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.
[...]
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.
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
Investigation When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses. I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
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.
Again, no, not really. DCs are dependent on context, but you can still determine them in advance and keep a detailed record of every DC you ever assign to maintain perfect consistency.
Consider this scenario:
Your party is in a dungeon and arrives at a door which has a question engraved on it, and it opens by answering that question. If they're stumped, you've determined that they can know the answer with a History check. What's the DC?
Answer: I haven't actually given you enough information to determine a DC. If they have as much time as they need to figure it out, you could determine no roll is needed and that anyone with History proficiency will know the answer if they ponder it long enough, since it's fairly basic knowledge (i.e. "passive History" will do the trick). If no one in the party has proficiency, it's still only a DC 10.
Or you could still decide the information is obscure enough that merely having studied History wouldn't be sufficient, and that a roll is required with a DC of 15.
Or, entering the room triggers a trap and it's now filling rapidly with water. Now the DC is 20 as they try and remember the bit of information they need while trying not to drown.
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)
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.
Consider this scenario:
Your party is in a dungeon and arrives at a door which has a question engraved on it, and it opens by answering that question. If they're stumped, you've determined that they can know the answer with a History check. What's the DC?
Answer: I haven't actually given you enough information to determine a DC. If they have as much time as they need to figure it out, you could determine no roll is needed and that anyone with History proficiency will know the answer if they ponder it long enough, since it's fairly basic knowledge (i.e. "passive History" will do the trick). If no one in the party has proficiency, it's still only a DC 10.
Disclaimer: I say this under the assumption that we're still talking about the scenario you were responding to in the first place: "Rules as written and interpreted by the lead designer of the game: Passive skills set a floor for active skills. Why is that a problem?" (In numbers: Every skill at level 1 has essentially a floor of 10, rendering DC 10 non-existent for almost every character)
Your scenario makes more sense, but only because you add a new condition that was not there before: Passive skills floors only apply to people with proficiency.
That already sounds much more reasonable, not supported by any written rule or official interpretation that I'm aware of, but a good house rule towards a more consistent ruleset. I like it.
Edit: I do have to add that there are variant rules in the DMG for automatic success, that talk about proficiency in a skill granting automatic success to a DC 10 (no matter what the actual passive skill is) This is a whole different can of worms that makes an already confusing situation much worse because it also introduces an entirely new system for what are essentially passive checks and it's completely inconsistent with passive skills being a mechanic at all, or even worse, a floor for active skills.
I doesn't solve the other problems with passive vs active probability or the Observant feat, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
I simply dislike that we have to add house rules to a system that should make sense in the first place, as the rules are written.
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.
Assuming the party is looking for stuff, if there's meaningful time pressure, roll for it, if there isn't, the party finds everything they're capable of finding.
Traps are a different matter, unless the party is particularly in a hurry, I assume they're looking for traps. In this case I use their passive perception and roll the trap's DC as what it would typically be set at -10. So a trap that would be a DC15 to spot is instead a trap with a +5 stealth bonus. In the rare case that they're confident that a particular area is trapped, they can make active checks.
Your scenario makes more sense, but only because you add a new condition that was not there before: Passive skills floors only apply to people with proficiency.
That already sounds much more reasonable, not supported by any written rule or official interpretation that I'm aware of, but a good house rule towards a more consistent ruleset. I like it.
That was not my intention at all, nor is that a house rule I play with at my table. It is an option at my disposal I occasionally employ, however.
I feel like you want there to be One True Answer here that resolves all the issues you have, and all I can tell you is that skills and checks are very context-dependent, and there is no One True Answer that will cover all scenarios. You will have to decide when and how passive skills apply on a case by case basis.
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)
Your scenario makes more sense, but only because you add a new condition that was not there before: Passive skills floors only apply to people with proficiency.
That already sounds much more reasonable, not supported by any written rule or official interpretation that I'm aware of, but a good house rule towards a more consistent ruleset. I like it.
That was not my intention at all, nor is that a house rule I play with at my table. It is an option at my disposal I occasionally employ, however.
I feel like you want there to be One True Answer here that resolves all the issues you have, and all I can tell you is that skills and checks are very context-dependent, and there is no One True Answer that will cover all scenarios. You will have to decide when and how passive skills apply on a case by case basis.
I want there to be consistency, that's it.
If the only consistent answer is: "Forget about what exactly is written in the rules, because it is by design inconsistent to allow for flexibility and creativity and just do what works for you." I can absolutely accept that as a valid answer.
I just don't understand why it is presented and defended as a consistent ruleset that makes sense instead of what it is: An inspiration for your narrative where numbers and mechanics are suggestions.
Which is completely fine, probably the reason why this system is so successful and can lead to many creative scenarios and a lot of fun at the table.
And if my players accept this ambiguity (they might not, as they like board games and theorycrafting), we might play it that way too.
It's definitely intended to be flexible, but I don't think I would characterize it as "inconsistent" to say "skill checks get handled differently in different situations"
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."
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.
[...]
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.
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
Investigation When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses. I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
Oh man, you still missriding it. There's no confusion of mine between Invastigation x Perception in neighter exemples.
Let me try one more time make my point one more time.
In eighter exemples I've made the characteres are using its Perseption. Thats point seem that you got it. Now, the point that you seem to not got my point is:
The perception (score) rely on the wisdom of the character more than its senses (their ears, eyes, etc). Wich means the capability of somene to be wise enought to apply a signification to what its sensing." That capability to make apply signification isn't Inteligence based, but Wisdom based. A guy could be a pretty bad studied but still wise enough to distinguish an hostile foe than an friendly guy.
So lets go to another exemplo to clarefy what I am trying to say:
A character are subjectet to an effect that drains its Wisdom. That character would be worse in perception scores due to it become less wise to make that clear assumption based on its senses, but it still have the same capability of sensing the same amount it have before(its sight, darkvision, blinghtsigh, whatever it have).
Now, another character are subjected to the blinded condition. That character wouldnt be able to succeed a perception checks that rely on sight, due to its inability to see. It still wise enough to aplly any signification to what its sensing but now it lost one of its senses.
If that ability to perceive (the word meaning) somthing was more related to it senses it self, any change on its sense reach would highten or lower its bonus to the check, but it don't happen because the sense is the "way" it can apply its wisdom, which means that it can only make that assumption based on how much it can sense.
To use another word for that "clear assumption" lets call it "intuition" or "istinct" (the word intuition is also used to describe the Wisdom Ability), and that "intuition" still a "thinking" even it is unconscious or unrelied on "knowledge" (which would be the case where inteligence checks would apply).
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.
