That is literally what you are saying as I understand it, we simply do not automatically detect things in our environment, we must randomly determine everything.
Of course not. Plenty of things don't have a check DC at all. However, it is most certainly possible to have a 90% chance of spotting something and still failing to detect it, and using passive perception doesn't allow that to happen.
Oh man but the DC for finding the toilet paper was 1. Literally a one, it was right in front of you. However, you have an 8(-1) on Wisdom and are not proficient in perception. So by rolling a natural 1 you got a total of zero and thus could find the toilet paper that was right in from of you.
I mean normally you would have had a passive perception of 9 and would have easily found the DC 1 toilet paper. But who the heck uses passive perception right? I am just talking crazy here.
That is literally what you are saying as I understand it, we simply do not automatically detect things in our environment, we must randomly determine everything.
Of course not. Plenty of things don't have a check DC at all. However, it is most certainly possible to have a 90% chance of spotting something and still failing to detect it, and using passive perception doesn't allow that to happen.
Oh man but the DC for finding the toilet paper was 1. Literally a one, it was right in front of you. However, you have an 8(-1) on Wisdom and are not proficient in perception. So by rolling a natural 1 you got a total of zero and thus could find the toilet paper that was right in from of you.
I mean normally you would have had a passive perception of 9 and would have easily found the DC 1 toilet paper. But who the heck uses passive perception right? I am just talking crazy here.
If it's a DC of 1 to spot the TP, it's at least slightly concealed, and yes, people will occasionally fail to find it. Rolls that are truly impossible to fail do not have a DC.
That is literally what you are saying as I understand it, we simply do not automatically detect things in our environment, we must randomly determine everything.
Of course not. Plenty of things don't have a check DC at all. However, it is most certainly possible to have a 90% chance of spotting something and still failing to detect it, and using passive perception doesn't allow that to happen.
Oh man but the DC for finding the toilet paper was 1. Literally a one, it was right in front of you. However, you have an 8(-1) on Wisdom and are not proficient in perception. So by rolling a natural 1 you got a total of zero and thus could find the toilet paper that was right in from of you.
I mean normally you would have had a passive perception of 9 and would have easily found the DC 1 toilet paper. But who the heck uses passive perception right? I am just talking crazy here.
If it's a DC of 1 to spot the TP, it's at least slightly concealed, and yes, people will occasionally fail to find it. Rolls that are truly impossible to fail do not have a DC.
If I have a passive perception of 18 and the DC for finding a trap is 15, there is no uncertainty on whether I find the trap or not, I simply notice the trap, period full stop.
But there is always uncertainty that you will find something. Shall I regale you with the number of times I have set my glasses down somewhere, told myself to remember this is where I left them, and an hour later, cannot find them again? Whether or not I find them again is dependent on a number of factors, such as how busy I was in the intervening time, what was on my mind, where I actually put them down and whether I may have moved something to block my view of them later without realizing it, what position I'm standing in when I start looking, etc. All of those random things are abstracted into what we refer to as the die roll.
If you want to run your game with passive checks like this, go to it. But don't try to argue that everyone else is "doing it wrong" to use rolls for traps instead of passive checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I wish they had just called it average perception instead of passive perception or retained the rules implied in LMoP where there were different passive and active DC.
So why have them roll at all for anything - add 10 to all there skill modifiers and that’s everything. While we are at it rolling stats is not how life works either. Also hit dice pah why should my class decide which one I roll - everyone should just roll a d12 regardless of class. Death saves are also bad, 2/3 cover - omg darkvision........
Your life hack seems to only consider one aspect of the equation which is the verisimilitude, here’s another. your players are in a room and there are half a dozen things to notice and most of them are flavour but 1 is the secret door. The passive gets them everything but when they ask to look at the bookcase it is literally the only thing you have asked them to roll for.....well that’s the next 30 mins of your game because you might as well of had a giant red arrow pointing at the secret door.
here’s the thing - it’s okay for your players not to notice something, miss a door, miss someone sneaking up on them or a treasure. It’s fine.
