When I first started, modelled passive perception as someone just walking along perceiving things at their natural alertness. It's higher for some because some people are just more observant and quicker to notice things, and vice versa. Perception rolls instead model the action of looking around and seeking details etc. Thinking about it though, I realise that makes no sense because the value is just your average roll. It makes no sense that your passive level of observation is average for your active observation, and 50% of the time is actually better. It's purely so that if the DM wants to find out if a character notices something but doesn't want to reveal the presence of a trap/monster/curious detail on a tomb/etc, they can just consult the passive value and use that instead of having the player roll and potentially fall into the trap of metagaming. I guess the use ofnthe term "pssive" threw me a bit.
My question is, do you have a way of differentiating between passive "I'll have a quick scan around the room to make sure I don't bump into stuff" perception and "I'm being observant and having a look for any details that seem pertinent"? Like, when Inwalk into my living room, I don't look at every detail, I just see where people are, the obvious stuff and make sure I'm not about to tread on lego, while if I'm entering a stranger's living room, I look for much more detail because I'm looking for topics of conversation, clues about the person etc. Also, perhaps more pertinent to D&D, if you're gojn through a dungeon, your attention waxes and wanes. Sometimes it'll be high, other times it'll drop. Do you model that in your games, and how?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I do the thing where passive sets the floor. If your passive is a 15, and your roll is lower, you treat the roll like it was a 15, for example.
As far as differentiating, if the player specifically says they look around, I’ll call for a roll. (Though if the roll should be perception or investigation is a whole nother conversation) Or if they are on watch, I’ll treat that like they are trying extra hard to be attentive and call for a roll. If they don’t mention that they are being extra attentive, I’ll go with passive.
Passive is, well, passive. If the character is actively doing something, like looking for traps, I have them roll.
Passive perception I use for things like, if a hidden monster is doing a stealth roll to sneak up on the party and I don't want to alert the players by saying 'everyone roll perception.' This is a case where the characters are not actively searching and so the 'passive' part comes in. Then, if someone's passive perception beats the stealth roll, I notify that player of the danger.
For having passive set the 'floor' I'm a bit wary to do that, as that's basically giving everyone reliable talent perception which is a very powerful thing if you have say, a rogue or bard with perception expertise.
Passive scores are IMO for setting DCs rather than using opposing checks. Need an NPC to deceive the party? Passive Insight sets the DC. Assassin sneaking past a party sentry? Passive Perception sets the DC. Hidden item in a room on a person? Passive Investigation sets the DC.
Though typically I rarely use a passive investigation check. My players are quick to do thorough searches.
Passive is, well, passive. If the character is actively doing something, like looking for traps, I have them roll. I see passives as a way for characters to discover threats or situations without the idea actually occurring to the player or if they have no real reason to suspect a situation.
Passive perception I use for things like, if a hidden monster is doing a stealth roll to sneak up on the party and I don't want to alert the players by saying 'everyone roll perception.' This is a case where the characters are not actively searching and so the 'passive' part comes in. Then, if someone's passive perception beats the stealth roll, I notify that player of the danger. Another thing that comes into play is that we consider an active ability check an action in most cases, a commitment on the part of a character to do something that involves their time and oversight. Having everyone make an action based skill check like Perception to detect a Stealth enemy basically destroys action economy in an unfair way. A rogue could literally handicap a large group of enemies to the benefit of his party by making them lose their action seeking him. In some cases, we could consider a passive or active check as a non action. An example could be making a leap to a lower level area and try to avoid taking falling damage. If the leap was secondary to something else the character was doing and not the main item of importance, we might make such a decision.
For having passive set the 'floor' I'm a bit wary to do that, as that's basically giving everyone reliable talent perception which is a very powerful thing if you have say, a rogue or bard with perception expertise. As I said before, a Passive is a freebie, no action required and a character gets one almost like a saving throw in their defense. An Active check takes an action, is character driven and has a higher result possibility as well as a lower one than a Passive. Have you ever had the chance to pretty much Passively avoid an obstacle but instead, decided to be cool and totally bone yourself(Actively went out of your way to Parkour, for example)? That's what happens when your Active check result is lower than your Passive.
