I have a character that I am working on and am excited to play who is going to be taking this very concept to extremes. Observant feat, expertise, high wisdom, reliable talent, etc. I factored it out that I'd eventually get a 30 in both Passive Perception and Investigation, and 25 in Passive Insight. Taking rules as intended, I never, ever need to roll those skills. I succeed in all cases, with the rare exception of a nearly impossible Insight check. As a player, I would ask my DM to not allow that, and force me to roll each time.
If the character is distracted, then the Passives are ignored. If the character is actively utilizing the skills, then the roll represents the final result.
So if you are going to have your DM make you roll, why even bother taking Observant? If you are ignoring the value of it what the heck good is it?
"If the character is distracted then the Passives are ignored" - how does that make any sense, what definition of the word passive are you using? distracted, not focusing on something, that sounds exactly when a PASSIVE ability would kick in.
I am not sure if anyone have said this or not, but remember that their is quite a bit of negatives to Passive checks.
If you are traveling in Dim light, you got -5 to passive checks (have fun everyone with Darkvision and no light)
If you are in darkness you have another -5 (so a total of -10) to passive checks
If you are traveling at normal speed you have another -5 and at fast speed you have another -5 for a total of -10.
That means if you are traveling fast in darkness while having a Passive Perception of 23 you have a -20 penalty which brings your effective Passive Perception down to 3, and good luck finding anything at that point. You only really have full Passive Perception scores when you are traveling slowly and have a bright light source. So if you are in a cave with a light source and not slowly sneaking around all the Observant feet does is to negate the fact you are not moving slowly around.
Unless you are a revised Ranger who has darkvision of 90ft, then your sight pp of 23 becomes 18 in darkness (you still hear at a pp 23), arguably even when traveling fast, but that part is unclear, so at least 18 at normal speed and 13 at fast speed. But who runs into an uncharted cavern anyway?
So if you are going to have your DM make you roll, why even bother taking Observant? If you are ignoring the value of it what the heck good is it?
"If the character is distracted then the Passives are ignored" - how does that make any sense, what definition of the word passive are you using? distracted, not focusing on something, that sounds exactly when a PASSIVE ability would kick in.
There remains value in having a high passive even with rolling actively. Additionally, there are two other bonuses, as well as it simply being thematic to the character.
As for the definition, you answered it yourself. When you are not focusing on something, or in other words not distracted, then the passive kicks in. If you are focusing on something else, or in other words distracted, then the passive does not kick in.
Did I just walk into an empty cavern? A high passive means the DM will give me a more thorough, but still superficial, description. Did I just charge into a cavern full of enemies? The passive won't kick in. Am I deep in conversation? Am I struggling to ride a bucking horse? Am I trying to sneak past vigilant guards? Am I doing anything that would keep me from scoping out my surroundings for every little detail? Then the passive won't kick in.
I'm not saying that it's the right way to play, but it's the way that makes the most logical sense to me and is more enjoyable for me than the alternative.
So if you are going to have your DM make you roll, why even bother taking Observant? If you are ignoring the value of it what the heck good is it?
"If the character is distracted then the Passives are ignored" - how does that make any sense, what definition of the word passive are you using? distracted, not focusing on something, that sounds exactly when a PASSIVE ability would kick in.
As for the definition, you answered it yourself. When you are not focusing on something, or in other words not distracted, then the passive kicks in. If you are focusing on something else, or in other words distracted, then the passive does not kick in.
Did I just walk into an empty cavern? A high passive means the DM will give me a more thorough, but still superficial, description. Did I just charge into a cavern full of enemies? The passive won't kick in. Am I deep in conversation? Am I struggling to ride a bucking horse? Am I trying to sneak past vigilant guards? Am I doing anything that would keep me from scoping out my surroundings for every little detail? Then the passive won't kick in.
Again, we seem to be at odds on what passive is, passive is something that is on all the time, it doesn't matter if you are paying attention or not, and even if you are focusing on something, say watching a bandit from 100 yards out, if his friend tries to sneak up beside you - your passive perception will determine if you notice or not, even though you are focused or "distracted" on something else.
Here also, you seem to play it that passive perception is "turned off" any time you are actively doing something. So when you play, your character has to be sitting perfectly still in a meditative state for their passive to be "on"?