There was mention of you being a story driven DM yet you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because failure is a better thing for build narrative than success
your veteran minesweeper that has had 2 bad roles and missed DC14 traps - that is fresh meat for the story sausage machine right there. Is he losing his touch, is he suffering ptsd, has he been hiding a debilitating blindness that is getting worse but he is to proud to get help, maybe these traps were set by goblin master trap maker or someone that served in his unit - now you have a mid tier boss and a booby trapped arena combat to plan.
or you know passive perception, they thought to ask so got told everything and disabled them - cool story moment there.
I think the mistake is to focus on the failures of roles - they make the successes more satisfying.
You have a point, but you're not exactly dropping truth bombs on unsuspecting innocents here. Most of the folks replying in this thread have waded through at least one of the several 10+ page threads debating the use of Passive Perception. For the most part, minds are made up.
I do often just straight up give out info based on passive skills or just having proficiency in a skill. I am not generally going to gate plot-forwarding info behind a roll. But there's all kinds of extra items and info that might not be crucial to progression but could definitely change the means of progression - that stuff you're going to have to make some effort to find.
I think this is the sticking point for a lot of people - not just that passive checks remove the tension that comes with uncertainty but that they remove player effort entirely. The secret doors just jump out at you whether you thought to search for them or not. As such I effectively use two levels of passive perception - true passive perception and what you might call guided perception - application of passive perception to accomplish a stated goal - what some might recognize as "taking 10." I will lower the DC for the latter one if the stated goal shows thought and engagement.
If I have a passive perception of 18 and the DC for finding a trap is 15, there is no uncertainty on whether I find the trap or not, I simply notice the trap, period full stop.
But there is always uncertainty that you will find something. Shall I regale you with the number of times I have set my glasses down somewhere, told myself to remember this is where I left them, and an hour later, cannot find them again? Whether or not I find them again is dependent on a number of factors, such as how busy I was in the intervening time, what was on my mind, where I actually put them down and whether I may have moved something to block my view of them later without realizing it, what position I'm standing in when I start looking, etc. All of those random things are abstracted into what we refer to as the die roll.
If you want to run your game with passive checks like this, go to it. But don't try to argue that everyone else is "doing it wrong" to use rolls for traps instead of passive checks.
1. Yes. I agree with you. But all the factors you have described are represented by the DC for finding the Glasses. Let's say you have a passive perception of 10. On a day where you left your glasses on an easy-to-find spot in a clean room and you are very relaxed and not time-constrained, finding the glasses as a task might have a DC of 2 in which case it is certain that you find them if you want to find them. On a day where you left your glasses in an unusual spot, in a messy room, after you woke up late for work, finding the glasses as a task might have a DC of 15. Do you get it? it is the difficulty of the task that changes in this scenario, not the output of your senses. In one scenario, you easily find the glasses, on another scenario you actually have to search a bit.
2. I am not saying people are doing it wrong necessarily. But I am saying that the way I have described the rules of passive perception and passive skill check is consistent with the rules of D&D 5e. As found in chapter 7 of the Players handbook under passive checks. See also Stealth and Hiding rules under the same chapter a bit further down were it clearly states:
"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."
So I am NOT saying that people that don't use passive checks are doing anything WRONG. What I am saying is that I am providing truthful and accurate information.
Do with that what you will. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
So why have them roll at all for anything - add 10 to all there skill modifiers and that’s everything. While we are at it rolling stats is not how life works either. Also hit dice pah why should my class decide which one I roll - everyone should just roll a d12 regardless of class. Death saves are also bad, 2/3 cover - omg darkvision........
Your life hack seems to only consider one aspect of the equation which is the verisimilitude, here’s another. your players are in a room and there are half a dozen things to notice and most of them are flavour but 1 is the secret door. The passive gets them everything but when they ask to look at the bookcase it is literally the only thing you have asked them to roll for.....well that’s the next 30 mins of your game because you might as well of had a giant red arrow pointing at the secret door.
here’s the thing - it’s okay for your players not to notice something, miss a door, miss someone sneaking up on them or a treasure. It’s fine.
