Note 1: You might find this post worthwhile if you are particularly interested in investing some time reading about how a reasonable 4E rule may actually be the cause of confusion about passive Perception in 5E. If this doesn't seem like it's for you, no offense taken and best of luck in other threads.
Note 2: While this post refers to both 4E and 5E, it's not at all related to any edition wars. My intent here is only to get a better understanding of a 5E rule by looking at its potential relationship to a similar 4E rule. I seek to understand and not to judge here--and hope anyone who replies does so in the same spirit.
I've been very confused about how passive Perception works in 5E. And based on all the ongoing discussion in the community about it, I don't think I'm alone in my confusion. But I think I figured out where much of the confusion is coming from.
The 5E PHB says "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 of 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."
It's important to note that 5E doesn't have rule about passive Perception applying to all Perception opportunities--it's only with repeated tasks that using an average value might be used instead of rolling dice over and over. And, with the other 5E use of passive checks, it's up to the DM to decide when, if ever, they want to use passive Perception rather than rolling dice behind the screen to secretly determine whether characters succeed at something.
Here's an example in 5E of how a character might fail to find a secret door due to a low ability check roll despite having a passive Perception score equal to the secret door's DC:
If a character was doing only a single search for a secret door at the end of dead-end corridor while fleeing from a monster who will arrive next turn then the task would not be repeated and the DM might want to let the player roll rather than secretly determining the result.
There's actually a DC 10 secret door to be found.
Regardless of the character's passive Perception score, the outcome of the character's search for the secret door will depend on the player's actual ability check die roll.
The character has a +0 modifier for Wisdom(Perception) checks so if the roll is 10 or more then the character finds the secret door and escapes. If the roll is less than 10 the character does not escape before the monster arrives.
The fact that the +0 modifier gives the character a passive Perception score of 10 is irrelevant since this is neither a repeated task nor one the DM wanted to secretly determine.
They key is that 5E passive Perception is merely a convent meta-tool average score to replace rolling dice either for repeated tasks (where rolling dice over and over would slow the game down to a major degree) or for situations where the DM wants to maintain secrecy (stealth results are a good example).
However, Jeremy Crawford last spring in an interview (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing 9 minutes in) described passive Perception as as creating an always-on floor score reflecting a character's minimum level of awareness of their surroundings. This is similar to the assumptions many people have been making about 5E passive Perception being substantively more than just a convenient substitute for repeated checks or a tool for DMs to conveniently determine secret outcomes.
So, in the example of the dead-end corridor, this would mean that DM should rule that the character with the passive Perception score of 10 would automatically spot the DC 10 secret door without needing to roll. This confused me since the 5E rules limit passive Perception to repeated tasks and situations where the DM wants to keep the roll secret--neither of which would apply in the example.
Then I remembered Jeremy mentioning that passive checks were a 4E innovation. When I looked at the 4E passive perception rules, they appeared to match up exactly with the always-on floor that Jeremy was describing as a 5E rule.
Here's what the 4E PHB says about passive Perception: "When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. . . . For example, if you're walking through an area you expect to be safe and thus aren't actively looking for danger, you're taking 10 on your Perception check to notice hidden objects or enemies. If your Perception check is high enough, or a creature rolls poorly on its Stealth check, you might notice the creature even if you aren't actively looking for it."
This is a very reasonable rule for passive Perception, even if it is not the same as the 5E rule.
And I think this 4E rule may be at the heart of the confusion around 5E passive Perception. They may have intended to write this always-on floor score 4E rule into 5E and just missed doing so. Or the 4E rule may seem so reasonable that people easily forget that it was left out of 5E on purpose for some reason.
Either way, I think it would really help players and DMs to get some definitive official clarification of whether 4E-style passive Perception is intended to be part of 5E.
To be clear, no matter the reason for the confusion, I'm not criticizing Jeremy. He does an amazing job, and I really appreciate how hard he works to help us understand the rules. I've rarely seen anyone from any company be as positively engaged with their customers as he is with us.
Personal preference: When using this i would have a score for the Room, Passive score is for if your spending TIME in the Room. Not for the first time you enter it, so if your in the room for about a minute (probably 5 or so) or so then that would work. If the players actively say they are searching, then the score doesn't matter.
This way the DM can Hide Traps and Ambushes in a room and if the player's rush into the room (Say chasing a Single enemy) they don't Instantly know what they are getting into. The Characters aren't Clairvoyant (and if they ARE or have used something to provide it for awhile) Then they might get the Passive and be aware of the Traps and Enemies in the room.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Good and Evil are different sides of the Same Coin. One Cannot Exist without the other.
Always Looking for Feedback and Critique on anything I Publish, IM me if you have suggestions.
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.
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.
InquisitiveCoder, Thanks for the info! I appreciate you taking the time to help.
