I've seen a few builds trying to exploit passive perception. I didn't think much about it untill one of my players started talking about it. Passive perception is basicly taking 10 but can be buffed by feats and items and a few class features to reduculous levels. The player thinks passive perception is better then active that a passive perception of 30 sees everything. Do you guys think this is rules as intended? I'm thinking about useing a successful passive check to ask the player to roll an active check. Active perception is still going to be pretty great so I think this is pretty fair. Worst case scenario the players figure out every time I ask for a perception check that something is up.
Thanks for the feedback. I want to make it clear before we start that campaign how we will be dealing with perception that way they can change character concept if they don't like it.
I feel like passive perception has never been thought out very well. If you watch Critical Role, Vex has a habit of mentioning that her Passive Perception is really high (usually higher than anything she rolls). However, I'm not sure most PCs are taking advantage of it, as likely level appropriate DCs will often be caught by the PCs with proficiency in perception.
Passive perception really needs some work done to it. I mean, a PC who isn't looking for something has a better chance of seeing it then when they actively look for it. Should be the other way around.
Easy way to handle it, Make Trap DCs high enough the PCs must actively look for them to have a chance of spotting them.
Other than that, call for a perception check whenever you feel like an active check is more appropriate than something the PCs would passively notice. This can be influenced with the DCs they need. If you have a creature hiding with a stealth check of 5 do you really need to tell the PCs to roll who have proficiency in perception?
I feel like passive perception has never been thought out very well. If you watch Critical Role, Vex has a habit of mentioning that her Passive Perception is really high (usually higher than anything she rolls). However, I'm not sure most PCs are taking advantage of it, as likely level appropriate DCs will often be caught by the PCs with proficiency in perception.
Passive perception really needs some work done to it. I mean, a PC who isn't looking for something has a better chance of seeing it then when they actively look for it. Should be the other way around.
Easy way to handle it, Make Trap DCs high enough the PCs must actively look for them to have a chance of spotting them.
Other than that, call for a perception check whenever you feel like an active check is more appropriate than something the PCs would passively notice. This can be influenced with the DCs they need. If you have a creature hiding with a stealth check of 5 do you really need to tell the PCs to roll who have proficiency in perception?
Indeed. The problem starts when you take the feat Observant which adds +5 to the Passive Perception, and not to the active Perception. As DM, it is better to clarify that some situations demands an active rolls, no matter how high is you passive perception score.
Under what situations would you grant passive perception? I feel like with most DMs the feat would be wasted.
I suppose one could argue that if a passive score succeeds there is no need for an active score and so the feat helps a pc from also being closer to their max.
I feel like passive perception is one of those things that would be better off not in the game.
Under what situations would you grant passive perception? I feel like with most DMs the feat would be wasted.
I suppose one could argue that if a passive score succeeds there is no need for an active score and so the feat helps a pc from also being closer to their max.
I feel like passive perception is one of those things that would be better off not in the game.
The most fitting example is during combat. Imo, in combat passive perception is not valid, you have to roll.
Another is when you want to search for invisible things. Since you want to, is an active roll in my mind.
There may be others situation, but as DM I decide on the moment the most suitable thing to do.
Caveat: I loved the Take A 10 and Take A 20 rule in 3.5. I was sad when they got rid of them in later editions.
I look at passive perception as your score when you're taking your time. Here are a few quick examples of how I like to handle it:
1) Example, the party is walking through the woods they are going to be spending most of their energy on movement and passive perception so that's their score for avoiding ambushes. I'll give an active perception test just before the ambush to see if someone "notices" something and avoids surprise.
2) If someone is actively doing something actively, then they aren't really using their passive perception. example:
The party is negotiating with guards. The party member who is actively negotiating is going to lose his passive perception, he's distracted. The party members that are just standing around while the Face talks, their passive perception becomes their "floor" (the lowest they can roll) because in moments like that I assume they are paying attention to their surroundings. Depending on how high their passive perception or active roll is, I might give out bits of detail on the actions/movements/moods of the people in the negotiation. Usually I'll prompt to group and ask who is looking at the guards (Insight) and who is looking at everything else (Perception).
3) I'll do a similar thing when searching a room. If the party says they search the room, I'll have everyone make a roll.
That roll gives them their "first quick" look. It can give a person with a low Perception or Investigation the chance to "get something" because of a lucky roll. If everyone bombs the roll... I'll then use passive perception as they take their time and really go through the room.
Basically I want to reward those people who are naturally more perceptive. They have spend their stats, skills, and possibly feats to be observant, but it's not an panacea.
