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)
....
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
It is actually me that has a difficult time finding the right words to explain to you, that I completely understand what you're trying to say, but also have a completely different interpretation.
You are not applying Wisdom and Intelligence like me at all (which again, is not a right or wrong thing, it's just different)
So let me hook onto your own examples to make my position really obvious:
You could have a damn great eyes but if you lost vision your wisdom still the same. Thats it.
Of course, I agree, because your vision is just one section of your Wisdom score.
However, if your Wisdom score is 0, you are blind.
That's what I'm trying to tell you: You have a completely different interpretation than me of what Wisdom is or how the mechanics of the game work.
In your second example, both guys don't have the same precision in their eyes at all. One sees more, precisely because his eyesight (= Wisdom score) is better, not because he can interpret what he sees better.
And I would argue that my interpretation could be RAW, for example, it is supported by the definition of the Blinded condition:
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If you're unable to make an Ability check against a DC 1, you're basically stripped of that sense.
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.
There is nothing in the rules that says the concept applies to breaking down a door and, to me, that would be a good example of a misuse of the concept. [...]
The very quote you posted talks about 'noticing' not about slamming. [...]
If you are actively searching, how long do you stand there searching that particular wall section? Likely once and then move on to the next section [...]
Let me restructure the rule text:
Rule: 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, Example: such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
Rule: or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, Example: such as noticing a hidden monster
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
An average of a repeated task over time.
A secret score for the DM to use to avoid a visible roll.
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be: A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment" It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it. The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
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.
[...]
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. 🥱
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I can't make any sense of it, at least not if what you wrote is supposed to be a solution to the quoted problem.
The first paragraph of your explanation is just telling me that all (Ability) Skill checks are composed of the base Ability bonus and the Proficiency bonus. And the passive Score just adds 10 to this combination ... so far so good, nothing new here. I'm not sure why you include the phrase "If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic." I think we can all assume that every participant in this discussion can add 3 numbers and count up to the double-digit range? Or are you alluding to some calculation I'm completely missing?
Your second paragraph is essentially just saying we're using this passive Score as a Skill Floor. And there is no problem because everyone is already making passive Checks all the time, it's not something that "suddenly happens", so the probability of success for that has already happened since it's the status quo and the only thing an active Check would do is have a new probability to roll higher. Am I getting this right? If yes, so far that's exactly what I've been describing since my first post: Having passive Skills as a Skill Floor is the only way that the probabilities of any situation are clean and make sense.
In your last paragraph, you then say that your group decided to not to use Skill Floors anymore because it was boring ... Okay, of course I agree again, as I said in my first post: "At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all [...] But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring."
But that would then lead to the exact problem you were responding to, so ... what exactly is your solution? Am I completely missing something here?
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.
There is nothing in the rules that says the concept applies to breaking down a door and, to me, that would be a good example of a misuse of the concept. [...]
The very quote you posted talks about 'noticing' not about slamming. [...]
If you are actively searching, how long do you stand there searching that particular wall section? Likely once and then move on to the next section [...]
Let me restructure the rule text:
Rule: 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, Example: such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
Rule: or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, Example: such as noticing a hidden monster
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
An average of a repeated task over time.
A secret score for the DM to use to avoid a visible roll.
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be: A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment" It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it. The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
Right. The PCs are observing the same scene repeatedly. The hidden door is there now. It is there 6 seconds from now. It will still be there an hour from now. Actively searching or just standing there, regardless of which turn, the question is 'Do they notice it?' Literally the same task.
And it is the same task whether the PC's consciously wonder if there is a hidden door there and ask the DM whether they notice it, or if the PC's notice it without any player asking. The eyes of the PC are open, so there is the potential they will notice some sign that leads them to discover it.
The alternative is the players having to ask the DM every round, every 6 seconds, "Do I see anything interesting?" That is completely impractical, so they have this rule in place to handle such situations.
It's not the same task. We're abstracting moving around, feeling things on the wall, turning your head to listen to different directions, etc. into one action of rolling for Perception or using passive Perception. Just standing there is not the same thing.
Imagine the hidden door can only be found by feeling irregularities in the stone wall with your fingers. Not any visible clues. Just standing 10 feet away and "using passive Perception" as you describe it will not find anything. But it should, according to the rules. And that's because "using passive Perception" is just an abstract way of saying "while moving around and using your senses to find things in this area you feel irregular patterns on the stone wall", it is just a representation of a repeated active Check as written in the rules.
The alternative is the players having to ask the DM every round, every 6 seconds, "Do I see anything interesting?" That is completely impractical, so they have this rule in place to handle such situations.
Exactly.
Edit: I had to re-read what I wrote and you wrote, basically, we're agreeing. The only thing I'm now arguing is what RAW would mean, but that's maybe completely redundant because neither I nor you intend to use the rules as written. Sorry for that. I'll leave it up, because I still think it illustrates an interesting point, even if it's just hypothetical.
It is actually me that has a difficult time finding the right words to explain to you, that I completely understand what you're trying to say, but also have a completely different interpretation.
You are not applying Wisdom and Intelligence like me at all (which again, is not a right or wrong thing, it's just different)
So let me hook onto your own examples to make my position really obvious:
You could have a damn great eyes but if you lost vision your wisdom still the same. Thats it.
Of course, I agree, because your vision is just one section of your Wisdom score.
However, if your Wisdom score is 0, you are blind.
That's what I'm trying to tell you: You have a completely different interpretation than me of what Wisdom is or how the mechanics of the game work.
In your second example, both guys don't have the same precision in their eyes at all. One sees more, precisely because his eyesight (= Wisdom score) is better, not because he can interpret what he sees better.
And I would argue that my interpretation could be RAW, for example, it is supported by the definition of the Blinded condition:
A blinded creature can't see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
If you're unable to make an Ability check against a DC 1, you're basically stripped of that sense.
I hope this makes my position more clear.
Right! Now we get a fair point in differ our both interpretations on the rule. That leads us to the main point of making sense on the Observant bonus to passive perception (aside to the way to stabilish where it applies).
In that interpretation of Wisdom of yours, it seems fair to me to say that the Observant bonus makes no sense. And thats why I start this whole discussion with "I think it only would make no sense if situations are deals equally susceptible for both passive and active." So, if the Wisdom ability were relied on the presicion of your sensitive organs that wouldn't be explainable that your senses function better when you are passive. Right.
Goin to the interpretation that your sensitive organs are just "tools" for your wisdom to operate it makes more sense that you can be batter at determinated situations, as much as when passivelly. Cause in that case "perceive/notice" is not just "see", and your reaction (perceiving) to what your senses capture (see) could be quickier in that determinated situation (while passive).
So, my interpretation on Wisdom being such thing is based on three points:
1. My experience with other versions of DnD and other systems of RPG. But thats not a real matter here since we should discuss what the 5e says about it.
2. The Wisdom word meaning it self and its descriptions, wich would be an fair argument to say that its RAW or at least RAI (even I don't care if it is or not). The Wisdom Abillity are described as:
Wisdom
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.
Wisdom Checks
A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person. The Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Wisdom checks.
Those exemples where Wisdom checks were applied can induct to the understanding that it's not limited to sensitive precision, since "read body language" demands an insight more than see that gestures, or care an injuried needs a basic understandment on it more than just the ability to see the wound.
3. The sense on using that Wisdom within the game mechanics. If i read it only relied on sensitive precision I realy cant find sense enough on Wisdom being the spellcasting ability for druids and rangers, neither to it be the base ability to skills like insight, medicine and animal handling. That can be overcomed saying that only Perception skill are limitade on perceiveness while the other rely on intuition and insights (the word meaning), but I don't think that would be the case.
Well, that said.
You don't need to change your interpretation on Wisdom, but I'm not up to make a consistent explanation to Observant based on that interpretation, so if I keep on that interpretation of yours I would ban Observant feat to don't create that wierd situation where a character sees better when don't try to.
What I can say is that this is the way you can overcome your major problem that is to make a sense on Observant feat, and aslo make more sense on those others skills I mentioned. In this way you can also make a sense on separate the appliable situations to each passive and active uses of perception as I suggest back there.
Going back to the uses of ability scores, one tip I can have you and also the sources have somewhere in its books:
If the roll don't trigger any narrative result, don't use scores and rolls at all. For exemple, if the party must overcome a door, but failing it don't change the narrative and they can try over and over again, even if its an active check for the characters you can just narrate that they overcome the door. That becouse they can try over and over again and soon or later they would overcome it, so theres no need to lost that time on rolling.
Only if some NPC (or thing) are the active put it against passive scores. For exemple, the party arn't aware of the presence of something or someone in its surroundings, so the only way to perceive it is to notice it passively. If they aren't aware they can't choose to perceive it. So you roll for the contested test against is passive score or compare its DC to it, if nobody notice it, so it is, unless you want it to have a narrative porpouse to them to notice and can ask them to roll the check and use the passive as a floor.
Only ask for active rolls when the character intent to. For exemple, if a character look dawnward trough a window, they might be able to see whatever is in its sight. However, it may want to find a known foe runing within the cities alleys, so they might try to do it actively and are susceptible to made mistakes (it could focus its eyes in a northern alley in the very moment that the target would be visible crossing a southern alley).
You can say that the passive score are always a floor, but wouldn't that make passive almost useless? Since that they would never fail in anything that goes less than its passive score and the only way to challange them is when has a higher DC are set and they can overcome it only with an active roll.
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.
There is nothing in the rules that says the concept applies to breaking down a door and, to me, that would be a good example of a misuse of the concept. [...]
The very quote you posted talks about 'noticing' not about slamming. [...]
If you are actively searching, how long do you stand there searching that particular wall section? Likely once and then move on to the next section [...]
Let me restructure the rule text:
Rule: 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, Example: such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
Rule: or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, Example: such as noticing a hidden monster
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
An average of a repeated task over time.
A secret score for the DM to use to avoid a visible roll.
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be: A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment" It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it. The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
Don't stuck on RAW when you feel that don't make sense. And also don't bother to be mad on it being bad written. Over the time DMing you will see that you can avoid that frustrations and the RAI of the rule will become more clear to the point you'll don't see that as much as a bad written.
I didn't read the entire thread so if this has already been mentioned then my apologies.
To the OP - one distinction to keep in mind (and which the books don't necessarily keep track of either) is that PASSIVE does not refer to the character actions it is referring to the player actions.
A PASSIVE check is one in which the player does NOT roll dice. The PLAYER is PASSIVE. This is a common point of confusion.
Passive perception is NOT the character being passive. If the character isn't paying appropriate attention or taking the appropriate action then they will notice nothing. They won't even get a perception check. Passive skills are only in effect when the CHARACTER is already taking an appropriate action. (An action done repeatedly).
