D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth

[Satyrn]

The length of this thread is evidence enough to confirm that PP should be discarded, and just roll your perception, like every other skill...

Well, I've already effectively discarded it (by virtue of never bothering to use it) yet I don't think it ought to be discarded.

I am happy to keep it as a tool in my dicebag - right alongside Passive Athletics and Passive Deception; I think the rule actually includes Passive Strength and Passive Dexterity, too (but I can't recall if the passive check rule began narrowed down to skills, rather than referring to passive ability checks generally)

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'd be less conflicted with "Passive Perception is the floor" if Passive Perception were 5 + Wis (Perception) bonus instead of 10 + Wis (Perception). As written, module designers now need to choose whether something is hidden well enough for everybody, or completely visible to a Cleric, Druid, or other character with Expertise. If something has a Perception DC below 15, you just might as well not even list it as a check. Someone will find it with PP. However, if you make the DC high enough to actually challenge those with at least two of proficiency, ability, or expertise, then those with only ability or proficiency will never detect it. Which means that proficiency in Perception stops being useful.

 

[Arial Black]

I'd be less conflicted with "Passive Perception is the floor" if Passive Perception were 5 + Wis (Perception) bonus instead of 10 + Wis (Perception). As written, module designers now need to choose whether something is hidden well enough for everybody, or completely visible to a Cleric, Druid, or other character with Expertise. If something has a Perception DC below 15, you just might as well not even list it as a check. Someone will find it with PP. However, if you make the DC high enough to actually challenge those with at least two of proficiency, ability, or expertise, then those with only ability or proficiency will never detect it. Which means that proficiency in Perception stops being useful.

Those who fail to spot something because their passive Perception is not high enough can still roll a check, and they may roll high enough. Passive Perception does not interfere with that.

 

[Gradine]

I'd be less conflicted with "Passive Perception is the floor" if Passive Perception were 5 + Wis (Perception) bonus instead of 10 + Wis (Perception). As written, module designers now need to choose whether something is hidden well enough for everybody, or completely visible to a Cleric, Druid, or other character with Expertise. If something has a Perception DC below 15, you just might as well not even list it as a check. Someone will find it with PP. However, if you make the DC high enough to actually challenge those with at least two of proficiency, ability, or expertise, then those with only ability or proficiency will never detect it. Which means that proficiency in Perception stops being useful.

It is also not very problematic if the only thing Passive Perception gives you is additional flavor text that hints at the existence of traps or secret doors or the like without giving the whole thing away.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Those who fail to spot something because their passive Perception is not high enough can still roll a check, and they may roll high enough. Passive Perception does not interfere with that.

Yes, but if the DC is set so that those with Expertise or Proficiency + high ability don't notice with PP, then everybody else is going to have about a 20% chance to notice it.

Let's say level 10. You've got +4 proficiency bonus should have 20 in your primary attribute.

The party is:
Cleric with Wis 20 and Perception proficiency. PP is 19.
Rogue with Wis 12 and Expertise in Perception. PP is 19.
Fighter with Wis 12 and Perception proficiency. PP is 15.
Wizard with Wis 13. PP is 11.

So, we can see here that setting the Perception DC to anything less than 20 just doesn't do anything. Cleric and Rogue notice everything DC 19 and below without even trying. However, if we set the DC to 20, then the Fighter's only got a 30% chance of noticing anything with a roll, and the poor Wizard has a mere 10% chance. The Cleric and Rogue have a 50% chance to notice.

Things go from completely obvious to half the party, to suddenly having a 50% chance to miss. That's very weird.

I mean, if your goal is just to eliminate dice rolling, then PP works just fine, but I don't think that's how people play the game. People still call for Perception checks because players and DMs like to roll dice.


Now, if we define PP to be 5 + Perception, and say that Passive Perception is the DC at which something is instantly noticed without rolling the die.

The party is:
Cleric with Wis 20 and Perception proficiency. PP is 14.
Rogue with Wis 12 and Expertise in Perception. PP is 14.
Fighter with Wis 12 and Perception proficiency. PP is 10.
Wizard with Wis 13. PP is 6.

Now you don't feel silly at all saying that the Rogue and Cleric instantly notice something with a Perception DC of 13, as they have an 80% chance of noticing it anyways. The only problem with defining the rule like this is preventing DMs from misusing the rule and saying that the Wizard doesn't see the open pit trap in front of him.

