Oh, yes, definitely. As a general rule I think if someone's passive skill score is higher than the DC they should not have to roll except in extraordinary circumstances. Climbing a tree, no need to roll if your passive check is good enough. Climbing a tree during a storm, roll a check. I would set the DC based on how difficult it is to climb that particular tree, the storm wouldn't change that DC, but I would require the roll. If it was a particularly bad storm, ice, lightning, hurricane force winds, and at night, I might even make the roll at disadvantage. But climbing the tree on a sunny day with a mild breeze? If your passive skill is high enough, up you go.
so would it be better to have the passive stats give extra narrative to give clues about extra things in the room like "you noticed ____ out the corner of your eye" type thing just less obvious? i dunno xD
I'm not sure if it's "better" but it's better for my style of DMing.
As a player I'm working with my DM a lot with this exact issue. My Aarakocra Inquisitor Rogue took Observant and just leveled up to 13. With all of her bonuses, Expertise and Reliable Talent, she has a Passive Perception of 30, Passive Investigation of 26, and Passive Insight of 25. She is BUILT to notice everything. Ignoring my passives, or replacing them with some other system, would literally nerf my character. (Her character sheet, for those interested: https://ddb.ac/characters/4475754/ZbPI0W)
When your character walks into a room with a DC20 secret door, does your DM lay it out there that you automatically se it? Or do they make you speak up that you are checking out the room?
As an aside, I know it's not your character's name, but Roc Demonplague is about the most heavy metal name I've ever heard, especially for an inquisitor.
When your character walks into a room with a DC20 secret door, does your DM lay it out there that you automatically se it? Or do they make you speak up that you are checking out the room?
I would expect a character with 30 passive perception to be checking out the room regardless of whether the player says so or not. I would say their passive perception is so high precisely because they are always on the look out.
The way I interpret passive skills: passive skills are targets for NPC skill rolls.
Let's take the example of a trap builder, trying to make a trap to protect a tomb from grave robbers. They have a proficiency in trap making . They make a skill roll to see how well they conceal the trap. What they're trying to beat in the passive perception skill of the tomb robber. It's a straight up skill roll, with a specific DC. If they make the roll, then they successfully hide the tap. If they don't, then the tomb robber will spot something amiss.
It's only seems complicated because the roll is made, and resolved, with vast amounts of time in between.
If I really wanted to, I could make the trap creator's skill roll when the Party walks in the room. It's mathematically equivalent to have to creator's skill roll pre-calculated, and use that as a DC for the Players active perception roll. It's also mathematically equivalent ( over the long term, on average - but without the local specific possibilities for variation on individual case basis ) to just use the passive skill roll against the pre-calculated trap maker's roll. I could even make it a contested roll. Mathematically, no matter how you do it, the average behaviors are the same.
Likewise, if the PC is trying to throw a PC investigator off their trail, they can make a skill roll against the PC's passive investigation. Or the PC can make a roll against the passive skill score of the skill that the fugitive is using to hide. Or - again - you can have a contested roll.
So - if they're all the same, mathematically, then how do you choose? Consider 3 things: Feel, Knowledge, and Variation.
Players rolling actively feel like they are doing something if they can roll dice. They feel like they are controlling their own fate: either they make the roll, or they do not. It's really still up to the dice, and mathematically no different, but Players feel like they have more agency if they are the ones tossing the dice. This is the reason I put most if not all rolls in the Players hands ( my antagonists don't make an attack roll, the Player makes a dodge rolls - mathematically equivalent, but the Players feel it's all on them ).
Likewise, a contested roll makes the Player feel like not only are they doing something, but someone is actively opposing them. It's a different flavor entirely ( even though the Math is the same ).
Asking the Player to make a roll out of the blue, gives them knowledge. "Give me a Perception roll" tells the Player there is something to Percept. If you don't want to hand them any clue if the Character doesn't actually notice it, then a straight passive-on-passive or roll-against-passive allows the DM to resolve issues in secret.
And finally, variation. If you want there to be a random possibility for success of failure, then use a skill roll ( the Character is at the top of their game, or having an off day, picking locks ). Alternatively, if you feel that either the character has the ability, or they don't, use purely passive skills ( Grog the Barbarian can pick up a chair, even if he is having a bad day - even a critical failure of 1 doesn't really make much sense; he can lift a chair ).