If it works for you, keep on doing it, but it seems like you are playing it very different then I do, and different then it is intended to be used, but that is the great thing about 5e, you can modify it to work for you and your group.
I'm going with the idea that Passive vs Active perception is dependent on the situation. Like if you're in a cave, out of your element, scanning across everything looking for enemies, that'll be an active. However, for things that may be out of the corner of your eye or something that may or may not be hidden, I would rely more heavily on the passive. I would also have an active Perception check potentially require a lower DC for those with an Observant due to taking the feat (which also makes more sense in my head as the passive would help make the difficulty a wee bit easier).
Again, we seem to be at odds on what passive is, passive is something that is on all the time, it doesn't matter if you are paying attention or not, and even if you are focusing on something, say watching a bandit from 100 yards out, if his friend tries to sneak up beside you - your passive perception will determine if you notice or not, even though you are focused or "distracted" on something else.
Per the rules as intended, certainly. I'm not arguing that at all, I'm just saying I enjoy a different approach. That said, the example you provided would validate the use of a passive skill by both the rules as intended and my preferred take, so I'm thinking we're less at odds and perhaps just not explaining what we mean well enough.
Here also, you seem to play it that passive perception is "turned off" any time you are actively doing something. So when you play, your character has to be sitting perfectly still in a meditative state for their passive to be "on"?
Though yes, sitting passively would allow passive awareness, I certainly don't mean to say that's the only way. An example I gave didn't include that, for instance. Actively doing something that would logically restrict your awareness, or something that requires focused attention, would logically have an impact on one's passive perception. I prefer that impact to be simply turning it off. Others might prefer adding hidden modifiers, or to say that it doesn't matter at all.
Like I said, I'm not sure we're explaining our differing views right, and I'm frankly not paying enough attention which of us it is (that may answer the question right there though), so just to reiterate my position: I prefer the Active use of the skills over the Passive, to the point where any use of the Active overrides the Passive and where equal an Active would yield more results.
If it works for you, keep on doing it, but it seems like you are playing it very different then I do, and different then it is intended to be used, but that is the great thing about 5e, you can modify it to work for you and your group.
If I at any point implied otherwise, I definitely didn't intend to. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a right way. A consensus was requested and so I put forth my own preference. If my preference is too far from the general agreement, so be it. I don't believe it is, to be honest, considering the poll results so far though.
Again, we seem to be at odds on what passive is, passive is something that is on all the time, it doesn't matter if you are paying attention or not, and even if you are focusing on something, say watching a bandit from 100 yards out, if his friend tries to sneak up beside you - your passive perception will determine if you notice or not, even though you are focused or "distracted" on something else.
Per the rules as intended, certainly. I'm not arguing that at all, I'm just saying I enjoy a different approach. That said, the example you provided would validate the use of a passive skill by both the rules as intended and my preferred take, so I'm thinking we're less at odds and perhaps just not explaining what we mean well enough.
Here also, you seem to play it that passive perception is "turned off" any time you are actively doing something. So when you play, your character has to be sitting perfectly still in a meditative state for their passive to be "on"?
Though yes, sitting passively would allow passive awareness, I certainly don't mean to say that's the only way. An example I gave didn't include that, for instance. Actively doing something that would logically restrict your awareness, or something that requires focused attention, would logically have an impact on one's passive perception. I prefer that impact to be simply turning it off. Others might prefer adding hidden modifiers, or to say that it doesn't matter at all.
Like I said, I'm not sure we're explaining our differing views right, and I'm frankly not paying enough attention which of us it is (that may answer the question right there though), so just to reiterate my position: I prefer the Active use of the skills over the Passive, to the point where any use of the Active overrides the Passive and where equal an Active would yield more results.
If it works for you, keep on doing it, but it seems like you are playing it very different then I do, and different then it is intended to be used, but that is the great thing about 5e, you can modify it to work for you and your group.
If I at any point implied otherwise, I definitely didn't intend to. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a right way. A consensus was requested and so I put forth my own preference. If my preference is too far from the general agreement, so be it. I don't believe it is, to be honest, considering the poll results so far though.