As a note remember that there are a lot of possible -5s you can give passive perception. (moving with speed, darkness, etc...)
I tend to play characters with better than average Passive Perception, but for some reason I, as a player, often find myself rolling low on actual Perception checks.
I've found two ways to deal with this, and each depends on the surroundings/situation.
First, if we're just doing standard marching order type stuff and I am generally "on alert", I can usually convince my GM to take my Passive score instead. (Based on the argument that I was primed to be wary and therefore my Passive score is the baseline.)
Second, I become *SUPER* perceptive... of something totally irrelevant. This second option is usually how I prefer it anyway, because it makes for some good comedy and occasionally interesting side adventures.
I want to point out that Passive Perception is 100% intended to be used IN combat. If you attempt to hide in combat, the DC you are trying to beat is every other creatures passive perception. If you disallow passive perception in combat then stealth has 100% success rate in combat (which is when people would be paying attention to you the most).
I want to point out that Passive Perception is 100% intended to be used IN combat. If you attempt to hide in combat, the DC you are trying to beat is every other creatures passive perception. If you disallow passive perception in combat then stealth has 100% success rate in combat (which is when people would be paying attention to you the most).
I would disagree. In combat, there is no rule about hiding that specifically say that a Stealth check has to be compared to the Passive perception.l
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)
This is one the same page you linked. Scroll down a bit. It doesn't say the DM may compare your stealth check against passive perception, it says he does to determine if you the creature notices you.
I would use Passive Perception IN combat, but I would use it as a floor, ie: if someone is trying to make a Stealth check, no one can roll LOWER then their passive perception. It's combat people are paying attention to their surroundings for threats.
Note: I personally think that "Hiding" in combat aside from a few circumstances is probably one of the the dumbest thing ever. It's one thing if someone is trying to escape a scene or break Line of Sight.
I'm fine with the idea that people want to "break line of sight", but if my character flips a table and hides behind it, your character can't see mine, I'm "hidden", but you still KNOW where I am. I shouldn't be able to use the lack of Line Of Sight to get Adv on my next attack roll. If I can hide behind the table, circle around to the other side of the room, and attack you, sure maybe.
If a halfing is standing behind a human she can "hide" behind the human, but the idea that it's some kind of tactical adv breaks credulity for me. You still know where the halfing was last even if you can't quite see it right now.
It all reminds me of 3.5 reading about Shadow Dancers hiding in their own shadows and it makes me want to roll up a newspaper, whack people on the nose, while shouting "Bad! player! bad!"
"... what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." -Billy Madison
Yes but my point was that, if you are in combat it is not not an automatic Stealth against passive Perception. Depending on the situation, the DM may call for the contest Stealth against Perception (the active roll, not the passive score).
It's a contested roll if the target uses the search action. If not, passive perception. You can break the rules as DM, that's rule 0. But you should be aware you are doing so.
Hiding in middle of combat is silly and it is a game mechanic issue not a realism simulator. Just like how drinking a potion is an action, while drinking the same amount of water would be an interaction. That's why hide is an action (or bonus) when realistically, hiding could be as simple lowering your stance and might use 5 feet of movement. It's because it grants powerful bonuses, so it uses an action.
I look at it this way - if a player has opted to use limited resources to be good at a certain thing, I see it as my duty to make sure that comes up. They take the Observant feat, okay, well they did that instead of an ASI, so likely they chose *not* to be 5% more accurate in their attack rolls, chose *not* to be 5% more likely to take half damage on a Fireball, or not be 5% more likely to resist a Charm effect.
If a player makes a single-target high-damage character, I want to make sure to give them a big target to beat down. I can counter it by having swarms of low health minions - sure they can easily kill one, but action economy means they'll get overrun. Reverse that for a character build with multiple low-damage or area attacks - a wizard who just got Fireball would absolutely love to see 44 kobolds bunched up perfectly, but would rethink spell choices when confronted with single giants spread far apart.
So you can try to reward the player for taking options that increase their passive perception. Stealthy minions that never get a chance to sneak up on the character. Automatically notice a cleverly hidden switch to reveal a secret door. See the pattern of safe steps to traverse a trapped hallway. Conversely, it's possible to challenge PCs where perception doesn't matter. Have a dragon audibly roar as it makes strafing runs with its breath attack, making no attempt to hide. Yes, the PC sees a safe hidden behind a painting, but can they guess the combination? They can obviously see that the corridor is trapped, sending jets of flame down it if entered, but that doesn't help them know the magic passphrase to deactivate it.
