs to determine resolution method, outcomes, and consequences based on that.

Personally I go with: if the PC has their character look in a specific place that cannot fail to find something it automatically succeeds, if they generally search an area that has something to find set a DC and (because it's a secret check) use passive* unless they're taking ten times as long to automatically succeed, and if their search parameters give them no chance they automatically fail.

*note this results in a static number vs a static number, which isn't all that great. If hidden things had to roll d20+bonus vs passive perception when a character searched, it'd work better. But that'd require the DM rolling whenever the player searched even if there was nothing to find, which is some cases might defeat the point of not rolling too much. But it'd be okay for one time searches so to speak.

[Segev]

Gygax also often had detailed images as handouts for the players. They could point to the shield on the wall and say, "I look behind that one."

[Sjappo]

Some things I noticed in this tread.

Perception, and by extension PP, lets you notice things. You can notice a weird hole near a lock, a shield hanging askew while outers are aligned properly, shoes sticking out from under a curtain. What you notice isn't what you find.
Drawing the curtain will reveal the person standing behind it, as does lifting the shield reveal the vault. But looking at the hole near the lock doesn't reveal the trap. Searching will possibly reveal the nature of the trap. And some traps can only be found using investigation, not perception.

I think that perception has become a sort of 'I win' button. But it really isn't. When a PC notices something's off he cannot know automatically what that means. It's just an invitation to the player to have the PC investigate further. Same goes for the insight skill by the way. Kind of.

Tip for the OP: when you prepare the session, prepare your descriptions with the insane PP in mind. Give the player some details to notice and let them take it from there. Surprise in combat is out but that's not a big loss.

O, and players should never initiate a check, that's the DM's job. IMO. So no "I use my perception" or "I'll roll perception now". But I'm a Angry GM Adept so YMMV.

[Segev]

O, and players should never initiate a check, that's the DM's job. IMO. So no "I use my perception" or "I'll roll perception now". But I'm a Angry GM Adept so YMMV.

This advice may have use, but I think it horribly misleading. "Can I roll perception?" is the player asking permission to have his intended stated action of "looking around for anything suspicious" do something other than automatically fail. Because, generally speaking, if a player does avoid using "I roll Perception" language, he'll instead say, "I look around for anything suspicious," and it means the same thing. Sure, the DM might not call for a roll, but he need not call for one if the player says he "rolls X," either.

More often than not, if a player says, "I sneak past the guard," the DM is going to call for a roll. If the player says "I roll stealth to sneak past the guard," he is communicating the same information. The Angry GM's advice on this point is flawed because it pretends that by removing some specific language, you're not just enforcing coded language for the same thing.

[Dr.Samurai]

Generally, searching requires a specific target. A bush, a bookshelf, the top drawer of a desk, etc. "I search the room" is too vague if it is full of furniture and other decor that can reasonably hide something in/behind it. That being said, a lot of supporters of the "High PP means I see everything there is to see without rolling" argue that there will always be some kind of context clue to reveal something being hidden; scuff marks on the floor, slightly uneven wear on a brick that acts as a switch, a faint breeze flowing out from under the secret wall, etc.

EDIT - "Searching the room" also depends on the time frame the party has to do so. Are they at risk of being discovered by guard, or randomly attacked by wandering monsters? Then it should be a single active check in a specified area.

Are they in a hurry, and need to get back to their contact in 5 minutes before they get called away? Same single roll.

Is the thing they're searching trapped, and they risk injury if they haphazrdly rip open a drawer and rifle through it? Single roll, success means they spot the trap trigger before even starting their search. New challenge presented of bypassing that poison needle mechanism or the Alarm rune, etc.

Is it an abandoned building in a long lost forest with no signs of life besides them, and there's no threat of failure or consequence aside from time? They don't even need to roll. Time passes, and if there is something to find, they find it. (You can have them make rolls if they like rolling dice, but ignore the results or let the high roller be the one that discovers the McGuffin.)

