Passive vs Active Perception

[EricStratton]

How can an active check be worse than a passive one? It would make no sense.
How can it be worse? How can you use magic? I think there's plenty of reasons one could come up w/ it make it make sense, the first being "Passive was never meant to be a minimum for your checks."

Which, of course, leads me back to my original question - is that official?

[Asharad]

It does seem strange that I would be worse at looking for something when I was actively looking for it than I was when I was just kinda ****ing around.

[Greebo]

My take is the passive perception always applies, same as insight. An active roll less than passive would just mean you didn't pick up on anything beyond what you automatically would.

[Lycos]

The general rule of thumb that I have always known is that the hardest travelled path is usually the safest. The pretty path is the one usually laid down with traps and other stuff like that.

[EricStratton]

It does seem strange that I would be worse at looking for something when I was actively looking for it than I was when I was just kinda ****ing around.
God damn, you guys sound like my brother who, while watching a movie like Transformers, will say something like "There's no way that nerd could get that hot chick." Are you serious? In a movie w/ gigantic transforming robots, *that's* the part you don't believe? :evileye:

[Shiz]

My take is the passive perception always applies, same as insight. An active roll less than passive would just mean you didn't pick up on anything beyond what you automatically would.

Exactly. So rolling worse doesn't hide something from you that would have been revealed with a passive check.

[Asharad]

God damn, you guys sound like my brother who, while watching a movie like Transformers, will say something like "There's no way that nerd could get that hot chick." Are you serious? In a movie w/ gigantic transforming robots, *that's* the part you don't believe? :evileye:

There is a suspension of disbelief that goes along with any narrative. The viewer is willing to accept the world created within the narrative as long as it is internally consistent.

Transformers, for example, you accept going in that there are giant alien robots that can change into cars and such. That's the conceit that you accept in order to watch the film. That doesn't mean that, simply because you accept the foundations on which the story is based, that you have to accept anything.

It would be silly to say "I didn't like Transformers. I'll accept the idea that there are giant aliens robots, but the idea that they can change into vehicles is unbelievable!"

It's not anywhere nearly as silly to say "I didn't like Transformers. I totally will buy into changing-robot aliens but unless Shia LeBouf is also an alien from another planet and his superpower is getting laid, there is no way Megan Fox would be into him, I don't care how much stress they are under."

I mean, that's still kind of silly, but it is much more reasonable, and just because a movie has giant robots in it doesn't mean all logic and reason are abandoned.

The first deals with the accepted suspension of disbelief critical to the movie itself. It's the world of the movie at its core. The second doesn't, it deals with practical, common sense issues not related to the world construct of Transformers.

Similarly, the discussion we are having here.

Fandango is a half-elf rogue with superpowers. He uses magic. That's fine, those things are critical to the world we are discussing.. But nowhere in the makeup of the world is the very common sense idea that you are worse at seeing something when you are looking for it than when you aren't make sense.

[Shiz]

The longest Ash post ever. And it is about D&D and Transformers!

[Zyzzyx]

Exactly. So rolling worse doesn't hide something from you that would have been revealed with a passive check.

I dunno, I could see an active roll be less than passive. Maybe get distracted by something? (OK, the traps are... ooooh, pretty butterfly) Or maybe just not be fully awake and alert? (I'm looking for goblin tracks in the... the... *yawn* ...eh, whatever)

[DinbinFanfoom]

I'll move a lot of the posts here, if I can... this affects all the groups and might be something we can discuss... Anyone have any objections?

[Sagar]

I can easily see active perception being less than passive perception - generally when you are looking for something other than what is there.

If you say you are looking for skulkers in the shadows, it can be really easy to miss the trap door because you are not looking for that. With passive perception, you are more open to what is around you and more likely to see something than when you put focused "blinders" on.

[DinbinFanfoom]

Except that the way a possible encounter shakes down is usually thus:

1) GM determines that there is a "DC n" chance of key things being noticed given the party in a certain area, pulling a certain switch, etc.

