Active Perception and Passive Perception

[Prism]

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.

You haven't mentioned this bit 'and when you’re dealing with a mundane task, you can choose to take 10'

By their nature all take 10 checks and by your comparison are 'mundane' tasks. Is this perception is supposed to be? Noticing a deadly hidden trap is mundane. A secret door which took dwarven craftsmen weeks to construct is mundane to find?

 

[KarinsDad]

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

I was totally unclear and misleading there.


Perception appears to be a special case for the Passive Check rules. Take 10 cannot be used with the other skills in an encounter. The entire section on Take 10 and Passive Checks (i.e. using the Take 10 rules) in the PHB discusses when the PCs are not in an encounter (the sole exception being monster checks at the start of an encounter).

However, the DMG seems to change that. It discusses using Passive Perception to discern hidden objects and significant details within an encounter area. The Traps section states that Passive Perception is used to notice traps. It does not state that the PC cannot do this if they are in an encounter. According to the original rules (pre-PHB 2), traps would have almost never been found in an encounter (shy of triggering them) if this were not the case since Active Perception used to take a Standard Action. It's clear that the designers wanted to allow Passive Perception during an encounter to minimally find traps and possibly to discern other details about encounter areas.

Additionally, Passive Perception can be used for hidden objects. That means that unlike the Passive Checks for other skills that are limited to Opposed Skill uses of the skill, Passive Perception can be used not just against creatures, but against objects as well. It appears that the intent is that any Perception DC in the game system can use Passive Perception at any time for nearly any reason.

The other skills do not have this advantage.

Passive Perception appears to allow for auto-success at any time in a game (with the possible exception of Skill Challenges where there is no mention of using Passive skills except for settings DCs of enemies). Other skills only allow auto-success (if the DC is low enough) if the PCs are not in an encounter.

That is how the rules differ for Passive Perception and the other skills. Passive Perception often allows for auto-success for anything that the player could use perception for. It effectively allows for Take 10, even within an encounter.

 

[Nytmare]

You haven't mentioned this bit 'and when you’re dealing with a mundane task, you can choose to take 10'

By their nature all take 10 checks and by your comparison are 'mundane' tasks. Is this perception is supposed to be? Noticing a deadly hidden trap is mundane. A secret door which took dwarven craftsmen weeks to construct is mundane to find?

Yes. Noticing it because you're strolling down a hallway and you passively beat the DC automatically means that it's a mundane task.

Noticing it while swinging upside down from a burning vine while fighting Tiamat is not a mundane task.

The difficulties the rules suggest rank a "hard" task as something that most focused, trained, mega-ultra-olympic-caliber characters can do passively without breaking a sweat.

If you want a level appropriate "hard" task to not be a diceless cakewalk for that character, the task should not be handed to them under conditions where they will be able to take 10.

If you want it to be something that's nigh to completely impossible for the trained character to accomplish, feel free to crank that number up to whatever makes you happy.

 

[Nytmare]

Perception appears to be a special case for the Passive Check rules.

Huh. Well ignore 90% of what I've said then.

 

[Prism]

The difficulties the rules suggest rank a "hard" task as something that most focused, trained, mega-ultra-olympic-caliber characters can do passively without breaking a sweat.

If you want a level appropriate "hard" task to not be a diceless cakewalk for that character, the task should not be handed to them under conditions where they will be able to take 10.

If you want it to be something that's nigh to completely impossible for the trained character to accomplish, feel free to crank that number up to whatever makes you happy.

Nope, what I like is a task that the trained character can sometimes do and sometimes can't. Using passive perception as is, that character will be able to always do it (or not) based on the DC's I choose ie DMG1 (they will never do it) or DMG2 (they will always do it). I don't want to make something too easy or too hard - just variable like everything else in the game

I have no problem asking the players to roll a perception check to determine this rather than use passive perception but thats not what the rules say. I just don't what to run or play a game where the DM is in complete control of what the players see. As KarinsDad pointed out - you are supposed to use passive perception in an encounter too - the only skill that allows this take 10

I get the idea that some players here like the idea that they can walk through a dungeon spotting every trap, hidden monster or secret door without even a roll. Seriously? This is what passive perception allows for with the newer DC's. Once you get used to this what happens when the DM raises the DC for a particular trap and you find it the hard way since you don't check any more? Do you blame yourself for not being careful or do you get annoyed at the DM for not using advised DCs?

 

[Nytmare]

As KarinsDad pointed out - you are supposed to use passive perception in an encounter too - the only skill that allows this take 10

Please see:

Huh. Well ignore 90% of what I've said then.

Or you can continue to take 10 on beating this dead horse.

 

[Kingreaper]

Unless the stealth roll is between both, in which case, the stealthed character is hidden from the lower character, and not the higher character.