There was mention of you being a story driven DM yet you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because failure is a better thing for build narrative than success
your veteran minesweeper that has had 2 bad roles and missed DC14 traps - that is fresh meat for the story sausage machine right there. Is he losing his touch, is he suffering ptsd, has he been hiding a debilitating blindness that is getting worse but he is to proud to get help, maybe these traps were set by goblin master trap maker or someone that served in his unit - now you have a mid tier boss and a booby trapped arena combat to plan.
or you know passive perception, they thought to ask so got told everything and disabled them - cool story moment there.
I think the mistake is to focus on the failures of roles - they make the successes more satisfying.
I see what you did there, you sassy smartass. You are right, I don't disagree with what you are saying......partially.
Your first paragraph was pedantic and overly dramatic, It also made little sense. Again, everything I have said is logically consistent and adherent to the rules outlined in the Players handbook Chapter 7 Using ability scores - Subsection Passive Checks and Subsection Stealth and Passive Perception. Here is an excript.
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 an advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
So were as your opening paragraph is just a bunch of nonsense. What I have been saying is literally how the bloody game tells you to play it. You are free to do whatever you want. But you can't really tell me or suggest that I am not providing factual and accurate info.
Furthermore, I fully agree with you that failure can lead to massive story development. By statement about the veteran was mean to illustrate that there are some areas in your life where failure is so incredibly unlikely that rolling is unnecessary.
It is easy for us to take for granted that a strong character can just do certain things and succeed automatically. Say my 24 strength barbarian can just pick up a cow. But we seem to have a mental inability to do the same for perception. Why Is it so hard to believe that a war veteran who been mine sweeping for 15 years won't easily fall prey to a mine?
I think we as DMs do not like to relinquish our control and power. But we got to remember, this isn't about us, and it is not about control. If the strong character can automatically succeed at doing strong things. The perceptive character should automatically succeed at doing perceptive things. Otherwise, you are doing that player a tremendous disservice.
My initial paragraph was supposed to be overly dramatic nonsense - because honestly I found your initial post to be comparable. You have got defensive in a lot of your replies about us taking this the wrong way and that you were not saying that we are wrong - to the point of editing your original post. Can you accept that the tone, language and in places aggressiveness of your original post were implying just that - you even admitted in a couple of your replies that was your intent.
your post was not about starting a discussion and getting other DM’s opinions, your post was saying “this is the right way to do it, by doing so I am offering my players a more truthful experience and by not you do a disservice to your players”
All of that is language and tone cribbed directly from your post and replies.
but honestly I think your stance overlooked one of the key ideas I have learnt DMing.
”Information earned has more value to the player than information given”
Technically passive checks are earned but they don’t feel that way, just being told stuff even with the caveat of “well your passive x let’s you know” feels mundane and uninteresting, it makes the game about the character build rather than the player, it leans in to min maxing archetypes and ignores that the spectrum of success and failure.
the veteran minesweeper doesn’t not see the exploding door handle for failing the check, he notices it but the trigger mechanism is one unfamiliar to him so disarming it is a higher DC or at disadvantage.
Part of the fun of D&D is beating the dice gods and the ups and downs of making some checks and failing others.
in my opinion auto successes are doing your players a disservice, rolling checks is not doing mine an disservice at all.
My initial paragraph was supposed to be overly dramatic nonsense - because honestly I found your initial post to be comparable. You have got defensive in a lot of your replies about us taking this the wrong way and that you were not saying that we are wrong - to the point of editing your original post. Can you accept that the tone, language and in places aggressiveness of your original post were implying just that - you even admitted in a couple of your replies that was your intent.
your post was not about starting a discussion and getting other DM’s opinions, your post was saying “this is the right way to do it, by doing so I am offering my players a more truthful experience and by not you do a disservice to your players”
All of that is language and tone cribbed directly from your post and replies.
but honestly I think your stance overlooked one of the key ideas I have learnt DMing.
