D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Mistwell]

If passive perception = minimum perception, that is broken. I have always considered passive perception a bad mechanic regardless (eg: static perception vs static trap DC = a problem); this makes it doubly so.

Clearly the rules do not say passive perception is your minimum. If that really was the intent - which I seriously doubt - epic fail on conveying that in the book.

Actually after I heard the interview where he mentions chapters and section names, I went back and looked at them. He's right. It does say right in the PHB, "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." It also says, "Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

If you consider the ramifications of that, he's right it must be your minimum. It's always on, even when you're not specifically searching for something. You automatically perceive anything your passive perception might perceive, before you even request to make an active perception check by engaging in an active search for things. So there would never be any point to rolling for perception if your passive perception could perceive it - it would have already perceived it before that point. And even if you rolled worse than your passive perception check, your passive perception would immediately spot it after your check as well if it could. Therefore it is indeed a floor of your results for perception checks.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Actually after I heard the interview where he mentions chapters and section names, I went back and looked at them. He's right. It does say right in the PHB, "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." It also says, "Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

If you consider the ramifications of that, he's right it must be your minimum. It's always on, even when you're not specifically searching for something. You automatically perceive anything your passive perception might perceive, before you even request to make an active perception check by engaging in an active search for things. So there would never be any point to rolling for perception if your passive perception could perceive it - it would have already perceived it before that point. And even if you rolled worse than your passive perception check, your passive perception would immediately spot it after your check as well if it could. Therefore it is indeed a floor of your results for perception checks.

This is the way I've always run it.

Also note that passive skills apply across the board, not just Perception. The passive Perception is an example, but if you're trying to climb a wall and the DC is within your Strength (Athletics) then you just climb it.

With Perception, I use passive Perception as noticing something, or perhaps a feeling (like you're being watched), and you can make a Perception check to learn more.

But the bigger thing to recognize is that during combat, passive skills are still always active, but to make an actual skill check, you have to use your Action.

So I use passive skills extensively.

 

[Lanliss]

I wonder if one of the reasons the idea of Passive being a minimum is getting push-back is because some people like to Fumble, or like their players to fumble things. Watching Critical Role, the players will often roll a die, and immediately say "Nope, I don't see anything", at which point they or the DM has to come up with some silly reason on why they suddenly become Blind. "She is mystified by this one pebble", "You look straight up at the ceiling like a turkey in a rainstorm, when you should have been looking at the ground", "You know, this forest is really pretty. There are a lot of leaves to distract you". It seems like an odd thing to happen to a bunch of people who's lives regularly depend on their awareness, even though it kind of fits their sillier game. I can see that sort of thing being really stupid looking in a serious game.

 

[Maxperson]

I wonder if one of the reasons the idea of Passive being a minimum is getting push-back is because some people like to Fumble,

You don't have to go that far. Just be able to miss things. People are not perfect, so passive perception is highly unrealistic. You can hide 20 things with the exact same level of difficulty and people, even highly perceptive ones, are going to miss seeing some of them.

or like their players to fumble things. Watching Critical Role, the players will often roll a die, and immediately say "Nope, I don't see anything", at which point they or the DM has to come up with some silly reason on why they suddenly become Blind. "She is mystified by this one pebble", "You look straight up at the ceiling like a turkey in a rainstorm, when you should have been looking at the ground", "You know, this forest is really pretty. There are a lot of leaves to distract you".

Ahh, hyperbole. If something is that obvious, there wouldn't be a roll at all. Passive perception is not needed for things that are out in the open like that. We're talking about hidden or non-obvious things. You don't need to be absurdly "blind" to miss those things.

 

[Lanliss]

You don't have to go that far. Just be able to miss things. People are not perfect, so passive perception is highly unrealistic. You can hide 20 things with the exact same level of difficulty and people, even highly perceptive ones, are going to miss seeing some of them.

Ahh, hyperbole. If something is that obvious, there wouldn't be a roll at all. Passive perception is not needed for things that are out in the open like that. We're talking about hidden or non-obvious things. You don't need to be absurdly "blind" to miss those things.

It isn't hyperbole, the first and last quotes were actual ones I have seen on Critical Role. Unless you were talking about Hyperbole on their part, in which case I can agree.

