Hypothetical: Let's say a player has declared that their character is looking for something in particular and describes their method. A second player declares that their character is assisting the first character and describes how. The first character is trained in Perception and has the Observant feat, making their Passive Perception 10 (Base) + 5 (Observant) + 5 (Advantage) + X (Attribute mod) + Y (Prof bonus) = 20 + X + Y. It is thus impossible for the character to roll higher than their Passive Perception. As a DM, in such a circumstance would you ever tell the player of the first character to roll an [Attribute] (Perception) check? Or would you rely solely on the Passive Perception to resolve uncertainty (if any)?
D&D 5E Passive Perception better than Active Perception?
daviddalbec
Explorer
"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."
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and Training in an effort to overcome a Challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a *chance of failure*. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
What strikes me when reading this is:
1. Defining what a chance of failure is. I'd assume this means your passive perception isn't sufficient (you didn't automatically succeed), and that after saying your actions, opening drawers, the object isn't obvious.
2. You could open drawers or move around a room or describe where you are looking without rolling a check.
3. It seems like the DM has say in what details you "might otherwise overlook".
"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and Training in an effort to overcome a Challenge. The GM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a *chance of failure*. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
What strikes me when reading this is:
1. Defining what a chance of failure is. I'd assume this means your passive perception isn't sufficient (you didn't automatically succeed), and that after saying your actions, opening drawers, the object isn't obvious.
2. You could open drawers or move around a room or describe where you are looking without rolling a check.
3. It seems like the DM has say in what details you "might otherwise overlook".
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
This looks like a Wisdom (Perception) check to me, not a passive Perception check. If it's a Search action in combat, the passive Perception is by default the "floor" because the creature attempting to hide will have had to beat that passive Perception score to have been hidden in the first place.
Observant characters are good at staying alert to danger and noticing things for which they are looking on an ongoing basis (such as while traveling). My character in ToA, due to a combination of things, has a passive Perception score of 29. But that only applies when I'm in the position to notice threats while going about my business. Or, say, if I take my attention off noticing threats and search for secret doors as we move about the dungeon. If I search this one altar right here in a specific fashion one time, then I may have to make a Wisdom (Perception) check and I'd need to roll a 20 to match my passive score (if I remember correctly).
daviddalbec
Explorer
First thing that comes to mind is that the same can be done with other checks, maybe any. Passive checks are "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."
So you could imagine passive stealth, or persuasion, not just perception, under the right circumstances. The buddy wingmaning you at the bar with help actions to your repeated persuade attempts would give you 15+mods flat. But conditions might sufficiently change where a different approach might be needed with some particular girl. Maybe this is similar with perception checks, some rooms have fireplaces, some have desks, some chests, etc. Maybe there's a level of variety that a methodical approach couldn't handle. Just spitballing.
daviddalbec
Explorer
So am I right that your interpretation is that your passive perception is the minimum you can get when attempting your active perception check on the altar? If that's the case, then if your passive is equal to (or greater than) rolling a 20 on your active check, then you've eliminated the need for a die at all, correct?
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
No - I don't take passive Perception score into account when calling for a Wisdom (Perception) check. These two mechanics are used to resolve different things - a task performed repeatedly and a task performed once, respectively.
That was my original approach. The difficulty I encountered was communicating to the players of the Observant characters that they were not being penalized for declaring an action--that I wouldn't have relied on Passive Perception to determine if they found what they were looking for in the absence of an action declaration. This lead to the players being unhappy with the Observant feat being less useful than they had anticipated. So I changed my approach and now let Passive Perception function as a floor on all perception checks. It made the players much happier. It may not be what was originally intended, but it's simple to apply and doesn't break anything.
daviddalbec
Explorer
For those players that attempt to game the system and say, "I repeatedly search altars, and secret doors, and repeatedly search for monsters, etc." Or come up with some legalistic description which aims at applying their super high passive perception to many situations, do you just ignore them, say the situation is unique, and call for the roll? Seems solid.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Interestingly, especially within a couple of years of the game launching, there were a ton of complaints about Observant on the forums, specifically around it being too powerful - nothing gets past the character. Taken as a whole, the rules don't suggest this is how it should be handled. Characters can only focus, generally speaking, on one task at a time (except for rangers in favored terrain). This takes Observant down to the level where it's more reasonable and (I think) more in line with interpretations of other feats. The Observant character will rarely be surprised or fail to spot the trap... if he or she is alert to danger to the exclusion of other tasks that may distract from that effort. The Observant character will almost always find the secret door... if he or she stops being alert to danger and focuses on finding secret doors. (Again, ranger may be an exception.) That means the Observant character is awesome - at one thing at a time.
Observant kicks in when the character is engaged in an ongoing task because that is what a passive check is, in part, for. Unless the character's task is searching altars in an ongoing basis (to continue using that example) which seems pretty edge case, then he or she will have to make Wisdom (Perception) check to search this one altar right here, if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure.
Which is not to say you're doing anything wrong. That's just my read on the rules, the result of many, many forum interactions on this topic, and experience from actual play.
Last edited:
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I see no problem with letting them repeatedly search for monsters, or altars, or secret doors. But you won't be doing much else while you pick one of those things, and as soon as you do something else you are not repeatedly doing what you were before.
Similar Threads
