D&D 5E Understanding Passive Checks

[Agamon]

I generally only share the DC after a player has committed to an action, but sometimes I give it out beforehand. In addition to providing the fictional context, I would probably do that in this particular example of the rogue sneaking past guards as a shorthand to underscore what chances a skilled rogue would know he has. The player with the +5 Stealth would know that he has a 40% chance of success on his roll and that would translate into the rogue knowing he's got less than a coin toss' chance to get past that guard unnoticed. I wouldn't want a player to make decisions in the absence of clear information unless the player has specifically chosen to do so (such as by not taking up an opportunity to acquire said information).

That's fair, but I don't have trouble doing that without using the numbers, myself. And if, for some reason, the player is misinformed and tries to do something stupid unintentionally, I'll give him the ol' "That might not be the best idea," and reiterate the situation. But that doesn't happen often and it's a small price to pay to keep immersion.

And of course, it's not about hiding the target number, it's about talking math and breaking immersion. The numbers on the sheets are necessary, I just prefer to keep them in the background where possible. I also run a Savage Worlds game. The target number for that game is almost always "4". So while the players know the number, it's static and we don't really need to talk about it, so it still remains in the background, something I really like about that game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This thread just proves to me that NO one knows how Passive Perception works. Not even the people who wrote the books. My best guess is that if you asked all the people at WOTC how it works you'd get 5 different answers.

It definitely sounds like the designers were assuming it works like 4e, for the most part. Where if anyone makes a check to hide from you then everyone looking automatically succeeds at seeing you if they have a higher PP than your stealth check. It also seems to allow you to find traps if the DC is below your PP even if you don't state you are looking for a trap. But it also seems like it COULD be used if you say "I'm searching this hallway" instead of making a check for every 5 feet of wall.

However, if you are using the exploration rules, it says that if you take an exploration action other than being on the lookout, you don't contribute your PP to looking for ambushes. Which means, the designers felt you should be able to "turn off" your PP if you were busy doing something else. Which kind of goes against the idea that you can use your PP to find traps even when you aren't looking for them.

So, since we've been given 2 different ideas as to what PP is, people are rather confused by the concept. Add to this the fact that the Starter Set appears to have been written before the rules were finalized, and so was Hoard of the Dragon Queen and that both authors seemed to have different ideas as to what PP meant, it adds even more confusion.

From the quote earlier in the thread, it sounds like Mearls is using the concept of "PP is always on, you roll only when you say you are specifically looking around."

I say, expect table variation.

 

[Li Shenron]

Keep in mind, though, that a DM might rule otherwise. Passive checks are a tool that groups can use to speed up the game or move past die results that slow things down or lead to a grind.

The best thing about passive checks is that you don't have to use them if you are not comfortable with them or you think you're not getting anything useful out of them.

IMO they don't actually speed up the game, but rather the existence of passive checks (even if you are actually not using them) reduces situations where a player - probably pissed off by previous failures - starts checking for something repeatedly all the time, and that would slow the game down and generally prompts DM's or group intervention to stop the player.

Such is the proverbial case with searching for traps: a player is pissed off by constantly missing clues about where/when to check for traps, so he starts checking every 5ft (which sometimes isn't even motivated by finding them, but rather a metagaming tactic to piss off the DM in return in hope she will stop using traps altoghether...). Passive checks are one way to mitigate this occurrence.

 

[Psikerlord#]

That's an opinion. I find that passive checks enhance the play experience, it means a bit more work for the DM who should provide a creatively narrative description of the passive check. I find it utterly boring to ask players to repeatedly roll dice simply to achieve a result for most mundane tasks. I use it frequently, particularly for perception and it works great. This mechanic is another example of the brilliance of 5e.

Obviously a DM doesnt ask for endless rolls, just the ones that matter. I'm glad PP works for your table, but for me it is definitely more bad than good. Happily it is easily removed from the game. Those who like it, keep it, and those who dont remove it. Everyone wins!

 

[iserith]

This thread just proves to me that NO one knows how Passive Perception works. Not even the people who wrote the books. My best guess is that if you asked all the people at WOTC how it works you'd get 5 different answers.

Yeah, totally agree.

It definitely sounds like the designers were assuming it works like 4e, for the most part. Where if anyone makes a check to hide from you then everyone looking automatically succeeds at seeing you if they have a higher PP than your stealth check. It also seems to allow you to find traps if the DC is below your PP even if you don't state you are looking for a trap. But it also seems like it COULD be used if you say "I'm searching this hallway" instead of making a check for every 5 feet of wall.

However, if you are using the exploration rules, it says that if you take an exploration action other than being on the lookout, you don't contribute your PP to looking for ambushes. Which means, the designers felt you should be able to "turn off" your PP if you were busy doing something else. Which kind of goes against the idea that you can use your PP to find traps even when you aren't looking for them.

