Is passive perception always on?

I mean, my solution to 5.5e stealth is to use 5e rules -- yes, they're far more dependent on the DM's rulings about when circumstances are appropriate for stealth, but I'd rather have an explicit DM's call than incomprehensible rules.

While taking the Search action let you make a Wisdom (Perception) check, it's not a neccessity. You can make one without taking the Search action.

How often DM ask player characters for a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice something?

Sometimes, asking players to make Wisdom (Perception) checks for their characters tips them off that there's something they should be searching for, giving them a clue you'd rather they didn't have. In those circumstances, use characters' Passive Perception scores instead.

I've been mulling this over for a bit now, and the passage "Sometimes..." is just not sitting well with me. Let's start with the primary assumption of how the game is meant to be played: Players describe their character's actions (lower case, general, descriptive actions), and the DM narrates the outcomes, sometimes calling for checks.

If this assumption is incorrect, then you can tell me why and ignore the rest of this post.

However, if that's true, then I don't really understand how that "Sometimes..." passage ever comes into play. If they players are not describing that they are searching for something, then why would you, as a DM, call for an active check? If you don't, then you are already not tipping off your players that "there's something they should be searching for". However, if the players are already saying they are performing actions that would reasonably cause a DM to call for a Perception Roll, then you are already past the point where tipping them off would change their actions.

It seems that the passage assumes that the game is actually played differently to how they meant it to be played. That, without a players actually describing their character as searching for anything, a DM might call for a Perception Roll, and if they don't want to tip their hand, they can fall back on Passive Perception. But that puts Passive Perception not in a position of stopping information for being given to players, but of actually doing so—when PP is high enough to actually notice something. The way the "Sometimes..." passage is written is counter to itself. You use PP to give the players information without them rolling, not to deny them information by calling for a check the players never described actions requiring.

Quote from sabin76 >>

However, if that's true, then I don't really understand how that "Sometimes..." passage ever comes into play. If they players are not describing that they are searching for something, then why would you, as a DM, call for an active check?

Because it's a way to smooth out gameplay. If you're exploring a dungeon, having the players call out "I listen at the door" at every door, and "I search the room" every time they find a new room (or worse, search for traps every 10' in a corridor), rapidly gets tedious and annoying, so you assume they're taking an average level of caution all the time.

Quote from sabin76 >>

I've been mulling this over for a bit now, and the passage "Sometimes..." is just not sitting well with me. Let's start with the primary assumption of how the game is meant to be played: Players describe their character's actions (lower case, general, descriptive actions), and the DM narrates the outcomes, sometimes calling for checks.

If this assumption is incorrect, then you can tell me why and ignore the rest of this post.

However, if that's true, then I don't really understand how that "Sometimes..." passage ever comes into play. If they players are not describing that they are searching for something, then why would you, as a DM, call for an active check? If you don't, then you are already not tipping off your players that "there's something they should be searching for". However, if the players are already saying they are performing actions that would reasonably cause a DM to call for a Perception Roll, then you are already past the point where tipping them off would change their actions.

It seems that the passage assumes that the game is actually played differently to how they meant it to be played. That, without a players actually describing their character as searching for anything, a DM might call for a Perception Roll, and if they don't want to tip their hand, they can fall back on Passive Perception. But that puts Passive Perception not in a position of stopping information for being given to players, but of actually doing so—when PP is high enough to actually notice something. The way the "Sometimes..." passage is written is counter to itself. You use PP to give the players information without them rolling, not to deny them information by calling for a check the players never described actions requiring.

DUUUUDE! Thats what ive been saying!

If theyre searching, have them roll and use that.

If theyre not searching then their powers of observation should NOT be the average score they would get if theyre searching and ROLLED.

so passive should be lower.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"Sometimes, asking players to make Wisdom (Perception) checks for their characters tips them off .... In those circumstances, use characters' Passive Perception scores instead."

Thats an optional rule dm's MAY employ. If dm wants to withhold information from players, the dm MAY use passive perception instead of revealing information by asking for a perception check.

The rule is optional. The dm may follow it if they wish. Nothing in the wording of the rule says passive perception MUST be an always on measure that the dm is required to use at all times.

No, "may" is not in the rules, but again, the rule being quoted is an optional rule.  

