| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Arkais_KasmJul 09, 2015 8:22:15 | I know this may have come up a couple times already, and I have read some related threads, but I just wanted to know... Wouldn't making the passive perception calculation 5 + Wisdom (Perception) be a more reasonable approach to passive perception? This might actually make rolling for perception useful in more situations without the risk of rolling lower than your passive perception score, while still simulating a general awareness of one's surroundings and offering reward for those who want to roll occasionally. This also seems to help with players with high Perception scores (for example, an elf druid is most likely 15 or higher in passive perception) still maintain a reasonable amount of awareness, while characters with lower scores would actually roll so they have to "look" for things since they're oblivious to their surroundings. Any one see a downside to this? I've considered implementing it because I do like the passive perception mechanic, but it seems unbalanced to me. |
| #2jaelisJul 09, 2015 9:03:50 | I think the idea is that you don't want players feeling like they have to constantly roll perception checks to be alert to danger. Because that is boring and slows down the game. |
| #3iserithJul 09, 2015 9:23:53 |
|
| #4El_CondoroJul 09, 2015 16:57:09 | If you use the "radar" approach to passive Perception (and I do, assuming the character is not engaged in some other activity, such as combat) then go the other way to your approach - increase the DC for finding things. A secret door now has a DC 20 (Hard) instead of DC 15 (Moderate). Same effect but no need to change character sheets. |
| #5Arkais_KasmJul 10, 2015 5:58:53 | Thank you all, great advice. I've been treating the passive perception like a permanent mechanic that the characters are always using, but I'm just now realizing that my question was already answered in the DMG as well - if a character would have disadvantage on the perception check, subtract 5 from their passive perception score - which I also wasn't doing. Thanks again, this should make things a little easier, and I might actually get someone with a trap for once. ;) |
| #6iserithJul 10, 2015 6:03:53 |
|
| (Reply to #6)Lucas_Blackstone | A lot of people seem resistant to the use of passive perception, I'm not sure why. It's a simple mechanic to save hundreds of extra rolls in a session of D&D since in many situations characters would be reasonably alert. There's no need to hobble characters' passive perception scores with disadvantage frequently. The distracted penalty isn't meant to be as soon as there are two things a character might be seeing it needs to be applied. Characters are meant to track multiple opponents and dangers going on around them in the D&D system, hence the 360 awareness.
|
| #8Coredump00Jul 10, 2015 10:20:56 |
A Passive Check is for something you are Actively doing over and over and over. If you are not 'doing' that thing...then it doesn't really apply.
Perception is a bit different, in that we are always perceiving our surroundings to an extent.... just not putting much effort into it. Someone standing guard is always trying to check surroundings over and over, so they should get their full passive check. Someone sitting in their backyard just chatting with a friend, would likely be at a disadvantage. If they were reading a book... maybe autofail.
Another option: A house rule I thought of but have yet to playtest. Passive Perception is what it takes to notice something is 'off'..... you may or may not even know what it 'off'. It is what enables you to make a Perception roll.
|
| (Reply to #7)randl |
|
| (Reply to #9)Lucas_Blackstone |
|
| #11iserithJul 10, 2015 10:33:30 |
|
| #12iserithJul 10, 2015 10:41:54 |
|
| #13iserithJul 10, 2015 10:43:49 | For the OP's benefit, here's a post I did a while back on Perception checks that might be of help...
Here's a helpful way of thinking about it. Say you have a chamber and there is indeed a hidden item in a niche in the wall. You describe the scene in a pithy fashion and ask "What do you do?" Now think of what the players describe they want to do in terms of trade-offs.
Action: Everyone searches the room generally and quickly. Adjudication: Uncertain outcome. Group Perception check.
Action: One person searches the room specifically and quickly. Adjudication: Certain outcome - success (no roll), if the player specifically searched the niche in the wall. Certain outcome - failure (no roll), if the player specifically searched anywhere but the niche.
Action: Everyone or one person searches the room thoroughly. Adjudication: Uncertain outcome. Use passive Perception values. Cost for doing this is time.
Action: Everyone or one person searches the room exhaustively. Adjudication: Certain outcome - success (no roll). Cost for doing this is a lot of time, ten times as much as it would take to search it thoroughly.
As you can see, time is the cost, so you have to make that sting. An easy way to do this is to make checks for wandering monsters every X minutes or hours. The more time they spend on a thing, the greater the chance they run afoul of some monster. Another way is to create a countdown such as Princess Lilac being sacrificed at midnight unless they find her. The more time they spend, the greater the chance they fail their mission. Making time matter creates a meaningful choice for the players.