In combat, characters are ALWAYS considered to be alert to their surroundings so they always have a passive perception if another creature tries to hide. You will also find this in the travel rules. Characters who are doing something else like mapping, navigating or paying attention to something else while traveling do NOT get to use their passive perception to notice things along the way. Only characters that ARE paying attention have a passive perception.
Some examples -
- a character searching a desk - the DM could use their passive investigation for the check - assuming that there is no time limit or other pressure and the character can continue to search or search multiple times
- a character listening to a speech - the DM could use their passive insight score for a check to determine how much of the speech they think is being honestly presented
- a character trying to open a lock - the DM could use their passive lockpick score for a check assuming that there are no consequences to failing to pick the lock
There are many applications of passive skills. NONE of them involve the character doing nothing - the character has to be taking an appropriate action for the passive skill to apply at all and that includes perception. Passive skills are for the DM to use to resolve situations while the PLAYER remains PASSIVE and does not roll dice.
Finally an example from Lost Mines of Phandelver:
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
If the characters are actively searching for traps then they spot the trap if their passive perception is 12 or higher - if they aren't paying attention for traps then they have to make a dice roll. The dice roll would also apply if the lead character's passive perception is too low to spot the trap.
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.
There is nothing in the rules that says the concept applies to breaking down a door and, to me, that would be a good example of a misuse of the concept. [...]
The very quote you posted talks about 'noticing' not about slamming. [...]
If you are actively searching, how long do you stand there searching that particular wall section? Likely once and then move on to the next section [...]
Let me restructure the rule text:
Rule: 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, Example: such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
Rule: or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, Example: such as noticing a hidden monster
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
An average of a repeated task over time.
A secret score for the DM to use to avoid a visible roll.
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be: A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment" It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it. The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
Don't stuck on RAW when you feel that don't make sense. And also don't bother to be mad on it being bad written. Over the time DMing you will see that you can avoid that frustrations and the RAI of the rule will become more clear to the point you'll don't see that as much as a bad written.
You're right. The final goal is to have fun at the table, so if something doesn't make sense I will favor just playing what feels right to me and my players, and from that experience we might get new insights on how to interpret the rules.
Also, your previous post was a very interesting read. I'm also glad we got our initial misunderstanding cleared up. Currently, I do not intend to run my table the way you're describing the system, but I will keep this as a possible solution in the back of my mind if we feel that things need to be changed after our play sessions. I'm still unsure what exactly to do with Observant, but since my players are still 2 levels away from possibly picking the feat, I have some time to think about it.
I didn't read the entire thread so if this has already been mentioned then my apologies.
To the OP - one distinction to keep in mind (and which the books don't necessarily keep track of either) is that PASSIVE does not refer to the character actions it is referring to the player actions.
A PASSIVE check is one in which the player does NOT roll dice. The PLAYER is PASSIVE. This is a common point of confusion.
Passive perception is NOT the character being passive. If the character isn't paying appropriate attention or taking the appropriate action then they will notice nothing. They won't even get a perception check. Passive skills are only in effect when the CHARACTER is already taking an appropriate action. (An action done repeatedly).
In combat, characters are ALWAYS considered to be alert to their surroundings so they always have a passive perception if another creature tries to hide. You will also find this in the travel rules. Characters who are doing something else like mapping, navigating or paying attention to something else while traveling do NOT get to use their passive perception to notice things along the way. Only characters that ARE paying attention have a passive perception.
Some examples -
- a character searching a desk - the DM could use their passive investigation for the check - assuming that there is no time limit or other pressure and the character can continue to search or search multiple times
- a character listening to a speech - the DM could use their passive insight score for a check to determine how much of the speech they think is being honestly presented
- a character trying to open a lock - the DM could use their passive lockpick score for a check assuming that there are no consequences to failing to pick the lock
There are many applications of passive skills. NONE of them involve the character doing nothing - the character has to be taking an appropriate action for the passive skill to apply at all and that includes perception. Passive skills are for the DM to use to resolve situations while the PLAYER remains PASSIVE and does not roll dice.
Finally an example from Lost Mines of Phandelver:
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
If the characters are actively searching for traps then they spot the trap if their passive perception is 12 or higher - if they aren't paying attention for traps then they have to make a dice roll. The dice roll would also apply if the lead character's passive perception is too low to spot the trap.
Wow, in my current state, you're the first person I agree with 100% and basically have no comments. This is exactly how I would run it at my table.
If I'm not mistaken, you're very surprisingly also the only other person besides me in this thread that considers "passive" as players being passive, NOT the characters being passive. And more importantly, the "interpretation" that a passive Check simply represents an active Check being done repeatedly and has nothing to do with "being passive" I'm glad I'm not alone with that anymore, I started to feel a little crazy :)
.
To give you (and anyone interested, including myself in the future) a fairly long status report of what I thought initially and where I am now: (Thanks to many discussions with the people in this thread and especially on Discord):
My confusion and ultimate error around this topic stemmed from the fact that I thought the rules as written implied a strict cascading logic:
"The passive Perception score essentially represents the minimum score (or "floor") for your active Perception, specifically in the situation of someone hiding, since the rules state that the passive Perception score should be compared to a Stealth check from a hiding creature. Since passive Perception triggers first it sets the floor for active Perception."
"And if passive Perception isn't a floor, the rules make no sense at all. Rolling lower with active Perception is illogical, if you found someone with passive Perception you can't un-find them with active Perception. And most of the time it would be better to do nothing to have passive Perception active instead of risking to fail an active roll."
"So if the above is the case we have to assume that all passive Skills act as floors for active Skills, so almost every character will always succeed a DC 10 challenge, why do such challenges even exist then?"
"And if all passive Skills act as floors for active Skills, the Observant feat with +5 to passive Perception/Investigation is broken, it essentially gives you +5 in 2 of the most used skills in the game and character can easily reach 20+ at low levels and any challenge at that level will automatically succeed."
And technically all of these statements are wrong.
For some reason, I had to think about the scenario of not finding a creature to really start untangling and correcting my entire logic.
Let's take the example of what actually happens if a character enters a room:
You will always find an enemy hiding if your passive Perception score is higher than the enemy's Stealth check. (That's simply the rule as written for hiding, under the assumption that there is no reason you couldn't find the enemy with a normal active Perception check from your point of entering the room)
So scenario (A): If you enter a room and you do not find someone hiding, you as a player just KNOW that there is either nobody in that room or someone with a Stealth check higher than your passive Perception. You as a player simply have some meta-knowledge now.
You can still decide to directly search for someone or something and roll a very low active Perception check, you still find nothing.
But you as a player KNOW, that even with your very low active roll, a potential hiding creature CAN'T possibly have a lower Stealth score than your passive Perception score, otherwise you would've found them. This really isn't a "minimum" or "floor" for your active Perception, since you actually did roll active Perception and you rolled really low and that means this specific instance of you trying to find something was really bad. You as a player just have the meta-knowledge now that, If there is a creature in this room, it not only has a higher Stealth check than the active roll you just did but also your passive Perception score. But none of this has any influence on your active rolls whatsoever.
Scenario (B): You enter the room, your passive Perception is higher than an enemy's Stealth check > you find the enemy. That's it. This instance of you vs this specific hiding enemy is resolved. There is no active roll in this instance you could make on top of that and "un-find" the enemy if you roll low. This situation is already resolved.
You CAN however make an active roll now to find something else. So you roll active Perception and you roll really low. That just means that anything else you could've found eluded your senses and this specific instance of you trying to find something was really bad. The fact that you did find an enemy with a higher Stealth score in the past has no influence on your current active roll to find other things at all. So again, your passive Score isn't a minimum for your active roll, these are two completely separate events against separate "targets".
This all seems so obvious, now that I'm writing it down, but somehow it never really clicked that way before.
The first two of my initial statements are just mechanically wrong. They simply don't play out in the way I thought they would. So, the rules as written don't say anything about passive Skills being "floors" for active Skills and they also don't need to be for the rules to make sense.
Of course one could make an argument now that, while this means passives are not technically a "floor", they can basically be interpreted as a "hypothetical floor", so it's still in a way a minimum, at the very least to the player at the meta-level. And well, sure why not, but that's just playing with words and doesn't change anything for the rules as written or how the game plays out.
Okay, we can disregard my first statements. But what about the other ones?
"So if the above is the case we have to assume that all passive Skills act as floors for active Skills, so almost every character will always succeed a DC 10 challenge, why do such challenges even exist then?"
We already established that this is not a cascading assumption we can make nor is it directly written anywhere in the rules. So what are passive Skills then? Well, just exactly what the rules say:
Can be a representation of the average result for a task done repeatedly
A tool for the DM that can be used to make a secret Skill check without rolling dice
That's it. And these are both can rules. Completely at the discretion of the DM. There is no rule anywhere that states we have to use passive Skills first to check against the DC of a challenge. Like passive Athletics against a DC 5 of breaking down a rotting wooden door for example. The DM CAN decide to do that, either to do it secretly or simply to keep the game going and not make checks for every mundane task.
That is the baseline of how to use passive scores.
Now, DnD is an exception-based game, so we get an easy baseline to work with and then exceptions for specific cases. One of these exceptions is passive Perception vs Stealth where we get an explicit rule on how to use passive Perception in that specific situation. In this case, if we want to play strictly RAW, the DM "has" to use the passive Perception score to resolve this specific situation.
This does NOT mean it applies to every other situation at all, so hidden doors or traps for example CAN be handled this way too, but don't have to be. And if we decide to handle it the same way as hidden enemies to be more consistent for our players, just because someone notices a symptom of a hidden door or trap with their Perception, it doesn't mean they necessarily know what to do to open or disarm it or even what it is in the first place (because that could probably be an Investigation check)
So even if we have a player with very high passive Perception and do decide to apply it the same way we would apply it to Hiding to be more consistent (again, we don't have to in RAW, we can), the challenge is still there. The players now know for example that the DC 20 trap exists due to passive Perception, but they still need to understand and disarm it to overcome the challenge. And the player who found it can feel great that he or she makes the group feel safe and that the group will probably find most traps before they trigger them accidentally.
And this ties directly into my last wrong statement:
"And if all passive Skills act as floors for active Skills, the Observant feat with +5 to passive Perception/Investigation is broken, it essentially gives you +5 in 2 of the most used skills in the game and character can easily reach 20+ at low levels and any challenge at that level will automatically succeed."
Again, passive Skill floor doesn't exist in the rules, but aside from that:
Observant giving you +5 to passive Perception/Investigation is NOT the same as giving you +5 to the active Skill at all. That's just wrong math. I'm honestly surprised I made that assumption.
