D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[iserith]

Your passive perception is always on

Except when it's not.

 

[Seramus]

Yep. This is pretty much how I've always run Passive Perception. Glad to see I was getting it right.

You walk into the room, and I describe everything you notice with your Passive Perception.

How you deal with what you notice is up to you.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, walking into a forest with a passive Perception of, say, 12 would also spot 20 hidden people in six seconds (if their Stealth check results were 12 or less, which is an average for average people); are you saying that because the +2 Perception guy spots 20 hidden people in six seconds that he is also quasi godlike?

Yes it is. It's not the end number that's the issue. It's the absolute perfection of passive perception.

 

[Maxperson]

Or he has a +2 perception and makes one active check and rolls 19 for a total of 21. He still spots all 20 people in 6 seconds with a single roll.

Or he rolls a 1 and can't spot any of the 20 people, not even the poorly hidden ones.

Again, the issue is the absolute perfection of passive scores. Let me show you. Let's instead of using one example, use 1 million of them. The guy with +10 will spot those DC 20 hiders 1 million times out of 1 million. The guy with +2 will fail 850,000 times. Now let's raise the guy from +2 to +10 and no passive perception. He still fails 450,000 times out of 1 million.

 

[Maxperson]

Except when it's not.

The DM has to turn it off, though. The rules have it always on.

 

[Caliban]

Again, the issue is the absolute perfection of passive scores.

Perceived issue. I don't agree that it is either absolute, or perfect.

Let me show you.

Oh goody.

Let's instead of using one example, use 1 million of them. The guy with +10 will spot those DC 20 hiders 1 million times out of 1 million. The guy with +2 will fail 850,000 times. Now let's raise the guy from +2 to +10 and no passive perception. He still fails 450,000 times out of 1 million.

Ooh, you used a lot of zeros. That means it MUST be true!

Just kidding. My counterpoint is that your numbers wouldn't really apply to a game of D&D. In a white room situation with perfect lighting and no environmental factors or situational modifiers, sure. But that's not D&D.

Dim light, giving disadvantage on perception checks, for a -5 to your passive perception? Now the passive 20 guy fails 100% of the time, but the actively perceiving guy succeeds at least some of the time.

Some of the hidden creatures aren't just nameless, faceless NPC's, but actual rangers or shadow monks who can cast Pass Without Trace. Now it's a DC 30 and everyone fails to spot them 100% of the time.

It's overcast and raining, with gusts of wind that keep moving the foliage and underbrush unpredictably and making noise. Disadvantage on spot checks, and advantage on stealth checks. That's a 10 point swing without any magic involved.

Any number of circumstances can give disadvantage on perception checks, or even advantage on stealth, tilting the odds in favor of the hidden. All that is in the purview of the DM.

The DM can even say that passive perception doesn't apply, if they they are in a situation that doesn't seem threatening and the PC's don't specifically say they are being paranoid. (Harvest festival where they are being celebrated as local heroes, a tavern they've frequented, their own base of operations, etc.)

Walking through a goblin warren, expecting trouble? Yeah, someone with good perception is going to spot trouble nearly 100% of the time, barring exceptionally skilled goblins or magic. But I don't find that unrealistic at all. If someone has invested a proficiency, a feat (observation), and/or stat points into making themselves exceptional at perception, then they should be exceptional.

 

[iserith]

The DM has to turn it off, though. The rules have it always on.

"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats." Basic Rules, page 65.

So, you could say "the rules have it always on," except when it's not.

(The rest of this post is really for everybody else. No offense, but I've learned not to engage with you too much this deep in a thread as it tends to turn into debates about the definitions of things. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested instead in showing how one can use what Crawford says in the podcast without it causing disruption sufficient for some to want to toss the mechanic entirely.)

