Actively using Passive Perception

[Riftwolf]

So I'm playing a character with the Observant feat and... I can't figure out if it's being used right? It effectively puts my Perception to 15+Bonus but only when I'm not looking for anything specific. So how I've been trying to use it in campaign is to keep a step back from any situation (I'm a primary caster anyway so I don't usually get in people's faces) and watch crowds, keep an eye out for things other people might miss. I'm not expecting to become omniscient doing this, but it'd be nice to spot minor things of interest (eg. mood of a crowd, potential aggro) rather than very specific things like slips of an illusion, and for things like spotting pickpockets etc. they should be rolling against my passive perception rather than opposed rolls, shouldn't they?
I just wanted a good basis for going to the DM and asking if I can use passive perception to get vague information then active perception for more details?

[Justin Sane]

You should be using passive checks whenever you're doing the same thing over and over again - for example, walking slowly while checking the floor/walls/ceiling for traps, instead of going "one roll for this bit, another roll for this bit, another roll for this bit...". Scanning a crowd would definitely qualify.

[Mastikator]

Tell your DM you want to get something out of the observant feat. Ask them if you can use your passive perception.

But yeah generally the guideline for DMs is that when an NPC uses stealth or sleight of hand against a PC the DC is your passive perception, and sometimes also for traps. But that's not really an active thing. It's really the DMs job to decide when to use passive vs active, when to use a skill at all. The most you can do is communicate your hopes to them. If they say no then maybe choose skill expert instead, as it will apply to both active and passive perception checks.

[Saelethil]

My dm rarely remembers to use passive perception so sometimes I’ll just ask if my 18 pp catches anything. Every now and then he says “Well actually, you see…”
The trick is to not do it so often that it gets annoying.

[gloryblaze]

So I'm playing a character with the Observant feat and... I can't figure out if it's being used right? It effectively puts my Perception to 15+Bonus but only when I'm not looking for anything specific. So how I've been trying to use it in campaign is to keep a step back from any situation (I'm a primary caster anyway so I don't usually get in people's faces) and watch crowds, keep an eye out for things other people might miss. I'm not expecting to become omniscient doing this, but it'd be nice to spot minor things of interest (eg. mood of a crowd, potential aggro) rather than very specific things like slips of an illusion, and for things like spotting pickpockets etc. they should be rolling against my passive perception rather than opposed rolls, shouldn't they?
I just wanted a good basis for going to the DM and asking if I can use passive perception to get vague information then active perception for more details?

(bold for emphasis)

This is a common misconception. The word "passive" in "passive Perception" does not refer to the character being passive, as opposed to active. It refers to the check being passive out-of-game, as in the player does not roll any dice or take any other physical action. They may not even be aware that a check is being made. Passive checks (including Perception, but any check can be made passively) are used in two scenarios:

1. To represent the same action being repeated over and over, or
2. When the DM wants to keep the fact that a check was made secret.

So for scenario 1, an example for Wisdom (Perception) might be traveling through dangerous territory. You generally want to be on guard for threats and aware of your surroundings, but the DM doesn't want to ask you to roll Perception every 5 minutes to represent being constantly on guard. So they just take your passive Perception instead. If you come across like a pitfall trap or patch of razorvine or whatever that would require a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to detect, the DM will just tell players with a 15 or higher in passive Perception that they see the hazard. This is an illustrative example because in this example, the player character almost certainly is actively keeping a lookout for hazards in-character—it's only the IRL player who's being passive (by not rolling dice).

For scenario 2, the archetypal example is when a creature tries to stealthily sneak up on the players or follow them or whatever. If the DM asks you to roll Wisdom (Perception) checks, that sends a metagame cue that something is going on. Instead, they just roll a Dexterity (Stealth) check behind the screen and compare it to passive Perception. Another example, this time non-Perception, might be if an NPC lies to a player or tells them something false. The DM might roll a Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC and use the player's passive Wisdom (Insight) to see if the player character gets a bad vibe or not. Or perhaps if the false statement is something that can be verified (like misquoting a religious tenet or arcane principle), the DM might compare the passive Intelligence (Religion) or (Arcana) check of a player character to a static DC that they set based on how easy to recall that tenet or principle is.

