Active Perception and Passive Perception

Agreed, KarinsDad.

After reading your argument, and Prism's earlier, I think I'm going to have to move back to the old "hidden Spot check behind the screen" method to see who notices, or doesn't.

That's fine with me, it gets me out of some habits that may be making the game less fund for some of my players - in particular, less rewarding for the second-highest-Perception player as described in your post.

I don't really like Kingreaper's method of randomizing who saw things, because while it works for the "Okay, who finds the secret door?" case, I like to write items like traps where it matters which players, plural, have spotted it, and I want it to be possible for either the #1, the #2, both, or neither to make the spot.

So, I think its back to ye olde "behind the screen roll" for me!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think "your way" can be used in "his way".

There is nothing special about "your way" example except that you decided that you would throw in an extra panel that you didn't throw in for "his way". That same panel could exist in "his way".

The PC rolls DC 25 and finds the secret door. The PC rolls a different DC 28 and finds the secret panel.

And doing it "his way", the PC might find the loose panel without finding the secret door (he fails the first check, but makes the second). Then it becomes a bit of a mystery for the players to explore.

That option cannot happen in "your way" because your system (like Passive Perception in general) erroneousnessly assumes that if something is slightly easier to noticed, it will typically be noticed if the slightly more difficult to notice something is detected.

That's far from true. I can find the lost keys hidden under the chair and never notice the glasses sitting on the arm of the chair.

Bad analogy.

You're claiming it's glasses vs keys. A more accurate analogy would be the ability to find the chair.

The panel is part of the door... you can't find the panel on the door without finding the door.

And your method ignores his point that the Ranger is +15 to the roll whereas the Rogue is +13 to the roll. The Rogue rarely feels special because the Ranger is just a hair better. But the Rogue also dedicated a lot of resources to Perception. Why exactly did the Rogue dedicate all of these resources, just to be equaled or outshined by the Ranger most of the time?

Then in such a case, there's a chance the Rogue would find the door, the ranger would always find the door, and there's a chance either could find the panel.

But on the other hand, I don't feel so bad about this. The rogue knows he's going to be a little less than the ranger from the get-go (unless the ranger is Str/Dex) because the players get together on this from the beginning. There'll be lots of things the rogue and the ranger BOTH autosee, and that's not a problem.

It is my job to bring fun to the table, but it's not my job to make a rogue feel equal to the ranger in what the ranger should be better at. The rogue's still likely gonna be the one to open that door anyways.

If a roll is made most of the time when it's something worthwhile, than the chances of the Rogue making it when the Ranger does not occurs more often than when some high percentage of the Perceptions are Passive Perceptions. The player's belief that the Rogue's Perception skill is valuable is increased.

Yes, but it has to be -worthwhile-. If the Ranger puts all that effort into it, and still has to make the same roll to do -exactly the same stuff- he'd have been able to do if he hadn't, then he's wasted his time. It'd be like a character building a cold-mage, and your answer is tons of cold resistant stuff. It's not letting him be cool, it's just raising the bar arbitrarily because of a 'sense of justice' that 'everyone should be allowed to roll.'

There's nothing wrong with rolling the dice to get random results. It's really what makes the game interesting and unique. Blurting out a bunch of info because a player maxxed an ability? Not so interesting.

That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting blurting out some info, and then having info above and beyond what they'd get to make his high skill feel high.

Then use this case for other skills. Not -everything- has to be randomly rolled. The existance of dice is hardly unique to this game. In fact, most roleplaying games have some form of random generator.
 

The panel is part of the door... you can't find the panel on the door without finding the door.

Err, what?

You find the panel on the wall without seeing that it is actually on a secret door.

Here, I'll draw you a picture.

Code:
   ---
   | |
   | |
   ---

That's the panel. You missed the secret door, so all you see is a panel on the wall. It's actually in the center of the secret door, you just don't know that as a player.

Then in such a case, there's a chance the Rogue would find the door, the ranger would always find the door, and there's a chance either could find the panel.

Which prevents the possibility of "neither of them from finding the door, but one or both from finding the panel".

The mechanics get in the way of an interesting game possibility.


Obviously you can play it anyway you want, I just find the entire concept of Passive Perception being auto-info inferior to other better mechanics that allow for more.

There's already a mechanism for auto-info. It's called the DM and his explanations of what the PCs observe.
 

There's already a mechanism for auto-info. It's called the DM and his explanations of what the PCs observe.

Er, I'm riding the fence on most of the arguments being thrown about, but what makes DM prerogative superior to DM prerogative with a simple guideline?
 

Er, I'm riding the fence on most of the arguments being thrown about, but what makes DM prerogative superior to DM prerogative with a simple guideline?

It's not that superior.