Even though I'm not sure if the rules really say this, I know some people play out these rules in a similar fashion to what I'm about to say.
Passive checks are almost on the subconscious level. You may be driving and feel "claustrophobic", passive Perception. You stop to think about it and realize you are boxed in by traffic, you would have nowhere to go if something happened, active check on Perception. With Observant you practically have advantage to just notice something is amiss but, not necessarily to nail down all the details without going to an active check. If you use this 2 step system, passive and active checks can make more sense, especially how there can be so much variance in a active check and how it could be lower(I'm not going with the passive is a floor at all times, I'm going with passive is a gut feeling, not a detailed result producing check necessarily).
I know some people just allow passives to do what an active check can do but, sometimes I feel, it can't. Let's say an Elf Bard is trying to use Stealth around the corner, your passive Perception clues you off to the fact that something is amiss around the corner. Do you know it's an Elf Bard? No. Let's say you were actively using Perception as your action, you feel something is suspicious and move to look around the corner. Ah there she is. I found you darling, now you owe me that kiss! She giggles and blushes.
The obvious reasons for passive skills is the fact that you want characters to have a way to pass or fail checks unbeknownst to them until you are ready to give the info they need or withhold it as applicable. As some have mentioned, you may use a passive for skills to determine if a DC will probably be trivial. Like a DC 12 to break down a door when a Barbarian would have a passive 15 Athletics(if you apply passives to such skills, that is), you could easily dismiss this check. This avoids the Mage breaks down the door the Barbarian can't conundrum in some cases.
Lastly, I feel passives are a way to preserve action economy. If everyone HAS to use their action to use an ability check against one creature using their ability check...well, that's a lot of wasted actions.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
I would say its RAI, couse the intent on applying Wisdom bonus on a Perception check is that its defined by how wise it is to distingush something and not just how well it sees or hear (if that was the case it would have a diferent abbility only for sense keenness).
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
It wouldn't be a random decision and it must rely on the common sense, which is common. Making an exemple, if a conversation are happening behind a door, it should be muffled enough to imped the characters to understand what are being said (the common sense here is how physics work in your setting, which are the same way as our world in that exemple). So, the passive perception for the players would maybe gave up that there is a conversation happening behind that door and characters whith bad perception would not be able to notice, but those who have an avarage score would. Those with also a better passive score would be batter to distinguish some features like the tone of the conversation or the acuty of that voices.However due to the muffle, someone might try to listen the conversation otherwise, leaning against the door or something like that.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
I don't see how it can be ambiguous since part of the role of the DM is to decide either when, how or if a situation must demand a check or not. So, I can't see a leakage from the rules here.
The sources also suggest that to have fun the party and the DM might have an agreement on how things are supposed to go. Thats part of the game and if that matter becomes a problem between Players and DM, well thats not the way. What I suggest is to not let the players briber you on that matter neither to be an authoritarian DM.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
I don't see how it could be possibly close to the same. The DM are doing its main job which is to conduct the playes trough the narrative and decide how, when and if the players must use its scores. The scores where still in role to define the results and also the players choices to what to do in that determinated situation.
Well, just to finish, if you have a clear distinction between what applies to passive and active checks, you overcome your main problem which is to make sense to have those both values.
And thats even RAI. If you have a passive and active bonus it must means that you can applie those scores in different ways.
When you aren't trying to, your subjected to your passive score, which works as a DC contested by anything trying to overcome it. If nothing is trying to overcome it thares no contest. While when youre traying to do something you are subjected to your abillity check that is contestating a DC that is the passive score for that thing, to contest a DC you must have science of its existence and act in a specific way to accomplish what you trying to do, so you would only make a check when you can (by having the knowlede of its possibility) and are susceptible to a failure other then when you didn't try to.
Lets remember that passive scores are tools for the DM to manage some situations with more ease, but you don't need to rely on that in any case. So, if some task demands the character to make an active check, the passive score is a boundry only if the DM wants it to be, but the RAW don't stand that it is.
Lastly, I feel passives are a way to preserve action economy. If everyone HAS to use their action to use an ability check against one creature using their ability check...well, that's a lot of wasted actions.
Just want to elaborate on this. I have seen too many DM's require active perception checks for everything. That really makes no sense.
Your eyes are open so you automatically see what is in front of you.
Your ears are not stuffed with ear plugs, so you hear normally.
Ditto, your nose and smell.
It some image or situation flashes briefly in front of you, you might miss it. Again, that is an active situation. However, just seeing what is around you? Passive. You automatically do that within your normal ability to recognize patterns (your passives).
But your perception isn't exactly the precision of your senses itself. You may have good eyes but not be too wise to distinguish things, thats why it relies on Wisdom Ability.
Your ears may be not stuffed, but you when you are walking trough a busy fair in the city you were hearing a lot of other things at the same time, so if you wish to hear a specific conversation within all that concating voices you should actively try to do so.
Now, if you meant situations like a character at 10 feet from a dragon under bright litgh and perfect eyes needing a active check to see that dragon, well thats a big DMs fault.
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.
[...]
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.
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
Investigation When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses. I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
Oh man, you still missriding it. There's no confusion of mine between Invastigation x Perception in neighter exemples.
[...]
The perception (score) rely on the wisdom of the character more than its senses (their ears, eyes, etc). Wich means the capability of somene to be wise enought to apply a signification to what its sensing." That capability to make apply signification isn't Inteligence based, but Wisdom based. A guy could be a pretty bad studied but still wise enough to distinguish an hostile foe than an friendly guy. [...]
I'm not misreading what you're writing, I just have a different interpretation.
The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence is pretty far besides the point of this thread, but I'll add a few more notes:
I have to admit, that this is another case of very ambiguous wording and rules, where exactly the line is between Wisdom and Intelligence is not very clear.
I'm not sure it's possible to clearly differentiate between the two in many cases, so it is up to each group and ultimately the DM to make that distinction themselves.
To me, Wisdom answers generally to WHAT something is or WHAT happens from experience. What do I see? A broken branch. What happens if I eat this blue fruit? I feel pain. What does this person feel? Fear.
Intelligence answers to WHY something is. Why is there a broken branch? Maybe an animal or a person came through here, I might be in danger. Why does this blue fruit induce pain? It seems to be some kind of poison, I could use this to coat my weapon. Why does this person feel anger? I talked about the Lord of this castle, this person must be afraid of him, I could use this to my advantage.
And of course, we could discuss much overlap between the two and would probably come up with many valid arguments, but at some point, you just have to draw a line somewhere.