It is all good, just keeping the conversation going.
what sort of time does it state that "Passive Perception is always on. It's impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score."? thanks
what sort of time does it state that "Passive Perception is always on. It's impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score."? thanks
Jeremy Crawford talks for nearly 40 minutes about the RAI for stealth and hiding, in and out of combat. Its quite informative and has a number of insights that many players and DMs might find useful.
Some stand-out points:
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
Attacking while hidden is always at advantage if you aren't fully moving out of cover. So you get a split second to pop out and make a ranged (or even melee, if your enemy is adjacent to you) attack at advantage before you are no longer hidden. If you are moving out into the open in order to get in range to make an attack, by RAW, you are no longer hidden. Determining if you can stay hidden from an enemy after moving into line of sight is entirely up to the DM to decide if the enemy is distracted enough to see you or not (this part is actually right in the PHB, to be fair, but in the context of everything else he talks about here, it really makes more sense).
He basically lays out stealth and hiding in a way that is very simple, and that leaves any and all edge cases up to the DM to determine based on how they are roleplaying the NPCs and enemies
People whining that the person who put most of their resources into being perceptive allows them to spot all but the most similarly extreme hidden foes are being a bit silly and unfair.
It's ok for players to be good at things, and it's ok for them to win. I mean you can fight whole armies as a warrior, but heaven forbid a person can spot the ambush when they're specialized to epic levels.
Yes, ok there are some plot things that won't work the way you'd like, but that's always the case, for different reasons, with different characters, with different groups. When people put a lot into an aspect of a character, it's because they enjoy being really good at that thing, or are avoiding things they really hate. If there's a problem, have a discussion with the player and find out the why's. Maybe it's an attrition war, and you tend to use too many ambushes or something, so they are trying to compensate. Maybe they are curious players and don't want to miss anything your game has to offer. Maybe they like the idea of playing a Sherlock Holmes type but know they themselves aren't capable of asking all the right questions, or.... well could go on with the why's,point being, if there's a problem with high perceptions as a DM have a discussion with your players.
I do notice many DMs can't adapt to many things, so suddenly it's overpowered, or unfair, because sometimes the pcs skills or abilities allow them to control a situation, as if that's a bad thing. PC's need to find ways around the strengths and weaknesses of the bad guys, so too do the bad guys need to do the same for the PCs. Eventually the pc will be know for their Sherlock Holmes levels of capabilities. Which might even attract the attention of similar evil NPCs, after all Holmes had Moriarti. Is like the eternal debate over flight. My group has never had any issue with flight at any level. Sure you can skip some encounters, and announce your presence in the process, falling is deadly at low levels, and gaining cover in flight is a whole lot harder. Not to mention most flight from wings can be easily restricted with house ruling simply by taking into account wingspans and needed space for flight.
I have a hard time believing that "always on passive" abilities was really what was intended, as it seems to step on the features of other classes, or make them useless. Consider the Inquisitive's Ear for Deceit ability:
"When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you develop a talent for picking out lies. Whenever you make a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine whether a creature is lying, treat a roll of 7 or lower on the d20 as an 8."
If passive insight is "always on," then this ability is useless because you are always assumed to have rolled at least a 10. Similarly, assuming every player always roles a 10 on any Insight, Perception, or Investigation check essentially gives every single player the Rogue's 11th level Reliable Talent ability in 3 out of 18 available skills.
Furthermore, I don't see the logic in giving these three skills passives, but not any others. Why is that you have a "floor" number for how poorly you can do trying to notice or figure out things, but not for swimming or playing the lute?
As you can probably gather, I hate passive skills and have house-ruled them out of existence.
I've played with the "passive is the floor" approach for along time now, prior to this I spent my time with the "Take 10/20" rules from previous editions.
I get the RAI with passive being a floor, it's quick and dirty, it removes some of the dice slog, however, it does create a bit more work in a different direction. It really takes a lot of the work off my hands, I just look at my post-it and go "yup those 3 characters see something out of place, the rest don't". Now, 2 of the characters don't see this thing out of place, do I just explain the scene and give all the players the information? Do I write the description down on paper and let the 3 who did notice it read it? How do I reward the Observant player without rewarding the whole table for one player's choice?