Passive insight and investigation I never use. We do use these but, it can be much harder to decide which way to go. A player driven Investigation is going to feel more satisfying as would an Insight about an individual's behavior. One way to handle this that some people like is a 2 step process. These situations can fall under a Passive Perception check that clues a character to the fact that something is off. This could happen to any character with a decent Perception and that might prompt them to take an action to Ability check with Insight or Investigation to discover the specifics of a scenario. Also, it could provide a teamwork situation where one character gets bad vibes and pulls another aside to say as much, while the newly alerted character has the actual situation determining skill.
This is pretty similar to how we play in my group. I just added a couple reinforcing and meandering opinions.
My issue with Passive vs. Active is that I have a player who rolled up a variant human with 14 Wis and Int and the Observant feat. Without breaking a sweat, he has 21 Passive Perc and Investigation. That's potentially an easy button for noticing just about anything and everything.
I see in general 3 possible ways to handle it:
Let it be an easy button and basically let the character be a walking klaxon for anything that might be of interest to the party, or
Incorporate consideration for range and movement speed into passive check DCs...Goblins hiding 50 feet away are much easier to see than at 300 feet, unless of course you're on a galloping horse..., or
Choose to interpret passive checks as a very general and typically somewhat ambiguous thing...like a "gut feeling", that would trigger a GM-requested active check, which upon success would give specific info about whatever it is that caused that gut feeling...for example <<<passive check succeeds and the DM says "you just noticed that you haven't heard any bird sounds for the last few minutes...give me a perception check"...and if the active check fails..."you nervously look around but don't see anything"...but if the active check succeeds..."as you're glancing around, you catch the reflection of sunlight off something metal and looking more closely you see a goblin aiming a bow in your direction!">>>
So far, I haven't seen anything in the official source material that makes any of these approaches right, wrong, better, worse, or anything other than reasonable possibilities dependent on the preference of the DM.
In general I tend to use active perception checks in situations where it wouldn't be all that east to notice something. In combat, in a crowded room with people talking, etc. Otherwise I usually stick to passive.
My issue with Passive vs. Active is that I have a player who rolled up a variant human with 14 Wis and Int and the Observant feat. Without breaking a sweat, he has 21 Passive Perc and Investigation. That's potentially an easy button for noticing just about anything and everything.
I see in general 3 possible ways to handle it:
Let it be an easy button and basically let the character be a walking klaxon for anything that might be of interest to the party, or
Incorporate consideration for range and movement speed into passive check DCs...Goblins hiding 50 feet away are much easier to see than at 300 feet, unless of course you're on a galloping horse..., or
Choose to interpret passive checks as a very general and typically somewhat ambiguous thing...like a "gut feeling", that would trigger a GM-requested active check, which upon success would give specific info about whatever it is that caused that gut feeling...for example <<<passive check succeeds and the DM says "you just noticed that you haven't heard any bird sounds for the last few minutes...give me a perception check"...and if the active check fails..."you nervously look around but don't see anything"...but if the active check succeeds..."as you're glancing around, you catch the reflection of sunlight off something metal and looking more closely you see a goblin aiming a bow in your direction!">>>
So far, I haven't seen anything in the official source material that makes any of these approaches right, wrong, better, worse, or anything other than reasonable possibilities dependent on the preference of the DM.
So there are a few things in the rules that talk about passives.
"Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14."
In Chapter 8 of the SRD, any pace more than 400 feet a minute on vehicles/mounts incur a -5 to passives. Dim light also imposes -5 to any passive perception role as it would impose disadvantage, even for those with darkvision.
Chapter 15 for traps states:
A trap's description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing. If the adventurers detect a trap before triggering it, they might be able to disarm it, either permanently or long enough to move past it. You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage.