Perhaps these three specific rules do ask us to infer the existence of a more general unwritten rule intended to essentially say: "Characters automatically passively perceive everything out of the ordinary which has a DC equal to or lower than their passive Perception score. This automatic passive Perception ability does not prevent characters from also attempting to actively perceive things with higher DCs."
If this is so, it would really help minimize confusion if such an important rule was written officially (even if just in errata) rather than left as merely implied.
Somebody on Twitter helpfully pointed me to Jeremy's tweet where he confirmed: "Design intent: passive Wisdom (Perception) is the norm. Only have someone roll if they initiate a search." (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/831616674054889472)
So the intent is for the 5E rule to essentially work the same as the 4E rule did where you are assumed to be "taking 10" on Perception checks all the time even when you are not actively looking for anything.
My guess is that they decided not to include the general rule from 4E about "taking 10" in 5E, and then they forgot that they'd need to put in something special for always-on/floor-score passive Perception to write their intent into 5E. Official errata would be hugely helpful here, given the very important role they intend for passive Perception to always be playing.
So ... use passive perception as a floor if they are not looking or paying attention but require a roll if they are actively searching?
This has an interesting interaction with the observant feat which adds +5 to both passive perception and passive investigation.
In this case, it is much better for my rogue who has a passive perception of 22 with the observant feat (+1 wis, +3 proficiency, +3 expertise in perception, +5 observant) at level 6 to never search and just wander around not paying attention since he has a much better chance to notice things like traps or secret doors than if he actively searches (in which case he does not get the +5 modified for observant). I can play it either way but personally, any approach which makes the active check significantly less effective than the passive one makes no sense to me from a role playing perspective since, again in my opinion, if you have an observant character they should be paying attention and should be able to see things better when they, as a character are actively looking rather than just passively hanging out.
This is one of the reasons I tend to fall back towards your original interpretation and rules citation for 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 of 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." ... since in that context, observant may make a bit more sense.
Observant can also make sense if the passive level of a skill is treated as a floor value (as also mentioned above). Being observant means that the characters base level is higher but they also have less room to roll higher. However, this interpretation is not how it is often applied since many DMs ask for active checks without checking passive values to use as a floor.
In the case of the level 6 rogue above, there are very few traps or secret doors he won't notice. In addition, as an arcane trickster, and with expertise in investigation, the passive investigation score is 23 and with expertise in arcana, the passive arcana score is 18. This makes the character able to notice, analyse and assess the method to properly disarm most magical and mundane traps, secret doors, chests, and other similar challenges. Given sufficient time to watch and investigate then presumably the passive score should always be used but that certainly doesn't seem to be the way a lot of people play.
In this case, it is much better for my rogue who has a passive perception of 22 with the observant feat (+1 wis, +3 proficiency, +3 expertise in perception, +5 observant) at level 6 to never search and just wander around not paying attention since he has a much better chance to notice things like traps or secret doors than if he actively searches (in which case he does not get the +5 modified for observant).
It's not "much better" in any meaningful sense because only making an active roll isn't an option. Your passive Perception is always on* so you search actively when you think your passive Perception might've missed something. The Observant feat makes you better at finding things when you're not looking, and also while you're actively looking.
* If you're distracted with other activities while traveling your passive Perception won't apply, as explained in the Adventuring rules. But turning your attention to actively searching means stopping that other activity and thus your passive Perception applies again.
We always have 3x5 cards that the players fill out that give some character info Top left I have them put AC, top right Passive Perception and Passive Investigation, middle is name, bottom left class and level, bottom right race and faction. This way when there is a perception or investigation roll needed, I just hang them on top of my DM screen and check those first to see if one of them automatically sees if the check is below the passive. It's also really great when I play my Wizard that has a passive investigation of 25, secret doors just fly right on open! When I get to 18 and take a 1 level dip in rogue for expertise in Arcana and Investigation for a passive of 33 and not have to cast mage armor ever again it will be even nicer.
I played with a DM that was hesitant about doing things that way as my passive was so high. I pointed out to him that we have a great weapon fighting/master fighter who would routinely break 100 damage on a round when I would cast a fire bolt for 15. Granted I did a lot of crowd control, counterspells, and was the way we moved around, but it was to point out that if someone wants to specialize in something and be really good at it, let them! Our fighter does amazing damage, our life cleric is godlike, and I can just see every damn thing there is. Makes for a well balanced party where everyone has their little area of expertise.
So if you are wandering around passively checking things out, or actively, the floor is the passive. It would make no sense to ever actively check for anything if that weren't so. Just have the passive guy run around a room and say he's not actively looking for anything and then have someone with a lower passive make the rolls. Just passive the floor as intended and move along!
David, As I understand it now, the design intent of including the assumed-to-be-always-on take-10-4E-style floor-score passive Perception does work like this:
The DM compares the characters' passive Perception scores to the DCs of anything interesting/out-of-the-ordinary that they might happen to automatically perceive without actively trying. (This creates a "floor" below which characters cannot score below.)
