It feels like passive perception is one of the first parts of the game to be house ruled away, usually unitinionally. Your passive perception is technically the lowest result you can get on any perception check. This means if you have a passive perception of 15 and you roll a 1 your result on the passive perception check is 15.
In every game I've played in this has never happened. Almost always the DM asks for a perception check and ignores the passive perception scores.
Does passive perception really help the game? A rogue for example rolls a 14 on a hide check. A decent score. But does it make the game more fun and enjoyable that now anyone with a passive perception of 14+ automatically sees the rogue without a chance of rolling low themselves.
I find this to be the most often ignored, half used, or completely removed concept of the game.
Thoughts? I'm thinking about whether or not I want to house rule it away.
I try not to have people roll Perception checks UNLESS there is something they might need to see. I am more keen for Investigation checks. I also feel like the Passive Perception check was to stop the constant asking to make a Perception or having the group roll Perception checks. It should be used because it's a big part of the system, especially when it comes to the flow of the game. People I play with are still stuck in their ways and always ask to make one...it's a hard habit to break! I mean, a lot of us have been playing for years and that's all we knew. I use it and think it should be used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...Debts must always be paid, sometimes in more than blood and gold. But this is Ordo Ursa," Ren places his hand on Erakas's chest, right where the Dragonborn's heart is. "Right here. And it always has been and always will be. Don't ever forget that. Because I won't."
Serandis Mendaen (Aereni Elven Rogue/maybe one day Wizard)- Project Point Playtest
One of the biggest problems with Passive Perception that I have found is the players usually always consider themselves to be "on guard" in most situations where it would matter and do their level best to fish for a Perception roll at any time the DM would want to be describing an area where a surprise might be hiding. Nine times out of ten, I've got players calling out Perception rolls before I even call for them. In that kind of world, Passive Perception is pretty pointless and at least the players feel like it was a failing that they were in control of when things go sour.
I mean, you can probably go out of your way to make Passive Perception a notable thing in your adventures, but you are right that it is often one of the first mechanics to be forgotten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
It feels like passive perception is one of the first parts of the game to be house ruled away, usually unitinionally. Your passive perception is technically the lowest result you can get on any perception check. This means if you have a passive perception of 15 and you roll a 1 your result on the passive perception check is 15.
This is incorrect. The Passive Perception score must be used only as DC against Stealth checks. To find traps or secret doors or similar things you have to use an active roll.
The way the Passive Perception is calculated (10 + bonus) is neutral mathematichally speaking. The likelyhood of a Stealth check to succeed does not change if it is compared to a Perception roll or a Passive score.
Moreover, if a DM ask to make a Perception roll to detect a Stealth creature, even if you fail the perception roll, you that someone or something is hiding. And that it is something your character should not know.
Slight changes in editions confuse me sometimes. However the rules do allow for "passive" checks for every skill and therefore would at least allow for the passive score being used when looking for traps, etc.
As mentioned, I've yet to play in a game where 1) the dm doesn't ask for a perception check or 2) because the dm hasn't asked for a check but often has someone hiding, the party always asks to make one.
Plus how do you handle the situation where the pc goes "I'm actively looking the entire time"
1) Situation in which the party has to beat a DC, like the cases of trap or secret door: Only the first check they make once they get in the room (or in an area) is valid to detect the trap or the door. There are some cases in which I allow more than 1 roll but the need to spend time.
2) Case in which enemies try to sneak upon the party: Even here I allow 1 active perception roll in conjunction with their passive score. In this case two things must be considered: A) eventual penalty in the passive score (like in dim light, -5); B) timing here is essential: if the enemy attacks first, and they have succeeded the Stealth check against the passive perception, the party is surprised, and in combat, a perception check is made at the cost of 1 action.
I have fallen out of general favor of using passive perception. It feels like pointless bookkeeping as I already know, in advance of a game session, which characters will pass or fail. Why bother writing out a rules structure for the game session to do this? I can just note which players have strong perception skills and add that to the narration.
