D&D 5E Passive perception Yay or Nay?

[Psikerlord#]

If the mechanics are broken, fix them. Someone suggested +5 on stealth. I am not familiar enough to make a recommendation, but it will probably vary from party to party. Take a look at the PC's and carefully judge it. The rolls are too much fun to just take out of the game like that.

There should not be any addition to the stealth roll. If you want to make it easier to hide from multiple foes, just roll perception once for the whole group (most DMs would probably do that anyway, being too lazy to roll for them all!). Adding 5 breaks bounded accuracy.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I don't like it. For a couple of reasons.

1. I don't like the idea of the DM setting a high DC for noticing a trap or secret door, and then nobody noticing because no one in the group has a high passive; if the DM makes all secret doors DC 15, and the highest perception is 13, then nothing gets discovered, while some one in the group might have a chance if rolls were made normally.

2. Passive and Active seems weird in general. I thought the point of rolling perception was so you could notice something; actively looking for something would be investigation. In my mind, the process of perceiving would be an automatic thing anyway.

3. I don't like the idea of not being able to roll for something when my character is doing something; if there is a theif lurking in the shadows, I want to roll to notice. I don't want the DM to automatically have the theif slip past me because I only have a passive perception of 12.

3 is not necessarily a passive check. The DM can treat it as a contest, per DMG, so an active wisdom (perception) check vs an active dexterity (Stealth) check.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Almost always, at least one of the monsters will roll so low that all of the PCs will notice him. Almost always, at least one of the PCs will roll so low that all of the monsters will notice him.

Almost always, there will be no surprise.

This is desirable in my view. Most times there should be no surprise. On occasion you might get ambushed, but mostly surprise should not be a part of combat imo. When there is a properly laid ambush, you can give adv to the hiders or disad to the perceivers, if you want more certainty of surprise.

 

[CapnZapp]

There should not be any addition to the stealth roll. If you want to make it easier to hide from multiple foes, just roll perception once for the whole group (most DMs would probably do that anyway, being too lazy to roll for them all!). Adding 5 breaks bounded accuracy.

Sorry what?

I'm having mathematical discussion here.

If your roll needs to best five other rolls, you are unlikely to succeed.

This means that in order to simulate ambushes, active perception is a poor mechanism.

It's not that I'm against the good feeling of having your fate (and your dice) in your hand, it's that the notion that you can simply switch "take 10" with a roll without huge statistical consequences betrays poor mathematical skills.

And so, yes, making a single roll for the group is one solution. But it's still a change. And another change would be to give a lone ambusher a +5 circumstance to his roll.

Which solution you prefer is your business.

But please don't try to paint one solution as broken but the other one as self-evident.

Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with this. Both are statistically sound solutions.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems to me that you brought stealth into the conversation (along with your appreciation for passive perception with regard to stealth) with your post:

And you'd be wrong. Trust me.

After all, I know what I am thinking.

The 5E stealth rules are the very reason that passive perception is less worthwhile in 5E than it was in previous editions.

First off, I am still not talking about the stealth rules. I simply like how passive perception saves a bucketload of rolls that mostly are irrelevant. D&D simply isn't the kind of game where I feel it's worth the effort.

Secondly, I did go back and read your post. But you only talk about active stealth vs active stealth. Do you have an actual argument in favor of active perception over passive perception?

If you do, perhaps some overlooked consequence that makes rolling perception actively rather than "taking 10" a mechanically sound idea, please share your findings.

But if you're only here to dump on the stealth rules, then you are derailing the thread, which is asking us Passive perception Yay or Nay?

Thanks,

 

[KarinsDad]

This is desirable in my view. Most times there should be no surprise. On occasion you might get ambushed, but mostly surprise should not be a part of combat imo. When there is a properly laid ambush, you can give adv to the hiders or disad to the perceivers, if you want more certainty of surprise.

If you have two sides that are purposely trying to be stealthy and the rules say "Sorry, we have explicit rules for that, but they suck due to the math and almost never come into play", you think that's a good idea?

I agree that most encounters should not have surprise, but if one or both sides explicitly try to be stealthy (which is hard to do for PCs since in dark areas where surprise might occur, many PCs cannot see well anyway), the rules should support it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No, the thing is that if you roll active perception, stealth becomes .

This is simple math, and has nothing to do with drama, suspense or good role playing.

If you allow the party to roll, somebody is bound to roll high. This means your stealth check becomes worthless.

So passive perception is good practice. If you roll, you should probably add +5 to all stealth checks.

Agreed.

The necessity of not rolling is driven by the flat math. Specialists are no longer allowed to be good enough to know they will beat a drooling Wis 3 Commoner1, so an avalanche of opposing dice obliterates the value of their skills.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Sorry what?

I'm having mathematical discussion here.

If your roll needs to best five other rolls, you are unlikely to succeed.

This means that in order to simulate ambushes, active perception is a poor mechanism.

It's not that I'm against the good feeling of having your fate (and your dice) in your hand, it's that the notion that you can simply switch "take 10" with a roll without huge statistical consequences betrays poor mathematical skills.

And so, yes, making a single roll for the group is one solution. But it's still a change. And another change would be to give a lone ambusher a +5 circumstance to his roll.

Which solution you prefer is your business.

But please don't try to paint one solution as broken but the other one as self-evident.

Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with this. Both are statistically sound solutions.

Adding 5 is not math sound at all. Passive = roll 10, nothing more. If you roll, you simply roll, and take your chances. And yes, this means vs multiple foes, there are more chances to spot you. But if you are skilled or roll well, you probably wont be spotted regardless. Working as intended. There is no good reason why you should +5 hiding against 5 guys, but roll normally when hiding against 1.

 

[aramis erak]

So how are folks feeling about the passive perception system? While I'm digging it, it seems possible others might not. It definitely makes hiding far more feasible since one doesn't have to worry about a whole group of folks shooting dice hoping for high numbers. But that alone might irk other folks who feel what should be their chance to be unsurprised is taken away by a flat number.

I love it. I make use of Passive Perception, Passive Investigation, Passive Insight, and Passive Intimidation a lot.

Passive Perception is force-written into the mechanics a lot - it's the default stealth DC, so it's pretty unavoidable.

Passive investigation is the "realize those are secret doors you're passing, or spot the illusion without wasting an action" ability.

Passive Insight is the "You think he's hiding something"

Passive Intimidation is the "are they made nervous by him just being there?" ... it's mostly a shading of NPC reactions.

 

[Ristamar]

I've been trying to cut back on what I felt became a bad table habit of superfluous rolling in 3.x. The passive Perception score cuts down on the need/desire for players to constantly make active Perception checks. In my experience, it meshes well with the opposed "50% or more equals success" group Stealth check mechanic, and the less stealthy PCs don't feel like such a burden when the group is trying to be discrete.