D&D 5E Passive Perception better than Active Perception?

[Li Shenron]

If you dont have a trap every 5 ft there's no need to roll. I don't think anyone ever did that. Not that I have experienced anyway.

You don't need to have a trap every 5ft, all that it takes is a bad adventure/DM that places traps in locations so random (e.g. the casual tile on the floor) that they are impossible to guess with reason -> players get frustrated by springing traps randomly -> players declare that they now check every single tile in the floor -> DM has them roll every check separately -> everybody gets bored and think the game (rather than the adventure/DM) sucks -> game desigers step in to save the game and introduce a rule to avoid too many rolls.

It might be very much theorycraft, but at different times it has been a vocal one, and it's been going on for a long time (see Take 10 in 3e).

 

[S'mon]

Well, the rules don't say the DM has to do anything.

But if you are using PP as a DM... you probably have figured out how PP applies to finding things in your game. And there's a pretty good chance that for things that are to be noticed... the DM will use the PP of the PCs first to see if they succeed. If no one does, and a player then asks to actively search for something, the DM will let them roll. And if they roll higher than a 10, then their Perception check lets them find something that their PP didn't.

Now if you want to suggest that there are DMs who use PP in their games but make players sometimes roll Perception checks without checking their PPs first... it does make me wonder why they are bothering to use PP at all then? At what point does the DM decide "okay, this thing to be noticed can be found using PP... but this other thing can't be and is only found by rolling."? And why bother making that distinction? What does it gain you to go through the effort in trying to decide on every noticeable thing which ones can be noticed using PP and which ones can't?

For my money... DMs should just save themselves the aggravation and either let everything possibly be found with PP, or don't use PP at all.

I find running Stonehell Dungeon, an OSR old school dungeon, it is written with the intent that the PCs inspect stuff in order to find stuff. So just walking by with PP active & finding everything would defeat part of the intent of the adventure.

In practice I do tend to run a lot of stuff as detectable by PP, but a specific declaration allows a supplementary roll. However "I inspect the chest" gives a roll that may spot stuff not spottable by the PP of a PC just walking by the chest.

 

[S'mon]

If they are staying alert to danger while traveling the dungeon, then yes. But characters aren't always doing that (or rather, they don't have to so we shouldn't assume they are). If my character is drawing a map while traveling the dungeon, then he or she has no chance to notice that orc's stank, for example. Or notice secret doors. Or traps.

He wouldn't get to use PP vs hidden doors & traps, by extension from the PHB travel-in-wilderness note that he wouldn't get to spot hidden foes waiting in ambush while distracted by mapping etc.

I think a GM who said the PC didn't get to smell the stinky orc, or hear the loud orc, would be a silly GM who has misread what the PHB said there. Though I wouldn't be averse to giving disadvantage/-5 or advantage/+5 to reflect distraction, one's ears & nose don't close off while mapping.

IRL if I'm asleep and there's a suspicious noise in the flat, I come awake. A few weeks ago my son tried to go to the bathroom at night without waking me, which sneak attempt my sleeping brain interpreted as "Intruder!" and I bolted awake with a massive adrenaline rush. Obviously my Passive Perception was active!! The funny thing was that if he hadn't tried to be stealthy, my brain would have registered it as normal activity and I'd have barely stirred.

 

[Hriston]

I think a GM who said the PC didn't get to smell the stinky orc, or hear the loud orc, would be a silly GM who has misread what the PHB said there. Though I wouldn't be averse to giving disadvantage/-5 or advantage/+5 to reflect distraction, one's ears & nose don't close off while mapping.

What’s being said is that the mapping character doesn’t get to smell the orc that has masked its scent or hear the quiet orc. If the orc is stinky and loud then it isn’t trying to escape notice and Perception doesn’t come into it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I find running Stonehell Dungeon, an OSR old school dungeon, it is written with the intent that the PCs inspect stuff in order to find stuff. So just walking by with PP active & finding everything would defeat part of the intent of the adventure.

In practice I do tend to run a lot of stuff as detectable by PP, but a specific declaration allows a supplementary roll. However "I inspect the chest" gives a roll that may spot stuff not spottable by the PP of a PC just walking by the chest.

Whether or not the party finds these things via PP all comes down to what the DCs are. If the old school dungeon is asking for people to declare and find stuff, I would presume the DCs were high enough that no one in the party was going to have a PP (or in my particular way of running it, PI) high enough to detect them. Which means things go right to where the game normally runs, which is the group declares what they are trying to do and if those action could be potentially successful you have them roll checks just like normal.

At the end of the day, all my methods do is make it such that creatures or object which had rolled horrible rolls to hide are going to be noticed regardless of what anyone in the party was doing. Even if a PC was rear-guard of a marching order and reading a book at the time... the orc band who rolled a collective '3' on their stealth check could be noticed by that party member. A group of orcs that bad at hiding deserves to get noticed even by the most distracted individuals.

If as a group you can't roll a group stealth check that beats a 5 + WIS + proficiency Passive Perception check, you don't deserve to force some PCs to skip the first round due to surprise.