"You enter the King's private chambers to scan for the Great MacGuffin and see an opulent scene before you. Directly opposite the door is the largest bed any of you have ever laid eyes upon, empty and covered in sheer purple drapery. To the right is a seating area with chairs for two, a lounge that can sit another two, a small table to center the furniture, and what looks to be a bar with glass decanters on the wall behind the furniture. Framing that space are a number of paintings that look like they show off a few generations of the royals. To the left is a large wooden wardrobe, carved with ornate woodland scenes. Next to it is a dressing mirror, a jewelry table and chair, and a chamber pot in the corner nearest the bed. Jane and Bill, Shaele and Greenleaf both notice that the floor tiles before the wardrobe look like different workmanship than the rest of the floor. As if it's a secret or trap door, or at least more recent. The rest of you do not notice this."
If I'm planning ahead I might send that last bit as a handwritten note to the two players, but really I don't find that I need to stop and list out "What would passive perception do here?" as a part of adventure design. It's just an 'extra' feeling rule that focused on non-active play so I skip it.
I use passive checks for quite a few things, though the most commonly to come up are Perception and Insight because those are the things that players would otherwise be rolling pretty much non-stop in relevant circumstances. It's almost to the degree that Agile_DM mentions not using passive checks though, since I am usually comparing a static number against another static number to determine outcomes - the only reason I don't phase the mechanic out, or reduce its use to only as a setting of DC for NPCs to roll against, is because to do so I would need to have the character sheets or my reference sheet present when planning game stuff, and I find it easier to not reference that stuff and just set a DC that I'll later check against the passive check.
I feel it is important to point out, though, that "Your passive perception is technically the lowest result you can get on any perception check." is not actually supported by the rules text for passive checks, and is effectively giving all characters the Reliable Talent 11th-level rogue class feature but also making it not require proficiency in a skill.
Similarly, I have to point out that the rules don't actually make any specific determinations when the DM is meant to use a passive check or an active one. Also that the "passive" in "passive check" refers to the check (no dice are rolled) rather than to the character (wasn't trying), because a lot of people stumble over that distinction.
And last, but definitely not least, I want to point out that the How to Play section of the game tells us that players say what their character does and the DM decides if that involves any dice rolls or not, so players aren't meant to be calling for perception checks or just electing to roll them - they are meant to state their looking around, and even describe their particular search effort if they want, and let the DM narrate the result or call for a check if they feel one is necessary.
I would imagine most players would be a little mad if they said "I keep watch to make sure no one sneaks up on us" and then you use passive and have someone sneak attack them from behind.
Even worse if other times they say nothing and notice someone walking up behind them.
And then the constant complaints from players that their passive perception is really high so they should have seen it.
The arbitrary nature of the passive perception is perhaps why it ends up on the ignored list more often than the people who use it.
But the whole D&D is random. It is the nature of a dice based game. If one says "I keep watching...", it means nothing, because, even if you have a passive score of 25 and you notice nothing, it means that the enemy is being better at sneaking than your watching.
Then again, mathematically speaking, with a passive score or an active roll, the likelihood of success or failure is the same.
I like the idea of passive perception and I use it often. There are a lot of great comments already posted above and I will agree that when a stealthy creature is stalking the party I will use the passive roll. Players will often say they are watching for everything etc. But if they are checking for everything It's going to take them a long time to walk a mile. I make this clear so it's up to the players to decide what they actively check for along the path of where ever they are going.
Players heading down a trail looking for snares or traps might not be paying attention to the hungry griffon that is flying high and behind them waiting for the best moment to attack. I would use the passive roll here.
In towns and cities I use this a lot. Often to notice that they are being followed or that something looks out of place. They don't need to know what I rolling for and if they are successful I let the player(s) know in secret what they notice. If they don't see it I don't mention anything.
I like the idea of a random roll to notice something without having the players roll. As soon as you ask them to make a roll they go on high alert even if it was just to notice that a hawk seems to following them. The hawk could be a druid keeping an eye on the party or just a animal looking for scraps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
JT "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
I'm personally not a fan of Passiver Perception at all, except for when using it as a DC for any NPCs trying to sneak up on PCs (and vice versa). I feel like it doesn't emulate a character's' perception well because what a person perceives fluctuates based on various factors. Having a constant level of awareness is too robotic to me. I prefer having the DM prompt players or having the player ask if they see anything extra in a given situation, sans sneaking. With sneaking the game seems better to rely on passive scores because you can make rolls without having to explain anything to the players that their characters would or wouldn't notice. That's what I like anyway.