If the options trivialize too many things, and you don't have the flexibility to come up with something fun and still challenging (like you're running a premade adventure, or have to be strict for AL reasons), then no need to get adversarial about it. Talk to the player, let them know the problem it's causing, and see if you can't come up with something that you both like. Maybe they've been with bad DMs before who "punish" them for not being more observant, and they wanted to avoid that. Maybe they're really set on it, but are willing to point out weaknesses their character has so you can counteract it once in a while. Maybe they'd be willing to swap it out for a different character option, if it really makes the game unfun.
Actually reading this thread and thinking about perception vs. Investigation, part of me wants to try a game where all perception checks are passive, and all investigation checks are active- then perception is always about noticing things (not trying to find them) while investigation is about searching for them.
Actually reading this thread and thinking about perception vs. Investigation, part of me wants to try a game where all perception checks are passive, and all investigation checks are active- then perception is always about noticing things (not trying to find them) while investigation is about searching for them.
Example: a character wants to eavesdrop a conversation. The check to be made is Perception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've seen a few builds trying to exploit passive perception. I didn't think much about it untill one of my players started talking about it. Passive perception is basicly taking 10 but can be buffed by feats and items and a few class features to reduculous levels. The player thinks passive perception is better then active that a passive perception of 30 sees everything. Do you guys think this is rules as intended? I'm thinking about useing a successful passive check to ask the player to roll an active check. Active perception is still going to be pretty great so I think this is pretty fair. Worst case scenario the players figure out every time I ask for a perception check that something is up.
I kind of agree. There is some abuse for the passive perception.
As a DM, depending on the situation, i would say that the passive perception is not enough and you have to do the active roll. Few examples:
Detecting invisible monsters
During combat
These situations require the active roll to me
Thanks for the feedback. I want to make it clear before we start that campaign how we will be dealing with perception that way they can change character concept if they don't like it.
Enjoy!
I feel like passive perception has never been thought out very well. If you watch Critical Role, Vex has a habit of mentioning that her Passive Perception is really high (usually higher than anything she rolls). However, I'm not sure most PCs are taking advantage of it, as likely level appropriate DCs will often be caught by the PCs with proficiency in perception.
Passive perception really needs some work done to it. I mean, a PC who isn't looking for something has a better chance of seeing it then when they actively look for it. Should be the other way around.
Easy way to handle it, Make Trap DCs high enough the PCs must actively look for them to have a chance of spotting them.
Other than that, call for a perception check whenever you feel like an active check is more appropriate than something the PCs would passively notice. This can be influenced with the DCs they need. If you have a creature hiding with a stealth check of 5 do you really need to tell the PCs to roll who have proficiency in perception?
Under what situations would you grant passive perception? I feel like with most DMs the feat would be wasted.
I suppose one could argue that if a passive score succeeds there is no need for an active score and so the feat helps a pc from also being closer to their max.
I feel like passive perception is one of those things that would be better off not in the game.
Caveat: I loved the Take A 10 and Take A 20 rule in 3.5. I was sad when they got rid of them in later editions.
I look at passive perception as your score when you're taking your time. Here are a few quick examples of how I like to handle it:
1) Example, the party is walking through the woods they are going to be spending most of their energy on movement and passive perception so that's their score for avoiding ambushes. I'll give an active perception test just before the ambush to see if someone "notices" something and avoids surprise.
2) If someone is actively doing something actively, then they aren't really using their passive perception. example:
The party is negotiating with guards. The party member who is actively negotiating is going to lose his passive perception, he's distracted. The party members that are just standing around while the Face talks, their passive perception becomes their "floor" (the lowest they can roll) because in moments like that I assume they are paying attention to their surroundings. Depending on how high their passive perception or active roll is, I might give out bits of detail on the actions/movements/moods of the people in the negotiation. Usually I'll prompt to group and ask who is looking at the guards (Insight) and who is looking at everything else (Perception).
3) I'll do a similar thing when searching a room. If the party says they search the room, I'll have everyone make a roll.
That roll gives them their "first quick" look. It can give a person with a low Perception or Investigation the chance to "get something" because of a lucky roll. If everyone bombs the roll... I'll then use passive perception as they take their time and really go through the room.
Basically I want to reward those people who are naturally more perceptive. They have spend their stats, skills, and possibly feats to be observant, but it's not an panacea.
As a note remember that there are a lot of possible -5s you can give passive perception. (moving with speed, darkness, etc...)
I tend to play characters with better than average Passive Perception, but for some reason I, as a player, often find myself rolling low on actual Perception checks.
I've found two ways to deal with this, and each depends on the surroundings/situation.
