My point is I don't think there should be two passive scores.
My issue is with the RAW for perception, especially where traps are concerned, that says traps with a DC of 10 - 14 are almost always going to be noticed by passive perception (making the DC to hide them pointless) and/or that someone who tries "extra hard" to look for something (rolling the die for Perception) stands a chance of doing worse than if they'd used their passive perception.
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?
As others have noted, the second point is moot. The designers have made it clear you can't do worse than your Passive Perception unless somehow unable to use it. So the issue is with Passive Perception making some traps (and other hidden perils) too easy to locate. The simple solution is to set the trap DCs higher, encouraging the players to actively search.
But even easily noticed traps can still present an obstacle. A noticed trap may still need to be disabled or circumvented. It could still pose a danger in certain situations (such as a combat, where creatures might be pushed deliberately into the trap).
But I would say it's equally appropriate to set a DC to notice an ambush by hidden creatures, as long as those creatures had enough time to prepare. I would allow NPCs or PCs to "take 10" in this situation. And I really don't see any distinction between this scenario and letting the characters blunder through a deadly trap with a DC too high to be noticed by their Passive Perception. Both are deterministic unless the PCs decide to make an active check.
In either case, I would prompt the PCs with some clue or hint that would encourage them to make an active check. With the trap, they might notice old remains nearby, damaged in some way. For the ambush, the PCs might have noticed some strange tracks or other odd signs somewhere earlier on the road, encouraging them to make active checks or travel at a slower pace.
The designers have made it clear you can't do worse than your Passive Perception
Actually, afaik, the designers have never said this. If a PC chooses to roll, the RAW don't say that they can't do worse than their passive, if they did, I wouldn't be confounded by this.
As it stands, a player's PC is in a room where there might be something hidden. The player can choose to use Passive Perception, knowing that if the DC is higher than their Passive, they will automatically miss it, or they can choose to roll, hoping to get a high result, but risking a low result. This is the crux of my issue. Someone who passively is really good at spottig something suddenly is potentially worse at spotting that same thing.
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?
Actually, afaik, the designers have never said this. If a PC chooses to roll, the RAW don't say that they can't do worse than their passive, if they did, I wouldn't be confounded by this.
As it stands, a player's PC is in a room where there might be something hidden. The player can choose to use Passive Perception, knowing that if the DC is higher than their Passive, they will automatically miss it, or they can choose to roll, hoping to get a high result, but risking a low result. This is the crux of my issue. Someone who passively is really good at spottig something suddenly is potentially worse at spotting that same thing.
It's not an either/or choice. They're not mutually exclusive in any way.
First, the player doesn't get to decide if they're going to use passive Perception; that's the DM's call. Secondly, if someone is actively looking there's no reason for the DM to decide their passive Perception isn't in play. Yes, the DM can do whatever they want but the intent is that passive Perception is always on unless the character is distracted or not in a position to notice something, and neither of those are true if they're actively looking.
If a character is in-combat they need to roll a Stealth Check, but if the party is traveling at a Slow Pact to be Stealthy, I use their Passive Stealth. It also rewards proper equipment outfitting, as that adds to the passive check.
Also they are doing this kind of Stealth constantly, so I like to remove the randomness of the roll, because then the Fighter in Platemail rolls two 15s and the Rogue with Expertise rolls a 2. It's not fun to have your character concept constantly undermined by the the green eyed Lady Luck.
If the whole party has Dex of +2 to +3 and Training in Stealth (say the Rogue has Expertise) and no one has armor which causes a DisAdv, then they have a Passive Stealth of ranging from 14 to 17 (Rogue). Compare this to the fact that Goblin have a Passive Perception of 9, the PC will generally always get Surprise on the Goblins... unless they are also being Stealthy.
Obviously if they are traveling in the dark with a torch, their Stealth means they aren't making noise, but anything with EYES will see them with LoS! So remember Stealth is subjective to the method of detection. Mastiffs only have 13 Passive Perception, but it's 18 for Hearing/Smell... neither of which are penalized for being in the dark. P.S. if you have Handle Animal, mastiffs are a great use of 25gc, to protect your party at night.
This sentence also does not say that you can't get lower than your passive perception if you choose to roll, only that you can choose to roll if your passive perception misses something, which is what I originally said.
RAW the player has to gamble. Their PP might find something, or might not be high enough. If they think their PP isn't high enough, they can choose to roll, but run the risk of getting a lower result than their PP.
If there is a citation for RAW that says a PC rolling for perception can't get lower than their PP, I am happy to see it, because that's how I feel it should work.
