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

[DND_Reborn]

My #2 point is just pointing out that the word ‘passive’ has to do with the fact that the player is using a character ability passively (in the sense that it’s the dm doing it not the player themselves). The word passive has nothing to do with the character. The character, in fact, must be actively doing something. I was just qualifying the word ‘passive’ and how it gets misinterpreted.

Ah, got it. No issues then.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Let's consider an example:



First, the DM will not ask the player of the character on watch to roll hundreds of Wisdom (Perception) checks for his watch, so elects to use the character's passive perception score of 15.

Next, the DM doesn't want to alert the party to the presence of the bandits, so is using the passive scores for the other three as well. Yet, those other three are busy doing other things, while also sometimes keeping a weary eye and ear out, while the first one is actively scanning and looking/listening for anything suspicious.

This is my issue...

I am perfectly happy with the DM using the typical results in lieu of asking for numerous rolls. But this terminology is not "passive" since the PC is actively using their skill repeatedly. As suggested, "standard", or "routine" or "typical" would be better suited to this.

I am also fine with the idea that the DM wants to use a roll of 10 when they want the result to be secret. Again, not "passive", but "secret or hidden" would be better terms IMO. The DM wouldn't want to "roll in secret" unless the PC was actually doing something relevant to the need for a roll at all.

Now, consider the three PCs at the camp. Doing other things actively while just being cautious of their surroundings. IMO these PCs are being "passive" in their perception. If they happen to pick up on something it is a bit of luck or chance. Now, that isn't to say they shouldn't have better chances if their Wisdom (Perception) is better!

I've long since played that the three PCs would have disadvantage on their scores due to the fact they are doing other things and not employing their perception in any sort of active or constant fashion. Their efforts are truly "passive".

In the above scenario the DM would want to keep the results secret (possibly?) and so could resort to only passive scores, but I would rule the three in camp have -5 to their scores. Does this make it less likely they will notice anything? Of course, they aren't on watch! However, there would still be a chance, it just shouldn't be as good as if they were actively on watch.

In the scenario you quoted, I would rule that all PCs not on watch are at disadvantage to PP or, at worse, do not get an opportunity to get a check. I just compare to the highest PP of the people actively on watch and leave it at that. If the person on watch discovers bandit scouts and they warn the others, I’ll let the others (activey)roll perception. Otherwise, they might be surprised if the bandits choose to ambush.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So, how can your perception when you aren't looking (or sensing in any fashion) be as good as your average roll if you ARE looking for something???

As I said, you're trying to put the "realism" of the "in-game narrative" onto the game mechanic. And this is one of those times when we shouldn't do that. This is a game mechanic for the game's sake... to make the game work as a game.

If we did as you are aiming it-- have the Passive Perception be the number that is the in-world equivalent of not actively looking at all... you would need to add the modifier to the lowest die roll, a 1. It's the least work done on Perception-- a 1 + the modifier. That's putting the "in-game realism" of the wording into the game mechanics. But what would be the point? We now a game mechanic that is completely useless. A mechanic that'll never be used and never come up. So why even bother making a rule for it in the first place?

The 10 + modifier is there purely as a game construct. It is to allow players and DMs to not roll dice for Perception checks all the time, but still have an opportunity to discover someone on the off-chance there are creatures out there that are hiding. But there has to be some chance to notice them-- otherwise there's no reason to have PP in the game. So using 10 is the middle ground-- a mechanic that will work sometimes, but not always. Which is exactly what we would want from a mechanic as a mechanic. And that's why it is what it is.

Now if you don't like that mechanic as a mechanic, you certainly aren't alone... there are tons of DMs out there who don't even use Passive Perception because they just don't even like the concept. So I would say that if it is the mechanic of 10 + modifier you don't like... then sure, drop it to 5 + modifier so the party can find less creatures hiding, or just don't even use Passive Perception at all. But if it's purely the name you don't like because it doesn't align to what you think the mechanic with that name should be... then either rename it or just accept it as a purely a mechanic for mechanic's sake and not worry about it. Because this game is FILLED with mechanics that are given fluffy narrative-like names but which don't make any sense if you took them at face value within the world of the game, so picking this one out amongst all the others seems unnecessary. If you can accept the idea that 'Cure Wounds' more often than not do not cure any wounds and instead are giving back a character's endurance, luck, and stamina... you should be able to accept Passive Perception.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The 10 + modifier is there purely as a game construct. It is to allow players and DMs to not roll dice for Perception checks all the time, but still have an opportunity to discover someone on the off-chance there are creatures out there that are hiding. But there has to be some chance to notice them-- otherwise there's no reason to have PP in the game. So using 10 is the middle ground-- a mechanic that will work sometimes, but not always. Which is exactly what we would want from a mechanic as a mechanic. And that's why it is what it is.

As I said, you need two separate things. Even with 5+ there is still a chance because the "stealther" can roll below it.

Riddle me this: Observant, +5 to PASSIVE perception, giving you a base 15. Odds are, you are better off NOT rolling now...