Those are the relevant rules of passives, and now my stance:
The character has invested resources into wanting this to be their shtick. Let it be their shtick, but at the same time be cognizant of the fact that just because the character is ultra observant doesn't mean they have the knowledge to pick up on certain things. They might see people exchanging gestures or signs, but have no idea how to interpret them as they don't know thieves cant. If they walk into a barn for the first time and the hay is piled up too high in every single stall, they wouldn't know anything about that being abnormal since they have no experience. If they walk into a church of Lathander and have zero religious knowledge, maybe they don't notice the priest is wearing a different holy symbol if they only see one priest around.
You can also use it to your storytelling advantage. You know they have a high passive, so now you know for certain that things won't be missed. Utilize that. Play into it, have that player buy into it, but you can also be coy once and have it used as a trap. They notice some shady business because people realize this guy is just a sharp eye.
In addition to what others have said, I remember it in a way similar to what was taught in school: there's a difference between hearing and listening, or looking and seeing. Passive being the former, it's subconscious; the latter is when you're trying (actively) to make out more detail or put two and two together about something being amiss. I think @Damian_Magecraft's idea of passive setting the DC, almost. That you can hear or see or smell something, fine, but in order to place it you have to have a specific perception check to know what it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I like most, in this, the notion put forth about your active sometimes being lower than your passive. In truth, there IS such thing as looking or listening too hard. Straining your ears, you are now picking up other sounds, somewhat distorting what you are trying to listen to. Similar to looking for something. You may well get SO intent on looking that something more obvious slips by your notice (looking for a threat and not realize the statue is SUPER realistic?)
Passives are great for advancing storyline and giving a hint of stuff about to happen. It can sometimes outperform an active check, for whatever reason. It's a fun balance to maintain, IMO and adds to the immersion. Also not knowing WHAT is out of place is a big thing, which I use often. The Rogue in the party has often noted something seems off. If he mentions it and the others perform checks, often another party member can pin down what is off (Ranger points out that yes, it IS pretty quiet now that you mention it...) I have found several times he doesn't mention this and the party has carried on, oblivious to what might have been a clue towards an event about to unfold.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
What is passive in a Passive check is not the task performed, but the roll itself. I use them when i want to determine the result of a check without alerting the players or to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly. The latter is rarely the case for Intelligence or Wisdom check.
If a player doesn't actively search for something, it can still spot something by making a Wisdom (Perception) check. The rules mainly use Passive Perception vs Stealth or DC of traps or secret passages. But such check could just as well be asked openly, or not if i don't want to alert the players about something or to avoid metagame. When you ask for a knowledge check which result is low, the players won't know if you tell them they learn nothing because there is nothing or because they failed the check.. Going secretly avoid this. I could just as well roll it secretly for the player if i want to.
When a player actively perform a task, then it's obvious how to resolve the check. But i don't necessarily resort to Passive check when i want to find out if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly. I can Take 10 or have the check rolled either by myself or even the player.
Passive Checks: A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
When a player actively perform a task, then it's obvious how to resolve the check. But i don't necessarily resort to Passive check when i want to find out if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly. I can Take 10 or have the check rolled either by myself or even the player.
Using "Take 10" and using the passive score are mathematically equivalent.
As a DM I use passive Insight, Perception, and Investigation all the time.
Player says "I search the room." I use their passive Perception. Why? They didn't specify anything specific about their search. So, they don't get to roll because it's not a good idea to let them roll.
What happens if they roll a 20 and there is nothing in the room to find? That's not fun.
What happens in they roll a 1? The next player says "I search the room." Repeat until the whole party has rolled and you've wasted 5 minutes for every single room they went through that had nothing of interest in it.
Player says "I go to the desk that was in the corner of the room and search through the drawers." Okay, now they get might get to roll. It depends. Is there a time limit for the search? Then yes, they roll to see if they they find the MacGuffin before the BBEG turns up to see who's been rummaging through their things. If there's no time limit, then maybe they roll or maybe they just find the MacGuffin without rolling if their passive score is high enough.
In general though, I'm not a huge fan of players rolling for Perception etc because when dealing with aspects of the world that are hidden I prefer to try to keep player knowledge and character knowledge aligned and passive scores are a great way of doing that.
