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

[5ekyu]

What do you use for the DC to notice the beast, its passive Stealth?



I think the Automatic Success variant is meant to cover tasks that are too easy for the character to bother with making a check, whereas a passive score represents a reasonable average effort.

last first - an average effort is not the same as a minimal result - which is what passive scores tend to be used as - its how they are treated mechanically. So, "average" is not how they are used.

Both the auto-success and the passive perc establish an automatic scale for success. It would have been nice if they were tied together mechanically instead of being two different ways - treating perception alone differently.

As for the stealth passive question - its *almost* "passive stealth" - but when one shifts the die roll from one side to the other *and* keeps "ties go to roller" (IE "meet the DC or exceed equals success") then one has to use 12 not 10.

So a hiding/sneaking stealth+4 creature vs a perception +6 character would result in the PC rolling perception+6 vs 12+4 = DC 16 resulting in the same 55% being spotted and 45% remaining hidden odds as the normal 5e way to resolve it with the creature rolling stealth+4 vs the character's Dc 16 passive Perception.

 

[Hriston]

last first - an average effort is not the same as a minimal result - which is what passive scores tend to be used as - its how they are treated mechanically. So, "average" is not how they are used.

I think it's how they're intended to be used. It either represents an "average result of a task done repeatedly" or is used as a substitute for a rolled check when the DM wants to keep it secret. So no, it doesn't represent what can be accomplished with little or no effort. It's the same effort that goes into other ability checks.

As for the stealth passive question - its *almost* "passive stealth" - but when one shifts the die roll from one side to the other *and* keeps "ties go to roller" (IE "meet the DC or exceed equals success") then one has to use 12 not 10.

So a hiding/sneaking stealth+4 creature vs a perception +6 character would result in the PC rolling perception+6 vs 12+4 = DC 16 resulting in the same 55% being spotted and 45% remaining hidden odds as the normal 5e way to resolve it with the creature rolling stealth+4 vs the character's Dc 16 passive Perception.

Cool! Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Satyrn]

For my part, when I use a random encounter table like in Xanathar's, whether or not a monster is trying to be sneaky is based on whether it has Stealth proficiency or whether its lore suggests that is what it does. If neither of those conditions are true, then it won't try to be sneaky and the character who is navigating, tracking, drawing a map, or foraging has nothing to worry about. When I create my own tables, I make a third to a half of the monsters sneaky.

Because wandering monsters are essential to my my megadungeon design, I've adopted a "what is this monster doing?" table I roll on for each encounter. The "stalking prey" or "spying on interlopers" results tell me they're being stealthy.

I'm eagerly anticipating the time when I get that result for some lumbering, clumsy klutz of a monster.