The two definitions would need to be used in different contexts, but, personally, I find the definition used by 5e to be just a waste of time. IMX, list Perception DCs between 13 and 16 or 17 at all levels, and PP as written gives no chance for failure in most parties.

It is also not very problematic if the only thing Passive Perception gives you is additional flavor text that hints at the existence of traps or secret doors or the like without giving the whole thing away.

Except now you're making two Perception DCs. One to get a hint with PP, and one to find it with an actual Perception roll. If PP can't tell you anything except that you have to roll, why bother with PP at all then? It's a waste of time. Just skip it and tell the players to roll! You're going to do that anyways.

 

[Gradine]

Except now you're making two Perception DCs. One to get a hint with PP, and one to find it with an actual Perception roll. If PP can't tell you anything except that you have to roll, why bother with PP at all then? It's a waste of time. Just skip it and tell the players to roll! You're going to do that anyways.

Except the point is to put the ball in the players' court, so to speak. They're deciding exactly how to act based on the information they receive. Maybe what they decide to do triggers a Perception check, maybe an Investigation check. Or they might surprise the hell out of me and try something else I'd never considered before. Maybe what they choose to do triggers a check, but with advantage (or disadvantage). Maybe they do something that solves the issue without needing to roll a die at all, since their action would result in an auto-success.

It doesn't even have to be only something for traps and secret doors. Sometimes the PP check doesn't even provide trap/door hints, but just extra details that provide more flavor to the setting. Sometimes it might provide tips for a later social or combat encounter in the same space or with the same NPCs.

Utilizing PP in this manner is entirely more interesting and engaging than "just telling the plays to roll".

 

[Bacon Bits]

Except the point is to put the ball in the players' court, so to speak. They're deciding exactly how to act based on the information they receive. Maybe what they decide to do triggers a Perception check, maybe an Investigation check. Or they might surprise the hell out of me and try something else I'd never considered before. Maybe what they choose to do triggers a check, but with advantage (or disadvantage). Maybe they do something that solves the issue without needing to roll a die at all, since their action would result in an auto-success.

It doesn't even have to be only something for traps and secret doors. Sometimes the PP check doesn't even provide trap/door hints, but just extra details that provide more flavor to the setting. Sometimes it might provide tips for a later social or combat encounter in the same space or with the same NPCs.

Utilizing PP in this manner is entirely more interesting and engaging than "just telling the plays to roll".

But you don't need PP to do any of that at all! Just skip the PP and do the interesting bit!

Why would you gate your interesting gameplay behind a static, passive "you must be this skilled to play" mechanic that requires neither player action nor character knowledge or action to achieve? Why bother with, "If the players have a PP of 13 or higher, they notice X which blah blah blah and they may attempt a Y roll to do Z," when you could just write, "After the players have entered the room, they notice X which blah blah blah and they may attempt a Y roll to do Z."

What is Passive Perception itself doing for your game that it's worth bothering with?

That's why I said: Either the DC is so high that everybody has to roll anyways, or the DC is so low that the module writer knows the PCs will see it easily with PP. So what is PP actually doing for the game?

The only time it should ever matter at all is when not everybody is there. That probably isn't that often, and in those cases the DM is likely to ask for a roll anyways.

 

[daviddalbec]

Not really. It's evidence that a couple of people really don't like the way Passive Perception is handled and will argue that point until they die. And a few people like the way it is handled (and have way more patience than I do) and are willing to engage the first group as long as they want to keep talking.

A few stubborn people on an internet forum aren't "proof" of anything other than there are people out there who will argue about anything.

Yes, this thread was resolved by post 20

 

[Gradine]

But you don't need PP to do any of that at all! Just skip the PP and do the interesting bit!

Why would you gate your interesting gameplay behind a static, passive "you must be this skilled to play" mechanic that requires neither player action nor character knowledge or action to achieve? Why bother with, "If the players have a PP of 13 or higher, they notice X which blah blah blah and they may attempt a Y roll to do Z," when you could just write, "After the players have entered the room, they notice X which blah blah blah and they may attempt a Y roll to do Z."

What is Passive Perception itself doing for your game that it's worth bothering with?

That's why I said: Either the DC is so high that everybody has to roll anyways, or the DC is so low that the module writer knows the PCs will see it easily with PP. So what is PP actually doing for the game?

The only time it should ever matter at all is when not everybody is there. That probably isn't that often, and in those cases the DM is likely to ask for a roll anyways.

Well, for several reasons:

* It is an element of the game, and there is an expectation that at least one PC is going to dedicate resources to that element.
* The player(s) who is/are dedicating resources to that element of the game expect to be rewarded for it
* Presumably, when Aragorn asks Legolas what his elf eyes see, there are people who want to play that character?

