I know this issue has been discussed many times, but as much as I try to find a satisfying answer, I just can't wrap my head around it.
In the PHB Passive Skills (or rather "Passive Checks") are described as follows:
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
So it is a tool for the DM to
Represent an average of a repeated roll over time, especially to avoid rolling dice over and over and keep up the pace of a session.
Make a secret decision to see if players achieve something.
That makes a lot of sense and solves two specific problems that have to do with the players at the table, NOT the characters in the game:
Pacing / Time spent on rolling dice at the table
Surprise / Hiding information at the table
So far so good.
Now comes the first problem: Hiding.
In the PHB Hiding is described as follows:
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. [...]
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 [...]
Now passive skills are not just a tool for the DM to average out multiple dice rolls or hide information at the table. They're also an integral part of the stealth and hiding mechanism in the game itself. (In this case, the players already have all the information and there is just one roll to make. But the rule tells us to use the passive score of the creature instead of rolling.)
This then turns into the next question: If we can do nothing and use passive perception to contest stealth, how is it possible that an active search can roll lower? So if we were to actively search for someone with a fairly bad stealth roll, we could miss them with an even worse perception roll. Instead, doing nothing and using passive perception would've found them.
This was addressed by Jeremy Crawford, the Lead Designer of DnD 5e, in a Sage Advice segment. (Sage Advice - Stealth // Discussion about Stealth: 22:15 // Part about passive skill floors: 23:20)
Here he gives that exact example and tells us that "Passive Perception is always on. It really represents the floor of your perception."
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is. In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check. Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Now comes the most absurd part to me, the feat "Observant":
Increase your Intelligence or Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20. If you can see a creature's mouth while it is speaking a language you understand, you can interpret what it's saying by reading its lips. You have a +5 bonus to your passive Wisdom (Perception) and passive Intelligence (Investigation) scores.
Say what now?
A +5 bonus to two of the most used skills in the game? And the distinction that these are passive skills makes no sense at all since passive skills are apparently a floor for active skills. And of course, they have to be, because now you could have only a +0 in active Perception, so 10 as average, but a certain 15 in passive Perception.
This can only make any sense if passive Perception 15 is indeed a floor, otherwise, you would always find averagely hidden creatures while not looking for them and become much worse at looking for them when actively doing so. (And by a pretty large margin I might add, you only have a 30% chance to roll a flat 15 or above)
I just can't wrap my head around the logic of these rules. How is that balanced? At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all since most of the important passive skills will be in the 20-30 range. But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring.
I fully understand that I can do whatever I want as a DM and decide to use or not use any aspect of the game as long as it serves the table and the fun of everyone involved.
But I just want to base my decisions on a consistent set of rules that my players are able to logically follow (so they can theorycraft their characters amongst other things)
If I just decide to use or not use passive skills whenever I feel like (especially if someone has a feat like Observant), that makes me wonder why these things are even laid out in numbers and rules instead of just saying "Decide and Narrate the situation as you see fit." Which then makes me wonder how some of my players would feel about that, if they build their character in a specific way and I'm just dismissing entire game mechanics at will.
Am I completely missing something since I just lack experience? Is this actually how it's meant to be played and balanced? Am I even supposed to think deeper about these numbers and rules or is the solution really just "Do whatever you feel could work in any given situation."
I use passive stats for results over time or when they are opposed by an active roll that the players shouldn't know about. I use active rolls for when it matters whether you notice at a given moment instead of noticing at some point.
For hiding in combat, it's stealth vs passive perception. If they succeed, the character can still use active perception to possibly notice them. In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception since passive is applied when they try to hide and active is applied when you try to see where they hid.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
This is why I completely ignore the Passive rules. I keep a small cheat sheet of the character's skills and just roll the dice myself if I don't want the players to know what is going on. The Observant Feat is still useful, but it is just a static bonus for all perception and investigation checks that the character makes (whether I roll or the player does).
I know that isn't RAW, but RAW in this case makes very little sense to me.
