D&D 3.5 has a Spot skill to cover "passive perception, meaning noticing things you are not actively looking for, and a Search skill to cover "active perception" - when you are actively searching an area. Now D&D 4.0 consolidated Spot and Search into a Perception skill but introduced passive and active perception checks. Passive perception check basically means that PCs are constantly "taking 10" on their Perception roll, so the DM can keep their passive perception scores (10 + their skill) and let them know what they see and why they don't.
Now, Pathfinder also consolidated Spot and Search into Perception, but as far as I see didn't introduce any mechanism to handle passive checks to replace Spot. How should you handle that in a game? Let's say the PCs passes through a forest and there's a monster hiding to the side of them, but they are not spending time to actively search. What are their chances to notice them and how would that be handled mechanically?
|
DM: Roll Perception checks everybody.
or
Slightly More Organised DM: Rolls secret perception checks because he has a copy of all the PCs relevant bonuses.
or
Assume everybody is taking 10.
The old rules let you use Spot both as an active and passive skill. I don't see why that'd be any different in PFRPG.
|
Thinking about it, having the passive score being 'taking 10' doesn't really make sense. A character going from passive to active could actually come out WORSE off by rolling less than ten.
This basically means that half the time a actively searching character misses what he is looking for when he would have found it were he passive. While this mimics the old adage 'as soon as you stop looking for it, you'll find it', it seems very silly to me.
I would say that the characters passive score should be no more than 4 or 5 plus their Perception score. I'd even try just going with their Perception bonus only. So low-level characters would rarely notice obvious things (DC 5) whereas higher level or higher Wisdom characters would catch things more.
But then, I don't know that using the Perception roll for anything but the most unnoticable things is a very good idea. If the DM thinks they should notice it, they should notice it. If they shouldn't, they don't. But if they actively start looking, then they should notice it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about it, having the passive score being 'taking 10' doesn't really make sense. A character going from passive to active could actually come out WORSE off by rolling less than ten.
This basically means that half the time a actively searching character misses what he is looking for when he would have found it were he passive. While this mimics the old adage 'as soon as you stop looking for it, you'll find it', it seems very silly to me.
Whereas it makes perfect sense to me. To me, rolling less than ten when you're actively looking indicates one of a few things:
* You're being more focused on where you're looking and you happened to look right when something happened on your left.
* You become fixated on something that looks odd, but isn't.
* Various other distractions (possibly the reasons you couldn't take 10 in the first place).
If you're trying to be thorough and not miss anything, that's what taking 20 is for. If you don't have the time (or don't want to take the time), then you're taking the chance that you might miss something. Dem's the breaks.
My way around the problem of making Perception checks for the characters without alerting their players was the d20 pool.
At the beginning of every session, I have the players roll a d20 about 5 times each. I record the rolls on a sheet of paper in no particular order, and when I need a secret Perception check, that's what I use.
The pool gets refreshed as needed, or at break times during the game.
That way, the players can't complain that I'm rolling poorly, since the die rolls are theirs, and I don't give away anything by suddenly rolling dice.
Player 1: "The GM's rolling, guys. I'm gonna make myself invisible."
Player 2: "I stop what I'm doing and look around for an ambush."
Player 3: "I'm going to check for traps again."
Don't we all just love it when that happens?
If you were to incorporate a set passive system up, wouldn't the viewer have the +5 to the DC for being distracted? This would mean that their take 10, would end up as a take 5 effectively.
Barator
D&D 3.5 has a Spot skill to cover "passive perception, meaning noticing things you are not actively looking for, and a Search skill to cover "active perception" - when you are actively searching an area. Now D&D 4.0 consolidated Spot and Search into a Perception skill but introduced passive and active perception checks. Passive perception check basically means that PCs are constantly "taking 10" on their Perception roll, so the DM can keep their passive perception scores (10 + their skill) and let them know what they see and why they don't.
Now, Pathfinder also consolidated Spot and Search into Perception, but as far as I see didn't introduce any mechanism to handle passive checks to replace Spot. How should you handle that in a game? Let's say the PCs passes through a forest and there's a monster hiding to the side of them, but they are not spending time to actively search. What are their chances to notice them and how would that be handled mechanically?
If they are walking through a forest and not blindfolded they can be assumed to be actively searching. That is unless they say "Hey DM, I've been walking through the woods for a while now, and nothing's jumped out at me. There's probably no wild animals here and definately no goblins. I'm going to stop being on the lookout for environmental dangers also." The whole point in a perception skill is noticing things around you. Some people walk into a resteraunt and they sit at whatever table is offered to them. Another person may want to sit in a corner with their back to a wall, and when they enter the building they quickly glance around and locate all the exits. To have the second person have to say every room you move into "I want to have my eyes open." is both stupid and annoying.
Perhaps I'm a bit generous on this, but I use passive perception in my Pathfinder game. I only call for a perception roll if no one has a high enough take 10 perception. That way, there's no chance of "getting worse", since it's something a take 10 wouldn't have caught anyway.
This is essentially what I've told my DM I'm doing when my Rogue is taking point through a dungeon, moving at a steady, cautious pace. Two perception checks. A take-10 as a quick scan to see anything obvious, followed by an active check to double-check. The DM knows what my perception modifiers are (including the Trapfinding class feature bonus to note traps), so he makes the additional roll only when necessary.
ah, yes ... I remember the good ole days. I used to just randomly tell my players "everyone drop me a 20." Having copies of their basic skills always helped. I wouldn't tell them what it was for. Sometimes, it wasn't even for any real reason. But I gotta tell ya, nothing gets a bunch of rowdy players to perk up, calm down, and pay attention like the phrase "everyone drop me a 20".
Personally, I was greatly thrilled by the merger of Spot and Search (and Listen) into one Perception skill. It allows everything else be determined by circumstances (is it hearing=based, sight-based, etc). I think the easiest way to handle it is in the DC of the Perception rolls. It would logically be more difficult to notice something with passive perception than with active perception ... since "active perception" denotes that you are seeking things out through concerted effort. So, why not make the DC easier for active than for passive?
For example, I would say if the normal active DC is something like 10, than the passive should be 15 (adjust that however the heck you want). There should be basic logic in all decisions made on the DM side of the screen ... that's why the DM is the one in charge of how things go down.
But just remember, a simple statement of "everyone drop a 20" always gets attention ...
... and saying it on a regular basis mitigates that whole "the DM is rolling something; I turn invisible" reaction ... it becomes a "boy who cries wolf" statement until something leaps from the shadows and smacks the unattentive around like a ragdoll.
I like to make the "passive roll" for the characters, and on successful rolls, inform the corresponding player to make a roll for perception. I use the passive roll as the chance the character(s) noticed something that may require investigation.
Almost 8 years since the last post. There's really no reason to respond to this as it was so dead.