Ultimately, though, as long as Perception exists in the game, there's a use (I would argue need) for Passive Perception. Without it, you really have the following choices:

* Call for Perception checks only when there's something to see, which when the party fails leads to the awkward moment where they know they were supposed to see something but didn't, and have to figure out how to act in that situation, either by meta-gaming a solution, which can feel cheap, or feel like you have to foolishly blunder your character into a bad situation, which can feel frustrating.
* Call for Perception checks all the time, or random times for no reason, to keep your players on their toes. This quickly bogs the game down and can get equally frustrating.

Passive Perception lets you skip all of that nonsense, and when you direct those extra bits of information and hints to your high PP player they get to feel like their investments paid off.

As I've said before, this is a lot less useful in my home game, when I know my players' PCs pretty well and I don't have to really design around (or with) PP because I know who is and isn't going to catch those things in the first place. But if I'm writing an adventure for an unknown party, such as for DM's Guild? I can't really just flat out ignore a major element of the game like PP. And since I'd rather not use it in a boring or non-engaging way, this is the best way I've found to incorporate it, so it feels like it means something without weakening my use of other elements, such as traps or hidden doors.

 

[Arial Black]

Yes, but if the DC is set so that those with Expertise or Proficiency + high ability don't notice with PP, then everybody else is going to have about a 20% chance to notice it.

Let's say level 10. You've got +4 proficiency bonus should have 20 in your primary attribute.

The party is:
Cleric with Wis 20 and Perception proficiency. PP is 19.
Rogue with Wis 12 and Expertise in Perception. PP is 19.
Fighter with Wis 12 and Perception proficiency. PP is 15.
Wizard with Wis 13. PP is 11.

So, we can see here that setting the Perception DC to anything less than 20 just doesn't do anything. Cleric and Rogue notice everything DC 19 and below without even trying. However, if we set the DC to 20, then the Fighter's only got a 30% chance of noticing anything with a roll, and the poor Wizard has a mere 10% chance. The Cleric and Rogue have a 50% chance to notice.

Things go from completely obvious to half the party, to suddenly having a 50% chance to miss. That's very weird.

I mean, if your goal is just to eliminate dice rolling, then PP works just fine, but I don't think that's how people play the game. People still call for Perception checks because players and DMs like to roll dice.


Now, if we define PP to be 5 + Perception, and say that Passive Perception is the DC at which something is instantly noticed without rolling the die.

The party is:
Cleric with Wis 20 and Perception proficiency. PP is 14.
Rogue with Wis 12 and Expertise in Perception. PP is 14.
Fighter with Wis 12 and Perception proficiency. PP is 10.
Wizard with Wis 13. PP is 6.

Now you don't feel silly at all saying that the Rogue and Cleric instantly notice something with a Perception DC of 13, as they have an 80% chance of noticing it anyways. The only problem with defining the rule like this is preventing DMs from misusing the rule and saying that the Wizard doesn't see the open pit trap in front of him.

The two definitions would need to be used in different contexts, but, personally, I find the definition used by 5e to be just a waste of time. IMX, list Perception DCs between 13 and 16 or 17 at all levels, and PP as written gives no chance for failure in most parties.



Except now you're making two Perception DCs. One to get a hint with PP, and one to find it with an actual Perception roll. If PP can't tell you anything except that you have to roll, why bother with PP at all then? It's a waste of time. Just skip it and tell the players to roll! You're going to do that anyways.

You may find a completely accurate statistic regarding people that cannot be true for an individual. For example, lets say you find a statistic that 1 in 12 women were born in the month of April. Accurate enough? Sure. But when you are talking to a single woman then it cannot be true that she (and every other individual woman) was born one twelfth in April and eleven twelfths in other months. It's all or nothing!

With your perfectly reasonable example party, it's not relevant about what percentage each has to spot a clue. It's binary for each PC. Either they spot this thing or they don't.

Sure, the usual suspects are nearly always the ones to spot things, and it is very rare for the wizard to spot something that the cleric and rogue miss, but all this means is that those people are better at spotting things than the wizard! Nothing has gone wrong!

In play, if the party come across a DC 10 clue, they all spot it. If they come across a DC 16 clue, the two Perceptive guys spot it and the two others might. If they come across a DC 20 clue, some might and some might not, but the more Perceptive guys are more likely to spot it.

Sounds like it's working fine to me!