 

[GMMichael]

During the 1st watch (a hour before sunset, so still bright light), a PC with darkvision is "keeping watch" using Perception repeatedly during the next couple hours. This character is actively looking around, scanning shadows, listening for unusual sounds, etc. The PC has a perception modifier of +5 due to Wisdom and proficiency bonus, making his Passive Perception 15.

The rest of the party is doing other things. Preparing food, cleaning weapons, studying spells, or whatever light activity they want after the firewood has been gathered. None of these PCs is "on watch", but given the environment they are still weary of danger, so might pick up on an unusual noise or movement in some nearby bushes. Using the current rules, their Passive Perception scores are 10, 13, and 16, and all have darkvision either racially or due to magic (spells or items).

Some bandits approach in the shadows of trees and bushes, to scout out the party and decide if they want to return under the cover of dark later...

First, the DM will not ask the player of the character on watch to roll hundreds of Wisdom (Perception) checks for his watch, so elects to use the character's passive perception score of 15.

Is the PC being approached by hundreds of individual, scouting bandits/bands?

Next, the DM doesn't want to alert the party to the presence of the bandits, so is using the passive scores for the other three as well. Yet, those other three are busy doing other things, while also sometimes keeping a weary eye and ear out, while the first one is actively scanning and looking/listening for anything suspicious.

Then there's no need for passive scores, since the "first one" is going to notice something first.

I am perfectly happy with the DM using the typical results in lieu of asking for numerous rolls. But this terminology is not "passive" since the PC is actively using their skill repeatedly. As suggested, "standard", or "routine" or "typical" would be better suited to this.

"Passive," as someone has surely noted earlier, refers to the player not taking an active part in an ability check. It's not a reference to the character.

I am also fine with the idea that the DM wants to use a roll of 10 when they want the result to be secret.

Isn't this why they invented DM screens?

Now, consider the three PCs at the camp. Doing other things actively while just being cautious of their surroundings. IMO these PCs are being "passive" in their perception. If they happen to pick up on something it is a bit of luck or chance. Now, that isn't to say they shouldn't have better chances if their Wisdom (Perception) is better! I've long since played that the three PCs would have disadvantage on their scores due to the fact they are doing other things and not employing their perception in any sort of active or constant fashion.

More specifically, they're being passive with regards to their efforts to perceive danger. Does this require a "passive check?" It shouldn't: the DM can just ask them for Wisdom (perception) checks with disadvantage.

In the above scenario the DM would want to keep the results secret (possibly?) and so could resort to only passive scores, but I would rule the three in camp have -5 to their scores. Does this make it less likely they will notice anything? Of course, they aren't on watch! However, there would still be a chance, it just shouldn't be as good as if they were actively on watch.

They have a watchman. Why do they need to notice anything? Further, the bandits aren't even planning on fighting. Is this an encounter or not? Or just an example that didn't come out right?

 

[iserith]

Yes, "passive" refers to there being no roll, per the rules you posted upthread. It does not refer to the character's activities at all, though many people believe that it does (and the designers don't help dispel this notion). That the DM is calling for a check of any kind (passive or otherwise), means the DM is saying whatever the PC is doing has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. What makes the check passive is that the character is doing the action repeatedly and/or the DM wants to keep the check result hidden from the player, so there's no roll.

 

[Shiroiken]

Riddle me this: Observant, +5 to PASSIVE perception, giving you a base 15. Odds are, you are better off NOT rolling now...

Especially considering that passive checks are completely optional, I feel that things like this should grant advantage (which is +5 to passive). It'd work out exactly the same, allowing it to be useful even if the DM never uses passive checks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is the PC being approached by hundreds of individual, scouting bandits/bands?

It doesn't matter to passive scores.

Then there's no need for passive scores, since the "first one" is going to notice something first.

Or they won't depending on the bandit's stealth rolls.

"Passive," as someone has surely noted earlier, refers to the player not taking an active part in an ability check. It's not a reference to the character.

Which is not the way hardly anybody reads or understands it until that is explained to them... The reason why a better term would make that clearer.

Isn't this why they invented DM screens?

Apparently not.

Although I do use mine for that.

More specifically, they're being passive with regards to their efforts to perceive danger. Does this require a "passive check?" It shouldn't: the DM can just ask them for Wisdom (perception) checks with disadvantage.

It just goes back to the DM wanting some measure of knowledge without the players knowing.

They have a watchman. Why do they need to notice anything?

Because people notice odd things all the time without looking for them, but are more likely to notice when they ARE looking for them.

Further, the bandits aren't even planning on fighting. Is this an encounter or not? Or just an example that didn't come out right?

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Especially considering that passive checks are completely optional, I feel that things like this should grant advantage (which is +5 to passive). It'd work out exactly the same, allowing it to be useful even if the DM never uses passive checks.

I don't know how "optional" they are since they aren't presented as a variant system or rule. But I get your point.

I agree, advantage would be better since the benefit could apply to active rolls but still offer the same benefit to passive checks when/if the DM wants to use them.

 

[Shiroiken]

I don't know how "optional" they are since they aren't presented as a variant system or rule. But I get your point.

It's "optional" in the same way that Inspiration is, since the DM can always ignore it, calling for a roll instead. JC tweeted at one point that it was intended to be optional, but didn't come across that way in the book.