But it does give you a considerable boost, essentially as if you had advantage on that Skill (+5 to passive), but weaker, because it doesn't actually give you advantage on an active roll. And let's not forget, the only thing it really boosts, if we play it strictly RAW, is one specific situation: passive Perception vs Stealth. Yes, that player has a better chance to find hidden enemies. And it comes at a cost of choosing that feat and not choosing ASI or another feat. Everything else is completely at the discretion of the DM.
And we want to play passive Perception a little more consistent for our players, so apply it the same way to hidden doors and traps ... the above explanation still holds true. So what if that player finds everything with maybe passive Perception 30 at some point? They invested to be good at that specific task, why take that away? The challenge to deal with whatever was found is still there and maybe someone else with high Investigation can shine.
And passive Investigation +5? Optional in RAW. We might decide to never use passive Investigation. And narratively, does it make sense to be better at what is technically described as a repeated task over time than when actively focusing on doing it? Yeah sure, maybe in that specific moment you were distracted or you need to "warm up" to really get going. Why wouldn't it make sense to become better at something the more you repeat it?
Well, that was a long status report. Maybe someone (or me in the future) might find this useful if they ever come across the same questions I had.
I feel like a lot of this was explained to me one way or another by people in this thread or in other places. But I just couldn't see it clearly.
So in the end ... RAW does make perfect sense. At least from my current perspective.
And what I called "inconsistent" is simply flexible. If we follow the base rules exactly there is no mechanical inconsistency in the game itself.
However, we can absolutely make inconsistent decisions as a DM because the ruleset is so flexible and there are so many can rules. We can use passive Investigation for one player and let another player roll every Check, we can make every hidden door an active Perception roll, and we can do the exact opposite next session to confuse our players. That would technically all be completely RAW and that's why RAW can sound and feel very different from DM to DM.
But that's a problem with the DM, not with the rules. If I want consistency, I just pick the can rules I like and be consistent with them. Or I simply don't use any of the can rules and roll everything and play a more tedious and somewhat basic game.
That's it.
(Thanks for coming to my TED talk. I should probably go to sleep ...)
This can only make any sense if passive Perception 15 is indeed a floor, otherwise, you would always find averagely hidden creatures while not looking for them and become much worse at looking for them when actively doing so. (And by a pretty large margin I might add, you only have a 30% chance to roll a flat 15 or above)
You don't give up your passive score because you spend an action looking around. You always have your passive score. Decide to actively look around? Okay. Rolled a 2, ok. You still have eyes. Your passive is still 15. You don't become blind. If something was revealable at 15 you noticed it before even rolling already, and rolling doesn't cause you to forget you saw it.
Passive is just what you automatically detect without even trying. If you try to find more, by actively looking around...maybe...maybe you do, if you roll high. But maybe you don't.
People with the observant feat are pretty good just automatically, passively, at noticing more things. But they're not any better at looking for things actively. In fact, they not any better at it at all vs simply not even having the feat. A guy with a +0 perception and the observant feat can actively perceive as good as any other average joe.
The feat does what it says really well. Because this hypothetical average +0 perception guy passively notices stuff as if he were actively paying attention most the time. But doesn't otherwise improve how well he can perceive. Ie. He doesn't have better vision, he's simply paying more attention more often... ie, being observant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
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.
[...]
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. 🥱
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I can't make any sense of it, at least not if what you wrote is supposed to be a solution to the quoted problem.
The first paragraph of your explanation is just telling me that all (Ability) Skill checks are composed of the base Ability bonus and the Proficiency bonus. And the passive Score just adds 10 to this combination ... so far so good, nothing new here. I'm not sure why you include the phrase "If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic." I think we can all assume that every participant in this discussion can add 3 numbers and count up to the double-digit range? Or are you alluding to some calculation I'm completely missing?
Your second paragraph is essentially just saying we're using this passive Score as a Skill Floor. And there is no problem because everyone is already making passive Checks all the time, it's not something that "suddenly happens", so the probability of success for that has already happened since it's the status quo and the only thing an active Check would do is have a new probability to roll higher. Am I getting this right? If yes, so far that's exactly what I've been describing since my first post: Having passive Skills as a Skill Floor is the only way that the probabilities of any situation are clean and make sense.
In your last paragraph, you then say that your group decided to not to use Skill Floors anymore because it was boring ... Okay, of course I agree again, as I said in my first post: "At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all [...] But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring."
But that would then lead to the exact problem you were responding to, so ... what exactly is your solution? Am I completely missing something here?
Yes, apparently you are in fact completely missing something. I was attempting to allude to my point in such a way that you could discover it for yourself without my having to spell it out for you. Apparently I was unsuccessful. Either I was too oblique in my approach, or you are so lost in trying to solve what you think the problem is, that you cannot discern your actual problem. So let me try to spell it all out the street for you this time, and see if this works.
At absolutely no point is it RAW to use a PC’s Passive Skill Score as the floor for their active Ability Checks. It is not RAW, nor is it RAI, and it is most certainly not RAF. It was in fact, merely an absolutely terrible, half-baked idea that should have stayed in the oven long enough to burn and get tossed in the bin. In fact, nowhere in the rules does it ever even mention comparing any creature’s Skill Bonus against their Passive Score at all. The reason why it is not mentioned is because they are never supposed to be compared one against the other.
You compare the two and see a problem because, as you view it, the passive “not trying” is always better than the active “trying.” That’s not the problem. Your problem is that you compared the two against each other in the first place. If you don’t do that, then you have no problem. It’s that simple. You are in fact creating a problem for yourself that you cannot solve. The solution is to simply stop creating your own problem.
You are comparing a PC’s bonus to an active roll against their passive score in a vacuum, but that’s not how the game works. Not at all. That’s akin to comparing a PC’s Attack modifier against their own AC and deciding they are better in combat if they don’t attack. Or like comparing a PC’s Saving Throws against their own Spell Save DC and deciding they are better off not making saving throws. WTF?!? That is actually L the same type of comparison you are making and trying to rationalize it.
A PC with a +8 bonus to their active Stealth roll also has a Passive score of 18. Right? But that PC is neverever supposed to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against their own Passive Stealth Score, so comparing those two numbers to each other is pointless. The thing they need to be compared against is the creature they are attempting to sneak past. If that creature has a +8 bonus to their Wisdom (Perception) checks, then they also have an 18 in their Passive Perception Score. So then it comes down to which of those creatures rolls (if either) and which use their Passive Score (if either). Then those two creatures get compared against each other. If the stealthy PC is intentionally trying to be sneaky, then the player MUST have Ell the DM they are being sneaky, even if the DM has to ask them.
If they say “yes,” then they MUST roll for stealth. If the creature they are sneaking past is actively on the lookout, them they roll too. So it’s a 1d20+8 Vs 1d20+8. That’s a straight 50/50 chance. That’s even money right there, better odds than anything Vegas offers. If the creature they are sneaking past is not actively on the lookout, but just generally aware of their surroundings, then the player rolls their active Stealth Check against the other creature’s Passive Perception of 18. (Do you know why they add 10 to passive scores? Because that’s just below the average result on d20s.) So, statistically speaking, if that PC makes that exact same check against that exact same DC 18 Passive Perception 100 times, then they are statistically likely to succeed 55% of the time. That’s even better than even money. (And yes, it is 55% because a 1-9 fails, but a 10-20 succeeds.)
If the DM asks the player whether or not their PC is being stealthy, and the player says “no,” then the lookout monster is not going to roll Perception against the PC’s Passive Stealth. They are instead going to roll against a DC of 10. Why? Because that PC is not trying to be stealthy at all, the player said so. That PC is clomping along in boots and clanging around in armor and not watching where they step, so they do not get the benefit of their Dex mod or PB to their Passive Stealth, they just get the flat 10. So since that monster has a +8 bonus to their perception checks, they are likely to notice that nincompoop blundering along without a care in the world 90% of the time.
The only times a PC would use their Passive Stealth would be under one of three general circumstances:
The player has indicated their PC is being generally cautious but not actively sneaky. (If they don’t declare that, then nada.)
If the Player rolled for stealth, but the environmental conditions have changed since then and the DM did not call for a new stealth check. Usually that happens when the DM wants to test sneak Vs spot, but doesn’t want the Player aware of the fact. So instead they use the PC’s passive score and have the enemies roll against that as the DC for the sake of maintaining suspense for the players.
Neither the PC nor the opponent is actively trying at all, but comparing 10 against 10 is neither fun, nor useful, so the DM compares Passive Scores against each other to determine the result.
Now, we already know that comparing those two creatures’ active rolls against each other is 50/50, an even bet. And we already know that the PC actively rolling against the hostile creature’s Passive Score is better odds at 55% success rate. But if the other creature rolls actively against the PC’s Passive Score, then the other creature has a 55% success rate and the PC only 45% because now the enemy fails on a 1-9 and succeeds on a 10-20.
As to adding a feat like Observant, do you know why it adds a +5 bonus to the Passive Score? Because statistically speaking, advantage is approximately equivalent to a +5 bonus to their Active Roll.
So, hopefully now you realize that:
A PC cannot just use their Passive Score whenever they want to, so that’s a nonissue.
Comparing the PC’s Skill Bonus to their Passive Score is irrelevant, so that’s another nonissue.
And that, if the PC and opponent are equally adept at whatever they are each doing, that the active roller is more likely to succeed. So the only way either side would have a significantly higher success rate is if they were better at whatever skill they were using than the other creature.
And finally, I hope you can clearly see that the only way a PC can walk around not trying to do anything and still be better at everything than if they tried is if the DM compares two numbers against each other that are not supposed to be compared to each other, comes to an erroneous conclusion due to that inappropriate comparison and let’s the Players get away with something they are not supposed to be able to do.
Make sense now? Was I clear? Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down?
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.
[...]
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. 🥱
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I can't make any sense of it, at least not if what you wrote is supposed to be a solution to the quoted problem.
The first paragraph of your explanation is just telling me that all (Ability) Skill checks are composed of the base Ability bonus and the Proficiency bonus. And the passive Score just adds 10 to this combination ... so far so good, nothing new here. I'm not sure why you include the phrase "If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic." I think we can all assume that every participant in this discussion can add 3 numbers and count up to the double-digit range? Or are you alluding to some calculation I'm completely missing?
Your second paragraph is essentially just saying we're using this passive Score as a Skill Floor. And there is no problem because everyone is already making passive Checks all the time, it's not something that "suddenly happens", so the probability of success for that has already happened since it's the status quo and the only thing an active Check would do is have a new probability to roll higher. Am I getting this right? If yes, so far that's exactly what I've been describing since my first post: Having passive Skills as a Skill Floor is the only way that the probabilities of any situation are clean and make sense.