Before you answer all those hypotheticals: I've dealt with it and found my rhythm just fine :)
----
In the end though, I rather miss the "Take 10/20" era, it gave the right rewards for the right investments. The passives today are, in my opinion, the lazy man's take 10, and I may go back to having my players call out the act. It can be as simple as "I keep an eye out for the rogue that shot at Bob", now the passive is taken into account. It can be as mundane as "I'm looking for traps since we just found one", and the passive is now taken into account. It's a combination of both worlds, it has it's blind spots, but I think it will allow for rewarding those investments a bit more and still allow for the occasional missed opportunities.
I think passives are just a way to speed up gameplay by using the results to create a narrative and also speed up the resolution of fixed DC challenges . Another use of course, is for the DM to use you passive in secret so, either you know the secret thing or you don't and the DM plays out the scenario. I have my own ideas why and when passive checks or active checks apply.
1 vs 1 contested rolls are active even in the case of someone who has a passive higher than the opponent can roll. They have to use an ability check on their turn, so do you to contest it. The difference between the two rolls flavors the narrative.
1 vs multiples. The creature who wishes to make a check that would provide them a benefit against(such as stealth) or with(such as persuasion) multiple creatures uses an active ability check as their action for their turn. This creature has much to gain by succeding. The multiples have much to lose and nothing to gain, they would use passive perception and passive insight for the examples above. This speeds gameplay, it is also kind or ridiculous that any number of creatures could have their actions tied up trying to actively contest one creature.
If you declare you are actively doing something, like: "I'm looking for Ashwood, I want to craft some arrows", I would give a passive perception the full bonus to find Ashwood but, - 5(distracted by chosen activity) on passive perception to notice anything else passive perception allows you to notice. If you are actively using a skill at the time an unrelated passive check could be used, you take that negative as well. This is additive to any othe modifiers that might occur, such as traveling pace or dim light.
The use of both a passive and active check makes little sense to me under most circumstances but, here is an example nonetheless. DM: The Orcs on the other side of the bridge shake their weapons and make guttural shouts at the party. Nobody is sure of their intent but, it seems rather specific(party failed high passive insight check). Rogue: Can I make an active Insight roll as my turn? I want to play the odds that I can figure out what they are on about. DM: Yeah, roll it. Rogue: I got a 19 altogether. That good enough? DM: With out the skill to speak Orc, you feel like they are letting you know that your blood will mingle with the sewer waste in the river if you attempt to cross the bridge to their city.
I have a hard time believing that "always on passive" abilities was really what was intended, as it seems to step on the features of other classes, or make them useless. Consider the Inquisitive's Ear for Deceit ability:
Well you say that you find it hard to believe, but one of the designers has said that was the intention, so do with that what you will.
As you say, you ignore them in your game, and if your players are ok with that fine, personally I like having a high passive, it goes well with the character build I have. At present I have a 19 passive, it hasn't negatively affected the DMs ability to make the game fun.
I have a hard time believing that "always on passive" abilities was really what was intended, as it seems to step on the features of other classes, or make them useless. Consider the Inquisitive's Ear for Deceit ability:
Well you say that you find it hard to believe, but one of the designers has said that was the intention, so do with that what you will.
As you say, you ignore them in your game, and if your players are ok with that fine, personally I like having a high passive, it goes well with the character build I have. At present I have a 19 passive, it hasn't negatively affected the DMs ability to make the game fun.
If that was the intention, I guess it was also the intention to deliberately design the Inquisitive with a worse-than useless ability.
And I'm not saying the game can't be fun with them, I just don't see how they help anything and feel it's weird to have three skills that the designer's have decided have floors while the rest don't.
I mean, I know what it's for - it's so you can have a number and not have to ask players to roll and thus alert them something's going on. But, that's pretty easy to work around.
I talked about this a bit in another thread on the same topic, but one deal breaker on the idea of applying the "always on" concept for all passive skills is that passive scores represent the average of a skill done over and over constantly without deliberate effort. This works fine for something like perception or investigation where it doesn't matter if you fail to find the hidden door ten times as long as you notice it on the eleventh time. It definitely does not work on something like deception, stealth, or sleight of hand where you can succeed ten times, but if you fail even once, you're going to get busted.