Statistically, it all works out the same - all that changes is the flavor, telegraphed information, and variation - and those can be dictated by the narrative, and common sense.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I get annoyed when the DM asks us to roll for anything and I role low (great roles for initiative, just shit with every other role required lol), say it's insight or investigation, the DC is irrelevant but someone roles a 14 and passes the check. My passive for both insight and investigation is 15! I can't catch a break, I've failed perception checks with a passive of 13 that someone has passed rolling a 12!
It does start to feel that passive skills mean nothing and if that is the case, why bother having passive skills?
I have a level 5 character with passive skills around 25 each. She was built to notice things. However, I will admit that it can get rather annoying when the DM has me roll for perception and I find out I passed with a roll of 13 (2 + 11). It makes my observant feat feel like I wasted it by taking it.
How I usually play when I DM is this if the DC would be 13 for an active check I generally add 3 to 5 for that score for a passive check. This way my players who put time raising those passive abilities feel useful, but I can still make a passive check harder than an active check. For example, if I have a trap door that requires an investigation check of 18 to see, I would say a character would need a passive skill of 21 to see it. If I wanted to make it harder, I could raise it to 23. I try to avoid going higher than 5 because than it means I could bend my own rule to force a check and I don't want to do that.
Low rolls shouldn't hamper someone with high passives since it's been established that the passive core is effectively a minimum on active skill checks. My point was that I still require the character to make the attempt at noticing something. They just auto-pass if the DC is low whereas other players might have to roll to pass the check.
Low rolls shouldn't hamper someone with high passives since it's been established that the passive core is effectively a minimum on active skill checks.
Not disputing this - and I think it works fine as a house rule - just wondering where it has been established?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Low rolls shouldn't hamper someone with high passives since it's been established that the passive core is effectively a minimum on active skill checks.
Not disputing this - and I think it works fine as a house rule - just wondering where it has been established?
I will have to look for it, but there is actually an adventure that kinda makes the point I use. I will look for it this weekend, but it said if the players have a passive perception of 15 they will notice.... Then it later stated they could also find the object by making a perception check with a DC of 10
It is actually the whole reason I make passive checks slightly harder than active checks. To me the idea was that if you are passively looking around, its your ability to register things at a quick glance where an active check is you thoroughly looking over the area. So it made sense to me a passive check might be harder than an active check.
On the flip side, I really only ever saw this come up once or twice, in general, the adventures used the same DC for active and passive checks.
Low rolls shouldn't hamper someone with high passives since it's been established that the passive core is effectively a minimum on active skill checks.
Not disputing this - and I think it works fine as a house rule - just wondering where it has been established?
This is in regards to a Jeremy Crawford podcast: Passive Perception makes a floor and if your passive perception beats the DC, you;re already aware and shouldn't be rolling.
Again, this is a Jeremy Crawford statement, not a core book ruling. As well I did not see this in the Sage Advice Compendium, so take it as you will.
Maybe "established" isn't the right word. It is RAI per Jeremy Crawford. I grabbed a transcript of the relevant part of the podcast discussion.
JC (at 22:16): Now, going back to passive perception... this is, as its name implies, passive. And, it's considered to be "always on", unless you're under the effect of a condition, like the unconcious condition that says you're not aware of your surroundings. That really... the practical effect of that is that basically your passive perception is shut off. Passive perception is on basically whenever you are conscious and aware. [...]
JC (at 23:09): Because it's passive, the player does not get to say they use it. This is a... this is something that people...
Interviewer:(Laughs) I'm using my passive perception right now!
JC: Yeah, no. It's always on. That's the baseline. Now, this brings up questions, because then people are saying that, well, how is it that when I make an active perception check, I might get a roll that's lower? Well, you aren't... yes, that roll is lower, but remember your passive perception is always on. So it really represents the floor of your perception.
Interviewer: Right. That's an important distinction, though.
JC: Yes. So if you make an active perception check and you get a number that's lower than your passive perception, all that means is that you did a lousy job of this particular active search, but your passive perception is still active. You're still going to notice something that "blips" onto your passive perception radar. Really, when you make that roll, you're really rolling to see "can I get a higher number?" If you fail to, well, again, your passive perception score is still active. It is effectively creating that minimum.