By my reading of the rules, an adventurer is always keeping an eye out for hidden threats unless he or she is doing something else that is taking up their attention. That is the first thing the DM should consider, in my view, when determining whether or not a hidden threat might be detected by an adventurer. The radar is always on until you turn it off to do something else.

I believe that looking at it this way is not only simple, but is in line with the rules.

 

[Agamon]

By my reading of the rules, an adventurer is always keeping an eye out for hidden threats unless he or she is doing something else that is taking up their attention. That is the first thing the DM should consider, in my view, when determining whether or not a hidden threat might be detected by an adventurer. The radar is always on until you turn it off to do something else.

I believe that looking at it this way is not only simple, but is in line with the rules.

Yeah, that's my take, too. This has always seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me. But then I haven't read the early adventures. I also looked for this ruling as soon as the PHB came out, as the Basic rules had me confused as to how you use a skill repeatedly, and this is the answer. So it kinda stuck in my head.

Come to think of it, in that thread, most of the answers to my question were along the lines of, "You're not supposed to be able to do something over and over." I'm glad the design team didn't think that way.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, totally agree.



By my reading of the rules, an adventurer is always keeping an eye out for hidden threats unless he or she is doing something else that is taking up their attention. That is the first thing the DM should consider, in my view, when determining whether or not a hidden threat might be detected by an adventurer. The radar is always on until you turn it off to do something else.

I believe that looking at it this way is not only simple, but is in line with the rules.

I disagree. Mearl's comments above and in a couple other places imply that it is completely impossible to "turn off" passive perception. Part of what it represents is your ability to hear things. If you are searching through a chest of drawers, you aren't looking behind you and you aren't watching for threats but you can still hear people sneaking up behind you and therefore still get your PP. Searching a chest of drawers doesn't leave you deafened.

This is backed up a couple of places in the rules. It says that a DM can rule an NPC is distracted if it is busy doing something else and therefore rule that an NPC isn't looking in a particular direction. Therefore, it allows you to make stealth checks to sneak up on the NPC even though you'd normally need cover(since the DM can rule that the NPC is looking in a different direction and therefore you have "cover"). But the rules still require you to make a stealth check vs the NPC's PP to determine if you succeed. Even if they are distracted. It is even suggested that you give a creature advantage or disadvantage on their PP if they are particularly distracted or paying attention.

During one of the final playtest drafts, there was a rule that increased or decreased the PP of NPCs based on how distracted they were. Remnants of the system can be seen in Hoard of the Dragon Queen when the adventure tells you the alert level of monsters in some of the dungeons. Even the lowest level in this system still gave them a PP of 5 so they could detect really bad attempts to sneak up on them even while they were extremely distracted.

The only time that it is mentioned in you can "turn off" your PP is during the Exploration rules that say when you travelling long distance you can abstract the game into exploration turns that take hours to accomplish. When in this mode if you take an exploration action other than being on the look out, you don't contribute your PP to seeing ambushes.

Otherwise, you always have your PP against all traps, hidden doors, hidden creatures, or anything else as long as you are able to physically perceive it. In other words, you can't your your PP to see a hidden door if you have no line of sight to the door. You can't hear a creature sneaking up behind you if they have silence on them. But there should always be a chance to hear someone sneaking up behind you even if you are in the middle of reading a book or even sleeping.

You might get disadvantage for being distracted but it isn't going to give anyone auto success.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't understand why the player shouldn't bother rolling if they have a 50% chance of success. That is hardly impossible.

D&D isn't meant to stage situations where a highly skilled professional tries to do stuff only to fail more often than not.

Think about it: assuming you're a thief. Would you really persist in trying to sneak by guards if you failed more than half the time? Of course not. You would consider that strategy unworkable and go buy yourself a pistol and a silencer (or whatnot).

But it's worse: a D&D rogue isn't you (or me). You and me, we're unskilled commoners. We have a 50% success rate at DC 10 or so. This is the DC a DM should aim for when the guards are simple low-level humanoids.

A DC of 10 or 11 is what the D&D rogue should face, since a 70-90% success rate is what is needed to uphold the idea that she knows what she's doing. A 70-90% success rate is what's required for the party to even try the sneaky-sneaky strategy, instead of just bashing heads, using illusion or charm magic or what have you.

And just to reiterate: there's nothing wrong with a DC 16 per se. Sure Bilbo's DC when sneaking by Smaug was this high or even higher. But Smaug isn't a pensioned cop with two granddaughters who just had two donuts instead of just the one.

Also: a first level player character can attain a passive perception score of 16. (A Wisdom-based character proficient in Perception gets this). And that's fine too. Because even a first level PC is a hero, while even a third level guard is not.

TL;DR: Do not use the "passive score with advantage" +5 bonus lightly, and never to turn run-off-the-mill opposition into a mid-level threat. In 5th Ed, a +5 bonus is insanely huge, and should not be used simply because a guard is "motivated".

