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

[Li Shenron]

So, if detecting a seam in the wall (where a secret door is) requires a DC 15 passive Perception, and your player is actively checking and therefore they roll a 2 (+5) for a total of 7, but their passive is 15, then they detect it anyway.

Now, if the DM calls for a WIS (Perception) check because the outcome of such efforts is uncertain then the DM ought to take your passive score into account and award auto-success if it's high enough to beat the DC for the check.

No way. This may be how YOU like handling Perception, but nowhere in the rules it is said that the DM must do it like this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No way. This may be how YOU like handling Perception, but nowhere in the rules it is said that the DM must do it like this.

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.

 

[ad_hoc]

JC stated that the intent is for PP to be a floor.

 

[daviddalbec]

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 agree up to the point where you said everything should be discoverable using PP. I think there are certainly cases where someone is attempting to make a check which is not repeatable (I said unique and novel before), where PP does not by RAW make sense.

PHP on Passive Checks:
"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Imagine a monster hiding behind a table, or even in a box, by RAW heavily obscure, ergo you have the blinded condition. To imagine you enter a room and as a repetitious habit look around all the furniture, or put your ear up to all the boxes is absurd IMO (though perhaps you smell it). Or maybe there is a false book on a bookshelf, to imagine you have a repititious habit of putting particular attention to inspecting bookshelves is silly as well.

 

[daviddalbec]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

22 minutes on, Crawford discusses passive perception.
He talks about passive perception being a floor, but later clarifies that it is only a floor because DM's don't remember to use the passive perception rule. Like I was getting at with my original post talking about how you only get to an active check if your passive has been insufficient.

 

[iserith]

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 agree with Li Shenron on the matter of passive Perception as a "floor." So far as I can tell, the rules only support this being the case in combat and detecting danger (because per the rules most creatures are alert to danger). Or arguably if a character is engaging in a specific task over time (e.g. searching for secret doors while traveling the dungeon) and then opts to be more reasonably specific in a particular instance of searching for secret doors that might also call for an ability check. There is nothing in the rules, however, that suggest you're always alert to danger outside of combat or always searching for secret doors (for example) such that passive Perception would always be on. It's situational.

I could probably have done a better job wording that, so if it's not clear, please let me know.

 

[iserith]

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing

22 minutes on, Crawford discusses passive perception.
He talks about passive perception being a floor, but later clarifies that it is only a floor because DM's don't remember to use the passive perception rule. Like I was getting at with my original post talking about how you only get to an active check if your passive has been insufficient.

If I remember correctly, he is also talking about this in the context of combat and creatures that are hiding. And that is in line with the rules. Outside of combat, it makes less sense except in certain situations as I mention in my last post.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree up to the point where you said everything should be discoverable using PP. I think there are certainly cases where someone is attempting to make a check which is not repeatable (I said unique and novel before), where PP does not by RAW make sense.

PHP on Passive Checks:
"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Imagine a monster hiding behind a table, or even in a box, by RAW heavily obscure, ergo you have the blinded condition. To imagine you enter a room and as a repetitious habit look around all the furniture, or put your ear up to all the boxes is absurd IMO (though perhaps you smell it). Or maybe there is a false book on a bookshelf, to imagine you have a repititious habit of putting particular attention to inspecting bookshelves is silly as well.

Speaking personally, there is absolutely no reason why PP wouldn't apply to both of those situations. The only change would be in the DC that is set for them.

The monster in the box? Their DEX (Stealth) check tells us how well they are hidden in that box. If you enter the room, your PP doesn't mean you need to "repeatedly search the room"... it means that if the monster's Stealth check fell under your PP, then the monster just wasn't very quiet stuck in that box. And you noticed via your PP that there was something inside that big box. If your PP was under its Stealth check, then it means it did a really good job at hiding from you and keeping quiet. And the only way you'll find the monster is if you tell the DM "I'm going to go look in that box over there." and the DM might have you roll an "active" Perception check.

(Of course, in this particular scenario you wouldn't really need to roll at all, because as soon as you opened the box the monster was no longer behind cover and was now in line of sight, thus breaking its hidden status anyway. But you get where I was going.)

And in terms of the false book on a shelf... if its supposed to be a really hidden false book, the DC to discover it will just be higher than anyone's PP, at which point it doesn't really matter. But there's also no reason to think the DC to notice this false book couldn't in fact be lower than a PC's PP, as it just means that the book was not disguised very well. It stuck out too far, it was an odd color, there was dust on the shelf in front of every other book except that one, or whatever.

If you're going to use PP as a DM... I don't see any reason why you wouldn't have it apply to any potential check. Because the checks where it wouldn't apply are the ones where you probably made the DC so high no one was noticing it through their PP anyway.

 

[daviddalbec]

If I remember correctly, he is also talking about this in the context of combat and creatures that are hiding. And that is in line with the rules. Outside of combat, it makes less sense except in certain situations as I mention in my last post.

He focuses on combat, but makes implications for outside of combat. He makes it clear that the DM is very in control here. Questions like if it's sensible that a PC would be passively aware of the new odor of an orc hiding in a room in what has been a stale dusty dungeon are up to interpretation. The characters have been repeatedly smelling the same dusty air up until the room with the B.O. of the orc hiding behind the desk right?

 

[iserith]

He focuses on combat, but makes implications for outside of combat. He makes it clear that the DM is very in control here. Questions like if it's sensible that a PC would be passively aware of the new odor of an orc hiding in a room in what has been a stale dusty dungeon are up to interpretation. The characters have been repeatedly smelling the same dusty air up until the room with the B.O. of the orc hiding behind the desk right?

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.