I've been reading up on Passive rules and I was wondering if Passive Perception is only for noticing creatures or can a person notice traps as well? I'm looking at some published adventure for lower lever players and that 10 DC traps seem awful easy to notice without much effort of concern when the average passive perception of the party is 12.
My personal rule is that for any task with a risk of meaningful failure, someone always has to do a roll. I never compare two static numbers to one another. Since traps (almost?) always set some DC to notice them, that means I would (almost?) never use passive perception to notice them.
Passive perception is not always-on radar, or a floor for active checks. It's a stand-in for Perception rolls, which should be used by the DM to represent the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
Walking through a dungeon without looking for traps? No passive perception.
Walking through a dungeon looking for traps, reminding the DM every time you enter a new room? DM can periodically ask for active Perception rolls each time you bug them (which very well may result in you rolling lower than your passive score), or can cut down on the need to constantly do that by saying "OK, you're using your passive perception score as you're constantly looking for traps." Even then though, I'd encourage that DM to ask "well how are you looking for traps?", leaving open the possibility that their passive perception ("scanning the floors for raised stones or trip wires") may not be relevant to a specific trap's warning signs (scorch marks around dark holes in the ceiling ahead).
I've been reading up on Passive rules and I was wondering if Passive Perception is only for noticing creatures or can a person notice traps as well? I'm looking at some published adventure for lower lever players and that 10 DC traps seem awful easy to notice without much effort of concern when the average passive perception of the party is 12.
There has been several threads about passive checks lately, and you'll find varying answers to this question. The DMG states to roll for active checks, or you can use passive perception. But since your question is on published adventures, it's very simple: Passive perception is considered "always on" in published adventures. Almost every trap, secret door, etc in published adventures state that they can be noticed passively. This is due to the assumption (stated in the DMG) that some part of a secret door or trap can be seen/noticed without actively looking for it. There are a few that have specific guidelines mentioned, like the ToA traps that are covered in mud. Can't be seen passively, and any active search is done with disadvantage. (But these are rare exceptions)
If you are homebrewing, you can use whichever method you want, but if you are using a published adventures I'd advise sticking with the method they use, which is that passive will detect regardless of if a PC is actively looking. I know in another thread that you'll be doing ToA soon, and in there it tells you exactly how each thing will be noticed. (Including specific situations to notice doors in the dungeon in Omu, like only being able to notice it if within 5ft)
To your question on a DC10, those are included in adventures early specifically because they are so easy to see. It basically is a way to teach new players that traps are a thing to look out for. "You noticed this one because it wasn't very well hidden, but the well made traps are harder to spot" would be the DM sidebar/take-away for the group.
I like passive Perception for trap spotting because I have noticed that active trap searching makes players delusional and they begin to inspect every hallway, door and chest just in case.
It has come up in a game recently, so guess I am unfortunately going to rant slightly.
While in general I like the idea of passive checks, I think my issue comes with the execution in the system, especially with traps, but it can be applied to other situations I'm sure. Normal traps (outlined in the DMG) have a set difficulty to notice them, often Wisdom(Perception) but sometimes Intelligence(Investigation) or rarely Intelligence(Arcana), but it never goes up, it's completely static regardless of level, and the normal DC is 10-15 with an occasional 20. The DC to avoid the trap, or the attack roll of the trap, along with damage all go up, but the TN to notice it stays the same. The feat Observant gives a +5 to the passive perception and investigation, making traps almost completely revealed all the time. Not to mention if someone really wants to build for traps, even at low level (1st to 4th depending on race), if the rogue takes training in the two skills in question, then observant feat, then has let's say even just a +1 from each attribute involved, that makes their passive traits 18s (could be 20s if they use expertise for one/both skills). This while at the same time their regular perception/investigation is relatively lower (they would essentially need to roll a 15 on the die just to equal what they get passively), and that honestly doesn't really make sense to me. If you're just wandering around normally paying no particular attention you notice everything, but when you stop and look you become less observant? Might just be my opinion, but I think they didn't quite complete the logic circuit for this.
Traps are investigation. Your passive scores are basically the lowest you can "roll" with investigation and perception. There is some debate between people who use passive and those who don't, but there is a nice video where Crawford spells it out in detail on those passive scores. Just like if you intend to sneak past someone your stealth needs to beat their passive perception, a trap has to be well enough made and hidden to beat someone's passive investigation. Observant can make passives pretty insane and then couple them with expertise and it's really bad lol.