As the DM narrates, they include whatever info was successfully passively Perceived. [Example: statue siting on a secret door] "The room has a marble elven statue in each corner." [successful automatic passive Perception check] "You happen to notice that the dust around the base of one statues has been disturbed."
If no characters successfully passively Perceived something then the characters can still discover it as the result of a successful roll on a search. "The room has a marble elven statues in each corner." [unsuccessful passive Perception check] "We take time to examine each of the statues closely, from top to bottom. Do any of the limbs move? Can we find any secret compartments? Things like that..." [successful active Perception check] "The statues themselves appear to be normal marble statues, but you do see that the dust around the base of one statues has been disturbed."
This is my best guess about how things happened in this area with the creation of 5E...
I think they probably started with something like the general 4E rule "When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10..." That could explain why we even see "passive Intelligence(Investigation)" in any rule even though no one really seems to know how a character would just happen to end up passively investigating something while doing something else. .
But then they decided they decided not include a formal "take 10" mechanic in 5E at all so they took that passive "take 10" section out. They still intended to do something special for passive Perception--note InquisitiveCoder pointing out "Passive Perception has additional rules that other passive checks don't." But I don't believe they ever finished designing 5E passive Perception, and the general rules for it were never written--a few specific examples do show up, but the only thing close to intended official general rules for always-on/floor passive Perception are on Twitter or in interviews.
The incompleteness of implementing this design change is highlighted by leaving that reference to "passive Intelligence(Investigation)" in the final written Observant feat. And the likelihood of the design change having not been fully implemented is highlighted by the fact that, as you point out, an Observant character is actually *better* at noticing things when they try not to actively search for them.
I think one of the reasons it hasn't shown up in errata--even though (based on more info learned of after starting the thread) both Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford seem to have both clearly confirmed the intent on Twitter--is because it is so core to the game, potentially touching on other areas and requiring more than just a quick errata note. Also, it might raise the 4E Take 10 issue more generally which I believe they do want kept out of 5E as a formal rule. (5E RAW only currently rationalizes the use of passive checks as "average results" for repeated checks and where DMs want secret outcomes. There no minimum 10+ or take 10 in there. If you add any Take 10 for perception generally then you'd have to address why you are still leaving take 10 out for everything else.)
Generally, I think the iterative design process they used while moving from 4E to 5E had huge benefits and overall was the best possible approach. It appears this happens to just be one place where that iterative approach ending up resulting in a bit of confusion in the final written rules. I think we may just have to accept that passive Perception is just a special thing in 5E and that the rules for it are neither fully written down nor completely consistent (see Observant as an example).
PS I now believe it very likely they also intended passive Intelligence(knowledge skills) to work in a similar way with character's always having a chance to automatically recall information with a passive check -and then with their active checks being the result of relevant active research activity undertaken by the characters.
PPS edit: Even as late as the official starter set (Phandelver) they hadn't finalized the passive Perception rules. This is different than either 4E, 5E RAW, or 5E RAI: "Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check."
I suspect the issue on general passive skills is at some point they decided to use the general rule for the Rogue's Reliable talent ability (or perhaps decided on the passive perception for everyone because of reliable talent). As that sets up that kind of floor like effect for passive perception/checks that has been mentioned by Jeremy Crawford, but would only apply to those proficient in a skill, so wouldn't be useful to perception regardless of proficiency as it is now.
Passive perception does sometimes seem like a weird thing in that one can be inactively better at perceiving than actively perceiving. I do wonder if it was a simplicity thing.
For me I tend to make the base passive perception a 5+ modifiers (always at disadvantage), so inactively useful but still worse on average than actively searching.
Passive perception does sometimes seem like a weird thing in that one can be inactively better at perceiving than actively perceiving. I do wonder if it was a simplicity thing.
You're not really better at passively perceiving than actively perceiving. You're just not guaranteed to find something you passively overlooked on any given round. Nothing's preventing you from searching multiple times, if you have the time to spare.
Just to be pedantic, "Taking 10" was from 3rd edition originally, predating 4e.
As for 5e, I completely disagree with the idea of passive perception as it is in the rules. Most PCs are going to have a passive perception of at least 10. This makes any trap with a DC of 10 or lower kind of pointless, since most PCs will automatically see it. If you make the DCs of all traps high enough that at least one PC won't automatically see it, then you've artificially inflated the DC of the traps when instead you can just nerf passive perception.
Just to make things a bit more interesting, I believe the original intention of 5e passive perception was to make it harder to notice traps/secret doors when passively perceiving than when actively perceiving. My evidence is Lost Mine of Phandelver, where they specifically indicate different DCs for active vs passive searching.
From the "General Features" section of the Redbrand Hideout:
Secret doors are made of stone and blend in with the surrounding walls. Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check.