This is why I completely ignore the Passive rules. I keep a small cheat sheet of the character's skills and just roll the dice myself if I don't want the players to know what is going on.
To be honest, the longer I think about ways to make sense of this, the more I lean towards your exact solution.
Just ignore passive skill entirely for game mechanics and simply roll in secret where a passive skill could apply. I mean that's what the passive skill is meant to represent anyway, right?
I feel like the passive scores can still be useful for a quick glance at who might be best at something to make narrative choices, but leaving them out of actual game mechanics seems so much cleaner and much more logically consistent.
Since we play online with Foundry, I can just make dozens of secret rolls with the click of a button, so I feel like that solves the actual two reasons passive skills were invented for in the first place (Less tedious rolling at the table and keeping secrets from your players)
Of course, feats like Observant have to be adapted in that case.
I really would prefer to play RAW as much as possible. But I don't understand how that works with passive skills. At least not in a way that has consistent rules instead of relying heavily on situational decisions of the DM.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
The only way it would be a 15 in this case would be for someone to actively roll it. You have to include the odds of that happening for this to make sense.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
The only way it would be a 15 in this case would be for someone to actively roll it. You have to include the odds of that happening for this to make sense.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
Are you talking about the odds of actively rolling a 15, or about the odds of a player/DM deciding to roll an active check?
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
I think it only would make no sense if situations are deals equally susceptible for both passive and active.
Lets take the exemple of Perception, since passive Insight and Investigation are most times let aside by DMs. The Perception skill have a good example that can unrely both passive and active activity:
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
There's other examples that could rely in both cases but lets check that one. If you try to hear a conversation through a closed door, you are actively trying to perceive something that you possibly couldn't perceive passively.
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is. In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check. Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Why would that be a problem?
If you want have a "passive History" score, for instance, it just means there is some knowledge a character wouldn't need a roll to recall -- which, incidentally, is exactly what the game suggests you do already. It just doesn't specifically have a "passive History" box on a character sheet.
Remember, you don't have to set a DC and call for a roll on everything. Per the DMG:
When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
[...]
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
That seems like a very ambiguous rule that could be debated in many ways at the table. This essentially makes it a case of "Whatever the DM says."
I don't like that at all. If you take the above scores and a DC of 15, this would mean it is me who would decide if the character will 100% succeed with the passive Perception or very likely fail (70%) with the active Perception.
This is as railroad as it gets, apart from just making a decision and saying "Because I said so."
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is. In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check. Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Why would that be a problem?
If you want have a "passive History" score, for instance, it just means there is some knowledge a character wouldn't need a roll to recall -- which, incidentally, is exactly what the game suggests you do already. It just doesn't specifically have a "passive History" box on a character sheet.
Remember, you don't have to set a DC and call for a roll on everything. Per the DMG:
When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
Because even at level 1 this would mean DC 10 and below is basically non-existent for player characters (Why even include these in the starter sets then?) And it quickly rises up from there to the point of not needing dice at all because someone in the group will have that DC 15 passively covered with an "active" skill check, even at level 1.
And a few levels later even DC 20 or 25 will be handled by passives "actively".
I guess that is a valid way to play if a group enjoys that, I just don't think mine would.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
[...]
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
That seems like a very ambiguous rule that could be debated in many ways at the table. This essentially makes it a case of "Whatever the DM says."
I maybe make my self unclear if you see what I say as a case of "whatever the DM says".
What I meant is that Perseption isn't a stationary abillity from a robot that would function identically in any given situation and the role of the DM here would be arbitrary only if its a bad DM.
In either case the role of the DM is to set the narrative and determine such thing, thats its function in the game. Of course it doing a bad job if it make that choices with no explanation and based only in how it can ruin the players fun making that situation harder than it should be, but if its a good DM it would evaluate the more preciselly that is possible to make that situation to make sense and have fun in the game.