This is an entirely reasonable point of view, the issue is the basis for the actual argument itself, Passive Perception being a minimum result for a rolled check, which to the detriment of many a group, is actually supported by Jeremy Crawford, to whom a LOT of groups and DMs use to answer their vague rules questions, whether he is actually correct or not. (I personally believe that a majority of his rulings make sense, but there are extreme cases like this one, Magic Missile being a single d4 roll for every missile, Twin spell Dragon's Breath, and a handful of others where he just doesn't understand the english language or his own game's rule terminology and is just blatantly wrong.
So the DM really likes the gygax-style play (and I'm liking it as well) and so he sort of told us about this "a player who searches under the 4th thing finds X" mechanic. So now we just tell him we're searching the entire room.

It seems corny to me, especially now after Tanarii's and Segev's comments about lack of skills and accompanying diagrams, because it's like blending two different ways to play, and then completely missing the point. Instead of us being precise and specific with our actions, we declare a big general "we search the whole room" action and we find whatever we beat the DC for.

That said... the alternative is something like "I check under this shield. Ok, then I check under the next one. Alright, the next one." So in some sense you're sort of just expediting the process.

But our DM doesn't mind because he tracks time and resources, so he's always like "if you want to spend your time searching everything, go ahead". (My character also isn't a dungeon delver obsessed with finding everything, so I don't generally initiate the searches, but I do like when we find loot :smallcool: .)

Gygax was, because there weren't character skills for things. Certainly not for things he considered player skill.

Of course, this often turns into pixel-bitching, playing the DM, or macro-searching. Introducing a character skill for searching has some downsides too. But it wasn't the worst idea.

But IMO just like any skill resolution, the player needs to give an intent and approach that can succeed, and the DM needs to determine resolution method, outcomes, and consequences based on that.
There have been a couple of times where the DM has interjected and asked us specifically where we're searching, so I think he's adjudicating what's worth the focus and what's allowed to be macro-searched, as you put it. (Which is essentially being a DM lol.)

Personally I go with: if the PC has their character look in a specific place that cannot fail to find something it automatically succeeds, if they generally search an area that has something to find set a DC and (because it's a secret check) use passive* unless they're taking ten times as long to automatically succeed, and if their search parameters give them no chance they automatically fail.

*note this results in a static number vs a static number, which isn't all that great.
Yeah, which is more my issue than someone beating all the DCs. It's the person with a 12 PP never finding anything above Easy because static numbers are being used.

But... given that someone in the party is likely to have a higher modifier in Perception, and not everyone is using their skill anyway (so if you have a +2 Perception, it's likely you're not the one keeping an eye out while traveling, etc.), this shouldn't be an issue. But I still don't like it. It's like removing someone from a part of the game because they aren't focused on it. But the whole point of rolling dice is to give you a shot. Instead of having a 40% to beat DC 15, you have a 0% chance.


Gygax also often had detailed images as handouts for the players. They could point to the shield on the wall and say, "I look behind that one."
This makes a lot of sense too.

[Tanarii]

This advice may have use, but I think it horribly misleading. "Can I roll perception?" is the player asking permission to have his intended stated action of "looking around for anything suspicious" do something other than automatically fail. Because, generally speaking, if a player does avoid using "I roll Perception" language, he'll instead say, "I look around for anything suspicious," and it means the same thing. Sure, the DM might not call for a roll, but he need not call for one if the player says he "rolls X," either.

More often than not, if a player says, "I sneak past the guard," the DM is going to call for a roll. If the player says "I roll stealth to sneak past the guard," he is communicating the same information. The Angry GM's advice on this point is flawed because it pretends that by removing some specific language, you're not just enforcing coded language for the same thing.
Except ... it might be an Intelligence (Investigation) check, depending on the particulars (intent and approach). Or if using variant rules, Intelligence or even Str/Dexterity (Perception) or Wisdom or even Str/Dexterity (Investigation).

And yes, the particulars also can make something an automatic success or automatic failure.

So no, a player should never be saying "can I roll perception", or "I roll stealth to X", and should instead only be describing what their character is doing. Stating what you roll is never enough for the DM to determine both intent and approach, and always requires follow up questions to find out if the need to roll at all and what the roll is, which may not match at all what the player assumed. The latter may be enough, or it might require further follow ups for clarification.