In your last paragraph, you then say that your group decided to not to use Skill Floors anymore because it was boring ... Okay, of course I agree again, as I said in my first post: "At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all [...] But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring."
But that would then lead to the exact problem you were responding to, so ... what exactly is your solution? Am I completely missing something here?
Yes, apparently you are in fact completely missing something. I was attempting to allude to my point in such a way that you could discover it for yourself without my having to spell it out for you. Apparently I was unsuccessful. Either I was too oblique in my approach, or you are so lost in trying to solve what you think the problem is, that you cannot discern your actual problem. So let me try to spell it all out the street for you this time, and see if this works.
At absolutely no point is it RAW to use a PC’s Passive Skill Score as the floor for their active Ability Checks. It is not RAW, nor is it RAI, and it is most certainly not RAF. It was in fact, merely an absolutely terrible, half-baked idea that should have stayed in the oven long enough to burn and get tossed in the bin. In fact, nowhere in the rules does it ever even mention comparing any creature’s Skill Bonus against their Passive Score at all. The reason why it is not mentioned is because they are never supposed to be compared one against the other.
You compare the two and see a problem because, as you view it, the passive “not trying” is always better than the active “trying.” That’s not the problem. Your problem is that you compared the two against each other in the first place. If you don’t do that, then you have no problem. It’s that simple. You are in fact creating a problem for yourself that you cannot solve. The solution is to simply stop creating your own problem.
You are comparing a PC’s bonus to an active roll against their passive score in a vacuum, but that’s not how the game works. Not at all. That’s akin to comparing a PC’s Attack modifier against their own AC and deciding they are better in combat if they don’t attack. Or like comparing a PC’s Saving Throws against their own Spell Save DC and deciding they are better off not making saving throws. WTF?!? That is actually L the same type of comparison you are making and trying to rationalize it.
A PC with a +8 bonus to their active Stealth roll also has a Passive score of 18. Right? But that PC is neverever supposed to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against their own Passive Stealth Score, so comparing those two numbers to each other is pointless. The thing they need to be compared against is the creature they are attempting to sneak past. If that creature has a +8 bonus to their Wisdom (Perception) checks, then they also have an 18 in their Passive Perception Score. So then it comes down to which of those creatures rolls (if either) and which use their Passive Score (if either). Then those two creatures get compared against each other. If the stealthy PC is intentionally trying to be sneaky, then the player MUST have Ell the DM they are being sneaky, even if the DM has to ask them.
If they say “yes,” then they MUST roll for stealth. If the creature they are sneaking past is actively on the lookout, them they roll too. So it’s a 1d20+8 Vs 1d20+8. That’s a straight 50/50 chance. That’s even money right there, better odds than anything Vegas offers. If the creature they are sneaking past is not actively on the lookout, but just generally aware of their surroundings, then the player rolls their active Stealth Check against the other creature’s Passive Perception of 18. (Do you know why they add 10 to passive scores? Because that’s just below the average result on d20s.) So, statistically speaking, if that PC makes that exact same check against that exact same DC 18 Passive Perception 100 times, then they are statistically likely to succeed 55% of the time. That’s even better than even money. (And yes, it is 55% because a 1-9 fails, but a 10-20 succeeds.)
If the DM asks the player whether or not their PC is being stealthy, and the player says “no,” then the lookout monster is not going to roll Perception against the PC’s Passive Stealth. They are instead going to roll against a DC of 10. Why? Because that PC is not trying to be stealthy at all, the player said so. That PC is clomping along in boots and clanging around in armor and not watching where they step, so they do not get the benefit of their Dex mod or PB to their Passive Stealth, they just get the flat 10. So since that monster has a +8 bonus to their perception checks, they are likely to notice that nincompoop blundering along without a care in the world 90% of the time.
The only times a PC would use their Passive Stealth would be under one of three general circumstances:
The player has indicated their PC is being generally cautious but not actively sneaky. (If they don’t declare that, then nada.)
If the Player rolled for stealth, but the environmental conditions have changed since then and the DM did not call for a new stealth check. Usually that happens when the DM wants to test sneak Vs spot, but doesn’t want the Player aware of the fact. So instead they use the PC’s passive score and have the enemies roll against that as the DC for the sake of maintaining suspense for the players.
Neither the PC nor the opponent is actively trying at all, but comparing 10 against 10 is neither fun, nor useful, so the DM compares Passive Scores against each other to determine the result.
Now, we already know that comparing those two creatures’ active rolls against each other is 50/50, an even bet. And we already know that the PC actively rolling against the hostile creature’s Passive Score is better odds at 55% success rate. But if the other creature rolls actively against the PC’s Passive Score, then the other creature has a 55% success rate and the PC only 45% because now the enemy fails on a 1-9 and succeeds on a 10-20.
As to adding a feat like Observant, do you know why it adds a +5 bonus to the Passive Score? Because statistically speaking, advantage is approximately equivalent to a +5 bonus to their Active Roll.
So, hopefully now you realize that:
A PC cannot just use their Passive Score whenever they want to, so that’s a nonissue.
Comparing the PC’s Skill Bonus to their Passive Score is irrelevant, so that’s another nonissue.
And that, if the PC and opponent are equally adept at whatever they are each doing, that the active roller is more likely to succeed. So the only way either side would have a significantly higher success rate is if they were better at whatever skill they were using than the other creature.
And finally, I hope you can clearly see that the only way a PC can walk around not trying to do anything and still be better at everything than if they tried is if the DM compares two numbers against each other that are not supposed to be compared to each other, comes to an erroneous conclusion due to that inappropriate comparison and let’s the Players get away with something they are not supposed to be able to do.
Make sense now? Was I clear? Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down?
I think you're very incorrect. if a PC walks into a room, I'm going to use their passive perception to describe what in that room they detect...passively. if they then say they take a moment to look around some more I'll call for an active roll, which may or may not beat their passive. Either way, they still know what they saw from their passive.
In effect, their passive score is in fact the floor for how good they detect stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
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.
[...]
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. 🥱
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I can't make any sense of it, at least not if what you wrote is supposed to be a solution to the quoted problem.
The first paragraph of your explanation is just telling me that all (Ability) Skill checks are composed of the base Ability bonus and the Proficiency bonus. And the passive Score just adds 10 to this combination ... so far so good, nothing new here. I'm not sure why you include the phrase "If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic." I think we can all assume that every participant in this discussion can add 3 numbers and count up to the double-digit range? Or are you alluding to some calculation I'm completely missing?
Your second paragraph is essentially just saying we're using this passive Score as a Skill Floor. And there is no problem because everyone is already making passive Checks all the time, it's not something that "suddenly happens", so the probability of success for that has already happened since it's the status quo and the only thing an active Check would do is have a new probability to roll higher. Am I getting this right? If yes, so far that's exactly what I've been describing since my first post: Having passive Skills as a Skill Floor is the only way that the probabilities of any situation are clean and make sense.
In your last paragraph, you then say that your group decided to not to use Skill Floors anymore because it was boring ... Okay, of course I agree again, as I said in my first post: "At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all [...] But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring."
But that would then lead to the exact problem you were responding to, so ... what exactly is your solution? Am I completely missing something here?
Yes, apparently you are in fact completely missing something. I was attempting to allude to my point in such a way that you could discover it for yourself without my having to spell it out for you. Apparently I was unsuccessful. Either I was too oblique in my approach, or you are so lost in trying to solve what you think the problem is, that you cannot discern your actual problem. So let me try to spell it all out the street for you this time, and see if this works.
At absolutely no point is it RAW to use a PC’s Passive Skill Score as the floor for their active Ability Checks. It is not RAW, nor is it RAI, and it is most certainly not RAF. It was in fact, merely an absolutely terrible, half-baked idea that should have stayed in the oven long enough to burn and get tossed in the bin. In fact, nowhere in the rules does it ever even mention comparing any creature’s Skill Bonus against their Passive Score at all. The reason why it is not mentioned is because they are never supposed to be compared one against the other.
You compare the two and see a problem because, as you view it, the passive “not trying” is always better than the active “trying.” That’s not the problem. Your problem is that you compared the two against each other in the first place. If you don’t do that, then you have no problem. It’s that simple. You are in fact creating a problem for yourself that you cannot solve. The solution is to simply stop creating your own problem.
You are comparing a PC’s bonus to an active roll against their passive score in a vacuum, but that’s not how the game works. Not at all. That’s akin to comparing a PC’s Attack modifier against their own AC and deciding they are better in combat if they don’t attack. Or like comparing a PC’s Saving Throws against their own Spell Save DC and deciding they are better off not making saving throws. WTF?!? That is actually L the same type of comparison you are making and trying to rationalize it.
A PC with a +8 bonus to their active Stealth roll also has a Passive score of 18. Right? But that PC is neverever supposed to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against their own Passive Stealth Score, so comparing those two numbers to each other is pointless. The thing they need to be compared against is the creature they are attempting to sneak past. If that creature has a +8 bonus to their Wisdom (Perception) checks, then they also have an 18 in their Passive Perception Score. So then it comes down to which of those creatures rolls (if either) and which use their Passive Score (if either). Then those two creatures get compared against each other. If the stealthy PC is intentionally trying to be sneaky, then the player MUST have Ell the DM they are being sneaky, even if the DM has to ask them.
If they say “yes,” then they MUST roll for stealth. If the creature they are sneaking past is actively on the lookout, them they roll too. So it’s a 1d20+8 Vs 1d20+8. That’s a straight 50/50 chance. That’s even money right there, better odds than anything Vegas offers. If the creature they are sneaking past is not actively on the lookout, but just generally aware of their surroundings, then the player rolls their active Stealth Check against the other creature’s Passive Perception of 18. (Do you know why they add 10 to passive scores? Because that’s just below the average result on d20s.) So, statistically speaking, if that PC makes that exact same check against that exact same DC 18 Passive Perception 100 times, then they are statistically likely to succeed 55% of the time. That’s even better than even money. (And yes, it is 55% because a 1-9 fails, but a 10-20 succeeds.)
If the DM asks the player whether or not their PC is being stealthy, and the player says “no,” then the lookout monster is not going to roll Perception against the PC’s Passive Stealth. They are instead going to roll against a DC of 10. Why? Because that PC is not trying to be stealthy at all, the player said so. That PC is clomping along in boots and clanging around in armor and not watching where they step, so they do not get the benefit of their Dex mod or PB to their Passive Stealth, they just get the flat 10. So since that monster has a +8 bonus to their perception checks, they are likely to notice that nincompoop blundering along without a care in the world 90% of the time.
The only times a PC would use their Passive Stealth would be under one of three general circumstances:
The player has indicated their PC is being generally cautious but not actively sneaky. (If they don’t declare that, then nada.)