Interviewer: The minimum. Yeah, I don't know if that's necessarily clear to a lot of dungeon masters out there, because they will be like, well, the opposed nature of this roll means that you were just really bad at looking, and even though the person who is sneaking up on you only got like a five, they're able to do so.
JC: Now, many of these sorts of situations would be erased if DMs just simply remembered to use the passive perception in the first place. Because honestly, if something's noticeable by a person's passive perception score, they should already have noticed it. So really, the active search is trying to find something that you haven't already noticed, and your passive perception score represents what you have already noticed.
As a player I'm working with my DM a lot with this exact issue. My Aarakocra Inquisitor Rogue took Observant and just leveled up to 13. With all of her bonuses, Expertise and Reliable Talent, she has a Passive Perception of 30, Passive Investigation of 26, and Passive Insight of 25. She is BUILT to notice everything. Ignoring my passives, or replacing them with some other system, would literally nerf my character. (Her character sheet, for those interested: https://ddb.ac/characters/4475754/ZbPI0W)
When your character walks into a room with a DC20 secret door, does your DM lay it out there that you automatically se it? Or do they make you speak up that you are checking out the room?
As an aside, I know it's not your character's name, but Roc Demonplague is about the most heavy metal name I've ever heard, especially for an inquisitor.
It's a bit of team effort. For example during a huge, chaotic battle that my DM was describing something happened way in the distance, and he added that my character could see it at the end. Or if an NPC is speaking I'll often ask if I believe what they are saying and the DM will just tell me. There are rare times when something beats my passives (another rogue hiding got the drop on me) and if I've decided to focus on one thing I can miss something else.
The point is I've made sure he knows my numbers, I trust him to keep them in mind, and he trusts me to speak up when I want to double check things. We work together to make it work.
...also I used Demonplague to denote the version of Roc I was using, as this is a character I have used in a few one shots. And I just keep forgetting it's there until someone points it out. :D
Yeah, I've always been annoyed at the "Passive Perception is a floor on your Perception rolls", because while most of the time it is, implicitly, sometimes it's not, and thinking of it that way can lead to confusion. The reason why it often acts as a floor is that you normally use Perception to see if you can notice things that are in your field of view (or smell, or hearing, etc.), but not necessarily obvious. Passive Perception determines what you notice without actively searching. So if you need a 15 to notice something, and your Passive Perception is 15 or higher, you should have noticed it before even thinking of searching for it. So if you don't notice something without searching, you know any roll of 15 or under would fail (since you would have noticed it before searching). It can be used as a device for DMs to force players to declare to be looking for something in order to find it, but that just smells of bad DM-ing.
But Perception can be used in other ways, although there is a certain amount of overlap with other skills. For example, there might be a trap, hidden behind a curtain, that is impossible to notice without moving the curtain (no amount of Passive Perception would reveal it, since it's completely out of sight). A player might decide to have their character search for trap, without specifying they're pulling the curtain away, and the DM might decide to have them roll Perception. In that case, a low roll might suggest they never decided to move the curtain, and therefore completely failed to see the trap behind it. Passive Perception shouldn't come into play, and certainly not as a floor to the roll. (In that case, maybe an Investigation roll would be better suited, but not necessarily. Or maybe rolling Perception can be used as a way to simulate whether a random wind current hit the curtain while they were watching, and whether they were observant enough to notice it moved oddly.)
Interesting - and thank's for the interview quote :)
I'm interested in the 10 active/15 passive DCs in that adventure module - which makes a kind of sense to me; more effort = more chance of success. If one were to adapt that stance, then you're really adding a global negative modifier to passive perception, but making the skill checks automatic. I have a passive perception of 13, I automatically get a clue for anything hidden with a DC of 11 or less ( just picking a -2 modifier arbitrarily ). I'll see the DC 11 clue automatically, I won't automatically see the DC 13 clue, but if I've declared that I'm actively scanning the room, then I have a 55% chance of spotting the DC 13 clue ( meet or beat approach ).
As per Tonio's example of the trap behind the curtain - I think that the passive perception allows you to detect something - but not the trap, which you can't perceive directly. Maybe they see the curtain shift slightly in the air current. The clue has to make logical sense.
Would you extrapolate this out to other skills, though? Does the Mage automatically recognize the DC 11 runes with passive Arcana, but isn't able to pick out the item's trigger word in the item's inscriptions - DC 13 - unless they make an active Arcana roll?
