Passive vs Active Perception...

[iserith]

"Active Perception" sets off my facial tick. There's no such thing as "active perception."

 

[robus]

Passive perception is always on and requires no actions. If you'd apply disadvantage (perhaps because they're asleep or distracted), it has a 5 penalty. If they'd have advantage (because they're suspicious, perhaps), it will be at a +5 bonus. Advantage and disadvantage are generally added at the discretion of the DM for these passive uses. Those +5/-5 are directly from the PHB, btw.

You can certainly play that way, but to my mind it takes away some of the choices the players might want to make for their characters. The rules say that passive checks are used for a character performing an ongoing activity: keeping watch, searching for secret doors, traps etc. If a player hasn't declared an ongoing action for their character then there is no passive check required (or it can be done at disadvantage to give them some chance of accidentally noticing something).

 

[robus]

"Active Perception" sets off my facial tick. There's no such thing as "active perception."

I really don't know why they chose the term "Passive" - it's caused all sorts of confusion!

 

[jaelis]

"Active Perception" sets off my facial tick. There's no such thing as "active perception."

Yes, but its useful and clear enough, no? It is nice to have a term to mean you're going to take an action to roll a check.

 

[iserith]

You can certainly play that way, but to my mind it takes away some of the choices the players might want to make for their characters. The rules say that passive checks are used for a character performing an ongoing activity: keeping watch, searching for secret doors, traps etc. If a player hasn't declared an ongoing action for their character then there is no passive check required (or it can be done at disadvantage to give them some chance of accidentally noticing something).

In general, it's probably safe to assume that the characters are Keeping Watch if they haven't declared any other activity while adventuring. Still, I don't like to assume. I make sure the players declare the activities they are doing while adventuring because in many cases you're either Keeping Watch or you're doing Something Else and if you're doing Something Else, you are automatically surprised if the monsters are trying to be stealthy. I then try to make Something Else a valuable trade-off so that players aren't always choosing to Keep Watch, plus I make sure a consistent portion of my random encounters are a fairly even distribution of monsters, monsters trying to be stealthy, traps, and hazards.

 

[iserith]

Yes, but its useful and clear enough, no? It is nice to have a term to mean you're going to take an action to roll a check.

I think it's a little misleading, thanks in part to "passive" in "passive check" being thought to mean the characters are necessarily acting in a passive manner when that isn't the case. By referring to an ability check as an "active check," it reinforces this misconception in my view. As well, I try to be very precise in my language when discussing the rules and "active perception" isn't a thing.

It also gets tangled up in the idea that players are asking to make checks instead of, or in addition to, describing what they want to do. This blurs the line between the DM and player roles as I see it. I might take an action in combat to do the Search action and have an expectation of rolling since an enemy is hiding. Outside of combat, it's not an action and there's no particular expectation. My character might be Keeping Watch in which case my passive Perception applies when the DM determines surprise.

 

[jgsugden]

Active perception is using an action to use the skill perception. It now has a definition. Congrats.

I allow an active perception roll, as a chance to improve upon their passive perception, whenever a situation arises where the PCs are being somewhat attentive - which is basically anytime they are not using their actions for something else and are not enthusiastically discussing something.

Examples:

* 2 PCs are on watch and the rest of the party is asleep. A monster approaches stealthily. The two PCs get perception rolls, the others use passive perception with a -5 penalty (asleep). The floor for the two active perception rolls is the passive perception of those PCs.
* 6 PCs are adventuring in a dungeon. They're lined up in three rows of two. The front rank generally gets active perception checks, the rest of the party only gets an active perception check if sound is involved in the check (otherwise a passive check). However, if one of the front ranks is tracking, then only the other PC gets an active check (with the tracking PC having a passive check). If the two front folks are talking back and forth about something, they will only get a passive check (everyone is passive checking). If they're having a heated discussion, they'd get disadvantage (meaning -5 to their passive check).

PCs in my games are surprised when they do not perceive or expect the threat. A PC that doesn't see a threat coming, but is expecting it to come, will generally not be surprised - but only if they're expecting that threat. If the threat comes from an unexpected direction, or it is a different type of threat than expected, then a failure to perceive it will mean surprise.