So, leting this aside and saying what i've said before in other words, what I mean is that we must remember that Perseption is based on the character Wisdom and its more related to its capability to make assumptions based on its senses than its senses itself, even if comunly we fall on reading it otherwise, and the use of it can have different apllications within the games narrative.
That said, I would believe that there's a sense behind a character with the observer feat being better to make assertive assumptions passively than when trying to do so. I believe that these exemple I use can clarify that: That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
[...]
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
That seems like a very ambiguous rule that could be debated in many ways at the table. This essentially makes it a case of "Whatever the DM says."
we must remember that Perseption is based on the character Wisdom and its more related to its capability to make assumptions based on its senses than its senses itself, even if comunly we fall on reading it otherwise, and the use of it can have different apllications within the games narrative.
That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
I think I have to point out that you are confusing Perception and Investigation in your examples.
As far as I'm aware Perception is precisely based on the senses themselves, as in well ... what you can perceive with these senses. "You hear a loud branch crack in the forest"
Investigation on the other hand is the assumptions you make based on what you perceived. "This crack was very loud, it must be a big animal or a human"
If the Party or a PC is “actively” trying to be stealthy, I have the relevant player(s) make an active stealth check. (This is usually against the passive perception of whoever the PC(s) are trying to avoid.) And vice versa.
If the party or PC is not “actively” trying to be stealthy, I use their “passive stealth score.” (That usually sets the DC for active perception rolls made by any relevant monster(s)/NPC(s).) And vice versa.
If both the PC(s) and monster(s) are actively using their relevant skills, then I treat the situation the same as any other “contest” in 5e, and both sides make active rolls. (If neither side is “actively” attempting to sneak or detect sneaking, then I just compare the relevant passive scores and move on.)
I basically treat it all just like Attack Rolls vs AC, or Saving Throws vs a Save DC. Whoever is making an active attempt makes a roll, whoever is not uses their passive scores. (Ties go to the active roller.) If both sides are being active in their attempts, I treat the situation as a contest, and compare opposed rolls. (Ties maintain the status quo, whatever that happens to be at the time.)
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
The only way it would be a 15 in this case would be for someone to actively roll it. You have to include the odds of that happening for this to make sense.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
Are you talking about the odds of actively rolling a 15, or about the odds of a player/DM deciding to roll an active check?
I'm saying that the case you're quoting is when someone rolls stealth versus passive perception. In that case, the randomness necessary is provided by the stealth roll. Additional rolls on subsequent turns can be obtained by making active checks versus the rolled value for stealth. It is true that an observant character is less likely than a non-observant character to get an improved result on subsequent turns, but that's due to them already setting the bar so high.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
[...]
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
That seems like a very ambiguous rule that could be debated in many ways at the table. This essentially makes it a case of "Whatever the DM says."
we must remember that Perseption is based on the character Wisdom and its more related to its capability to make assumptions based on its senses than its senses itself, even if comunly we fall on reading it otherwise, and the use of it can have different apllications within the games narrative.
That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
I think I have to point out that you are confusing Perception and Investigation in your examples.
I made myself less clear than before, sorry.
Neighter of my examples rely on Inteligence (Investigation). And lets remember that skills are just specific ways to use an ability and the matter on a check is the ability itself.
"That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush" Its a Passive Perception exemple. What I meant with a quick assumption based on a sensitive perception is: the specific sound of the footsep over a brunch indicates a threat. The wisdom use here is in determine even unconsiously or without any calculations that the sound is a treath indication. Two characters could hear the sound, but to determine that its a treath indication you must be wise enought to distinguish it, and thats where is the "assumption based on senses than the senses it self". In other other words: what beying wise determine is that capability and not how well your eyes or your ears works.
"but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden." Its a Active Perception exemple. A character are looking for indications of the presence of someone in the location, but failling in distinguish the sutile shape that would give away its position. Here again, the wiseness of the character to determine that the odd shape that it sees is the foe and not just a wierd feature of the tree that determines his perception of it. It could see the shape becouse its eyes are functioning well and there's no obstacle beteen them but still don't distinguish it as something odd and the indication of the foe's presence.
