I know you use Passive Perception for locating secret doors and traps but other then that what is the point of making a Perception check when you could simply use your Passive Perception for the result?
Passive perception is for when you don't want to alert the player to a check (eg there is a trap in the room) or if there are repeated instances where a check might be needed, but rolling each time will cause a drag on gameplay.
Those are essentially the roles of any Passive Ability. It's not that you use Passive Perception for secret doors and a Perception check for traps. It's to allow you to make a check when it would not be in the best interests of the game to have a player actually roll the die. That's why it's equal to the average of their roll the +10 aspect). It's their average perception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Passive perception is for when you don't want to alert the player to a check (eg there is a trap in the room) or if there are repeated instances where a check might be needed, but rolling each time will cause a drag on gameplay.
Those are essentially the roles of any Passive Ability. It's not that you use Passive Perception for secret doors and a Perception check for traps. It's to allow you to make a check when it would not be in the best interests of the game to have a player actually roll the die. That's why it's equal to the average of their roll the +10 aspect). It's their average perception.
The way I've seen Passive versus Active Perception done is that the former is looking or hearing, and the latter is seeing and listening. Passive Perception tells you that that something's rumbling in the bushes, or someone's talking; active is seeing what animal lays in wait, or understanding what somebody's saying. In the case of finding secret doors and traps, I'd narrate the player detecting this with passive percpetion as "you notice something off about this wall," and let them decide if they're going to do anything about it. An active perception check would be narrated as "you see that the wall has paper peeling around the edges," indicating a paper hidden wall, for instance.
I see Passive Perception as instinct or a hunch, and only a successful Active perception would tell them what exactly it is without interacting with it. And sometimes things can be plain obvious that the need to roll is unnecessary if the player is observant enough.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I use passive perception differently, so, passive perception might indicate there is something off with an area, but if the player then wants to look for a trap he rolls an investigation roll.
If we are out in the wilderness and I know a player has a high passive perception I might tell them they see something move in the undergrowth, or they think they might see something in the distance, I will then call for a perception roll if they tell me they are focusing on it.
So I never use passive perception like a radar or sonar pinging out and auto detecting things, instead it will give a hint to someone that there might be something here.
The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence. You can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase. An invisible creature can always try to hide. Signs of its passage might still be noticed, and it does have to stay quiet. In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the DM might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack roll before you are seen.
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.
So from what I understand you're correct, but there is of course the disclaimer that every DM will rule Passive Perception differently.
In a session where a player had the Observant feat (boosting Passive Perception), our DM narrated "you see the bushes moving as if a breeze has caused them to sway, but there is no wind to cause such a breeze." That doesn't tell the player that those bushes are actually Twig Blights; only that there's very subtle movement. An active perception check might see some distinguishing features such as beady eyes, little mouths, or just making out oddly humanoid shapes. It might well have figured out it's been rumbled and attack, failing to surprise that person.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
So, when you're thinking about house ruling around Perception, the main thing to keep in mind is that it's meant to be quick and easy. For creatures vs creatures, it's like this: You roll an attack attempt against AC, and you roll a hide attempt against PP. For things like hidden doors, I would recommend conceptualizing it as, the person who originally concealed the object has already rolled their dice -- it was most likely an Intelligence check, if you ask me. Hardly matters. 10-20, generally. As is the case with hidden creatures, characters can attempt to search for something, but it costs an action to do so. Outside of combat, this means that the searcher is occupied with this task.
You might be thinking, "what? Who cares how long it takes, or if they're occupied?" The rules around exploration are pretty scattered and not altogether useful when you're not rigidly tracking time, marching order, and character roles, which most of us aren't. That's why you'll usually see house rules around Perception. If I remember correctly, the person at the front of the marching order is the only one on the lookout for threats. It's a little arbitrary. Kind of out of step with the relatively freeform, narrative-first style of the rest of the game.
A passive check is not so much about character being active or passive during a task but for the player check itself, and wether the DM want it made or determined statically. It's essentially Take 10 in previous edition.
In a Dragont Talk podcast though, Jeremy Crawford once said that Passive Perception should be used as a threshold, serving as the minimum score an active Wisdom (Perception) check should give as a result. (24:15) https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
Personally, i'm not using that passive minimum threshold score for Perception or any other active checks. First, i only ask for a check when success is possible and the outcome is uncertain and that there is a meaningful consequence for failure. Most easy or time-free tasks therefore succeed without a roll. If a character can fail an ability check without consequence and can try again, he will eventually succeed. To speed things up, i assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. (DMG237)
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: - Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? - Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.