I wasn't looking to challenge anyone's legitimacy of Opinion, just genuinely stating a thought I had. I know that some of the funniest stories I have read or heard of for D&D was when things went south hard, from a bad roll or two, and I can understand wanting to keep some of that in the game. However, I also think that it doesn't always fit and that in something like my games, which are slightly more serious than CR. In those cases, Passive being a floor makes a good amount of sense. Then you don't get the PP-15 ranger getting surprised because they asked to look around a clearing, instead of just walking in, and rolled a 2 on their Perception check, against some goblins that rolled a 13 on stealth.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Actually after I heard the interview where he mentions chapters and section names, I went back and looked at them. He's right. It does say right in the PHB, "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat." It also says, "Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score..."

If you consider the ramifications of that, he's right it must be your minimum. It's always on, even when you're not specifically searching for something. You automatically perceive anything your passive perception might perceive, before you even request to make an active perception check by engaging in an active search for things. So there would never be any point to rolling for perception if your passive perception could perceive it - it would have already perceived it before that point. And even if you rolled worse than your passive perception check, your passive perception would immediately spot it after your check as well if it could. Therefore it is indeed a floor of your results for perception checks.

Except... passive perception refers you to Passive Checks p.175, which says they are supposed to represent either (i) the average of rolling many times "or" (ii) can be used when the "DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster". So if the GM is not concerned about secret rolls - and there is no need to roll secretly when an ambush is about to happen, or you are about to spring a trap (because the players are about to find out about it, straight after your roll) - then you DON'T use passive perception. You roll like any normal skill.

Crawford's suggestion that PP is the "minimum" result is not supported by the rules.

 

[robus]

If you consider the ramifications of that, he's right it must be your minimum. It's always on, even when you're not specifically searching for something. You automatically perceive anything your passive perception might perceive, before you even request to make an active perception check by engaging in an active search for things. So there would never be any point to rolling for perception if your passive perception could perceive it - it would have already perceived it before that point. And even if you rolled worse than your passive perception check, your passive perception would immediately spot it after your check as well if it could. Therefore it is indeed a floor of your results for perception checks.

This kind of bugs me though. Sometimes passive perception is used only when someone has declared a particular repetitive action (like searching for traps) and other times it's always on? What the heck man (to Crawford)?! Make up your mind!

For me, I much prefer that players get to make a choice about what they're doing as they adventure. It improves immersion I think. And I get to reward a player for their action (and because of that perhaps passive isn't even needed?!)

 

[Mistwell]

This kind of bugs me though. Sometimes passive perception is used only when someone has declared a particular repetitive action (like searching for traps) and other times it's always on? What the heck man (to Crawford)?! Make up your mind!

For me, I much prefer that players get to make a choice about what they're doing as they adventure. It improves immersion I think. And I get to reward a player for their action (and because of that perhaps passive isn't even needed?!)

Well the other related rules that it seems most DMs don't use are pretty important here too. For example, dim light causes -5. Darkvision is dimlight, so always -5 in darkness. -5 if moving at a fast clip too.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't hyperbole, the first and last quotes were actual ones I have seen on Critical Role. Unless you were talking about Hyperbole on their part, in which case I can agree.

I wasn't looking to challenge anyone's legitimacy of Opinion, just genuinely stating a thought I had. I know that some of the funniest stories I have read or heard of for D&D was when things went south hard, from a bad roll or two, and I can understand wanting to keep some of that in the game.

Sure, but that can be kept out by not rolling for things that aren't in doubt.

However, I also think that it doesn't always fit and that in something like my games, which are slightly more serious than CR. In those cases, Passive being a floor makes a good amount of sense. Then you don't get the PP-15 ranger getting surprised because they asked to look around a clearing, instead of just walking in, and rolled a 2 on their Perception check, against some goblins that rolled a 13 on stealth.

Why can't a ranger every have a perceptive brain fart? There's nothing wrong with him being surprised by some goblins who got lucky. That doesn't make it a less serious game. It makes it a more serious game. You can't take anything for granted and have to be careful with your actions rather than relying on a high passive perception score.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Page 60 basic rules, the DM has final say The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. and You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly,

Skulker just makes it easier to be not clearly seen.

Yeah, but Skulker + Dim Light = Not seen clearly.

That's flat out wrong. Here's the rule from the 5e PHB

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."

It doesn't get clearer than that.

The specific rule of the skulker feat overrides that rule, though.