Passive Perception is to notice something amiss. Active Investigation is to find the trap that triggered the nervous Passive Perception alarm.
An example of Passive Investigation would be like: These weird Demon tracks with ash residue were probably made when the creature entered the house from the chimney.
The Basic Rules say:
FINDING A HIDDEN OBJECT
When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.
In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.
Funny thing is that the Investigation skill says:
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Traps are investigation. Your passive scores are basically the lowest you can "roll" with investigation and perception. There is some debate between people who use passive and those who don't, but there is a nice video where Crawford spells it out in detail on those passive scores. Just like if you intend to sneak past someone your stealth needs to beat their passive perception, a trap has to be well enough made and hidden to beat someone's passive investigation. Observant can make passives pretty insane and then couple them with expertise and it's really bad lol.
The DMG is pretty clear on this, even though for some reason people tend to veer towards Investigation all the time. There's nowhere in the Rule Book saying Investigation replaces Perception. The skills do different things. Perception is noticing, Investigation is reasoning. You can't see anything with Investigation, you can only deduce it is there based on what you *can* notice, whether visually or otherwise. So, no, Traps are *not* investigation, they are both. You can *see* or *hear* or *feel* concealed objects, and you can also deduce they are there. It's all in the book. Read it, folks.
As for passives, yes, they can notice Traps, Concealed Doors, and etc, but not *all* of the types. Pits, for example, in the DMG have no mention of being noticeable by Passive Perception, so you probably have to be actively looking.
I deal with high passive perception characters by always actively asking them if they are doing something, or noticing something specific somewhere. If you can distract your players in some manner, you can justify having them miss a spot. You can also deal with it by forcing a marching order that does not seem to benefit from having that particular character up front. In any case, you always have to adjust to your specific PC characters, and if their passives are way too high, not only let them enjoy those choices by making them feel skilled and powerful, but also, whenever you have to, up those DCs. You're the DM.
14 Wis and Int with the Observant feat and expertise gives one of my players 21 Passive Perc and Investigation at 1st level without really breaking much of a sweat. That's potentially an easy button for noticing just about anything and everything.
I see in general 3 possible ways to handle it:
Let it be an easy button and basically let the character be a walking klaxon for anything that might be of interest to the party, or
Incorporate consideration for range and movement speed into passive check DCs...a trap 5 feet away is much easier to see than at 30 feet, unless of course you're walking full speed past it..., or
Choose to interpret passive checks as a very general and typically somewhat ambiguous thing...like a "gut feeling", that would trigger a GM-requested active check, which upon success would give specific info about whatever it is that caused that gut feeling...for example <<<passive check succeeds and the DM says "you just noticed an odd whiff of sulphur in the air. Give me a perception check"...and if the active check fails..."you look around the walls, floor and ceiling nearest you but don't see any potential source"...but if the active check succeeds..."as you're glancing around, you catch a strange discoloration on the stones of the wall to the right, directly across from a neatly hidden opening on the left wall with clear burn marks around it. It appears to be some sort of fire-based trap!">>>
So far, I haven't seen anything in the official source material that makes any of these approaches right, wrong, better, worse, or anything other than reasonable possibilities dependent on the preference of the DM.
Personally I'd say the biggest difference in effect between passive and active checks is time-saving vs accuracy.
If a player tells me they want to look for traps over a longer period of time, I'd ask how detailed they want to be. If they want to look at every detail, I'll have them roll an active check, and let them know covering 5 feet will take a minute (approximately). If they want to go any faster but still keeping an eye out for traps, I'd make use of their passive perception.
Passive perception is not always-on radar, or a floor for active checks. It's a stand-in for Perception rolls, which should be used by the DM to represent the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
I know this is an old post but just sharing the following quote for others in general (it was mentiomed above but not shared directly).
As for the quote passive perception is functionally a floor, and what is used for repeated checks and the like.
“Passive perception is on whenever you’re conscious and aware.”
“It’s always on–that’s the baseline. Now, this brings up questions because then people were saying, ‘how it is when I make an active perception check I might get a roll that’s lower?’ Well, you aren’t. Yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is always on. So it really represents the floor of your perception.”