I'm of the opinion that active/passive rules really have to make sense for knowledge based skills, as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Interesting - and thank's for the interview quote :)
I'm interested in the 10 active/15 passive DCs in that adventure module - which makes a kind of sense to me; more effort = more chance of success. If one were to adapt that stance, then you're really adding a global negative modifier to passive perception, but making the skill checks automatic. I have a passive perception of 13, I automatically get a clue for anything hidden with a DC of 11 or less ( just picking a -2 modifier arbitrarily ). I'll see the DC 11 clue automatically, I won't automatically see the DC 13 clue, but if I've declared that I'm actively scanning the room, then I have a 55% chance of spotting the DC 13 clue ( meet or beat approach ).
As per Tonio's example of the trap behind the curtain - I think that the passive perception allows you to detect something - but not the trap, which you can't perceive directly. Maybe they see the curtain shift slightly in the air current. The clue has to make logical sense.
Would you extrapolate this out to other skills, though? Does the Mage automatically recognize the DC 11 runes with passive Arcana, but isn't able to pick out the item's trigger word in the item's inscriptions - DC 13 - unless they make an active Arcana roll?
I'm of the opinion that active/passive rules really have to make sense for knowledge based skills, as well.
I'm of a mind that every skill has a passive even if it's not directly indicated on the character sheet. In reference to what does a passive give you it would depend on what is visible or not as to how much information that passive is able to grant you.
A passive will tell you that the curtain is hanging in an odd fashion, a bulge or slight movement being perceived. Where as going up to the curtain and investigating would generate the information that there's a trap behind it. A passive will tell you that there's a hidden door on the East wall, an investigation will help you find the trigger. A passive will tell you that those are indeed magical runes, if they're lined up normally it'll also tell you what the runes say, if it's a bunch of scattered runes, it won't tell you the sequence needed to figure out the puzzle.
Interesting - and thank's for the interview quote :)
I'm interested in the 10 active/15 passive DCs in that adventure module - which makes a kind of sense to me; more effort = more chance of success. If one were to adapt that stance, then you're really adding a global negative modifier to passive perception, but making the skill checks automatic. I have a passive perception of 13, I automatically get a clue for anything hidden with a DC of 11 or less ( just picking a -2 modifier arbitrarily ). I'll see the DC 11 clue automatically, I won't automatically see the DC 13 clue, but if I've declared that I'm actively scanning the room, then I have a 55% chance of spotting the DC 13 clue ( meet or beat approach ).
As per Tonio's example of the trap behind the curtain - I think that the passive perception allows you to detect something - but not the trap, which you can't perceive directly. Maybe they see the curtain shift slightly in the air current. The clue has to make logical sense.
Would you extrapolate this out to other skills, though? Does the Mage automatically recognize the DC 11 runes with passive Arcana, but isn't able to pick out the item's trigger word in the item's inscriptions - DC 13 - unless they make an active Arcana roll?
I'm of the opinion that active/passive rules really have to make sense for knowledge based skills, as well.
You know whats funny, I think my ruling of it was based of a mis-read of me skipping a line. I found the line I was talking about in Lost Mine of Phandelver, but it actually says 15 and 15. But than is quickly followed up by another check was only 10.
The character in the lead spots the hidden pit automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 15 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check to spot the hidden pit. If the trap isn’t detected, the lead character must succeed on a DC 10...
On my screen, the checks were all on top of one another and I must have read it 15 or 10. Which is kinda bad, but to be honest, I love my little house rule for Passive. And my players don't seem to complain. So that is my bad. whoops.
Not surprisingly - given our past conversations - I agree with your interpretation DMThac0 :)
I do wonder about critical failures, and critical successes, however. Do people feel they would want to leave room for such ( I know that critical failure/success applying to skill rolls is not RAW, but it's pretty common table-rule-wise )?
In my example above, if you're allowing for critical failure/success then even though I'd automatically see the DC 11 clue, I'd still make a roll - sort of an "anything but a 1 succeeds" check ( which is something I've seen DMs do ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Like I said, that actually make some sense to me: heightened alertness makes for better results; lowered alertness makes for less reliable results. I think a case can be made either way - YMMV - but I can't say that either interpretation would be flat out wrong.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Passive Perception determines what you notice without actively searching. So if you need a 15 to notice something, and your Passive Perception is 15 or higher, you should have noticed it before even thinking of searching for it. So if you don't notice something without searching, you know any roll of 15 or under would fail (since you would have noticed it before searching).