2) Party moves into that area. A passive perception roll is AUTOMATICALLY rolled by the DM. Rolling actively on top of that wouldn't give you more information, necessarily... you already noticed it or didn't. Unless you planed to specifically look at some specific item in the environment.

I see "active" checks as an actual examination of something (a floor, a fresco, a picked up item).

[Asharad]

The longest Ash post ever. And it is about D&D and Transformers!

Megan Fox does things to me.

I mean, not literally. Mores the pity.

Also, I love discussions that deal with story structure and literary devices and techniques (don't get me started on narrative line and parallel structure) as long as the story in question has orcs or giant alien robots.

[Lycos]

I can see both sides of this. If you are looking for x and it is really y that you are looking for you might miss it. If you are generally looking for something out of the ordinary then that opens your perception up to more possibilities.

For example has anyone seen a video where you are told to count how many times a basketball is being passed between a group of players? Did you notice that no one caught that there was a guy in an ape suit walking in the middle of them playing? It is possible to miss something out of the ordinary looking for x, when y is right there in front of you. But if you are looking for something out of the ordinary without a specific thing in mind, you are more likely to see other things.

That is a recent example that I have seen before that helps illustrate the point.

[Asharad]

That is a recent example that I have seen before that helps illustrate the point.

That...okay, that's actually a good point.

Forest for the trees and all of that.

[DinbinFanfoom]

I guess my take on it is that you are actually making passive checks constantly, at least from the DM's perspective.

You enter a room where there is a DC 15 (success) to notice a crack in the floor and a DC 20 (failed) to notice faint tracks in the dust. These checks are auto-rolled by the DM vs your passive perc stat. If you notice them, he'll say so in your room description.

At this point, you may chose to make another "active" perc check on what you know about... the crack in the floor. You roll high, and the DM gives you more details. You don't suddenly NOT see the crack in the floor if you roll a 1 on the active... you just don't get any more info.

The ape suit video analogy doesn't QUITE work, for the following reason: you would have already seen the ape passively, the first time watching the video, because nobody ASKED you to count ball passes. Only after you are asked to count passes does your "active" check kick in. At that point, the ape is the ALREADY obvious... ape in the room, which you saw when you walked in. :D You either fail or succeed to count passes after that.

Consider a passive check to be rolled secretly by the DM every round. There are "DC n triggers" scattered everywhere on a map/adventure, waiting to be switched "on" by a successful passive (or active) perc check.

[Greebo]

The passive check is supposed to be a take 10 check - which means a no stress, simple to accomplish task.

So what constitutes no-stress?

[DinbinFanfoom]

I'd say no stress would be if you weren't already actively distracted by something. (combat, pursuit, crumbling floor, etc)
Further, ACTIVE checks should be as specific as possible. Not like: "I look at the room for things." :D More like "I examine the box." or "I examine the frescoes." At that point, you'd have already made a passive perception check on those things, and it gave you general info, or not. If passive meant nothing, you'd walk around saying "I look at everything, all the time" making active rolls on every noun mentioned in the room description which would likely hurt the story pacing. :P

[attriel]

The passive check is supposed to be a take 10 check - which means a no stress, simple to accomplish task.

So what constitutes no-stress?

does it actually say that? or is it just 10+mod?

Because there would be a difference between 10+mod and "take 10", since one is a number and the other is an action.

Take-10 takes some time/etc. Passive perception is, IMO, when I walk into your kitchen and quickly take in that there's two crockpots by the door and a couple things on the stove. Passively, I've identified two crockpots, a saucepan, a water dispenser and a baking tray.

If I were taking 10, then logically I'm looking for something. I walked in and I'm trying to figure out where to put my empty soda can for recyclying. I take 10 to figure out where it goes.

I do an active search to figure out what's in the dishes and what I can eat.

IMO

[DinbinFanfoom]

Atty said it less confusingly than I did. :)

[Shiz]

Passive is NOT take-10.

[Greebo]

No, I suppose not. You're right - bad way to put it.

Passive like atty said, would be what you can see outright, and how much detail you actually notice. You're not going to spot a cleverly concealed spear trap embedded in the wall just from a casual glance, but a careful examination could see it.