The very much works on Insight, that are also Wisdom checks: You must be able to distinguish determinated movements, expressions, etc as indicators of an intent (as a lie for the most common exemple).
So, what I want to say with all that (getting back to the fist point):
As the wisdom indicates that capability to make a sense for what your senses are perceiving, is possible to see that a character with observer feat could be better reacting to what its senses catch passively than when it try to focus in some specific thing.
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is. In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check. Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Why would that be a problem?
If you want have a "passive History" score, for instance, it just means there is some knowledge a character wouldn't need a roll to recall -- which, incidentally, is exactly what the game suggests you do already. It just doesn't specifically have a "passive History" box on a character sheet.
Remember, you don't have to set a DC and call for a roll on everything. Per the DMG:
When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
Because even at level 1 this would mean DC 10 and below is basically non-existent for player characters (Why even include these in the starter sets then?)
No, it wouldn't. The mere fact that you are setting a DC at all indicates that failure is both a possibility and has consequences, which means it requires a roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If the Party or a PC is “actively” trying to be stealthy, I have the relevant player(s) make an active stealth check. (This is usually against the passive perception of whoever the PC(s) are trying to avoid.) And vice versa.
If the party or PC is not “actively” trying to be stealthy, I use their “passive stealth score.” (That usually sets the DC for active perception rolls made by any relevant monster(s)/NPC(s).) And vice versa.
If both the PC(s) and monster(s) are actively using their relevant skills, then I treat the situation the same as any other “contest” in 5e, and both sides make active rolls. (If neither side is “actively” attempting to sneak or detect sneaking, then I just compare the relevant passive scores and move on.)
I basically treat it all just like Attack Rolls vs AC, or Saving Throws vs a Save DC. Whoever is making an active attempt makes a roll, whoever is not uses their passive scores. (Ties go to the active roller.) If both sides are being active in their attempts, I treat the situation as a contest, and compare opposed rolls. (Ties maintain the status quo, whatever that happens to be at the time.)
In that case, however, you would run into situations as I described in my initial post and some of the comments here, especially with a feat like Observant.
Where you suddenly have characters that are much better at doing something passively than when they focus to do it actively.
Take the scenario of going into a dungeon, a character with Observant might notice every clue to a secret door in a room with a DC 15 with a 100% success rate as long as that character is doing it "passively", but once that character starts to search for clues "actively" (What would that entail? Just saying "Do I notice something strange in this room"?) suddenly his success rate drops to 30%. So no character should ever enter situations actively, to make sure to benefit from their passive score, and sometimes avoid active rolling completely if possible as the chance for failure would exist.
That is if we don't take the passive Skill as a floor, which apparently we should according to Mr. Crawford to avoid this exact problem.
If that is the case, Observant seems incredibly strong, if not outright broken (+5 to your floor for active skill checks in two of the most used skills in the game) Making a level 3 character with an active floor of 20+ in both Perception or Investigation very easy to build, rendering any DC 20 challenge in this category meaningless, as the success rate would always be 100%. Stealth would also be near impossible for creatures that are reasonable at that CR.
Again, maybe this is meant to be this strong and is not as overpowered as I assume. But I would like to know how you guys would handle situations like that.
In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
The only way it would be a 15 in this case would be for someone to actively roll it. You have to include the odds of that happening for this to make sense.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
Are you talking about the odds of actively rolling a 15, or about the odds of a player/DM deciding to roll an active check?
I'm saying that the case you're quoting is when someone rolls stealth versus passive perception. In that case, the randomness necessary is provided by the stealth roll. Additional rolls on subsequent turns can be obtained by making active checks versus the rolled value for stealth. It is true that an observant character is less likely than a non-observant character to get an improved result on subsequent turns, but that's due to them already setting the bar so high.
In that case yes, you are effectively using passive Perception as a floor, which avoids the problem. Which, as you stated, is fine by you for this specific situation.