[Mongobear]

Speaking of the way Gygax used to run things...

I think part of my issue with the high PP player just doing a quick lap and expecting to find everything stems from 1st edition AD&D, when Elves had a rule that they automatically were entitled to a check if they came within 10 feet of a secret door, and I think Dwarves got a similar check for fancy stone work.

The player who is doing this is a veteran of 1e, he has probably played it for as long, if not longer than 5e has existed, and it seems he might be smashing vastly different rules systems together and expecting them to work similarly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The player who is doing this is a veteran of 1e, he has probably played it for as long, if not longer than 5e has existed, and it seems he might be smashing vastly different rules systems together and expecting them to work similarly.

This is an incredibly common issue. The best advice I ever got for learning a new edition was "forget everything you know about the mechanics of your old editions." And I've found that really hardcore players of earlier editions of D&D particularly tend to have the hardest transition times and have the biggest problems with 5e. Because they see things with similar (or the same) names and make assumptions of how things work.

-----------

As to Gygax's methods--his methods work decently (in that style) when you also have Dungeon Turns. Where any search-type operation takes 10 minutes (aka 1 dungeon turn) and you're running the risk of wandering monster checks every dungeon turn. So "We search everything" takes a bunch of dungeon turns and basically guarantees wandering monsters attacking. Which both gives incentives for having people who do it faster (ie elves) and being "smart" about what you're searching. And, IMO, massively slows down the game. But it works for his particular style.

[Segev]

The thing with Gygaxian dungeons and handouts is that it allowed him to have a detailed room without bogging down the game with lots of box text, and to have the things that players could interact with "hidden" amidst window dressing. "The seven shields on the wall," the module might tell the DM, "have the following things behind them: The green shield has a poison gas trap. The blue shield has a statue of a rooster behind it that, if removed, turns into a cockatrice that immediately attacks. The red shield has an explosive rune behind it. The black and white shields have nothing behind them." The rest of the room, however, is depicted, too, so there's the couch, the fireplace under the shields, the rug on the floor, the several torch sconces, and the players are expected to say what they investigate. There is no, "I search the whole room," because the DM asks, then, "Okay, how do you do it?" IF they never think to put out the fire in the fireplace and investigate the chimney for the hidden switch that opens the secret door behind the fire place, that's on them.

Perception might allow you to notice the fact there is a secret door behind the fireplace, though, by some visible clue, using modern rules even with the approach Gygax used as primary.


Except ... it might be an Intelligence (Investigation) check, depending on the particulars (intent and approach). Or if using variant rules, Intelligence or even Str/Dexterity (Perception) or Wisdom or even Str/Dexterity (Investigation).

And yes, the particulars also can make something an automatic success or automatic failure.

So no, a player should never be saying "can I roll perception", or "I roll stealth to X", and should instead only be describing what their character is doing. Stating what you roll is never enough for the DM to determine both intent and approach, and always requires follow up questions to find out if the need to roll at all and what the roll is, which may not match at all what the player assumed. The latter may be enough, or it might require further follow ups for clarification.

See, the player saying, "Can I roll perception or something to see if anything weird is going on?" should just spur the DM to say, "Give me an Investigation check" if that's the proper one. The player shouldn't be constrained from declaring what he's seeking to do. The DM can correct him about how to do it.

[Tanarii]

See, the player saying, "Can I roll perception or something to see if anything weird is going on?" should just spur the DM to say, "Give me an Investigation check" if that's the proper one. The player shouldn't be constrained from declaring what he's seeking to do. The DM can correct him about how to do it.
"How are you trying to determine if something weird is going on, and what do you mean by 'anything weird'?"

Options for approach might include:
Look from where you're standing, possibly focusing on something specific
Go poke and prod at something
Open your magical senses to the world (in D&D this is usually a spell or class feature but still)

Knowing what the heck they're expecting to find out, their intent, by asking about "anything weird" is even more important.

Players need to be somewhat specific. Asking to roll a specific ability doesn't add much to this, although it does imply they're trying to determine it by simply looking, listening or even smelling.