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

[DEFCON 1]

I agree with Li Shenron on the matter of passive Perception as a "floor." So far as I can tell, the rules only support this being the case in combat and detecting danger (because per the rules most creatures are alert to danger). Or arguably if a character is engaging in a specific task over time (e.g. searching for secret doors while traveling the dungeon) and then opts to be more reasonably specific in a particular instance of searching for secret doors that might also call for an ability check. There is nothing in the rules, however, that suggest you're always alert to danger outside of combat or always searching for secret doors (for example) such that passive Perception would always be on. It's situational.

I could probably have done a better job wording that, so if it's not clear, please let me know.

Nope, you both are quite clear. But to my mind, the rules don't really say either way how or when PP should apply.

Like I said... if you as a DM want to go through the effort of deciding on a case-by-case basis "this can be found via PP, this other thing cannot"... go nuts. To me, though, that's just an extra unnecessary step.

How I determine whether something can be found by PP? The DC tells me. If the DC is above the PC's PP, then they can't find it via PP. If it's below, then they can.

After all... if someone makes a DEX (Stealth) check and rolls a 7... why would I ever decide "Well, you know I don't think I'm going to let their PP find him, even though with that 7 it basically means his butt is sticking out. I'll wait for them to say they are going to look for him first and make them roll for it." The monster rolls way below their PP but I still make them roll Perception checks because who knows, they might roll horribly and still not see him? No thanks. To me, that's just silly. But every other DM can do what they wish.

 

[iserith]

But to my mind, the rules don't really say either way how or when PP should apply.

It does though. It's just spread out over several sections. It applies in combat as it relates to staying alert to danger (see sidebar on "Hiding"). And it applies when a character is engaged in a task repeatedly such as when traveling which ranges from feet per minute to hours per day (see section on "Activities While Traveling"). Typically, that is also staying alert to danger, but could be other things such as searching for secret doors or any other ongoing task to which Wisdom (Perception) may used to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome.

Like I said... if you as a DM want to go through the effort of deciding on a case-by-case basis "this can be found via PP, this other thing cannot"... go nuts. To me, though, that's just an extra unnecessary step.

It depends on the task established by the player for the character.

After all... if someone makes a DEX (Stealth) check and rolls a 7... why would I ever decide "Well, you know I don't think I'm going to let their PP find him, even though with that 7 it basically means his butt is sticking out. I'll wait for them to say they are going to look for him first and make them roll for it." The monster rolls way below their PP but I still make them roll Perception checks because who knows, they might roll horribly and still not see him? No thanks. To me, that's just silly. But every other DM can do what they wish.

For passive Perception to apply, the player must have established that the character is alert to danger, which can reasonably be considered the default state in my view though I do prefer players to declare it. If the character is not alert to danger, perhaps because he or she is doing some other task, then passive Perception does not apply to noticing the hidden threat.

 

[daviddalbec]

Nope, you both are quite clear. But to my mind, the rules don't really say either way how or when PP should apply.

Like I said... if you as a DM want to go through the effort of deciding on a case-by-case basis "this can be found via PP, this other thing cannot"... go nuts. To me, though, that's just an extra unnecessary step.

How I determine whether something can be found by PP? The DC tells me. If the DC is above the PC's PP, then they can't find it via PP. If it's below, then they can.

After all... if someone makes a DEX (Stealth) check and rolls a 7... why would I ever decide "Well, you know I don't think I'm going to let their PP find him, even though with that 7 it basically means his butt is sticking out. I'll wait for them to say they are going to look for him first and make them roll for it." The monster rolls way below their PP but I still make them roll Perception checks because who knows, they might roll horribly and still not see him? No thanks. To me, that's just silly. But every other DM can do what they wish.

For that case, Crawford does bring up the example of when a PC is sneaking up on someone watching a play. You aren't obscured at all technically, but the DM might find that it is sufficient grounds to consider you to still be invisible. Very similarly what the other poster said about cases where you're passive perception isn't on because you're paying attention to navigating map. I took this a bit further, maybe, and said that every person wouldn't be instantly interested, or aware of every book in a room so as to pick out the false one.

What I think I'm seeing from you, is that you'd argue that in the case of sneaking up on the play attendent, it would still be possible to model this. Would you say something like that the quarry watching the play is just distracted, equating to some DC increase?

 

[Hriston]

No way. This may be how YOU like handling Perception, but nowhere in the rules it is said that the DM must do it like this.

I'm not sure what kind of situation you're imagining. I'm only going to consult a character's passive score if they've told me they're looking for something, so I can't imagine a situation where they hit the DC to find whatever it is they're looking for with their passive score but then I'm asking them to roll a check instead. Maybe an example would help.

 

[daviddalbec]

It does though. It's just spread out over several sections. It applies in combat as it relates to staying alert to danger (see sidebar on "Hiding"). And it applies when a character is engaged in a task repeatedly such as when traveling which ranges from feet per minute to hours per day (see section on "Activities While Traveling"). Typically, that is also staying alert to danger, but could be other things such as searching for secret doors or any other ongoing task to which Wisdom (Perception) may used to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome.