Let's take the same scores and rolls for any other scenario (finding clues for hidden doors, investigating the surrounding area, etc.) that includes Perception and Investigation. As far as I understand you don't think these should use passive floors. But they create the exact same problem then.
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is. In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check. Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Why would that be a problem?
If you want have a "passive History" score, for instance, it just means there is some knowledge a character wouldn't need a roll to recall -- which, incidentally, is exactly what the game suggests you do already. It just doesn't specifically have a "passive History" box on a character sheet.
Remember, you don't have to set a DC and call for a roll on everything. Per the DMG:
When a player wants to do something, it’s often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character’s ability scores. For example, a character doesn’t normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
Because even at level 1 this would mean DC 10 and below is basically non-existent for player characters (Why even include these in the starter sets then?)
No, it wouldn't. The mere fact that you are setting a DC at all indicates that failure is both a possibility and has consequences, which means it requires a roll.
That would mean that DC's are created on the fly and adapt to the abilities of the characters instead of being immutable entities in the game world.
A starter adventure that has DC 10 traps or hidden doors shouldn't suddenly become DC 16-20 because someone in the party picked Observant or happens to start with 15 at level 1. And if it stays DC 10, then it doesn't matter if a roll is needed, because as you stated above, you don't see a problem with passive floors, and most characters have passive skills of 10 and above, making this a guaranteed success. (That would beg the question of why DC 10 even exists if not for the rare edge case that someone with passive 9 is alone in front of a challenge)
One could argue that DC's should be created on the fly and the world should adapt and shift as the characters grow, but that would mean that the entire world becomes more difficult for everyone as soon as one player picks Observant, which is essentially punishing other players for the decision of one player. I do not like this interpretation, but I accept that groups could have fun with this. If that's the case, more power to them, but it's not my cup of tea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a new DM.
I know this issue has been discussed many times, but as much as I try to find a satisfying answer, I just can't wrap my head around it.
In the PHB Passive Skills (or rather "Passive Checks") are described as follows:
So it is a tool for the DM to
That makes a lot of sense and solves two specific problems that have to do with the players at the table, NOT the characters in the game:
So far so good.
Now comes the first problem: Hiding.
In the PHB Hiding is described as follows:
Now passive skills are not just a tool for the DM to average out multiple dice rolls or hide information at the table.
They're also an integral part of the stealth and hiding mechanism in the game itself.
(In this case, the players already have all the information and there is just one roll to make. But the rule tells us to use the passive score of the creature instead of rolling.)
This then turns into the next question: If we can do nothing and use passive perception to contest stealth, how is it possible that an active search can roll lower?
So if we were to actively search for someone with a fairly bad stealth roll, we could miss them with an even worse perception roll. Instead, doing nothing and using passive perception would've found them.
This was addressed by Jeremy Crawford, the Lead Designer of DnD 5e, in a Sage Advice segment.
(Sage Advice - Stealth // Discussion about Stealth: 22:15 // Part about passive skill floors: 23:20)
Here he gives that exact example and tells us that "Passive Perception is always on. It really represents the floor of your perception."
So now this means passive skills are an absolutely essential part of the game itself, not just the table, as they represent a minimum roll, no matter what the actual result of the roll is.
In most cases, this would mean we're now rolling a 10-20 on a d20 for any active skill check.
Now that already seems insane to me, but unfortunately, the only way passive skills make sense if their score is directly used in game mechanics like stealth.
Now comes the most absurd part to me, the feat "Observant":
Say what now?
A +5 bonus to two of the most used skills in the game? And the distinction that these are passive skills makes no sense at all since passive skills are apparently a floor for active skills.
And of course, they have to be, because now you could have only a +0 in active Perception, so 10 as average, but a certain 15 in passive Perception.
This can only make any sense if passive Perception 15 is indeed a floor, otherwise, you would always find averagely hidden creatures while not looking for them and become much worse at looking for them when actively doing so. (And by a pretty large margin I might add, you only have a 30% chance to roll a flat 15 or above)
I just can't wrap my head around the logic of these rules. How is that balanced? At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all since most of the important passive skills will be in the 20-30 range. But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring.