But if the DM has already decided that the Rogue and the Ranger spot the secret door automatically, does he really need a skill mechanism to remind him of that?

And of course, did Elmer Fudd design that secret door? What is so secret about a door that is obvious to half of the party from across the room?

If people want to use Passive Perception and think they are actually getting a benefit from it, go for it. I just think that this particular game mechanic doesn't add anything real to the game. If it is used with proximity rules or something similar, then it adds something worthwhile to the game.
 

It's not that superior.

But if the DM has already decided that the Rogue and the Ranger spot the secret door automatically, does he really need a skill mechanism to remind him of that?

And of course, did Elmer Fudd design that secret door? What is so secret about a door that is obvious to half of the party from across the room?

Are we talking about D&D 4th edition characters here, or Warhammer characters? The former would be able to spot things like a well concealed secret passage, and this is hardly a new thing in the game; Passive Perception just replaces the ubiquitous 'I take 10 to spot' roll that was perfectly legitimate in a previous edition. If it -does the same thing- and -uses the same system-... it's definately not inferior to the way things were.

Plus, lots of game systems introduce autosuccess mechanics for certain actions when your skill is high enough; this is seen as a design+ rather than - because its a threshhold where the player's character is simply -too good- to be fooled by stuff.

I don't see what the problem is... allowing them to see the heroic level stuff automatically then allows you to focus on the -cool- paragon level stuff going on that they'd not get access to at that level.

An analogy using a different skill:

Let's say you have a guy who can take 10 to climb a simple brick wall. Great. Now, do you then make all simple brick walls a higher DC just to make the guy roll, or do you kick things up a notch and let him autoclimb those simple walls most of the time, but introduce slippery walls covered in moss that lead to awesomer things?

And when he can climb those automatically, do you punish everyone by making those walls impossible for everyone else, or do you let him accomplish these heroic feats, and move on to walls with spears firing out of them randomly... that have gouts of flame going down lines in an intricate but almost unfathomable patter?

In other words... do you just make things more difficult arbitrarily, or do you nod, let the PC -be- awesome, and then give them things that test their awesomeness?

If people want to use Passive Perception and think they are actually getting a benefit from it, go for it. I just think that this particular game mechanic doesn't add anything real to the game. If it is used with proximity rules or something similar, then it adds something worthwhile to the game.

That's a subjective argument.

Some games do not benefit from more random rolls. Some games benefit from simply being able to say 'Yes, you can do that all the time now, let's move on to bigger and badder challenges.'
 

Are we talking about D&D 4th edition characters here, or Warhammer characters? The former would be able to spot things like a well concealed secret passage, and this is hardly a new thing in the game; Passive Perception just replaces the ubiquitous 'I take 10 to spot' roll that was perfectly legitimate in a previous edition. If it -does the same thing- and -uses the same system-... it's definately not inferior to the way things were.

So your argument is that an inferior game mechanic from the new version is good because it is superior to the inferior game mechanic from the previous version? :lol:

An analogy using a different skill:

Let's say you have a guy who can take 10 to climb a simple brick wall. Great. Now, do you then make all simple brick walls a higher DC just to make the guy roll, or do you kick things up a notch and let him autoclimb those simple walls most of the time, but introduce slippery walls covered in moss that lead to awesomer things?

And when he can climb those automatically, do you punish everyone by making those walls impossible for everyone else, or do you let him accomplish these heroic feats, and move on to walls with spears firing out of them randomly... that have gouts of flame going down lines in an intricate but almost unfathomable patter?

In other words... do you just make things more difficult arbitrarily, or do you nod, let the PC -be- awesome, and then give them things that test their awesomeness?

Precisely. The skills become more difficult.

That does not mean that there should be a bunch of automatic stuff lying around which if the player actually rolled the dice, wouldn't be automatic.

Where is the Passive History rule? The Passive Arcana rule?

They don't exist. Someone at WotC thought that auto success should occur for Perception and Insight, but forgot about Athletics, History, Stealth, and a bunch of others.

Why? Because auto success doesn't make sense until it really is auto. When rolling a 1 is a success, then it should be auto success.

Not before.

And that rarely happens in the game system because the DCs increase as the PCs go up level. As you yourself said, the DM increases the difficulty to allow the skilled PC to be awesome.

But if the player says "I am going to look around" and rolls a 2 on his Perception, do you as DM say "Well, he failed the roll, but his Passive Perception would have noticed xyz, so I will tell him xyz even though he failed the roll?"

Effectively what you are doing here is turning his failure into a success, his 2 into a 10. You are removing the randomness from the game which is what allows for unusual and interesting things to happen.

The Ranger misses the pit trap and falls into it. Now the situation is interesting. This doesn't happen if the DM makes the pit trap an auto-detect.

