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

[Greenstone.Walker]

So a level one PC, without trying, sees everything that is "Hard" to see? No way.

A level 1 PC who has spent a very limited resource (a feat) and has spent a couple of somewhat limited resources (proficiencies and ability scores). And this is "no way"?

If a PC should succeed 50% of the time on a non-modified DC 10 active check, a passive check shouldn't start at auto-success!

So, how would you do it?

Take a scenario of a character (WIS\Perception +0) and a tunnel full of 50 moderate-difficulty-to-spot traps. Without rolling any dice, how would you determine which traps, if any, the character spots as they alertly walk along the tunnel?

 

[Lylandra]

I think it's more appropriate to say that DM is just trying to play gotcha! against his players. His players think they're performing an ongoing sweep of the area, but theDM isn't letting them.


See, the thing about passive perception is this: It never needs to be used. Not even for repeated tasks. PP is just an option for tables that don't want to roll dice to decide the outcome of those repeated tasks. There are other solutions, too. A common one I see suggested on the boards is to make a list of prerolled checks for the DM to consult as needed.



When I run DM, when something comes up that the repeated task deals with, I ask for a roll instead of using the passive score. I'd rather have dice rolled because it's more fun for the my group.

But they still totally get to search for traps without restating it every 5 minutes.

I love PP because me and my group don't want to throw the dice all the time.

Perception, in my opinion, is already a way too important, over-used skill. And in many dungeon-y scenarios (where there is a LOT of stuff to spot), you'd have one of two options without PP:

1) play gotcha! with your players. This leads to them rolling for perception in every little square on each wall, floor or ceiling, even if nothing's there. They don't want nsaty surprises and they are not dumb. So they'll just keep rolling. And rolling...

2) Assume that your players are geneally on alert and ask for the occasional perception check (with some red herrings included) whenever they might find something. This is fine in most cases but may lead to an even stronger feeling of perception as "THE" skill.

And this is why I use PP. I use their PP everytime they say they are "on alert" but don't specify that they are searching area X for sings of Y. If they do the latter, I'll ask for a perception check.

 

[ro]

A level 1 PC who has spent a very limited resource (a feat) and has spent a couple of somewhat limited resources (proficiencies and ability scores). And this is "no way"?

Right. "Hard" is supposed to be hard. Now, an active check makes Hard not so hard for such a player, but for a passive I'm-not-totally-paying-attention check, yes, Hard should not be trivial.

So, how would you do it?

I said how I would do it: 5 + prof + mod for normal passive perception, -5 for disadvantage, +5 for advantage. Now, if the players are *actively* doing something repetitively, I would either do the standard passive perception, or I would still have them roll once for each general area to see how successful they are being on average at the time.

Rolling every 5 feet is ridiculous. But roll once per minutes/10 minutes/hour of travel is fine. Have them roll for groups of things.

Take a scenario of a character (WIS\Perception +0) and a tunnel full of 50 moderate-difficulty-to-spot traps. Without rolling any dice, how would you determine which traps, if any, the character spots as they alertly walk along the tunnel?

This character's passive perception is 5 + 0 + 0 = 5. He would spot Very-Easy-to-see traps automatically. If he is actively looking for traps rather than enjoying conversation with his party members, his average active perception would be 10 + 0 + 0 = 10. Moderate difficulty traps have a DC of 15.

If you went straight PP against DC, he wouldn't see any of them.

For active perception, in actual rolling, no modifiers, you beat DC 15 6 out of 20 rolls, which is 6 * .05 = .3 = 30%. So, you could say he sees 30% of the 50 traps: 15 traps.

You can calculate this as (21 - DC + skill mod) * 5%.

For not-looking-for-it passive perception, it would be 5 less: (16 - DC + skill mod) * 5% = 1 * 5% = 2 out of 50 traps.

Or, more fun, if he is actively perceiving, you can have him roll twice, one for the first group of 25 traps, and one for the second group of 25 traps. Or 5 times and split them into groups of 10: whatever fits the design of the dungeon/area better. If he is not actively perceiving, have him roll with disadvantage.

In contrast, a 5th-level Observant, proficient, +4 Wisdom character would have a passive skill modifier of +12 and an active skill modifier of +7.
Inactive passive: (16 - DC 15 + 12) * 5% = 13 * 5% = 65% = 32 of 50 traps.
Active average: (21 - DC 15 + 7 ) * 5% = 13 * 5% = 65% = 32 of 50 traps.
The Observant player does not gain a benefit to active perception (I am continually looking for traps!) but only to passive. This makes his passive (inactive) perception just as good as his average active perception.

If passive perception stays at 10 + skill mod, an Observant player will actually be 25% better at seeing things when he is not looking for them than when he is!

 

[iserith]

Right. "Hard" is supposed to be hard. Now, an active check makes Hard not so hard for such a player, but for a passive I'm-not-totally-paying-attention check, yes, Hard should not be trivial.

"Passive" in "passive check" refers to the check, not the action or task. A task or action is not a check. A check is a mechanic that resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of a task as established by the DM.

By definition, a passive check resolves the outcome of a task performed repeatedly when that outcome is uncertain.