I disagree with this interpretation, although I'm open to updating my opinion if you can provide me something official that says as much. I just re-read the SRD description of passive abilities and it says they "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." My position is that doing something without rolling dice is not at all the same thing with doing something without trying.
Furthermore, I feel like the idea that all abilities have a passive element to them is better served by my interpretation of the purpose of a passive check. Passive sleight of hand? Passive animal handling? Passive performance? None of these abilities are problems with my method.
It can be used as a device for DMs to force players to declare to be looking for something in order to find it, but that just smells of bad DM-ing.
Respectfully, you and I look at this differently. I find the idea of automatic detection without any work on the part of the character as being overly limiting to me as DM. And since I have already made the case for this position earlier in the thread, you're implying I engage in bad DM-ing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh, yes, definitely. As a general rule I think if someone's passive skill score is higher than the DC they should not have to roll except in extraordinary circumstances. Climbing a tree, no need to roll if your passive check is good enough. Climbing a tree during a storm, roll a check. I would set the DC based on how difficult it is to climb that particular tree, the storm wouldn't change that DC, but I would require the roll. If it was a particularly bad storm, ice, lightning, hurricane force winds, and at night, I might even make the roll at disadvantage. But climbing the tree on a sunny day with a mild breeze? If your passive skill is high enough, up you go.
I'm not sure if it's "better" but it's better for my style of DMing.
When your character walks into a room with a DC20 secret door, does your DM lay it out there that you automatically se it? Or do they make you speak up that you are checking out the room?
As an aside, I know it's not your character's name, but Roc Demonplague is about the most heavy metal name I've ever heard, especially for an inquisitor.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would expect a character with 30 passive perception to be checking out the room regardless of whether the player says so or not. I would say their passive perception is so high precisely because they are always on the look out.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I'm not a fan of the feat as written. If I'm GM I have it give advantage on checks or +5 on the rare occasion I use passives.
The way I interpret passive skills: passive skills are targets for NPC skill rolls.
Let's take the example of a trap builder, trying to make a trap to protect a tomb from grave robbers. They have a proficiency in trap making . They make a skill roll to see how well they conceal the trap. What they're trying to beat in the passive perception skill of the tomb robber. It's a straight up skill roll, with a specific DC. If they make the roll, then they successfully hide the tap. If they don't, then the tomb robber will spot something amiss.
It's only seems complicated because the roll is made, and resolved, with vast amounts of time in between.
If I really wanted to, I could make the trap creator's skill roll when the Party walks in the room. It's mathematically equivalent to have to creator's skill roll pre-calculated, and use that as a DC for the Players active perception roll. It's also mathematically equivalent ( over the long term, on average - but without the local specific possibilities for variation on individual case basis ) to just use the passive skill roll against the pre-calculated trap maker's roll. I could even make it a contested roll. Mathematically, no matter how you do it, the average behaviors are the same.
Likewise, if the PC is trying to throw a PC investigator off their trail, they can make a skill roll against the PC's passive investigation. Or the PC can make a roll against the passive skill score of the skill that the fugitive is using to hide. Or - again - you can have a contested roll.
So - if they're all the same, mathematically, then how do you choose? Consider 3 things: Feel, Knowledge, and Variation.
Players rolling actively feel like they are doing something if they can roll dice. They feel like they are controlling their own fate: either they make the roll, or they do not. It's really still up to the dice, and mathematically no different, but Players feel like they have more agency if they are the ones tossing the dice. This is the reason I put most if not all rolls in the Players hands ( my antagonists don't make an attack roll, the Player makes a dodge rolls - mathematically equivalent, but the Players feel it's all on them ).
Likewise, a contested roll makes the Player feel like not only are they doing something, but someone is actively opposing them. It's a different flavor entirely ( even though the Math is the same ).
Asking the Player to make a roll out of the blue, gives them knowledge. "Give me a Perception roll" tells the Player there is something to Percept. If you don't want to hand them any clue if the Character doesn't actually notice it, then a straight passive-on-passive or roll-against-passive allows the DM to resolve issues in secret.