This becomes even more confusing when we talk about the Skills deriving from these Abilities, which are worded very clearly as distinct use cases, but the only thing really separating them from the base Ability is the proficiency. So why exactly something like Perception and Medicine roll for the same check (plus or minus a few points) is very questionable since I would not like my surgeon to act on instinct or intuition when operating on me! Of course, you could use the optional rules to use Intelligence for Medicine, which seems like a much more sensible choice, but that only means that the rules as written mean even less and basically everything is up to interpretation.
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.
Even though I'm not sure if the rules really say this, I know some people play out these rules in a similar fashion to what I'm about to say.
Passive checks are almost on the subconscious level. You may be driving and feel "claustrophobic", passive Perception. You stop to think about it and realize you are boxed in by traffic, you would have nowhere to go if something happened, active check on Perception. With Observant you practically have advantage to just notice something is amiss but, not necessarily to nail down all the details without going to an active check. If you use this 2 step system, passive and active checks can make more sense, especially how there can be so much variance in a active check and how it could be lower(I'm not going with the passive is a floor at all times, I'm going with passive is a gut feeling, not a detailed result producing check necessarily).
I know some people just allow passives to do what an active check can do but, sometimes I feel, it can't. [...]
After mulling this topic around in my head the entire day I tend to agree with your interpretation (which is not RAW by the way, but honestly, I'm not sure rules as written are playable without being very flexible in their interpretation around different contexts)
I think I will end up with a few minor fixes that change as little as possible but still keep my sanity.
One of these fixes will definitely be the interpretation of passive skills as a kind of "light" version of the same active skill. So a passive Perception of 15 will not be able to do the exact same thing as an active rolled Perception of 15. That's mainly what tripped me up so much as it really messes with the probabilities of success and failure. Having it do something like you described in your post seems pretty sensible to me, kind of like a "spidey sense" that something is different and maybe vaguely what or where, but not specific enough to find out exactly without actively searching. I feel like that would also be satisfying to the player picking Observant.
I think I will use the concept of a Skill Floor, for one because it has to exist in the case of passive Perception vs Stealth, otherwise, that entire mechanic wouldn't work at all. This goes for all passive Skills that are basically like an AC secretly "defending" against an "attack", so far I think this only applies to passive Perception vs Stealth and passive Insight vs Deception. These two will just remain exactly as written.
But I will change the Skill Floor for active Skills to passive Skill -5 IF you have proficiency in that skill, so someone with a (+5) mod and proficiency in Perception would now have 10 as a Skill Floor and thus guaranteed success on fairly easy DC's but would still have to roll for level-appropriate challenges.
This just feels so much better to me from a roleplay perspective and the probabilities are also much more in line with what you would expect. And it's almost RAW when you compare it to the variant rule from the DMG which does almost exactly this (even the math checks out) but decides to invent an entirely new system for passive automatic success that is incompatible with the already existing passive score.
This entire thread has helped me tremendously and even if I come off as combative in some posts, it's just me debating the concepts and ideas, not the person writing them. I feel like I have to add this, as these discussions can become slightly heated.
Lastly, I feel passives are a way to preserve action economy. If everyone HAS to use their action to use an ability check against one creature using their ability check...well, that's a lot of wasted actions.
Just want to elaborate on this. I have seen too many DM's require active perception checks for everything. That really makes no sense.
Your eyes are open so you automatically see what is in front of you.
Your ears are not stuffed with ear plugs, so you hear normally.
Ditto, your nose and smell.
It some image or situation flashes briefly in front of you, you might miss it. Again, that is an active situation. However, just seeing what is around you? Passive. You automatically do that within your normal ability to recognize patterns (your passives).
But your perception isn't exactly the precision of your senses itself. You may have good eyes but not be too wise to distinguish things, thats why it relies on Wisdom Ability.
Your ears may be not stuffed, but you when you are walking trough a busy fair in the city you were hearing a lot of other things at the same time, so if you wish to hear a specific conversation within all that concating voices you should actively try to do so.
Now, if you meant situations like a character at 10 feet from a dragon under bright litgh and perfect eyes needing a active check to see that dragon, well thats a big DMs fault.
If it is a complex scene you are viewing, or a crowded street you are hearing in, there's disadvantage for that as well as setting a high DC
However you seem to have missed it when I said that to hear any given sentence, it is active, since each sentence is said only once then done and gone.
Nor does Passive mean any sort of automatic success. It still has to overcome whatever DC is set. And it assumes a roll of 10 when the average for active rolls (before mods, of course) is 10.5, so slightly below average.
I agree with your first point if I read it right and if thats the case I just made a redundant answer setting to exemples where ask for checks make or don't make sense as you complaint about seeing it from a lot of DMs.
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.
[...]
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.
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
Investigation When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses. I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
Oh man, you still missriding it. There's no confusion of mine between Invastigation x Perception in neighter exemples.
[...]
The perception (score) rely on the wisdom of the character more than its senses (their ears, eyes, etc). Wich means the capability of somene to be wise enought to apply a signification to what its sensing." That capability to make apply signification isn't Inteligence based, but Wisdom based. A guy could be a pretty bad studied but still wise enough to distinguish an hostile foe than an friendly guy. [...]
I'm not misreading what you're writing, I just have a different interpretation.
The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence is pretty far besides the point of this thread, but I'll add a few more notes:
I have to admit, that this is another case of very ambiguous wording and rules, where exactly the line is between Wisdom and Intelligence is not very clear.
I'm not sure it's possible to clearly differentiate between the two in many cases, so it is up to each group and ultimately the DM to make that distinction themselves.
To me, Wisdom answers generally to WHAT something is or WHAT happens from experience. What do I see? A broken branch. What happens if I eat this blue fruit? I feel pain. What does this person feel? Fear.
Intelligence answers to WHY something is. Why is there a broken branch? Maybe an animal or a person came through here, I might be in danger. Why does this blue fruit induce pain? It seems to be some kind of poison, I could use this to coat my weapon. Why does this person feel anger? I talked about the Lord of this castle, this person must be afraid of him, I could use this to my advantage.
And of course, we could discuss much overlap between the two and would probably come up with many valid arguments, but at some point, you just have to draw a line somewhere.
This becomes even more confusing when we talk about the Skills deriving from these Abilities, which are worded very clearly as distinct use cases, but the only thing really separating them from the base Ability is the proficiency. So why exactly something like Perception and Medicine roll for the same check (plus or minus a few points) is very questionable since I would not like my surgeon to act on instinct or intuition when operating on me! Of course, you could use the optional rules to use Intelligence for Medicine, which seems like a much more sensible choice, but that only means that the rules as written mean even less and basically everything is up to interpretation.
Yep. You don't get it. Never mind.
If you feel that any of tips can help your table, be happy.