”Information earned has more value to the player than information given”
Technically passive checks are earned but they don’t feel that way, just being told stuff even with the caveat of “well your passive x let’s you know” feels mundane and uninteresting, it makes the game about the character build rather than the player, it leans in to min maxing archetypes and ignores that the spectrum of success and failure.
the veteran minesweeper doesn’t not see the exploding door handle for failing the check, he notices it but the trigger mechanism is one unfamiliar to him so disarming it is a higher DC or at disadvantage.
Part of the fun of D&D is beating the dice gods and the ups and downs of making some checks and failing others.
in my opinion auto successes are doing your players a disservice, rolling checks is not doing mine an disservice at all.
I agree with what you have said here and I apologize if some of my languages seemed comfrontational. Honestly, it was not my intention, it is just how I am.
I seem to have the opposite mindset to you, where I think a roll of the dice is not an "earned" result. I mean, it's common sense, you got lucky and rolled a 20, you got unlucky, and rolled a 1. People don't often live at the whims of the die on everything that they do.
I agree that "automatically succeeding" on everything perception-related is a bit extreme and could potentially damage the mystery and flow of the game. I guess it is something we should do with care. For example, the perceptive character gets to find out a lot more information than the others. Maybe he notices a few traps and ambushes but not others. Maybe he overhears a plot-relevant conversation. I know people might burn me at the stake for mentioning this but I notice Mat Mercer does this a lot with the character Caduceus Clay on Critical Role. Where because of his high passive perception he often gets "secrets" unknown to others.
The basic problem with interpreting passive perception as a floor is that it means your chance goes from 45% to 100% across one point of skill. Therefore my rule is very simple: the acting character rolls. If you're not the one acting (for example, someone is trying to hide), use passive.
The basic problem with interpreting passive perception as a floor is that it means your chance goes from 45% to 100% across one point of skill. Therefore my rule is very simple: the acting character rolls. If you're not the one acting (for example, someone is trying to hide), use passive.
Funny enough, that is kind of how life works sometimes.
Have you ever been stuck on a math problem that you almost had the answer to but got it wrong anyway? Meanwhile, there were some problems that just solved without much issue?
Or for example me. I can deadlift 415 pounds, very easily but I cannot deadlift 425 pounds at all.
Sometimes, a singular point in an ability makes the difference between success and failure.
The basic problem with interpreting passive perception as a floor is that it means your chance goes from 45% to 100% across one point of skill. Therefore my rule is very simple: the acting character rolls. If you're not the one acting (for example, someone is trying to hide), use passive.
Funny enough, that is kind of how life works sometimes.
It doesn't go 35%, 40%, 45%, 100%, it goes 0%, 10%, 50%, 90%, 100%, or something similar. And problems of that type aren't resolved as skill or ability checks at all, they're just fixed effects, such as encumbrance.
Y'all crack me up. This game is an abstraction. Mathematics to "prove" something, or terms like "certainty" and "automatic" are almost (not completely, but...) useless. I do love the toilet paper analogy, but it doesn't hold any water for those of us who've spent 15 minutes looking for the car keys they're holding in their left hand.
Passive Perception as its set up for 5E sucks. It allows players to ignore searching rooms and stating how they are searching. It makes it where hidden doors just magically pop up in view. Find your player with the highest perception ability and roll for checks in the background when near a secret door and they aren't checking and if they make the DC tell them they notice a secret door. Otherwise, for most content the DC for secret doors are so low they are not actually secret doors but just a door with extra text due to passive perception for the DM to read "You see a secret door appear, the 24th secret door on this floor!".
Passive perception has its role, but it shouldn't be displacing all perception rolls. Sometimes the really unobservant just happen to look in the right place at the right time. Sometimes Pippin spots the Palantìr a bit quicker than Gandalf. Sometimes the 8 year old reader spots the problem with the plan quicker than Dumbledore (and therefore the author).
