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

Psikerlord# · Oct 25, 2018

Strider1973 said:
Hi everybodym
I'm not very good at math, but it seems to me that sometimes Passive Perception is more effective than the Active one.
One of the players in my group plays a 1 lvl. dex and wis based fighter, with 16 in Wisdom, who is Proficient in Perception, and has a Passive Perception of 15: definetely quite hard to surprise, just when he's not searching for anything in particular! ;-)!
What do you think, and what are your experiences about this topic?
Many thanks!

PP is broken, turning stealth PCs into super ninjas, and making traps auto detect or fail to detect with no randomisation involved (a spectacularly bad idea, why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know). Delete it from your game and just roll perception checks, which is how it worked in prior editions without any problems whatsoever, and as far as I'm aware, how most other RPG systems work.

If you're concerned about "tipping off" players by asking them to make rolls seemingly out of the blue, roll for them behind your screen, or get them to make 10 rolls at the start of the session, and use one of them.

You also dont need passive for lore checks, or strength checks, or anything else that is not a contested roll. Just make a ruling about whether if they have the skill or a certain Str score or whatever that they know or do the thing automatically without needing a roll.

If you're concerned about retries over and over - the answer is simply no retries unless it makes sense (breaking down a door, eventually you succeed, why even roll?) or the situation changes significantly. Taking 10 and taking 20 are probably the genesis of the passive rule, and are also broken, for similar reasons. Instead either (i) if time doesn't matter and the thing can be done, they just do it, or (ii) no retries unless the situation significantly changes.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 25, 2018

iserith said:
I don't find arguments like this very convincing when discussing a game with rules that is set in a fantasy world. Arguments based on rules, on the other hand, I do find convincing.

I'm not trying to change your mind on the rules. I'm just stating why these particular rules in my opinion are kind of dumb, and that there's a better way to do them.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 25, 2018

Psikerlord# said:
PP is broken, turning stealth PCs into super ninjas, and making traps auto detect or fail to detect with no randomisation involved (a spectacularly bad idea, why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know).

There easily can be randomization when using passive perception if you randomize the DCs to be detected. Rather than just assigning DCs for hidden objects, you roll checks to see what those DCs are when creating the adventure.

Psikerlord# · Oct 25, 2018

DEFCON 1 said:
There easily can be randomization when using passive perception if you randomize the DCs to be detected. Rather than just assigning DCs for hidden objects, you roll checks to see what those DCs are when creating the adventure.

That is preferable to the default, and is in effect a backwards way of you rolling the PC's perception check for them.

iserith · Oct 25, 2018

Psikerlord# said:
why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know).

As a player, I absolutely do try to take luck out of any task I have my character attempt, to the extent that I can.

Li Shenron · Oct 25, 2018

DEFCON 1 said:
There easily can be randomization when using passive perception if you randomize the DCs to be detected. Rather than just assigning DCs for hidden objects, you roll checks to see what those DCs are when creating the adventure.

It's an interesting idea. Kind of having traps roll for Stealth like creatures. You could do it in advance when writing the adventure, or wait until needed if you DM also like surprises. As I said, I don't like using passive skills vs DC but rolled DC would work.

Li Shenron · Oct 25, 2018

Psikerlord# said:
PP is broken, turning stealth PCs into super ninjas, and making traps auto detect or fail to detect with no randomisation involved (a spectacularly bad idea, why you want to take luck out of the game I don't know).

I can't be sure without asking the designers, but I don't think passive perception was meant to remove randomness. IMHO it was brought into the game to silence the idea of rolling for traps every 5ft step.

5ekyu · Oct 25, 2018

Hriston said:
I don't think that would work for me. I like that I can use a passive check to make a check secretly in a situation where there's hidden information, like a hidden monster the party doesn't know about.

I don't think it's arbitrary. The rules of D&D are there to give structure to our make-believe. I wouldn't like a game that was all about the DM's whims and in what arbitrary direction the DM thinks the fiction should go.

"I don't think that would work for me. I like that I can use a passive check to make a check secretly in a situation where there's hidden information, like a hidden monster the party doesn't know about."

I will on occasion call for a perception check, often when entering a new type of area and that can stay in effect for their general or passive perception until used.

Other times i can use their passive score anyway **if** it is sufficient to spot the "poorly hidden beast." Much like the Str 8 character does not need to roll to jump the 5' gap. No sense to roll if the result will be success.

I must admit tho, i wish 5e had standardized the passive perception to match the optional auto-success rules in the DMG, either one (prof+easy or naked ability score-5.)

Matter of fact, defining passive perception as Wisdom Score -5 and not the take 10 it is now (with appropriate animal traits for keen senses giving out disads or such) along with the same optional rule from the DMG doesnt seem bad.

It sets up a difference between passive and active (roll plus prof) , allows a way to raise it thats capped with no question that the action oretty much gets you more almost all the time and doesnt make some see the need to jack up DCs for traps and stuff.

Psikerlord# · Oct 26, 2018

Li Shenron said:
I can't be sure without asking the designers, but I don't think passive perception was meant to remove randomness. IMHO it was brought into the game to silence the idea of rolling for traps every 5ft step.

If you dont have a trap every 5 ft there's no need to roll. I don't think anyone ever did that. Not that I have experienced anyway.

Psikerlord# · Oct 26, 2018

iserith said:
As a player, I absolutely do try to take luck out of any task I have my character attempt, to the extent that I can.

Not so. Good luck detecting that DC 18 trap with your PP 14. Bet you wish there was room for randomness then.

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

Psikerlord#

Explorer

DEFCON 1

Legend

DEFCON 1

Legend

Psikerlord#

Explorer

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Li Shenron

Legend

Li Shenron

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Psikerlord#

Explorer

Psikerlord#

Explorer

Similar Threads