Although a few folks have made this argument in this thread, this is simply incorrect.  It's not even ambiguous.

This text is NOT describing a situation where this rule could be applied and "sometimes" the DM will apply the rule.

No.

This text follows a previous paragraph which basically says that when a creature hides, other creatures can always search for it.  Then it basically says, but "sometimes" other creatures won't know to search for anything.  In those circumstances, use characters' Passive Perception scores instead [every time, NOT sometimes].

That's written in the style of an instruction, not a suggestion.  It's clear and it's not ambiguous.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Hiding/percieving a hiding enemy is not applicable to "avoiding tipping off the players". 

 

It absolutely is.

There are generally two scenarios that come up often in the game:

In one case, you are already in combat, you are aware of the combatants and one of them Hides.  In this case, the DM doesn't have to worry about tipping off players.  If they want to search, they can search.  They know that there is something that can be found.  In this case, they would have to search because Passive Perception has already failed when the creature successfully hid.

In the second case, you are out of combat, and you are not aware of any potential combatants.  They are setting up an ambush in advance.  In this case, the DM does not want to tip off the players.  When the hidden creatures are about to spring the ambush, the DM checks Passive Perception to see if they are surprised.  In this case, there is no reason for the players / characters to declare that they are searching for anything.  The only realistic way that they should be able to spot this ambush is via Passive Perception unless there is some special highly suspicious narrative going on or whatever.

Please keep in mind that I am well aware that most likely a vast majority of games are not actually run this way.  When I watch other people play online, even with highly "experienced" groups, it is amazing how often the DM will stroke his chin and then say, completely out of the blue, "Hmmmmm, ok player . . . make a Perception check please".  By the RAW, this should literally NEVER happen.  Yet, people play like this all the time, which is fine of course.  Dice rolling is fun after all.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

And none of the rules you are quoting clearly state that passive perception is something that the dm must always apply as a counter to an enemy in the area hiding or attemtpting to hide.

 

Sure, they do.  The hide action provides a mechanism for finding a hidden creature with a Wisdom (Perception) check -- Passive Perception IS one such check.  Furthermore, the rules state that sometimes a creature won't actively search.  "In those circumstances, use characters' Passive Perception scores instead."  Why Passive Perception?  Because "Passive Perception is a score that reflects a creature’s general awareness of its surroundings. The DM uses this score when determining whether a creature notices something without consciously making a Wisdom (Perception) check".

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

So copying and pasting the rules again, probably isnt going to change anything. 

I mean, honestly if people quoting the rules verbatim from the text bothers you for some reason, then you might be in the wrong place.  This is the Rules and Mechanics forum and quoting the rules is the main way to let other folks know what the rules actually say.  

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

But you are absolutely, positively, without a doubt certain that your interpration is correct, and the only possible way that you can imagine that someone would disagree with your "overwhelming evidence" is if they dont understand your logic.

Yes, in this particular case that is true.  In general, I will say that the rules do suffer from ambiguity in many places.  This just isn't one of them.  Ambiguity really isn't the problem when it comes to the Hide mechanics.  The main problem, both in the 2014 and 2024 versions, is that the mechanic is spread out across more than a half dozen different places and across multiple books.  It's a bit of a project for the reader to really get the full picture from the text.  The information is all there, but it's not easily digestible.  

Quote from Natrel >>

At my table, you have to both succeed the 15DC check and beat their passive perception. If you beat the 15, congrats, you've done a proper job at concealing yourself. Your foot doesn't show up from behind that wall, you don't make a visible bump behind that curtain, you've properly wrapped your entire body inside your Nature's Mantle. But if you don't beat their passive perception, they notice subtle movements that you make, their hear your leather armor squeaking, they notice subtle reflections of light onto your Mantle... and they find you. That's what makes sense to me.

Bingo.

Quote from sabin76 >>

If they players are not describing that they are searching for something, then why would you, as a DM, call for an active check? If you don't, then you are already not tipping off your players that "there's something they should be searching for". However, if the players are already saying they are performing actions that would reasonably cause a DM to call for a Perception Roll, then you are already past the point where tipping them off would change their actions.

Yes!  I agree with this.  Why indeed would you call for an active check when nothing active is happening?

