D&D 5E Passive Perception better than Active Perception?

Hi everybodym
I'm not very good at math, but it seems to me that sometimes Passive Perception is more effective than the Active one.
One of the players in my group plays a 1 lvl. dex and wis based fighter, with 16 in Wisdom, who is Proficient in Perception, and has a Passive Perception of 15: definetely quite hard to surprise, just when he's not searching for anything in particular! ;-)!
What do you think, and what are your experiences about this topic?
Many thanks!

If you look at the various examples in published modules, you will often see that the DC for active is 5 lower than the DC for passive.

Also, some things cannot be discovered by passive perception alone.

You just have to be clear about what you can perceive naturally and what you have to look for.

There's no such thing as "active perception." I get that it's often offered as a shorthand to describe rolling a Wisdom (Perception) check but it needlessly confuses what a passive check is. Passive checks refer to there being no roll, not that the character is somehow "inactive."

When passive Perception applies, the character is staying alert to danger in an ongoing basis and the result of that effort is uncertain. A character is not alert to danger when he or she is performing an ongoing task like navigating, tracking, foraging, drawing a map or any task that is at least as distracting. So, a character that is doing those tasks is simply surprised, no check. The exception is a ranger in favored terrain who can stay alert to danger while doing other tasks. If you want the players to choose to do something other than have their characters stay alert for danger, the DM must either mandate certain tasks in particular situations (needing to navigate in a trackless wilderness, for example) or offer a significant enough benefit to risk automatic surprise when a lurking monster turns up (e.g. a source map is worth gold back in town).

In combat, most creatures remain alert to danger and so its passive Perception applies when trying to determine if a monster can hide or the character spots a trap or hazard. This effectively makes the passive Perception score a "floor" for the Search action.

Outside of combat, a player must be reasonably specific about where and how a search is conducted to have a chance to notice a hidden object. If the outcome of that search is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM may then call for a Wisdom (Perception) check.

Strider1973 said:

Hi everybodym
I'm not very good at math, but it seems to me that sometimes Passive Perception is more effective than the Active one.
One of the players in my group plays a 1 lvl. dex and wis based fighter, with 16 in Wisdom, who is Proficient in Perception, and has a Passive Perception of 15: definetely quite hard to surprise, just when he's not searching for anything in particular! ;-)!
What do you think, and what are your experiences about this topic?
Many thanks!

Click to expand...

Someone rolling a Stealth check to surprise the Fighter needs to beat 15 if the DM decides to use passive Perception or needs to beat on average 15.5 if the DM decides to let him roll Perception normally.

Also note that an active roll result normally has a 'floor' value equal to your passive perception. So, if detecting a seam in the wall (where a secret door is) requires a DC 15 passive Perception, and your player is actively checking and therefore they roll a 2 (+5) for a total of 7, but their passive is 15, then they detect it anyway.

There is no active Perception. Sometimes you roll a WIS (Perception) check when the DM asks you to, and sometimes the DM uses your passive score instead. This can be when you're attempting a task repeatedly, such as keeping watch for hidden threats while travelling, or when the DM wants to keep the outcome of your effort a secret. Now, if the DM calls for a WIS (Perception) check because the outcome of such efforts is uncertain then the DM ought to take your passive score into account and award auto-success if it's high enough to beat the DC for the check.

edit: ... and I see [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] beat me to it.

Strider1973 said:

Hi everybodym
I'm not very good at math, but it seems to me that sometimes Passive Perception is more effective than the Active one.
One of the players in my group plays a 1 lvl. dex and wis based fighter, with 16 in Wisdom, who is Proficient in Perception, and has a Passive Perception of 15: definetely quite hard to surprise, just when he's not searching for anything in particular! ;-)!
What do you think, and what are your experiences about this topic?
Many thanks!

Click to expand...

Here's an analogy maybe it will help. When I'm hunting, or playing Paintball in the woods my sense are all dialed up to 11. Sounds far off seem much closer than they are. I spot more inconsistencies in surrounding terrain than I otherwise would etc. This is Passive Perception. Ongoing background alertness.

By contrast I can be playing one of these spot the difference between the two pictures games and feel like an idiot. This is more the case where a single roll is called for and boy oh boy have I failed my share.

LordEntrails said:

Also note that an active roll result normally has a 'floor' value equal to your passive perception. So, if detecting a seam in the wall (where a secret door is) requires a DC 15 passive Perception, and your player is actively checking and therefore they roll a 2 (+5) for a total of 7, but their passive is 15, then they detect it anyway.

Click to expand...

The way I interpret it is passive is a floor in the sense that the player shouldn't have gotten to the roll in that case at all. If their passive detects something, then they wouldn't/shouldn't need to roll trying to detect it.

With passive checks there are 4 cases I think:

1. The PC's passive check is sufficient, and the DM informs them they've succeeded.

2. The PC's passive check isn't sufficient, and the player has no knowledge or reason to attempt an active check (not suspecting hidden objects in the adventure for example).

3. The PC's passive check isn't sufficient, but the player does have knowledge or reason to attempt an active check (the player suspecting hidden objects for example). In this case, they could roll 10 higher or 5 higher vs. Passive perception and with Observant feat.

4. The PC attempts something unique, accute, and/or novel which is beyond the description of a passive check. This is where a passive would never be considered, like a character having to put his ear up to a door, or use some specific equipment, etc. In this case I'm not sure passive perception can be considered a "floor".

Maybe to answer the OP more directly, I don't see it as the passive being "better" than the active check in some situations. In regards to my previous post, I see it as the PC increases passive perception, like with the Observant feat, he does not get to the point of needing to use the active check as often anymore. More case #1's as I put it will happen for him, fewer case #2's, and fewer case #3's where he can only roll up to 10 or 5 better on his active than passive.

Consider what I called case #4s though. Then also disadvantage, like dim light, where his "passive floor" is lowered by 5. Also things like guidance which are mods added only when you actually roll the check. Inspiration, bardic inspiration, tides of chaos, there are many abilities and mechanics like this.