I find these rules are easy to implement and work really well. They follow the guidance in the book and subsequent clarifications, as well.

 

[jgsugden]

I think it's a little misleading, thanks in part to "passive" in "passive check" being thought to mean the characters are necessarily acting in a passive manner when that isn't the case. By referring to an ability check as an "active check," it reinforces this misconception in my view. As well, I try to be very precise in my language when discussing the rules and "active perception" isn't a thing.

Passive refers to the lack of a die roll - tis true. However, you use the passive check in most situations in which the characters are not 'actively' (as in using an action) doing something. So you use passive checks in passive situations a lot, even if that is not what the passive references explicitly.

It also gets tangled up in the idea that players are asking to make checks instead of, or in addition to, describing what they want to do. This blurs the line between the DM and player roles as I see it. I might take an action in combat to do the Search action and have an expectation of rolling since an enemy is hiding. Outside of combat, it's not an action and there's no particular expectation. My character might be Keeping Watch in which case my passive Perception applies when the DM determines surprise.

That last bit I disagree on. You are keeping watch. You are taking proactive efforts to be on watch. To me, this gives you an active roll, with a floor of your passive perception, whenever there is something noteworthy to be perceived.

Let's say that the party was in combat with a fairly weak force, but they expect a menacing monster to come join the battle - one that uses stealth. Knowing when they arrive is critical. Accordingly, while the majority of the PCs are mopping up the minor threats, one PC is using their combat action to look for the threat - an active use of perception, and a skill check with a die roll.

How is that PC's activity different than the PC standing on watch while the rest of the party rests?

 

[iserith]

Passive refers to the lack of a die roll - tis true. However, you use the passive check in most situations in which the characters are not 'actively' (as in using an action) doing something. So you use passive checks in passive situations a lot, even if that is not what the passive references explicitly.That last bit I disagree on. You are keeping watch. You are taking proactive efforts to be on watch. To me, this gives you an active roll, with a floor of your passive perception, whenever there is something noteworthy to be perceived.

Let's say that the party was in combat with a fairly weak force, but they expect a menacing monster to come join the battle - one that uses stealth. Knowing when they arrive is critical. Accordingly, while the majority of the PCs are mopping up the minor threats, one PC is using their combat action to look for the threat - an active use of perception, and a skill check with a die roll.

How is that PC's activity different than the PC standing on watch while the rest of the party rests?

There's really nothing about passive checks in the rules that indicates the characters are necessarily doing anything passively though. It means they're doing a thing over and over again and those tasks have an uncertain outcome. That's not passive in the fictional sense. "Taking proactive efforts to be on watch" is an ability check when it's a one-off task with an uncertain outcome and a passive check when you're doing the same take with an uncertain outcome repeatedly over time. The latter tends to be the case when you're traveling, exploring, delving, etc. Which explains why passive Perception is used to determine surprise. If you do anything other than be on watch and said task is sufficiently distracting, then you don't get a chance to avoid being surprised. If the monsters act stealthily, you are automatically surprised. Hopefully, the task you chose instead is beneficial enough to offset whatever punishment you may take for not keeping watch.

As to your example, if the PCs are in combat, the characters are assumed to be Keeping Watch. This is what makes the passive Perception the "floor" when the outcome of whether or not the PCs can spot a hidden creature is in doubt. If the player chooses to take the Search action, he or she might make a Wisdom (Perception) check if the DM asks for one.

Embedded in your last two posts, especially post #17, seems to be an assumption that the players are trying to roll the dice. That is not the default expectation in the rules so far as I can tell, though that is a common way to play. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM then decides if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Only then do you roll and, in my opinion, a player shouldn't want to if he or she can avoid it.

 

[Charlaquin]

A big issue here is that every time you ask for a perception check, the players will know something is up even if they roll badly. To fix that, you have to request perception checks all the time, even when there is nothing to see. If that sounds fine, then go for it.

That, or just don't sweat the players knowing there's something to be found that they didn't find.