I wouldn't be harsh on people for missing this. The developers were NOT explicit nor clear.
I can say my favorite rule from 3.5 that I thought was gone in 5e was "Taking a 10". Passive score *is* taking a 10.
Honestly, until I listened that podcast I didn't think passive applied to anything but perception/investigation/insight. As a player I was so #%*@ sick of being proficient, and having a good bonus, but lady luck !#@%ing me in the @*#. In 3.5e, I started taking a 10 on almost every roll or 20 if we had a time and failure wasn't awful and the the 10 failed.
I think you hit the nail on the head, passive works with time. In a dungeon or travelling outside every member of the party is always being alert... unless they declare themselves not to be. Effectively, every turn as you walk you spend your action on Perception... rolling that is stupid.
Do you have only a few turns to find and grab the McGuffin and escape before the guards bust into the room? Then you'll use your Action to make a Perception check.
If you've broken into a room in the dead at night and searching for the McGuffin unhindered? Passive Perception, possibly with DisAdv if you're not using light (it could alert guards).
The same should be true of a knowledge. Is a monster bearing down on you wanting to eat your face? Arcana/History/Nature check to remember what it's weakness are in that moment, but if you have time to think about it... passive.
Are you being chased down a hallway by a boulder like in Indiana Jones? Then Perception to notice the pit trap. Are you walking down a hallway in a dangerous ruins? Then passive Perception to notice the trap.
I'm actually against the "floor" thing that he wrote about because that is literally a level 11 Rogue power "Reliable Talent". That talent makes any roll of <9= count as a 10 instead, so it's hard to argue that it's automatically the "floor" when there is literally a high level ability that gives you that power.
I'm actually against the "floor" thing that he wrote about because that is literally a level 11 Rogue power "Reliable Talent". That talent makes any roll of <9= count as a 10 instead, so it's hard to argue that it's automatically the "floor" when there is literally a high level ability that gives you that power.
I think this comes down to the same point some of the posters were making regarding the time and circumstances of the checks.
The circumstances may determine when a passive check should be used. In many situations, the passive check should be the floor. However, the passive check is based on an average result which either requires sufficient time to obtain or a DM who doesn't want to roll die for a particular result. The examples in the post you cited were running down a corridor being chased by a boulder vs. walking down a corridor searching as you go. In the first case, you would make an active check while in the second you would make a passive. However, in the first case, even under time pressure, a rogue with reliable talent would get a minimum of a 10.
Opening a lock being chased by enemies ... reliable talent rogue gets a minimum 10 die roll.
Searching for a hidden door while the guard walks closer ... reliable talent rogue gets a minimum 10.
Disarming a trap with a timer .. rogue gets a minimum 10.
Basically, the reliable talent rogue will always be able to use at least his passive score even under circumstances where the passive check might not be applicable. Will reliable talent make any difference looking for secret doors while exploring a ruin? No. Will reliable talent make a difference finding that secret door while being chased by a beholder? Yes.
However, that said, there are a lot of normal circumstances which, I think, should use passive checks first rather than active ones. In addition, the players should never know there was a DC involved if they succeed passively ... the DM just narrates the intensive search/study/effort the character puts in to obtaining the result. The die roll should only be called for if there are circumstances that would prevent success (like DC greater than average or other effects like limited time).
P.S. One of the reasons I think the rules aren't entirely clear on this is because of the time aspect. ONLY the DM can really estimate whether the characters could reasonably have the time needed to take an average success on any task. Every task in D&D is different, different characters, different circumstances ... it is very difficult to establish a hard and fast rule for when to use a passive vs active check so in many cases that is left up to the discretion of the DM. However, perhaps due to the confusion of the meaning of passive and active in the context of checks, many DMs seem to think the passive check applies when the character isn't doing anything ... which could not be farther from the case ... and as a result, lots of folks just choose to leave out passive checks since they don't get the application.
However, this then leads to most things being active checks which due to the roll of the die can easily break the immersion ... characters with proficiency and the stats should be the ones to succeed at tasks that they are good at (assuming a less than average difficulty DC for them) ...not the players who are lucky.
I will apologize in advance, but I am afraid this answer will upset people. I just don't know it how to say it.
There is a LOT of useless hand wringing in this thread about how some "think" the rules work or "want" the rules to work, but they really don't sum up to a usable game.
The basic problem you have been refusing to deal with is the comment:
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
No one has dealt with the huge problem this creates! As I said:
Active perception in combat is the "Search" function AND uses your action. My understanding is you use passive perception first! Then, if no one can find the hiding, invisible etc., you have to spend an action to search. This seems consistent with rules, sage advice, tweets, etc. Rules are clear that active search using active perception is always an action and never a free action. If you want to house rule different, that is fine, but I would never do it. Remember, passive is calculated using plus 10. When you give an active roll as a free action, average is 10.5 and half the time they will roll higher than passive. That really sounds worse to me!!!!