When a player actively perform a task, then it's obvious how to resolve the check. But i don't necessarily resort to Passive check when i want to find out if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly. I can Take 10 or have the check rolled either by myself or even the player.
Using "Take 10" and using the passive score are mathematically equivalent.
Right. My point is you don't necessarily have to do so when determining if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly.
In other words, effortlessly doesn't mean Passive check necessarily.
When a player actively perform a task, then it's obvious how to resolve the check. But i don't necessarily resort to Passive check when i want to find out if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly. I can Take 10 or have the check rolled either by myself or even the player.
Using "Take 10" and using the passive score are mathematically equivalent.
Right. My point is you don't necessarily have to do so when determining if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly.
In other words, effortlessly doesn't mean Passive check necessarily.
While true, it is easier to justify when at least one character has a high passive. It makes suspension of disbelief easier.
I don't see how its justify it more easily because the character usually has the same bonus to Perception check, wether rolled or not (ie. take 10)
The only known exception would be to those having a bonus to passive check specifically, such as with the Observant feat. But this is the exception to the norm.
In that case whenever the DM doesn't rely on passive check to determine if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly, its chances aren't equivalent since it has a bonus stricly applying to some passive checks that doesn't when rolling actively instead.
As a DM I use passive Insight, Perception, and Investigation all the time.
Player says "I search the room." I use their passive Perception. Why? They didn't specify anything specific about their search. So, they don't get to roll because it's not a good idea to let them roll.
What happens if they roll a 20 and there is nothing in the room to find? That's not fun.
What happens in they roll a 1? The next player says "I search the room." Repeat until the whole party has rolled and you've wasted 5 minutes for every single room they went through that had nothing of interest in it.
Player says "I go to the desk that was in the corner of the room and search through the drawers." Okay, now they get might get to roll. It depends. Is there a time limit for the search? Then yes, they roll to see if they they find the MacGuffin before the BBEG turns up to see who's been rummaging through their things. If there's no time limit, then maybe they roll or maybe they just find the MacGuffin without rolling if their passive score is high enough.
In general though, I'm not a huge fan of players rolling for Perception etc because when dealing with aspects of the world that are hidden I prefer to try to keep player knowledge and character knowledge aligned and passive scores are a great way of doing that.
Not gonna lie, I hate this approach. The player specified they wanted to search the room, if they aren't being specific I might make the DC higher, but they are now doing an active search. That's a check. If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to find, but it's still a check.
Now, I do agree with the whole "lets have the whole party do it", absolutely not. I'm not having 7 different rolls just to see if someone individually makes it, but you can now do a group perception check where if over half the group succeeds, they find it. Or you can just go "there's nothing there." There are ultimately ramifications to everything. Like you said, big bad or monsters might ambush them, fatigue might start setting in spending 30 minutes combing through every single room, the time-gated quest might fail because something in the background happened due to them taking too much time, etc. If they want to do it though, that's a player decision. I'm not going to take it away.
The way I read your last line really to me feels like you like to keep the story on a very, very tight leash. That's fine and if your table is happy, run it how you want and how your players want. I just know I'd personally be dissatisfied there.
As a DM I use passive Insight, Perception, and Investigation all the time.
Player says "I search the room." I use their passive Perception. Why? They didn't specify anything specific about their search. So, they don't get to roll because it's not a good idea to let them roll.
What happens if they roll a 20 and there is nothing in the room to find? That's not fun.
What happens in they roll a 1? The next player says "I search the room." Repeat until the whole party has rolled and you've wasted 5 minutes for every single room they went through that had nothing of interest in it.
Player says "I go to the desk that was in the corner of the room and search through the drawers." Okay, now they get might get to roll. It depends. Is there a time limit for the search? Then yes, they roll to see if they they find the MacGuffin before the BBEG turns up to see who's been rummaging through their things. If there's no time limit, then maybe they roll or maybe they just find the MacGuffin without rolling if their passive score is high enough.