 

[iserith]

I disagree. Mearl's comments above and in a couple other places imply that it is completely impossible to "turn off" passive perception.

I see Mearls' comments as no more or less valid than any other DM which is to say that's how he rules it as his table. In this case, I don't rule it that way because it effectively kicks the meaningful decision-making back to character creation rather than keeping it during play. I want the trade-off as suggested in the Basic Rules (page 65).

Part of what it represents is your ability to hear things. If you are searching through a chest of drawers, you aren't looking behind you and you aren't watching for threats but you can still hear people sneaking up behind you and therefore still get your PP. Searching a chest of drawers doesn't leave you deafened.

Which is why the DM takes these things into consideration when deciding whether the outcome of the situation is uncertain enough to warrant a check (passive or otherwise), whether the check has advantage or disadvantage, or whether the outcome is certain i.e. the character does or doesn't notice the threat (no check).

This is backed up a couple of places in the rules. It says that a DM can rule an NPC is distracted if it is busy doing something else and therefore rule that an NPC isn't looking in a particular direction. Therefore, it allows you to make stealth checks to sneak up on the NPC even though you'd normally need cover(since the DM can rule that the NPC is looking in a different direction and therefore you have "cover"). But the rules still require you to make a stealth check vs the NPC's PP to determine if you succeed. Even if they are distracted. It is even suggested that you give a creature advantage or disadvantage on their PP if they are particularly distracted or paying attention.

The rules don't require us to do anything. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. They come into play when the DM says so to resolve uncertainty that the DM establishes.

The only time that it is mentioned in you can "turn off" your PP is during the Exploration rules that say when you travelling long distance you can abstract the game into exploration turns that take hours to accomplish. When in this mode if you take an exploration action other than being on the look out, you don't contribute your PP to seeing ambushes.

Otherwise, you always have your PP against all traps, hidden doors, hidden creatures, or anything else as long as you are able to physically perceive it. In other words, you can't your your PP to see a hidden door if you have no line of sight to the door. You can't hear a creature sneaking up behind you if they have silence on them. But there should always be a chance to hear someone sneaking up behind you even if you are in the middle of reading a book or even sleeping.

You might get disadvantage for being distracted but it isn't going to give anyone auto success.

The rules would seem to suggest otherwise. First, and again, the DM decides whether a situation is uncertain enough to use mechanics - he or she might decide on automatic success or failure instead. As well, the section you're referencing doesn't mention "exploration turns" and earlier in that chapter it suggests that pace and travel takes place over minutes, hours, and days, not just hours as you say. A slow pace is 200 feet per minute. One can imagine that searching a 20 x 20 chamber for secret doors might include walking the perimeter of that room thrice (240 feet, just over a minute) while poking around. That's a task being performed repeatedly and thus may warrant a passive Perception check.

Further, it states that if a hidden threat is in rear of the party, for example, the DM may say that the front and middle ranks have no chance of contributing their passive Perception to determining if they notice it. It says if someone is foraging - which sounds not so different than "searching through a chest of drawers" - that you also don't get the benefit of your passive Perception. So while that character is tossing the room for secret doors as above, maybe he or she can't also be alert for the mimic on the wall that takes the form of a painting. I see no reason to treat these rules as some subsystem that comes into effect when the characters are walking for a minute or more. It reinforces to me that there is sometimes a cost to doing something other than keeping an eye out for hidden threats and that the fictional situation matters more than the mechanics.

In addition, it's not uncommon to see DMs struggling with characters that have a very high passive Perception - RPG forums are rife with this sort of complaint. Ruling it the way I suggest takes some of the power away from passive Perception. It means that if a player builds a character with a very high PP, they need to actually be the guy who is keeping watch, standing guard, or tapping with the 10'-pole in order to get the most benefit from their investment. They can't also be the guy who tracks and forages and searches for secret doors (unless it's a ranger in favored terrain) while still picking up on every hidden trap or monster. This makes it a meaningful choice during play and helps with ensuring equal contribution throughout the party.

Another example: My rogue, Chuck Dagger, has a PP of 20 at 1st level. You could almost see the DM's dismay when realizing this. But as I explained to him, look, if I'm doing anything other than keeping watch for hidden threats, it simply doesn't apply. So when I'm going down the corridor looking for secret doors, I know that I could run afoul of a trap or monster. That's a meaningful choice I made, one that has potential consequences. Alternatively, I can keep an eye out for trouble and someone else with a lower PP can go look for those secret doors. This reinforces the fact that Chuck can't do it all alone and encourages teamwork. Without ruling it this way, my meaningful choice occurs only when I created the character and took Observant feat and Expertise in Perception. My way, it's both a meaningful investment during character generation and a meaningful choice during play.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'm curious how others handle the Observant feat. It's very clear: "You have a +5 bonus to your passive Wisdom (Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation)
scores."

What I find odd is that the +5 doesn't apply to active checks. Your character is very observant, unless he's actively looking for something.

Weird, right?