D&D 5E Passive perception Yay or Nay?

[Hriston]

So how are folks feeling about the passive perception system? While I'm digging it, it seems possible others might not. It definitely makes hiding far more feasible since one doesn't have to worry about a whole group of folks shooting dice hoping for high numbers. But that alone might irk other folks who feel what should be their chance to be unsurprised is taken away by a flat number.

There are some assumptions here that are contrary to the rules as stated. Passive perception does not make hiding any more effective because the game assumes that anyone can use their action to use perception, thus making an active check if there is a significant chance of failure. Passive perception actually makes hiding less effective because it creates the opportunity to notice a hidden creature without making an active perception check. Nowhere do the rules say that passive perception is to replace active perception if that is what characters or monsters are trying to do, so you still have to worry about your stealth check being contested by multiple perception checks in that situation. Also, no one should feel that they are not allowed to actively use perception to avoid surprise. It's just that sometimes there are other actions they may wish to take, and in this case they still have their passive score to fall back on, so they should be grateful.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason I use Passive Perception is because I find it to be a good equalizer for both sides of the combat in regards to Rogues using Stealth in the middle of a fight, and other people having to use their actions to find those people.

Rogues (and other PCs who choose to do it) want to get the Hidden condition because it allows them to make their attack with Advantage. But they shouldn't get to gain that condition arbitrarily, they need to work for it. Which means they need to make a DEX (Stealth) check and have it compared against some target number.

So the next question is "What is that target number?"

If you use Passive Perception, we immediately have that target number. And the DM knows almost automatically whether the Hiding creature has been successful based upon that DEX (Stealth) check. This was made plain to me last night, where our Rogue character used Cunning Action to make a check after every attack and move-- and since I knew that the monsters in the fight has PPs around 10-12... she and I knew immediately that if her roll was like 13+, she was Hidden. No muss, no fuss.

If you don't use Passive Perception... the only way to get a target number is to have every person/creature who could possibly see the Hiding character make perception checks each and every round. Which results in two things-- 1) there's a lot more repetitive rolling for everyone involved, and 2) you can't have Active Perception checks use a creature's Action (because you're forcing everyone to make Active checks just to generate the target number to see if the sneaking person succeeds in Hiding.)

So I like have those two layers to the hiding rules-- the hiding person needs to roll a successful check to gain the Hidden condition (thus giving everyone else a free baseline chance to notice them based upon each creature's PP), and the enemies then need to use their Actions to make Active Perception checks if their Passives didn't find them. And by doing it this way, it cuts down on the rolling because as DM I get to decide whether the creatures are going to use their Actions to make those active checks, or else use their Actions to do something else (like attack the people they already can see.)

Of course... this is all in regards to using PP during combat and how I think it is very helpful and saves time (at least in terms of how run stealth and Hiding.) Whether or not you use Passives also for traps and secret doors, that's another kettle of fish. Needless to say, I also use Passives to find those as well (except that I use Passive Investigation checks instead.)

 

[KarinsDad]

Rogues (and other PCs who choose to do it) want to get the Hidden condition because it allows them to make their attack with Advantage. But they shouldn't get to gain that condition arbitrarily, they need to work for it. Which means they need to make a DEX (Stealth) check and have it compared against some target number.

So the next question is "What is that target number?"

Based on my understanding of 5E hiding (which could be incorrect because I find those rules to be not well explained), it's very difficult to hide once combat has begun. The PC/NPC has to 100% not be seen (i.e. behind total cover or going invisible or in heavily obscured area).

This makes it problematic as to achieve hiding in the first place. Once achieved, it gets to your "target number" question here.

If you use Passive Perception, we immediately have that target number. And the DM knows almost automatically whether the Hiding creature has been successful based upon that DEX (Stealth) check. This was made plain to me last night, where our Rogue character used Cunning Action to make a check after every attack and move-- and since I knew that the monsters in the fight has PPs around 10-12... she and I knew immediately that if her roll was like 13+, she was Hidden. No muss, no fuss.

Just out of curiosity, how was the Rogue able to hide so much? Just because Cunning Action allows one to hide, the conditions have to be correct to do this. Was she going into heavy obscurement a lot?

If you don't use Passive Perception... the only way to get a target number is to have every person/creature who could possibly see the Hiding character make perception checks each and every round. Which results in two things-- 1) there's a lot more repetitive rolling for everyone involved, and 2) you can't have Active Perception checks use a creature's Action (because you're forcing everyone to make Active checks just to generate the target number to see if the sneaking person succeeds in Hiding.)

So I like have those two layers to the hiding rules-- the hiding person needs to roll a successful check to gain the Hidden condition (thus giving everyone else a free baseline chance to notice them based upon each creature's PP), and the enemies then need to use their Actions to make Active Perception checks if their Passives didn't find them. And by doing it this way, it cuts down on the rolling because as DM I get to decide whether the creatures are going to use their Actions to make those active checks, or else use their Actions to do something else (like attack the people they already can see.)