“If you make an active perception check, and get a number that’s lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You’re still going to notice something that blips onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you’re rolling to see, ‘can I get a higher number?’ If you fail to, your passive perception is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum.”
Passive perception is not always-on radar, or a floor for active checks. It's a stand-in for Perception rolls, which should be used by the DM to represent the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
I know this is an old post but just sharing the following quote for others in general (it was mentiomed above but not shared directly).
As for the quote passive perception is functionally a floor, and what is used for repeated checks and the like.
“Passive perception is on whenever you’re conscious and aware.”
“It’s always on–that’s the baseline. Now, this brings up questions because then people were saying, ‘how it is when I make an active perception check I might get a roll that’s lower?’ Well, you aren’t. Yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is always on. So it really represents the floor of your perception.”
“If you make an active perception check, and get a number that’s lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You’re still going to notice something that blips onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you’re rolling to see, ‘can I get a higher number?’ If you fail to, your passive perception is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum.”
Even though the "baseline" is that passive perception is always "turned on", it is not always the case as others mention above. If anyone does anything other than keeping an eye on potential dangers around them, they do not contribute with their passive perception.
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.
Passive Perception being used a baseline is not a rule but more or a suggested guideline from the Devs. Nowhere do rulebooks mention that AFAIK.
On the contrary, passive check is a special kind of dieless ability check that can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something. Can is the keyword.
A DM could solely rely on active checks and the game would still run fine. Or use passive checks from time to time when suggested in rulebook or adventure. But never does one have to always use it as minimum threshold for active check.
I tend to see passive scores used when it's quicker for the DM to roll the required number of times, rather than for everyone else to do it. They do however make a lot of sense for things like keeping watch, or methodically (rather than quickly) searching a room and so-on.
For example, when searching a room the DM could just roll once to see how well hidden something is, rather than asking everyone to roll Investigation or Perception; if anyone has a passive perception higher than the difficulty roll, then they find it.
Really it's just a tool in the toolbox, another way of doing things, but it's one that it would be really nice to see more examples of how the developers intended for it to be used in the actual rules themselves (rather than tweets etc.).
How i use it, passive checks are not when characters are passive, but players. Wisdom (Perception) checks can be called upon wether the character are actively trying to search/perceive or don't pay attention.
The choice to not rely on dice rolls to determine such outcome is mainly for metagaming purposes; to save time or not alert players their character's senses may be solicited.
And it can be the case for any other ability checks as well.
Passive Perception being used a baseline is not a rule but more or a suggested guideline from the Devs. Nowhere do rulebooks mention that AFAIK.
Not only is your statement correct, but even beyond that, I don't recall ever seeing PP referred to as a baseline for active checks outside that particular interview. The comment is kind of out of left field.
Passive Perception being used a baseline is not a rule but more or a suggested guideline from the Devs. Nowhere do rulebooks mention that AFAIK.
Not only is your statement correct, but even beyond that, I don't recall ever seeing PP referred to as a baseline for active checks outside that particular interview. The comment is kind of out of left field.
IIRC it was also mentionned once in an article or Sage Advice /Twitter but can't remember where
I cant find it may be i misremember. Anyway why i think this guideline suggestion makes no sense rulewise is because the rulebook presents two ways to mlake a check, mutually exclusive or at least it never mention they can be inclusive of one another. So by the book if you are to make an ability check, you either use passive check or active check. If you opt for passive, you never roll and if you opt for active, you roll and dont use passive.
I've been reading up on Passive rules and I was wondering if Passive Perception is only for noticing creatures or can a person notice traps as well? I'm looking at some published adventure for lower lever players and that 10 DC traps seem awful easy to notice without much effort of concern when the average passive perception of the party is 12.
My personal rule is that for any task with a risk of meaningful failure, someone always has to do a roll. I never compare two static numbers to one another. Since traps (almost?) always set some DC to notice them, that means I would (almost?) never use passive perception to notice them.
Passive perception is not always-on radar, or a floor for active checks. It's a stand-in for Perception rolls, which should be used by the DM to represent the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
Walking through a dungeon without looking for traps? No passive perception.