I talked about this a bit in another thread on the same topic, but one deal breaker on the idea of applying the "always on" concept for all passive skills is that passive scores represent the average of a skill done over and over constantly without deliberate effort. This works fine for something like perception or investigation where it doesn't matter if you fail to find the hidden door ten times as long as you notice it on the eleventh time. It definitely does not work on something like deception, stealth, or sleight of hand where you can succeed ten times, but if you fail even once, you're going to get busted.
Deception, stealth, and sleight of hand each have a penalty for failing. The others do not. You're constantly observing things, instead of rolling each round, they just get averaged... There could be an argument for stealth I suppose...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So if you are going to have your DM make you roll, why even bother taking Observant? If you are ignoring the value of it what the heck good is it?
"If the character is distracted then the Passives are ignored" - how does that make any sense, what definition of the word passive are you using? distracted, not focusing on something, that sounds exactly when a PASSIVE ability would kick in.
Unless you are a revised Ranger who has darkvision of 90ft, then your sight pp of 23 becomes 18 in darkness (you still hear at a pp 23), arguably even when traveling fast, but that part is unclear, so at least 18 at normal speed and 13 at fast speed. But who runs into an uncharted cavern anyway?
There remains value in having a high passive even with rolling actively. Additionally, there are two other bonuses, as well as it simply being thematic to the character.
As for the definition, you answered it yourself. When you are not focusing on something, or in other words not distracted, then the passive kicks in. If you are focusing on something else, or in other words distracted, then the passive does not kick in.
Did I just walk into an empty cavern? A high passive means the DM will give me a more thorough, but still superficial, description. Did I just charge into a cavern full of enemies? The passive won't kick in. Am I deep in conversation? Am I struggling to ride a bucking horse? Am I trying to sneak past vigilant guards? Am I doing anything that would keep me from scoping out my surroundings for every little detail? Then the passive won't kick in.
I'm not saying that it's the right way to play, but it's the way that makes the most logical sense to me and is more enjoyable for me than the alternative.
Again, we seem to be at odds on what passive is, passive is something that is on all the time, it doesn't matter if you are paying attention or not, and even if you are focusing on something, say watching a bandit from 100 yards out, if his friend tries to sneak up beside you - your passive perception will determine if you notice or not, even though you are focused or "distracted" on something else.
Here also, you seem to play it that passive perception is "turned off" any time you are actively doing something. So when you play, your character has to be sitting perfectly still in a meditative state for their passive to be "on"?
If it works for you, keep on doing it, but it seems like you are playing it very different then I do, and different then it is intended to be used, but that is the great thing about 5e, you can modify it to work for you and your group.
I'm going with the idea that Passive vs Active perception is dependent on the situation. Like if you're in a cave, out of your element, scanning across everything looking for enemies, that'll be an active. However, for things that may be out of the corner of your eye or something that may or may not be hidden, I would rely more heavily on the passive. I would also have an active Perception check potentially require a lower DC for those with an Observant due to taking the feat (which also makes more sense in my head as the passive would help make the difficulty a wee bit easier).
Per the rules as intended, certainly. I'm not arguing that at all, I'm just saying I enjoy a different approach. That said, the example you provided would validate the use of a passive skill by both the rules as intended and my preferred take, so I'm thinking we're less at odds and perhaps just not explaining what we mean well enough.
Though yes, sitting passively would allow passive awareness, I certainly don't mean to say that's the only way. An example I gave didn't include that, for instance. Actively doing something that would logically restrict your awareness, or something that requires focused attention, would logically have an impact on one's passive perception. I prefer that impact to be simply turning it off. Others might prefer adding hidden modifiers, or to say that it doesn't matter at all.
Like I said, I'm not sure we're explaining our differing views right, and I'm frankly not paying enough attention which of us it is (that may answer the question right there though), so just to reiterate my position: I prefer the Active use of the skills over the Passive, to the point where any use of the Active overrides the Passive and where equal an Active would yield more results.
If I at any point implied otherwise, I definitely didn't intend to. I'm not trying to convince anyone of a right way. A consensus was requested and so I put forth my own preference. If my preference is too far from the general agreement, so be it. I don't believe it is, to be honest, considering the poll results so far though.