Also, another point that comes up a lot and I have no idea where people get it from:
"Passive" is meant in the context of passive players at the table (not rolling dice) and not as passive characters or their actions in the game!
At least that's what the written rules suggest:
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
If my character repeatedly runs into a door to try and break it, we can use his passive Athletics score to represent an average result, this obviously does not mean the character or his actions are in any way passive (because he's very actively and consciously running into a door)
The one who is passive is the player, not the character.
So all these interpretations that the passive score must have some correlation to a passive action of the character are really coming out of nowhere. Ah ... well no, they're coming out of reasonable interpretations of very ambiguous wording and rules ... this really is a running theme in this system.
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.
[...]
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.
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Perception Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. [...]
Investigation When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, [...]
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses. I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills. While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM. You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
Oh man, you still missriding it. There's no confusion of mine between Invastigation x Perception in neighter exemples.
[...]
The perception (score) rely on the wisdom of the character more than its senses (their ears, eyes, etc). Wich means the capability of somene to be wise enought to apply a signification to what its sensing." That capability to make apply signification isn't Inteligence based, but Wisdom based. A guy could be a pretty bad studied but still wise enough to distinguish an hostile foe than an friendly guy. [...]
I'm not misreading what you're writing, I just have a different interpretation.
The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence is pretty far besides the point of this thread, but I'll add a few more notes:
I have to admit, that this is another case of very ambiguous wording and rules, where exactly the line is between Wisdom and Intelligence is not very clear.
I'm not sure it's possible to clearly differentiate between the two in many cases, so it is up to each group and ultimately the DM to make that distinction themselves.
To me, Wisdom answers generally to WHAT something is or WHAT happens from experience. What do I see? A broken branch. What happens if I eat this blue fruit? I feel pain. What does this person feel? Fear.
Intelligence answers to WHY something is. Why is there a broken branch? Maybe an animal or a person came through here, I might be in danger. Why does this blue fruit induce pain? It seems to be some kind of poison, I could use this to coat my weapon. Why does this person feel anger? I talked about the Lord of this castle, this person must be afraid of him, I could use this to my advantage.
And of course, we could discuss much overlap between the two and would probably come up with many valid arguments, but at some point, you just have to draw a line somewhere.
This becomes even more confusing when we talk about the Skills deriving from these Abilities, which are worded very clearly as distinct use cases, but the only thing really separating them from the base Ability is the proficiency. So why exactly something like Perception and Medicine roll for the same check (plus or minus a few points) is very questionable since I would not like my surgeon to act on instinct or intuition when operating on me! Of course, you could use the optional rules to use Intelligence for Medicine, which seems like a much more sensible choice, but that only means that the rules as written mean even less and basically everything is up to interpretation.
Yep. You don't get it. Never mind.
If you feel that any of tips can help your table, be happy.
Don't be so passive-aggressive because I have a different interpretation than you, I get where you're coming from and think what you're describing could be a reasonable way to play the game.
You're interpreting "passive" and "active" Perception as variants of Perception "sensing" and "reasoning", which to me is just clearly separated into different Abilities entirely (Wisdom vs Intelligence)
I just don't interpret these Abilities the same way you do at all (because they are not clearly defined). That doesn't mean I don't get your point.
Edit: You know, now that I'm re-reading some posts I think I am actually going in a similar direction to what you were talking about initially, maybe even closer than I realized, when I wrote about my "fix" to passive Skills:
One of these fixes will definitely be the interpretation of passive skills as a kind of "light" version of the same active skill. So a passive Perception of 15 will not be able to do the exact same thing as an active rolled Perception of 15. That's mainly what tripped me up so much as it really messes with the probabilities of success and failure. Having it do something like you described in your post seems pretty sensible to me, kind of like a "spidey sense" that something is different and maybe vaguely what or where, but not specific enough to find out exactly without actively searching. I feel like that would also be satisfying to the player picking Observant.
I'm not applying your interpretation of "deduction" to the active part of Perception, since I still feel like this is an Intelligence check, but I feel like my passive interpretation of Perception is pretty close to yours.
And yes, without realizing it, I slowly converted from not wanting to separate passive and active Skills into different situations to proposing it as my own "fix".
Don't be so passive-aggressive because I have a different interpretation than you, I get where you're coming from and think what you're describing could be a reasonable way to play the game.
You're interpreting "passive" and "active" Perception as variants of Perception "sensing" and "reasoning", which to me is just clearly separated into different Abilities entirely (Wisdom vs Intelligence)
....
Sorry mate, I'm not passive-agressive couse you have a different interpretation than mine, to be fair I rule Perception and Investigation in the same way you are traying to explain me. I'm just don't know how I can change my words to explain that what I'm trying to say IS NOT that I interpret Perception including both "sensing and reasoning" in the way its distinct between Wisdom and Inteligence.
The way you make that ajustments are pretty similar to what I am suggesting. We can argue if its RAW or not, but I don't think its worth it. But I can say its probably RAI, as the WIS abitlity score isn't it self the sence, but use it as a tool or way to opperate.
What I am trying to say is just that your Perception relies on your Wisdom more than the accuracy of your eyes. You could have a damn great eyes but if you lost vision your wisdom still the same. Thats it.
The idea of "making an assumption" whitin my interpretation of what Wisdom is are relied to the very same inate capability of distinguish a sound or image and aplly significance to that as an intuition. An human and a squirrel would both have that capability even if the squirrel aren't intelligent, becouse its wise enough to that and not just becouse its eyes sees better. Of course the sensitive organs have a role in that, but they are just means to that creature aknowledge something and its Wisdom to react to that invormation, applying a significance to it. (oh thats a threat!)
So, the "assumption" isn't "reasoning" in that interpretation.
Lets imagine, both a smart guy (Int 15) and a wise guy (Wis 15) put side by side staring to a shady alley traying to catch the location of a hidden foe. Both have the exact same presicion in its eyes and could see the same patterns and shapes projected into the shadow, and neither have something that would block its vision. However, the wiser one is more suscetible to distinguish between that amount of shapes that this one is the hidden foe. Its not because the eyes of the wiser one are better functioning, but because he is wiser enough to distinguish that shape as the hidden foe silhouette.
The same in a sound situation. The boths could have the same precision in its ears, but the wiser one would be able to distingish better that in the middle of that amount of sounds produced by its surroundings theres that one sound that is a step into a branch, while the other would maybe hear the sound but don't distinguish it as such.
Also, another point that comes up a lot and I have no idea where people get it from:
"Passive" is meant in the context of passive players at the table (not rolling dice) and not as passive characters or their actions in the game!