[JellyPooga]

This is a common misconception.[snipped for brevity]
Very good breakdown of how Passive Perception should be used. There's only one thing I'd add to it, if only because there's some "official" advice out there that I believe is incorrect, which is that Passive scores (Perception or otherwise) are not a floor for normal checks. If a check is called for, it is either made normally by rolling dice OR passively by using a passive score.

There are essentially two relevent scenarios, in a simple world:
1) The check is repeatable or hidden
2) The check is not repeatable or hidden

In case (1), a Passive check is made. In case (2), a regular check is made. These two scenarios are mutally exclusive. Therefore, if you have already checked against your Passive score, you cannot then make a regular rolled check to see if you get a higher result because the conditions for doing so do not align with those for the scenario in effect. Similarly, nor can you roll a check and then "default" to your passive score because in that case you should have used your paasive score in the first place; i.e. in either case there was a mistake in judging what kind of scenario it was, whether (1) or (2) and thus what kind of check was called for.

[Aimeryan]

[snipped for brevity]
Very good breakdown of how Passive Perception should be used. There's only one thing I'd add to it, if only because there's some "official" advice out there that I believe is incorrect, which is that Passive scores (Perception or otherwise) are not a floor for normal checks. If a check is called for, it is either made normally by rolling dice OR passively by using a passive score.

There are essentially two relevent scenarios, in a simple world:
1) The check is repeatable or hidden
2) The check is not repeatable or hidden

In case (1), a Passive check is made. In case (2), a regular check is made. These two scenarios are mutally exclusive. Therefore, if you have already checked against your Passive score, you cannot then make a regular rolled check to see if you get a higher result because the conditions for doing so do not align with those for the scenario in effect. Similarly, nor can you roll a check and then "default" to your passive score because in that case you should have used your paasive score in the first place; i.e. in either case there was a mistake in judging what kind of scenario it was, whether (1) or (2) and thus what kind of check was called for.

Disagree; you CAN use an action to roll for a check that has been checked passively already - nothing stops this from occurring.
For example, a character's passive Wisdom (Perception) check does not detect a hidden creature located in a bush - the DM doesn't inform the player. The player, however, notes that the bush is oddly located in the middle of a cave making them suspicious of it and decides to use an action to check out the bush. The DM rolls the dice; it goes well and the result scores higher than the passive check - high enough in fact to detect the hidden creature, and so the DM informs the player. Or, perhaps it doesn't go well - the DM merely informs the player they don't notice anything out of the ordinary.

The case here is that unless the player asks to do something that would make them roll for a check then everything remains passive. The character is looking around repeatedly, but the specific suspicion that leads to a more thorough check of the bush is not a repeated action (it is one the player has prompted). The player can choose to repeat the roll again, but unless they have good reason to do so they aren't likely to. If the roll is made in the open (or by the player) then a low result may prompt them to try again, which is why even dice rolled checks should at times be hidden. Some checks do make sense for the player to know how well they rolled though - like acrobatic checks, since the character would know if they messed up and could do better.

[JellyPooga]

Disagree; you CAN use an action to roll for a check that has been checked passively already - nothing stops this from occurring.
For example, a character's passive Wisdom (Perception) check does not detect a hidden creature located in a bush - the DM doesn't inform the player. The player, however, notes that the bush is oddly located in the middle of a cave making them suspicious of it and decides to use an action to check out the bush. The DM rolls the dice; it goes well and the result scores higher than the passive check - high enough in fact to detect the hidden creature, and so the DM informs the player. Or, perhaps it doesn't go well - the DM merely informs the player they don't notice anything out of the ordinary.

The case here is that unless the player asks to do something that would make them roll for a check then everything remains passive. The character is looking around repeatedly, but the specific suspicion that leads to a more thorough check of the bush is not a repeated action (it is one the player has prompted). The player can choose to repeat the roll again, but unless they have good reason to do so they aren't likely to. If the roll is made in the open (or by the player) then a low result may prompt them to try again, which is why even dice rolled checks should at times be hidden. Some checks do make sense for the player to know how well they rolled though - like acrobatic checks, since the character would know if they messed up and could do better.