This +5 to the DC for passive checks is equivalent to giving a player Disadvantage on a check, so I would argue the intent may (at least during testing) have been to apply Disadvantage to Passive Perception checks. Since the player isn't rolling any dice, this means either applying a flat -5 to their Passive Perception, or increasing the DC by 5.
Regardless, I don't let PCs use Passive Perception in this way to find hidden things, rather I use it as a guide for the general awareness of the environment, and non-hidden things. To find hidden things, I roll for them behind the screen. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone walking along not looking for something is more likely to spot something hidden than the person actively trying to spot it. Someone with a +10 to perception could still fail to notice a trap by rolling a 1, while the oblivious PC with +0 to perception standing beside them picking their nose finds it.
Just to be pedantic, "Taking 10" was from 3rd edition originally, predating 4e.
As for 5e, I completely disagree with the idea of passive perception as it is in the rules. Most PCs are going to have a passive perception of at least 10. This makes any trap with a DC of 10 or lower kind of pointless, since most PCs will automatically see it. If you make the DCs of all traps high enough that at least one PC won't automatically see it, then you've artificially inflated the DC of the traps when instead you can just nerf passive perception.
Just to make things a bit more interesting, I believe the original intention of 5e passive perception was to make it harder to notice traps/secret doors when passively perceiving than when actively perceiving. My evidence is Lost Mine of Phandelver, where they specifically indicate different DCs for active vs passive searching.
From the "General Features" section of the Redbrand Hideout:
Secret doors are made of stone and blend in with the surrounding walls. Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check.
This +5 to the DC for passive checks is equivalent to giving a player Disadvantage on a check, so I would argue the intent may (at least during testing) have been to apply Disadvantage to Passive Perception checks. Since the player isn't rolling any dice, this means either applying a flat -5 to their Passive Perception, or increasing the DC by 5.
Regardless, I don't let PCs use Passive Perception in this way to find hidden things, rather I use it as a guide for the general awareness of the environment, and non-hidden things. To find hidden things, I roll for them behind the screen. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone walking along not looking for something is more likely to spot something hidden than the person actively trying to spot it. Someone with a +10 to perception could still fail to notice a trap by rolling a 1, while the oblivious PC with +0 to perception standing beside them picking their nose finds it.
I'm glad mentioned Taking a 10 being a 3rd Ed Rule. I personally really miss "take a 10" and "take a 20", because I used to use them in 3rd edition all the time. As a player I tried to roll a die as little possible (they hate me) and mostly just declared I took my time and did it correctly. If a Wizard's Arcana is high enough, she shouldn't be able to fail copying a scroll.
I disagree with you're statement about DC:10 traps because you're forgetting about the modifiers for DisAdvantage. The DC is assuming the area is well lit with bright light. If the PCs are replying on Darkvision or if the lighting is dim then their Passive Perception of 10 is now 5. The Rogue with Expertise which is probably 16 is now 11.
That said, that annoys me a little about Lost Mines doing that, because unless you tell players it's different they wouldn't *know*. That thing I like about Passive as both a player and GM is it rewords builds not luck. The Rogue with Expertise in Perception SHOULD find things more then the Barbarian. Once you start rolling it often then because the luck of a d20.
I liked that in 3rd when the we'd Search a room it was "we all take 1 turn an roll a search check. We then all declare we're taking a 10, and if we want to we declare we take a 20 and the party aids the best Searcher"
This discussion has made me think this whole section should have had more editing passes.
Taking 20 is basically still a rule. The DMG advices you to handle repeated checks by just letting players succeed if success is possible and they spend x10 the amount of time of a single check. They're going to roll a 20 eventually.
Not only does dim light impose disadvantage on sight-based Perception checks, if you're traveling at a fast pace you also take a further -5 penalty to passive Perception.
Also, traps that can be beaten just by spotting them are boring as heck. That's a fine way to introduce new players to the concept of traps, but clever players will find any traps that can be found through repeated searching, so you have to do better than a spiked pit or a pressure plate if you want to keep things interesting.
What you HAVE to take into account is lighting and other effects. No light and darkvision? You are -5 to perception same as dim light. Foggy? Rushing? In combat? Lots of factors that lower perception and investigation. Too many people try to ammend rules that are there for a reason without using all the modifiers or even playing with them to see how they work.
Also, traps that can be beaten just by spotting them are boring as heck. That's a fine way to introduce new players to the concept of traps, but clever players will find any traps that can be found through repeated searching, so you have to do better than a spiked pit or a pressure plate if you want to keep things interesting.
I'd argue most traps are boring.
What is more boring then saying over and over again that you're doing the same task? Guessing what would trigger a trap? Unless that IS the encounter. The party knows there is a trap or are traps and are trying figure out what it is, like a puzzle.
But when walking down a hall or exploring a random room, at what point are you wasting other player's or the GM's time? With passive perception you are on the look out and you know that any trap you missed isn't because you didn't have a high enough stat.