Which is not to say I agree it's "always on" either in the manner some are lamenting in this thread. In the context of a combat situation, which is what the podcast was chiefly focused on as I recall, it's generally safe in my view to say it's "always on" in the sense that if there's any uncertainty as to whether a creature can hide from another creature, the DM can use the passive check to resolve it. If there's no uncertainty, then there's no need to use the passive check. After all, a passive check is just a special kind of ability check, and an ability check is a mechanic used to get a result when a creature undertakes a task with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. The task here being "keeping watch for hidden dangers."

In an exploration situation, we can't in my view assume what task the players want their characters to pursue, though I bet at most tables it's safe to say they're "keeping watch for hidden dangers" if nothing else. But if the players want to perform some other task instead, something at least as reasonably distracting as the options listed in the rules, then as above, the passive check does not apply. There is no uncertainty as to the outcome of keeping watch for danger while performing a task like tracking - you just fail outright (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain) because you're doing this other thing.

What this means, in a practical sense, is that players have to make a meaningful choice with regard to their exploration tasks. Everything's a trade-off. You can't capture all the info with your high passive Perception score - just the stuff you're focused on in your task, if the task has an uncertain outcome. So if you want to be the ambush-spoiler and trap-finder, then you can't also find all the secret doors. (Also, get to the front rank!) If you want to find all the secret doors, forage, track, draw a map, navigate, or undertake a task at least as distracting, you will be surprised if you're ambushed (so maybe don't stand in the front or back rank) unless, again, you're a ranger in favored terrain.

Rule this way and you should in my view have no issue with passive Perception being "always on." Because it will only apply to a given task at a time. And that will have to be a choice the players make and why teamwork matters in this team-based game. And we want our players to make meaningful choices during play, right? Not just at character creation or advancement?

 

[Caliban]

The only part I would disagree with is when you say you can't "watch for traps" and "look for secret doors" at the same time - both of them involve examining the walls, floors, etc for subtle differences that indicate something is amiss. I think they are pretty much the same task.

 

[Maxperson]

Perceived issue. I don't agree that it is either absolute, or perfect.

When it's being used, it's both.

Just kidding. My counterpoint is that your numbers wouldn't really apply to a game of D&D. In a white room situation with perfect lighting and no environmental factors or situational modifiers, sure. But that's not D&D.

Dim light, giving disadvantage on perception checks, for a -5 to your passive perception? Now the passive 20 guy fails 100% of the time, but the actively perceiving guy succeeds at least some of the time.

Some of the hidden creatures aren't just nameless, faceless NPC's, but actual rangers or shadow monks who can cast Pass Without Trace. Now it's a DC 30 and everyone fails to spot them 100% of the time.

It's overcast and raining, with gusts of wind that keep moving the foliage and underbrush unpredictably and making noise. Disadvantage on spot checks, and advantage on stealth checks. That's a 10 point swing without any magic involved.

Any number of circumstances can give disadvantage on perception checks, or even advantage on stealth, tilting the odds in favor of the hidden. All that is in the purview of the DM.

Right. Those are different circumstances. -5 perception and it's no longer a passive perception of 20, but now it's perfect at DC 15. Raised to a DC of 30 and it's not a DC of 20 anymore, so it doesn't apply to my argument. I'm not saying that DCs other than 20 are impossible. I'm saying that if the DC is 20, a passive perception of 20 is going to find it 100% of the time when used.

The DM can even say that passive perception doesn't apply, if they they are in a situation that doesn't seem threatening and the PC's don't specifically say they are being paranoid. (Harvest festival where they are being celebrated as local heroes, a tavern they've frequented, their own base of operations, etc.)

That seems like a bad call to me. Perception is supposed to be that paranoia and other intangibles to detect things like that.

 

[iserith]

The only part I would disagree with is that you can't "watch for traps" and "look for secret doors" at the same time - both of them involve examining the walls, floors, etc for subtle differences that indicate something is amiss.

I can see that argument. I prefer to lump monsters and traps into "keeping watch for hidden danger" (with traps having the additional requirement of front rank in the marching order) while "search for secret doors" is its own thing.