It depends on the task established by the player for the character.



For passive Perception to apply, the player must have established that the character is alert to danger, which can reasonably be considered the default state in my view though I do prefer players to declare it. If the character is not alert to danger, perhaps because he or she is doing some other task, then passive Perception does not apply to noticing the hidden threat.

I think I agree with you almost completely. I'll clarify that the type of danger the character is alert to is subject to a lot of DM interpretation. Does it make sense that a character does pay attention to the bookshelf in order to find the false book lever? Perhaps. It's a factor of time and proximity at least. The situation of a PC having a LoS to this bookshelf through a peripheral doorway, down a long hallway vs. the PC resting on the chair in front of the bookshelf must be interpreted differently by the DM for example. Even though, by the RAW, the distinction means nothing.

 

[daviddalbec]

I think I agree with you almost completely. I'll clarify that the type of danger the character is alert to is subject to a lot of DM interpretation. Does it make sense that a character does pay attention to the bookshelf in order to find the false book lever? Perhaps. It's a factor of time and proximity at least. The situation of a PC having a LoS to this bookshelf through a peripheral doorway, down a long hallway vs. the PC resting on the chair in front of the bookshelf must be interpreted differently by the DM for example. Even though, by the RAW, the distinction means nothing.

I'd like to clarify myself again. What I'm saying is tantamount to, "If conditions exist where it's possible for a PC to make an active check, then their passive check must be considered". It's impossible to notice dust disturbance on a bookshelf from 100' away for example, but if a PC comes within distance to notice it and is there for sufficient time and with sufficient attention, then I would have no reason not to use their passive.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What I think I'm seeing from you, is that you'd argue that in the case of sneaking up on the play attendant, it would still be possible to model this. Would you say something like that the quarry watching the play is just distracted, equating to some DC increase?

Rather than a DC increase, the person watching the play would receive "disadvantage" on their PP, meaning that you'd subtract 5 from it. But the DC itself would still be the guy walking up from behind making his DEX (Stealth) check.

But if that guy trying to sneak up rolled a 4... to me, it means he just SUUUUUUUCKED at sneaking up. He banged into the wall, he stunk up to high heaven, he farted on his way over, etc. And the way I always interpret PP to be... its the person's just normal and general awareness of what is going on around them. So even if that attendant was watching a play... they still have ears. They can still hear things going on around them even if they are concentrating on something else. They'll still smell it if someone ripped one. To me, THAT'S what their PP is. And thus they should be able to notice things going on around them, even if they aren't *trying* to notice what's going on around them. So yeah, even with the disadvantaged -5 to their PP... they'll still notice the schmuck who completely botched their stealth roll. As they darn well should IMHO.

For some DMs, I guess the idea of "general awareness of your surroundings" isn't something they wish to model in the game. Which is fine for them I guess. But I don't want to make it impossible for my PCs to notice things happening around them unless they first TELL me they ARE trying to notice things. That just seems kind of silly to me.

 

[iserith]

I think I agree with you almost completely. I'll clarify that the type of danger the character is alert to is subject to a lot of DM interpretation. Does it make sense that a character does pay attention to the bookshelf in order to find the false book lever? Perhaps. It's a factor of time and proximity at least. The situation of a PC having a LoS to this bookshelf through a peripheral doorway, down a long hallway vs. the PC resting on the chair in front of the bookshelf must be interpreted differently by the DM for example. Even though, by the RAW, the distinction means nothing.

Is the lever a trap? Then I would say that qualifies as a danger. Does it control a secret door? Then I would say it's not. As for the rest of the details you mention, that goes to whether there's a need for a passive check at all, what the DC is, whether there's advantage or disadvantage, etc. There's some specificity in the rules about passive Perception not applying based on marching order, for example. If someone's far away from the threat, then they have no chance of noticing it even if they are paying attention.

 

[daviddalbec]

Is the lever a trap? Then I would say that qualifies as a danger. Does it control a secret door? Then I would say it's not. As for the rest of the details you mention, that goes to whether there's a need for a passive check at all, what the DC is, whether there's advantage or disadvantage, etc. There's some specificity in the rules about passive Perception not applying based on marching order, for example. If someone's far away from the threat, then they have no chance of noticing it even if they are paying attention.

Right. I'd also like to point out that the required conditions for something like hearing a conversation being had on the other side of a door might be the PC's ear pressed up against that door. This would never happen accidentally, where the DM is checking the PC's passive perception before the PC intends on the action.

 

[iserith]

Right. I'd also like to point out that the required conditions for something like hearing a conversation being had on the other side of a door might be the PC's ear pressed up against that door. This would never happen accidentally, where the DM is checking the PC's passive perception before the PC intends on the action.

That would be an ability check in my view rather than a passive check unless it was some kind of (weird?) situation where listening for whispering behind doors was an ongoing task while traveling. And then, of course, only an ability check if the task described by the player had an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.