In general though, I'm not a huge fan of players rolling for Perception etc because when dealing with aspects of the world that are hidden I prefer to try to keep player knowledge and character knowledge aligned and passive scores are a great way of doing that.
Not gonna lie, I hate this approach. The player specified they wanted to search the room, if they aren't being specific I might make the DC higher, but they are now doing an active search. That's a check. If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to find, but it's still a check.
Now, I do agree with the whole "lets have the whole party do it", absolutely not. I'm not having 7 different rolls just to see if someone individually makes it, but you can now do a group perception check where if over half the group succeeds, they find it. Or you can just go "there's nothing there." There are ultimately ramifications to everything. Like you said, big bad or monsters might ambush them, fatigue might start setting in spending 30 minutes combing through every single room, the time-gated quest might fail because something in the background happened due to them taking too much time, etc. If they want to do it though, that's a player decision. I'm not going to take it away.
The way I read your last line really to me feels like you like to keep the story on a very, very tight leash. That's fine and if your table is happy, run it how you want and how your players want. I just know I'd personally be dissatisfied there.
The best ways to encourage player agency are to have multiple parallel mysteries and to allow the players to reveal to you new mysteries that intrigue them. However you still control what the clues are, where they are, etc. If you do not then what are you there for? In any murder mystery, there is usually only one killer or set of killers. If the local townsfolk are being raided, there are likely different ways to handle the problem, but still usually only one set of culprits to find. Much in life is relatively linear, even in the real world where the world is normally about as open as it gets.
That's all well and good, but they asked for a roll. We can pontificate all we want, but that was the point.
Now, I do agree with the whole "lets have the whole party do it", absolutely not. I'm not having 7 different rolls just to see if someone individually makes it, but you can now do a group perception check where if over half the group succeeds, they find it.
I don't like group checks, they male little sense to. Let's say you have a Druid with maxed out perception with a +11, then everyone else sucks and has +0. Mathematically, it makes no sense for the Druid to accept any help from the others because he's likely to get anything that's DC21 or lower, but they're likely to cause any check over DC10 to fail. The only time it makes sense is for low DCs to guard against fluke fails, but you generally don't know the DC anyway to know if it's advantageous. Generally, if you get help, it should help.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I first started, modelled passive perception as someone just walking along perceiving things at their natural alertness. It's higher for some because some people are just more observant and quicker to notice things, and vice versa. Perception rolls instead model the action of looking around and seeking details etc. Thinking about it though, I realise that makes no sense because the value is just your average roll. It makes no sense that your passive level of observation is average for your active observation, and 50% of the time is actually better. It's purely so that if the DM wants to find out if a character notices something but doesn't want to reveal the presence of a trap/monster/curious detail on a tomb/etc, they can just consult the passive value and use that instead of having the player roll and potentially fall into the trap of metagaming. I guess the use ofnthe term "pssive" threw me a bit.
My question is, do you have a way of differentiating between passive "I'll have a quick scan around the room to make sure I don't bump into stuff" perception and "I'm being observant and having a look for any details that seem pertinent"? Like, when Inwalk into my living room, I don't look at every detail, I just see where people are, the obvious stuff and make sure I'm not about to tread on lego, while if I'm entering a stranger's living room, I look for much more detail because I'm looking for topics of conversation, clues about the person etc. Also, perhaps more pertinent to D&D, if you're gojn through a dungeon, your attention waxes and wanes. Sometimes it'll be high, other times it'll drop. Do you model that in your games, and how?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I do the thing where passive sets the floor. If your passive is a 15, and your roll is lower, you treat the roll like it was a 15, for example.
As far as differentiating, if the player specifically says they look around, I’ll call for a roll. (Though if the roll should be perception or investigation is a whole nother conversation) Or if they are on watch, I’ll treat that like they are trying extra hard to be attentive and call for a roll. If they don’t mention that they are being extra attentive, I’ll go with passive.
Passive is, well, passive. If the character is actively doing something, like looking for traps, I have them roll.