But let's also be honest here... more often than not, the PCs that *are* "distracted" are going to be failing Passive checks anyway. Because most of the time the monsters who would attack from hiding actually have some skill in it, and their checks will be such that they will beat "distracted" PPs more often than not. So "distracted" party members will usually fail to notice threats because a 5 + WIS + potential proficiency kinda sucks for most PCs. And for those PCs to notice or search for anything, they will have to declare that they are stopping doing whatever it is that is "distracting" them, and roll a regular Perception or Investigation check like normal.

My way just avoids me having to waste a few seconds in the moment to decide on every hidden thing "Is this a situation where Passive applies or not?" Forget that. I just always assume Passive awareness is going on for every PC... check the DC of the hidden thing against their passive numbers (subtracting 5 when applicable to the "distracted" ones)... and if the DC was higher, then I just keep quiet and wait for them to make the active choice to scout around looking for stuff. But if someone's Passive *was* high enough, then I tell them "You see and hear the bushes up ahead rustling" and then they can decide what they want to do.

 

[iserith]

He wouldn't get to use PP vs hidden doors & traps, by extension from the PHB travel-in-wilderness note that he wouldn't get to spot hidden foes waiting in ambush while distracted by mapping etc.

I think a GM who said the PC didn't get to smell the stinky orc, or hear the loud orc, would be a silly GM who has misread what the PHB said there. Though I wouldn't be averse to giving disadvantage/-5 or advantage/+5 to reflect distraction, one's ears & nose don't close off while mapping.

IRL if I'm asleep and there's a suspicious noise in the flat, I come awake. A few weeks ago my son tried to go to the bathroom at night without waking me, which sneak attempt my sleeping brain interpreted as "Intruder!" and I bolted awake with a massive adrenaline rush. Obviously my Passive Perception was active!! The funny thing was that if he hadn't tried to be stealthy, my brain would have registered it as normal activity and I'd have barely stirred.

First, I think "IRL" arguments aren't very convincing when talking about the rules of a game set in a fantasy world. Some amount of realism has to take a back seat to the game play. The way the rules have it set up make it clear there's a meaningful choice to be made here. And as I said upthread, the more meaningful choices a player can make in a given session, the better in my view.

@Hriston has the key distinction right though and one that I underscore with players new to the rules being used in play: Not every monster is trying to be sneaky. If the monster is trying to be sneaky, the PC who is not alert to danger fails to notice the monster and is surprised if combat breaks out, straight up, no check. If the monster isn't trying to be sneaky, then the PC who is not alert to danger isn't surprised because the rules for surprise require the monster to try to be sneaky. If you're doing a task other than staying alert to danger, it's generally a good idea to not be in the front rank of the marching order. One will want to mitigate risk when trying to gain a benefit.

For my part, when I use a random encounter table like in Xanathar's, whether or not a monster is trying to be sneaky is based on whether it has Stealth proficiency or whether its lore suggests that is what it does. If neither of those conditions are true, then it won't try to be sneaky and the character who is navigating, tracking, drawing a map, or foraging has nothing to worry about. When I create my own tables, I make a third to a half of the monsters sneaky.

 

[S'mon]

I like it that it can be possible to fail to sneak up on sneaking Conan in game just like it is possible to fail to sneak up on sleeping me in real life. It is both realistic and dramatic. The choice lies in party setting watch, or not. Turning off PP for ALL purposes is just bad GMing as well as misreading the phb imo.

Having PP always on and 100% effective tends to result in autopilot play, a less engaged experience, and is weak GMing too imo, but does not violate plausibility or my sense of immersion in the same way.

Disadvantage is a great tool for the in between situation and should be used I think.

 

[robus]

What’s being said is that the mapping character doesn’t get to smell the orc that has masked its scent or hear the quiet orc. If the orc is stinky and loud then it isn’t trying to escape notice and Perception doesn’t come into it.

This really cuts to the heart of the matter!

 

[Hriston]

This really cuts to the heart of the matter!

Thanks for the encouragement!

 

[Hriston]

"I don't think that would work for me. I like that I can use a passive check to make a check secretly in a situation where there's hidden information, like a hidden monster the party doesn't know about."

I will on occasion call for a perception check, often when entering a new type of area and that can stay in effect for their general or passive perception until used.

Other times i can use their passive score anyway **if** it is sufficient to spot the "poorly hidden beast." Much like the Str 8 character does not need to roll to jump the 5' gap. No sense to roll if the result will be success.

What do you use for the DC to notice the beast, its passive Stealth?

I must admit tho, i wish 5e had standardized the passive perception to match the optional auto-success rules in the DMG, either one (prof+easy or naked ability score-5.)

Matter of fact, defining passive perception as Wisdom Score -5 and not the take 10 it is now (with appropriate animal traits for keen senses giving out disads or such) along with the same optional rule from the DMG doesnt seem bad.

It sets up a difference between passive and active (roll plus prof) , allows a way to raise it thats capped with no question that the action oretty much gets you more almost all the time and doesnt make some see the need to jack up DCs for traps and stuff.

I think the Automatic Success variant is meant to cover tasks that are too easy for the character to bother with making a check, whereas a passive score represents a reasonable average effort.