D&D 5E Is "Passive" (for Passive Perception) really the right term??

[jgsugden]

I think the majority of the issues surrounding 'passive' scores are that everyone sees them working differently.

To me, you use a passive score when there is no pressure or distraction to show what you could do when 'just doing it' rather than dealing with a challenge. If you're a little distracted, give them -5 (disadvantage) or if they're focused +5 (advantage). It is the 'why bother rolling' mechanic.

It is also the 'can't risk rolling' mechanic when you don't want to alert players by asking them to role dice and their PCs are not terribly aware of the ability check situation.

To that end, I think about how I use it and don't worry so much about the label applied. With that mentality, I get a lot of use out of the mechanic (more than other DMs) and it seems to work just fine.

 

[DND_Reborn]

From Dictionary.com:
6. influenced, acted upon, or affected by some external force, cause, or agency; being the object of action rather than causing action (opposed to active def. 6). Related to the grammatical definition, that is, the "passive voice": a passive verb describes being acted upon or receiving the action rather than the thing doing the action.

Look, as soon as someone quotes a dictionary definition to me, the discussion goes downhill REALLY quickly.

In that sense, "Passive Perception" reflects being acted upon by the world around you. As I said above: you literally cannot choose not to observe things while conscious. Hence, even if you aren't looking for anything, even if you are putting out zero effort whatsoever, you are still looking at things and hearing things etc. You just aren't listening intently for whatever might come up or carefully scrutinizing for a specific detail.

Which is the difference between passive (always on) and active (looking/listening intently for possibly things).

Now, it may be the case that you think it's dumb that passive observation gives that much of a bonus. That's your prerogative, you can do what you like. But the term "Passive Perception" is perfectly in keeping with the way the word "passive" is used to describe a variety of things, including the literal actual scientific practice called "passive observation."

Yep, I do. If the average when actively using the skill is (basically) the same was when you are passively using it, that makes no sense at all.

Passive observation in scientific practice has nothing to do with this topic.

(You could think of ordinary human hearing as a form of passive sonar, while bat or dolphin echolocation is very much active sonar.)

I can think of ordinary human hearing as passive, as sounds always come in.

Active listening is when you are intentionally paying attention listening for something.

You could think of it this way: you are in a crowded place, like a coffee shop, talking to your friend. You are actively listening to them, but in the background someone mentions your name. Your passive perception indicates if you hear your name being mentioned. Your active perception indicates how well you hear your friend over everything else.

Paying attention vs. not paying attention is active (used skill) vs. passive (always on in the background skill).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Paying attention vs. not paying attention is active (used skill) vs. passive (always on in the background skill).

I don't see why this leads to "and thus 10+modifiers is wrong," other than "because DND_Reborn dislikes that."

It's done to make things simple and easy. Adding 10 to something is very easy (increase the second place value by 1). Adding 5 is less easy. 5e is full of "easy" math like this, it's part of its intentional design.

 

[GMMichael]

The example came out perfectly. If the PCs notice the bandits, they can choose to react immediately or gain knowledge of them and can do something else, such as tracking the bandits back to their hideout or prepare their camp for an ambush later. If they fail to notice the bandits, they gain no knowledge and the DM can have the bandits return to attack later.

Frankly, your snide-ness provokes me to reply in kind. Please don't do that in the future and thank you.

I'm sorry if that came out wrong. I've written (plenty of) examples in the past that didn't fulfill their purpose, so I thought that the reason I might be taking issue with yours was that it was another such example. Just checking.

I'm still wondering though: why would the PCs fail to notice the bandits? Why does the DM care, or more importantly, ask PCs to make rolls (active or passive) about something that they will not notice? If any check is needed, it's not to see whether the PCs notice (and thusly bring into existence) a group of bandits. The check should determine who notices the bandits. And since the bandits will be noticed, there's no point in "passive perception." Each player can actively roll and then play out the Hey-There-Are-Bandits-Stalking-Us scene.

Let's stick with searching. How is your character searching differently when you roll a check compared to when you make a passive check?

Sure, but let's figure out which is the horse, and which is the cart. My character doesn't change behaviors based on what roll I make. My character changes behaviors based on what I say he's doing. I think we're in agreement on this, since you were equating the in-fiction effects of passive and active rolls. That's for "secret" rolls.

The other usage of passive checks is pointless: can the character do something if retries are allowed? Well, the PC has an ability score, skill proficiency, background, race (?), and class - which are all good clues as to whether the bandits are detectable by the PC (to take an earlier example). But, in theory, the DM still can't decide (in the lovely dichotomy of success/failure) so she's supposed to compare the passive score to the DC. But there is already a rule for what happens when the DM isn't sure about success: ask for an ability check.

I don't know how you're getting from point A to point B here. Care to connect the dots?

Oh, yeah, no, there's probably no connection. I used a paragraph division to attempt to indicate that I was moving on. But the connecting theme in what my next thought was is this: confusion is a recurring theme in playing D&D. Which is a brilliant move by WotC; what better way to bring in the nostalgia of youth and novelty than to require a baseline level of confusion while playing the game?

 

[DND_Reborn]

First, very nice summary!

However, this I still don't agree with.

That's basically all the applicable rules here that are likely to come up in a game outside of initiative and how they work together as I see it. In combat, sure, passive Perception is a "floor" for detecting a hidden creature because, per the rules, you're always alert to danger when in combat so passive applies and rolling under that number means nothing during a Search action since your passive already failed to detect the hidden creature. Outside of combat, I don't see the "floor" ruling applying at all.