Therefore, the PC is very much engaged in a task and paying attention to that task, often at the cost of not being able to perform other tasks or while putting oneself at risk (such as being at the front of the party and keeping watch for hidden danger so as to have a chance to notice traps as the party travels).

 

[Satyrn]

I love PP because me and my group don't want to throw the dice all the time.

Perception, in my opinion, is already a way too important, over-used skill. And in many dungeon-y scenarios (where there is a LOT of stuff to spot), you'd have one of two options without PP:

1) play gotcha! with your players. This leads to them rolling for perception in every little square on each wall, floor or ceiling, even if nothing's there. They don't want nsaty surprises and they are not dumb. So they'll just keep rolling. And rolling...

2) Assume that your players are geneally on alert and ask for the occasional perception check (with some red herrings included) whenever they might find something. This is fine in most cases but may lead to an even stronger feeling of perception as "THE" skill.

And this is why I use PP. I use their PP everytime they say they are "on alert" but don't specify that they are searching area X for sings of Y. If they do the latter, I'll ask for a perception check.

Aye. Every table will do things ths way that works for them.

And my table is probably not the norm, certainly when it comes to Perception compared to the members of this board. We do pretty much what you described in #2 (except that the DMs don't include red herrings), and that doesn't lead to us feeling that Perception is THE skill.

We've just never cared too much about it, it seems.

 

[iserith]

Perception becomes a "way too important" skill in my experience only when the DM treats passive Perception as "always on radar" for any hidden thing that exists in the game. I don't see any actual support for that interpretation in D&D 5e rules and it feels like a holdover from a previous edition. (Though to be fair, the existing rules are not exactly crystal clear on the matter.) There are trade-offs. You don't get to spot it all and not without risk or cost.

 

[Satyrn]

Perception becomes a "way too important" skill in my experience only when the DM treats passive Perception as "always on radar" for any hidden thing that exists in the game.

That does describe nearly the oopposite of the way my table runs in this little regard.

Pretty much nothing is hidden.

We do use those "always-on radar" Perception checks, but not very often - and in those cases they're more like Perception saves - do you notice this tripwire before stepping on it, do you see the ambusher in the woods pulling back his bow.

 

[iserith]

That does describe nearly the oopposite of the way my table runs in this little regard.

Pretty much nothing is hidden.

We do use those "always-on radar" Perception checks, but not very often - and in those cases they're more like Perception saves - do you notice this tripwire before stepping on it, do you see the ambusher in the woods pulling back his bow.

When I see an objection to passive Perception, it's almost always because the DM is treating it as "always-on radar" for all hidden things or misinterpreting a passive check as implying a character is doing something passively. It's going on in this very thread.

 

[GlassJaw]

Perception becomes a "way too important" skill in my experience only when the DM treats passive Perception as "always on radar" for any hidden thing that exists in the game. I don't see any actual support for that interpretation in D&D 5e rules and it feels like a holdover from a previous edition. (Though to be fair, the existing rules are not exactly crystal clear on the matter.) There are trade-offs. You don't get to spot it all and not without risk or cost.

From the PHB:
"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 DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

When I first read your post, I thought you were wrong about the "always-on radar", but after rereading the PHB, I'm somewhat inclined to agree...

For the case of hidden monster, it does seem the interpretation of "always-on radar" is correct. However, with regards to finding a secret door, it could be read that a player will tell the DM they are searching for secret doors down a corridor, so instead of rolling every 5 feet, the Passive Perception is used. In this case, the term "passive" becomes a misnomer and confuses how it's supposed to be used.

You could also argue from the above quote from PHB that only when a task can be done repeatedly - which assumes failure is not "dangerous" - can a passive check be used. In other words, I don't think it's unreasonable to rule that traps CAN'T be found with Passive Perception if you don't want them to be, or at least not without special circumstances.

I can see a situation in which a player encounters a puzzle involving lots of buttons on a wall. Without touching them, the player wants to search for traps. Some of the buttons are trapped, but they only get activated by pressing. You could allow a player to use their passive score and apply it to every button, and perhaps in significantly less time than it would take to do an "active" search on every button.

I've also had success using different DCs for detecting passively or actively, which also introduces the concept of a Perception "toggle" like in a video game:

Passive Perception mode - Allows you detect a clue or something out of the ordinary as to the possible existence of a secret door or trap. The DC is higher than detection in Active Perception Mode, and in some cases, nothing can be found at all. Your speed is not reduced and there is no penalty for failure depending on the nature of the trap.

Active Perception mode - You can detect traps and secret doors. Some traps and secret doors can only be found in Active mode. Your speed is reduced (by half?). If your check is less than your Passive Perception, your DM may allow you to use your Passive Perception score.

 

[Satyrn]

In this case, the term "passive" becomes a misnomer and confuses how it's supposed to be used.

It's still not even a misnomer if you think of it from the player's perspective - it's a passive check because they aren't actively rolling dice.

I really think this is the way the term "Passive Check" should be seen. And it's definitely the way I consider it.

Oh, let me add that when I call for a sort of always-on-radar Peception check, I'm pretty sure it's because I feel like I haven't done a good enough job of describing the environment, so I fall back on the check as a sort if crutch to avoid accidentally playing gotcha when I unleash an ambush the players are not expecting and have been given no reason to expect.