First, if we're just doing standard marching order type stuff and I am generally "on alert", I can usually convince my GM to take my Passive score instead. (Based on the argument that I was primed to be wary and therefore my Passive score is the baseline.)
Second, I become *SUPER* perceptive... of something totally irrelevant. This second option is usually how I prefer it anyway, because it makes for some good comedy and occasionally interesting side adventures.
Hope this helps!
I want to point out that Passive Perception is 100% intended to be used IN combat. If you attempt to hide in combat, the DC you are trying to beat is every other creatures passive perception. If you disallow passive perception in combat then stealth has 100% success rate in combat (which is when people would be paying attention to you the most).
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)
This is one the same page you linked. Scroll down a bit. It doesn't say the DM may compare your stealth check against passive perception, it says he does to determine if you the creature notices you.
I would use Passive Perception IN combat, but I would use it as a floor, ie: if someone is trying to make a Stealth check, no one can roll LOWER then their passive perception. It's combat people are paying attention to their surroundings for threats.
Note: I personally think that "Hiding" in combat aside from a few circumstances is probably one of the the dumbest thing ever. It's one thing if someone is trying to escape a scene or break Line of Sight.
I'm fine with the idea that people want to "break line of sight", but if my character flips a table and hides behind it, your character can't see mine, I'm "hidden", but you still KNOW where I am. I shouldn't be able to use the lack of Line Of Sight to get Adv on my next attack roll. If I can hide behind the table, circle around to the other side of the room, and attack you, sure maybe.
If a halfing is standing behind a human she can "hide" behind the human, but the idea that it's some kind of tactical adv breaks credulity for me. You still know where the halfing was last even if you can't quite see it right now.
It all reminds me of 3.5 reading about Shadow Dancers hiding in their own shadows and it makes me want to roll up a newspaper, whack people on the nose, while shouting "Bad! player! bad!"
"... what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." -Billy Madison
Yes but my point was that, if you are in combat it is not not an automatic Stealth against passive Perception. Depending on the situation, the DM may call for the contest Stealth against Perception (the active roll, not the passive score).
It's a contested roll if the target uses the search action. If not, passive perception. You can break the rules as DM, that's rule 0. But you should be aware you are doing so.
Hiding in middle of combat is silly and it is a game mechanic issue not a realism simulator. Just like how drinking a potion is an action, while drinking the same amount of water would be an interaction. That's why hide is an action (or bonus) when realistically, hiding could be as simple lowering your stance and might use 5 feet of movement. It's because it grants powerful bonuses, so it uses an action.
I look at it this way - if a player has opted to use limited resources to be good at a certain thing, I see it as my duty to make sure that comes up. They take the Observant feat, okay, well they did that instead of an ASI, so likely they chose *not* to be 5% more accurate in their attack rolls, chose *not* to be 5% more likely to take half damage on a Fireball, or not be 5% more likely to resist a Charm effect.
If a player makes a single-target high-damage character, I want to make sure to give them a big target to beat down. I can counter it by having swarms of low health minions - sure they can easily kill one, but action economy means they'll get overrun. Reverse that for a character build with multiple low-damage or area attacks - a wizard who just got Fireball would absolutely love to see 44 kobolds bunched up perfectly, but would rethink spell choices when confronted with single giants spread far apart.
So you can try to reward the player for taking options that increase their passive perception. Stealthy minions that never get a chance to sneak up on the character. Automatically notice a cleverly hidden switch to reveal a secret door. See the pattern of safe steps to traverse a trapped hallway. Conversely, it's possible to challenge PCs where perception doesn't matter. Have a dragon audibly roar as it makes strafing runs with its breath attack, making no attempt to hide. Yes, the PC sees a safe hidden behind a painting, but can they guess the combination? They can obviously see that the corridor is trapped, sending jets of flame down it if entered, but that doesn't help them know the magic passphrase to deactivate it.
If the options trivialize too many things, and you don't have the flexibility to come up with something fun and still challenging (like you're running a premade adventure, or have to be strict for AL reasons), then no need to get adversarial about it. Talk to the player, let them know the problem it's causing, and see if you can't come up with something that you both like. Maybe they've been with bad DMs before who "punish" them for not being more observant, and they wanted to avoid that. Maybe they're really set on it, but are willing to point out weaknesses their character has so you can counteract it once in a while. Maybe they'd be willing to swap it out for a different character option, if it really makes the game unfun.
Actually reading this thread and thinking about perception vs. Investigation, part of me wants to try a game where all perception checks are passive, and all investigation checks are active- then perception is always about noticing things (not trying to find them) while investigation is about searching for them.