And the lower character has done nothing useful. Just like if they HAD spotted it, they'd have done nothing useful with their skill.

The only time the character with lower perception has it do anything useful is when the player with higher perception CAN'T spot the thing.

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.

You misunderstood me then. I wasn't suggesting "roll to see which one spotted it"; that would be pointless and achieve nothing.


I was suggesting "roll one stealth; then, for each person whose passive perception is high enough, roll a die. If it's X (for a D6, either 2 or 3 probably) or above, they've spotted the thing. If not, they were distracted/looking the wrong way/whatever.


If the higher Passive Percep character fails to second roll, all of a sudden the lower percep one is USEFUL.


In a combat situation the second roll would be unneeded (just check Line of Sight, that should be complex enough in most combats)

 

[Amaroq]

Thanks, K, sorry for misquoting-you-by-implication.

Regarding the rest of the conversation, maybe we're right back around to this being a "How the DM is using it" issue. The DM could quite conceivably draw this up as:

Secret Door: Not visible to Passive Perception if the party simply enter, walk through, or fight in this room. Requires an active Perception check of X to spot. If the party take a 5-minute rest in the room, a Passive Perception of at least Y will reveal a discolored panel that might convince the party to make an active Perception check. (If multiple characters exceed the target PP, you might roll randomly to determine which one notices it first - but a great DM will have the player who currently looks least engaged find it, as a means to re-engage him or her.)

Trap-as-part-of-encounter: Roll Initiative as normal. At the start of their turn, a character with a Passive Perception of X spots the suspicious holes in the wall if adjacent; they need X+2 to spot it from the doorway where they enter the room. When a character "spots" the suspicious holes with his PP, do not reveal it unless it his currently his turn; if it was not his turn, describe the holes to him at the start of his next turn by Initiative order. Characters which make an Active Perception of Y spot the suspicious holes in the wall. Characters with an Active Perception of Z spot the pressure plate which sets off the spear-trap.

Late-Arriving Lurker: On the turn in which it reaches the combat, the Lurker rolls Stealth + M to arrive, Concealed, at the edge of the map. Find the first character after the Lurker's initiative whose Passive Perception equals or beats the Stealth roll. At the start of that character's turn, place the Lurker on the battlemat. If the Stealth check beats all players' PP, the Lurker begins its next turn still concealed, unless a character makes an active Perception check and spots him.

. . .

I think that tends to address most of the problems described: having two high-Perception characters is still useful, as it lets the party spot the trap or lurker a lot earlier in the round (e.g., with more characters having time to "react" to the information); it also randomizes who feels like they spotted it via the Initiative mechanic.

For both the Trap and the Secret Door, we get a Passive Perception "clue" that something isn't as it appears in the room, but both require an Active Perception check to actually find the hidden item.

We still have, slightly, the problem of the DM "setting" the required PP number(s), but at that point its much less important; in fact, its almost useful for him to know the highest PP in the party to ensure that he sets the number at or below it.

How does that feel to you guys?

 

[Kingreaper]

I like it. Seems like a good general method.

 

[Colmarr]

Someone at WotC thought that auto success should occur for Perception and Insight, but forgot about Athletics, History, Stealth, and a bunch of others.

The obvious explanation is that Perception and Insight are skills that have implied meaning as soon as the DM calls for a roll of the die.

PCs don't need to roll Perception or Insight unless there's something to perceive. As such, a DM-initiated roll carries meaning even if the roll is failed. The same is not true (or is true to a much lesser extent) of the other skills you mentioned.



Of the ways* that that meaning can be combatted:

1. there is no passive skill use - PCs automatically fail Perception or Insight checks unless they actively choose to take them;
2. there is passive skill use - there is no roll and it assumes the PC rolled a 1 on their skill check;
3. there is passive skill use - there is a roll and the DM throws in fake Perception and Insight checks to keep the PCs on their toes; or
4. there is passive skill use - the DM rolls all Perception and Insight checks before the session

WotC's choice of implementing passive Perception and passive Insight seems to me to be by far the best solution. YMMV.

* (of course there may be others, but those are the four that sprang immediately to mind).

That is how the rules differ for Passive Perception and the other skills. Passive Perception often allows for auto-success for anything that the player could use perception for. It effectively allows for Take 10, even within an encounter.

This seems to be a different argument to the one you put forward at the start of the thread**. You initially argued (paraphrased; correct me if I'm wrong) that passive perception/insight are bad because they are too intrusive to the DM meta.

It has since been pointed out that the same accusation can be levelled at passive history (ie. take 10), and now your argument seems to centre on the fact that the rules differ between Perception/Insight and the rest once an encounter begins.

To be clear, are we now confining the discussion to how things work during an encounter?

** which isn't per se a bad thing, but it can muddy the waters.