D&D 5E (2014) Crawford on Stealth

[robus]

I didn't take away from Jeremy's comments that passive perception is intended for use against static DCs. Maybe that's what he meant. For my part, there is always a roll. Hiding character rolls vs passive perception. Searching character rolls vs trap dc (which is 10 plus modifiers for trap setter).

But wasn't passive checks added to stop repetitive rolling? Or are you talking about examining an object for traps? The AngryGM suggests rolling stealth for the trap as it's attempting to hide from the PCs. The bonus is provided by the trap maker (basically the DM) who can decide just how craftily it was constructed. That's not a bad approach.

 

[Uller]

Personally, I find the act of "looking around to notice stuff" one of the least engaging parts of the game. Unless time is a critical factor or the location is littered with traps, it's simply easier to tell the players what they see and move on.

It seems it is definitely unengaging to my players. I have to remind them to look for traps, secret doors, hidden objects and information.

So that's why I'm happy to leave noticing stuff up to their characters...maybe the 18 wisdom cleric has the sense to take a closer look at the shadowy thing in the corner...

 

[iserith]

What is the objection exactly to using a passive Perception score and a static DC to resolve what happens? I don't see any issue with it.

 

[Satyrn]

What is the objection exactly to using a passive Perception score and a static DC to resolve what happens? I don't see any issue with it.

I don't know if I object to it, but I don't feel much need for it. I tend to use just 10 or 15 for static DCs. I figure if I'm making it 10 for a Passive check I might as well skip the step of checking and just say "You see X."

And setting it to 15 seems like I might as well just tell just let the party Eyes they see it, but no one else.

And for the rare times I'd decide on using DC 20, that's just like saying "y'all are surprised by the invisible wall."

It just seems like resolving an uncertainty I've already essentially resolved in my my process of setting the DC.

 

[iserith]

I don't know if I object to it, but I don't feel much need for it. I tend to use just 10 or 15 for static DCs. I figure if I'm making it 10 for a Passive check I might as well skip the step of checking and just say "You see X."

And setting it to 15 seems like I might as well just tell just let the party Eyes they see it, but no one else.

And for the rare times I'd decide on using DC 20, that's just like saying "y'all are surprised by the invisible wall."

It just seems like resolving an uncertainty I've already essentially resolved in my my process of setting the DC.

I see. I think I have a couple of things working against this concern in my games. First, I'm telegraphing the traps. So even if your PP isn't big enough (heh heh... I'm 13), you can still engage with my description of the environment to figure it out, thus obviating the passive check. Second, I have a somewhat rotating cast week to week, both in players and characters, so I don't really have a good handle on what the PP range is sufficient for me to craftily set the DC just a little higher...

 

[robus]

I see. I think I have a couple of things working against this concern in my games. First, I'm telegraphing the traps. So even if your PP isn't big enough (heh heh... I'm 13), you can still engage with my description of the environment to figure it out, thus obviating the passive check. Second, I have a somewhat rotating cast week to week, both in players and characters, so I don't really have a good handle on what the PP range is sufficient for me to craftily set the DC just a little higher...

That's why I like the idea of PP vs DC simply setting the amount of narrative description. Nobody exceeds the DC then the group gets the most vague hint that there's trouble ahead. Someone beats it, more detail is added referencing that character. Someone bears it easily? The trap is revealed (hopefully that's not the end of the encounter

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't take away from Jeremy's comments that passive perception is intended for use against static DCs. Maybe that's what he meant. For my part, there is always a roll. Hiding character rolls vs passive perception. Searching character rolls vs trap dc (which is 10 plus modifiers for trap setter).

He said that when you roll, you can't roll lower than your passive perception, so passive perception is used for everything unless some other rule turns it off.

 

[iserith]

That's why I like the idea of PP vs DC simply setting the amount of narrative description. Nobody exceeds the DC then the group gets the most vague hint that there's trouble ahead. Someone beats it, more detail is added referencing that character. Someone bears it easily? The trap is revealed (hopefully that's not the end of the encounter

For me, I include a clue in the description of the environment - everybody gets this for free. From there, I can measure the PCs' PP against the DC for the general goal and approach of keeping watch for hidden dangers. Anyone whose PP is good enough is told, straight up, yeah, there's a hidden danger right *there.* So there are some similarities in how we do things, it seems. I might just be more explicit though after the passive check is resolved since I treat it as "all or nothing."

 

[Satyrn]

you can still engage with my description of the environment to figure it out, thus obviating the passive check.

Well yeah, there's that, too.

which is another strike against PP vs static DC for me. If I've described a likely trap and the players ignore it and soldier on through the kill zone, the players' obliviousness is also the character's.

But then, I try not to use conventional traps. Rather doing things like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the players know that boulder is coming loose, but they really really want that idol - let's see if their plan works! And if not, we get a chase scene.

I'm also not inclined to use ambushes. When I have used them, it's been like an ambush from an episode of Hercules, where Kevin Sorbo and Jester Iolus are mugged by school students in disguise at the start of the episode: Just a fun little fight to amuse the audience and introduce this week's antagonists, but nothing that makes the good guys sweat. So missing out on a round of action because you didn't see it coming really won't hurt.

So I recommended not worrying about your Perception score if I'm ever DMing. It's not a priority for my style.

When I kill a PC, I want them to see it coming.

 

[Hriston]

IMO, "always on" is an unfortunate choice of words because, as others have already pointed out, passive Perception is always on except when it isn't. In combat, for example, all participants are assumed to be alert to danger all around, so their passive Perception is on unless the DM determines they're distracted by one thing or another, in which case it isn't. Outside of combat, characters are assumed to be keeping watch for hidden threats, so their passive Perception is in full effect unless they're drawing a map, foraging, navigating, or tracking, in which case their passive Perception scores aren't consulted in the event there's a hidden threat. Also, as was pointed out in the podcast, any state to which the Unconscious condition, which makes you unaware of your surroundings, applies, including sleep, deprives you of your Perception score. So "always on" should really be read as "always on in situations in which you are normally able to make a Perception check, for which your passive Perception serves as the floor", which makes a lot of sense, IMO.