It matters not if it is Climbing or Perception. If there is a chance of failure for the skill, then there should be no automatic.

The game should be consistent. If a DC 20 is needed and the PC does not have at least +19, then a roll should be used. The skill should not be automatically successful. The skill system should work the same regardless of which skill we are discussing. Roll dice, add modifier, see what DC you made.

Some games do not benefit from more random rolls. Some games benefit from simply being able to say 'Yes, you can do that all the time now, let's move on to bigger and badder challenges.'

Precisely. One puts difficult secret doors in as a bigger and badder challenge, one does not put in simple secret doors that can be spotted with Passive Perception.


Let me ask you a serious question. Would you be arguing that Passive Perception is a good rule if the rule did not exist at all? Would you be on the House Rules Forum writing that it was a cool idea?

I sometimes wonder if people who support some of the weaker WotC rules do so because they are actually in print.


Why is autodetect a good rule? Why not roll the dice and sometimes, the Ranger rolls a 3 and misses something?

Why should the Ranger get an auto-success with a +10 Perception against DC 20 when the climbing Fighter does not get an auto-success with a +10 Athletics against a DC 20 wall.

Why should the player of the Ranger get a free pass here that other players do not?

What's so special about Perception and Insight that they effectively become "Roll a D20, if you roll 9 or less, it becomes a 10"? Why such a hefty skill boost for these two skills?


Note: I am not arguing that the DM should not reveal obvious stuff. I'm arguing that PCs should not auto-detect traps and secret doors and other such game elements because if they auto-detect them, then they weren't secret to begin with. Duh! In that case, it's not a secret door, it's a door. :erm:
 

Personally, I like have a mechanism that means I don't spend hours on end playing a thief by going:

DM - you come to a door
PC - okay, I listen and search for traps <Roll twice>
DM- nothing
PC - Okay, I open the door.
DM - nothing there. You see a short hall with a door at the end.
PC - I search for traps in the hall. <Roll>
DM - Nothing.
PC - Okay, I advance to the door, listen and search for traps. <Roll twice>
DM - You don't find anything.
PC - Okay, I...

ad infinitum until you forget to say you are searching and there just happens to be a trap there.

For me, that isn't good game design. Passive perception allows me to avoid a lot of that.

Besides, your whole argument seems to hinge on DMs knowing their players perception scores... much of your logic doesn't seem to hold up where a DM is planning an adventure without such knowledge (say, for a new party, or as part of an event).


That said, I do like your proximity rules - it does make sense that a player should have a chance to detect the slight air movements under a secret door from up close, but not from across the room. That said, I don't feel that such rules make passive perception less valuable.
 

Where is the Passive History rule? The Passive Arcana rule?

They don't exist.

They're there, you just aren't using them.

I'm going to say this again, now that I have a book in front of me and can quote it. Passive checks are taking 10. Taking 10 is something that you can do right up until the moment that combat starts. You can passively climb, you can passively think about history, you can passively do whatever you want, but the moment the fight starts you stop doing things passively, and start rolling dice.

PeeAichBee said:
Take 10
When you’re not in a rush, not being threatened or distracted (when you’re outside an encounter), and when you’re dealing with a mundane task, you can choose to take 10. Instead of rolling a d20, determine your skill check result as if you had rolled the average (10).

When you take 10, your result equals your skill modifiers (including one-half your level) + 10. For mundane tasks, taking 10 usually results in a success.

Passive Checks
When you’re not actively using a skill, you’re assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception checks and Insight checks, but the DM might also use your passive check result with skills such as Arcana or Dungeoneering to decide how much to tell you about a monster at the start of an encounter.
 
Last edited:

Passive Perception just replaces the ubiquitous 'I take 10 to spot' roll that was perfectly legitimate in a previous edition. If it -does the same thing- and -uses the same system-... it's definately not inferior to the way things were.

The difference with perception was that in 3e the part of the skill we are talking about was search and search took a full round action per 5' square to do. So when you opened the door to a room you would firstly deal with any creatures in the room and then when you have more time to search you would spend a few minutes doing so. If there was a hidden pit 10' into the room the monsters were going to try and lure you into, or a secret door they were going to flee down you generally wouldn't know. In 4e you simply see all this the moment you open the door, assuming someone has a trained perception, including the small needle trap on the chest full of treasure.

I want the party to make some effort to search - they should feel a greater reward finding something they choose to search for rather than being given everything. I'm happy with the party using a passive perception to hear some monsters moving behind the door - I just don't like the idea of revealing every hidden aspect of the room the second they open it. How are you actually ever supposed to spring a trap on a party unless you purposely push the DC's higher than anyones passive check? For me passive perception is just a way of saying to the players 'don't worry about it - i'll tell you everything you need to see so nothing will catch you out'
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top