You said it yourself; the check being made are two different scenarios; the first is a general awareness, the second is more specific. These are two separate checks. Had the player asked to check the treetops and rolled higher, they would not have detected an enemy in the bushes. The distinction is important and relevant.

In the case of asking to roll again for a task, whether it can be repeated or not, the answer is always "no". The check has been made, that is your attempt.
- If the character wanted to try for as long as it takes to complete the task, there is another rule for that in which the character is assumed to succeed if they take 10 times as long as it would normally take; no check required, so the answer is no.
- If it is not possible for another check to be made, the answer is also obviously no.
- If the check can be made multiple times and that was the intent from the start, then a passive score should have been used in the first place, so the answer is no again.
- If the check was hidden and a player asks to make a rolled check, the answer should again be no, although in this case the GM can be somewhat duplicitous here in that they can allow the player to roll, but should only reveal the result of the passive check, regardless of the result of any rolled check for the same test; the test has been made and result decided regardless of the players request.

In all cases, a passive score is never a "floor" for a rolled ability check.

It is important to note that any test or check is made solely at the discretion of the GM. A player can ask to roll, but the GM is under no compulsion to comply, nor recognise the result of a test rolled without their express permission. Sounds adversarial? Maybe, but it's a general rule of GMing to say "yes, but" unless necessary, which softens the blow of those situations, like those mentioned above, in which the GM should say "no". A perfect example of this, is the first bullet point I list above. Player asks to try again, GM says "Yes, but it'll take 10x as long. Bonus though, you don't have to roll now, you just succeed". The player gets to make a call on whether they can afford the time to retry until success and the GM gets to say yes; general principle demonstrated and preserved. Everyone wins.

[Riftwolf]

Thanks for the various breakdowns. I'll talk to my DM and make sure he has our passive perceptions written down. (No shade to him, he's got a party of 6-8 to wrangle)
I'm not wanting Observant to give me a massive advantage of 'no perception check can be below 15+x', it's if I'm on guard, scanning crowds, etc. I can be, well, observant. I'm not expecting to see 75% of everything I can possibly see.

[Greywander]

Don't forget that you can also take 20 without rolling by spending extra time on a task. I just mention that because it's an example of a "repeatable" task where you wouldn't use passive scores.

I think passive scores also exist to curb the "you forgot to breathe" mentality that some DMs have. It used to be that unless you said you were doing something, such as keeping a lookout for ambushes or checking for traps, then some DMs would assume you entirely oblivious to the world around you. You would have to specifically declare that you wanted to check if someone was lying to you, and if you forgot then the DM would just assume you believed everything the NPC said. This in turn led to a style of play where players would challenge everything any NPC told them and declare every 5 minutes that they were keeping a lookout for ambushes, traps, etc. This in turn led to DMs trying to catch their players forgetting to declare something and then punishing them for it.

Not all DMs, of course, but it was enough of a problem that it was a commonly known issue. Passive scores stop this before it even starts by assuming players are always paying a certain amount of attention to their surroundings unless they're specifically distracted or otherwise occupied, without them needing to explicitly declare it. I think this is also why Perception, Investigation, and Insight are the specific skills that are called out as having passive scores. You can actually use passive scores for any skill, there just isn't as much call to do so for the other skills. Knowledge skills are also a good one to use passive scores for when giving the first description of something, assuming that a PC knows a bit extra about the thing without making the player roll for it.

[Mastikator]

Don't forget that you can also take 20 without rolling by spending extra time on a task. I just mention that because it's an example of a "repeatable" task where you wouldn't use passive scores.[snip]
That's from a different edition of D&D. In 5e the players can't really ask for any ability checks. They can tell the DM what actions they take, what outcomes they want, and then the DM determines if any check is needed and what it is. Outside of toxic DMs who are out to get you your best bet to engineer scenarios where you can rely on a very high passive perception is to just tell your DM that you want to be able to rely on your passive perception.
A DM who doesn't know you're trying to get some mileage out of a feat might not understand strange descriptions. And just straight up asking for passive checks is meta-game-y in a way that hurts immersion, which a good DM is unlikely to appreciate.