As I said, you can do what you want, but I will never play at your table if I have to use my entire action EVERY round to find the goblin or low level rogue that took hide as a bonus action.
This thread should have a danger warning for new DM's, because "wishing" instead of trying to use RAW certainly teaches a way to DM that I would never want to play under.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
I will apologize in advance, but I am afraid this answer will upset people. I just don't know it how to say it.
There is a LOT of useless hand wringing in this thread about how some "think" the rules work or "want" the rules to work, but they really don't sum up to a usable game.
The basic problem you have been refusing to deal with is the comment:
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
No one has dealt with the huge problem this creates! As I said:
Active perception in combat is the "Search" function AND uses your action. My understanding is you use passive perception first! Then, if no one can find the hiding, invisible etc., you have to spend an action to search. This seems consistent with rules, sage advice, tweets, etc. Rules are clear that active search using active perception is always an action and never a free action. If you want to house rule different, that is fine, but I would never do it. Remember, passive is calculated using plus 10. When you give an active roll as a free action, average is 10.5 and half the time they will roll higher than passive. That really sounds worse to me!!!!
As I said, you can do what you want, but I will never play at your table if I have to use my entire action EVERY round to find the goblin or low level rogue that took hide as a bonus action.
This thread should have a danger warning for new DM's, because "wishing" instead of trying to use RAW certainly teaches a way to DM that I would never want to play under.
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)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
In Lost Mine of Phandelver there is a section on page 20 where it discusses different DCs depending on whether or not the PC is passively or actively searching. Thus, the DC to find something passively can be higher (harder) when the PC is just walking along and not actually trying to notice things.
However, this was not detailed in the DMG, and may be an issue with the Starter Set being created before the RAW were complete for the DMG. Regardless, it is technically "canon" that a DM can set different DCs. This could be used to make it more difficult in general to passively notice things, without it necessarily be a mean way to nerf the PC's choice to specialize in Passive Perception.
It also solves the problem I have with traps and passive perception. If you as the DM are creating or running an adventure, and a trap has a DC of 12 (for example) and you know one or more of the PCs has a passive perception of 12 or higher, why would you ever use that trap?
Quote from mjsoctober>>It also solves the problem I have with traps and passive perception. If you as the DM are creating or running an adventure, and a trap has a DC of 12 (for example) and you know one or more of the PCs has a passive perception of 12 or higher, why would you ever use that trap?
To make the players feel awesome about their characters and their character-building choices?
I feel like GMs getting upset at the character who maxes out his Perception to avoid traps being upset at the character that has a high AC because they don't want to be hit in combat or Dex save & Evasion to avoid AoEs.
Honestly IMHO most traps feel pretty lame, they are environmental damage. They are damage that comes out of nowhere (or as the complaint here is to easily avoided) and slow down play as every door/chest/statue is a rinse and repeat of "I make a Perception check, then an Investigation check for traps and roll Thieves Tools if I discover anything."
The few times I've found them interesting is in a current game because the DM is descriptive about traps. We were walking down the hall, the DM noticed my Druid has a passive Perception of 15 (Wis 16, trained). He says I notice there are hollow slots down both sides of the hall. Now I'm a Int 8 Lizardfolk and really have no idea what that means other then "probably bad". Our Rogue shoves extra shortswords into the slots to block them up. I drop down on all fours and crawl forward... for the inevitable "Only the penitent man will pass." trap.
The other good ones was in a kobold cavern all the traps ONLY effected Medium sized creatures, and our Halfling Bard walked through without issue.
Maybe I'm a bit sour on traps, most of them as a Player feel like "rocks fall" and you end up doing boring stuff to handle them. I always declare my character isn't standing INFRONT of a chest he opens, because they aren't stupid and stand to the side. The same thing is true of door, stand to the side of a door and open it. Mage hand and/or Thaumaturgy invalidates a lot of this. We all want traps to feel like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or the sphinxes in Neverending Story... but they almost never do.
High AC can still be overcome by good dice rolls, even a nat 20 when the AC gets super high, there is always a chance for the opponents to hit.
With a high enough Passive Perception many traps become pointless window dressing because there is no risk, and no potential drama from a failure. Much of the BEST drama in fiction (and life) is born out of failure.
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?
High AC can still be overcome by good dice rolls, even a nat 20 when the AC gets super high, there is always a chance for the opponents to hit.
With a high enough Passive Perception many traps become pointless window dressing because there is no risk, and no potential drama from a failure. Much of the BEST drama in fiction (and life) is born out of failure.
So don't use traps that use passive Perception, use traps that use passive Investigation--or nothing passive at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
High AC can still be overcome by good dice rolls, even a nat 20 when the AC gets super high, there is always a chance for the opponents to hit.