Passive perception I use for things like, if a hidden monster is doing a stealth roll to sneak up on the party and I don't want to alert the players by saying 'everyone roll perception.' This is a case where the characters are not actively searching and so the 'passive' part comes in. Then, if someone's passive perception beats the stealth roll, I notify that player of the danger.
For having passive set the 'floor' I'm a bit wary to do that, as that's basically giving everyone reliable talent perception which is a very powerful thing if you have say, a rogue or bard with perception expertise.
Passive insight and investigation I never use.
Passive scores are IMO for setting DCs rather than using opposing checks.
Need an NPC to deceive the party? Passive Insight sets the DC.
Assassin sneaking past a party sentry? Passive Perception sets the DC.
Hidden item in a room on a person? Passive Investigation sets the DC.
Though typically I rarely use a passive investigation check. My players are quick to do thorough searches.
This is pretty similar to how we play in my group. I just added a couple reinforcing and meandering opinions.
My issue with Passive vs. Active is that I have a player who rolled up a variant human with 14 Wis and Int and the Observant feat. Without breaking a sweat, he has 21 Passive Perc and Investigation. That's potentially an easy button for noticing just about anything and everything.
I see in general 3 possible ways to handle it:
So far, I haven't seen anything in the official source material that makes any of these approaches right, wrong, better, worse, or anything other than reasonable possibilities dependent on the preference of the DM.
In general I tend to use active perception checks in situations where it wouldn't be all that east to notice something. In combat, in a crowded room with people talking, etc. Otherwise I usually stick to passive.
So there are a few things in the rules that talk about passives.
"Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14."
In Chapter 8 of the SRD, any pace more than 400 feet a minute on vehicles/mounts incur a -5 to passives. Dim light also imposes -5 to any passive perception role as it would impose disadvantage, even for those with darkvision.
Chapter 15 for traps states:
A trap's description specifies the checks and DCs needed to detect it, disable it, or both. A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing. If the adventurers detect a trap before triggering it, they might be able to disarm it, either permanently or long enough to move past it. You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage.
Those are the relevant rules of passives, and now my stance:
The character has invested resources into wanting this to be their shtick. Let it be their shtick, but at the same time be cognizant of the fact that just because the character is ultra observant doesn't mean they have the knowledge to pick up on certain things. They might see people exchanging gestures or signs, but have no idea how to interpret them as they don't know thieves cant. If they walk into a barn for the first time and the hay is piled up too high in every single stall, they wouldn't know anything about that being abnormal since they have no experience. If they walk into a church of Lathander and have zero religious knowledge, maybe they don't notice the priest is wearing a different holy symbol if they only see one priest around.
You can also use it to your storytelling advantage. You know they have a high passive, so now you know for certain that things won't be missed. Utilize that. Play into it, have that player buy into it, but you can also be coy once and have it used as a trap. They notice some shady business because people realize this guy is just a sharp eye.
In addition to what others have said, I remember it in a way similar to what was taught in school: there's a difference between hearing and listening, or looking and seeing. Passive being the former, it's subconscious; the latter is when you're trying (actively) to make out more detail or put two and two together about something being amiss. I think @Damian_Magecraft's idea of passive setting the DC, almost. That you can hear or see or smell something, fine, but in order to place it you have to have a specific perception check to know what it is.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I like most, in this, the notion put forth about your active sometimes being lower than your passive. In truth, there IS such thing as looking or listening too hard. Straining your ears, you are now picking up other sounds, somewhat distorting what you are trying to listen to. Similar to looking for something. You may well get SO intent on looking that something more obvious slips by your notice (looking for a threat and not realize the statue is SUPER realistic?)
Passives are great for advancing storyline and giving a hint of stuff about to happen. It can sometimes outperform an active check, for whatever reason. It's a fun balance to maintain, IMO and adds to the immersion. Also not knowing WHAT is out of place is a big thing, which I use often. The Rogue in the party has often noted something seems off. If he mentions it and the others perform checks, often another party member can pin down what is off (Ranger points out that yes, it IS pretty quiet now that you mention it...) I have found several times he doesn't mention this and the party has carried on, oblivious to what might have been a clue towards an event about to unfold.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
What is passive in a Passive check is not the task performed, but the roll itself. I use them when i want to determine the result of a check without alerting the players or to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly. The latter is rarely the case for Intelligence or Wisdom check.