Passive perception is not a "floor", it is just your average ability when you are alert to danger (either on guard duty making several checks over a period of time OR when the DM is "rolling" in secret for you.)

If you choose to Search as your action, passive goes right out the window! You are no longer doing a routine task over and over and the DM is not using 10 as your roll because they want the results to be secret, so your passive score does not apply. If you Search and roll a 1, you get a 1, not a 10.

 

[iserith]

First, very nice summary!

However, this I still don't agree with.


Passive perception is not a "floor", it is just your average ability when you are alert to danger (either on guard duty making several checks over a period of time OR when the DM is "rolling" in secret for you.)

If you choose to Search as your action, passive goes right out the window! You are no longer doing a routine task over and over and the DM is not using 10 as your roll because they want the results to be secret, so your passive score does not apply. If you Search and roll a 1, you get a 1, not a 10.

Sure, the "floor" ruling was something Jeremy "Shield Master" Crawford said once so it needed addressing since a lot of people took that and ran with it as if the man can do no wrong despite doing wrong constantly. It works to say that in combat, but it's a meaningless distinction. Yeah, the hidden creature already beat your passive Perception with its Stealth check - that's why it's hidden. If you roll less than your own PP on a Search action, you still don't see it - duh! But effectively you can do no worse than your passive Perception since you're always alert to danger in combat, making it a floor. But again, meaningless distinction since the creature remains hidden anyway.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think the majority of the issues surrounding 'passive' scores are that everyone sees them working differently.

I agree, which is part of the issue.

To me, you use a passive score when there is no pressure or distraction to show what you could do when 'just doing it' rather than dealing with a challenge. If you're a little distracted, give them -5 (disadvantage) or if they're focused +5 (advantage). It is the 'why bother rolling' mechanic.

Yep, this is also the taking 10 option sort of. This use of the average roll is fine, but not really the use of "passive" in terms of what we have in the PHB, which is only for tasks performed repeatedly or DM secret rolls needed.

It is also the 'can't risk rolling' mechanic when you don't want to alert players by asking them to role dice and their PCs are not terribly aware of the ability check situation.

Sure, this is the second use of passive scores.

To that end, I think about how I use it and don't worry so much about the label applied. With that mentality, I get a lot of use out of the mechanic (more than other DMs) and it seems to work just fine.

I think for most of us, however we end up using it, works well enough for us individually.

Personally, the section header, instead of Passive Checks, could have been Routine and Secret Checks and things would be much cleared, cleaner, and more intuitive.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't see why this leads to "and thus 10+modifiers is wrong," other than "because DND_Reborn dislikes that."

Um... it doesn't. That wasn't the point.

10 is your average use of a skill. When you're using it. Passive implies you aren't actively using it, but passively using it.

Again, this in reference to the idea of "passive" meaning the character's action, not the DM/Player action-dynamic (which RAW is what the passive score actually is).

It's done to make things simple and easy. Adding 10 to something is very easy (increase the second place value by 1). Adding 5 is less easy. 5e is full of "easy" math like this, it's part of its intentional design.

Really, in a game where proficiency bonus is +2 to 6, ability scores normally max at +5, etc. and you think they choose 10 here to make the math "easy". Give me a break!

They choose 10 because it is the average (rounded down, which is default assumption in 5E) of the d20 roll as if the player had made many rolls (for repeated checks) or one roll in secret (when the DM wants to keep it secret), not because it was "easier'.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

10 is your average use of a skill. When you're using it. Passive implies you aren't actively using it, but passively using it.

I still don't see how it follows that 10 is thus a bad number to use.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm sorry if that came out wrong. I've written (plenty of) examples in the past that didn't fulfill their purpose, so I thought that the reason I might be taking issue with yours was that it was another such example. Just checking.

No worries and thank you for clarifying. I know I am "blunt" enough in my responses sometimes that it is taken in a way I didn't intend either.

I'm still wondering though: why would the PCs fail to notice the bandits? Why does the DM care, or more importantly, ask PCs to make rolls (active or passive) about something that they will not notice? If any check is needed, it's not to see whether the PCs notice (and thusly bring into existence) a group of bandits. The check should determine who notices the bandits. And since the bandits will be noticed, there's no point in "passive perception." Each player can actively roll and then play out the Hey-There-Are-Bandits-Stalking-Us scene.

They will only fail to notice if the bandits' hide checks beat their passive perceptions. Who notices depends on their scores.

In the example, the on duty PC has PP 15, the others were 10, 13, and 16. Now, as I run things, those three have disadvantage since they aren't actively trying to be alert, trusting in the on duty PC. So, we have 15, 5, 8, and 11 as the passive scores.

Rolling the Hide checks for the bandits, the results are 18, 12, and 7. So, the on duty PC notices two bandits in the shadows watching their camp (failing against the 18), while two of the other PCs notice one bandit as they are doing other things.

How the party choose to act at this point drives the narrative. I also like to sometimes do an Insight check on the bandits' part contested by the Deception of the PCs to indicate if any bandit is aware of the fact it has given itself away by watching the PCs reactions.

It is setting up things for the future (with the bandits gaining information to act on in the future or the PCs realizing they are being watched), or depending on the PCs (since they noticed) actions in that moment.