No, I'm not hinting at what will be killing you today, either. ;)

[DinbinFanfoom]

Passive like atty said, would be what you can see outright, and how much detail you actually notice. You're not going to spot a cleverly concealed spear trap embedded in the wall just from a casual glance, but a careful examination could see it.Kinda depends, I think, one how far you wanna take it... people are not INTENDED to make active checks every step of the way. The DM would set up the room so that with a high DC passive check, people might notice small holes in the wall. Maybe 1 in 6 of the party notice them, most likely the most observant (read: high perception) member. Maybe none, low rolls happen.

He/she would likely tell the other members, and then they may choose to investigate further (active checks). Throwing a party into a room with NO CHANCE to notice something would be kinda ishy, I think... I mean who enters a room saying "OK, I'm looking for holes in the walls..." I think every SIGNFICANT feature of the room (especially potentially dangerous ones) should have a passive DC check. More work for the DM, but it adds a lot of flavour to the room description when you see "The party starts forward, and Mr. Rangerman looks to the side and notices a regular pattern of holes in the wall..."
No, I'm not hinting at what will be killing you today, either. ;)You should have left that out, keep them paranoid. :D

[Shiz]

I wouldn't go that far, though, Greebs. If a secret door is a DC20 and my passive per is 22, then I see the secret door without searching for it. That interpretation seems pretty clear to me. There is a reason only two skills have a passive check.

[Greebo]

I wouldn't go that far, though, Greebs. If a secret door is a DC20 and my passive per is 22, then I see the secret door without searching for it. That interpretation seems pretty clear to me. There is a reason only two skills have a passive check.

"I walk into the room"
"You see 3 secret doors"

Bull ****.

"I walk into the room"
"The walls are ornate, but you sense something is odd about them." (passive)
"I examine the walls very closely"
"Roll perception x3"
"19, 23, 17"
"You find a secret door in the middle of the wall."

That works for me :)

[DinbinFanfoom]

"I walk into the room"
"You see 3 secret doors"

Bull ****.

"I walk into the room"
"The walls are ornate, but you sense something is odd about them." (passive)
"I examine the walls very closely"
"Roll perception x3"
"19, 23, 17"
"You find a secret door in the middle of the wall."

That works for me :)
How would he know to roll three times?

If his passive succeeded on 1 out of 3 doors, he'd get something like "Something about the wall in the corner doesn't look right... the moulding doesn't line up..." He'd roll his active on examining that area. He'd be unaware of any other potential openings in the room (passive already rolled) unless he actively, on a hunch, checked elsewhere after finding the first. At least, that's how I see common sense moving you through the process...

[Zyzzyx]

He was told to by the DM.

[Greebo]

How would he know to roll three times?

If his passive succeeded one 1 out of 3 doors, he'd get something like "Something about the wall in the corner doesn't look right... the moulding doesn't line up..." He'd roll his active on examining that area.

Its a fair point - really it could be something more like
"...something isn't right..."
"I examine the wall"
"ROll perception"
DC 22
<22 "You fail to find anything significant, but you still feel like something's off"
22-26 "You find a false panel which opens into a hallway"
27+ "You also still feel like you're missing something..."

[DinbinFanfoom]

He was told to by the DM.
See, that's where it stops making sense... those 3 rolls should have been the passive ones, made by the DM, without the character's knowledge. The DM can make 1, 4, 100 or a million passive checks against "noticing" any DC triggered event/item in the room.

Edit: Re: Greebo: Yeah, like that.

[EricStratton]

I mean, that's still kind of silly, but it is much more reasonable, and just because a movie has giant robots in it doesn't mean all logic and reason are abandoned.
So we can abandon *some* logic and reason but not all - I can shoot thru my teammate but not thru an enemy. I can't hide behind someone to protect myself from the exploding fireball or dragon's breath.

This could be another case where logic and reason don't fully fit in order for the rules to apply as originally designed.

I have no opinion about this specific topic really. I just wanted to know if Shiz's DM-like declaration was official or not.