At my table i only use passive checks when i don't want to rely on any die rolls, mostly when i want to secretly determine success or failure of an outcome unbeknown to players or more rarely so to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly. Tasks done repeatedly, the first attempt will usualy be an active check, even the second so i almost never fall back on passive checks on such active tasks, only on tasks done effortlessly such as passive perception. And i'd certainly not use a sort of Take 10 on task i deem have uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure, i will usually instead default to making an active check. Rolling dice feels more appropriate and also more fun!
Passive perception is for when you don't want to alert the player to a check (eg there is a trap in the room) or if there are repeated instances where a check might be needed, but rolling each time will cause a drag on gameplay.
Those are essentially the roles of any Passive Ability. It's not that you use Passive Perception for secret doors and a Perception check for traps. It's to allow you to make a check when it would not be in the best interests of the game to have a player actually roll the die. That's why it's equal to the average of their roll the +10 aspect). It's their average perception.
Gotcha. Thx for the insight.
No, insight is something else, we're talking about perception!
There's a lot of good dialogue in this thread, and I want to add mine.
The way I treat actives and passives is more about "This is what the character itself would notice without player intervention." That being said, I also take into account backgrounds and classes to it. A cleric with a passive 15 perception is extremely perceptive to the world around them compared to the average person. Combine that with the same insight scores and now that player is going to notice a lot of social ques such as nervousness, shifting of the eyes, maybe their hands drifting out of sight during a conversation.
A rogue with the same perception in my games might not notice the nervousness without the insight skills, but would absolutely key in on the eyes and the hands drifting out of sight. Now in a cave, with a passive 15 perception this rogue notices like drafts coming from cracks in the walls. The cleric does too, but since the rogue is probably trained in investigation they also can hone in on the fact that those drafts may or may not be natural, potentially trap based.
When tying it in with backgrounds or character stories, then you can allow or disallow things too. The classic rogue archetype isn't a team player, but if they had a merchantile background? They absolutely have dealt with people in the past, and therefore would know how to read people in a similar fashion to a Cleric who was formerly at a church and dealt with parishoners on a daily basis.
Passives really aren't used as much as I think they should be, and they definitely aren't for other skills. Someone who is pretty smart(INT) and is trained in herbalism kits would absolutely know when walking around that the thing they're about to walk through is poison ivy, even if they aren't survival trained. Someone who knows how to use a miners kit walking in a cave definitely would know by looking at walls that maybe this one doesn't have the most support.
Passives really aren't used as much as I think they should be, and they definitely aren't for other skills. Someone who is pretty smart(INT) and is trained in herbalism kits would absolutely know when walking around that the thing they're about to walk through is poison ivy, even if they aren't survival trained. Someone who knows how to use a miners kit walking in a cave definitely would know by looking at walls that maybe this one doesn't have the most support.
I'll say it so nobody else has to: you're not describing passive skills here. A mercantile Rogue without Insight proficiency is gonna have a passive Insight of like 12, tops. The same as almost anyone. Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores. What you're describing is to not have them roll for things that make sense for their characters. And I recommend it! It's a great way to keep things moving, empower characters, and make players feel like you're paying attention to their specific choices.
It's worth keeping in mind that when somebody's making a "check," that's shorthand for making an ability check, not a skill check. You're testing them on their ability modifier, not on their skill. You never test skill alone. There's just no rules support for doing that. It's not a thing. What difference does this make? Well, I think it means you assume competence, first of all. To use your own example, you're not checking how well the miner knows mining. You assume he does. What you're doing is challenging him to use his Wisdom to be alert and focused.
Passives really aren't used as much as I think they should be, and they definitely aren't for other skills. Someone who is pretty smart(INT) and is trained in herbalism kits would absolutely know when walking around that the thing they're about to walk through is poison ivy, even if they aren't survival trained. Someone who knows how to use a miners kit walking in a cave definitely would know by looking at walls that maybe this one doesn't have the most support.
I'll say it so nobody else has to: you're not describing passive skills here. A mercantile Rogue without Insight proficiency is gonna have a passive Insight of like 12, tops. The same as almost anyone. Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores. What you're describing is to not have them roll for things that make sense for their characters. And I recommend it! It's a great way to keep things moving, empower characters, and make players feel like you're paying attention to their specific choices.
It's worth keeping in mind that when somebody's making a "check," that's shorthand for making an ability check, not a skill check. You're testing them on their ability modifier, not on their skill. You never test skill alone. There's just no rules support for doing that. It's not a thing. What difference does this make? Well, I think it means you assume competence, first of all. To use your own example, you're not checking how well the miner knows mining. You assume he does. What you're doing is challenging him to use his Wisdom to be alert and focused.