With a high enough Passive Perception many traps become pointless window dressing because there is no risk, and no potential drama from a failure. Much of the BEST drama in fiction (and life) is born out of failure.
Just because you know a trap is there, doesn't mean you will disarm it. Sure you might be able to avoid it, but if it's on the door you're trying to get through you ahve to either set it off or disarm it. Fail at that and you're still getting hit by it, so there is still some risk.
Passive perception required is higher than active perception
Passive to detect a creature was statically set vs a stealth check
Secret door which required an active search.
But, all of these are exceptions, most of the perception checks have no such special requirement. DnD is an exceptions based game. You have a rule, then you have specific things which break the rules, like class features or magic items. So these are valid things to do for individual traps or secret doors. But if you are requiring every single secret door or trap to require an active check. You are obviously avoiding the intent of the feature. Which is fine for your homebrew game as long as you are open and upfront about it. Players like consistency. Even though a DMs job is to make up stuff as it goes, if it actually "feels" like that is what is happening it quickly erodes the sense of player involvement.
And again, if you are suggesting home brew alterations or systems, it should be on the homebrew forum, not the rules and mechanics one. Which should be about the rules that are in the official books.
Remember .. passive and active checks do NOT refer to the character actions at all .. they refer to the player .. an active check requires the player to roll a die while a passive check does not require a player to roll the die.
However, exactly what action the character is taking, and how they are doing it (is the character actively or passively performing an action) MAY affect the DC for the action and may affect the type of check used. For example, for a character that is actively searching the DM could use a passive perception check (the player does not roll dice) to resolve the situation .. while a character that is not paying attention might require an active check (where the player rolls dice).
1) During a 6 second combat round a character is able to take a Search action to discover hidden or secret creatures or objects. This is an active perception check because the character makes a die roll. Out of combat, when the party is moving at a normal pace and the character is actively searching, they COULD be making an active perception die roll every 6 seconds. This is where passive perception comes in .. to save the time required to roll 3 or 4 times every 20s to see if the character perceives whatever is hidden .. instead the average or passive perception check is made. As a result, unless there is a reason why the character is restricted to a 6 second window for their search/watch action, then passive perception should be checked before rolling any active checks.
2) Other passive skills work exactly the same way. The rules specify a search action can be completed in a six second combat round. The rules also give examples of picking a lock or disarming a trap (an arcane trickster rogue can specifically use Mage hand legerdemain to pick locks or disarm traps and can command the hand as a bonus action) also possibly within a combat round of 6 seconds. If the rogue has a minute to pick a lock then making a passive check for lock pick or disarm success may make sense. How long does an indidual investigate action take? If one action is a combat round then having a minute or more for the task might be better represented by checking the passive investigate score first. On the other hand, if the base amount of time for the task is one minute, then having 5 to 10 minutes might be better represented by resolving a passive check first. This is where the DMs judgement comes into play since not all skill based tasks will use the combat round as the base unit of time ... however, ANY skill that a DM does allow to be resolved in a 6 second combat round could and probably should use a passive check against the task DC for out of combat checks.
3) On the topic of traps .. in my opinion these are sometimes fun, fluff items that can make the party move more cautiously. However, any trap that is set up where the characters have the time to look and consider is likely to be found and disarmed .. and should be. Having perceptive characters in the party who are skilled in seeing hidden things, finding and figuring out traps or other puzzles, is a good thing ... the success of a trap is NOT measured in how much damage is done to the characters, how many are killed, how many items are destroyed or damaged ... the success is measured in how much fun the players have figuring it out and coming up with ways to circumvent the trap and then succeeding in doing so. There are some DMs who seem to think the game is DM vs player .. and in my opinion, this isn't the case. The DM provides the world and a setting for fun .. and if that means for certain characters or parties that traps become puzzles to figure out rather than tools to damage the party then that is great.
I disagree with invisible monster because they can still make noise, but I whole heatedly agree with combat being active checks only.
For me, passive perception checks are for when the characters are not actively engaged in another distracting task ( like combat or a in depth conversation).
Actually Jeremy Crawford answered the passive investigation and perception in a podcast. Your passive is the lowest you can “roll.” There may be some characters setup to be super perceptive or amazing investigation, my wizard for one. 19 levels in abjuration and 1 in rogue to have a 33 passive investigation to basically be Sherlock Holmes. As you level up there are investigation rolls I actually have to make, but mostly find traps without having to roll, it’s pretty neat and our DM loves it.
Don’t hamper your players but imposing rules to counteract a certain build. Just come at them differently but let their abilities that they want shine now and then. It’s how they want to play and if they spend the feat and the effort to get their character the way they like, they’ve sacrificed in other areas so don’t hinder that expression of their build.
I think some of the confusion goes away when you stop thinking about character actions. Passive Perception has nothing to do with whatever the character is doing or not doing; it is simply when the player is not rolling a die.