[Asharad]

I tend to agree with Shiz. If you need perception of 20 to see a secret door and your passive perception is 23, then you just see the door. You are observant, moreso than normal people.

Passive, in this context, means without effort, I think. Passive perception in Shiz's context wouldn't even need a roll. There is nothing he could roll that would result in him just not seeing the door.

Edit: CRAP! I EDITED YOU! Sorry! Fixing! - Dinbin

[Greebo]

You walk into a room. A perception 25 will spot a small needle on the inside of the doorknob of the door on the opposite wall - something you cannot see from across the room but only from looking closely at the doorknob.

Passive can't see that. Active can.

[Asharad]

So what does passive see? Why is there even a very specific number for it?

With a passive perception of 10 I see that there is a room. With 25 I REALLY see that there is a room. :)

[Greebo]

Passive perception would give you a bad feeling about the door. A subconscious sense that something isn't quite right, leaving you ample opportunity to still **** it up with any active choices you make

[DinbinFanfoom]

I tend to agree with Shiz. If you need perception of 20 to see a secret door and your passive perception is 23, then you just see the door. You are observant, moreso than normal people.I think the point is, though, that you might not immediately recognize it as "a door"... simply that something is amiss. Think about it... if you walked into a room that had a secret door, you'd notice something about the wall that "didn't look right", not "hey, look a secret door!" The point is, you wouldn't know it was a secret door until you examined it.
Passive, in this context, means without effort, I think. Passive perception in Shiz's context wouldn't even need a roll. There is nothing he could roll that would result in him just not seeing the door.I really don't think Greebo and Shiz (and you) are that far apart, given what Greebo wrote immediately above.

My point though, is that just because you "succeed" a passive perception roll, it's MIGHT only be a hint, and I'd argue that it should be, given the secret door scenario... If I walk into a room and there is a beach ball behind the sofa that I can only see the shadow of (cast from out behind the sofa), I would only notice that shadow, not the ball itself. I could not quickly surmise, given what I saw, that it was in fact a beach ball behind the sofa, only that there was SOMETHING behind the sofa.

I think we're really getting down into semantics and story-telling-style here, though... In Greebo's example, you MIGHT notice a needle sticking out of a far wall IF the room was only 5' x 5', but not 100' x 100'. It's up to the DM and the story at that point, to work out what makes sense given the situation.

[Shiz]

Passive perception would give you a bad feeling about the door. A subconscious sense that something isn't quite right, leaving you ample opportunity to still **** it up with any active choices you make

If a passive check tells you that "something is wrong" and there is, in fact, a door in the wall, then you shouldn't need an active check to find the door. Anyone can find a secret door if they know where to look. Opening it might not be easy but you WILL find the door. It's a ****ing door, not a pin in a pile of gold. My disagreement with Greebs is specific to large things like doors.

I agree with his "something is wrong" concept if you are looking at a NPC and he is trying to hide something under his foot or you are looking for a body in piles of garbage: "You notice that the NPC is a little off-balance, maybe uncomfortable". Then an active check could narrow it down to "He seems to be hiding something under his left foot (DC25)" or "He seems to be hiding something" (DC15).

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that a passive check is any less revealing than an active one. The DC governs the binary. If you beat the DC, passive or active, then the DC is beaten and the information should be shared. Once again, I want to highlight that only two skills have a Passive check this means the passive value actually means something concrete in game terms.

There is no passive value for knowledge and physical checks because then there would be no randomness to knowledge or physical feats. A passive Nature of 20 would mena you know something about every goddamn creature in the natural world which is nuts. A passive Athletics check of 20 would mean you would never fail to jump an 5' trench when in reality lots of little things can go wrong in a jump attempt.