Walking through a dungeon looking for traps, reminding the DM every time you enter a new room? DM can periodically ask for active Perception rolls each time you bug them (which very well may result in you rolling lower than your passive score), or can cut down on the need to constantly do that by saying "OK, you're using your passive perception score as you're constantly looking for traps." Even then though, I'd encourage that DM to ask "well how are you looking for traps?", leaving open the possibility that their passive perception ("scanning the floors for raised stones or trip wires") may not be relevant to a specific trap's warning signs (scorch marks around dark holes in the ceiling ahead).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There has been several threads about passive checks lately, and you'll find varying answers to this question. The DMG states to roll for active checks, or you can use passive perception. But since your question is on published adventures, it's very simple: Passive perception is considered "always on" in published adventures. Almost every trap, secret door, etc in published adventures state that they can be noticed passively. This is due to the assumption (stated in the DMG) that some part of a secret door or trap can be seen/noticed without actively looking for it. There are a few that have specific guidelines mentioned, like the ToA traps that are covered in mud. Can't be seen passively, and any active search is done with disadvantage. (But these are rare exceptions)
If you are homebrewing, you can use whichever method you want, but if you are using a published adventures I'd advise sticking with the method they use, which is that passive will detect regardless of if a PC is actively looking. I know in another thread that you'll be doing ToA soon, and in there it tells you exactly how each thing will be noticed. (Including specific situations to notice doors in the dungeon in Omu, like only being able to notice it if within 5ft)
To your question on a DC10, those are included in adventures early specifically because they are so easy to see. It basically is a way to teach new players that traps are a thing to look out for. "You noticed this one because it wasn't very well hidden, but the well made traps are harder to spot" would be the DM sidebar/take-away for the group.
I like passive Perception for trap spotting because I have noticed that active trap searching makes players delusional and they begin to inspect every hallway, door and chest just in case.
My current projects, One click download PDFs:
- Clam Island campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/By3s5Uqqf (Levels 1-4)
- Frostglade Tundra campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SyZ_4eEyKE (Levels 1-4)
- Goldfish Archipelago campaign questbook: https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-3HajWXM (Sequel to Clam Island, Levels 5-8)
It has come up in a game recently, so guess I am unfortunately going to rant slightly.
While in general I like the idea of passive checks, I think my issue comes with the execution in the system, especially with traps, but it can be applied to other situations I'm sure. Normal traps (outlined in the DMG) have a set difficulty to notice them, often Wisdom(Perception) but sometimes Intelligence(Investigation) or rarely Intelligence(Arcana), but it never goes up, it's completely static regardless of level, and the normal DC is 10-15 with an occasional 20. The DC to avoid the trap, or the attack roll of the trap, along with damage all go up, but the TN to notice it stays the same. The feat Observant gives a +5 to the passive perception and investigation, making traps almost completely revealed all the time. Not to mention if someone really wants to build for traps, even at low level (1st to 4th depending on race), if the rogue takes training in the two skills in question, then observant feat, then has let's say even just a +1 from each attribute involved, that makes their passive traits 18s (could be 20s if they use expertise for one/both skills). This while at the same time their regular perception/investigation is relatively lower (they would essentially need to roll a 15 on the die just to equal what they get passively), and that honestly doesn't really make sense to me. If you're just wandering around normally paying no particular attention you notice everything, but when you stop and look you become less observant? Might just be my opinion, but I think they didn't quite complete the logic circuit for this.
To me, I scale the traps DC based on the creatures or NPC CR.
Traps are investigation. Your passive scores are basically the lowest you can "roll" with investigation and perception. There is some debate between people who use passive and those who don't, but there is a nice video where Crawford spells it out in detail on those passive scores. Just like if you intend to sneak past someone your stealth needs to beat their passive perception, a trap has to be well enough made and hidden to beat someone's passive investigation. Observant can make passives pretty insane and then couple them with expertise and it's really bad lol.
The following is just my opinion.
Passive Perception is to notice something amiss. Active Investigation is to find the trap that triggered the nervous Passive Perception alarm.
An example of Passive Investigation would be like: These weird Demon tracks with ash residue were probably made when the creature entered the house from the chimney.
The Basic Rules say:
Funny thing is that the Investigation skill says:
I guess we have options, lol.
The DMG is pretty clear on this, even though for some reason people tend to veer towards Investigation all the time. There's nowhere in the Rule Book saying Investigation replaces Perception. The skills do different things. Perception is noticing, Investigation is reasoning. You can't see anything with Investigation, you can only deduce it is there based on what you *can* notice, whether visually or otherwise. So, no, Traps are *not* investigation, they are both. You can *see* or *hear* or *feel* concealed objects, and you can also deduce they are there. It's all in the book. Read it, folks.