I would imagine most players would be a little mad if they said "I keep watch to make sure no one sneaks up on us" and then you use passive and have someone sneak attack them from behind.
Even worse if other times they say nothing and notice someone walking up behind them.
And then the constant complaints from players that their passive perception is really high so they should have seen it.
The arbitrary nature of the passive perception is perhaps why it ends up on the ignored list more often than the people who use it.
Your imagination doesn't match my experience. Perhaps because characters with decently high passive perception so very rarely have anything sneak up them successfully that when it does happen it is a welcome change of pace. Or maybe its that I don't have failing to notice a threat be immediately lethal.
And there is no "say nothing and notice someone". The character has to be not distracted with some other activity to be able to make perception checks, even if they are passive. This is evident in the game rules only letting a character that is not doing some other travel activity like navigating, foraging, or making a map contribute their passive perception to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats.
My assumption is the people in the front are doing the searching for traps/navigating/etc. Meaning you can reasonable have one or two members of the party spending their entire time looking for trouble/monsters/etc. If you are actively spending that time keeping an eye, and the party actually planned to have someone keeping an eye, I think that allowing them to make a perception check only makes sense. It helps reinforce the players making solid plans and not going, Player A is in front and the rest of us just walk behind chilling.
To be honest, if I had a passive perception that was exceptionally high, I would feel like you were intentionally making the opponent higher than my score and I'd like at least the chance of seeing him since my character was actively looking and not twiddling his fingers not doing anything. I'd be fine with a perception check at the start of the trip to determine whether you see anything along the trip or not (thus not tipping players off as the check always occurs at the start.)
Technically if the character has said nothing then they aren't doing anything. So if you constantly get surprised when you tell the DM you are keeping watch, but for some reason never end up surprised when you don't tell the dm anything (Lack of telling the dm something/saying nothing is by definition implying your PC is doing nothing, except walking toward the goal.)I feel like that would just encourage PCs from either not bothering to tell the dm or go "so dm do we see anything?" a lot.
This is probably where our experiences differ. I'm quite use to a dm who will make every encounter deadly and a test to make it through, so not having that chance to see them coming, really does mean the person who is asleep is going to take critical damage from a sneak attack even if that would kill him outright. of course this is the same dm who had arrows made in such a way they damaged you on the way in, and on the way out.
To be honest, if I had a passive perception that was exceptionally high, I would feel like you were intentionally making the opponent higher than my score and I'd like at least the chance of seeing him since my character was actively looking and not twiddling his fingers not doing anything.
This is probably where our experiences differ. I'm quite use to a dm who will make every encounter deadly and a test to make it through, so not having that chance to see them coming, really does mean the person who is asleep is going to take critical damage from a sneak attack even if that would kill him outright. of course this is the same dm who had arrows made in such a way they damaged you on the way in, and on the way out.
Yes, having an DM vs. PCs adversarial play-style will certainly put you in the mindset that something beating your passive perception was doing so as a result of deliberate DM action. Imagine, however, that you had me as your DM - and as a result, if your passive perception were "exceptionally high" and you had your character actively looking (which is what gets you the check, whether it is passive or rolled, because 'twiddling his fingers not doing anything' is insufficient to get you a check of any kind), you would probably never get surprised by any enemies without seeing me roll a really high number on a d20 (because I also don't hide rolls - don't have to when the DM isn't the adversary) right before describing the exceptionally sneaky creature that has gotten the drop on you.
Plus, I understand that trying to make every single encounter a deadly test is boring, time consuming, and actually manages to result in a less challenging overall game-play experience because more resting happens so all the super tough encounters can also involve high resource spending, because unless the DM is so far into their adversarial role that their goal is to get the TPK they don't stop the characters from frequent rest and replenishment.