All that said, the DM is god and I can live with Greebo''s interpretation even if it is colored by his tyrannical tendencies! :lowsmile:

[Greebo]

If a passive check tells you that "something is wrong" and there is, in fact, a door in the wall, then you shouldn't need an active check to find the door. Anyone can find a secret door if they know where to look. Opening it might not be easy but you WILL find the door. It's a ****ing door, not a pin in a pile of gold. My disagreement with Greebs is specific to large things like doors.
Really? So if the wall in question is lined with 7 foot tall book cases, a glance that tells you something is wrong guarantees you will find the 2" by 2" square wooden button that's hidden in a recess behind the 3rd shelf from the top on the 2nd case from the left, located behind Volume 9 of Encyclopedia Arcana, and that you need to push and hold it 4 seconds for the release mechanism to allow the 7th case to swing outwards?

I do not think so.

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that a passive check is any less revealing than an active one. The DC governs the binary. If you beat the DC, passive or active, then the DC is beaten and the information should be shared. Once again, I want to highlight that only two skills have a Passive check this means the passive value actually means something concrete in game terms.


Passive Checks
When you?re not actively using a skill, you?re assumed
to be taking 10 for any opposed checks using that
skill. Passive checks are most commonly used for Perception
checks and Insight checks, but the DM might
also use your passive check result with skills such as
Arcana or Dungeoneering to decide how much to tell
you about a monster at the start of an encounter.
For example, if you?re walking through an area
you expect to be safe and thus aren?t actively looking
around for danger, you?re taking 10 on your Perception
check to notice hidden objects or enemies. If
your Perception check is high enough, or a creature
rolls poorly on its Stealth check, you might notice the
creature even if you aren?t actively looking for it.

Perception (Wisdom)
Make a Perception check to notice clues, detect secret
doors, spot imminent dangers, find traps, follow
tracks, listen for sounds behind a closed door, or locate
hidden objects.
This skill is used against another creature?s Stealth
check or against a DC set by the DM. In most situations,
the DM uses your passive Perception check
result to determine if you notice a clue or an imminent
danger.

Clue: Something is off about that wall.

Not a clue: Hey there's 7 secret doors and a lemon gumdrop behind the bookcase.

[Shiz]

I agree with your bookcase example completely. I was thinking more about a plastered over door. As was said, despite all this talk, I think we are actually one the same page for the most part.

Note that I specifically wrote that opening a secret door is not the same as noticing it exists.

[attriel]

Not a clue: Hey there's 7 secret doors and a lemon gumdrop behind the bookcase.

dude! you found the gumdrop!

but the princess is in another castle :(

[DinbinFanfoom]

Another point to bring up... as it seems to have reared it's head in one of the threads...

How do you know when you've "failed" a perc check?

You don't, really. Or shouldn't.

Ranger examines a 5' x 5' area. He rolls a 5. +10 his perc bonus = 15, which fails the 20 needed to find the boxing-glove trap in the wall.

DM says: "You find nothing."

Player controlling Ranger says, "hmmm, I rolled a five. I probably failed, IF there was something there."

Ranger asks Wizard, "Come take a look at this wall. I don't think I looked at it well."

That doesn't make sense, RP-wise. Ranger looked at the wall with the same scrutiny he'd apply to any perception check. He just didn't find it. He has no way of KNOWING how well he looked, because there was no feedback. How could he know that he didn't "look so well"?

You end up with players doing active checks over and over until they "think" they've rolled high enough... which is kinda hokey.

Now it's a bit different if Ranger/Wizard had agreed beforehand to each search that square once. Ranger rolls a 5+10, Wizard rolls a 18+8. DM says "Ranger, you see nothing. Wizard, you notice that the torch is slightly askew and appears to be hinged."

Unless there was an RP reason for re-rolling an active perc check, I don't see why a PC would ever do it... unless they KNEW there was something there, or had said ahead of time that they were doing multiple checks per square.

Does that make sense? As a DM, I'd be leaning towards saying "Sorry, you looked and saw nothing. It looks fine to you. Same as that last square." I mean, if afterwards, the Ranger chose not to step there, that's his business, but essentially re-rolling an active perception check just because you think it's low (something the character would not know) doesn't jibe, to me.