That's not always going to be the case, and more often or not the perceptive person will spot things before the less perceptive person, which is what the scores are for. But will my Paladin, which has -2 to Wisdom, NEVER just happen to spot that DC10 (and classified as "easy to find") trap? Not once in a million? Will my Artificer that has +0 to Wisdom ALWAYS spot it, never be distracted? Never look in the wrong place? Never assume that it's something else instead?
Passive perception has its uses. Two that come to mind:
1. If the number of rolls are slowing down the game too much. If you're going through a series of fifty 6ftx6ft rooms one after the other, no, I don't want my players rolling fifty times in 3 minutes. Their average will do. Now, where you place the line of worth it vs not worth it is subjective, but the principle is good - if the number of rolls are becoming a negative to the experience, start using passive instead.
2. When I don't trust my players. If they come into an area that they haven't already explicitly searched (for example, the room naturally curves) and they forget to say that they have a look around etc, but I know that their characters would, then I have a dilemma. If I remind them, it could prompt them to metagame and assume that it means that something is there to perceive, but if I don't...passive perception allows me to carry out that mechanic without the players being alerted.
There has been thr argument that the super wise man would never miss simple stuff...but let's create a parallel example; would the warrior who has trained all his life for sword fighting ever miss a human sized target? Almost certainly not...shall we use passive attack rolls then? Why do we have a 5% of a critical fail for an attack against pretty much anything? So shall we assume that an L20 Fighter with 20 strength will never fail an attack against something with an AC of 21 or less? It's not really any different to the Druid never failing to notice anything with a perception DC21 or less. Yet, the Fighter is explicitly told that he must roll, for good reason.
Another issue is that it renders the Wisdom (Perception) score of all but one player useless. If the Druid has a score of, say, 18, then my Fighter has zero need to invest in Wisdom at all. All that matters is that we have a person that is strong in Wisdom to get that passive perception, and we're sorted. However, if we roll, then the Druid could have a bad time. I may not be able to compete normally, but if I invest a little in Wisdom (Perception), then if the Druid rolls poorly, at least I have a shot at pulling through for him. Is that worth it? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it becomes a question worth asking. With passive perception, it never does. Unless I invest so much that I beat the Druid, at which point I start making the Druid's contributions irrelevant...
The problem with using passive perception is that it creates a floor. You can never have a bad moment, only "average" or better. If it were the average roll -5 or something, then it could be employed the way suggested. You always [pseudo]roll at least a 5. But since it assumes that you roll a 10, that wastes half of your rolls that are asked for and assumes that you can never just have a sucky moment and all the roleplay opportunities that brings with it.
Use it to prevent the game being bogged down by rolls (the standard for which is subjective) or to prevent metagaming by players that you can't trust to avoid it. Otherwise, I'd recommend rolling.
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.
Im with you on this, the amount of times over the past 30 years of playing rpg's that a character has 'failed' a skill that they have no business failing as its their bread and butter and were under no extenuating circumstances is more than a tragic waste of a characters build.
I have no respect for the dumb trope of ' you rolled a 1 so you don't see anything at all ' or you rolled a nat 20 so now you see EVERYTHING. It is a game but please GM have some sense of realism. If a characters passive is not beaten or matched and they are not under any duress then they succeed in my book.
As always though, however the GM/DM/Story teller wishes to run their game, that's up to them and i will follow their guide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh man but the DC for finding the toilet paper was 1. Literally a one, it was right in front of you. However, you have an 8(-1) on Wisdom and are not proficient in perception. So by rolling a natural 1 you got a total of zero and thus could find the toilet paper that was right in from of you.
I mean normally you would have had a passive perception of 9 and would have easily found the DC 1 toilet paper. But who the heck uses passive perception right? I am just talking crazy here.
If it's a DC of 1 to spot the TP, it's at least slightly concealed, and yes, people will occasionally fail to find it. Rolls that are truly impossible to fail do not have a DC.
Sure man, whatever you got to tell yourself.