[Rukelnikov]

You said it yourself; the check being made are two different scenarios; the first is a general awareness, the second is more specific. These are two separate checks. Had the player asked to check the treetops and rolled higher, they would not have detected an enemy in the bushes. The distinction is important and relevant.

In the case of asking to roll again for a task, whether it can be repeated or not, the answer is always "no". The check has been made, that is your attempt.
- If the character wanted to try for as long as it takes to complete the task, there is another rule for that in which the character is assumed to succeed if they take 10 times as long as it would normally take; no check required, so the answer is no.
- If it is not possible for another check to be made, the answer is also obviously no.
- If the check can be made multiple times and that was the intent from the start, then a passive score should have been used in the first place, so the answer is no again.
- If the check was hidden and a player asks to make a rolled check, the answer should again be no, although in this case the GM can be somewhat duplicitous here in that they can allow the player to roll, but should only reveal the result of the passive check, regardless of the result of any rolled check for the same test; the test has been made and result decided regardless of the players request.

In all cases, a passive score is never a "floor" for a rolled ability check.

It is important to note that any test or check is made solely at the discretion of the GM. A player can ask to roll, but the GM is under no compulsion to comply, nor recognise the result of a test rolled without their express permission. Sounds adversarial? Maybe, but it's a general rule of GMing to say "yes, but" unless necessary, which softens the blow of those situations, like those mentioned above, in which the GM should say "no". A perfect example of this, is the first bullet point I list above. Player asks to try again, GM says "Yes, but it'll take 10x as long. Bonus though, you don't have to roll now, you just succeed". The player gets to make a call on whether they can afford the time to retry until success and the GM gets to say yes; general principle demonstrated and preserved. Everyone wins.

Disagree. Let's say someone is hidden inside an ornamental armor in a hallway, PC's walk thru the hallway, the DM checks the stealth of the hidden creature vs the passive perception of the PCs, they make the check so no one spot them, but one of the PCs finds the armor interesting and stop to admire it, examining the craftsmanship and stuff, making an active Perception check at that point is warranted.

[JellyPooga]

Disagree. Let's say someone is hidden inside an ornamental armor in a hallway, PC's walk thru the hallway, the DM checks the stealth of the hidden creature vs the passive perception of the PCs, they make the check so no one spot them, but one of the PCs finds the armor interesting and stop to admire it, examining the craftsmanship and stuff, making an active Perception check at that point is warranted.

Again. A Passive Perception check of general awareness is a very different check to specifically search the suit of armour. A check to search the dresser in the hall reveals nothing, either way.

[Rukelnikov]

Again. A Passive Perception check of general awareness is a very different check to specifically search the suit of armour. A check to search the dresser in the hall reveals nothing, either way.

Yeah, because there's nothing in the dresser, why would it reveal something? But the point is that multiple checks for the same thing can happen.

[Psyren]

That's from a different edition of D&D. In 5e the players can't really ask for any ability checks. They can tell the DM what actions they take, what outcomes they want, and then the DM determines if any check is needed and what it is. Outside of toxic DMs who are out to get you your best bet to engineer scenarios where you can rely on a very high passive perception is to just tell your DM that you want to be able to rely on your passive perception.
A DM who doesn't know you're trying to get some mileage out of a feat might not understand strange descriptions. And just straight up asking for passive checks is meta-game-y in a way that hurts immersion, which a good DM is unlikely to appreciate.

5e does have a Take 20 rule (DMG 237), but the rest of what you said is correct - it's up to the DM to determine whether it can be used/gauge impossibility of the task at hand.

[JellyPooga]

Yeah, because there's nothing in the dresser, why would it reveal something? But the point is that multiple checks for the same thing can happen.

Yes, multiple checks can happen, but it will never be a Passive check followed by a Rolled check or vice versa. In certain situations, where time is limited, you might get to roll two checks, but any action is either going to be resolved with one of the following:

1) Multiple checks, in which case it is resolved using a Passive score. There is no rolling after this has been resolved because any further rolls have already been accounted for in the Passive.