An interesting trap should be interesting even when spotting because it creates a complication that as to be dealt with, otherwise it's just random damage and feel like cheating. At what point do the players just open every door with mage hand or thaumaturgy? Have a Unseen Servant walking 10-15' ahead of the party to trigger traps? When does this get tedious for everyone involved?
I for one have always declared when I open chest or doors I'm NOT standing in front of them. Idiots stand in front of them.
But when walking down a hall or exploring a random room, at what point are you wasting other player's or the GM's time? With passive perception you are on the look out and you know that any trap you missed isn't because you didn't have a high enough stat.
If the players tell me they are keeping their eyes open for traps or secret doors as they move through an area, then they have declared they are actively looking for something, and I would make them roll. Perhaps the roll covers the length of their vision (so the furthest range of their light source, with Disadvantage applied for dim light).
If the players do not indicate any attempt to keep their eyes open for hidden things, then they are passive and as far as I am concerned it should be harder to "accidentally" find something hidden than when you are looking for it. It's just absurd. Imagine in real life if police detectives just walked in to a crime scene and not bothering to look for clues, relying on the possibility they might notice something just by passing through the room?
Passive Perception Check: Detective walks through crime scene, intent only on getting to the other side. If they're lucky, they trip over the body.
Active Perception Check: Detective walks through a crime scene while flashing their flashlight around them, actively looking for clues.
Investigation Check: Forensics squad shows up and goes to work in special suits and equipment with cameras snapping photos and blue lights looking for residue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Declared intent would be a time waste for sure. If you were my DM then I’d just have a card to remind me to tell you that after every room we enter that I’m looking for traps, looking for secret doors, and trying to perceive any threats. That’s why there is a passive so players don’t have to say that every time they move. Just take the passive rules and don’t burden yourself or your 5 players to make the same statement over and over again for every room you are ever in.
Declared intent would be a time waste for sure. If you were my DM then I’d just have a card to remind me to tell you that after every room we enter that I’m looking for traps, looking for secret doors, and trying to perceive any threats. That’s why there is a passive so players don’t have to say that every time they move. Just take the passive rules and don’t burden yourself or your 5 players to make the same statement over and over again for every room you are ever in.
I can't like this comment hard enough.
I think mjsoctober metaphor's is incorrect. I think this gets at the core of how we look at it differently.
Detective Active Perception Test: "Detective takes the Action: Perception, which is 6 seconds with Observe the room." Detective Passive Perception Test: "Detective walks through a crime scene while flashing their flashlight around them, actively looking for clues." Detective is actively doing something that's not Perception: "Detective walks through crime scene, intent only on getting to the other side. If they're lucky, they trip over the body."
Theexploration phase is not happening in "combat" time. Everyone actions aren't being tracked in an initiative order in 6 second increments.
A group of Adventurers going through a Dungeon is more like a Fire Team clearing an area. Not assuming the characters are being cautious is crazy. When a squad with urban combat training is breaching a build they are being cautious. When a group of Adventurers are breaking into the basement of the Red Brand hideout they are expecting traps and resistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Note 1: You might find this post worthwhile if you are particularly interested in investing some time reading about how a reasonable 4E rule may actually be the cause of confusion about passive Perception in 5E. If this doesn't seem like it's for you, no offense taken and best of luck in other threads.
Note 2: While this post refers to both 4E and 5E, it's not at all related to any edition wars. My intent here is only to get a better understanding of a 5E rule by looking at its potential relationship to a similar 4E rule. I seek to understand and not to judge here--and hope anyone who replies does so in the same spirit.
I've been very confused about how passive Perception works in 5E. And based on all the ongoing discussion in the community about it, I don't think I'm alone in my confusion. But I think I figured out where much of the confusion is coming from.
The 5E PHB says "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 of 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."
It's important to note that 5E doesn't have rule about passive Perception applying to all Perception opportunities--it's only with repeated tasks that using an average value might be used instead of rolling dice over and over. And, with the other 5E use of passive checks, it's up to the DM to decide when, if ever, they want to use passive Perception rather than rolling dice behind the screen to secretly determine whether characters succeed at something.
Here's an example in 5E of how a character might fail to find a secret door due to a low ability check roll despite having a passive Perception score equal to the secret door's DC:
They key is that 5E passive Perception is merely a convent meta-tool average score to replace rolling dice either for repeated tasks (where rolling dice over and over would slow the game down to a major degree) or for situations where the DM wants to maintain secrecy (stealth results are a good example).
However, Jeremy Crawford last spring in an interview (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing 9 minutes in) described passive Perception as as creating an always-on floor score reflecting a character's minimum level of awareness of their surroundings. This is similar to the assumptions many people have been making about 5E passive Perception being substantively more than just a convenient substitute for repeated checks or a tool for DMs to conveniently determine secret outcomes.