It is all good, just keeping the conversation going.
what sort of time does it state that "Passive Perception is always on. It's impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score."? thanks
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
Jeremy Crawford talks for nearly 40 minutes about the RAI for stealth and hiding, in and out of combat. Its quite informative and has a number of insights that many players and DMs might find useful.
Some stand-out points:
Passive Perception is always on. Its impossible to roll an active Perception check that is below your passive score. If you're rolling, its just to see if you can roll higher than your passive score.
Attacking while hidden is always at advantage if you aren't fully moving out of cover. So you get a split second to pop out and make a ranged (or even melee, if your enemy is adjacent to you) attack at advantage before you are no longer hidden. If you are moving out into the open in order to get in range to make an attack, by RAW, you are no longer hidden. Determining if you can stay hidden from an enemy after moving into line of sight is entirely up to the DM to decide if the enemy is distracted enough to see you or not (this part is actually right in the PHB, to be fair, but in the context of everything else he talks about here, it really makes more sense).
He basically lays out stealth and hiding in a way that is very simple, and that leaves any and all edge cases up to the DM to determine based on how they are roleplaying the NPCs and enemies
I'm reading through this thread and I guess I don't see where the confusion is.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
People whining that the person who put most of their resources into being perceptive allows them to spot all but the most similarly extreme hidden foes are being a bit silly and unfair.
It's ok for players to be good at things, and it's ok for them to win. I mean you can fight whole armies as a warrior, but heaven forbid a person can spot the ambush when they're specialized to epic levels.
Yes, ok there are some plot things that won't work the way you'd like, but that's always the case, for different reasons, with different characters, with different groups. When people put a lot into an aspect of a character, it's because they enjoy being really good at that thing, or are avoiding things they really hate. If there's a problem, have a discussion with the player and find out the why's. Maybe it's an attrition war, and you tend to use too many ambushes or something, so they are trying to compensate. Maybe they are curious players and don't want to miss anything your game has to offer. Maybe they like the idea of playing a Sherlock Holmes type but know they themselves aren't capable of asking all the right questions, or.... well could go on with the why's,point being, if there's a problem with high perceptions as a DM have a discussion with your players.
I do notice many DMs can't adapt to many things, so suddenly it's overpowered, or unfair, because sometimes the pcs skills or abilities allow them to control a situation, as if that's a bad thing. PC's need to find ways around the strengths and weaknesses of the bad guys, so too do the bad guys need to do the same for the PCs. Eventually the pc will be know for their Sherlock Holmes levels of capabilities. Which might even attract the attention of similar evil NPCs, after all Holmes had Moriarti. Is like the eternal debate over flight. My group has never had any issue with flight at any level. Sure you can skip some encounters, and announce your presence in the process, falling is deadly at low levels, and gaining cover in flight is a whole lot harder. Not to mention most flight from wings can be easily restricted with house ruling simply by taking into account wingspans and needed space for flight.
I have a hard time believing that "always on passive" abilities was really what was intended, as it seems to step on the features of other classes, or make them useless. Consider the Inquisitive's Ear for Deceit ability:
"When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you develop a talent for picking out lies. Whenever you make a Wisdom (Insight) check to determine whether a creature is lying, treat a roll of 7 or lower on the d20 as an 8."
If passive insight is "always on," then this ability is useless because you are always assumed to have rolled at least a 10. Similarly, assuming every player always roles a 10 on any Insight, Perception, or Investigation check essentially gives every single player the Rogue's 11th level Reliable Talent ability in 3 out of 18 available skills.
Furthermore, I don't see the logic in giving these three skills passives, but not any others. Why is that you have a "floor" number for how poorly you can do trying to notice or figure out things, but not for swimming or playing the lute?
As you can probably gather, I hate passive skills and have house-ruled them out of existence.
I've played with the "passive is the floor" approach for along time now, prior to this I spent my time with the "Take 10/20" rules from previous editions.
I get the RAI with passive being a floor, it's quick and dirty, it removes some of the dice slog, however, it does create a bit more work in a different direction. It really takes a lot of the work off my hands, I just look at my post-it and go "yup those 3 characters see something out of place, the rest don't". Now, 2 of the characters don't see this thing out of place, do I just explain the scene and give all the players the information? Do I write the description down on paper and let the 3 who did notice it read it? How do I reward the Observant player without rewarding the whole table for one player's choice?