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?
This... does not indicate that if a player rolls they won't be penalized by a result less than their Passive Perception.
A perception check determines if you notice something. There's no penalty for failure. You can't unnotice something.
If they think their PP isn't high enough, they can choose to roll, but run the risk of getting a lower result than their PP.
Yes, which does absolutely nothing to harm the player. They still noticed everything their passive Perception noticed.
Actively rolling gives you more chances to succeed. The failures don't matter. Imagine someone offered you a car if you can roll higher than 15. You roll an 11. Then they offer you another chance to roll the dice. What have you got to lose?
Also they are doing this kind of Stealth constantly, so I like to remove the randomness of the roll, because then the Fighter in Platemail rolls two 15s and the Rogue with Expertise rolls a 2. It's not fun to have your character concept constantly undermined by the the green eyed Lady Luck.
This is exactly my problem with Perception and Passive Perception, and traps. When you put it in the context of another skill, like Stealth, it becomes more apparent. A rogue who is incredibly talented at stealth, who has the time to really hide well, and who isn't in combat, should fall victim to rolling low, or a 1. Why not let PCs "Take 10" on other skills when they have the time to do so.
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?
A perception check determines if you notice something. There's no penalty for failure. You can't unnotice something.
The failure is that you "fail" to notice something. ie. A trap, a secret door, a monster hiding and preparing to attack you.
The gamble is that you might roll low and miss the important thing.
If Passive Perception is the "least amount of effort" to perceive based on your base skill (the floor), then it is not logical that perceiving with more effort (rolling) could result in something worse.
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?
If Passive Perception is the "least amount of effort" to perceive based on your base skill (the floor), then it is not logical that perceiving with more effort (rolling) could result in something worse.
And it doesn't. No one's asking you to choose between passive perception and rolling. If your passive Perception is high enough to notice the secret door, you'll find the secret door. Choosing to then roll won't cause you to forget about the secret door you already found, but you could find something else your passive Perception missed. There's 0 drawbacks other than using up some time.
If Passive Perception is the "least amount of effort" to perceive based on your base skill (the floor), then it is not logical that perceiving with more effort (rolling) could result in something worse.
And it doesn't. No one's asking you to choose between passive perception and rolling. If your passive Perception is high enough to notice the secret door, you'll find the secret door. Choosing to then roll won't cause you to forget about the secret door you already found, but you could find something else your passive Perception missed. There's 0 drawbacks other than using up some time.
Okay, I have to admit to some sigle-mindedness here. I was so focused on the idea that it was weird to roll lower than one's "passive score" that I missed the point InquisitiveCoder was making to me.
It doesn't matter if you roll lower after failing with your passive score, because even if you could roll lower, your passive score would never have scored any higher.
So, thanks, I see it now. Feel a bit doltish for not realizing what you were saying from the beginning, but that's what happens when you're so focused on the trees that you miss the forest.
I guess you could say... I failed my perception check.
Oh man I am so glad you got this eventually. My heart was hurting reading you miss the lesson so many times. But, I am impressed you got there, and please don't think I'm being condescending, I have literally spent hours today/last night trying to wrap my head around this.
Thank you everyone who contributed, this thread was so helpful. 12 hours ago I was (also) really perplexed by how dumb it was that you could roll lower than your PP. But it makes so much sense that perception, insight and other knowledge checks like arcana or medicine would have a floor of competence. There's no way my cleric is going to forget how to deal with a wound he's seen, cleaned and dressed a hundred times before. I'm sure he could screw up cleaning or dressing it but only if circumstances were bad (disadvantage from darkness, exhaustion, distracted by combat etc), not because he suddenly forgot how elbows work.
Edit: and mjsoctober, I'd say you did fine on your perception check, you managed to read the responses successfully many times. I guess you just forgot to roll insight ;)
First, the player doesn't get to decide if they're going to use passive Perception; that's the DM's call.
Wow, that one should be written across the top of the monitor in permanent marker, because so many people miss it.
Passive scores are something the GM can choose to use, generally for one of two reasons. First, to create a sense of tension and surprise for the players. Second, to remove the requirement for a large number of die rolls.
The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
If there is a long hallway with 100 traps in it, the GM could require the player of the first PC in line to roll 100 Wisdom (Perception) rolls. Or they can use that character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score. Using the passive score is easier, but does lead to a strange situation (discussed above in this thread). If the traps are all hidden with a DC of 12, the character will either spot all of them, or none of them.