I'm describing passives. Please don't tell me what I'm describing. What I'm not specifically describing in that post, to specify is how I might alter the DCs for those passives based on character backgrounds or profieicenies in a certain kit.
The 2nd part of your post though, is correct. 5th doesn't have a system that assumes competence, but the numbers can help assist that. A +4 combined bonus of Miners Tools and Int(or whatever ability you want assuming you use Xanathars rules for skill checks) to me should be worth more than a person who has a +4 to Int but no trained skill or prof in said kit. That comes down to DM discretion for sure, and I like how Xanathars codified that as an option DMs could use. It makes a LOT of sense and a lot of DMs in my experience don't utilize it.
You're saying I'm not describing passives, again, I am. My post is expanding on those to include other things.
Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores.
This is the final piece to speak on. It does, because at the end D&D is a numbers system. Just because you grew up as a merchant doesn't mean you're good at it. Maybe you have a lot of the business sense and can figure things out(INT or WIS) but when it comes to talking to people you just suck(CHA). That being said, you can look and see things and could recognize a good merchants sales pitch, but couldn't replicate it because you don't have persuasion trained or your CHA is garbage. In my games though, I would give that player a lower DC threshold as opposed to someone else in the party because of it. Both from a passive place, and from an active rolling place.
My take on passives is that its not just insight, perception and investigation. Passives should exist for every single skill because it's the representation of what your character is able to accomplish in the world without player intervention. It's what the DM should give that character for free, essentially and the DCs should be malleable based on things like background and if its a long term campaign, in game knowledge.
Passives really aren't used as much as I think they should be, and they definitely aren't for other skills. Someone who is pretty smart(INT) and is trained in herbalism kits would absolutely know when walking around that the thing they're about to walk through is poison ivy, even if they aren't survival trained. Someone who knows how to use a miners kit walking in a cave definitely would know by looking at walls that maybe this one doesn't have the most support.
I'll say it so nobody else has to: you're not describing passive skills here. A mercantile Rogue without Insight proficiency is gonna have a passive Insight of like 12, tops. The same as almost anyone. Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores. What you're describing is to not have them roll for things that make sense for their characters. And I recommend it! It's a great way to keep things moving, empower characters, and make players feel like you're paying attention to their specific choices.
It's worth keeping in mind that when somebody's making a "check," that's shorthand for making an ability check, not a skill check. You're testing them on their ability modifier, not on their skill. You never test skill alone. There's just no rules support for doing that. It's not a thing. What difference does this make? Well, I think it means you assume competence, first of all. To use your own example, you're not checking how well the miner knows mining. You assume he does. What you're doing is challenging him to use his Wisdom to be alert and focused.
I'm describing passives. Please don't tell me what I'm describing. What I'm not specifically describing in that post, to specify is how I might alter the DCs for those passives based on character backgrounds or profieicenies in a certain kit.
The 2nd part of your post though, is correct. 5th doesn't have a system that assumes competence, but the numbers can help assist that. A +4 combined bonus of Miners Tools and Int(or whatever ability you want assuming you use Xanathars rules for skill checks) to me should be worth more than a person who has a +4 to Int but no trained skill or prof in said kit. That comes down to DM discretion for sure, and I like how Xanathars codified that as an option DMs could use. It makes a LOT of sense and a lot of DMs in my experience don't utilize it.
You're saying I'm not describing passives, again, I am. My post is expanding on those to include other things.
Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores.
This is the final piece to speak on. It does, because at the end D&D is a numbers system. Just because you grew up as a merchant doesn't mean you're good at it. Maybe you have a lot of the business sense and can figure things out(INT or WIS) but when it comes to talking to people you just suck(CHA). That being said, you can look and see things and could recognize a good merchants sales pitch, but couldn't replicate it because you don't have persuasion trained or your CHA is garbage. In my games though, I would give that player a lower DC threshold as opposed to someone else in the party because of it. Both from a passive place, and from an active rolling place.
My take on passives is that its not just insight, perception and investigation. Passives should exist for every single skill because it's the representation of what your character is able to accomplish in the world without player intervention. It's what the DM should give that character for free, essentially and the DCs should be malleable based on things like background and if its a long term campaign, in game knowledge.
Altering the DC doesn't make sense. If someone's specific traits give them an edge, they get a bonus -- or advantage. That's... How it works.
By changing this, you're changing what a passive score even is. Or how it can be expected to work. Which is fine, I'm sure it works for you, but it's not conducive to a general conversation.