And finally, variation. If you want there to be a random possibility for success of failure, then use a skill roll ( the Character is at the top of their game, or having an off day, picking locks ). Alternatively, if you feel that either the character has the ability, or they don't, use purely passive skills ( Grog the Barbarian can pick up a chair, even if he is having a bad day - even a critical failure of 1 doesn't really make much sense; he can lift a chair ).
Statistically, it all works out the same - all that changes is the flavor, telegraphed information, and variation - and those can be dictated by the narrative, and common sense.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I get annoyed when the DM asks us to roll for anything and I role low (great roles for initiative, just shit with every other role required lol), say it's insight or investigation, the DC is irrelevant but someone roles a 14 and passes the check. My passive for both insight and investigation is 15! I can't catch a break, I've failed perception checks with a passive of 13 that someone has passed rolling a 12!
It does start to feel that passive skills mean nothing and if that is the case, why bother having passive skills?
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
I have a level 5 character with passive skills around 25 each. She was built to notice things. However, I will admit that it can get rather annoying when the DM has me roll for perception and I find out I passed with a roll of 13 (2 + 11). It makes my observant feat feel like I wasted it by taking it.
How I usually play when I DM is this if the DC would be 13 for an active check I generally add 3 to 5 for that score for a passive check. This way my players who put time raising those passive abilities feel useful, but I can still make a passive check harder than an active check. For example, if I have a trap door that requires an investigation check of 18 to see, I would say a character would need a passive skill of 21 to see it. If I wanted to make it harder, I could raise it to 23. I try to avoid going higher than 5 because than it means I could bend my own rule to force a check and I don't want to do that.
Low rolls shouldn't hamper someone with high passives since it's been established that the passive core is effectively a minimum on active skill checks. My point was that I still require the character to make the attempt at noticing something. They just auto-pass if the DC is low whereas other players might have to roll to pass the check.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not disputing this - and I think it works fine as a house rule - just wondering where it has been established?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I will have to look for it, but there is actually an adventure that kinda makes the point I use. I will look for it this weekend, but it said if the players have a passive perception of 15 they will notice.... Then it later stated they could also find the object by making a perception check with a DC of 10
It is actually the whole reason I make passive checks slightly harder than active checks. To me the idea was that if you are passively looking around, its your ability to register things at a quick glance where an active check is you thoroughly looking over the area. So it made sense to me a passive check might be harder than an active check.
On the flip side, I really only ever saw this come up once or twice, in general, the adventures used the same DC for active and passive checks.
This is in regards to a Jeremy Crawford podcast: Passive Perception makes a floor and if your passive perception beats the DC, you;re already aware and shouldn't be rolling.
Again, this is a Jeremy Crawford statement, not a core book ruling. As well I did not see this in the Sage Advice Compendium, so take it as you will.
Maybe "established" isn't the right word. It is RAI per Jeremy Crawford. I grabbed a transcript of the relevant part of the podcast discussion.
At any rate, that's how I treat it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's a bit of team effort. For example during a huge, chaotic battle that my DM was describing something happened way in the distance, and he added that my character could see it at the end. Or if an NPC is speaking I'll often ask if I believe what they are saying and the DM will just tell me. There are rare times when something beats my passives (another rogue hiding got the drop on me) and if I've decided to focus on one thing I can miss something else.
The point is I've made sure he knows my numbers, I trust him to keep them in mind, and he trusts me to speak up when I want to double check things. We work together to make it work.
...also I used Demonplague to denote the version of Roc I was using, as this is a character I have used in a few one shots. And I just keep forgetting it's there until someone points it out. :D
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
Yeah, I've always been annoyed at the "Passive Perception is a floor on your Perception rolls", because while most of the time it is, implicitly, sometimes it's not, and thinking of it that way can lead to confusion. The reason why it often acts as a floor is that you normally use Perception to see if you can notice things that are in your field of view (or smell, or hearing, etc.), but not necessarily obvious. Passive Perception determines what you notice without actively searching. So if you need a 15 to notice something, and your Passive Perception is 15 or higher, you should have noticed it before even thinking of searching for it. So if you don't notice something without searching, you know any roll of 15 or under would fail (since you would have noticed it before searching). It can be used as a device for DMs to force players to declare to be looking for something in order to find it, but that just smells of bad DM-ing.
