D&D 5E Passive Perception

[iserith]

Not sure I like Passive Perception

Say there's a trap and it has a DC 15, anyone with a PP 15+ spots it just by passing close by it?

No. They have to be looking around, repeatedly, for hidden dangers and must have told you this (or have told you to assume as much unless they state otherwise). This isn't possible in some situations, such as if a member of the party is tracking, foraging, navigating, drawing a map, or doing some other "exploration task." In some cases, the DM may say that someone's passive Perception doesn't apply based on their position relative to the hidden threat. (For example, a trap in front of the person first in the marching order might not have a chance to be noticed by someone in the back of the line.)

Sure I could raise the DC to 21 or something, but that defeats the idea of PP; I may as well just ditch it.

Raising the DC is not the answer to your issue with passive Perception. Raising the DC doesn't increase the challenge to the player. It only means they have to build characters with higher passive Perception scores.

I like my players to be vigilant and self aware and actively search around for things (traps, secret doors, etc). I don't want them passively spotting this and that just by being in the vicinity. A case of, unless the 'thing' is glaringly obvious, if my players don't tell me they're searching the floor by the entrance they won't spot the trip wire running across its base.

Actively searching around is what the game expects. It is part of the exploration pillar. Look at the basic conversation of the game on page 3 of the Basic Rules, "How to Play." The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Passive Perception assumes that the players have described what they want to do as being "We're looking around for hidden dangers, repeatedly."

This does not obviate your role of adequately describing the environment and telegraphing the threats therein. Nor does it obviate the players from describing what it is they want to do. At best it is a form of shorthand.

I may be misunderstanding PP but I find it pointless. If I need to check my players' characters' perception on things, I can print out a page of randomly rolled d20 results and go with that

I don't think Passive Perception really fits the D&D 5e paradigm, personally. It strikes me as legacy design and comes from a place where DMs are asking for too many checks e.g. "I look around, therefore I roll." That's not how this game works. The DM only calls for a check - or compares a passive check to a DC - when the result of a player's stated action has an uncertain outcome in the eyes of the DM. The DMG tells us that we have to be careful about asking for too many checks because this diminishes roleplaying by making players believe their rolls, not their actions and characterization, is what matters.

You can house rule passive Perception out of your games fairly easily, if you want. Or just remember that it's just like any other check, but just the average result of a task performed repeatedly. It doesn't apply in all situations and requires at least some reasonable description on the part of the player to be useful.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think I'd do this: Your passive perception beats the DC of a static object? Okay. You get a sense that something's unusual in the particular 5-ft. area of interest. Then the player describes how he interacts with that area to figure out just what it was he noticed.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I think I'd do this: Your passive perception beats the DC of a static object? Okay. You get a sense that something's unusual in the particular 5-ft. area of interest. Then the player describes how he interacts with that area to figure out just what it was he noticed.

This is how I would personally handle it. It would allow for player agency to remain intact, while at the same time still preserving the usefulness of passive perception.

 

[weldon]

Yeah, this. Subtract 10 from the DC and add that to a roll to see who notices the trap. It's a way for the DM to roll in secret without giving away that there's something the players might notice. Of course, you'll need to have the player's PC written down ahead of time, because asking them what their Passive Perception is might also tip them off

Moving the roll to the DM seems almost pointless. Where is the fun (for the players) in that? I'd much rather use their passive perception and then…

I think I'd do this: Your passive perception beats the DC of a static object? Okay. You get a sense that something's unusual in the particular 5-ft. area of interest. Then the player describes how he interacts with that area to figure out just what it was he noticed.

This approach gives the DM a lot of flexibility to determine how the game moves forward. Is this an important plot point where the failure or success determines which path the characters follow? A sinkhole for player resources to make the next fight more challenging? Is this an interesting challenge in itself? Is it just a reminder that they are in a dangerous location and meant to create atmosphere?

You might decide in one case to say that there is something off about the room and prompt them to make checks, or you might just tell them that there is a tripwire across the hallway. You can decide what will make the game more interesting for your players.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Moving the roll to the DM seems almost pointless. Where is the fun (for the players) in that? I'd much rather use their passive perception and then…

They players get to make plenty of their own rolls, especially if they declare they're actually, actively searching for traps. As it says on the tin, it's "passive" perception... the ability to notice stuff without consciously looking for it. For me, there is a point to the DM making the roll... not tipping players off to information or a situation their characters don't know about. Also, like the OP, I don't like someone with PP 15 *always* noticing something's there for a DC 15, or even just something's off, as in RangerWickett's suggestion.

In addition, PP isn't just for traps. It's used for NPCs and monsters sneaking around or hiding, for instance. And the DM is going to make the roll for them, in my experience. Just think of the trap as another kind of monster.

This approach gives the DM a lot of flexibility to determine how the game moves forward. Is this an important plot point where the failure or success determines which path the characters follow? A sinkhole for player resources to make the next fight more challenging? Is this an interesting challenge in itself? Is it just a reminder that they are in a dangerous location and meant to create atmosphere?

You might decide in one case to say that there is something off about the room and prompt them to make checks, or you might just tell them that there is a tripwire across the hallway. You can decide what will make the game more interesting for your players.

You can do the exact same thing with all the other approaches mentioned. However, in the DC vs PC version, note that if NONE of the PCs have a PP of 15 for a DC 15 trap, then NONE of them have a chance to realize there's anything amiss without active checking. Zero. BAM! Trap goes off and the players never had a chance. So much for player agency.