Its a lot of players thing. I mean with 8+ players combat ends up taking so long that you get like one or two encounters in a night of playing so it's usually not causing any problems. But I also haven't played 5th with that dm.
Eventually I'd end up wondering why you arbitrarily decide to use passive over having me roll. I mean if you just rolled in front of me, it doesn't make any sense to not ask for a roll from the player as you tipped your hat that something is up.
It's easily possible for a 1st level rogue to have a 17-19 passive perception, and really should therefore almost never miss anything. Which may or may not be why passive perception ends up ignored.
It's easily possible for a 1st level rogue to have a 17-19 passive perception, and really should therefore almost never miss anything. Which may or may not be why passive perception ends up ignored.
Try a goblin (Stealth +6), in a forest (dim light = passive perception -5). It can surprise a rouge with Expertise in Perception more then 50 % of the times.
Its a lot of players thing. I mean with 8+ players combat ends up taking so long that you get like one or two encounters in a night of playing so it's usually not causing any problems.
No, it's not a lot of players thing. I've regularly had 8+ players and had multiple (3-4) combat encounters in even sessions that are only 4 hours long, while still not spending the whole session in combat.
It's a trying to make every combat by itself a big challenge thing.
Also, are you sure that after I've just rolled and gotten a great roll that you would want to pick up your die and risk still not winning the contest? Maybe it's just my players, but that ends up feeling like they failed twice (once by not having a higher passive, and again by rolling equal or less than what there passive check already was - which is more likely than rolling higher than it) when we've done it in the past.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It feels like passive perception is one of the first parts of the game to be house ruled away, usually unitinionally. Your passive perception is technically the lowest result you can get on any perception check. This means if you have a passive perception of 15 and you roll a 1 your result on the passive perception check is 15.
In every game I've played in this has never happened. Almost always the DM asks for a perception check and ignores the passive perception scores.
Does passive perception really help the game? A rogue for example rolls a 14 on a hide check. A decent score. But does it make the game more fun and enjoyable that now anyone with a passive perception of 14+ automatically sees the rogue without a chance of rolling low themselves.
I find this to be the most often ignored, half used, or completely removed concept of the game.
Thoughts? I'm thinking about whether or not I want to house rule it away.
I try not to have people roll Perception checks UNLESS there is something they might need to see. I am more keen for Investigation checks. I also feel like the Passive Perception check was to stop the constant asking to make a Perception or having the group roll Perception checks. It should be used because it's a big part of the system, especially when it comes to the flow of the game. People I play with are still stuck in their ways and always ask to make one...it's a hard habit to break! I mean, a lot of us have been playing for years and that's all we knew. I use it and think it should be used.
"...Debts must always be paid, sometimes in more than blood and gold. But this is Ordo Ursa," Ren places his hand on Erakas's chest, right where the Dragonborn's heart is. "Right here. And it always has been and always will be. Don't ever forget that. Because I won't."
Serandis Mendaen (Aereni Elven Rogue/maybe one day Wizard)- Project Point Playtest
One of the biggest problems with Passive Perception that I have found is the players usually always consider themselves to be "on guard" in most situations where it would matter and do their level best to fish for a Perception roll at any time the DM would want to be describing an area where a surprise might be hiding. Nine times out of ten, I've got players calling out Perception rolls before I even call for them. In that kind of world, Passive Perception is pretty pointless and at least the players feel like it was a failing that they were in control of when things go sour.
I mean, you can probably go out of your way to make Passive Perception a notable thing in your adventures, but you are right that it is often one of the first mechanics to be forgotten.
Slight changes in editions confuse me sometimes. However the rules do allow for "passive" checks for every skill and therefore would at least allow for the passive score being used when looking for traps, etc.
As mentioned, I've yet to play in a game where 1) the dm doesn't ask for a perception check or 2) because the dm hasn't asked for a check but often has someone hiding, the party always asks to make one.
Plus how do you handle the situation where the pc goes "I'm actively looking the entire time"
Usually the DM does not ask for an active perception roll. The players do.