I fully understand that I can do whatever I want as a DM and decide to use or not use any aspect of the game as long as it serves the table and the fun of everyone involved.
But I just want to base my decisions on a consistent set of rules that my players are able to logically follow (so they can theorycraft their characters amongst other things)
If I just decide to use or not use passive skills whenever I feel like (especially if someone has a feat like Observant), that makes me wonder why these things are even laid out in numbers and rules instead of just saying "Decide and Narrate the situation as you see fit."
Which then makes me wonder how some of my players would feel about that, if they build their character in a specific way and I'm just dismissing entire game mechanics at will.
Am I completely missing something since I just lack experience? Is this actually how it's meant to be played and balanced?
Am I even supposed to think deeper about these numbers and rules or is the solution really just "Do whatever you feel could work in any given situation."
Any help and insight is greatly appreciated.
I use passive stats for results over time or when they are opposed by an active roll that the players shouldn't know about. I use active rolls for when it matters whether you notice at a given moment instead of noticing at some point.
For hiding in combat, it's stealth vs passive perception. If they succeed, the character can still use active perception to possibly notice them. In this case (and only this case IMO) passive perception acts as a floor for active perception since passive is applied when they try to hide and active is applied when you try to see where they hid.
Then you would get strange situations like the Observant feat that gives +5 to passive Perception/Investigation and suddenly a (+0) character that would only have a 30% chance to roll a 15 for active Perception/Investigation will always succeed 100% with a 15 when "using" the passive Skill.
That would make no sense from a game mechanic standpoint and even less from a roleplay standpoint.
This is why I completely ignore the Passive rules. I keep a small cheat sheet of the character's skills and just roll the dice myself if I don't want the players to know what is going on. The Observant Feat is still useful, but it is just a static bonus for all perception and investigation checks that the character makes (whether I roll or the player does).
I know that isn't RAW, but RAW in this case makes very little sense to me.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To be honest, the longer I think about ways to make sense of this, the more I lean towards your exact solution.
Just ignore passive skill entirely for game mechanics and simply roll in secret where a passive skill could apply. I mean that's what the passive skill is meant to represent anyway, right?
I feel like the passive scores can still be useful for a quick glance at who might be best at something to make narrative choices, but leaving them out of actual game mechanics seems so much cleaner and much more logically consistent.
Since we play online with Foundry, I can just make dozens of secret rolls with the click of a button, so I feel like that solves the actual two reasons passive skills were invented for in the first place (Less tedious rolling at the table and keeping secrets from your players)
Of course, feats like Observant have to be adapted in that case.
I really would prefer to play RAW as much as possible. But I don't understand how that works with passive skills.
At least not in a way that has consistent rules instead of relying heavily on situational decisions of the DM.
The only way it would be a 15 in this case would be for someone to actively roll it. You have to include the odds of that happening for this to make sense.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean?
Are you talking about the odds of actively rolling a 15, or about the odds of a player/DM deciding to roll an active check?
I think it only would make no sense if situations are deals equally susceptible for both passive and active.
Lets take the exemple of Perception, since passive Insight and Investigation are most times let aside by DMs. The Perception skill have a good example that can unrely both passive and active activity:
"For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door"
There's other examples that could rely in both cases but lets check that one. If you try to hear a conversation through a closed door, you are actively trying to perceive something that you possibly couldn't perceive passively.
What I mean is that you as DM can say: the only way to perceive this is to try to do it so, while your passive perception would rely only on things that surrounds you and are sucsetible to your senses. Tha door on the example would muffle the sound making it impossible to the conversation to be catched passively for some guy passing trhough even if that guy are an attentive person, but if you try to perceive it it doesn't rely in how fast or well your senses can catch a nuance within your surroundings.
In that way, I would say that makes sense a observant character being bad on perceptions checks, becouse not any given situation would be appliable for both passive and active scores. That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
Why would that be a problem?