Or, if the DM wants to nudge the players into investigating closer anyway, he has to ignore the DC and PP scores in the method you seem prefer.

It's definitely a YMMV situation, but I think I like my suggestion better.

 

[iserith]

What about that tripwire across the hallway?

Surely it's more satisfying for a player to spot it rather than a game mechanic? I understand what you're saying but it doesn't cover all bases. I think that's my main beef with PP; not so much how it is used, but that it's a grey area. For me at least.

I'm not Astrosicebear, but I'll take a crack at your question.

It is arguably more satisfying for a player to listen to a DM describing the environment and make decisions on what to do such that the trap is revealed without needing to make a check. The player has removed the uncertainty through good play and that's a thing to be rewarded in my view.

However, that does require the DM to telegraph hidden threats in such a way that the player isn't required to pixelbitch to find the thing which is what Astrosicebear seems to think passive Perception is designed to mitigate. There must be some sign of the trap's presence that is described by the DM in a way that invites exploration and removes the chance of the trap being a gotcha. Most DMs in my experience totally fail at this, however.

 

[Sir Brennen]

It is arguably more satisfying for a player to listen to a DM describing the environment and make decisions on what to do such that the trap is revealed without needing to make a check. The player has removed the uncertainty through good play and that's a thing to be rewarded in my view.

However, that does require the DM to telegraph hidden threats in such a way that the player isn't required to pixelbitch to find the thing which is what Astrosicebear seems to think passive Perception is designed to mitigate. There must be some sign of the trap's presence that is described by the DM in a way that invites exploration and removes the chance of the trap being a gotcha. Most DMs in my experience totally fail at this, however.

This is all very true. However, I personally tend to go to a PP "check" (DM roll vs PP) first, to see if any players notice something based on that, in part to reward those players that invest in stats, skills and feats that bump PP up (I do have a player with the Observant feat).

I'll also admit, that in a typical party, the range of PP can be pretty narrow, so either using the "compare to DC" method or "roll the trap's Stealth" method, it's often an all or nothing proposition. In the case of all PCs failing, then I'll still likely prompt them with something about a potential threat, though probably not with the same amount of detail had one of them made the check. Of course, if it's a not terribly damaging trap, I may go ahead and let them spring it on a missed check just as a warning. "I've got a pungi stake in my foot. We must be on the right track!"

Basically, I let the mechanic do the heavy lifting first to see if I even need to make a DM call.

 

[guachi]

A PP of 15 or higher is either a specialized character, or late game.

A PP of 15 is a 1st level cleric with a 16 wisdom who has taken the perception skill. That's neither specialized nor late game.

 

[Paraxis]

A PP of 15 is a 1st level cleric with a 16 wisdom who has taken the perception skill. That's neither specialized nor late game.

yeah specialized is human druid who has a 16 wis, prof, observant feat, and turns into an animal with keen senses giving him a potential passive perception of 25 in one sense at 2nd level.

 

[weldon]

For me, there is a point to the DM making the roll... not tipping players off to information or a situation their characters don't know about. Also, like the OP, I don't like someone with PP 15 *always* noticing something's there for a DC 15

You want random chance in traps. That's fine. I'm just saying to put the outcome in the players hands instead of the DMs.

You can do the exact same thing with all the other approaches mentioned.

I was trying to make a particular point about how PP and chance could interact. If you use PP to determine if they notice the trap, you can still decide how to describe it to best move the story forward. If it's important to introduce some risk and make the results random, just tell them something is off and have them roll an investigation check. The players have determined the result of the randomness instead of the DM. If you don't need randomness there, just describe the situation more directly (you see a tripwire across the hallway that you can easily step over). I'm not arguing that DMs don't have choices about how to describe things when you use active perception checks or random DCs, I was commenting on how the two ideas interact so you can still introduce random chance with investigation checks while also using passive perception.

However, in the DC vs PC {edP?} version, note that if NONE of the PCs have a PP of 15 for a DC 15 trap, then NONE of them have a chance to realize there's anything amiss without active checking. Zero. BAM! Trap goes off and the players never had a chance. So much for player agency.

Sure, if I want a trap to go off, I can always set the DC beyond their reach, even with dice rolls. If I think some risk is going to be fun, I ask for a check. If I want to recognize the player that poured tons of resources into passive perception, I tell her that she notices something is off. I then ask her to roll to see if she avoids the trap or walks right into it. I'm deciding when there should be risk and letting the players determine the outcome of that random chance with their dice rolls. I'm also acknowledging the player(s) that put resources into perception.

One detail here - if multiple players beat the DC, I think it's fun to rotate which player gets the information instead of always revealing the info to the player with the highest perception (or just giving it to the whole table).

Or, if the DM wants to nudge the players into investigating closer anyway, he has to ignore the DC and PP scores in the method you seem prefer.

If I want to nudge the players, I just nudge them with the description of the room, or the reaction to their choices. What does that have to do with using PP instead of random DCs?

The essential difference I still see in our approach is that you want random chance to influence outcomes in trap encounters and you think the DM should determine the outcome by rolling the DC against the players passive perception. I think the DM should set the DCs but still retain control over what passive perception reveals to the player(s). If there ought to be some risk in this moment of the game, the players determine the outcome by rolling an active check against the DC the DM has set.

If I've misunderstood your position, I apologize in advance and would like to learn more.