Which I find a bit problematic. In combat, most of the combatants know where the hiding creature was last seen. Shy of unusual situations like invisibility, there are really only a few places where the hiding creature can come out of hiding. So, I don't like using passive perception for that. In addition, combats tend to only be a bit chaotic most of the time. Typically, there is a group of PCs on one side of the fight and a group of NPCs on the other side. Although 5E doesn't have facing, there is this "feeling" in the game (at least when using miniatures) that the NPCs are looking towards the PCs and vice versa. When the PC rogue hides, many NPCs are often, for the most part, looking in his direction.

Because a fight can often consist of multiple NPCs with similar or identical passive perceptions, it's a bit strange that either none of them see the Rogue, or all of them see the Rogue. Hence, I would sometimes use active perception for free (i.e. it does not take an action) for most normal hiding scenarios. The NPCs are not using the search action, they are using the attack action. But nothing says that PCs and NPCs only get passive perception during combat without using the search action. Hence, I prefer using the active perception roll for both sides in combat.

The advantage of doing this is that it is not often the either / or case of everyone sees or everyone does not see. The disadvantage is that the DM has to roll some dice, but that's not really that hard if he figures out the target DC of the hide first, subtracts out the perception add and then uses that to compare the D20 roll against. That works the majority of the time since many monsters have similar perceptions and for the ones that do not, it's minor math.

If it is the PCs looking for a hiding NPC, again, let them roll. Players like to roll (as illustrated by their like of the advantage / disadvantage rules, they would rather roll an extra die than add in a bonus).

But based on how often a creature can hide in combat (which should be rare, even with a rogue in the party), having a few extra perception rolls once in a while is no big deal. IMO.

Of course... this is all in regards to using PP during combat and how I think it is very helpful and saves time (at least in terms of how run stealth and Hiding.) Whether or not you use Passives also for traps and secret doors, that's another kettle of fish. Needless to say, I also use Passives to find those as well (except that I use Passive Investigation checks instead.)

Agreed. Unless the PCs are actively searching when out of combat, it is a passive check of some type, situation depending.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Based on my understanding of 5E hiding (which could be incorrect because I find those rules to be not well explained), it's very difficult to hide once combat has begun. The PC/NPC has to 100% not be seen (i.e. behind total cover or going invisible or in heavily obscured area).

This makes it problematic as to achieve hiding in the first place. Once achieved, it gets to your "target number" question here.

Just out of curiosity, how was the Rogue able to hide so much? Just because Cunning Action allows one to hide, the conditions have to be correct to do this. Was she going into heavy obscurement a lot?

For my table it's simple... solid objects and/or dense foliage = Heavily Obscured, and thus someone can attempt to Hide. So the Rogue is back probably 10+ feet into the treeline and ducks behind something big (like a tree) or something dense (like bushes and the like) to make everyone lose sight of her (rolling a DEX (Stealth) check to see how well she did). Then because once you've done that you can then move anywhere you want provided you only are at least Lightly Obscured... the Rogue continues to move to a different point in the treeline from where she was. Her DEX (Stealth) check is then compared to every enemy's Passive Perception to figure out whether someone was able to keep tabs on her during the entire process, and if not, next round she pops up from a different location in the trees and attacks with her crossbow with the Hidden condition.

Now the thing is... this is how I've ruled it, because I find this makes the most sense using the rules 5E has given us. Which is entirely the point of these rules... they are basic enough that each table determines for themselves what logically makes sense for how they want hiding and stealth to work. Some other table might find the way I rule it to be way too generous and easy for the Rogue to Hide. Quite possibly. But I don't care. Another table can make it as easy or as difficult to gain the Hidden condition as they want. As I have no fear of characters having the Hidden condition (and thus getting to attack with Advantage)... I don't act the stickler in terms of whether where the Rogue is *really* behind enough stuff to be classified as "Heavily Obscured". In the middle of combat, once an enemy out in the open loses track of someone back in the trees because they are instead more focused on the platemail-wearing paladin in front of them swinging the battleaxe... I couldn't care less on the technicalities of the amount of "stuff" to hide behind. Worrying about that stuff to me is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which I find a bit problematic. In combat, most of the combatants know where the hiding creature was last seen. Shy of unusual situations like invisibility, there are really only a few places where the hiding creature can come out of hiding. So, I don't like using passive perception for that. In addition, combats tend to only be a bit chaotic most of the time. Typically, there is a group of PCs on one side of the fight and a group of NPCs on the other side. Although 5E doesn't have facing, there is this "feeling" in the game (at least when using miniatures) that the NPCs are looking towards the PCs and vice versa. When the PC rogue hides, many NPCs are often, for the most part, looking in his direction.

Because a fight can often consist of multiple NPCs with similar or identical passive perceptions, it's a bit strange that either none of them see the Rogue, or all of them see the Rogue. Hence, I would sometimes use active perception for free (i.e. it does not take an action) for most normal hiding scenarios. The NPCs are not using the search action, they are using the attack action. But nothing says that PCs and NPCs only get passive perception during combat without using the search action. Hence, I prefer using the active perception roll for both sides in combat.