I think we're pretty off track here though. It's pretty clear that you're using house rules, and I think the interesting conversation that exists, exists around why almost everyone in this thread is referring specifically to their own house rules, and not to the printed rules. As in, what are the printed rules failing to do for us? Because they're clearly not working well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know you use Passive Perception for locating secret doors and traps but other then that what is the point of making a Perception check when you could simply use your Passive Perception for the result?
Thoughts?
DruidVSAdventure
Check out my Homebrew Class The Evoker
Passive perception is for when you don't want to alert the player to a check (eg there is a trap in the room) or if there are repeated instances where a check might be needed, but rolling each time will cause a drag on gameplay.
Those are essentially the roles of any Passive Ability. It's not that you use Passive Perception for secret doors and a Perception check for traps. It's to allow you to make a check when it would not be in the best interests of the game to have a player actually roll the die. That's why it's equal to the average of their roll the +10 aspect). It's their average perception.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Gotcha. Thx for the insight.
DruidVSAdventure
Check out my Homebrew Class The Evoker
The way I've seen Passive versus Active Perception done is that the former is looking or hearing, and the latter is seeing and listening. Passive Perception tells you that that something's rumbling in the bushes, or someone's talking; active is seeing what animal lays in wait, or understanding what somebody's saying. In the case of finding secret doors and traps, I'd narrate the player detecting this with passive percpetion as "you notice something off about this wall," and let them decide if they're going to do anything about it. An active perception check would be narrated as "you see that the wall has paper peeling around the edges," indicating a paper hidden wall, for instance.
I see Passive Perception as instinct or a hunch, and only a successful Active perception would tell them what exactly it is without interacting with it. And sometimes things can be plain obvious that the need to roll is unnecessary if the player is observant enough.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I use passive perception differently, so, passive perception might indicate there is something off with an area, but if the player then wants to look for a trap he rolls an investigation roll.
If we are out in the wilderness and I know a player has a high passive perception I might tell them they see something move in the undergrowth, or they think they might see something in the distance, I will then call for a perception roll if they tell me they are focusing on it.
So I never use passive perception like a radar or sonar pinging out and auto detecting things, instead it will give a hint to someone that there might be something here.
Passive perception would also be used for detecting hidden creatures as well correct?
Quote the Basic Rules,
So from what I understand you're correct, but there is of course the disclaimer that every DM will rule Passive Perception differently.
In a session where a player had the Observant feat (boosting Passive Perception), our DM narrated "you see the bushes moving as if a breeze has caused them to sway, but there is no wind to cause such a breeze." That doesn't tell the player that those bushes are actually Twig Blights; only that there's very subtle movement. An active perception check might see some distinguishing features such as beady eyes, little mouths, or just making out oddly humanoid shapes. It might well have figured out it's been rumbled and attack, failing to surprise that person.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
So, when you're thinking about house ruling around Perception, the main thing to keep in mind is that it's meant to be quick and easy. For creatures vs creatures, it's like this: You roll an attack attempt against AC, and you roll a hide attempt against PP. For things like hidden doors, I would recommend conceptualizing it as, the person who originally concealed the object has already rolled their dice -- it was most likely an Intelligence check, if you ask me. Hardly matters. 10-20, generally. As is the case with hidden creatures, characters can attempt to search for something, but it costs an action to do so. Outside of combat, this means that the searcher is occupied with this task.
You might be thinking, "what? Who cares how long it takes, or if they're occupied?" The rules around exploration are pretty scattered and not altogether useful when you're not rigidly tracking time, marching order, and character roles, which most of us aren't. That's why you'll usually see house rules around Perception. If I remember correctly, the person at the front of the marching order is the only one on the lookout for threats. It's a little arbitrary. Kind of out of step with the relatively freeform, narrative-first style of the rest of the game.
In my games it might suggest there might be something there, but it does not auto detect it,
A passive check is not so much about character being active or passive during a task but for the player check itself, and wether the DM want it made or determined statically. It's essentially Take 10 in previous edition.
In a Dragont Talk podcast though, Jeremy Crawford once said that Passive Perception should be used as a threshold, serving as the minimum score an active Wisdom (Perception) check should give as a result. (24:15) https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
Personally, i'm not using that passive minimum threshold score for Perception or any other active checks. First, i only ask for a check when success is possible and the outcome is uncertain and that there is a meaningful consequence for failure. Most easy or time-free tasks therefore succeed without a roll. If a character can fail an ability check without consequence and can try again, he will eventually succeed. To speed things up, i assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. (DMG237)
At my table i only use passive checks when i don't want to rely on any die rolls, mostly when i want to secretly determine success or failure of an outcome unbeknown to players or more rarely so to represent the average result for a task done repeatedly. Tasks done repeatedly, the first attempt will usualy be an active check, even the second so i almost never fall back on passive checks on such active tasks, only on tasks done effortlessly such as passive perception. And i'd certainly not use a sort of Take 10 on task i deem have uncertain outcome and meaningful consequence for failure, i will usually instead default to making an active check. Rolling dice feels more appropriate and also more fun!