2) A Hidden check, in which case it is resolved using a Passive score. Again, you won't roll again after this because the action will have been resolved already and either the Player cannot elect to take further time or "roll again" because they don't know they're doing it, or they need to specify an action that changes the parameters (which will either call for a different check or default to auto-pass).

3) A Rolled check, in which case it is resolved by rolling a die. Once this is resolved, if time is limited another Rolled check may be called for, but if time is not limited, then the 10x Auto-pass rule should be invoked, not a secondary Passive "Repeated action" check.

4) Auto-Pass, using the 10x time rule.

In none of these cases will the Players Passive score be used as a "floor" for a Rolled check.

In the case of our foe hiding in a suit of armour, yes, the Player could check against their Passive score to search the room. If that is not sufficient, then they require a 10x Auto-pass resolution; any further rolls they make to search the room, no matter how specific, is encompassed in their Passive score. If they roll a check to search the room, again they must default to Auto-pass using additional time. If the GM makes a hidden check on behalf of the player, any further rolls requested by the player are void; the result has already been determined and assuming they failed, they remain in that failure state until they change the parameters of the scenario; i.e. they need to take time to inspect thoroughly in a 10x Auto-pass.

[Mastikator]

5e does have a Take 20 rule (DMG 237), but the rest of what you said is correct - it's up to the DM to determine whether it can be used/gauge impossibility of the task at hand.

I am embarrassed to say I didn't know that, and will factor it in into my future games as a DM.

Beyond that I would strongly advice players against trying to use rules from the DMG, at my table I would consider it almost tantamount to *metagaming/cheating.

Literally just talk to the DM. And roleplay. Those are 2 of the only 4 jobs a player has.

*Sometimes metagaming is a necessary evil to keep the game flowing. But doing it premediated, I have no patience for it.

[greenstone]

…multiple checks for the same thing can happen.
I think this needs to be clarified further.

Multiple checks for the same action are allowed in the case of taking the action at different times.

[Witty Username]

Again. A Passive Perception check of general awareness is a very different check to specifically search the suit of armour. A check to search the dresser in the hall reveals nothing, either way.

Not really,
assuming the DM wants to keep information hidden they could still use Passive Perception, all they would have to do is roll a hide check behind the screen, generally a thorough search should be handled by an investigation check, so the idea of of passive vs an active check is somewhat lost on this scenario.

Although, how I would handle that, is have a pre rolled hide check or passive hide, and then have the player roll if they request a perception check (explicitly or implicitly like saying I am going to take a quick scan of the room or something).

[Greywander]

Taking 20 isn't cheating, it is merely a convenience to speed up play and should be used as often as is reasonable. The point of taking 20 is for those situations where you're not under any pressure and can take as much time as you need. In other words, it's for those times where there's nothing stopping the player from repeating the check again and again until they finally roll a 20. So you just skip all that and have them take 20 at the cost of spending extra time on that task. You can think of it as a 20 being how well you can perform a task when not under pressure and able to take your time, and rolling is for when you're stressed and might make a mistake you can't immediately fix. It's one thing to go to the shooting range and hit a bullseye on the target, but it's another thing when the target is trying to kill you and has friends also trying to kill you and your friends. If you spend a few minutes shooting at the target you're sure to hit it at least once, but in the heat of things you don't have a few minutes and every shot counts.

In a way, taking 20 is similar to passive scores in that they both skip rolling checks, albeit for different reasons. As much fun as it can be to roll dice, it does slow the game down, and anyway it's better to save it for when there are real stakes involved and actually consequences for failing.

Edit: As for passive checks, those occur whenever the DM needs a check to happen but decides not to call for one. There is no specific set of actions or inactions that lead to passive checks, it's just whatever the DM decides. Usually it's either to not alert the player that a check has happened (unless they succeed), or so that you don't keep rerolling checks over and over again particularly if the check isn't meaningful (not that the players could know if it was meaningful unless they pass the check).