Which is cool. Choosing to make Active Perception *not* require an Action to use is certainly one way of doing it... especially if you don't use Passive Perception. In fact, if I was to eliminate PPs from the game, I absolutely would do the same thing, because it would be pointless to require people to use their Actions to actively perceive people, because even if they succeeded they couldn't actually attack or do anything about it.

But I prefer less die-rolling for that stuff myself, and also go under the assumption that people/monsters on the battlefield that lose track of others in the trees are much more likely to be concerned with the remaining enemies right there in front of them, than they are trying to find the ones who disappeared. So they wouldn't worry about actively searching for the others unless they had nothing better to do.

 

[KarinsDad]

For my table it's simple... solid objects and/or dense foliage = Heavily Obscured, and thus someone can attempt to Hide. So the Rogue is back probably 10+ feet into the treeline and ducks behind something big (like a tree) or something dense (like bushes and the like) to make everyone lose sight of her (rolling a DEX (Stealth) check to see how well she did). Then because once you've done that you can then move anywhere you want provided you only are at least Lightly Obscured... the Rogue continues to move to a different point in the treeline from where she was. Her DEX (Stealth) check is then compared to every enemy's Passive Perception to figure out whether someone was able to keep tabs on her during the entire process, and if not, next round she pops up from a different location in the trees and attacks with her crossbow with the Hidden condition.

Now the thing is... this is how I've ruled it, because I find this makes the most sense using the rules 5E has given us. Which is entirely the point of these rules... they are basic enough that each table determines for themselves what logically makes sense for how they want hiding and stealth to work. Some other table might find the way I rule it to be way too generous and easy for the Rogue to Hide. Quite possibly. But I don't care. Another table can make it as easy or as difficult to gain the Hidden condition as they want. As I have no fear of characters having the Hidden condition (and thus getting to attack with Advantage)... I don't act the stickler in terms of whether where the Rogue is *really* behind enough stuff to be classified as "Heavily Obscured". In the middle of combat, once an enemy out in the open loses track of someone back in the trees because they are instead more focused on the platemail-wearing paladin in front of them swinging the battleaxe... I couldn't care less on the technicalities of the amount of "stuff" to hide behind. Worrying about that stuff to me is more trouble than it's worth.

I agree with this adjudication as well. Rogues have Cunning Action for a reason. As long as the situation permits it, let the player of the Rogue have fun.

The only minor difference with using active perception instead of passive perception is that the player of the Rogue doesn't more or less guarantee advantage on the next attack with a high hiding roll. When using passive perception for the foes, the Rogue rolls well and the player knows s/he has it in the bag. When using active perception for the foes, the Rogue could pick out his or her next target and not necessarily have advantage, even with a relatively high hiding roll. That particular foe was ready for the Rogue (i.e. rolled an even higher active perception).

 

[Hriston]

Since using passive perception does not preclude anyone from making an active perception roll, the rogue never knows for sure that she is hidden. I believe that the intention for someone trying to hide is for her to not know whether she is successful until her attempt either proves to be successful by granting advantage on her attack or unsuccessful when someone attacks her in her hiding place or anticipates her attack because she is seen as she approaches. I don't believe there should ever be a guarantee.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While not perfect, passive checks have merits that i like and they cut down on die rolls. As a DM you normally call for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action that has a chance of failure and can use passive checks instead of rolling them when you want to either determine the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or when you wants to secretly determine whether it succeed at something, such as noticing a hidden monster.

These situations all still comes up even if you don't use passive checks, but otherwise need rolling, either by the player or DM if it must be kept secret. Personally when i don't want the check or result to be too predictable but yet want it to remain secret, i will roll it behind the screen, mostly for when detecting traps/secret passages, tracking, investigations and pick-pockets attempts.

 

[SirAntoine]

Maybe use it only for extra clues, which everyone will find if they take the time to search and roll. In this way, let's say the PC's enter a room, and you look at passive perception to tell if they a loose tile in the floor or a wand lying on the desk. For a monster trying to use stealth, in the narrative for the module the writer can establish which monsters are right on the edge of detection. Those and only those can be noticed with a passive check, and the DM would have to designate a PC like this for a monster to notice them.

The passive perception can be very useful when the DM doesn't mean to challenge you. Every trap doesn't have to be discovered with a search if the players are regularly searching, but for a trap that they might not find even if they search for it you shouldn't use passive perception. The question then becomes do you tell your players when they should make a roll, because that will alert them to a challenge?

 

[CapnZapp]

The only issue I feel could warrant a change is the variability issue.

It really would be good if the characters' passive scores varied slightly from day to day (if not from encounter to encounter).

To reapply some randomness, how about this:

At the start of each day, as the DM you roll D6-3 for each character and add that to his or her passive Perception. Keep the modified scores secret from the players (it's okay if they figure out their scores after observing how their characters fare during several encounters; after all, by that time, it's soon a new day )