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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Yep, like I said, I get your point. Too bad it wasn't written up better in the book... oh wait, that is a lot of it actually.

Too bad also intent doesn't come out in the text.

 

[James Gasik]

I probably wouldn't have ever used passive perception at all if someone hadn't taken Observant at a table I was running for. To me, Perception should be invoked any time there is something to notice, it should never require an action- could you imagine if you walked into your apartment and died because you didn't take an action to smell natural gas buildup due to a pilot light going out?

I liked the idea of passive perception when I ran 4e, but in reality, saying "oh sorry mate, you missed detecting that guy sneaking up on you because your passive perception is 12 and he rolled a 13 on Stealth..." no, Perception and Stealth should always be opposed rolls, there shouldn't be a "take an action to notice a guy sneaking up on you". Or trying to pick your pocket, for that matter.

And you can have bonuses to die rolls like guidance or even a Bardic Inspiration that don't apply to a passive check, because they aren't die rolls*. It's all kind of messy and murky. If I don't want players to "know", I can just roll behind a screen for them if I want to, but honestly, I always roll openly, and I don't care if the players know what they rolled.

If they want to act cautious after seeing a low roll for no reason, hey that's fine- I have a tendency to use "fake rolls" from time to time anyways, a trick I picked up from one of my first DM's.

*There is the argument that you shouldn't be able to use these because you don't know you'd need the bonus, but the game has plenty of bonuses a player can apply to things you probably shouldn't be aware of, and if you fall down this rabbit hole, then justifying spending a Bardic die on a saving throw or casting shield (or heaven forbid, silvery barbs starts to become suspect, let alone using Inspiration to gain advantage).

 

[Hriston]

It's intended to represent something in the fiction. Searching is different from walking. Defending is different from reacting.

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

Ability checks are procedural, but anyway...

Okay, so I misused mechanical. Sheesh!

The existence of the "passive check" does more than just confuse people; it indicates confusion in the design of D&D. "The DM says what happens." "The rules say what happens." That's the bigger fish to fry.

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

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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...

I think observant would have been better worded if they said you get advantage on PP checks. I wonder, too, if they should have given advantage to rolled perception checks as well

 

[delericho]

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

The simple, but unfortunate, answer: they screwed up. There shouldn't be anything in the game that only affects passive (or active) checks. The feat should really give advantage on the relevant checks. (Though expertise might be better anyway...)

 

[delericho]

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

Surely it's fairly situational. Certainly, there's a difference between walking down a hall with pictures on the wall versus when that hall is in the Louvre and you're carefully observing the detail of those pictures. And that's different again if you're carefully tapping the floor with your 10-foot-pole, or running hands along the wall to find a secret door latch, or...

 

[Hriston]

Surely it's fairly situational. Certainly, there's a difference between walking down a hall with pictures on the wall

This doesn't tell me anything about how the character is searching. For instance, is the character looking at the pictures for hidden clues as they walk? If so, a Perception check might be in order. Because the character is doing this repeatedly while walking, I'd probably use their passive Perception score in this case. That doesn't mean that using a passive check necessarily represents doing something repeatedly while walking.

versus when that hall is in the Louvre and you're carefully observing the detail of those pictures. And that's different again if you're carefully tapping the floor with your 10-foot-pole, or running hands along the wall to find a secret door latch, or...

I'd use passive Perception for all of these too, for the same reason as above. How is this meant to illustrate a difference in the fiction between a rolled ability check and a passive ability check?

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, this is why in the other thread I choose Perception as the system that needs an overhaul (second only to Stealth IMO).

 

[DEFCON 1]

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

Heh... well, I'm one of the DMs who agrees with JC about Passive Perception being a "floor", so once I've checked every character's PP and none of them have noticed the hiding creature... any player who says they are going to actively look will get to then roll as well... in hopes of rolling a 16-20 on the die and thus getting their Perception check even higher. If they roll between 1-15? Then no new information is discovered beyond what their instinctual general awareness from Passive Perception picked up.

But not everyone agrees with my rulings on this, which is fine and to be expected. Those DMs can run it however they want (if at all).

 

[DND_Reborn]

But not everyone agrees with my rulings on this, which is fine and to be expected. Those DMs can run it however they want (if at all).

Fair enough!