[JellyPooga]

It's not even "taking 20", it's an auto pass if it's at all possible. This could be interpreted as assuming a roll of 20, but it doesn't have to be. To use the given example, there's no way to hide in the suit of armour if the player is taking the time to take it apart to find the occupant; no amount of Stealth is going to prevent the player finding them.

If the check is literally impossible, no check is made; it's auto fail.

[JellyPooga]

Not really,
assuming the DM wants to keep information hidden they could still use Passive Perception, all they would have to do is roll a hide check behind the screen, generally a thorough search should be handled by an investigation check, so the idea of of passive vs an active check is somewhat lost on this scenario.

Although, how I would handle that, is have a pre rolled hide check or passive hide, and then have the player roll if they request a perception check (explicitly or implicitly like saying I am going to take a quick scan of the room or something).

And again, if it's a different check being called, such as an Investigation check as opposed to a Perception, it's a different check altogther. The Passive Perception check is invalid, not a "floor".

[LudicSavant]

I am embarrassed to say I didn't know that, and will factor it in into my future games as a DM.

Beyond that I would strongly advice players against trying to use rules from the DMG, at my table I would consider it almost tantamount to *metagaming/cheating.

I would advise against this mindset.

In 5e, there are many rules in the DMG which are very important for players, like how AoE abilities in general work, and an awful lot of the skill rules.

For example, this is absolutely a rule that players should be aware of and use:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445485023299108875/1163434592821330091/image.png?ex=653f8fe6&is=652d1ae6&hm=8ecad099ce64cffed173c94437dd55a1c248c280611508d cd4ef8e3197593c20&

There's lots of stuff like this in there. The assumption that the DMG should only be read by DMs does not apply to this edition.

[Keravath]

And again, if it's a different check being called, such as an Investigation check as opposed to a Perception, it's a different check altogther. The Passive Perception check is invalid, not a "floor".

In some circumstances, a passive check can effectively be a floor for ANY skill.

For example, an adventuring party enters a room and spends a few minutes searching. The DM can use passive perception to determine whether the party notices a secret door during the search. If the party does not find anything, then the DM could ask for a perception roll to see if any characters succeed by performing better than average in this case. Alternatively, a suspicious character might say that they are going to spend additional time searching and may specify an area to search. The character would then have an opportunity to make a perception die roll to see if anything is found for this specific search. Finally, the character is certain that the room must have a secret door, they are just missing it. If there is no time pressure then they could take 10 minutes or 30 minutes or however long the DM decides would represent 10x the typical search period and then if it is possible for their search to be effective then they find the secret door.

In this example, passive, active and "take 20" type checks could all be made to find the same hidden door.

Similarly, if there is any task that can be done repeatedly or for which the DM didn't originally want the player to roll dice then it might be resolvable using the passive score and the DM just narrates success at whatever the task might be without rolling dice. On the other hand, if the character subsequently decides to do something else related to the same task they may be allowed to roll a die if their passive check was not effective.

In both these examples, the passive ability was effectively a floor for the ability check since the passive was checked first before either the passive was insufficient so the DM asks for a die roll to see if the character performed above average or the character did something else to trigger an additional die roll.

It is generally not fair to the players to say "Well they didn't find it with a passive check, they won't find it at all since they don't get to make a roll" since the passive check only represents the average result for a task done repeatedly.

In any case where a ability check could be resolved with a passive check but is not because the passive skill is not high enough then later attempts at the ability check are eligible for rolling a die (at the DM discretion) and in these cases the passive score is effectively a "floor".

---------

However, there are a lot of ability checks that can't be repeated either due to consequences of failure, time constraints, they aren't being repeated regularly or some other reason. For these checks the passive is NOT a floor because it is not a task done repeatedly where the average could apply and it would be inappropriate for a DM to apply a passive score to such an ability check. In this case, the DM asks the player to roll a die.

So, yes the passive is a "floor" for an ability check but only on appropriate ability checks ... not on every ability check.

[JellyPooga]

In both these examples, the passive ability was effectively a floor for the ability check since the passive was checked first before either the passive was insufficient so the DM asks for a die roll to see if the character performed above average or the character did something else to trigger an additional die roll.

