D&D 5E I don't use Passive Perception

[Ilbranteloth]

As A DM, I don't use passive perception. I think it ruins the fun of things that are supposed to be a surprise. Traps or Hiding monsters comes to mind.

With passive perception what is the point of a trap? The player either automatically finds it OR I jack the spot DC and the player automatically doesn't find it. This is barring actively searching for traps of course.

Now players don't have to search for a trap to find it. If I know a trap is coming I will roll perception for the player in secret. If the make the DC, cool. If they don't, cool.

So far my players have not complained the least. But can anyone give me a reason why this is a bad idea or unfair?

I realize that I'M the DM and it's MY game so do works for ME and MY players is cool. So you don't need to tell me things of that nature. I'm looking for arguments in favor of Passive Perception or perhaps alternate ways to use it.

I use passive scores for pretty much every skill extensively. They represent the floor of what is easy for that character in that skill and reward being good at that skill. I also consider the capability of the character, that is, 20 + their modifier. If there’s a secret door and they are carefully testing blocks in the wall and examining things closely, they’ll find it. No roll is needed, just time. However, if they aren’t examining the right place, they’ll never find it.

For perception, the only difference between this approach and your secret roll method is that sometimes a character can fail at something they should be able to succeed at.

Instead, consider that passive perception doesn’t reveal the trap, but simply indicates something doesn’t feel right. It tells them that something is wrong. They then have to act. However, if that action is to just roll a die, there’s no point. Have them describe what they are doing, and if a roll is necessary, you can modify it based on their actions.

To answer your question of what’s the point of a trap? Well, it’s to trap, delay, maim, or kill somebody, among other things. But the “mistake” in my mind is that DM’s answer this question in relation to the game. That is, they design them to target the characters and their current level and skills. I think that’s a mistake because the creature setting the trap isn’t. The creature setting the trap is doing so against the world they live in. If the majority of creatures have a passive Perception of 15 or lower, then a trap with a DC of 18 or higher is all that’s needed.

To put it a different way, most people simply hide their valuables at home. They are concerned about protecting them from an average burglar. Wealthy people have a safe, concealed, but relatively easy to find, and even if it’s built into a wall, relatively easy to remove and eventually break open.

A bank, on the other hand, has much more in the way of safeguards and is far more difficult to crack. The lair of a band of kobolds is designed to defend against the other creatures of their environs, and is primarily a deterrent. While they may be defending against the local people, 5th level characters are fairly rare, and so they aren’t designing them with them in mind. So they are relatively easily detectable and foiled by such skilled individuals.

If you treat a trap as a real thing placed by real creatures for a real reason, then that tells the characters something. It’s not about whether it’s a challenge to be overcome or a risk designed for the players. That is, the traps ALWAYS have a purpose. The character may simply be more skilled than its intended target.

If you think DCs are too easy, and in 5e I think they are, simply bump them up by 5.

 

[iserith]

I handle it this way:

First, I describe the environment in general to set up the adventure location. Next, I ask the players what their characters do while exploring, again, in general. This is their exploration task. They know the DCs by pace going in so they can array their party as they see fit. I make a note of this, but I can't narrate a result until it becomes relevant later.

Now I continue to describe the environment as the characters explore. Embedded in that description are clues telegraphing the existence of hidden things - traps, monsters, secret doors, etc. (These are "free" clues that some of you appear to gate behind the passive Perception score.) If someone has chosen to undertake an exploration task that might reveal these hidden things and meets the required passive score, then I tell them they have found something. That might be a pressure plate or tripwire or the outline of a door in the wall, something like that. Bottom line is that it's explicit - I'm no longer beating around the bush with clues at this point since they've found it because that is what the check resolves. If they do not meet the required passive score, then they have only the clues I already provided to go on. They can spend some time poking around more specifically or trying to deduce the relevance of those clues and they might roll or might have automatic success (or failure) depending on what they describe. ("Time" generally means I'm making a wandering monster check.) I narrate the results of the adventurers' actions accordingly. Sometimes failing a check means they find the hidden thing, but I make a wandering monster check because it took a while or made noise, etc.

I set it up this way because the "free" clues in the description provide agency to the players to change the fate of their characters by the decisions they make during play, both when they chose their exploration task and marching order but also in that moment. Telling them they found the trap's trigger or secret door due to their passive check result rewards their choices in play and the ones they may have made when building the character. And, as mentioned, discovering the hidden thing is only the beginning of the challenge. Now comes the investigation, deduction, and efforts to avoid or disarm the trap, open the secret door, or what have you.

 

[guachi]

From the text though the "passive" score is used in replacement of continuous rolls implying that there is active perception happening repetitively. Perhaps "constant" would have been a better term?

While I was reading your post, before I got to your suggestion of 'constant' was that 'continuous' would have been a better term. So clearly we are on the same track.

I chose 'continuous' because it has the meaning of uninterrupted across space and time, which is what we are going for.

 

[SansMoins]

Remember that with passive perception, they will only notice something’s amiss. They then would still have to roll to investigate it, to see what it is, and could spring the trap then.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[SansMoins]

Observant feat. +5 passive perception. So it is not difficult to achieve with standard array and human variant.