If the Player rolled for stealth, but the environmental conditions have changed since then and the DM did not call for a new stealth check. Usually that happens when the DM wants to test sneak Vs spot, but doesn’t want the Player aware of the fact. So instead they use the PC’s passive score and have the enemies roll against that as the DC for the sake of maintaining suspense for the players.
Neither the PC nor the opponent is actively trying at all, but comparing 10 against 10 is neither fun, nor useful, so the DM compares Passive Scores against each other to determine the result.
Now, we already know that comparing those two creatures’ active rolls against each other is 50/50, an even bet. And we already know that the PC actively rolling against the hostile creature’s Passive Score is better odds at 55% success rate. But if the other creature rolls actively against the PC’s Passive Score, then the other creature has a 55% success rate and the PC only 45% because now the enemy fails on a 1-9 and succeeds on a 10-20.
As to adding a feat like Observant, do you know why it adds a +5 bonus to the Passive Score? Because statistically speaking, advantage is approximately equivalent to a +5 bonus to their Active Roll.
So, hopefully now you realize that:
A PC cannot just use their Passive Score whenever they want to, so that’s a nonissue.
Comparing the PC’s Skill Bonus to their Passive Score is irrelevant, so that’s another nonissue.
And that, if the PC and opponent are equally adept at whatever they are each doing, that the active roller is more likely to succeed. So the only way either side would have a significantly higher success rate is if they were better at whatever skill they were using than the other creature.
And finally, I hope you can clearly see that the only way a PC can walk around not trying to do anything and still be better at everything than if they tried is if the DM compares two numbers against each other that are not supposed to be compared to each other, comes to an erroneous conclusion due to that inappropriate comparison and let’s the Players get away with something they are not supposed to be able to do.
Make sense now? Was I clear? Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down?
I think you're very incorrect. if a PC walks into a room, I'm going to use their passive perception to describe what in that room they detect...passively. if they then say they take a moment to look around some more I'll call for an active roll, which may or may not beat their passive. Either way, they still know what they saw from their passive.
In effect, their passive score is in fact the floor for how good they detect stuff.
Well, thats not exactly how the rules suppose to be, but a usefull way that seems to function as well.
Instead of being the RAW Police, I would just ment that you don't need to bother with compare passive scores to determine which thing a character would be able to see within a room. It jus see it automatically the colors and shapes and objects that are in front of its eyes.
You can just ask rolls when they wish to do something in the moment and use passive scores when they can do it repetitively or if you want avoid them to know about the contest (as to avoid to railroad them to something or metagaming). Otherwise, I think is just a waste of time to the DM to keep constant track on passive scores and say "you with passive perception 15 see a wardrobe but you with an 8 can see the most the back of your friend"
Edit
I mean: " if a PC walks into a room, I'm going to use their passive perception to describe what in that room they detect...passively." If there's something with matter in the room to them to find its that why passive even exist, but if its just furniture why would you bother to check that score to describe that details of that ordinary furniture? You would descibe it differently to each character based on they score? would you bother to narrate over and over that that guy with -2 WIS stumble its pinky into a corner everytime it enters a room?
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.
There is nothing in the rules that says the concept applies to breaking down a door and, to me, that would be a good example of a misuse of the concept. [...]
The very quote you posted talks about 'noticing' not about slamming. [...]
If you are actively searching, how long do you stand there searching that particular wall section? Likely once and then move on to the next section [...]
Let me restructure the rule text:
Rule: 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, Example: such as searching for secret doors over and over again,
Rule: or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, Example: such as noticing a hidden monster
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
An average of a repeated task over time.
A secret score for the DM to use to avoid a visible roll.
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be: A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment" It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it. The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
Don't stuck on RAW when you feel that don't make sense. And also don't bother to be mad on it being bad written. Over the time DMing you will see that you can avoid that frustrations and the RAI of the rule will become more clear to the point you'll don't see that as much as a bad written.
You're right. The final goal is to have fun at the table, so if something doesn't make sense I will favor just playing what feels right to me and my players, and from that experience we might get new insights on how to interpret the rules.
Also, your previous post was a very interesting read. I'm also glad we got our initial misunderstanding cleared up. Currently, I do not intend to run my table the way you're describing the system, but I will keep this as a possible solution in the back of my mind if we feel that things need to be changed after our play sessions. I'm still unsure what exactly to do with Observant, but since my players are still 2 levels away from possibly picking the feat, I have some time to think about it.
Yeap.
I just realize that I have failed enough traying to make my self clear but that what is said in the post just after that is pretty much how I treat that matter. I just got lost in try to explain that out-of-rules thing on wisdon x sensitive organ funtion and perceive different than see that I make my point goes far for what I intent.
I like to think of passive skills in the same manner as David42. I also believe Kotah's initial comment was close to my own interpretation, but with things switched around.
Passive skills represent a skill you are using passively, meaning your character is using the skill, but you as a player isn't actively doing anything. As with all skills, you have to state (implicitly or explicitly) that you are using said skill in order for you to gain the benefits from it (Passive Perception being an exception), unless the DM calls for a check. Regarding Passive Perception it seems to be a bit special compared to the other skills, as this skill seems to always be in use unless characters are actively doing something else. I infer this by looking at the standard D&D character sheet, where they have allocated a box for Passive Perception, but none of the other passive skills, as well as by looking at the RAW section in the PHB David42 referred to.
Kotah mentioned in his first comment how he believes passive skills are used for when characters pick up on general things that happen over time (e.g a conversation, or a person's general state of mind). I believe the concept of time is highly relevant in this discussion, but applied to the wrong aspect. It is not the length of e.g. a conversation or state of mind that matters, it is the amount of time you are applying the relevant skill to the task. As such, I would make use of the player's Passive Perception to see if he picks up a muted conversation while passing by a closed door. If the character does and asks if he can hear what is said, I'd ask the player to roll a Perception check. This is pretty much what Kotah described, but the length of the conversation isn't what matters (to me) regarding the use of passive vs active skills (as a passive check can also come after an active check), its when to apply one over the other, which depends on the amount of time you spend applying the skill in one go. Another example of this would be a player saying "I try to break in the door!". This calls for an active skill check. If the player fails the skill check but keeps trying, then I'd make use of his passive skill, instead of wasting everyone's time having him roll over and over (unless it adds to the tension). Also, where it makes sense for a character to always make use of their Passive Perception, it would make much less sense for a player to say "I keep my muscles all tense to make sure I can break down all the doors I see while we walk through the castle". A player could technically say that to make use of his Passive Athletics, but I'd personally have said player roll a Constitution Saving Throw to see whether or not the character starts cramping up after a while.
I'd also like to add that I don't believe two skill checks (passive or active) can be made at the same time. If you say that your character is "mulling through the words written on the wall in the previous room" then I'll apply your relevant passive intelligence skill to see if you recall/deduce something after spending a while contemplating it. During this time (until the player uses another skill or the DM decides enough is enough) that player wouldn't be using their Passive Perception or any of their other passive skills.
I have a small comment to the example from LMoP that David42 used. I'd assume that, since the players are in a potentially dangerous place, they are keeping an eye out for traps and the like, i.e. using their Passive Perception. Clearly, the adventure makes no such assumption and expects that the players have to actively state they are searching for traps. Personally I think that particular paragraph in the adventure doesn't align with RAW, unless they by "If the characters are searching for traps" mean "If the characters aren't distracted".
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or herpassive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
To sum up my take on the rules for passive checks:
Your passive skill is your average attempt after applying your skill for a while.
You can't apply two different skill checks at the same time.
Passive Perception is always in use by default, unless your character is attempting another action.
You're at a tavern enjoying a round of drinks with your friends but something in the mood of the place feels off. You're here for a good time so shake of the feeling, but then later, you can't help but overhear part of the conversation at the table next to yours. "Plenty of coin" "Closing soon" "Too many witnesses still" and you start feeling paranoid. Maybe it is the ale making you crazy. As you get up to go up to the bar to get a water, you realize there are a lot of very armed people here, that the vibe is entirely wrong, and you think they're planning to rob the place when the crowd thins out.
That's passive insight. And then passive perception. And then passive investigation.
At no point was this guy trying to figure anything out, alls he wanted was a round of drinks with the boys. But information filters in whether you are looking for it or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If the character isn't paying appropriate attention or taking the appropriate action then they will notice nothing.
So you hear nothing behind you since you are not paying attention to it? You have no peripheral vision since you are looking straight ahead?
"Taking appropriate action" can be as simple as being conscious. You cannot instruct your ears not to hear.
How many times have you been standing looking at your phone and not heard someone come up behind you or seen someone approach? Taking appropriate action in this context is not being distracted. In D&D, characters are usually assumed to be paying some attention to their surroundings unless they are doing something that specifically distracts them. In which case, they do not get to use passive perception.
PHB p183
"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission."
Characters always have eyes and ears but if they are distracted they DO NOT get to use their passive perception to notice threats.
As for your PHB reference, you seem to be neglecting to pay attention to the facts that said section is in the context of strategic travel and that there are specific tasks listed as options while so travelling. Those are:
Navigate: when consulting maps and taking bearings, one is indeed looking mostly at maps and possibly through the narrow view of a spyglass.
Mapping: Even more intensive.
Track: Again, you are looking at the ground, not around you. You are very focused on the near.
Forage: This one is a bit more questionable, since you have to spot the right plants to be able to harvest the right plants. And if there is some creature standing in the plant you are spotting (whether a useful plant of not), it is inane that you would have no chance to notice. But I put that down to the writers having no clue about foraging.
In short, these are specific tasks one might engage in while strategically travelling. This is not meant as a rule for normal 'we know the enemy is around here and we are looking for them to deal with them' situations.
The part of the PHB he quoted is from the Activity While Traveling section in the Adventuring chapter, which describes how general adventuring works when "Delving into the ancient Tomb of Horrors, slipping through the back alleys of Waterdeep, hacking a fresh trail through the thick jungles on the Isle of Dread" (read: wherever). It is one of the few places that describes how passive checks interact with active checks, and it doesn't contradict previous RAW on the matter, simply adds to it.
The actions one can do while travelling are not limited to the ones you mention, as the rules make clear: "a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission." The subsection in question also explicitly states that players can take actions other than remaining alert for danger while traveling through a dungeon, where "they need to remain alert for danger".
"As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group’s journey."
"As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group’s journey."
This isn't a binary either/or command. You could do both of these things. You could hypothetically remain alert and also perform another helpful task. You seem to be reading into it otherwise and I'm not sure why.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The part of the PHB he quoted is from the Activity While Traveling section in the Adventuring chapter, which describes how general adventuring works when "Delving into the ancient Tomb of Horrors, slipping through the back alleys of Waterdeep, hacking a fresh trail through the thick jungles on the Isle of Dread" (read: wherever). It is one of the few places that describes how passive checks interact with active checks, and it doesn't contradict previous RAW on the matter, simply adds to it.