In both of these cases, the GM is firstly creating additional work for themselves that the RAW does not call for, which both the Passive and auto-pass rules are there to reduce. A Passive score is treated exactly like a rolled check, with all the same assumptions that are entailed (plus one or two extras). Asking a player to roll and see if they perform better than their Passive score would be no different were that same player trying to pick a lock as an action in combat, rolling a 10 or 11 and then asking them to roll again just to see if they actually did better than that, because it was only an average roll. It's no different. If you want to see if they perform better than average, then you don't even bother with the Passive score in the first place; in this case it's not a floor, it's entirely irrelevant.

Secondly, a Passive score accounts for "above average" every bit as much as it accounts for "below average" and to allow a player to roll "to see if they get a higher score" makes as much sense as forcing them to roll to see of they get lower; it's a divide-by-zero situation that misses the entire purpose/function of what a Passive score is and does. It's not that it's "against the rules", unbalanced, unfair or whatever, it simply does not compute.


It is generally not fair to the players to say "Well they didn't find it with a passive check, they won't find it at all since they don't get to make a roll" since the passive check only represents the average result for a task done repeatedly."Fair" has nothing to do with it, because if they have the time they can bypass rolling altogether, automatically passing by sheer determination/time taken or by engineering the situation such that failure isn't an option. For example; searching the room for a box that's under the bed might require a check, either passive or rolled, but specifying that you're looking under the bed or that you're turning the room over methodically i.e. taking 10x as long, will bypass the roll entirely. What seems more unfair to me is that baked into the rules is the option to literally not have to think in your characters shoes and instead say "I take 10x as long to auto pass". It's a bit too easy for the Player and falls back on the GM to make a call on how they're going to rule it this time.

[LudicSavant]

A basic locked door with unlimited time to open it shouldn't be a challenge for a party of adventurers to get through. Given enough time, they will get through it, there shouldn't even be a roll to determine that, any more than for seeing if you can walk down stairs without stumbling, or climb a rope (climbing doesn't take Athletics checks unless there's extenuating / unusually difficult circumstances).

It's not "too easy" for the players to auto-succeed on such things. It's just something that shouldn't have been a challenge to begin with.

There might, however, be a question of how fast they get through the door, or how loudly, or the like -- Indiana Jones doesn't just need to get through the door, he has to be getting through the trap-filled labyrinth before his rival gets the treasure first, and before that rising water drowns him, and without running into the patrolling relic guardian, and without tripping the trap on the door itself.

If you want to challenge your players, don't make mundane, simple tasks arbitrarily harder. Make more interesting challenges!

That's my recommendation, anywho.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

My DM and I think many with him still basically let us roll spot checks, in the sense of "you've been walking in the forest for a while, roll perception". That roll will then be used for the next bit of travel, not just that one moment. So whether we eventually notice the owl following us is up to that roll. That's passive perception if I ever saw it, except we're not taking 10, as by the 5e RAW. If you have the observant feat you should get your bonus on rolls like that.

The problem is drawing an exact line. We might be walking through a forest when one of us asks "Do we/I see anything?" That's active perception, someone who takes a moment to look around and check for anything out of the ordinary. But it's also passive perception, because the DM is probably going to apply it to the rest of the afternoon of travel, and you're not actively scanning all the time. And then there are places like dungeons. The party isn't stupid, so they actively check every room, even though they're not looking for anything specific. So the feat is by the book useless here.

...It's a weird feat. It's a bit like a feat that says "Your movement speed goes up by 10, but only while casually walking". As written it's useless every time you really want to be using it.

[LudicSavant]

As gloryblaze explains here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25885883&postcount=5), a passive check does not imply you're doing something casually.

Being aware of your surroundings and actively looking for stuff is Passive Perception.

The "passive" in passive perception refers to the player being passive (e.g. not rolling dice) rather than the character being passive (e.g. not actively looking for something). It's essentially 5e's version of "Take 10" with a name that confuses the sort of people who just assume what a mechanic is based on the name, rather than actually checking.

That said, I think that the Observant feat should just straight up give you a bonus to those skills, rather than making it depend on whether the check is Passive or not.