I was thinking your passive score meant you cannot roll under it. If I have a passive of 12 and the DM says roll perception and I roll a 9 total. I think it would go to 12. But I think if the DM asks for a roll and you have to take the passive the DM should add +5 to the DC so you might still not pass. Although the more I read these post I would probably just take the passive out of the game. If you are the DM you would just tell players what they are perceiving the whole point of the roll is to see if they see the stuff they can’t see.
The Way i'd Personally use it is have a Set "DC" for a trap or item in the area in my notes for it and a note of the players Passive Perception, that way Unless they are actively searching just use the Passive, Problem with that is a DM can abuse it.... Hmm.
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.
I was thinking your passive score meant you cannot roll under it. If I have a passive of 12 and the DM says roll perception and I roll a 9 total. I think it would go to 12. But I think if the DM asks for a roll and you have to take the passive the DM should add +5 to the DC so you might still not pass. Although the more I read these post I would probably just take the passive out of the game. If you are the DM you would just tell players what they are perceiving the whole point of the roll is to see if they see the stuff they can’t see.
That's exactly how it works, your passive scores are the floor. The way you would have to roll is if your passive score is lower than the DC of what you are trying to do. There is a long podcast that Crawford goes into a detailed explanation of it, but that's the gist. I always keep cards detailing the major stats of the characters of my table in front of me with passive perception and passive investigation being the 2 skills listed. Unless you have some mitigating circumstance like an injury, being poisoned, etc. then it's the passive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My point is I don't think there should be two passive scores.
My issue is with the RAW for perception, especially where traps are concerned, that says traps with a DC of 10 - 14 are almost always going to be noticed by passive perception (making the DC to hide them pointless) and/or that someone who tries "extra hard" to look for something (rolling the die for Perception) stands a chance of doing worse than if they'd used their passive perception.
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?
As others have noted, the second point is moot. The designers have made it clear you can't do worse than your Passive Perception unless somehow unable to use it. So the issue is with Passive Perception making some traps (and other hidden perils) too easy to locate. The simple solution is to set the trap DCs higher, encouraging the players to actively search.
But even easily noticed traps can still present an obstacle. A noticed trap may still need to be disabled or circumvented. It could still pose a danger in certain situations (such as a combat, where creatures might be pushed deliberately into the trap).
But I would say it's equally appropriate to set a DC to notice an ambush by hidden creatures, as long as those creatures had enough time to prepare. I would allow NPCs or PCs to "take 10" in this situation. And I really don't see any distinction between this scenario and letting the characters blunder through a deadly trap with a DC too high to be noticed by their Passive Perception. Both are deterministic unless the PCs decide to make an active check.
In either case, I would prompt the PCs with some clue or hint that would encourage them to make an active check. With the trap, they might notice old remains nearby, damaged in some way. For the ambush, the PCs might have noticed some strange tracks or other odd signs somewhere earlier on the road, encouraging them to make active checks or travel at a slower pace.
Actually, afaik, the designers have never said this. If a PC chooses to roll, the RAW don't say that they can't do worse than their passive, if they did, I wouldn't be confounded by this.
As it stands, a player's PC is in a room where there might be something hidden. The player can choose to use Passive Perception, knowing that if the DC is higher than their Passive, they will automatically miss it, or they can choose to roll, hoping to get a high result, but risking a low result. This is the crux of my issue. Someone who passively is really good at spottig something suddenly is potentially worse at spotting that same thing.
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?
Boy, it's like I'm posting in a vacuum.
"If a DM decides (a) to use a passive check and (b) it's always active, it can function as a skill check minimum. Entirely up to the DM."
"Design intent: passive Wisdom (Perception) is the norm. Only have someone roll if they initiate a search."
"Passive Perception is an option that a DM chooses to use or not. If you use it, Perception checks are typically made only when characters actively search for something, and normally, they're searching because their passive Perception failed to notice something."
I actually like to use Passive Stealth.
If a character is in-combat they need to roll a Stealth Check, but if the party is traveling at a Slow Pact to be Stealthy, I use their Passive Stealth.
It also rewards proper equipment outfitting, as that adds to the passive check.
Also they are doing this kind of Stealth constantly, so I like to remove the randomness of the roll, because then the Fighter in Platemail rolls two 15s and the Rogue with Expertise rolls a 2. It's not fun to have your character concept constantly undermined by the the green eyed Lady Luck.
If the whole party has Dex of +2 to +3 and Training in Stealth (say the Rogue has Expertise) and no one has armor which causes a DisAdv, then they have a Passive Stealth of ranging from 14 to 17 (Rogue). Compare this to the fact that Goblin have a Passive Perception of 9, the PC will generally always get Surprise on the Goblins... unless they are also being Stealthy.