A player cannot say I am actively checking all the time because that is what the passive score is: an average of all possible perception rolls.
Then what stops you from going "I want to make an active perception roll" every five feet? Or at least going "Do I see anything?" every five feet.
I do like this:
1) Situation in which the party has to beat a DC, like the cases of trap or secret door: Only the first check they make once they get in the room (or in an area) is valid to detect the trap or the door. There are some cases in which I allow more than 1 roll but the need to spend time.
2) Case in which enemies try to sneak upon the party: Even here I allow 1 active perception roll in conjunction with their passive score. In this case two things must be considered: A) eventual penalty in the passive score (like in dim light, -5); B) timing here is essential: if the enemy attacks first, and they have succeeded the Stealth check against the passive perception, the party is surprised, and in combat, a perception check is made at the cost of 1 action.
I have fallen out of general favor of using passive perception. It feels like pointless bookkeeping as I already know, in advance of a game session, which characters will pass or fail. Why bother writing out a rules structure for the game session to do this? I can just note which players have strong perception skills and add that to the narration.
"You enter the King's private chambers to scan for the Great MacGuffin and see an opulent scene before you. Directly opposite the door is the largest bed any of you have ever laid eyes upon, empty and covered in sheer purple drapery. To the right is a seating area with chairs for two, a lounge that can sit another two, a small table to center the furniture, and what looks to be a bar with glass decanters on the wall behind the furniture. Framing that space are a number of paintings that look like they show off a few generations of the royals. To the left is a large wooden wardrobe, carved with ornate woodland scenes. Next to it is a dressing mirror, a jewelry table and chair, and a chamber pot in the corner nearest the bed. Jane and Bill, Shaele and Greenleaf both notice that the floor tiles before the wardrobe look like different workmanship than the rest of the floor. As if it's a secret or trap door, or at least more recent. The rest of you do not notice this."
If I'm planning ahead I might send that last bit as a handwritten note to the two players, but really I don't find that I need to stop and list out "What would passive perception do here?" as a part of adventure design. It's just an 'extra' feeling rule that focused on non-active play so I skip it.
I use passive checks for quite a few things, though the most commonly to come up are Perception and Insight because those are the things that players would otherwise be rolling pretty much non-stop in relevant circumstances. It's almost to the degree that Agile_DM mentions not using passive checks though, since I am usually comparing a static number against another static number to determine outcomes - the only reason I don't phase the mechanic out, or reduce its use to only as a setting of DC for NPCs to roll against, is because to do so I would need to have the character sheets or my reference sheet present when planning game stuff, and I find it easier to not reference that stuff and just set a DC that I'll later check against the passive check.
I feel it is important to point out, though, that "Your passive perception is technically the lowest result you can get on any perception check." is not actually supported by the rules text for passive checks, and is effectively giving all characters the Reliable Talent 11th-level rogue class feature but also making it not require proficiency in a skill.
Similarly, I have to point out that the rules don't actually make any specific determinations when the DM is meant to use a passive check or an active one. Also that the "passive" in "passive check" refers to the check (no dice are rolled) rather than to the character (wasn't trying), because a lot of people stumble over that distinction.
And last, but definitely not least, I want to point out that the How to Play section of the game tells us that players say what their character does and the DM decides if that involves any dice rolls or not, so players aren't meant to be calling for perception checks or just electing to roll them - they are meant to state their looking around, and even describe their particular search effort if they want, and let the DM narrate the result or call for a check if they feel one is necessary.
I would imagine most players would be a little mad if they said "I keep watch to make sure no one sneaks up on us" and then you use passive and have someone sneak attack them from behind.
Even worse if other times they say nothing and notice someone walking up behind them.
And then the constant complaints from players that their passive perception is really high so they should have seen it.
The arbitrary nature of the passive perception is perhaps why it ends up on the ignored list more often than the people who use it.
But the whole D&D is random. It is the nature of a dice based game. If one says "I keep watching...", it means nothing, because, even if you have a passive score of 25 and you notice nothing, it means that the enemy is being better at sneaking than your watching.
Then again, mathematically speaking, with a passive score or an active roll, the likelihood of success or failure is the same.