Player has rolled a die? An active check. Player has not rolled a die? A passive check.
Whjy would anyone make checks without rolling a die? Generally for one of two reasons.
First, to save time by not rolling lots of dice rolls. GM: OK, I need a Wisdom\Perception roll for searching the passageway. I think I want a check for each 10 foot square area, and the passage is... half a mile long. Can I have 264 ability check rolls please.
Second, to surprise the player as well as the character.
It is exactly the same as average damage. For example, when a ghast hists someone, we can save time by saying "12 piercing damage" instead of rolling two d8s and adding 3.
Actually Jeremy Crawford answered the passive investigation and perception in a podcast. Your passive is the lowest you can “roll.” There may be some characters setup to be super perceptive or amazing investigation, my wizard for one. 19 levels in abjuration and 1 in rogue to have a 33 passive investigation to basically be Sherlock Holmes. As you level up there are investigation rolls I actually have to make, but mostly find traps without having to roll, it’s pretty neat and our DM loves it.
Don’t hamper your players but imposing rules to counteract a certain build. Just come at them differently but let their abilities that they want shine now and then. It’s how they want to play and if they spend the feat and the effort to get their character the way they like, they’ve sacrificed in other areas so don’t hinder that expression of their build.
Since my last post, I have seen the Dragon Talk video where Jeremy Crawford clarifies passive checks and he's incredibly clear. The passive score is the lowest you can roll. Your perception check cannot be lower. Advantage or disadvantage on a check would change the score by 5 depending on which it is. But the passive score is the base. That is how those checks are intended to be.
…but I will never play at your table if I have to use my entire action EVERY round to find the goblin or low level rogue that took hide as a bonus action.
Would you play at the table if the monsters automatically found your Rogue without the use of any actions every time you used Hide?
I have a problem with how Passive Perception is used in the RAW. I've written about it before (possibly in this thread) but here it is again with my house rules for solving what I see as a problem.
If a PC's Passive Perception (PP from now on) is the lowest that player can ever get whether they make a roll or not, and if the DM is directed to check the party's PPs whenever they are near something important to perceive (like a trap, or secret door, etc), and given that (an assumption here) it is likely that at least one PC will have a PP of at least 10, then as the DM when you are preparing an adventure, or running a published adventure, you are faced with the issue that some things, like traps, will ALWAYS be seen by the party.
For example, the Collapsing Roof and Falling Net traps both have a SPOT DC of 10. Why even bother putting it in the adventure with a DC of 10? The party is almost guaranteed to see it, thus making it rather anti-climactic.
When I have made this argument in the past, many have said "That's not a problem. They see the trap and the fun then becomes avoiding the trap!"
Well, both the traps above are triggered by a trip wire, so this is how it goes, "Okay, you turn the corner of the hallway, and see it continues to stretch away before you. Regdar, you immediately notice a tripwire a few feet down the hall, about 3" off the ground. What do you do?" Regdar isn't a jerk, so he tells his companions about the trip wire. Everyone steps easily over the tripwire, since the DM also is not a jerk, and doesn't require them to make acrobatics checks to step over the wire. The trap is avoided, and is pretty pointless.
Now, the example above is me assuming you're running an official pre-written adventure, because if you, the DM, were writing your own adventure for your players, and you chose to put in a trap your party was guaranteed to avoid, I assume you either made a mistake, or were drinking heavily.
My issues with PP also stem from something in the Starter Set, in the Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure. SPOILERS!!!!.....
In the Redbrand Hideout there are some secret doors. Under the General Features section for that part of the adventures to spot the secret doors the text says this:
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.
According to this text in LMoP, spotting something passively is harder than actively searching for it, the DC is higher. Strangely, there is nothing in the PHB or DMG that says anything about tougher DCs for passively spotting as opposed to actively spotting. Some people have suggested this is because LMoP was written before the core books were finished. Even if that's true, the text of LMoP makes more sense to me. If you aren't really trying to find something, it should be harder to find than when you are really trying!!!
Well the RAW don't support my issues, and many players and DMs don't either. That's fine, you do you.
But if I'm planning my adventure for my PCs knowing that one or more of them are guaranteed to spot any trap or hidden door with a SPOT score between 10 and 15, my choices are to just tell them it's there, and have no risk involved with missing it, or add some randomness to the equation. If I go with the differing DC idea from LMoP, it's still not great because I already know that my PCs can't get lower than their PP, so if I set the PP Spot DC higher than their highest PP score I'm unfairly ensuring they won't see it unless one of them bothers to state tey are searching.
So here's my solution: Stealth Checks for traps and hidden doors. <insert meme animated gif of "you blew my mind" guy>
If the PCs approach an area trapped with a Falling Net trap, I make a Stealth Check for the trap against the highest PP in the party. If the trap succeeds, the party doesn't notice it unless they declare they are searching, at which point the highest PP might get to see it right away.