As for passives, yes, they can notice Traps, Concealed Doors, and etc, but not *all* of the types. Pits, for example, in the DMG have no mention of being noticeable by Passive Perception, so you probably have to be actively looking.
I deal with high passive perception characters by always actively asking them if they are doing something, or noticing something specific somewhere. If you can distract your players in some manner, you can justify having them miss a spot. You can also deal with it by forcing a marching order that does not seem to benefit from having that particular character up front. In any case, you always have to adjust to your specific PC characters, and if their passives are way too high, not only let them enjoy those choices by making them feel skilled and powerful, but also, whenever you have to, up those DCs. You're the DM.
14 Wis and Int with the Observant feat and expertise gives one of my players 21 Passive Perc and Investigation at 1st level without really breaking much of a sweat. That's potentially an easy button for noticing just about anything and everything.
I see in general 3 possible ways to handle it:
So far, I haven't seen anything in the official source material that makes any of these approaches right, wrong, better, worse, or anything other than reasonable possibilities dependent on the preference of the DM.
Personally I'd say the biggest difference in effect between passive and active checks is time-saving vs accuracy.
If a player tells me they want to look for traps over a longer period of time, I'd ask how detailed they want to be. If they want to look at every detail, I'll have them roll an active check, and let them know covering 5 feet will take a minute (approximately). If they want to go any faster but still keeping an eye out for traps, I'd make use of their passive perception.
I know this is an old post but just sharing the following quote for others in general (it was mentiomed above but not shared directly).
As for the quote passive perception is functionally a floor, and what is used for repeated checks and the like.
“Passive perception is on whenever you’re conscious and aware.”
“It’s always on–that’s the baseline. Now, this brings up questions because then people were saying, ‘how it is when I make an active perception check I might get a roll that’s lower?’ Well, you aren’t. Yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is always on. So it really represents the floor of your perception.”
“If you make an active perception check, and get a number that’s lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You’re still going to notice something that blips onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you’re rolling to see, ‘can I get a higher number?’ If you fail to, your passive perception is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum.”
– D&D Lead Rules Designer Jeremy Crawford, D&D Podcast 4/27/2017 @ 22:14
Even though the "baseline" is that passive perception is always "turned on", it is not always the case as others mention above. If anyone does anything other than keeping an eye on potential dangers around them, they do not contribute with their passive perception.
Passive Perception being used a baseline is not a rule but more or a suggested guideline from the Devs. Nowhere do rulebooks mention that AFAIK.
On the contrary, passive check is a special kind of dieless ability check that can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something. Can is the keyword.
A DM could solely rely on active checks and the game would still run fine. Or use passive checks from time to time when suggested in rulebook or adventure. But never does one have to always use it as minimum threshold for active check.
I tend to see passive scores used when it's quicker for the DM to roll the required number of times, rather than for everyone else to do it. They do however make a lot of sense for things like keeping watch, or methodically (rather than quickly) searching a room and so-on.
For example, when searching a room the DM could just roll once to see how well hidden something is, rather than asking everyone to roll Investigation or Perception; if anyone has a passive perception higher than the difficulty roll, then they find it.
Really it's just a tool in the toolbox, another way of doing things, but it's one that it would be really nice to see more examples of how the developers intended for it to be used in the actual rules themselves (rather than tweets etc.).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
How i use it, passive checks are not when characters are passive, but players. Wisdom (Perception) checks can be called upon wether the character are actively trying to search/perceive or don't pay attention.
The choice to not rely on dice rolls to determine such outcome is mainly for metagaming purposes; to save time or not alert players their character's senses may be solicited.
And it can be the case for any other ability checks as well.
Not only is your statement correct, but even beyond that, I don't recall ever seeing PP referred to as a baseline for active checks outside that particular interview. The comment is kind of out of left field.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
IIRC it was also mentionned once in an article or Sage Advice /Twitter but can't remember where
I cant find it may be i misremember. Anyway why i think this guideline suggestion makes no sense rulewise is because the rulebook presents two ways to mlake a check, mutually exclusive or at least it never mention they can be inclusive of one another. So by the book if you are to make an ability check, you either use passive check or active check. If you opt for passive, you never roll and if you opt for active, you roll and dont use passive.