Don't use auto successes on traps. But what should PP actually do? It should prevent people from asking for traps all the time.
So what I did with our observant monk was telling him that he notices something that may initiate a search at this place.
Tracks that suddenly stop. More or less dust than usual etc.
In the case of passive investigation I used to tell him that he notices the interior of the building is smaller than it looked from the outside. Or that in the floor below all rooms seemed bigger.

Not allowing passive checks to do something devalues the feat choice and what is worse, just slows down the game. Secret doors are there to be found. The game is usually more interesting that way.
You can assign disadvantage (-5 PP) in many cases though, because of bad lighting or because adventurers are not paying attention to their surroundings. I expect them to at least tell me that they are trying to be aware of traps and secret doors and then I may give a penalty on their PP to being surprised by creatures.

Totally forgot about Observant. Thanks.

Also, I totally agree. Passive perception should be used to point out something is a miss. How is it a miss would still need a investigation check.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Totally forgot about Observant. Thanks.

Also, I totally agree. Passive perception should be used to point out something is a miss. How is it a miss would still need a investigation check.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

No. Passive investigation should tell you that there is something wrong or missing what should be there. Active tells you what.
Investigation is used if everything is in plain view. Think about the investigators sherlock holmes or monk. There were many people looking at the crime scene, only you notice that something should be lying differently.

Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app

 

[FrogReaver]

Remember that with passive perception, they will only notice something’s amiss. They then would still have to roll to investigate it, to see what it is, and could spring the trap then.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

That's one way to do it for sure. I don't think it's the only way to do it though.

I would never say that all perception does is noticing something is amiss. Perception is about noticing specific things. Sometimes you may perceive the trap. Other times you may simply perceive signs that something is amiss without knowing specifically what those signs point to. It just depends.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

As for stealth, I use PP. There's already a roll, so there is some luck involves, no need to have everyone roll if it could resolved with one roll.

As for traps, I had the same thoughts myself. Pretty lame to just be like "You enter a room, you notice a trap in front of you" because the player has 15 PP and the trap description says its DC is 15.

How I resolved it was to not actually do active rolls, but instead make the description more vague like: "You enter a room, there are some bookshelves with books. On the west side there are some holes in the wall. The floor is made of various stone plates. Some a bit darker than others."

An active roll comes with a player specifically saying he wants his PC to check something. And even then I only let the player roll when I'm in doubt about the result.

 

[JesterOC]

How I resolved it was to not actually do active rolls, but instead make the description more vague like: "You enter a room, there are some bookshelves with books. On the west side there are some holes in the wall. The floor is made of various stone plates. Some a bit darker than others."

An active roll comes with a player specifically saying he wants his PC to check something. And even then I only let the player roll when I'm in doubt about the result.

Prefect use of PP IMHO


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[Ilbranteloth]

As for stealth, I use PP. There's already a roll, so there is some luck involves, no need to have everyone roll if it could resolved with one roll.

As for traps, I had the same thoughts myself. Pretty lame to just be like "You enter a room, you notice a trap in front of you" because the player has 15 PP and the trap description says its DC is 15.

How I resolved it was to not actually do active rolls, but instead make the description more vague like: "You enter a room, there are some bookshelves with books. On the west side there are some holes in the wall. The floor is made of various stone plates. Some a bit darker than others."

An active roll comes with a player specifically saying he wants his PC to check something. And even then I only let the player roll when I'm in doubt about the result.

I only allow an active roll if somebody explains to me what actions they are taking. That is, you can't just ask "can I make a Perception check?" But if you decide to climb a tree to get a better vantage point, then I'll either simply give you a bonus on your passive Perception, or you can make a roll.

To clarify, an active roll is an Action. That is, if you're in combat, then it consumes your Action, like the Hide or Search actions. It doesn't have to be an outwardly visible action. Doing long division in your head is still an action, for me it's just a question of whether you are focused on performing that skill instead of anything else.

Another step along the continuum is your capability. I consider that your capability is 20 + your skill modifier. Note that while advantage does give you a +5 on passive use of a skill, I don't consider advantage to increase your actual capability. So if you have a +6 to Stealth, your capability is 26. Advantage doesn't raise this to 31.

Anyway, when determining a passive check, such as passive Perception, if there is nothing preventing you from taking the time to succeed, then I use your capability instead of your passive score. This applies to all passive scores.

In addition, I don't care for active rolls that fail when you pass with a passive Score. So any roll that fails and is 5 or more lower than your passive score is a failure. Otherwise it's a complication of some sort, most commonly a measure of time.

In your trap example, I might provide one of those clues, such as some of the stones look darker than the others. But then I might also have a different DC for noticing the stones vs the small holes in the wall.

To expand the example, the PC might choose to focus on the stones, rather than search the rest of the room more carefully for signs of a trap. So he says he'll go take a closer look at the stones, without pressing them down. Rather than a Perception check I might call for an Investigation check based on his actions. I'll describe that the darker stones appear to be moveable, like a pressure plate. He decides to use his thieves' tools to try to disarm it.

On the other hand, while he's examining the stones, another character decides to more carefully examine the west wall and notices the holes. Now they probably know that the two are related. And the fighter stands with his shield blocking the holes. The rogue may still set off the trap by accident, but they are prepared. Or perhaps they just choose to press themselves against the wall on either side of the holes, and use a spear to push the stones and set it off on purpose.