Determining the Stealth score of the trap or hidden door is easy. Just use the SPOT DC. If the Spot DC is 10, then the trap gets a Stealth check of +0. If the Spot DC is a 15, the Stealth Check is made at +5, and so on. Roll 1d20 and add the trap's stealth score. If the result is the same or higher than the highest PP of the party, the party doesn't notice (unless they declare they are searching). If the result is lower, then the party notice the trap (or secret door).
If anyone in the party declares they are searching, then I can default to the RAW and check to see if their PP beats the spot DC of the trap/door.
I get it, some of you think that a "percepty" class-build should not be penalized. That's fine, like I said, you do you, but I otherwise still cannot wrap my head around the idea of creating an adventure and putting in to it something like a trap that I know the PCs will see and avoid.
…but I will never play at your table if I have to use my entire action EVERY round to find the goblin or low level rogue that took hide as a bonus action.
Would you play at the table if the monsters automatically found your Rogue without the use of any actions every time you used Hide?
If the rogue makes a stealth check and rolls less than the monsters passive perception then absolutely - the hide failed and the monster knows where they are.
If the rogue takes the hide action and they are heavily obscured or can't be seen by the creature (which is required to make the hide check) and if they succeed on the stealth check then they are hidden. If the monster wants to try finding the rogue then they have to spend an action to make a search and roll a perception check higher than the rogues stealth (assuming that the rogue is still heavily obscured or unseen).
If the rogue is visible then no check is needed. You can't be hidden when clearly visible.
I take the all rules are optional approach and just don't use passive checks. I keep track of each character's Perception and roll a d20 and compare the check to the DC. If they find the thing then I tell them. If the don't find the thing then I don't. I also roll dice behind the screen for no reason at all just to keep the players guessing. Give me something to do while they over plan their next move.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wouldn't be harsh on people for missing this. The developers were NOT explicit nor clear.
I can say my favorite rule from 3.5 that I thought was gone in 5e was "Taking a 10". Passive score *is* taking a 10.
Honestly, until I listened that podcast I didn't think passive applied to anything but perception/investigation/insight. As a player I was so #%*@ sick of being proficient, and having a good bonus, but lady luck !#@%ing me in the @*#. In 3.5e, I started taking a 10 on almost every roll or 20 if we had a time and failure wasn't awful and the the 10 failed.
I think you hit the nail on the head, passive works with time. In a dungeon or travelling outside every member of the party is always being alert... unless they declare themselves not to be. Effectively, every turn as you walk you spend your action on Perception... rolling that is stupid.
Do you have only a few turns to find and grab the McGuffin and escape before the guards bust into the room? Then you'll use your Action to make a Perception check.
If you've broken into a room in the dead at night and searching for the McGuffin unhindered? Passive Perception, possibly with DisAdv if you're not using light (it could alert guards).
The same should be true of a knowledge. Is a monster bearing down on you wanting to eat your face? Arcana/History/Nature check to remember what it's weakness are in that moment, but if you have time to think about it... passive.
Are you being chased down a hallway by a boulder like in Indiana Jones? Then Perception to notice the pit trap.
Are you walking down a hallway in a dangerous ruins? Then passive Perception to notice the trap.
I'm actually against the "floor" thing that he wrote about because that is literally a level 11 Rogue power "Reliable Talent". That talent makes any roll of <9= count as a 10 instead, so it's hard to argue that it's automatically the "floor" when there is literally a high level ability that gives you that power.
I think this comes down to the same point some of the posters were making regarding the time and circumstances of the checks.
The circumstances may determine when a passive check should be used. In many situations, the passive check should be the floor. However, the passive check is based on an average result which either requires sufficient time to obtain or a DM who doesn't want to roll die for a particular result. The examples in the post you cited were running down a corridor being chased by a boulder vs. walking down a corridor searching as you go. In the first case, you would make an active check while in the second you would make a passive. However, in the first case, even under time pressure, a rogue with reliable talent would get a minimum of a 10.
Opening a lock being chased by enemies ... reliable talent rogue gets a minimum 10 die roll.
Searching for a hidden door while the guard walks closer ... reliable talent rogue gets a minimum 10.
Disarming a trap with a timer .. rogue gets a minimum 10.
Basically, the reliable talent rogue will always be able to use at least his passive score even under circumstances where the passive check might not be applicable. Will reliable talent make any difference looking for secret doors while exploring a ruin? No. Will reliable talent make a difference finding that secret door while being chased by a beholder? Yes.
However, that said, there are a lot of normal circumstances which, I think, should use passive checks first rather than active ones. In addition, the players should never know there was a DC involved if they succeed passively ... the DM just narrates the intensive search/study/effort the character puts in to obtaining the result. The die roll should only be called for if there are circumstances that would prevent success (like DC greater than average or other effects like limited time).