Obviously if they are traveling in the dark with a torch, their Stealth means they aren't making noise, but anything with EYES will see them with LoS! So remember Stealth is subjective to the method of detection. Mastiffs only have 13 Passive Perception, but it's 18 for Hearing/Smell... neither of which are penalized for being in the dark.
P.S. if you have Handle Animal, mastiffs are a great use of 25gc, to protect your party at night.
This...
... does not indicate that if a player rolls they won't be penalized by a result less than their Passive Perception. I have seen nothing that says:
"If a player chooses to roll for a Perception check, the result can never be lower than their passive perception."
This sentence also does not say that you can't get lower than your passive perception if you choose to roll, only that you can choose to roll if your passive perception misses something, which is what I originally said.
RAW the player has to gamble. Their PP might find something, or might not be high enough. If they think their PP isn't high enough, they can choose to roll, but run the risk of getting a lower result than their PP.
If there is a citation for RAW that says a PC rolling for perception can't get lower than their PP, I am happy to see it, because that's how I feel it should work.
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?
A perception check determines if you notice something. There's no penalty for failure. You can't unnotice something.
This is exactly my problem with Perception and Passive Perception, and traps. When you put it in the context of another skill, like Stealth, it becomes more apparent. A rogue who is incredibly talented at stealth, who has the time to really hide well, and who isn't in combat, should fall victim to rolling low, or a 1. Why not let PCs "Take 10" on other skills when they have the time to do so.
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?
The failure is that you "fail" to notice something. ie. A trap, a secret door, a monster hiding and preparing to attack you.
The gamble is that you might roll low and miss the important thing.
If Passive Perception is the "least amount of effort" to perceive based on your base skill (the floor), then it is not logical that perceiving with more effort (rolling) could result in something worse.
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?
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?
No worries. Glad you were able to reach a satisfying interpretation of the rules. 👍
Oh man I am so glad you got this eventually. My heart was hurting reading you miss the lesson so many times. But, I am impressed you got there, and please don't think I'm being condescending, I have literally spent hours today/last night trying to wrap my head around this.
Thank you everyone who contributed, this thread was so helpful. 12 hours ago I was (also) really perplexed by how dumb it was that you could roll lower than your PP. But it makes so much sense that perception, insight and other knowledge checks like arcana or medicine would have a floor of competence. There's no way my cleric is going to forget how to deal with a wound he's seen, cleaned and dressed a hundred times before. I'm sure he could screw up cleaning or dressing it but only if circumstances were bad (disadvantage from darkness, exhaustion, distracted by combat etc), not because he suddenly forgot how elbows work.
Edit: and mjsoctober, I'd say you did fine on your perception check, you managed to read the responses successfully many times. I guess you just forgot to roll insight ;)
Wow, that one should be written across the top of the monitor in permanent marker, because so many people miss it.
Passive scores are something the GM can choose to use, generally for one of two reasons. First, to create a sense of tension and surprise for the players. Second, to remove the requirement for a large number of die rolls.
After all, the GM is the only one who calls for ability checks. It says so, at the top of the Ability Checks section in the PHB.
If there is a long hallway with 100 traps in it, the GM could require the player of the first PC in line to roll 100 Wisdom (Perception) rolls. Or they can use that character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score. Using the passive score is easier, but does lead to a strange situation (discussed above in this thread). If the traps are all hidden with a DC of 12, the character will either spot all of them, or none of them.
I was thinking your passive score meant you cannot roll under it. If I have a passive of 12 and the DM says roll perception and I roll a 9 total. I think it would go to 12. But I think if the DM asks for a roll and you have to take the passive the DM should add +5 to the DC so you might still not pass. Although the more I read these post I would probably just take the passive out of the game. If you are the DM you would just tell players what they are perceiving the whole point of the roll is to see if they see the stuff they can’t see.
The Way i'd Personally use it is have a Set "DC" for a trap or item in the area in my notes for it and a note of the players Passive Perception, that way Unless they are actively searching just use the Passive, Problem with that is a DM can abuse it.... Hmm.
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.
That's exactly how it works, your passive scores are the floor. The way you would have to roll is if your passive score is lower than the DC of what you are trying to do. There is a long podcast that Crawford goes into a detailed explanation of it, but that's the gist. I always keep cards detailing the major stats of the characters of my table in front of me with passive perception and passive investigation being the 2 skills listed. Unless you have some mitigating circumstance like an injury, being poisoned, etc. then it's the passive.