Quote from sabin76 >>

It seems that the passage assumes that the game is actually played differently to how they meant it to be played. That, without a players actually describing their character as searching for anything, a DM might call for a Perception Roll, and if they don't want to tip their hand, they can fall back on Passive Perception. But that puts Passive Perception not in a position of stopping information for being given to players, but of actually doing so—when PP is high enough to actually notice something. The way the "Sometimes..." passage is written is counter to itself. You use PP to give the players information without them rolling, not to deny them information by calling for a check the players never described actions requiring.

No, that's not what that text is saying.  The first paragraph is saying that a creature can always be found with the Perception skill -- finding a hidden creature is never an auto-success or an auto-fail.  This first paragraph is also written from a point of view that it's known that a creature took the Hide action.  In such cases, an obvious response might be to search for it.  But "sometimes" there might be a situation where there is no way to know to search for a hidden creature and in general the DM should not tip off the players in those cases.  That's when Passive Perception is used.  Really, a DM should never call for an active roll when the players have not declared that they are searching for something.  Doing so would tip off the players and doing so also just doesn't make sense.  Active rolls adjudicate actions.  It's not that the DM "can fall back on" using Passive Perception if they don't want to tip something off.  Instead, sometimes there might be something that can be found but the characters are not searching.  In which case we don't want to tip them off.  In those circumstances, use characters’ Passive Perception scores instead.

In addition, Passive Perception is NOT about providing information.  It's about achieving exactly the same result that an active Perception check would achieve.  The active and passive versions are BOTH Wisdom (Perception) checks.  The consequence of a success is the same in both cases, and the consequence of a failure is the same in both cases.  It's NOT a two-step process.  You do NOT say something like "Ok, because you have a high Passive Perception, you notice that there's something over there.  Now, roll a Perception check."  Again, I'm aware that a great many tables do play that way, but that's not what is intended.  Instead, Passive Perception is used to attempt to actually notice (find) the thing in the same manner that a successful active check might actually notice (find) the thing.

For example, you are walking down the road, and the goblins have previously set up an ambush.  The DM does NOT tip off the players by asking for a Perception check.  Instead, the DM uses Passive Perception.  If that fails, then the players and the characters STILL have NOT been tipped off.  The result is that combat starts and the characters are surprised.  On the other hand, if Passive Perception succeeds, then the goblins are found right then and there and combat starts without surprise.

Instead, sometimes there might be something that can be found but the characters are not searching.  In which case we don't want to tip them off.  In those circumstances, use characters’ Passive Perception scores instead.

You (mostly) had me until here. This uses the same language, and therefore the same logic as the passage itself. The problem is that this is all "behind the screen" as it were. You use PP to not tip the players off that there's something to search for, and yet, the only thing you do as a DM with that is give the players information if their PP is high enough. If not, you don't say anything, which is the same as not using their PP in the first place. If played "correctly" you never actually "tip off" your players whether you use PP or not. In what way of playing the game by the rules would a DM ever "tip off" their players? Again, it just feels like that whole passage assumes that people don't play the way the game is written. In other words, the way you are describing the use of PP doesn't actually have anything to do with the rules' "rationale" for using PP.

Because it's a way to smooth out gameplay. If you're exploring a dungeon, having the players call out "I listen at the door" at every door, and "I search the room" every time they find a new room (or worse, search for traps every 10' in a corridor), rapidly gets tedious and annoying, so you assume they're taking an average level of caution all the time.

I actually think I might use "subtle rolls" for something like this. As a DM I can shut down the endless "I search!" loop pretty easily. What's harder is players metagaming when the first person who rolls gets a low number and everyone sees it. I watched a video recently that talked about "subtle rolls" where the players rolls, but never sees the result of their roll. I do, as the DM, and narrate the result, but the players are none-the-wiser about what number actually showed up. In essence, they roll behind my screen whenever their characters would have no way of knowing whether they "failed" a roll or not.

DUUUUDE! Thats what ive been saying!

 

If theyre searching, have them roll and use that.

If theyre not searching then their powers of observation should NOT be the average score they would get if theyre searching and ROLLED.

so passive should be lower.

I didn't quite come to the conclusion you did at the end, though you certainly have given me something to think about in that regard. All I was saying is that that particular passage seems to be logically self-defeating (mechanically, it can be made to work). The "reason" for Passive Perception doesn't line up with how it seems to be used as written.