D&D 5E Passive perception Yay or Nay?

[KarinsDad]

Since using passive perception does not preclude anyone from making an active perception roll, the rogue never knows for sure that she is hidden. I believe that the intention for someone trying to hide is for her to not know whether she is successful until her attempt either proves to be successful by granting advantage on her attack or unsuccessful when someone attacks her in her hiding place or anticipates her attack because she is seen as she approaches. I don't believe there should ever be a guarantee.

It depends on the DM. For a DM who requires a full action to use an active perception, it will be extremely rare that anyone wastes an action doing an active perception in order to potentially take away advantage for the rogue. With such a DM, the player of the rogue is, for the most part, typically guaranteed success with double digits on the D20 die for the stealth check (the die, not the total).

 

[Mark CMG]

Passive perception Yay or Nay?

Unless folks have blinders on and their ears stopped up . . .

 

[miniaturehoarder]

There are some assumptions here that are contrary to the rules as stated. Passive perception does not make hiding any more effective because the game assumes that anyone can use their action to use perception, thus making an active check if there is a significant chance of failure. Passive perception actually makes hiding less effective because it creates the opportunity to notice a hidden creature without making an active perception check.

If there wasn't passive perception, each character would be rolling perception automatically whenever a hidden creature was around, as in 3E*. That is how the passive perception system makes stealth more viable. Spotters are forced to "take 10" unless devoting an action to find something.

Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.

 

[iserith]

While I liked passive Perception in D&D 4e, I don't think it quite fits with the D&D 5e paradigm. It might soon be on its way out in my games altogether. So I'm going with "Nay!" here.

 

[guachi]

What would you replace it with? Some combination of active perception rolls and the character narrating what they do?

 

[iserith]

What would you replace it with? Some combination of active perception rolls and the character narrating what they do?

Yeah. I describe the environment. The players describe what they want to do. If that includes looking around an area where I have hidden something, then based on their approach they might find what is hidden (no roll), fail to find what is hidden (no roll), or the outcome is uncertain and I'll call for a Wisdom (Perception) check. After the roll, the DM narrates the results. For failure, this will typically be progress with a setback rather than a result of "You don't find anything" at my table.

See also DMG pg. 237, "Multiple Ability Checks." In addition to what I've just said, this will serve to solve a lot of the issues people have in this thread regarding concerns over multiple rolls or concerns over "metagaming" when a failed roll results in finding nothing. It's all in how the DM adjudicates...

 

[Hriston]

If there wasn't passive perception, each character would be rolling perception automatically whenever a hidden creature was around, as in 3E*. That is how the passive perception system makes stealth more viable. Spotters are forced to "take 10" unless devoting an action to find something.

I thought we were talking about 5e. By which I mean I didn't realize this discussion was about passive perception vs 3e style perception. In which case I might not have gotten involved. I know next to nothing about 3e.

 

[SirAntoine]

We each come at 5th Edition from our own experiences. If you're used to rolling for perception, and you enjoy it more, by all means do so.

 

[Psikerlord#]

If there wasn't passive perception, each character would be rolling perception automatically whenever a hidden creature was around, as in 3E*. That is how the passive perception system makes stealth more viable. Spotters are forced to "take 10" unless devoting an action to find something.

This is not entirely correct. According to passive perception in PHB, it's purpose is to simulate making lots of rolls over a long period of time, averaging in a roll of 10. So it potentially "saves time" rolling repeatedly (if as a DM you permit re-rolling of ability/skill checks), and to prevent the occasional inadvertant player tipoff to an impending trap, ambush, whatever (by virtue of you rolling a perception check for PCs behind your screen - although frankly this should not really tip anyone off if you make rolls behind your screen not infrequently, or if the ambush etc is about to spring anyway - who cares if the players roll?).

In combat however, you dont use passive perception - hiding becomes a contest, per DMG (ie. the hider takes action/bonus action to hide with active stealth roll vs "free" active perception roll by observers. Not unlike being told a lie and getting a "free" insight check to detect something is odd, or a "free" athletics check vs being grabbed, and so on). Or, at least, that is one interpretation. The hiding rules/passive perception rules are not terribly clear, which if I remember correctly the devs said was by design, to allow DMs to rule in the way their table prefers.

The more I think about passive perception, the more it irks me. Static trap vs static perception = blurgh, as does "easy" hiding due to only one side rolling (and generally woeful passive perception scores across the MM). I think I will go back to just getting the players to record 10 perception & insight checks at the start of every session, and I will select one randomly if/when needed during a session (combined with sometimes making rolls behind your screen for no reason, that is more than enough to "keep 'em guessing").

I dont mind the idea of passive insight so much. I guess because it is not combat related.

 

[Psikerlord#]

What would you replace it with? Some combination of active perception rolls and the character narrating what they do?

you simply treat it as a contest, per the DMG. Active roll vs active roll. Observant feat gives Adv on perception checks rather than +5 on passive.