If a player doesn't actively search for something, it can still spot something by making a Wisdom (Perception) check. The rules mainly use Passive Perception vs Stealth or DC of traps or secret passages. But such check could just as well be asked openly, or not if i don't want to alert the players about something or to avoid metagame. When you ask for a knowledge check which result is low, the players won't know if you tell them they learn nothing because there is nothing or because they failed the check.. Going secretly avoid this. I could just as well roll it secretly for the player if i want to.
When a player actively perform a task, then it's obvious how to resolve the check. But i don't necessarily resort to Passive check when i want to find out if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly. I can Take 10 or have the check rolled either by myself or even the player.
Using "Take 10" and using the passive score are mathematically equivalent.
As a DM I use passive Insight, Perception, and Investigation all the time.
Player says "I search the room." I use their passive Perception. Why? They didn't specify anything specific about their search. So, they don't get to roll because it's not a good idea to let them roll.
What happens if they roll a 20 and there is nothing in the room to find? That's not fun.
What happens in they roll a 1? The next player says "I search the room." Repeat until the whole party has rolled and you've wasted 5 minutes for every single room they went through that had nothing of interest in it.
Player says "I go to the desk that was in the corner of the room and search through the drawers." Okay, now they get might get to roll. It depends. Is there a time limit for the search? Then yes, they roll to see if they they find the MacGuffin before the BBEG turns up to see who's been rummaging through their things. If there's no time limit, then maybe they roll or maybe they just find the MacGuffin without rolling if their passive score is high enough.
In general though, I'm not a huge fan of players rolling for Perception etc because when dealing with aspects of the world that are hidden I prefer to try to keep player knowledge and character knowledge aligned and passive scores are a great way of doing that.
Right. My point is you don't necessarily have to do so when determining if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly.
In other words, effortlessly doesn't mean Passive check necessarily.
I don't see how its justify it more easily because the character usually has the same bonus to Perception check, wether rolled or not (ie. take 10)
The only known exception would be to those having a bonus to passive check specifically, such as with the Observant feat. But this is the exception to the norm.
In that case whenever the DM doesn't rely on passive check to determine if a character learn, spot or otherwise discover soemthing effortlessly, its chances aren't equivalent since it has a bonus stricly applying to some passive checks that doesn't when rolling actively instead.
Indeed, you are better at perceiving something with +4 than +1, wether the check is active or passive.
Not gonna lie, I hate this approach. The player specified they wanted to search the room, if they aren't being specific I might make the DC higher, but they are now doing an active search. That's a check. If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to find, but it's still a check.
Now, I do agree with the whole "lets have the whole party do it", absolutely not. I'm not having 7 different rolls just to see if someone individually makes it, but you can now do a group perception check where if over half the group succeeds, they find it. Or you can just go "there's nothing there." There are ultimately ramifications to everything. Like you said, big bad or monsters might ambush them, fatigue might start setting in spending 30 minutes combing through every single room, the time-gated quest might fail because something in the background happened due to them taking too much time, etc. If they want to do it though, that's a player decision. I'm not going to take it away.
The way I read your last line really to me feels like you like to keep the story on a very, very tight leash. That's fine and if your table is happy, run it how you want and how your players want. I just know I'd personally be dissatisfied there.
That's all well and good, but they asked for a roll. We can pontificate all we want, but that was the point.
I don't like group checks, they male little sense to. Let's say you have a Druid with maxed out perception with a +11, then everyone else sucks and has +0. Mathematically, it makes no sense for the Druid to accept any help from the others because he's likely to get anything that's DC21 or lower, but they're likely to cause any check over DC10 to fail. The only time it makes sense is for low DCs to guard against fluke fails, but you generally don't know the DC anyway to know if it's advantageous. Generally, if you get help, it should help.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.