The actions one can do while travelling are not limited to the ones you mention, as the rules make clear: "a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission." The subsection in question also explicitly states that players can take actions other than remaining alert for danger while traveling through a dungeon, where "they need to remain alert for danger".
"As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group’s journey."
"or some other activity with the DM’s permission.
Meaning you need the DM's specific permission to do anything else than those four options while travelling. Think about that for a moment.
And while this is in the adventuring section, which does indeed include "Delving into the ancient Tomb of Horrors," you seem to be conflating the description of 'Adventuring' at the opening of the entire chapter with said "Activity While Traveling" section which is a subsection of the Adventuring section, not the other way around.
Again, you are taking the entire section out of context.
Edit: And an example of travelling through a dungeon would be the journey through Moria in Lord of the Rings. They literally were just trying to go through a passage through the mountains. They did not go in there to explore or with any purpose other than just passing through.
I believe that sentence means that you can do whatever you want if the DM allows it (as with everything else in the game), but the listed examples are the most common (as with the Command spell).
Perhaps this comes down to personal experience and playstyle, but I believe you're always 'Adventuring' and 'traveling' in D&D (Pillar 1: Exploration), while you're not socially interacting with the world (Pillar 2: Social Interaction) or fighting something (Pillar 3: Combat).The only exception would be during downtime-activities which are not meant to be played through. Traveling through a dangerous dungeon such as Moria is indeed traveling through a very dangerous place. Why the party was there doesn't matter, unless you play a game where you know nothing happens while 'traveling' (as you know, many tables like to focus on dungeon crawling and don't care what happens in between). Again, I suspect our difference in interpretation of the rules might come down to our application of them due to our individual experiences and playstyle. If you're arguing that the RAW contained in the Activity While Traveling subsection is irrelevant to what the chapter is about as a whole, but specific to "travel[ing] through a dungeon or the wilderness", when do you apply the rules in the Special Types of Movement subsection above it, where the rules for jumping is contained? This subsection, much as the Activity While Traveling subsection, refers specifically to "Movement through dangerous dungeons or wilderness". Would you not apply these rules to urban settings?
Side question: Where do you get the term "strategic travel" from? Is it a carryover from earlier editions?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is actually me that has a difficult time finding the right words to explain to you, that I completely understand what you're trying to say, but also have a completely different interpretation.
You are not applying Wisdom and Intelligence like me at all (which again, is not a right or wrong thing, it's just different)
So let me hook onto your own examples to make my position really obvious:
Of course, I agree, because your vision is just one section of your Wisdom score.
However, if your Wisdom score is 0, you are blind.
That's what I'm trying to tell you: You have a completely different interpretation than me of what Wisdom is or how the mechanics of the game work.
In your second example, both guys don't have the same precision in their eyes at all.
One sees more, precisely because his eyesight (= Wisdom score) is better, not because he can interpret what he sees better.
And I would argue that my interpretation could be RAW, for example, it is supported by the definition of the Blinded condition:
If you're unable to make an Ability check against a DC 1, you're basically stripped of that sense.
I hope this makes my position more clear.
Let me restructure the rule text:
This is the only definition we get for what a passive score represents:
Everything else is pure interpretation.
And I would argue that calling it "passive" was one of the worst decisions because it completely confuses everyone instead of being clear about what this is meant to be:
A replacement of the "Taking 10" rule of earlier editions.
It's meant to stop players from going into a dungeon and telling the DM every 6 seconds (1 round) "I would like to check for hidden enemies or objects in my environment"
It represents the average over time of exactly this situation (repeated active checks), so we get a convenient score to use and the DM can keep the game going.
Now all of that being said. Do I think we should apply this RAW? No.
As much as I think these new interpretations are absolutely not what this rule is meant to be as written (and very likely as intended), I am now actually in favor of using passive scores in a more flexible and narrative manner.
Some of the things you guys have described in your posts, I honestly feel that it adds something cool to the game and if that means I'm not playing RAW anymore, so be it.
The more I think about the rules the less RAW makes sense. So why not just be creative and have fun with it.
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I can't make any sense of it, at least not if what you wrote is supposed to be a solution to the quoted problem.
The first paragraph of your explanation is just telling me that all (Ability) Skill checks are composed of the base Ability bonus and the Proficiency bonus.
And the passive Score just adds 10 to this combination ... so far so good, nothing new here.
I'm not sure why you include the phrase "If you ever test that and end up with a different result, the only possible explanation is faulty arithmetic."
I think we can all assume that every participant in this discussion can add 3 numbers and count up to the double-digit range?
Or are you alluding to some calculation I'm completely missing?
Your second paragraph is essentially just saying we're using this passive Score as a Skill Floor.
And there is no problem because everyone is already making passive Checks all the time, it's not something that "suddenly happens", so the probability of success for that has already happened since it's the status quo and the only thing an active Check would do is have a new probability to roll higher.
Am I getting this right? If yes, so far that's exactly what I've been describing since my first post:
Having passive Skills as a Skill Floor is the only way that the probabilities of any situation are clean and make sense.
In your last paragraph, you then say that your group decided to not to use Skill Floors anymore because it was boring ... Okay, of course I agree again, as I said in my first post:
"At some point, there is no use in rolling any dice at all [...] But nobody plays like that, of course not, that would be incredibly boring."
But that would then lead to the exact problem you were responding to, so ... what exactly is your solution?
Am I completely missing something here?
It's not the same task. We're abstracting moving around, feeling things on the wall, turning your head to listen to different directions, etc. into one action of rolling for Perception or using passive Perception. Just standing there is not the same thing.
Imagine the hidden door can only be found by feeling irregularities in the stone wall with your fingers. Not any visible clues.
Just standing 10 feet away and "using passive Perception" as you describe it will not find anything. But it should, according to the rules.
And that's because "using passive Perception" is just an abstract way of saying "while moving around and using your senses to find things in this area you feel irregular patterns on the stone wall", it is just a representation of a repeated active Check as written in the rules.
Exactly.
Edit:
I had to re-read what I wrote and you wrote, basically, we're agreeing.
The only thing I'm now arguing is what RAW would mean, but that's maybe completely redundant because neither I nor you intend to use the rules as written.
Sorry for that.
I'll leave it up, because I still think it illustrates an interesting point, even if it's just hypothetical.
Right! Now we get a fair point in differ our both interpretations on the rule. That leads us to the main point of making sense on the Observant bonus to passive perception (aside to the way to stabilish where it applies).
In that interpretation of Wisdom of yours, it seems fair to me to say that the Observant bonus makes no sense. And thats why I start this whole discussion with "I think it only would make no sense if situations are deals equally susceptible for both passive and active." So, if the Wisdom ability were relied on the presicion of your sensitive organs that wouldn't be explainable that your senses function better when you are passive. Right.
Goin to the interpretation that your sensitive organs are just "tools" for your wisdom to operate it makes more sense that you can be batter at determinated situations, as much as when passivelly. Cause in that case "perceive/notice" is not just "see", and your reaction (perceiving) to what your senses capture (see) could be quickier in that determinated situation (while passive).
So, my interpretation on Wisdom being such thing is based on three points:
1. My experience with other versions of DnD and other systems of RPG. But thats not a real matter here since we should discuss what the 5e says about it.
2. The Wisdom word meaning it self and its descriptions, wich would be an fair argument to say that its RAW or at least RAI (even I don't care if it is or not). The Wisdom Abillity are described as:
Wisdom
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.
Wisdom Checks
A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person. The Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Wisdom checks.
Those exemples where Wisdom checks were applied can induct to the understanding that it's not limited to sensitive precision, since "read body language" demands an insight more than see that gestures, or care an injuried needs a basic understandment on it more than just the ability to see the wound.
3. The sense on using that Wisdom within the game mechanics. If i read it only relied on sensitive precision I realy cant find sense enough on Wisdom being the spellcasting ability for druids and rangers, neither to it be the base ability to skills like insight, medicine and animal handling. That can be overcomed saying that only Perception skill are limitade on perceiveness while the other rely on intuition and insights (the word meaning), but I don't think that would be the case.
Well, that said.
You don't need to change your interpretation on Wisdom, but I'm not up to make a consistent explanation to Observant based on that interpretation, so if I keep on that interpretation of yours I would ban Observant feat to don't create that wierd situation where a character sees better when don't try to.
What I can say is that this is the way you can overcome your major problem that is to make a sense on Observant feat, and aslo make more sense on those others skills I mentioned. In this way you can also make a sense on separate the appliable situations to each passive and active uses of perception as I suggest back there.
Going back to the uses of ability scores, one tip I can have you and also the sources have somewhere in its books:
If the roll don't trigger any narrative result, don't use scores and rolls at all. For exemple, if the party must overcome a door, but failing it don't change the narrative and they can try over and over again, even if its an active check for the characters you can just narrate that they overcome the door. That becouse they can try over and over again and soon or later they would overcome it, so theres no need to lost that time on rolling.
Only if some NPC (or thing) are the active put it against passive scores. For exemple, the party arn't aware of the presence of something or someone in its surroundings, so the only way to perceive it is to notice it passively. If they aren't aware they can't choose to perceive it. So you roll for the contested test against is passive score or compare its DC to it, if nobody notice it, so it is, unless you want it to have a narrative porpouse to them to notice and can ask them to roll the check and use the passive as a floor.
Only ask for active rolls when the character intent to. For exemple, if a character look dawnward trough a window, they might be able to see whatever is in its sight. However, it may want to find a known foe runing within the cities alleys, so they might try to do it actively and are susceptible to made mistakes (it could focus its eyes in a northern alley in the very moment that the target would be visible crossing a southern alley).
You can say that the passive score are always a floor, but wouldn't that make passive almost useless? Since that they would never fail in anything that goes less than its passive score and the only way to challange them is when has a higher DC are set and they can overcome it only with an active roll.
Don't stuck on RAW when you feel that don't make sense. And also don't bother to be mad on it being bad written. Over the time DMing you will see that you can avoid that frustrations and the RAI of the rule will become more clear to the point you'll don't see that as much as a bad written.
I didn't read the entire thread so if this has already been mentioned then my apologies.
To the OP - one distinction to keep in mind (and which the books don't necessarily keep track of either) is that PASSIVE does not refer to the character actions it is referring to the player actions.
A PASSIVE check is one in which the player does NOT roll dice. The PLAYER is PASSIVE. This is a common point of confusion.
Passive perception is NOT the character being passive. If the character isn't paying appropriate attention or taking the appropriate action then they will notice nothing. They won't even get a perception check. Passive skills are only in effect when the CHARACTER is already taking an appropriate action. (An action done repeatedly).