But there is always uncertainty that you will find something. Shall I regale you with the number of times I have set my glasses down somewhere, told myself to remember this is where I left them, and an hour later, cannot find them again? Whether or not I find them again is dependent on a number of factors, such as how busy I was in the intervening time, what was on my mind, where I actually put them down and whether I may have moved something to block my view of them later without realizing it, what position I'm standing in when I start looking, etc. All of those random things are abstracted into what we refer to as the die roll.
If you want to run your game with passive checks like this, go to it. But don't try to argue that everyone else is "doing it wrong" to use rolls for traps instead of passive checks.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A 1 is not an automatic failure with checks.
got sniped. In any case I wouldn’t have a perception DC for finding the TP, particularly at home.
I wish they had just called it average perception instead of passive perception or retained the rules implied in LMoP where there were different passive and active DC.
So why have them roll at all for anything - add 10 to all there skill modifiers and that’s everything. While we are at it rolling stats is not how life works either. Also hit dice pah why should my class decide which one I roll - everyone should just roll a d12 regardless of class. Death saves are also bad, 2/3 cover - omg darkvision........
Your life hack seems to only consider one aspect of the equation which is the verisimilitude, here’s another. your players are in a room and there are half a dozen things to notice and most of them are flavour but 1 is the secret door. The passive gets them everything but when they ask to look at the bookcase it is literally the only thing you have asked them to roll for.....well that’s the next 30 mins of your game because you might as well of had a giant red arrow pointing at the secret door.
here’s the thing - it’s okay for your players not to notice something, miss a door, miss someone sneaking up on them or a treasure. It’s fine.
There was mention of you being a story driven DM yet you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because failure is a better thing for build narrative than success
your veteran minesweeper that has had 2 bad roles and missed DC14 traps - that is fresh meat for the story sausage machine right there. Is he losing his touch, is he suffering ptsd, has he been hiding a debilitating blindness that is getting worse but he is to proud to get help, maybe these traps were set by goblin master trap maker or someone that served in his unit - now you have a mid tier boss and a booby trapped arena combat to plan.
or you know passive perception, they thought to ask so got told everything and disabled them - cool story moment there.
I think the mistake is to focus on the failures of roles - they make the successes more satisfying.
You have a point, but you're not exactly dropping truth bombs on unsuspecting innocents here. Most of the folks replying in this thread have waded through at least one of the several 10+ page threads debating the use of Passive Perception. For the most part, minds are made up.
I do often just straight up give out info based on passive skills or just having proficiency in a skill. I am not generally going to gate plot-forwarding info behind a roll. But there's all kinds of extra items and info that might not be crucial to progression but could definitely change the means of progression - that stuff you're going to have to make some effort to find.
I think this is the sticking point for a lot of people - not just that passive checks remove the tension that comes with uncertainty but that they remove player effort entirely. The secret doors just jump out at you whether you thought to search for them or not. As such I effectively use two levels of passive perception - true passive perception and what you might call guided perception - application of passive perception to accomplish a stated goal - what some might recognize as "taking 10." I will lower the DC for the latter one if the stated goal shows thought and engagement.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
1. Yes. I agree with you. But all the factors you have described are represented by the DC for finding the Glasses. Let's say you have a passive perception of 10. On a day where you left your glasses on an easy-to-find spot in a clean room and you are very relaxed and not time-constrained, finding the glasses as a task might have a DC of 2 in which case it is certain that you find them if you want to find them. On a day where you left your glasses in an unusual spot, in a messy room, after you woke up late for work, finding the glasses as a task might have a DC of 15. Do you get it? it is the difficulty of the task that changes in this scenario, not the output of your senses. In one scenario, you easily find the glasses, on another scenario you actually have to search a bit.
2. I am not saying people are doing it wrong necessarily. But I am saying that the way I have described the rules of passive perception and passive skill check is consistent with the rules of D&D 5e. As found in chapter 7 of the Players handbook under passive checks. See also Stealth and Hiding rules under the same chapter a bit further down were it clearly states:
"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."
So I am NOT saying that people that don't use passive checks are doing anything WRONG. What I am saying is that I am providing truthful and accurate information.