If you want have a "passive History" score, for instance, it just means there is some knowledge a character wouldn't need a roll to recall -- which, incidentally, is exactly what the game suggests you do already. It just doesn't specifically have a "passive History" box on a character sheet.
Remember, you don't have to set a DC and call for a roll on everything. Per the DMG:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That seems like a very ambiguous rule that could be debated in many ways at the table.
This essentially makes it a case of "Whatever the DM says."
I don't like that at all.
If you take the above scores and a DC of 15, this would mean it is me who would decide if the character will 100% succeed with the passive Perception or very likely fail (70%) with the active Perception.
This is as railroad as it gets, apart from just making a decision and saying "Because I said so."
Because even at level 1 this would mean DC 10 and below is basically non-existent for player characters (Why even include these in the starter sets then?)
And it quickly rises up from there to the point of not needing dice at all because someone in the group will have that DC 15 passively covered with an "active" skill check, even at level 1.
And a few levels later even DC 20 or 25 will be handled by passives "actively".
I guess that is a valid way to play if a group enjoys that, I just don't think mine would.
I maybe make my self unclear if you see what I say as a case of "whatever the DM says".
What I meant is that Perseption isn't a stationary abillity from a robot that would function identically in any given situation and the role of the DM here would be arbitrary only if its a bad DM.
In either case the role of the DM is to set the narrative and determine such thing, thats its function in the game. Of course it doing a bad job if it make that choices with no explanation and based only in how it can ruin the players fun making that situation harder than it should be, but if its a good DM it would evaluate the more preciselly that is possible to make that situation to make sense and have fun in the game.
So, leting this aside and saying what i've said before in other words, what I mean is that we must remember that Perseption is based on the character Wisdom and its more related to its capability to make assumptions based on its senses than its senses itself, even if comunly we fall on reading it otherwise, and the use of it can have different apllications within the games narrative.
That said, I would believe that there's a sense behind a character with the observer feat being better to make assertive assumptions passively than when trying to do so. I believe that these exemple I use can clarify that: That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush, but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden.
I think I have to point out that you are confusing Perception and Investigation in your examples.
As far as I'm aware Perception is precisely based on the senses themselves, as in well ... what you can perceive with these senses. "You hear a loud branch crack in the forest"
Investigation on the other hand is the assumptions you make based on what you perceived. "This crack was very loud, it must be a big animal or a human"
If the Party or a PC is “actively” trying to be stealthy, I have the relevant player(s) make an active stealth check. (This is usually against the passive perception of whoever the PC(s) are trying to avoid.) And vice versa.
If the party or PC is not “actively” trying to be stealthy, I use their “passive stealth score.” (That usually sets the DC for active perception rolls made by any relevant monster(s)/NPC(s).) And vice versa.
If both the PC(s) and monster(s) are actively using their relevant skills, then I treat the situation the same as any other “contest” in 5e, and both sides make active rolls. (If neither side is “actively” attempting to sneak or detect sneaking, then I just compare the relevant passive scores and move on.)
I basically treat it all just like Attack Rolls vs AC, or Saving Throws vs a Save DC. Whoever is making an active attempt makes a roll, whoever is not uses their passive scores. (Ties go to the active roller.) If both sides are being active in their attempts, I treat the situation as a contest, and compare opposed rolls. (Ties maintain the status quo, whatever that happens to be at the time.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm saying that the case you're quoting is when someone rolls stealth versus passive perception. In that case, the randomness necessary is provided by the stealth roll. Additional rolls on subsequent turns can be obtained by making active checks versus the rolled value for stealth. It is true that an observant character is less likely than a non-observant character to get an improved result on subsequent turns, but that's due to them already setting the bar so high.
I made myself less clear than before, sorry.
Neighter of my examples rely on Inteligence (Investigation). And lets remember that skills are just specific ways to use an ability and the matter on a check is the ability itself.