In combat, characters are ALWAYS considered to be alert to their surroundings so they always have a passive perception if another creature tries to hide. You will also find this in the travel rules. Characters who are doing something else like mapping, navigating or paying attention to something else while traveling do NOT get to use their passive perception to notice things along the way. Only characters that ARE paying attention have a passive perception.
Some examples -
- a character searching a desk - the DM could use their passive investigation for the check - assuming that there is no time limit or other pressure and the character can continue to search or search multiple times
- a character listening to a speech - the DM could use their passive insight score for a check to determine how much of the speech they think is being honestly presented
- a character trying to open a lock - the DM could use their passive lockpick score for a check assuming that there are no consequences to failing to pick the lock
There are many applications of passive skills. NONE of them involve the character doing nothing - the character has to be taking an appropriate action for the passive skill to apply at all and that includes perception. Passive skills are for the DM to use to resolve situations while the PLAYER remains PASSIVE and does not roll dice.
Finally an example from Lost Mines of Phandelver:
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
If the characters are actively searching for traps then they spot the trap if their passive perception is 12 or higher - if they aren't paying attention for traps then they have to make a dice roll. The dice roll would also apply if the lead character's passive perception is too low to spot the trap.
You're right.
The final goal is to have fun at the table, so if something doesn't make sense I will favor just playing what feels right to me and my players, and from that experience we might get new insights on how to interpret the rules.
Also, your previous post was a very interesting read. I'm also glad we got our initial misunderstanding cleared up.
Currently, I do not intend to run my table the way you're describing the system, but I will keep this as a possible solution in the back of my mind if we feel that things need to be changed after our play sessions.
I'm still unsure what exactly to do with Observant, but since my players are still 2 levels away from possibly picking the feat, I have some time to think about it.
Wow, in my current state, you're the first person I agree with 100% and basically have no comments.
This is exactly how I would run it at my table.
If I'm not mistaken, you're very surprisingly also the only other person besides me in this thread that considers "passive" as players being passive, NOT the characters being passive.
And more importantly, the "interpretation" that a passive Check simply represents an active Check being done repeatedly and has nothing to do with "being passive"
I'm glad I'm not alone with that anymore, I started to feel a little crazy :)
.
To give you (and anyone interested, including myself in the future) a fairly long status report of what I thought initially and where I am now:
(Thanks to many discussions with the people in this thread and especially on Discord):
My confusion and ultimate error around this topic stemmed from the fact that I thought the rules as written implied a strict cascading logic:
And technically all of these statements are wrong.
For some reason, I had to think about the scenario of not finding a creature to really start untangling and correcting my entire logic.
Let's take the example of what actually happens if a character enters a room:
You will always find an enemy hiding if your passive Perception score is higher than the enemy's Stealth check.
(That's simply the rule as written for hiding, under the assumption that there is no reason you couldn't find the enemy with a normal active Perception check from your point of entering the room)
So scenario (A): If you enter a room and you do not find someone hiding, you as a player just KNOW that there is either nobody in that room or someone with a Stealth check higher than your passive Perception.
You as a player simply have some meta-knowledge now.
You can still decide to directly search for someone or something and roll a very low active Perception check, you still find nothing.
But you as a player KNOW, that even with your very low active roll, a potential hiding creature CAN'T possibly have a lower Stealth score than your passive Perception score, otherwise you would've found them.
This really isn't a "minimum" or "floor" for your active Perception, since you actually did roll active Perception and you rolled really low and that means this specific instance of you trying to find something was really bad.
You as a player just have the meta-knowledge now that, If there is a creature in this room, it not only has a higher Stealth check than the active roll you just did but also your passive Perception score.
But none of this has any influence on your active rolls whatsoever.
Scenario (B): You enter the room, your passive Perception is higher than an enemy's Stealth check > you find the enemy.
That's it.
This instance of you vs this specific hiding enemy is resolved.
There is no active roll in this instance you could make on top of that and "un-find" the enemy if you roll low. This situation is already resolved.
You CAN however make an active roll now to find something else.
So you roll active Perception and you roll really low.
That just means that anything else you could've found eluded your senses and this specific instance of you trying to find something was really bad.
The fact that you did find an enemy with a higher Stealth score in the past has no influence on your current active roll to find other things at all.
So again, your passive Score isn't a minimum for your active roll, these are two completely separate events against separate "targets".
This all seems so obvious, now that I'm writing it down, but somehow it never really clicked that way before.
The first two of my initial statements are just mechanically wrong. They simply don't play out in the way I thought they would.
So, the rules as written don't say anything about passive Skills being "floors" for active Skills and they also don't need to be for the rules to make sense.
Of course one could make an argument now that, while this means passives are not technically a "floor", they can basically be interpreted as a "hypothetical floor", so it's still in a way a minimum, at the very least to the player at the meta-level.
And well, sure why not, but that's just playing with words and doesn't change anything for the rules as written or how the game plays out.
Okay, we can disregard my first statements. But what about the other ones?
We already established that this is not a cascading assumption we can make nor is it directly written anywhere in the rules.
So what are passive Skills then? Well, just exactly what the rules say:
That's it. And these are both can rules. Completely at the discretion of the DM.
There is no rule anywhere that states we have to use passive Skills first to check against the DC of a challenge.
Like passive Athletics against a DC 5 of breaking down a rotting wooden door for example.
The DM CAN decide to do that, either to do it secretly or simply to keep the game going and not make checks for every mundane task.
That is the baseline of how to use passive scores.
Now, DnD is an exception-based game, so we get an easy baseline to work with and then exceptions for specific cases.
One of these exceptions is passive Perception vs Stealth where we get an explicit rule on how to use passive Perception in that specific situation.
In this case, if we want to play strictly RAW, the DM "has" to use the passive Perception score to resolve this specific situation.
This does NOT mean it applies to every other situation at all, so hidden doors or traps for example CAN be handled this way too, but don't have to be.
And if we decide to handle it the same way as hidden enemies to be more consistent for our players, just because someone notices a symptom of a hidden door or trap with their Perception, it doesn't mean they necessarily know what to do to open or disarm it or even what it is in the first place (because that could probably be an Investigation check)
So even if we have a player with very high passive Perception and do decide to apply it the same way we would apply it to Hiding to be more consistent (again, we don't have to in RAW, we can), the challenge is still there.
The players now know for example that the DC 20 trap exists due to passive Perception, but they still need to understand and disarm it to overcome the challenge.
And the player who found it can feel great that he or she makes the group feel safe and that the group will probably find most traps before they trigger them accidentally.
And this ties directly into my last wrong statement:
Again, passive Skill floor doesn't exist in the rules, but aside from that:
Observant giving you +5 to passive Perception/Investigation is NOT the same as giving you +5 to the active Skill at all. That's just wrong math.
I'm honestly surprised I made that assumption.
But it does give you a considerable boost, essentially as if you had advantage on that Skill (+5 to passive), but weaker, because it doesn't actually give you advantage on an active roll.
And let's not forget, the only thing it really boosts, if we play it strictly RAW, is one specific situation: passive Perception vs Stealth.
Yes, that player has a better chance to find hidden enemies. And it comes at a cost of choosing that feat and not choosing ASI or another feat.
Everything else is completely at the discretion of the DM.
And we want to play passive Perception a little more consistent for our players, so apply it the same way to hidden doors and traps ... the above explanation still holds true.
So what if that player finds everything with maybe passive Perception 30 at some point? They invested to be good at that specific task, why take that away?
The challenge to deal with whatever was found is still there and maybe someone else with high Investigation can shine.
And passive Investigation +5? Optional in RAW. We might decide to never use passive Investigation.
And narratively, does it make sense to be better at what is technically described as a repeated task over time than when actively focusing on doing it?
Yeah sure, maybe in that specific moment you were distracted or you need to "warm up" to really get going.
Why wouldn't it make sense to become better at something the more you repeat it?
Well, that was a long status report. Maybe someone (or me in the future) might find this useful if they ever come across the same questions I had.
I feel like a lot of this was explained to me one way or another by people in this thread or in other places. But I just couldn't see it clearly.
So in the end ... RAW does make perfect sense. At least from my current perspective.
And what I called "inconsistent" is simply flexible.
If we follow the base rules exactly there is no mechanical inconsistency in the game itself.
However, we can absolutely make inconsistent decisions as a DM because the ruleset is so flexible and there are so many can rules.
We can use passive Investigation for one player and let another player roll every Check, we can make every hidden door an active Perception roll, and we can do the exact opposite next session to confuse our players.
That would technically all be completely RAW and that's why RAW can sound and feel very different from DM to DM.
But that's a problem with the DM, not with the rules.
If I want consistency, I just pick the can rules I like and be consistent with them.
Or I simply don't use any of the can rules and roll everything and play a more tedious and somewhat basic game.
That's it.
(Thanks for coming to my TED talk. I should probably go to sleep ...)
You don't give up your passive score because you spend an action looking around. You always have your passive score. Decide to actively look around? Okay. Rolled a 2, ok. You still have eyes. Your passive is still 15. You don't become blind. If something was revealable at 15 you noticed it before even rolling already, and rolling doesn't cause you to forget you saw it.
Passive is just what you automatically detect without even trying. If you try to find more, by actively looking around...maybe...maybe you do, if you roll high. But maybe you don't.
People with the observant feat are pretty good just automatically, passively, at noticing more things. But they're not any better at looking for things actively. In fact, they not any better at it at all vs simply not even having the feat. A guy with a +0 perception and the observant feat can actively perceive as good as any other average joe.
The feat does what it says really well. Because this hypothetical average +0 perception guy passively notices stuff as if he were actively paying attention most the time. But doesn't otherwise improve how well he can perceive. Ie. He doesn't have better vision, he's simply paying more attention more often... ie, being observant.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, apparently you are in fact completely missing something. I was attempting to allude to my point in such a way that you could discover it for yourself without my having to spell it out for you. Apparently I was unsuccessful. Either I was too oblique in my approach, or you are so lost in trying to solve what you think the problem is, that you cannot discern your actual problem. So let me try to spell it all out the street for you this time, and see if this works.
At absolutely no point is it RAW to use a PC’s Passive Skill Score as the floor for their active Ability Checks. It is not RAW, nor is it RAI, and it is most certainly not RAF. It was in fact, merely an absolutely terrible, half-baked idea that should have stayed in the oven long enough to burn and get tossed in the bin. In fact, nowhere in the rules does it ever even mention comparing any creature’s Skill Bonus against their Passive Score at all. The reason why it is not mentioned is because they are never supposed to be compared one against the other.