I like the idea of passive perception and I use it often. There are a lot of great comments already posted above and I will agree that when a stealthy creature is stalking the party I will use the passive roll. Players will often say they are watching for everything etc. But if they are checking for everything It's going to take them a long time to walk a mile. I make this clear so it's up to the players to decide what they actively check for along the path of where ever they are going.
Players heading down a trail looking for snares or traps might not be paying attention to the hungry griffon that is flying high and behind them waiting for the best moment to attack. I would use the passive roll here.
In towns and cities I use this a lot. Often to notice that they are being followed or that something looks out of place. They don't need to know what I rolling for and if they are successful I let the player(s) know in secret what they notice. If they don't see it I don't mention anything.
I like the idea of a random roll to notice something without having the players roll. As soon as you ask them to make a roll they go on high alert even if it was just to notice that a hawk seems to following them. The hawk could be a druid keeping an eye on the party or just a animal looking for scraps.
JT " You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
I'm personally not a fan of Passiver Perception at all, except for when using it as a DC for any NPCs trying to sneak up on PCs (and vice versa). I feel like it doesn't emulate a character's' perception well because what a person perceives fluctuates based on various factors. Having a constant level of awareness is too robotic to me. I prefer having the DM prompt players or having the player ask if they see anything extra in a given situation, sans sneaking. With sneaking the game seems better to rely on passive scores because you can make rolls without having to explain anything to the players that their characters would or wouldn't notice. That's what I like anyway.
"What you saw belongs to you. A story doesn't live until it is imagined in someone's mind."
― Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
My assumption is the people in the front are doing the searching for traps/navigating/etc. Meaning you can reasonable have one or two members of the party spending their entire time looking for trouble/monsters/etc. If you are actively spending that time keeping an eye, and the party actually planned to have someone keeping an eye, I think that allowing them to make a perception check only makes sense. It helps reinforce the players making solid plans and not going, Player A is in front and the rest of us just walk behind chilling.
To be honest, if I had a passive perception that was exceptionally high, I would feel like you were intentionally making the opponent higher than my score and I'd like at least the chance of seeing him since my character was actively looking and not twiddling his fingers not doing anything. I'd be fine with a perception check at the start of the trip to determine whether you see anything along the trip or not (thus not tipping players off as the check always occurs at the start.)
Technically if the character has said nothing then they aren't doing anything. So if you constantly get surprised when you tell the DM you are keeping watch, but for some reason never end up surprised when you don't tell the dm anything (Lack of telling the dm something/saying nothing is by definition implying your PC is doing nothing, except walking toward the goal.)I feel like that would just encourage PCs from either not bothering to tell the dm or go "so dm do we see anything?" a lot.
This is probably where our experiences differ. I'm quite use to a dm who will make every encounter deadly and a test to make it through, so not having that chance to see them coming, really does mean the person who is asleep is going to take critical damage from a sneak attack even if that would kill him outright. of course this is the same dm who had arrows made in such a way they damaged you on the way in, and on the way out.
Its a lot of players thing. I mean with 8+ players combat ends up taking so long that you get like one or two encounters in a night of playing so it's usually not causing any problems. But I also haven't played 5th with that dm.
Eventually I'd end up wondering why you arbitrarily decide to use passive over having me roll. I mean if you just rolled in front of me, it doesn't make any sense to not ask for a roll from the player as you tipped your hat that something is up.
It's easily possible for a 1st level rogue to have a 17-19 passive perception, and really should therefore almost never miss anything. Which may or may not be why passive perception ends up ignored.
No, it's not a lot of players thing. I've regularly had 8+ players and had multiple (3-4) combat encounters in even sessions that are only 4 hours long, while still not spending the whole session in combat.
It's a trying to make every combat by itself a big challenge thing.
Also, are you sure that after I've just rolled and gotten a great roll that you would want to pick up your die and risk still not winning the contest? Maybe it's just my players, but that ends up feeling like they failed twice (once by not having a higher passive, and again by rolling equal or less than what there passive check already was - which is more likely than rolling higher than it) when we've done it in the past.