So, in the example of the dead-end corridor, this would mean that DM should rule that the character with the passive Perception score of 10 would automatically spot the DC 10 secret door without needing to roll. This confused me since the 5E rules limit passive Perception to repeated tasks and situations where the DM wants to keep the roll secret--neither of which would apply in the example.
Then I remembered Jeremy mentioning that passive checks were a 4E innovation. When I looked at the 4E passive perception rules, they appeared to match up exactly with the always-on floor that Jeremy was describing as a 5E rule.
Here's what the 4E PHB says about passive Perception: "When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that skill. . . . For example, if you're walking through an area you expect to be safe and thus aren't actively looking for danger, you're taking 10 on your Perception check to notice hidden objects or enemies. If your Perception check is high enough, or a creature rolls poorly on its Stealth check, you might notice the creature even if you aren't actively looking for it."
This is a very reasonable rule for passive Perception, even if it is not the same as the 5E rule.
And I think this 4E rule may be at the heart of the confusion around 5E passive Perception. They may have intended to write this always-on floor score 4E rule into 5E and just missed doing so. Or the 4E rule may seem so reasonable that people easily forget that it was left out of 5E on purpose for some reason.
Either way, I think it would really help players and DMs to get some definitive official clarification of whether 4E-style passive Perception is intended to be part of 5E.
To be clear, no matter the reason for the confusion, I'm not criticizing Jeremy. He does an amazing job, and I really appreciate how hard he works to help us understand the rules. I've rarely seen anyone from any company be as positively engaged with their customers as he is with us.
Personal preference: When using this i would have a score for the Room, Passive score is for if your spending TIME in the Room. Not for the first time you enter it, so if your in the room for about a minute (probably 5 or so) or so then that would work. If the players actively say they are searching, then the score doesn't matter.
This way the DM can Hide Traps and Ambushes in a room and if the player's rush into the room (Say chasing a Single enemy) they don't Instantly know what they are getting into. The Characters aren't Clairvoyant (and if they ARE or have used something to provide it for awhile) Then they might get the Passive and be aware of the Traps and Enemies in the room.
Good and Evil are different sides of the Same Coin. One Cannot Exist without the other.
Always Looking for Feedback and Critique on anything I Publish, IM me if you have suggestions.
Passive Perception has additional rules that other passive checks don't.
Using Ability Scores, Dexterity, Hiding:
Adventuring, Movement, Noticing Threats:
It's pretty clear your passive Perception is used whenever you aren't actively looking.
InquisitiveCoder, Thanks for the info! I appreciate you taking the time to help.
Perhaps these three specific rules do ask us to infer the existence of a more general unwritten rule intended to essentially say: "Characters automatically passively perceive everything out of the ordinary which has a DC equal to or lower than their passive Perception score. This automatic passive Perception ability does not prevent characters from also attempting to actively perceive things with higher DCs."
If this is so, it would really help minimize confusion if such an important rule was written officially (even if just in errata) rather than left as merely implied.
And just to close this out.
Somebody on Twitter helpfully pointed me to Jeremy's tweet where he confirmed: "Design intent: passive Wisdom (Perception) is the norm. Only have someone roll if they initiate a search." (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/831616674054889472)
So the intent is for the 5E rule to essentially work the same as the 4E rule did where you are assumed to be "taking 10" on Perception checks all the time even when you are not actively looking for anything.
My guess is that they decided not to include the general rule from 4E about "taking 10" in 5E, and then they forgot that they'd need to put in something special for always-on/floor-score passive Perception to write their intent into 5E. Official errata would be hugely helpful here, given the very important role they intend for passive Perception to always be playing.
So ... use passive perception as a floor if they are not looking or paying attention but require a roll if they are actively searching?
This has an interesting interaction with the observant feat which adds +5 to both passive perception and passive investigation.
In this case, it is much better for my rogue who has a passive perception of 22 with the observant feat (+1 wis, +3 proficiency, +3 expertise in perception, +5 observant) at level 6 to never search and just wander around not paying attention since he has a much better chance to notice things like traps or secret doors than if he actively searches (in which case he does not get the +5 modified for observant). I can play it either way but personally, any approach which makes the active check significantly less effective than the passive one makes no sense to me from a role playing perspective since, again in my opinion, if you have an observant character they should be paying attention and should be able to see things better when they, as a character are actively looking rather than just passively hanging out.
This is one of the reasons I tend to fall back towards your original interpretation and rules citation for 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 of 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." ... since in that context, observant may make a bit more sense.
Observant can also make sense if the passive level of a skill is treated as a floor value (as also mentioned above). Being observant means that the characters base level is higher but they also have less room to roll higher. However, this interpretation is not how it is often applied since many DMs ask for active checks without checking passive values to use as a floor.