No, insight is something else, we're talking about perception!
(Jokes)
There's a lot of good dialogue in this thread, and I want to add mine.
The way I treat actives and passives is more about "This is what the character itself would notice without player intervention." That being said, I also take into account backgrounds and classes to it. A cleric with a passive 15 perception is extremely perceptive to the world around them compared to the average person. Combine that with the same insight scores and now that player is going to notice a lot of social ques such as nervousness, shifting of the eyes, maybe their hands drifting out of sight during a conversation.
A rogue with the same perception in my games might not notice the nervousness without the insight skills, but would absolutely key in on the eyes and the hands drifting out of sight. Now in a cave, with a passive 15 perception this rogue notices like drafts coming from cracks in the walls. The cleric does too, but since the rogue is probably trained in investigation they also can hone in on the fact that those drafts may or may not be natural, potentially trap based.
When tying it in with backgrounds or character stories, then you can allow or disallow things too. The classic rogue archetype isn't a team player, but if they had a merchantile background? They absolutely have dealt with people in the past, and therefore would know how to read people in a similar fashion to a Cleric who was formerly at a church and dealt with parishoners on a daily basis.
Passives really aren't used as much as I think they should be, and they definitely aren't for other skills. Someone who is pretty smart(INT) and is trained in herbalism kits would absolutely know when walking around that the thing they're about to walk through is poison ivy, even if they aren't survival trained. Someone who knows how to use a miners kit walking in a cave definitely would know by looking at walls that maybe this one doesn't have the most support.
I'll say it so nobody else has to: you're not describing passive skills here. A mercantile Rogue without Insight proficiency is gonna have a passive Insight of like 12, tops. The same as almost anyone. Him detecting a social cue because of his background has nothing to do with his ability scores. What you're describing is to not have them roll for things that make sense for their characters. And I recommend it! It's a great way to keep things moving, empower characters, and make players feel like you're paying attention to their specific choices.
It's worth keeping in mind that when somebody's making a "check," that's shorthand for making an ability check, not a skill check. You're testing them on their ability modifier, not on their skill. You never test skill alone. There's just no rules support for doing that. It's not a thing. What difference does this make? Well, I think it means you assume competence, first of all. To use your own example, you're not checking how well the miner knows mining. You assume he does. What you're doing is challenging him to use his Wisdom to be alert and focused.
I'm describing passives. Please don't tell me what I'm describing. What I'm not specifically describing in that post, to specify is how I might alter the DCs for those passives based on character backgrounds or profieicenies in a certain kit.
The 2nd part of your post though, is correct. 5th doesn't have a system that assumes competence, but the numbers can help assist that. A +4 combined bonus of Miners Tools and Int(or whatever ability you want assuming you use Xanathars rules for skill checks) to me should be worth more than a person who has a +4 to Int but no trained skill or prof in said kit. That comes down to DM discretion for sure, and I like how Xanathars codified that as an option DMs could use. It makes a LOT of sense and a lot of DMs in my experience don't utilize it.
You're saying I'm not describing passives, again, I am. My post is expanding on those to include other things.
This is the final piece to speak on. It does, because at the end D&D is a numbers system. Just because you grew up as a merchant doesn't mean you're good at it. Maybe you have a lot of the business sense and can figure things out(INT or WIS) but when it comes to talking to people you just suck(CHA). That being said, you can look and see things and could recognize a good merchants sales pitch, but couldn't replicate it because you don't have persuasion trained or your CHA is garbage. In my games though, I would give that player a lower DC threshold as opposed to someone else in the party because of it. Both from a passive place, and from an active rolling place.
My take on passives is that its not just insight, perception and investigation. Passives should exist for every single skill because it's the representation of what your character is able to accomplish in the world without player intervention. It's what the DM should give that character for free, essentially and the DCs should be malleable based on things like background and if its a long term campaign, in game knowledge.
Altering the DC doesn't make sense. If someone's specific traits give them an edge, they get a bonus -- or advantage. That's... How it works.
By changing this, you're changing what a passive score even is. Or how it can be expected to work. Which is fine, I'm sure it works for you, but it's not conducive to a general conversation.
I think we're pretty off track here though. It's pretty clear that you're using house rules, and I think the interesting conversation that exists, exists around why almost everyone in this thread is referring specifically to their own house rules, and not to the printed rules. As in, what are the printed rules failing to do for us? Because they're clearly not working well.