[Shiz]

But other characters can roll. It is better to have one person look and then invite another than to have everyone roll every time. If we want to waste the time for a second look, then we should be able to. It is a game with rules. We know them basic rules. We all know DC checks are 15, 20 , 25, etc. It is ok to play to that.

[DinbinFanfoom]

But other characters can roll. It is better to have one person look and then invite another than to have everyone roll every time. If we want to waste the time for a second look, then we should be able to. It is a game with rules. We know them basic rules. We all know DC checks are 15, 20 , 25, etc. It is ok to play to that.
I agree with you that any number of characters can roll, and invite others to, but my specific example had to do with the scenario where a PLAYER sees a roll of 4 and the CHARACTER somehow asks another to essentially try to improve that... the CHARACTER doesn't know what the roll was... only that he/she saw something or nothing. The issue was that CHAR1 only asked CHAR2 to roll after PLAYER1 saw the bad roll. Does that simplify my original a bit? It may be an RP nit-pick, I guess, but it seems like meta-gaming...

[Greebo]

There's only so much a party or a DM can do to limit metagaming. Active perception and active insight checks are player checks. If the players can't control their metagaming, the DM can simply say to all subsequent checks, "No, you found nothing new" if it's obvious the 2nd attempt is only based on metagaming and not "more eyes, less surprise" tactics that are regularly used.

[DinbinFanfoom]

There's only so much a party or a DM can do to limit metagaming. Active perception and active insight checks are player checks. If the players can't control their metagaming, the DM can simply say to all subsequent checks, "No, you found nothing new" if it's obvious the 2nd attempt is only based on metagaming and not "more eyes, less surprise" tactics that are regularly used.That's what I'd do. :twisted: You could justify it with "the wizard looks, but because YOU found nothing, she didn't look as thoroughly..." (DC went from 20 to 25) :twisted:

[attriel]

As a player, I'd roll a 2, KNOW for a fact that I missed the trap, and blithely turn and tell the fighter that it was safe, open it up

Because as a CHARACTER I only knew that I didn't find anything to be worried about.

If I rolled a 1, I usually play that as I fumbled something or whatever, so I might qualify my statement like "I don't see anything, but I'd be careful".

But I rolled a 4? Yup. I looked. Nothing there, moving on. Unless I EXPECT something to be there, then I might look again. I know the goblins came down this dead end, and now they're not here. I haven't found any secret exits, but I know they're here, so lets try this again, shall we?

[Greebo]

That's what I'd do. :twisted: You could justify it with "the wizard looks, but because YOU found nothing, she didn't look as thoroughly..." (DC went from 20 to 25) :twisted:

I justify nothing! NOTHING!!!

[DinbinFanfoom]

As a player, I'd roll a 2, KNOW for a fact that I missed the trap, and blithely turn and tell the fighter that it was safe, open it up

Because as a CHARACTER I only knew that I didn't find anything to be worried about.

If I rolled a 1, I usually play that as I fumbled something or whatever, so I might qualify my statement like "I don't see anything, but I'd be careful".

But I rolled a 4? Yup. I looked. Nothing there, moving on. Unless I EXPECT something to be there, then I might look again. I know the goblins came down this dead end, and now they're not here. I haven't found any secret exits, but I know they're here, so lets try this again, shall we?
In the spirit of RP, that's how I'd hope I'd play it, Atty.

[Lycos]

There's only so much a party or a DM can do to limit metagaming. Active perception and active insight checks are player checks. If the players can't control their metagaming, the DM can simply say to all subsequent checks, "No, you found nothing new" if it's obvious the 2nd attempt is only based on metagaming and not "more eyes, less surprise" tactics that are regularly used.

I guarantee that the first time the character #1 looks and then sets off a trap. People are going to change their process and have more than one person look to avoid that from happening again.

[DinbinFanfoom]

I guarantee that the first time the character #1 looks and then sets off a trap. People are going to change their process and have more than one person look to avoid that from happening again.I think that's fine (and I think Greebo thinks that's fine) as long as it doesn't only happen when person a rolls "poorly".

[Shiz]

That becomes a game burden because only 5% of the time is it not worth another roll, ex bonuses.