"That char could have a keen ear to catch a brunch broken by a foot behind it during an ambush"
Its a Passive Perception exemple. What I meant with a quick assumption based on a sensitive perception is: the specific sound of the footsep over a brunch indicates a threat. The wisdom use here is in determine even unconsiously or without any calculations that the sound is a treath indication. Two characters could hear the sound, but to determine that its a treath indication you must be wise enought to distinguish it, and thats where is the "assumption based on senses than the senses it self". In other other words: what beying wise determine is that capability and not how well your eyes or your ears works.
"but at the same time don't be wise enough to notice that wierd shape behind a tree where its foe are hidden." Its a Active Perception exemple. A character are looking for indications of the presence of someone in the location, but failling in distinguish the sutile shape that would give away its position. Here again, the wiseness of the character to determine that the odd shape that it sees is the foe and not just a wierd feature of the tree that determines his perception of it. It could see the shape becouse its eyes are functioning well and there's no obstacle beteen them but still don't distinguish it as something odd and the indication of the foe's presence.
The very much works on Insight, that are also Wisdom checks: You must be able to distinguish determinated movements, expressions, etc as indicators of an intent (as a lie for the most common exemple).
So, what I want to say with all that (getting back to the fist point):
As the wisdom indicates that capability to make a sense for what your senses are perceiving, is possible to see that a character with observer feat could be better reacting to what its senses catch passively than when it try to focus in some specific thing.
Thats more clear now?
No, it wouldn't. The mere fact that you are setting a DC at all indicates that failure is both a possibility and has consequences, which means it requires a roll.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In that case, however, you would run into situations as I described in my initial post and some of the comments here, especially with a feat like Observant.
Where you suddenly have characters that are much better at doing something passively than when they focus to do it actively.
Take the scenario of going into a dungeon, a character with Observant might notice every clue to a secret door in a room with a DC 15 with a 100% success rate as long as that character is doing it "passively", but once that character starts to search for clues "actively" (What would that entail? Just saying "Do I notice something strange in this room"?) suddenly his success rate drops to 30%.
So no character should ever enter situations actively, to make sure to benefit from their passive score, and sometimes avoid active rolling completely if possible as the chance for failure would exist.
That is if we don't take the passive Skill as a floor, which apparently we should according to Mr. Crawford to avoid this exact problem.
If that is the case, Observant seems incredibly strong, if not outright broken (+5 to your floor for active skill checks in two of the most used skills in the game)
Making a level 3 character with an active floor of 20+ in both Perception or Investigation very easy to build, rendering any DC 20 challenge in this category meaningless, as the success rate would always be 100%. Stealth would also be near impossible for creatures that are reasonable at that CR.
Again, maybe this is meant to be this strong and is not as overpowered as I assume. But I would like to know how you guys would handle situations like that.
In that case yes, you are effectively using passive Perception as a floor, which avoids the problem. Which, as you stated, is fine by you for this specific situation.
Let's take the same scores and rolls for any other scenario (finding clues for hidden doors, investigating the surrounding area, etc.) that includes Perception and Investigation.
As far as I understand you don't think these should use passive floors. But they create the exact same problem then.
That would mean that DC's are created on the fly and adapt to the abilities of the characters instead of being immutable entities in the game world.
A starter adventure that has DC 10 traps or hidden doors shouldn't suddenly become DC 16-20 because someone in the party picked Observant or happens to start with 15 at level 1.
And if it stays DC 10, then it doesn't matter if a roll is needed, because as you stated above, you don't see a problem with passive floors, and most characters have passive skills of 10 and above, making this a guaranteed success. (That would beg the question of why DC 10 even exists if not for the rare edge case that someone with passive 9 is alone in front of a challenge)
One could argue that DC's should be created on the fly and the world should adapt and shift as the characters grow, but that would mean that the entire world becomes more difficult for everyone as soon as one player picks Observant, which is essentially punishing other players for the decision of one player.
I do not like this interpretation, but I accept that groups could have fun with this. If that's the case, more power to them, but it's not my cup of tea.