In the case of the level 6 rogue above, there are very few traps or secret doors he won't notice. In addition, as an arcane trickster, and with expertise in investigation, the passive investigation score is 23 and with expertise in arcana, the passive arcana score is 18. This makes the character able to notice, analyse and assess the method to properly disarm most magical and mundane traps, secret doors, chests, and other similar challenges. Given sufficient time to watch and investigate then presumably the passive score should always be used but that certainly doesn't seem to be the way a lot of people play.
It's not "much better" in any meaningful sense because only making an active roll isn't an option. Your passive Perception is always on* so you search actively when you think your passive Perception might've missed something. The Observant feat makes you better at finding things when you're not looking, and also while you're actively looking.
* If you're distracted with other activities while traveling your passive Perception won't apply, as explained in the Adventuring rules. But turning your attention to actively searching means stopping that other activity and thus your passive Perception applies again.
We always have 3x5 cards that the players fill out that give some character info Top left I have them put AC, top right Passive Perception and Passive Investigation, middle is name, bottom left class and level, bottom right race and faction. This way when there is a perception or investigation roll needed, I just hang them on top of my DM screen and check those first to see if one of them automatically sees if the check is below the passive. It's also really great when I play my Wizard that has a passive investigation of 25, secret doors just fly right on open! When I get to 18 and take a 1 level dip in rogue for expertise in Arcana and Investigation for a passive of 33 and not have to cast mage armor ever again it will be even nicer.
I played with a DM that was hesitant about doing things that way as my passive was so high. I pointed out to him that we have a great weapon fighting/master fighter who would routinely break 100 damage on a round when I would cast a fire bolt for 15. Granted I did a lot of crowd control, counterspells, and was the way we moved around, but it was to point out that if someone wants to specialize in something and be really good at it, let them! Our fighter does amazing damage, our life cleric is godlike, and I can just see every damn thing there is. Makes for a well balanced party where everyone has their little area of expertise.
So if you are wandering around passively checking things out, or actively, the floor is the passive. It would make no sense to ever actively check for anything if that weren't so. Just have the passive guy run around a room and say he's not actively looking for anything and then have someone with a lower passive make the rolls. Just passive the floor as intended and move along!
David, As I understand it now, the design intent of including the assumed-to-be-always-on take-10-4E-style floor-score passive Perception does work like this:
This is my best guess about how things happened in this area with the creation of 5E...
I think they probably started with something like the general 4E rule "When you're not actively using a skill, you're assumed to be taking 10..." That could explain why we even see "passive Intelligence(Investigation)" in any rule even though no one really seems to know how a character would just happen to end up passively investigating something while doing something else. .
But then they decided they decided not include a formal "take 10" mechanic in 5E at all so they took that passive "take 10" section out. They still intended to do something special for passive Perception--note InquisitiveCoder pointing out "Passive Perception has additional rules that other passive checks don't." But I don't believe they ever finished designing 5E passive Perception, and the general rules for it were never written--a few specific examples do show up, but the only thing close to intended official general rules for always-on/floor passive Perception are on Twitter or in interviews.
The incompleteness of implementing this design change is highlighted by leaving that reference to "passive Intelligence(Investigation)" in the final written Observant feat. And the likelihood of the design change having not been fully implemented is highlighted by the fact that, as you point out, an Observant character is actually *better* at noticing things when they try not to actively search for them.
I think one of the reasons it hasn't shown up in errata--even though (based on more info learned of after starting the thread) both Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford seem to have both clearly confirmed the intent on Twitter--is because it is so core to the game, potentially touching on other areas and requiring more than just a quick errata note. Also, it might raise the 4E Take 10 issue more generally which I believe they do want kept out of 5E as a formal rule. (5E RAW only currently rationalizes the use of passive checks as "average results" for repeated checks and where DMs want secret outcomes. There no minimum 10+ or take 10 in there. If you add any Take 10 for perception generally then you'd have to address why you are still leaving take 10 out for everything else.)
Generally, I think the iterative design process they used while moving from 4E to 5E had huge benefits and overall was the best possible approach. It appears this happens to just be one place where that iterative approach ending up resulting in a bit of confusion in the final written rules. I think we may just have to accept that passive Perception is just a special thing in 5E and that the rules for it are neither fully written down nor completely consistent (see Observant as an example).
PS I now believe it very likely they also intended passive Intelligence(knowledge skills) to work in a similar way with character's always having a chance to automatically recall information with a passive check -and then with their active checks being the result of relevant active research activity undertaken by the characters.
PPS edit: Even as late as the official starter set (Phandelver) they hadn't finalized the passive Perception rules. This is different than either 4E, 5E RAW, or 5E RAI: "Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check."
I suspect the issue on general passive skills is at some point they decided to use the general rule for the Rogue's Reliable talent ability (or perhaps decided on the passive perception for everyone because of reliable talent). As that sets up that kind of floor like effect for passive perception/checks that has been mentioned by Jeremy Crawford, but would only apply to those proficient in a skill, so wouldn't be useful to perception regardless of proficiency as it is now.