At least that's what the written rules suggest:
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
If my character repeatedly runs into a door to try and break it, we can use his passive Athletics score to represent an average result, this obviously does not mean the character or his actions are in any way passive (because he's very actively and consciously running into a door)
The one who is passive is the player, not the character.
So all these interpretations that the passive score must have some correlation to a passive action of the character are really coming out of nowhere. Ah ... well no, they're coming out of reasonable interpretations of very ambiguous wording and rules ... this really is a running theme in this system.
In the red example above, I would certainly ask for an active check. If the character could do it passively, it wouldn't require trying to repeatedly break the door down. Breaking the door down could have a DC 10 and and the Barbarian from before just passively Athletics 15, walks right through the door and starts swinging on enemies inside the room with his action. If the character can't passively get through the door, they use their action repeatedly(multiple rounds) to ability check the door down.
Not to try and add more confusion but, a bit more clarity, I have a few more non-RAW reflections to offer. The rules always indicate that they need an arbiter, the DM(also hopefully in conjunction with the other players whenever possible).
What I feel really separates passive from active when it comes to ability checks is two things.
Does you character know that there is something acting against it? If not, the DM is going to compare against your passive score and it doesn't cost your action in most cases.
Does the character have sufficient skill to perform the task passively? If the DM feels the case is yes, then it may or may not cost an action. In the door breaking example above, I would say smashing through the door when it's no challenge does not take an action but, I might count it as an object interaction(assuming they haven't already used one) for that characters turn.
There are some outlier situations to consider as well. Let's say you run and jump off a ledge to take a swing at a flying critter. You have used your move and your action but, you are now falling. What to do? Well, maybe you just take damage, too bad. Perhaps the DM allows a passive check against an ability that could reduce damage, like Acrobatics. Maybe the DM flat out allows you to make an active Athletics check that doesn't require an action, that's good since the action was already used.
The rules as written can be a good base but, there will always be a circumstance that was inadvertently left unaccounted for. Best to just have that foreknowledge and be ready to quickly adapt and figure out how to consistently make rulings that seem fair to all.
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.
You appear to have made a miscalculation in your analysis. I get the impression that may be skewing your view of things a bit, and that’s making the situation appear far more dire than the reality. That inaccurate threat assessment is unfortunately also being compounded by what I can tell you is some absolutely terrible advice. And I can tell that you are also pickin’ up on the fact that the advice is terrible, but it also happens to make sense logically; so that’s probably making you doubt your own instincts, which is backfeed looping you to reconsider your own sit rep which keeps perpetuating the cycle.
Unfortunately, the feedback loop keeps bypassing the initial analysis, and accepting that all as true. And since what I think was your initial miscalculation isn’t the kind of jump out and grab someone’s attention type of thing, you haven’t spotted your initial miscalculation. I only spotted it right off because my group already went ‘round on this exact topic a few years ago when we first picked up 5e, so I have the advantage of having already used that exact point in conjunction with a couple others to confirm for myself that the advance is terrible. Hopefully it’ll help you, and you’ll realize your instinct is correct, and it’s the advice is terrible and all make sense.
What appears to me to have been your initial miscalculation was when you wrote:
Where you suddenly have characters that are much better at doing something passively than when they focus to do it actively.
No matter what, that won’t happen. The reason why that won’t happen is because it mathematically cannot happen. You see, a PC’s Ability check bonus is a combination of their Ability modifier, and their Proficiency bonus if they are proficient in a particular skill, and the DM decides that skill would apply to the check at hand. So the lowest possible number that any “(Ability) Skill” check could be is -2, or -1 with Standard Array or Point Buy. The highest possible bonus to an active Ability Check would be +11, or +17 with Twice Proficiency/Expertise. (any of those numbers could be 1 point if that character has read the right book. That PC’s passive skill scores start with that exact same total bonus, and add 10 to that number. Whenever you take any number, whole, negative, or otherwise and add any integer to that starting number, the result will always be that “initial starting number + the chosen integer. If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic.)
Absolutely every creature in D&D is always “significantly better” (10+) at absolutely every skill when “not trying,” so that can never “suddenly happen,” because it is already the status quo. Since that’s already been the case this whole time, and since it hasn’t caused absolute anarch or anything yet, the feats like Observant are really just more of the same.
A few years ago my group’s main GM was going through the rules in preparation for running our first adventure this edition. He came across that decided that situation seemed wrong, and his solution was to implement Passive Scores as the guaranteed minimum for small checks. Three sessions later we all unanimously voted to stop using passive scores that way. He thought it would help us all meet our “cooler” feel cooler and that the world feel more realistic. Instead it only resulted in an almost immediate of us having less fun, Including the DM. It made Ability checks irrelevant, and encounters that rely on them pointless. Instead of 3 “pillars of play” or whatever, all that was left was combat. 🥱
As a general guidelinedirectly , approximately 1/3 of Crawford’s Sage Advice is completely incorrect. Every DM selects which 1/3 is wrong by process of elimination. (It’s the 1/3 that contradicts the 2/3 you like
If a player asks: “do I see anything.” My response will be “roll perception. If they ask, “what do we i find?” I say “make an investigation check. Players don’t get to choose when they roll dice, they roll dice when the DM asks them to. The DM decide when a check is ,ade
I will go over your main point on separating passive and active actions into distinct situations, but I still have to point out first, that you are not using Perception or Investigation "correctly", or rather RAW:
Please note, that I'm saying you have to play like this. After all, it's your decision how you want to play DnD and what works best for you and your group.
But the Rules As Written are very clear about the difference between sensing something and making assumptions based on your senses.
I would personally like to play as close to a written and consistent ruleset as possible, so I choose to play them as they are described above.
But putting that aside, your main point is about separating situations into specific applications of passive and active skills.
While this is also not RAW, it could still be an interesting idea worth integrating into the game IF it wouldn't lead to massive ambiguity for the players.
How are players supposed to know when each score would apply? They wouldn't because it's the decision of the DM.
You could say that it's common sense, but I know that common sense can be approached from very different perspectives once you get into the details.
This would lead to either (A) discussions around the table when passive or active skills would apply or (B) just them having to accept that you will make a decision without discussion.
The second case would mean they can't plan ahead or have agency in important situations, especially with a feat like Observant where success (100%) or failure (70%) could now be entirely in the hand of the DM because I'm the one choosing which version to apply, and Perception and Investigation are the most common skills used in any adventure.
This is very close to simply narrating what happens to the players at will, almost regardless of their scores, no?
Again, no, not really. DCs are dependent on context, but you can still determine them in advance and keep a detailed record of every DC you ever assign to maintain perfect consistency.