Before you answer all those hypotheticals: I've dealt with it and found my rhythm just fine :)
----
In the end though, I rather miss the "Take 10/20" era, it gave the right rewards for the right investments. The passives today are, in my opinion, the lazy man's take 10, and I may go back to having my players call out the act. It can be as simple as "I keep an eye out for the rogue that shot at Bob", now the passive is taken into account. It can be as mundane as "I'm looking for traps since we just found one", and the passive is now taken into account. It's a combination of both worlds, it has it's blind spots, but I think it will allow for rewarding those investments a bit more and still allow for the occasional missed opportunities.
I think passives are just a way to speed up gameplay by using the results to create a narrative and also speed up the resolution of fixed DC challenges . Another use of course, is for the DM to use you passive in secret so, either you know the secret thing or you don't and the DM plays out the scenario. I have my own ideas why and when passive checks or active checks apply.
1 vs 1 contested rolls are active even in the case of someone who has a passive higher than the opponent can roll. They have to use an ability check on their turn, so do you to contest it. The difference between the two rolls flavors the narrative.
1 vs multiples. The creature who wishes to make a check that would provide them a benefit against(such as stealth) or with(such as persuasion) multiple creatures uses an active ability check as their action for their turn. This creature has much to gain by succeding. The multiples have much to lose and nothing to gain, they would use passive perception and passive insight for the examples above. This speeds gameplay, it is also kind or ridiculous that any number of creatures could have their actions tied up trying to actively contest one creature.
If you declare you are actively doing something, like: "I'm looking for Ashwood, I want to craft some arrows", I would give a passive perception the full bonus to find Ashwood but, - 5(distracted by chosen activity) on passive perception to notice anything else passive perception allows you to notice. If you are actively using a skill at the time an unrelated passive check could be used, you take that negative as well. This is additive to any othe modifiers that might occur, such as traveling pace or dim light.
The use of both a passive and active check makes little sense to me under most circumstances but, here is an example nonetheless. DM: The Orcs on the other side of the bridge shake their weapons and make guttural shouts at the party. Nobody is sure of their intent but, it seems rather specific(party failed high passive insight check). Rogue: Can I make an active Insight roll as my turn? I want to play the odds that I can figure out what they are on about. DM: Yeah, roll it. Rogue: I got a 19 altogether. That good enough? DM: With out the skill to speak Orc, you feel like they are letting you know that your blood will mingle with the sewer waste in the river if you attempt to cross the bridge to their city.
Sorry, using ps4 to post to forums and it sucks.
Well you say that you find it hard to believe, but one of the designers has said that was the intention, so do with that what you will.
As you say, you ignore them in your game, and if your players are ok with that fine, personally I like having a high passive, it goes well with the character build I have. At present I have a 19 passive, it hasn't negatively affected the DMs ability to make the game fun.
If that was the intention, I guess it was also the intention to deliberately design the Inquisitive with a worse-than useless ability.
And I'm not saying the game can't be fun with them, I just don't see how they help anything and feel it's weird to have three skills that the designer's have decided have floors while the rest don't.
I mean, I know what it's for - it's so you can have a number and not have to ask players to roll and thus alert them something's going on. But, that's pretty easy to work around.
I talked about this a bit in another thread on the same topic, but one deal breaker on the idea of applying the "always on" concept for all passive skills is that passive scores represent the average of a skill done over and over constantly without deliberate effort. This works fine for something like perception or investigation where it doesn't matter if you fail to find the hidden door ten times as long as you notice it on the eleventh time. It definitely does not work on something like deception, stealth, or sleight of hand where you can succeed ten times, but if you fail even once, you're going to get busted.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not sure what point your making. You say it’s fine for perception and investigation but not for deception, stealth, or sleight of hand. Those three things have no passive? Perception, insight, and investigation are the only skills that have a passive so I am unclear what you are trying to say.
Deception, stealth, and sleight of hand each have a penalty for failing. The others do not. You're constantly observing things, instead of rolling each round, they just get averaged... There could be an argument for stealth I suppose...