Do with that what you will. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I see what you did there, you sassy smartass. You are right, I don't disagree with what you are saying......partially.
Your first paragraph was pedantic and overly dramatic, It also made little sense. Again, everything I have said is logically consistent and adherent to the rules outlined in the Players handbook Chapter 7 Using ability scores - Subsection Passive Checks and Subsection Stealth and Passive Perception. Here is an excript.
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 an advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
So were as your opening paragraph is just a bunch of nonsense. What I have been saying is literally how the bloody game tells you to play it. You are free to do whatever you want. But you can't really tell me or suggest that I am not providing factual and accurate info.
Furthermore, I fully agree with you that failure can lead to massive story development. By statement about the veteran was mean to illustrate that there are some areas in your life where failure is so incredibly unlikely that rolling is unnecessary.
It is easy for us to take for granted that a strong character can just do certain things and succeed automatically. Say my 24 strength barbarian can just pick up a cow. But we seem to have a mental inability to do the same for perception. Why Is it so hard to believe that a war veteran who been mine sweeping for 15 years won't easily fall prey to a mine?
I think we as DMs do not like to relinquish our control and power. But we got to remember, this isn't about us, and it is not about control. If the strong character can automatically succeed at doing strong things. The perceptive character should automatically succeed at doing perceptive things. Otherwise, you are doing that player a tremendous disservice.
My initial paragraph was supposed to be overly dramatic nonsense - because honestly I found your initial post to be comparable. You have got defensive in a lot of your replies about us taking this the wrong way and that you were not saying that we are wrong - to the point of editing your original post. Can you accept that the tone, language and in places aggressiveness of your original post were implying just that - you even admitted in a couple of your replies that was your intent.
your post was not about starting a discussion and getting other DM’s opinions, your post was saying “this is the right way to do it, by doing so I am offering my players a more truthful experience and by not you do a disservice to your players”
All of that is language and tone cribbed directly from your post and replies.
but honestly I think your stance overlooked one of the key ideas I have learnt DMing.
”Information earned has more value to the player than information given”
Technically passive checks are earned but they don’t feel that way, just being told stuff even with the caveat of “well your passive x let’s you know” feels mundane and uninteresting, it makes the game about the character build rather than the player, it leans in to min maxing archetypes and ignores that the spectrum of success and failure.
the veteran minesweeper doesn’t not see the exploding door handle for failing the check, he notices it but the trigger mechanism is one unfamiliar to him so disarming it is a higher DC or at disadvantage.
Part of the fun of D&D is beating the dice gods and the ups and downs of making some checks and failing others.
in my opinion auto successes are doing your players a disservice, rolling checks is not doing mine an disservice at all.
The basic problem with interpreting passive perception as a floor is that it means your chance goes from 45% to 100% across one point of skill. Therefore my rule is very simple: the acting character rolls. If you're not the one acting (for example, someone is trying to hide), use passive.
Funny enough, that is kind of how life works sometimes.
Have you ever been stuck on a math problem that you almost had the answer to but got it wrong anyway? Meanwhile, there were some problems that just solved without much issue?
Or for example me. I can deadlift 415 pounds, very easily but I cannot deadlift 425 pounds at all.
Sometimes, a singular point in an ability makes the difference between success and failure.
It doesn't go 35%, 40%, 45%, 100%, it goes 0%, 10%, 50%, 90%, 100%, or something similar. And problems of that type aren't resolved as skill or ability checks at all, they're just fixed effects, such as encumbrance.
Y'all crack me up. This game is an abstraction. Mathematics to "prove" something, or terms like "certainty" and "automatic" are almost (not completely, but...) useless. I do love the toilet paper analogy, but it doesn't hold any water for those of us who've spent 15 minutes looking for the car keys they're holding in their left hand.