But Perception can be used in other ways, although there is a certain amount of overlap with other skills. For example, there might be a trap, hidden behind a curtain, that is impossible to notice without moving the curtain (no amount of Passive Perception would reveal it, since it's completely out of sight). A player might decide to have their character search for trap, without specifying they're pulling the curtain away, and the DM might decide to have them roll Perception. In that case, a low roll might suggest they never decided to move the curtain, and therefore completely failed to see the trap behind it. Passive Perception shouldn't come into play, and certainly not as a floor to the roll. (In that case, maybe an Investigation roll would be better suited, but not necessarily. Or maybe rolling Perception can be used as a way to simulate whether a random wind current hit the curtain while they were watching, and whether they were observant enough to notice it moved oddly.)
Interesting - and thank's for the interview quote :)
I'm interested in the 10 active/15 passive DCs in that adventure module - which makes a kind of sense to me; more effort = more chance of success. If one were to adapt that stance, then you're really adding a global negative modifier to passive perception, but making the skill checks automatic. I have a passive perception of 13, I automatically get a clue for anything hidden with a DC of 11 or less ( just picking a -2 modifier arbitrarily ). I'll see the DC 11 clue automatically, I won't automatically see the DC 13 clue, but if I've declared that I'm actively scanning the room, then I have a 55% chance of spotting the DC 13 clue ( meet or beat approach ).
As per Tonio's example of the trap behind the curtain - I think that the passive perception allows you to detect something - but not the trap, which you can't perceive directly. Maybe they see the curtain shift slightly in the air current. The clue has to make logical sense.
Would you extrapolate this out to other skills, though? Does the Mage automatically recognize the DC 11 runes with passive Arcana, but isn't able to pick out the item's trigger word in the item's inscriptions - DC 13 - unless they make an active Arcana roll?
I'm of the opinion that active/passive rules really have to make sense for knowledge based skills, as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm of a mind that every skill has a passive even if it's not directly indicated on the character sheet. In reference to what does a passive give you it would depend on what is visible or not as to how much information that passive is able to grant you.
A passive will tell you that the curtain is hanging in an odd fashion, a bulge or slight movement being perceived. Where as going up to the curtain and investigating would generate the information that there's a trap behind it.
A passive will tell you that there's a hidden door on the East wall, an investigation will help you find the trigger.
A passive will tell you that those are indeed magical runes, if they're lined up normally it'll also tell you what the runes say, if it's a bunch of scattered runes, it won't tell you the sequence needed to figure out the puzzle.
You know whats funny, I think my ruling of it was based of a mis-read of me skipping a line. I found the line I was talking about in Lost Mine of Phandelver, but it actually says 15 and 15. But than is quickly followed up by another check was only 10.
On my screen, the checks were all on top of one another and I must have read it 15 or 10. Which is kinda bad, but to be honest, I love my little house rule for Passive. And my players don't seem to complain. So that is my bad. whoops.
Not surprisingly - given our past conversations - I agree with your interpretation DMThac0 :)
I do wonder about critical failures, and critical successes, however. Do people feel they would want to leave room for such ( I know that critical failure/success applying to skill rolls is not RAW, but it's pretty common table-rule-wise )?
In my example above, if you're allowing for critical failure/success then even though I'd automatically see the DC 11 clue, I'd still make a roll - sort of an "anything but a 1 succeeds" check ( which is something I've seen DMs do ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
@Mouse0270
Like I said, that actually make some sense to me: heightened alertness makes for better results; lowered alertness makes for less reliable results. I think a case can be made either way - YMMV - but I can't say that either interpretation would be flat out wrong.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I disagree with this interpretation, although I'm open to updating my opinion if you can provide me something official that says as much. I just re-read the SRD description of passive abilities and it says they "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." My position is that doing something without rolling dice is not at all the same thing with doing something without trying.
Furthermore, I feel like the idea that all abilities have a passive element to them is better served by my interpretation of the purpose of a passive check. Passive sleight of hand? Passive animal handling? Passive performance? None of these abilities are problems with my method.
Respectfully, you and I look at this differently. I find the idea of automatic detection without any work on the part of the character as being overly limiting to me as DM. And since I have already made the case for this position earlier in the thread, you're implying I engage in bad DM-ing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"