You compare the two and see a problem because, as you view it, the passive “not trying” is always better than the active “trying.” That’s not the problem. Your problem is that you compared the two against each other in the first place. If you don’t do that, then you have no problem. It’s that simple. You are in fact creating a problem for yourself that you cannot solve. The solution is to simply stop creating your own problem.
You are comparing a PC’s bonus to an active roll against their passive score in a vacuum, but that’s not how the game works. Not at all. That’s akin to comparing a PC’s Attack modifier against their own AC and deciding they are better in combat if they don’t attack. Or like comparing a PC’s Saving Throws against their own Spell Save DC and deciding they are better off not making saving throws. WTF?!? That is actually L the same type of comparison you are making and trying to rationalize it.
A PC with a +8 bonus to their active Stealth roll also has a Passive score of 18. Right? But that PC is neverever supposed to make a Dexterity (Stealth) check against their own Passive Stealth Score, so comparing those two numbers to each other is pointless. The thing they need to be compared against is the creature they are attempting to sneak past. If that creature has a +8 bonus to their Wisdom (Perception) checks, then they also have an 18 in their Passive Perception Score. So then it comes down to which of those creatures rolls (if either) and which use their Passive Score (if either). Then those two creatures get compared against each other. If the stealthy PC is intentionally trying to be sneaky, then the player MUST have Ell the DM they are being sneaky, even if the DM has to ask them.
If they say “yes,” then they MUST roll for stealth. If the creature they are sneaking past is actively on the lookout, them they roll too. So it’s a 1d20+8 Vs 1d20+8. That’s a straight 50/50 chance. That’s even money right there, better odds than anything Vegas offers. If the creature they are sneaking past is not actively on the lookout, but just generally aware of their surroundings, then the player rolls their active Stealth Check against the other creature’s Passive Perception of 18. (Do you know why they add 10 to passive scores? Because that’s just below the average result on d20s.) So, statistically speaking, if that PC makes that exact same check against that exact same DC 18 Passive Perception 100 times, then they are statistically likely to succeed 55% of the time. That’s even better than even money. (And yes, it is 55% because a 1-9 fails, but a 10-20 succeeds.)
If the DM asks the player whether or not their PC is being stealthy, and the player says “no,” then the lookout monster is not going to roll Perception against the PC’s Passive Stealth. They are instead going to roll against a DC of 10. Why? Because that PC is not trying to be stealthy at all, the player said so. That PC is clomping along in boots and clanging around in armor and not watching where they step, so they do not get the benefit of their Dex mod or PB to their Passive Stealth, they just get the flat 10. So since that monster has a +8 bonus to their perception checks, they are likely to notice that nincompoop blundering along without a care in the world 90% of the time.
The only times a PC would use their Passive Stealth would be under one of three general circumstances:
Now, we already know that comparing those two creatures’ active rolls against each other is 50/50, an even bet. And we already know that the PC actively rolling against the hostile creature’s Passive Score is better odds at 55% success rate. But if the other creature rolls actively against the PC’s Passive Score, then the other creature has a 55% success rate and the PC only 45% because now the enemy fails on a 1-9 and succeeds on a 10-20.
As to adding a feat like Observant, do you know why it adds a +5 bonus to the Passive Score? Because statistically speaking, advantage is approximately equivalent to a +5 bonus to their Active Roll.
So, hopefully now you realize that:
Make sense now? Was I clear? Are you pickin’ up what I’m puttin’ down?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think you're very incorrect. if a PC walks into a room, I'm going to use their passive perception to describe what in that room they detect...passively. if they then say they take a moment to look around some more I'll call for an active roll, which may or may not beat their passive. Either way, they still know what they saw from their passive.
In effect, their passive score is in fact the floor for how good they detect stuff.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well, thats not exactly how the rules suppose to be, but a usefull way that seems to function as well.
Instead of being the RAW Police, I would just ment that you don't need to bother with compare passive scores to determine which thing a character would be able to see within a room. It jus see it automatically the colors and shapes and objects that are in front of its eyes.
You can just ask rolls when they wish to do something in the moment and use passive scores when they can do it repetitively or if you want avoid them to know about the contest (as to avoid to railroad them to something or metagaming). Otherwise, I think is just a waste of time to the DM to keep constant track on passive scores and say "you with passive perception 15 see a wardrobe but you with an 8 can see the most the back of your friend"
Edit
I mean: " if a PC walks into a room, I'm going to use their passive perception to describe what in that room they detect...passively."
If there's something with matter in the room to them to find its that why passive even exist, but if its just furniture why would you bother to check that score to describe that details of that ordinary furniture? You would descibe it differently to each character based on they score? would you bother to narrate over and over that that guy with -2 WIS stumble its pinky into a corner everytime it enters a room?
Yeap.
I just realize that I have failed enough traying to make my self clear but that what is said in the post just after that is pretty much how I treat that matter. I just got lost in try to explain that out-of-rules thing on wisdon x sensitive organ funtion and perceive different than see that I make my point goes far for what I intent.
I like to think of passive skills in the same manner as David42. I also believe Kotah's initial comment was close to my own interpretation, but with things switched around.
Passive skills represent a skill you are using passively, meaning your character is using the skill, but you as a player isn't actively doing anything. As with all skills, you have to state (implicitly or explicitly) that you are using said skill in order for you to gain the benefits from it (Passive Perception being an exception), unless the DM calls for a check. Regarding Passive Perception it seems to be a bit special compared to the other skills, as this skill seems to always be in use unless characters are actively doing something else. I infer this by looking at the standard D&D character sheet, where they have allocated a box for Passive Perception, but none of the other passive skills, as well as by looking at the RAW section in the PHB David42 referred to.
Kotah mentioned in his first comment how he believes passive skills are used for when characters pick up on general things that happen over time (e.g a conversation, or a person's general state of mind). I believe the concept of time is highly relevant in this discussion, but applied to the wrong aspect. It is not the length of e.g. a conversation or state of mind that matters, it is the amount of time you are applying the relevant skill to the task. As such, I would make use of the player's Passive Perception to see if he picks up a muted conversation while passing by a closed door. If the character does and asks if he can hear what is said, I'd ask the player to roll a Perception check. This is pretty much what Kotah described, but the length of the conversation isn't what matters (to me) regarding the use of passive vs active skills (as a passive check can also come after an active check), its when to apply one over the other, which depends on the amount of time you spend applying the skill in one go.
Another example of this would be a player saying "I try to break in the door!". This calls for an active skill check. If the player fails the skill check but keeps trying, then I'd make use of his passive skill, instead of wasting everyone's time having him roll over and over (unless it adds to the tension).
Also, where it makes sense for a character to always make use of their Passive Perception, it would make much less sense for a player to say "I keep my muscles all tense to make sure I can break down all the doors I see while we walk through the castle". A player could technically say that to make use of his Passive Athletics, but I'd personally have said player roll a Constitution Saving Throw to see whether or not the character starts cramping up after a while.
I'd also like to add that I don't believe two skill checks (passive or active) can be made at the same time. If you say that your character is "mulling through the words written on the wall in the previous room" then I'll apply your relevant passive intelligence skill to see if you recall/deduce something after spending a while contemplating it. During this time (until the player uses another skill or the DM decides enough is enough) that player wouldn't be using their Passive Perception or any of their other passive skills.
I have a small comment to the example from LMoP that David42 used. I'd assume that, since the players are in a potentially dangerous place, they are keeping an eye out for traps and the like, i.e. using their Passive Perception. Clearly, the adventure makes no such assumption and expects that the players have to actively state they are searching for traps. Personally I think that particular paragraph in the adventure doesn't align with RAW, unless they by "If the characters are searching for traps" mean "If the characters aren't distracted".
To sum up my take on the rules for passive checks:
You're at a tavern enjoying a round of drinks with your friends but something in the mood of the place feels off. You're here for a good time so shake of the feeling, but then later, you can't help but overhear part of the conversation at the table next to yours. "Plenty of coin" "Closing soon" "Too many witnesses still" and you start feeling paranoid. Maybe it is the ale making you crazy. As you get up to go up to the bar to get a water, you realize there are a lot of very armed people here, that the vibe is entirely wrong, and you think they're planning to rob the place when the crowd thins out.
That's passive insight. And then passive perception. And then passive investigation.
At no point was this guy trying to figure anything out, alls he wanted was a round of drinks with the boys. But information filters in whether you are looking for it or not.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
How many times have you been standing looking at your phone and not heard someone come up behind you or seen someone approach? Taking appropriate action in this context is not being distracted. In D&D, characters are usually assumed to be paying some attention to their surroundings unless they are doing something that specifically distracts them. In which case, they do not get to use passive perception.
PHB p183
"Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats. However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission."
Characters always have eyes and ears but if they are distracted they DO NOT get to use their passive perception to notice threats.
The part of the PHB he quoted is from the Activity While Traveling section in the Adventuring chapter, which describes how general adventuring works when "Delving into the ancient Tomb of Horrors, slipping through the back alleys of Waterdeep, hacking a fresh trail through the thick jungles on the Isle of Dread" (read: wherever). It is one of the few places that describes how passive checks interact with active checks, and it doesn't contradict previous RAW on the matter, simply adds to it.
The actions one can do while travelling are not limited to the ones you mention, as the rules make clear: "a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM’s permission."
The subsection in question also explicitly states that players can take actions other than remaining alert for danger while traveling through a dungeon, where "they need to remain alert for danger".
This isn't a binary either/or command. You could do both of these things. You could hypothetically remain alert and also perform another helpful task. You seem to be reading into it otherwise and I'm not sure why.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I believe that sentence means that you can do whatever you want if the DM allows it (as with everything else in the game), but the listed examples are the most common (as with the Command spell).
Perhaps this comes down to personal experience and playstyle, but I believe you're always 'Adventuring' and 'traveling' in D&D (Pillar 1: Exploration), while you're not socially interacting with the world (Pillar 2: Social Interaction) or fighting something (Pillar 3: Combat).The only exception would be during downtime-activities which are not meant to be played through. Traveling through a dangerous dungeon such as Moria is indeed traveling through a very dangerous place. Why the party was there doesn't matter, unless you play a game where you know nothing happens while 'traveling' (as you know, many tables like to focus on dungeon crawling and don't care what happens in between). Again, I suspect our difference in interpretation of the rules might come down to our application of them due to our individual experiences and playstyle.
If you're arguing that the RAW contained in the Activity While Traveling subsection is irrelevant to what the chapter is about as a whole, but specific to "travel[ing] through a dungeon or the wilderness", when do you apply the rules in the Special Types of Movement subsection above it, where the rules for jumping is contained? This subsection, much as the Activity While Traveling subsection, refers specifically to "Movement through dangerous dungeons or wilderness". Would you not apply these rules to urban settings?
Side question: Where do you get the term "strategic travel" from? Is it a carryover from earlier editions?