Passive Perception as its set up for 5E sucks. It allows players to ignore searching rooms and stating how they are searching. It makes it where hidden doors just magically pop up in view. Find your player with the highest perception ability and roll for checks in the background when near a secret door and they aren't checking and if they make the DC tell them they notice a secret door. Otherwise, for most content the DC for secret doors are so low they are not actually secret doors but just a door with extra text due to passive perception for the DM to read "You see a secret door appear, the 24th secret door on this floor!".
Passive perception has its role, but it shouldn't be displacing all perception rolls. Sometimes the really unobservant just happen to look in the right place at the right time. Sometimes Pippin spots the Palantìr a bit quicker than Gandalf. Sometimes the 8 year old reader spots the problem with the plan quicker than Dumbledore (and therefore the author).
That's not always going to be the case, and more often or not the perceptive person will spot things before the less perceptive person, which is what the scores are for. But will my Paladin, which has -2 to Wisdom, NEVER just happen to spot that DC10 (and classified as "easy to find") trap? Not once in a million? Will my Artificer that has +0 to Wisdom ALWAYS spot it, never be distracted? Never look in the wrong place? Never assume that it's something else instead?
Passive perception has its uses. Two that come to mind:
1. If the number of rolls are slowing down the game too much. If you're going through a series of fifty 6ftx6ft rooms one after the other, no, I don't want my players rolling fifty times in 3 minutes. Their average will do. Now, where you place the line of worth it vs not worth it is subjective, but the principle is good - if the number of rolls are becoming a negative to the experience, start using passive instead.
2. When I don't trust my players. If they come into an area that they haven't already explicitly searched (for example, the room naturally curves) and they forget to say that they have a look around etc, but I know that their characters would, then I have a dilemma. If I remind them, it could prompt them to metagame and assume that it means that something is there to perceive, but if I don't...passive perception allows me to carry out that mechanic without the players being alerted.
There has been thr argument that the super wise man would never miss simple stuff...but let's create a parallel example; would the warrior who has trained all his life for sword fighting ever miss a human sized target? Almost certainly not...shall we use passive attack rolls then? Why do we have a 5% of a critical fail for an attack against pretty much anything? So shall we assume that an L20 Fighter with 20 strength will never fail an attack against something with an AC of 21 or less? It's not really any different to the Druid never failing to notice anything with a perception DC21 or less. Yet, the Fighter is explicitly told that he must roll, for good reason.
Another issue is that it renders the Wisdom (Perception) score of all but one player useless. If the Druid has a score of, say, 18, then my Fighter has zero need to invest in Wisdom at all. All that matters is that we have a person that is strong in Wisdom to get that passive perception, and we're sorted. However, if we roll, then the Druid could have a bad time. I may not be able to compete normally, but if I invest a little in Wisdom (Perception), then if the Druid rolls poorly, at least I have a shot at pulling through for him. Is that worth it? Maybe, maybe not. But at least it becomes a question worth asking. With passive perception, it never does. Unless I invest so much that I beat the Druid, at which point I start making the Druid's contributions irrelevant...
The problem with using passive perception is that it creates a floor. You can never have a bad moment, only "average" or better. If it were the average roll -5 or something, then it could be employed the way suggested. You always [pseudo]roll at least a 5. But since it assumes that you roll a 10, that wastes half of your rolls that are asked for and assumes that you can never just have a sucky moment and all the roleplay opportunities that brings with it.
Use it to prevent the game being bogged down by rolls (the standard for which is subjective) or to prevent metagaming by players that you can't trust to avoid it. Otherwise, I'd recommend rolling.
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.
Im with you on this, the amount of times over the past 30 years of playing rpg's that a character has 'failed' a skill that they have no business failing as its their bread and butter and were under no extenuating circumstances is more than a tragic waste of a characters build.
I have no respect for the dumb trope of ' you rolled a 1 so you don't see anything at all ' or you rolled a nat 20 so now you see EVERYTHING. It is a game but please GM have some sense of realism. If a characters passive is not beaten or matched and they are not under any duress then they succeed in my book.
As always though, however the GM/DM/Story teller wishes to run their game, that's up to them and i will follow their guide.