Consider this scenario:
Your party is in a dungeon and arrives at a door which has a question engraved on it, and it opens by answering that question. If they're stumped, you've determined that they can know the answer with a History check. What's the DC?
Answer: I haven't actually given you enough information to determine a DC. If they have as much time as they need to figure it out, you could determine no roll is needed and that anyone with History proficiency will know the answer if they ponder it long enough, since it's fairly basic knowledge (i.e. "passive History" will do the trick). If no one in the party has proficiency, it's still only a DC 10.
Or you could still decide the information is obscure enough that merely having studied History wouldn't be sufficient, and that a roll is required with a DC of 15.
Or, entering the room triggers a trap and it's now filling rapidly with water. Now the DC is 20 as they try and remember the bit of information they need while trying not to drown.
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)
Disclaimer: I say this under the assumption that we're still talking about the scenario you were responding to in the first place:
"Rules as written and interpreted by the lead designer of the game: Passive skills set a floor for active skills. Why is that a problem?"
(In numbers: Every skill at level 1 has essentially a floor of 10, rendering DC 10 non-existent for almost every character)
Your scenario makes more sense, but only because you add a new condition that was not there before: Passive skills floors only apply to people with proficiency.
That already sounds much more reasonable, not supported by any written rule or official interpretation that I'm aware of, but a good house rule towards a more consistent ruleset.
I like it.
Edit:
I do have to add that there are variant rules in the DMG for automatic success, that talk about proficiency in a skill granting automatic success to a DC 10 (no matter what the actual passive skill is)
This is a whole different can of worms that makes an already confusing situation much worse because it also introduces an entirely new system for what are essentially passive checks and it's completely inconsistent with passive skills being a mechanic at all, or even worse, a floor for active skills.
I doesn't solve the other problems with passive vs active probability or the Observant feat, but it feels like a step in the right direction.
I simply dislike that we have to add house rules to a system that should make sense in the first place, as the rules are written.
Assuming the party is looking for stuff, if there's meaningful time pressure, roll for it, if there isn't, the party finds everything they're capable of finding.
Traps are a different matter, unless the party is particularly in a hurry, I assume they're looking for traps. In this case I use their passive perception and roll the trap's DC as what it would typically be set at -10. So a trap that would be a DC15 to spot is instead a trap with a +5 stealth bonus. In the rare case that they're confident that a particular area is trapped, they can make active checks.
That was not my intention at all, nor is that a house rule I play with at my table. It is an option at my disposal I occasionally employ, however.
I feel like you want there to be One True Answer here that resolves all the issues you have, and all I can tell you is that skills and checks are very context-dependent, and there is no One True Answer that will cover all scenarios. You will have to decide when and how passive skills apply on a case by case basis.
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)
I want there to be consistency, that's it.
If the only consistent answer is:
"Forget about what exactly is written in the rules, because it is by design inconsistent to allow for flexibility and creativity and just do what works for you."
I can absolutely accept that as a valid answer.
I just don't understand why it is presented and defended as a consistent ruleset that makes sense instead of what it is:
An inspiration for your narrative where numbers and mechanics are suggestions.
Which is completely fine, probably the reason why this system is so successful and can lead to many creative scenarios and a lot of fun at the table.
And if my players accept this ambiguity (they might not, as they like board games and theorycrafting), we might play it that way too.
It's definitely intended to be flexible, but I don't think I would characterize it as "inconsistent" to say "skill checks get handled differently in different situations"
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)
Oh man, you still missriding it. There's no confusion of mine between Invastigation x Perception in neighter exemples.
Let me try one more time make my point one more time.
In eighter exemples I've made the characteres are using its Perseption. Thats point seem that you got it. Now, the point that you seem to not got my point is:
The perception (score) rely on the wisdom of the character more than its senses (their ears, eyes, etc). Wich means the capability of somene to be wise enought to apply a signification to what its sensing." That capability to make apply signification isn't Inteligence based, but Wisdom based. A guy could be a pretty bad studied but still wise enough to distinguish an hostile foe than an friendly guy.
So lets go to another exemplo to clarefy what I am trying to say:
A character are subjectet to an effect that drains its Wisdom. That character would be worse in perception scores due to it become less wise to make that clear assumption based on its senses, but it still have the same capability of sensing the same amount it have before(its sight, darkvision, blinghtsigh, whatever it have).
Now, another character are subjected to the blinded condition. That character wouldnt be able to succeed a perception checks that rely on sight, due to its inability to see. It still wise enough to aplly any signification to what its sensing but now it lost one of its senses.
If that ability to perceive (the word meaning) somthing was more related to it senses it self, any change on its sense reach would highten or lower its bonus to the check, but it don't happen because the sense is the "way" it can apply its wisdom, which means that it can only make that assumption based on how much it can sense.
To use another word for that "clear assumption" lets call it "intuition" or "istinct" (the word intuition is also used to describe the Wisdom Ability), and that "intuition" still a "thinking" even it is unconscious or unrelied on "knowledge" (which would be the case where inteligence checks would apply).
Even though I'm not sure if the rules really say this, I know some people play out these rules in a similar fashion to what I'm about to say.
Passive checks are almost on the subconscious level. You may be driving and feel "claustrophobic", passive Perception. You stop to think about it and realize you are boxed in by traffic, you would have nowhere to go if something happened, active check on Perception. With Observant you practically have advantage to just notice something is amiss but, not necessarily to nail down all the details without going to an active check. If you use this 2 step system, passive and active checks can make more sense, especially how there can be so much variance in a active check and how it could be lower(I'm not going with the passive is a floor at all times, I'm going with passive is a gut feeling, not a detailed result producing check necessarily).
I know some people just allow passives to do what an active check can do but, sometimes I feel, it can't. Let's say an Elf Bard is trying to use Stealth around the corner, your passive Perception clues you off to the fact that something is amiss around the corner. Do you know it's an Elf Bard? No. Let's say you were actively using Perception as your action, you feel something is suspicious and move to look around the corner. Ah there she is. I found you darling, now you owe me that kiss! She giggles and blushes.
The obvious reasons for passive skills is the fact that you want characters to have a way to pass or fail checks unbeknownst to them until you are ready to give the info they need or withhold it as applicable. As some have mentioned, you may use a passive for skills to determine if a DC will probably be trivial. Like a DC 12 to break down a door when a Barbarian would have a passive 15 Athletics(if you apply passives to such skills, that is), you could easily dismiss this check. This avoids the Mage breaks down the door the Barbarian can't conundrum in some cases.
Lastly, I feel passives are a way to preserve action economy. If everyone HAS to use their action to use an ability check against one creature using their ability check...well, that's a lot of wasted actions.