Passive perception does sometimes seem like a weird thing in that one can be inactively better at perceiving than actively perceiving. I do wonder if it was a simplicity thing.
For me I tend to make the base passive perception a 5+ modifiers (always at disadvantage), so inactively useful but still worse on average than actively searching.
- Loswaith
You're not really better at passively perceiving than actively perceiving. You're just not guaranteed to find something you passively overlooked on any given round. Nothing's preventing you from searching multiple times, if you have the time to spare.
Just to be pedantic, "Taking 10" was from 3rd edition originally, predating 4e.
As for 5e, I completely disagree with the idea of passive perception as it is in the rules. Most PCs are going to have a passive perception of at least 10. This makes any trap with a DC of 10 or lower kind of pointless, since most PCs will automatically see it. If you make the DCs of all traps high enough that at least one PC won't automatically see it, then you've artificially inflated the DC of the traps when instead you can just nerf passive perception.
Just to make things a bit more interesting, I believe the original intention of 5e passive perception was to make it harder to notice traps/secret doors when passively perceiving than when actively perceiving. My evidence is Lost Mine of Phandelver, where they specifically indicate different DCs for active vs passive searching.
From the "General Features" section of the Redbrand Hideout:
This +5 to the DC for passive checks is equivalent to giving a player Disadvantage on a check, so I would argue the intent may (at least during testing) have been to apply Disadvantage to Passive Perception checks. Since the player isn't rolling any dice, this means either applying a flat -5 to their Passive Perception, or increasing the DC by 5.
Regardless, I don't let PCs use Passive Perception in this way to find hidden things, rather I use it as a guide for the general awareness of the environment, and non-hidden things. To find hidden things, I roll for them behind the screen. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone walking along not looking for something is more likely to spot something hidden than the person actively trying to spot it. Someone with a +10 to perception could still fail to notice a trap by rolling a 1, while the oblivious PC with +0 to perception standing beside them picking their nose finds it.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This discussion has made me think this whole section should have had more editing passes.
Taking 20 is basically still a rule. The DMG advices you to handle repeated checks by just letting players succeed if success is possible and they spend x10 the amount of time of a single check. They're going to roll a 20 eventually.
Not only does dim light impose disadvantage on sight-based Perception checks, if you're traveling at a fast pace you also take a further -5 penalty to passive Perception.
Also, traps that can be beaten just by spotting them are boring as heck. That's a fine way to introduce new players to the concept of traps, but clever players will find any traps that can be found through repeated searching, so you have to do better than a spiked pit or a pressure plate if you want to keep things interesting.
I would suggest that failure to find a trap also carries the potential to set off the trap if you roll poorly enough.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
What you HAVE to take into account is lighting and other effects. No light and darkvision? You are -5 to perception same as dim light. Foggy? Rushing? In combat? Lots of factors that lower perception and investigation. Too many people try to ammend rules that are there for a reason without using all the modifiers or even playing with them to see how they work.
Unless that IS the encounter. The party knows there is a trap or are traps and are trying figure out what it is, like a puzzle.
With passive perception you are on the look out and you know that any trap you missed isn't because you didn't have a high enough stat.
At what point do the players just open every door with mage hand or thaumaturgy? Have a Unseen Servant walking 10-15' ahead of the party to trigger traps?
When does this get tedious for everyone involved?
The problem for me, is "declared intent".
If the players tell me they are keeping their eyes open for traps or secret doors as they move through an area, then they have declared they are actively looking for something, and I would make them roll. Perhaps the roll covers the length of their vision (so the furthest range of their light source, with Disadvantage applied for dim light).
If the players do not indicate any attempt to keep their eyes open for hidden things, then they are passive and as far as I am concerned it should be harder to "accidentally" find something hidden than when you are looking for it. It's just absurd. Imagine in real life if police detectives just walked in to a crime scene and not bothering to look for clues, relying on the possibility they might notice something just by passing through the room?
Passive Perception Check: Detective walks through crime scene, intent only on getting to the other side. If they're lucky, they trip over the body.
Active Perception Check: Detective walks through a crime scene while flashing their flashlight around them, actively looking for clues.
Investigation Check: Forensics squad shows up and goes to work in special suits and equipment with cameras snapping photos and blue lights looking for residue.
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Declared intent would be a time waste for sure. If you were my DM then I’d just have a card to remind me to tell you that after every room we enter that I’m looking for traps, looking for secret doors, and trying to perceive any threats. That’s why there is a passive so players don’t have to say that every time they move. Just take the passive rules and don’t burden yourself or your 5 players to make the same statement over and over again for every room you are ever in.
I think mjsoctober metaphor's is incorrect. I think this gets at the core of how we look at it differently.
Detective Passive Perception Test: "Detective walks through a crime scene while flashing their flashlight around them, actively looking for clues."
Detective is actively doing something that's not Perception: "Detective walks through crime scene, intent only on getting to the other side. If they're lucky, they trip over the body."