Finally, consider how you narrate the result of the adventurers' action after a failed check and think about using "progress combined with a setback" rather than outright failure. For example, a failed Perception check (passive or otherwise) might mean that the characters find the hidden item in the niche, but in the doing they make noise that draws unwanted attention. Or they end up taking more time than they wanted to. Or it reveals an unwelcome truth. Or whatever. It's when a player rolls low, finds nothing, then wonders if they can try again. You can beat that by having a failed check mean success at a cost. |
| #14SaeviomagyJul 12, 2015 20:54:48 | The alternative is that if you're running a more simulationist game, where it is actually possible to hide things, don't use passive perception. The "rolling over and over" scenario does not exist, because perception tests only happen when there is something to see. Searching or looking in a specific place either gives automatic success or advantage (depending on the circumstance). |
| #15JohnnyBlaiseJul 12, 2015 23:53:20 | Yeah, I don't know if people really take advantage of Passive checks much in this edition because most DMs didnt read that part of the rules. And so far as bounded accuracy, the concept seems kind of like bull to me. If my 13th level character can have a passive stealth (with the help of our shadow monk) of 39 (like 30% harder than "nearly impossible') the scaling really wasn't done that well. Likewise a passive perception in the 30's would be just as easy to reach. |
| #16El_CondoroJul 12, 2015 23:58:09 | Can there be such a thing as "passive stealth" and, if so, how? |
| #17iserithJul 13, 2015 6:03:03 |
|
| #18JohnnyBlaiseJul 13, 2015 7:27:01 | "A passive check is a special kind o f ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can 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."
That is the section of the PHB every DM pretty much chooses to ignore. Many times you will be trying to move through a dungeon crawl from cover to cover without being seen - instead of one check every 6 seconds, you just take a 10 for the hour of sneaking about. Many times the DM will not want you to know that you have been spotted, so he will a passive check so you don't know that they know you are coming.
This is true of deception (you don't know if someone knows you are lying), knowledge checks (you don't know what you don't know), could be true of traps (its not like they all are modern devices where the light on the chest turns green when its safe to open), really almost any skill other than acrobatics is likely to come up with a situation where a passive check would be appropriate. But most DMs are 3e & 4e grognards stuck in thier ways of having you roll for everything just so you can't simply rely on having a +15 and just breezing through every obstacle. |
| (Reply to #17)Coredump00 |
|
| #20El_CondoroJul 13, 2015 13:33:13 | Thanks for those explanations. I can imagine the situation that Coredump describes as playing out something like this: passive Stealth vs. passive Perception of guards and the check required becoming harder with each trip back in as the "6th sense" of the guards begins to kick in. The players know this, so they can make calculated decisions based on the increased risk. When their passive Stealth becomes lower than the passive Perception, the checks become active and the tension is heightened as it becomes apparent that, if they choose to go back in, there is a real chance of being detected. |
| (Reply to #17)Saeviomagy |
|
| #22PsikerlordJul 14, 2015 23:01:37 |
|
| #23iserithJul 15, 2015 5:18:16 |
|
| #24WuzzardJul 15, 2015 11:14:50 | As a DM, I want the players to find the hidden thing. It advances my plot. If they don't mention they are looking around, then I'll see to it that something will still happen narratively that clues them in, or falls in their lap. The trouble is deciding who gets to find it. Usually this determines who has the spotlight for a first chance to look inside. If I use passive perception the uncanny rogue is always the one who finds everything, not matter what, ever single time. This eventually gets old, and the rest of the table tunes out of the exploration part. If I have everyone that may be passively percepting make a roll (similar to a group check), then the others have a chance to sometimes be the one. I don't mind that multiple rolls make the odds higher that someone finds it. Finding it is already certain. Who gets to tinker with it isn't.
But I don't always do this. Often, if I want something to just be noticed, I just describe it, maybe using the uncanny rogue as the reason it is already known.
|
| #25iserithJul 15, 2015 11:43:49 | My feeling on the matter is that anything that must be found to "advance the plot" doesn't get hidden behind a check, passive or otherwise, and doesn't rely upon specific actions for the players to describe. It's just there in your face by hook or by crook. Generally, if I do hide a thing that can be found through engaging with the exploration pillar, I'm going to telegraph it in some way. If the players are paying attention, make good choices, and succeed at any checks I might ask for, then they find what amounts to a bonus - a bit of treasure, something interesting and useful about the setting or situation, a secret door, a short cut, etc. Things they can do without, but that reward them for engaging in exploration. |
| #26DemoMonkeyJul 15, 2015 13:05:37 | Lower passive perception to 8+ modifiers, rather than 10+. This makes ACTUALLY looking better than passively looking. However, actually looking takes time, so you need some built in cost to that time, be it wandering monsters, a countdown to the Evil Baddies plans, the ongoing encroachmenet of a slow poison or mummy rot, etc etc.
If there is no time pressure, passive perception is fine, but remember, they get no roll if they have no chance. It is perfectly withing your purview as a DM to put in a trap that the players have no chance at all to detect before it triggers.
You need players who trust you to do that without griping, of course. Mind you, if your players don't trust you...why are you gaming with them again? |
| (Reply to #23)Saeviomagy |
|
| #28iserithJul 17, 2015 8:12:19 |
|
| (Reply to #28)Saeviomagy |
|
| #30iserithJul 19, 2015 19:02:31 |
|
| #31Xeviat-DMJul 19, 2015 22:20:52 | I like passive perception because it works like a Perception Class; if an NPC is trying to sneak up on them, then the NPC rolls stealth against the players' passive perception. If the player is looking for something, then there's a DC to find it (whether it as pre set or a creature's hide check).
I'm also okay with someone taking multiple actions to look for something. Either they're going to find it or they can't; time is the determining factor here. That's why I liked "Take 20" from 3E. |
| (Reply to #30)Saeviomagy |
|
| #33iserithJul 21, 2015 4:54:57 |
|