Well, just to finish, if you have a clear distinction between what applies to passive and active checks, you overcome your main problem which is to make sense to have those both values.
And thats even RAI. If you have a passive and active bonus it must means that you can applie those scores in different ways.
When you aren't trying to, your subjected to your passive score, which works as a DC contested by anything trying to overcome it. If nothing is trying to overcome it thares no contest. While when youre traying to do something you are subjected to your abillity check that is contestating a DC that is the passive score for that thing, to contest a DC you must have science of its existence and act in a specific way to accomplish what you trying to do, so you would only make a check when you can (by having the knowlede of its possibility) and are susceptible to a failure other then when you didn't try to.
Lets remember that passive scores are tools for the DM to manage some situations with more ease, but you don't need to rely on that in any case. So, if some task demands the character to make an active check, the passive score is a boundry only if the DM wants it to be, but the RAW don't stand that it is.
But your perception isn't exactly the precision of your senses itself. You may have good eyes but not be too wise to distinguish things, thats why it relies on Wisdom Ability.
Your ears may be not stuffed, but you when you are walking trough a busy fair in the city you were hearing a lot of other things at the same time, so if you wish to hear a specific conversation within all that concating voices you should actively try to do so.
Now, if you meant situations like a character at 10 feet from a dragon under bright litgh and perfect eyes needing a active check to see that dragon, well thats a big DMs fault.
I'm not misreading what you're writing, I just have a different interpretation.
The difference between Wisdom and Intelligence is pretty far besides the point of this thread, but I'll add a few more notes:
I have to admit, that this is another case of very ambiguous wording and rules, where exactly the line is between Wisdom and Intelligence is not very clear.
I'm not sure it's possible to clearly differentiate between the two in many cases, so it is up to each group and ultimately the DM to make that distinction themselves.
To me, Wisdom answers generally to WHAT something is or WHAT happens from experience.
What do I see? A broken branch.
What happens if I eat this blue fruit? I feel pain.
What does this person feel? Fear.
Intelligence answers to WHY something is.
Why is there a broken branch? Maybe an animal or a person came through here, I might be in danger.
Why does this blue fruit induce pain? It seems to be some kind of poison, I could use this to coat my weapon.
Why does this person feel anger? I talked about the Lord of this castle, this person must be afraid of him, I could use this to my advantage.
And of course, we could discuss much overlap between the two and would probably come up with many valid arguments, but at some point, you just have to draw a line somewhere.
This becomes even more confusing when we talk about the Skills deriving from these Abilities, which are worded very clearly as distinct use cases, but the only thing really separating them from the base Ability is the proficiency.
So why exactly something like Perception and Medicine roll for the same check (plus or minus a few points) is very questionable since I would not like my surgeon to act on instinct or intuition when operating on me!
Of course, you could use the optional rules to use Intelligence for Medicine, which seems like a much more sensible choice, but that only means that the rules as written mean even less and basically everything is up to interpretation.
After mulling this topic around in my head the entire day I tend to agree with your interpretation (which is not RAW by the way, but honestly, I'm not sure rules as written are playable without being very flexible in their interpretation around different contexts)
I think I will end up with a few minor fixes that change as little as possible but still keep my sanity.
One of these fixes will definitely be the interpretation of passive skills as a kind of "light" version of the same active skill.
So a passive Perception of 15 will not be able to do the exact same thing as an active rolled Perception of 15. That's mainly what tripped me up so much as it really messes with the probabilities of success and failure.
Having it do something like you described in your post seems pretty sensible to me, kind of like a "spidey sense" that something is different and maybe vaguely what or where, but not specific enough to find out exactly without actively searching. I feel like that would also be satisfying to the player picking Observant.
I think I will use the concept of a Skill Floor, for one because it has to exist in the case of passive Perception vs Stealth, otherwise, that entire mechanic wouldn't work at all.
This goes for all passive Skills that are basically like an AC secretly "defending" against an "attack", so far I think this only applies to passive Perception vs Stealth and passive Insight vs Deception. These two will just remain exactly as written.
But I will change the Skill Floor for active Skills to passive Skill -5 IF you have proficiency in that skill, so someone with a (+5) mod and proficiency in Perception would now have 10 as a Skill Floor and thus guaranteed success on fairly easy DC's but would still have to roll for level-appropriate challenges.
This just feels so much better to me from a roleplay perspective and the probabilities are also much more in line with what you would expect.
And it's almost RAW when you compare it to the variant rule from the DMG which does almost exactly this (even the math checks out) but decides to invent an entirely new system for passive automatic success that is incompatible with the already existing passive score.
This entire thread has helped me tremendously and even if I come off as combative in some posts, it's just me debating the concepts and ideas, not the person writing them.
I feel like I have to add this, as these discussions can become slightly heated.
Any thoughts on my house rules?
I agree with your first point if I read it right and if thats the case I just made a redundant answer setting to exemples where ask for checks make or don't make sense as you complaint about seeing it from a lot of DMs.
Yep. You don't get it. Never mind.
If you feel that any of tips can help your table, be happy.
Also, another point that comes up a lot and I have no idea where people get it from:
"Passive" is meant in the context of passive players at the table (not rolling dice) and not as passive characters or their actions in the game!
At least that's what the written rules suggest:
If my character repeatedly runs into a door to try and break it, we can use his passive Athletics score to represent an average result, this obviously does not mean the character or his actions are in any way passive (because he's very actively and consciously running into a door)
The one who is passive is the player, not the character.
So all these interpretations that the passive score must have some correlation to a passive action of the character are really coming out of nowhere.
Ah ... well no, they're coming out of reasonable interpretations of very ambiguous wording and rules ... this really is a running theme in this system.
Don't be so passive-aggressive because I have a different interpretation than you, I get where you're coming from and think what you're describing could be a reasonable way to play the game.
You're interpreting "passive" and "active" Perception as variants of Perception "sensing" and "reasoning", which to me is just clearly separated into different Abilities entirely (Wisdom vs Intelligence)
I just don't interpret these Abilities the same way you do at all (because they are not clearly defined). That doesn't mean I don't get your point.
Edit:
You know, now that I'm re-reading some posts I think I am actually going in a similar direction to what you were talking about initially, maybe even closer than I realized, when I wrote about my "fix" to passive Skills:
I'm not applying your interpretation of "deduction" to the active part of Perception, since I still feel like this is an Intelligence check, but I feel like my passive interpretation of Perception is pretty close to yours.
And yes, without realizing it, I slowly converted from not wanting to separate passive and active Skills into different situations to proposing it as my own "fix".