P.S. One of the reasons I think the rules aren't entirely clear on this is because of the time aspect. ONLY the DM can really estimate whether the characters could reasonably have the time needed to take an average success on any task. Every task in D&D is different, different characters, different circumstances ... it is very difficult to establish a hard and fast rule for when to use a passive vs active check so in many cases that is left up to the discretion of the DM. However, perhaps due to the confusion of the meaning of passive and active in the context of checks, many DMs seem to think the passive check applies when the character isn't doing anything ... which could not be farther from the case ... and as a result, lots of folks just choose to leave out passive checks since they don't get the application.
However, this then leads to most things being active checks which due to the roll of the die can easily break the immersion ... characters with proficiency and the stats should be the ones to succeed at tasks that they are good at (assuming a less than average difficulty DC for them) ...not the players who are lucky.
I will apologize in advance, but I am afraid this answer will upset people. I just don't know it how to say it.
There is a LOT of useless hand wringing in this thread about how some "think" the rules work or "want" the rules to work, but they really don't sum up to a usable game.
The basic problem you have been refusing to deal with is the comment:
No one has dealt with the huge problem this creates! As I said:
As I said, you can do what you want, but I will never play at your table if I have to use my entire action EVERY round to find the goblin or low level rogue that took hide as a bonus action.
This thread should have a danger warning for new DM's, because "wishing" instead of trying to use RAW certainly teaches a way to DM that I would never want to play under.
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
In Lost Mine of Phandelver there is a section on page 20 where it discusses different DCs depending on whether or not the PC is passively or actively searching. Thus, the DC to find something passively can be higher (harder) when the PC is just walking along and not actually trying to notice things.
However, this was not detailed in the DMG, and may be an issue with the Starter Set being created before the RAW were complete for the DMG. Regardless, it is technically "canon" that a DM can set different DCs. This could be used to make it more difficult in general to passively notice things, without it necessarily be a mean way to nerf the PC's choice to specialize in Passive Perception.
It also solves the problem I have with traps and passive perception. If you as the DM are creating or running an adventure, and a trap has a DC of 12 (for example) and you know one or more of the PCs has a passive perception of 12 or higher, why would you ever use that trap?
Anyway, here is a discussion of this topic that may be helpful. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/95751/can-passive-and-active-perception-dcs-be-different
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?
I feel like GMs getting upset at the character who maxes out his Perception to avoid traps being upset at the character that has a high AC because they don't want to be hit in combat or Dex save & Evasion to avoid AoEs.
Honestly IMHO most traps feel pretty lame, they are environmental damage. They are damage that comes out of nowhere (or as the complaint here is to easily avoided) and slow down play as every door/chest/statue is a rinse and repeat of "I make a Perception check, then an Investigation check for traps and roll Thieves Tools if I discover anything."
The few times I've found them interesting is in a current game because the DM is descriptive about traps. We were walking down the hall, the DM noticed my Druid has a passive Perception of 15 (Wis 16, trained). He says I notice there are hollow slots down both sides of the hall. Now I'm a Int 8 Lizardfolk and really have no idea what that means other then "probably bad". Our Rogue shoves extra shortswords into the slots to block them up. I drop down on all fours and crawl forward... for the inevitable "Only the penitent man will pass." trap.
The other good ones was in a kobold cavern all the traps ONLY effected Medium sized creatures, and our Halfling Bard walked through without issue.
Maybe I'm a bit sour on traps, most of them as a Player feel like "rocks fall" and you end up doing boring stuff to handle them. I always declare my character isn't standing INFRONT of a chest he opens, because they aren't stupid and stand to the side. The same thing is true of door, stand to the side of a door and open it. Mage hand and/or Thaumaturgy invalidates a lot of this.
We all want traps to feel like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or the sphinxes in Neverending Story... but they almost never do.
High AC can still be overcome by good dice rolls, even a nat 20 when the AC gets super high, there is always a chance for the opponents to hit.
With a high enough Passive Perception many traps become pointless window dressing because there is no risk, and no potential drama from a failure. Much of the BEST drama in fiction (and life) is born out of failure.
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?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Curse of Strahd has instances of:
Passive perception required is higher than active perception
Passive to detect a creature was statically set vs a stealth check
Secret door which required an active search.
But, all of these are exceptions, most of the perception checks have no such special requirement. DnD is an exceptions based game. You have a rule, then you have specific things which break the rules, like class features or magic items. So these are valid things to do for individual traps or secret doors. But if you are requiring every single secret door or trap to require an active check. You are obviously avoiding the intent of the feature. Which is fine for your homebrew game as long as you are open and upfront about it. Players like consistency. Even though a DMs job is to make up stuff as it goes, if it actually "feels" like that is what is happening it quickly erodes the sense of player involvement.
And again, if you are suggesting home brew alterations or systems, it should be on the homebrew forum, not the rules and mechanics one. Which should be about the rules that are in the official books.
Some comments ..
Remember .. passive and active checks do NOT refer to the character actions at all .. they refer to the player .. an active check requires the player to roll a die while a passive check does not require a player to roll the die.
However, exactly what action the character is taking, and how they are doing it (is the character actively or passively performing an action) MAY affect the DC for the action and may affect the type of check used. For example, for a character that is actively searching the DM could use a passive perception check (the player does not roll dice) to resolve the situation .. while a character that is not paying attention might require an active check (where the player rolls dice).
1) During a 6 second combat round a character is able to take a Search action to discover hidden or secret creatures or objects. This is an active perception check because the character makes a die roll. Out of combat, when the party is moving at a normal pace and the character is actively searching, they COULD be making an active perception die roll every 6 seconds. This is where passive perception comes in .. to save the time required to roll 3 or 4 times every 20s to see if the character perceives whatever is hidden .. instead the average or passive perception check is made. As a result, unless there is a reason why the character is restricted to a 6 second window for their search/watch action, then passive perception should be checked before rolling any active checks.
2) Other passive skills work exactly the same way. The rules specify a search action can be completed in a six second combat round. The rules also give examples of picking a lock or disarming a trap (an arcane trickster rogue can specifically use Mage hand legerdemain to pick locks or disarm traps and can command the hand as a bonus action) also possibly within a combat round of 6 seconds. If the rogue has a minute to pick a lock then making a passive check for lock pick or disarm success may make sense. How long does an indidual investigate action take? If one action is a combat round then having a minute or more for the task might be better represented by checking the passive investigate score first. On the other hand, if the base amount of time for the task is one minute, then having 5 to 10 minutes might be better represented by resolving a passive check first. This is where the DMs judgement comes into play since not all skill based tasks will use the combat round as the base unit of time ... however, ANY skill that a DM does allow to be resolved in a 6 second combat round could and probably should use a passive check against the task DC for out of combat checks.
3) On the topic of traps .. in my opinion these are sometimes fun, fluff items that can make the party move more cautiously. However, any trap that is set up where the characters have the time to look and consider is likely to be found and disarmed .. and should be. Having perceptive characters in the party who are skilled in seeing hidden things, finding and figuring out traps or other puzzles, is a good thing ... the success of a trap is NOT measured in how much damage is done to the characters, how many are killed, how many items are destroyed or damaged ... the success is measured in how much fun the players have figuring it out and coming up with ways to circumvent the trap and then succeeding in doing so. There are some DMs who seem to think the game is DM vs player .. and in my opinion, this isn't the case. The DM provides the world and a setting for fun .. and if that means for certain characters or parties that traps become puzzles to figure out rather than tools to damage the party then that is great.
I disagree with invisible monster because they can still make noise, but I whole heatedly agree with combat being active checks only.
For me, passive perception checks are for when the characters are not actively engaged in another distracting task ( like combat or a in depth conversation).
Actually Jeremy Crawford answered the passive investigation and perception in a podcast. Your passive is the lowest you can “roll.” There may be some characters setup to be super perceptive or amazing investigation, my wizard for one. 19 levels in abjuration and 1 in rogue to have a 33 passive investigation to basically be Sherlock Holmes. As you level up there are investigation rolls I actually have to make, but mostly find traps without having to roll, it’s pretty neat and our DM loves it.
Don’t hamper your players but imposing rules to counteract a certain build. Just come at them differently but let their abilities that they want shine now and then. It’s how they want to play and if they spend the feat and the effort to get their character the way they like, they’ve sacrificed in other areas so don’t hinder that expression of their build.
I think some of the confusion goes away when you stop thinking about character actions. Passive Perception has nothing to do with whatever the character is doing or not doing; it is simply when the player is not rolling a die.
Player has rolled a die? An active check.
Player has not rolled a die? A passive check.
Whjy would anyone make checks without rolling a die? Generally for one of two reasons.
First, to save time by not rolling lots of dice rolls. GM: OK, I need a Wisdom\Perception roll for searching the passageway. I think I want a check for each 10 foot square area, and the passage is... half a mile long. Can I have 264 ability check rolls please.
Second, to surprise the player as well as the character.
It is exactly the same as average damage. For example, when a ghast hists someone, we can save time by saying "12 piercing damage" instead of rolling two d8s and adding 3.
Since my last post, I have seen the Dragon Talk video where Jeremy Crawford clarifies passive checks and he's incredibly clear. The passive score is the lowest you can roll. Your perception check cannot be lower. Advantage or disadvantage on a check would change the score by 5 depending on which it is. But the passive score is the base. That is how those checks are intended to be.
Would you play at the table if the monsters automatically found your Rogue without the use of any actions every time you used Hide?
I have a problem with how Passive Perception is used in the RAW. I've written about it before (possibly in this thread) but here it is again with my house rules for solving what I see as a problem.
If a PC's Passive Perception (PP from now on) is the lowest that player can ever get whether they make a roll or not, and if the DM is directed to check the party's PPs whenever they are near something important to perceive (like a trap, or secret door, etc), and given that (an assumption here) it is likely that at least one PC will have a PP of at least 10, then as the DM when you are preparing an adventure, or running a published adventure, you are faced with the issue that some things, like traps, will ALWAYS be seen by the party.
For example, the Collapsing Roof and Falling Net traps both have a SPOT DC of 10. Why even bother putting it in the adventure with a DC of 10? The party is almost guaranteed to see it, thus making it rather anti-climactic.
When I have made this argument in the past, many have said "That's not a problem. They see the trap and the fun then becomes avoiding the trap!"
Well, both the traps above are triggered by a trip wire, so this is how it goes, "Okay, you turn the corner of the hallway, and see it continues to stretch away before you. Regdar, you immediately notice a tripwire a few feet down the hall, about 3" off the ground. What do you do?" Regdar isn't a jerk, so he tells his companions about the trip wire. Everyone steps easily over the tripwire, since the DM also is not a jerk, and doesn't require them to make acrobatics checks to step over the wire. The trap is avoided, and is pretty pointless.
Now, the example above is me assuming you're running an official pre-written adventure, because if you, the DM, were writing your own adventure for your players, and you chose to put in a trap your party was guaranteed to avoid, I assume you either made a mistake, or were drinking heavily.
My issues with PP also stem from something in the Starter Set, in the Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure. SPOILERS!!!!.....
In the Redbrand Hideout there are some secret doors. Under the General Features section for that part of the adventures to spot the secret doors the text says this:
According to this text in LMoP, spotting something passively is harder than actively searching for it, the DC is higher. Strangely, there is nothing in the PHB or DMG that says anything about tougher DCs for passively spotting as opposed to actively spotting. Some people have suggested this is because LMoP was written before the core books were finished. Even if that's true, the text of LMoP makes more sense to me. If you aren't really trying to find something, it should be harder to find than when you are really trying!!!
Well the RAW don't support my issues, and many players and DMs don't either. That's fine, you do you.
But if I'm planning my adventure for my PCs knowing that one or more of them are guaranteed to spot any trap or hidden door with a SPOT score between 10 and 15, my choices are to just tell them it's there, and have no risk involved with missing it, or add some randomness to the equation. If I go with the differing DC idea from LMoP, it's still not great because I already know that my PCs can't get lower than their PP, so if I set the PP Spot DC higher than their highest PP score I'm unfairly ensuring they won't see it unless one of them bothers to state tey are searching.
So here's my solution: Stealth Checks for traps and hidden doors. <insert meme animated gif of "you blew my mind" guy>
If the PCs approach an area trapped with a Falling Net trap, I make a Stealth Check for the trap against the highest PP in the party. If the trap succeeds, the party doesn't notice it unless they declare they are searching, at which point the highest PP might get to see it right away.
Determining the Stealth score of the trap or hidden door is easy. Just use the SPOT DC. If the Spot DC is 10, then the trap gets a Stealth check of +0. If the Spot DC is a 15, the Stealth Check is made at +5, and so on. Roll 1d20 and add the trap's stealth score. If the result is the same or higher than the highest PP of the party, the party doesn't notice (unless they declare they are searching). If the result is lower, then the party notice the trap (or secret door).
If anyone in the party declares they are searching, then I can default to the RAW and check to see if their PP beats the spot DC of the trap/door.
I get it, some of you think that a "percepty" class-build should not be penalized. That's fine, like I said, you do you, but I otherwise still cannot wrap my head around the idea of creating an adventure and putting in to it something like a trap that I know the PCs will see and avoid.
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 the rogue makes a stealth check and rolls less than the monsters passive perception then absolutely - the hide failed and the monster knows where they are.
If the rogue takes the hide action and they are heavily obscured or can't be seen by the creature (which is required to make the hide check) and if they succeed on the stealth check then they are hidden. If the monster wants to try finding the rogue then they have to spend an action to make a search and roll a perception check higher than the rogues stealth (assuming that the rogue is still heavily obscured or unseen).
If the rogue is visible then no check is needed. You can't be hidden when clearly visible.
I take the all rules are optional approach and just don't use passive checks. I keep track of each character's Perception and roll a d20 and compare the check to the DC. If they find the thing then I tell them. If the don't find the thing then I don't. I also roll dice behind the screen for no reason at all just to keep the players guessing. Give me something to do while they over plan their next move.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master