Sorry mate, I'm not passive-agressive couse you have a different interpretation than mine, to be fair I rule Perception and Investigation in the same way you are traying to explain me. I'm just don't know how I can change my words to explain that what I'm trying to say IS NOT that I interpret Perception including both "sensing and reasoning" in the way its distinct between Wisdom and Inteligence.
The way you make that ajustments are pretty similar to what I am suggesting. We can argue if its RAW or not, but I don't think its worth it. But I can say its probably RAI, as the WIS abitlity score isn't it self the sence, but use it as a tool or way to opperate.
What I am trying to say is just that your Perception relies on your Wisdom more than the accuracy of your eyes. You could have a damn great eyes but if you lost vision your wisdom still the same. Thats it.
The idea of "making an assumption" whitin my interpretation of what Wisdom is are relied to the very same inate capability of distinguish a sound or image and aplly significance to that as an intuition. An human and a squirrel would both have that capability even if the squirrel aren't intelligent, becouse its wise enough to that and not just becouse its eyes sees better. Of course the sensitive organs have a role in that, but they are just means to that creature aknowledge something and its Wisdom to react to that invormation, applying a significance to it. (oh thats a threat!)
So, the "assumption" isn't "reasoning" in that interpretation.
Lets imagine, both a smart guy (Int 15) and a wise guy (Wis 15) put side by side staring to a shady alley traying to catch the location of a hidden foe. Both have the exact same presicion in its eyes and could see the same patterns and shapes projected into the shadow, and neither have something that would block its vision. However, the wiser one is more suscetible to distinguish between that amount of shapes that this one is the hidden foe. Its not because the eyes of the wiser one are better functioning, but because he is wiser enough to distinguish that shape as the hidden foe silhouette.
The same in a sound situation. The boths could have the same precision in its ears, but the wiser one would be able to distingish better that in the middle of that amount of sounds produced by its surroundings theres that one sound that is a step into a branch, while the other would maybe hear the sound but don't distinguish it as such.
In the red example above, I would certainly ask for an active check. If the character could do it passively, it wouldn't require trying to repeatedly break the door down. Breaking the door down could have a DC 10 and and the Barbarian from before just passively Athletics 15, walks right through the door and starts swinging on enemies inside the room with his action. If the character can't passively get through the door, they use their action repeatedly(multiple rounds) to ability check the door down.
Not to try and add more confusion but, a bit more clarity, I have a few more non-RAW reflections to offer. The rules always indicate that they need an arbiter, the DM(also hopefully in conjunction with the other players whenever possible).
What I feel really separates passive from active when it comes to ability checks is two things.
Does you character know that there is something acting against it? If not, the DM is going to compare against your passive score and it doesn't cost your action in most cases.
Does the character have sufficient skill to perform the task passively? If the DM feels the case is yes, then it may or may not cost an action. In the door breaking example above, I would say smashing through the door when it's no challenge does not take an action but, I might count it as an object interaction(assuming they haven't already used one) for that characters turn.
There are some outlier situations to consider as well. Let's say you run and jump off a ledge to take a swing at a flying critter. You have used your move and your action but, you are now falling. What to do? Well, maybe you just take damage, too bad. Perhaps the DM allows a passive check against an ability that could reduce damage, like Acrobatics. Maybe the DM flat out allows you to make an active Athletics check that doesn't require an action, that's good since the action was already used.
The rules as written can be a good base but, there will always be a circumstance that was inadvertently left unaccounted for. Best to just have that foreknowledge and be ready to quickly adapt and figure out how to consistently make rulings that seem fair to all.
You appear to have made a miscalculation in your analysis. I get the impression that may be skewing your view of things a bit, and that’s making the situation appear far more dire than the reality. That inaccurate threat assessment is unfortunately also being compounded by what I can tell you is some absolutely terrible advice. And I can tell that you are also pickin’ up on the fact that the advice is terrible, but it also happens to make sense logically; so that’s probably making you doubt your own instincts, which is backfeed looping you to reconsider your own sit rep which keeps perpetuating the cycle.
Unfortunately, the feedback loop keeps bypassing the initial analysis, and accepting that all as true. And since what I think was your initial miscalculation isn’t the kind of jump out and grab someone’s attention type of thing, you haven’t spotted your initial miscalculation. I only spotted it right off because my group already went ‘round on this exact topic a few years ago when we first picked up 5e, so I have the advantage of having already used that exact point in conjunction with a couple others to confirm for myself that the advance is terrible. Hopefully it’ll help you, and you’ll realize your instinct is correct, and it’s the advice is terrible and all make sense.
What appears to me to have been your initial miscalculation was when you wrote:
No matter what, that won’t happen. The reason why that won’t happen is because it mathematically cannot happen. You see, a PC’s Ability check bonus is a combination of their Ability modifier, and their Proficiency bonus if they are proficient in a particular skill, and the DM decides that skill would apply to the check at hand. So the lowest possible number that any “(Ability) Skill” check could be is -2, or -1 with Standard Array or Point Buy. The highest possible bonus to an active Ability Check would be +11, or +17 with Twice Proficiency/Expertise. (any of those numbers could be 1 point if that character has read the right book. That PC’s passive skill scores start with that exact same total bonus, and add 10 to that number. Whenever you take any number, whole, negative, or otherwise and add any integer to that starting number, the result will always be that “initial starting number + the chosen integer. If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic.)
Absolutely every creature in D&D is always “significantly better” (10+) at absolutely every skill when “not trying,” so that can never “suddenly happen,” because it is already the status quo. Since that’s already been the case this whole time, and since it hasn’t caused absolute anarch or anything yet, the feats like Observant are really just more of the same.
A few years ago my group’s main GM was going through the rules in preparation for running our first adventure this edition. He came across that decided that situation seemed wrong, and his solution was to implement Passive Scores as the guaranteed minimum for small checks. Three sessions later we all unanimously voted to stop using passive scores that way. He thought it would help us all meet our “cooler” feel cooler and that the world feel more realistic. Instead it only resulted in an almost immediate of us having less fun, Including the DM. It made Ability checks irrelevant, and encounters that rely on them pointless. Instead of 3 “pillars of play” or whatever, all that was left was combat. 🥱
As a general guidelinedirectly , approximately 1/3 of Crawford’s Sage Advice is completely incorrect. Every DM selects which 1/3 is wrong by process of elimination. (It’s the 1/3 that contradicts the 2/3 you like
If a player asks: “do I see anything.” My response will be “roll perception. If they ask, “what do we i find?” I say “make an investigation check. Players don’t get to choose when they roll dice, they roll dice when the DM asks them to. The DM decide when a check is ,ade
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting