This tweet from Crawford begs to differ. Now he does specifically mention that DMs are free to use passive scores or not, but the only time a roll should be allowed is when a PCs passive isn't high enough to notice it to begin with.
I'm only bringing this up because stating that ruling this way is "Flat. Out. Wrong." is a little bit unfair, it might not be how you and the people you play with rule it but that doesn't make it incorrect necessarily.
EDIT: Another tweet by Crawford stating a similar thing concerning passive scores.
Crawford's tweets are not rules. They're insights into design intent, but they can't insert language into the rulebooks, and this is one instance where that's a very good thing, because the intent here is terrible game design.
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
No, it's not. Passive scores represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts. An active roll is only a single attempt.
And again, his "intent" is explicitly in contradiction to the rules as written. It isn't that they are ambiguous, it is that they explicitly do not do what he says they do. So in this particular instance either A) he doesn't really speak for the rule system because other authors didn't share his intent and they won out in the end, and/or B) he tweets these things out knee jerk without reading up on the rule and its interactions and doesn't really mean what he says. Either way, it isn't just that JC's tweets aren't rules, I honestly don't even really think they're all that persuasive .
If a PC with a 26 passive perception walks into a room with a DC 18 hidden trap door should they notice it?
I'd argue that if you say yes then passive scores should be the floor. If not then I would wonder if you're actually using passive scores in your game at all.
On the contrary. A passive score is described as "the average result of a task done repetitively, out of combat."
I will never allow or use a passive ability check in combat, or in any other situation in which time pressure applies. Rogues get to do that at 11th level with Reliable Talent, and that is one of the most powerful facets of the entire rogue class.
This idea that a passive score is an Absolute Unbreakable IRON SHIELD preventing you from ever missing something is ridiculous, and one of the reasons why Observant is so bogus. Passive scores apply in certain situations and ways, or at least they damn well should. Again, what those situations and ways should be isn't really relevant, as every table will treat them differently, but allowing a passive score to set an absolute ironclad lower limit on a character is pretty much either ignorance or cheating.
If someone wants to say their passive Perception is 17 and thus they should NEVER be capable of getting anything below a 17 on any Perception check no matter what the situation or circumstances surrounding that check are? Then they are missing the entire point of the d20 ability check system and need to be re-educated on the basics of action adjudication.
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
No, it's not. Passive scores represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts. An active roll is only a single attempt.
This works in combat where time is important or if someone is rushing through a room. Would you really enjoy a game where players did this in every room:
DM: You enter a dusty room thick with cobwebs, Old faded paintings hang from wood-paneled walls. Player: I want to search the room for traps or secrets. DM: Make a perception check. Player: *rolls a 1* Damn. Oh well, I am going to hang out here for a while to see if I notice anything. DM: How long are you going to hang out in the room? Player: Long enough to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts.
Tex, that's not what a passive score is for, nor is that what anyone means when they tell you that treating passive scores as an ironclad, never-to-be-breached floor is flat out wrong.
You said it yourself: "This works...where time is important." That's the crux of the matter. That and what the PCs are actually doing. if your theoretical Passive 26 Perception walks into a room with a DC 18 hidden trap, does he just see it for free by default because he put one foot in the room? Is he moving carefully, actively scanning his environment and putting his senses to work, or is he arguing with the barbarian about where that Mystery Meat they found two rooms back is from and how disgusting it is that the guy's eating it?
Passive scores are and should be important. They do not get to be a free pass that saves you from your own dumbness, or allows you to bypass ability checks in time-sensitive situations.
If you walk into a room and have a Passive perception that beats the DC of something hiding in the room, yeah, that's allowed by the actual written rules of Passive Perception in the "hiding" sidebar: a creature can use Passive Perception to "notice you even if they aren't searching"
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again." But if your DM actually asks you for a Perception roll, then we aren't talking any more about the average of how you've been doing up until this moment, we're checking how close attention you're paying right now, and the DM is well within his right to do that even if its lower.
If the DM does something sneaky like pickpocket you while you're talking to an NPC, and he wants to check if you noticed without tipping you off that it happened, then he can check Passive Perception to "secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice." Or if you actively say "I want to try to spot if there's a bulge in his cloak where a weapon might be sheathed behind it," same situation, DM might want to say "no" without even asking you to roll if he thinks that you knowing your result (or even knowing that you were asked to roll and thus could have noticed something) might give you some clues.
But if you walk into a room and have a Passive Perception that beats the DC of something in there then... no, you don't get to have a magic pulse of Passive Perception that ripples out into the room around you just because you walked in. And if you do go to actively search for those things, and you roll crappy, you get a crappy result... just because you've got eagle eyes and a passion for details doesn't mean that you won't get hyperfocused on a useless detail that causes you to miss something else ("holy smokes guys.... this chest is made of cherry and that hasn't grown for 1000 miles in any direction in over a hundred years! What a priceless antique!!!"), or just be otherwise distracted.
I may fail 99 times, but if the 100th try is successful, I perceived the hidden thing. So how many attempts does it take to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts? Should I just take my time in each room never making an active roll for fear that I might roll low and have the DM tell me tough luck I took your one try? Or should I wait patiently for the DM to acknowledge the DC of the hidden thing is below my passive perception?
Or will be DM be one of those, "Passive scores only means no die is rolled. I am still going to make the player tell me the character is searching before I let him find the secret?" folks?
I dunno, 120 seconds is 20 rounds, and is coincidentally also how long that 3.5 suggested that taking 10 or taking 20 might take. So if you want to be that guy that holds up the table by insisting to the DM that he can't force you to actively roll if you don't want to... 2 minutes, you probably have to waste your group's time for 2 minutes in every room to get the benefit of Passive Perception as a floor to your score. Or, 6 seconds x (the benchmark DC you think you're trying to beat minus your minimum perception score on a 1)? I dunno, you're houseruling your own obstinate refusal to play the game as written, so at that point go wild what do I care?
And what's wrong with the DM wanting to know what the character is doing?
This is a circular argument. You're arguing, Tex, that passive scores should matter and allow you to passively find things without rolling. Champ and I, and others, are arguing that a passive score is not a permanent free pass that applies freely and instantly in every situation. Both of those are correct. I value passive scores very highly in my own games, to the point where I've honestly considered writing up a homebrew rules expansion for how passives work and what players can expect from their passive abilities (even beyond just perception) in my game.
They are not Automatic I-Win-Forever Instant Info Nao Please scores. And if run that way, then of course players will be pissed any time their DM calls for an active check of any kind. Why not use passive Stealth? Or passive Acrobatics? Or passive attack rolls? Or passive Concentration checks? When a DM lets their player say "I am never going to accept any roll I make that's below my passive score, no matter what", that DM has allowed their game to be irretrievable broken.
My point is that whatever the trigger is for passive perception to produce that numerical result is what a player will do in order to get that result. To use your own example:
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."
If the players know this is what their DM requires, then they will announce this every single time. And that's fine if you want to play things that way. It does not run afoul of RAW. But if you're going to set special conditions that require a prompt the player will surely deliver, then why not just skip the whole charade and let it be a means to an end? My table time is valuable and I'd rather just let the players get the result of the time-consuming process without making them jump through technicalities to achieve it.
My point is that whatever the trigger is for passive perception to produce that numerical result is what a player will do in order to get that result. To use your own example:
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."
If the players know this is what their DM requires, then they will announce this every single time. And that's fine if you want to play things that way. It does not run afoul of RAW. But if you're going to set special conditions that require a prompt the player will surely deliver, then why not just skip the whole charade and let it be a means to an end? My table time is valuable and I'd rather just let the players get the result of the time-consuming process without making them jump through technicalities to achieve it.
And like Yurei mentioned previously, if the PC is discussing something with another party member during the travel time, well that seems like a great time to use disadvantage on the PC's passive perception for a -5.
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
Have you ever been looking for something that was right in front of you despite being fairly observant normally?
I feel like you are vastly overestimating the amount of time that "I keep a constant lookout for traps, enemies, or secret passageways as we move forward" takes to say out loud. If you're creating a houserule just to avoid that sentence ever needing to be said... I dunno.
I'm not creating a house rule though. JC has made it clear that passive scores as a minimum for active rolls is RAI. And nothing about playing it that way contradicts RAW. So how is it a house rule?
I may fail 99 times, but if the 100th try is successful, I perceived the hidden thing. So how many attempts does it take to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts? Should I just take my time in each room never making an active roll for fear that I might roll low and have the DM tell me tough luck I took your one try? Or should I wait patiently for the DM to acknowledge the DC of the hidden thing is below my passive perception?
Or will be DM be one of those, "Passive scores only means no die is rolled. I am still going to make the player tell me the character is searching before I let him find the secret?" folks?
Answering this requires that I more fully explain exactly how I do use passive scores. The short answer is that it doesn't matter: if the player is searching, they never get to use their passive score, and they only get one attempt. It doesn't matter how many attempts it takes to represent the average; they only get the one. You don't get to use your passive score if you're actually actively doing something.
As a point of game-running philosophy, I require that any interaction (or check) have at least one actor. If both parties are passive, there can be no interaction. So if there's something just hidden under a couch waiting to be found and the PCs walk into a room and don't actually look for it, they are never going to find it (barring some narrative event that, for example, overturns the couch, or something like that).
The way I use passive scores is as DCs when someone else is the actor in the interaction and when the character can't actually actively do something because they don't have the necessary information. If you have no reason to search for a hidden assassin, it's unreasonable to allow you to make a perception check. But your passive score is there as the target number that assassin needs to beat to remain unnoticed. I really only ever use passive scores per se as DCs for other characters to beat.
For sure, I do use passive perception, for example, to mentally categorize PCs as, like, low/medium/high perception and divulge more or less information accordingly. You're never going to find a hidden thing with passive perception, but you might get more information cluing you in to its presence, and at a certain point players don't even have to roll. To continue the original example, if I've classified you as "high perception" in my head, I might tell you there are marks on the floor near the couch's legs, as though someone has moved it. If you tell me you look under the couch, you're gonna find the thing. It's idiotic to call for a roll at that point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1001632654918172672?lang=en
This tweet from Crawford begs to differ. Now he does specifically mention that DMs are free to use passive scores or not, but the only time a roll should be allowed is when a PCs passive isn't high enough to notice it to begin with.
I'm only bringing this up because stating that ruling this way is "Flat. Out. Wrong." is a little bit unfair, it might not be how you and the people you play with rule it but that doesn't make it incorrect necessarily.
EDIT: Another tweet by Crawford stating a similar thing concerning passive scores.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/01/if-your-passive-perception-is-your-effect-minimum-perception-would-this-apply-to-other-skills-2/
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
Crawford's tweets are not rules. They're insights into design intent, but they can't insert language into the rulebooks, and this is one instance where that's a very good thing, because the intent here is terrible game design.
The problem with passive scores not being the floor is that an active roll could conceivably be lower than your passive score and that is even more absurd.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, it's not. Passive scores represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts. An active roll is only a single attempt.
And again, his "intent" is explicitly in contradiction to the rules as written. It isn't that they are ambiguous, it is that they explicitly do not do what he says they do. So in this particular instance either A) he doesn't really speak for the rule system because other authors didn't share his intent and they won out in the end, and/or B) he tweets these things out knee jerk without reading up on the rule and its interactions and doesn't really mean what he says. Either way, it isn't just that JC's tweets aren't rules, I honestly don't even really think they're all that persuasive .
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If a PC with a 26 passive perception walks into a room with a DC 18 hidden trap door should they notice it?
I'd argue that if you say yes then passive scores should be the floor. If not then I would wonder if you're actually using passive scores in your game at all.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
On the contrary. A passive score is described as "the average result of a task done repetitively, out of combat."
I will never allow or use a passive ability check in combat, or in any other situation in which time pressure applies. Rogues get to do that at 11th level with Reliable Talent, and that is one of the most powerful facets of the entire rogue class.
This idea that a passive score is an Absolute Unbreakable IRON SHIELD preventing you from ever missing something is ridiculous, and one of the reasons why Observant is so bogus. Passive scores apply in certain situations and ways, or at least they damn well should. Again, what those situations and ways should be isn't really relevant, as every table will treat them differently, but allowing a passive score to set an absolute ironclad lower limit on a character is pretty much either ignorance or cheating.
If someone wants to say their passive Perception is 17 and thus they should NEVER be capable of getting anything below a 17 on any Perception check no matter what the situation or circumstances surrounding that check are? Then they are missing the entire point of the d20 ability check system and need to be re-educated on the basics of action adjudication.
Please do not contact or message me.
This works in combat where time is important or if someone is rushing through a room. Would you really enjoy a game where players did this in every room:
DM: You enter a dusty room thick with cobwebs, Old faded paintings hang from wood-paneled walls.
Player: I want to search the room for traps or secrets.
DM: Make a perception check.
Player: *rolls a 1* Damn. Oh well, I am going to hang out here for a while to see if I notice anything.
DM: How long are you going to hang out in the room?
Player: Long enough to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts.
Absurd
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, I'd tell them "you don't find anything, move on." They shot their shot and they missed.
Tex, that's not what a passive score is for, nor is that what anyone means when they tell you that treating passive scores as an ironclad, never-to-be-breached floor is flat out wrong.
You said it yourself: "This works...where time is important." That's the crux of the matter. That and what the PCs are actually doing. if your theoretical Passive 26 Perception walks into a room with a DC 18 hidden trap, does he just see it for free by default because he put one foot in the room? Is he moving carefully, actively scanning his environment and putting his senses to work, or is he arguing with the barbarian about where that Mystery Meat they found two rooms back is from and how disgusting it is that the guy's eating it?
Passive scores are and should be important. They do not get to be a free pass that saves you from your own dumbness, or allows you to bypass ability checks in time-sensitive situations.
Please do not contact or message me.
I guess we're wrestling the Bugbear after all.
If you walk into a room and have a Passive perception that beats the DC of something hiding in the room, yeah, that's allowed by the actual written rules of Passive Perception in the "hiding" sidebar: a creature can use Passive Perception to "notice you even if they aren't searching"
If you're walking through a dungeon reminding the DM that you're "keeping watch for enemies and traps," then yeah, that's allowed because it's a "task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again." But if your DM actually asks you for a Perception roll, then we aren't talking any more about the average of how you've been doing up until this moment, we're checking how close attention you're paying right now, and the DM is well within his right to do that even if its lower.
If the DM does something sneaky like pickpocket you while you're talking to an NPC, and he wants to check if you noticed without tipping you off that it happened, then he can check Passive Perception to "secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice." Or if you actively say "I want to try to spot if there's a bulge in his cloak where a weapon might be sheathed behind it," same situation, DM might want to say "no" without even asking you to roll if he thinks that you knowing your result (or even knowing that you were asked to roll and thus could have noticed something) might give you some clues.
But if you walk into a room and have a Passive Perception that beats the DC of something in there then... no, you don't get to have a magic pulse of Passive Perception that ripples out into the room around you just because you walked in. And if you do go to actively search for those things, and you roll crappy, you get a crappy result... just because you've got eagle eyes and a passion for details doesn't mean that you won't get hyperfocused on a useless detail that causes you to miss something else ("holy smokes guys.... this chest is made of cherry and that hasn't grown for 1000 miles in any direction in over a hundred years! What a priceless antique!!!"), or just be otherwise distracted.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I may fail 99 times, but if the 100th try is successful, I perceived the hidden thing. So how many attempts does it take to represent the average of many constantly repeated attempts? Should I just take my time in each room never making an active roll for fear that I might roll low and have the DM tell me tough luck I took your one try? Or should I wait patiently for the DM to acknowledge the DC of the hidden thing is below my passive perception?
Or will be DM be one of those, "Passive scores only means no die is rolled. I am still going to make the player tell me the character is searching before I let him find the secret?" folks?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I dunno, 120 seconds is 20 rounds, and is coincidentally also how long that 3.5 suggested that taking 10 or taking 20 might take. So if you want to be that guy that holds up the table by insisting to the DM that he can't force you to actively roll if you don't want to... 2 minutes, you probably have to waste your group's time for 2 minutes in every room to get the benefit of Passive Perception as a floor to your score. Or, 6 seconds x (the benchmark DC you think you're trying to beat minus your minimum perception score on a 1)? I dunno, you're houseruling your own obstinate refusal to play the game as written, so at that point go wild what do I care?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And what's wrong with the DM wanting to know what the character is doing?
This is a circular argument. You're arguing, Tex, that passive scores should matter and allow you to passively find things without rolling. Champ and I, and others, are arguing that a passive score is not a permanent free pass that applies freely and instantly in every situation. Both of those are correct. I value passive scores very highly in my own games, to the point where I've honestly considered writing up a homebrew rules expansion for how passives work and what players can expect from their passive abilities (even beyond just perception) in my game.
They are not Automatic I-Win-Forever Instant Info Nao Please scores. And if run that way, then of course players will be pissed any time their DM calls for an active check of any kind. Why not use passive Stealth? Or passive Acrobatics? Or passive attack rolls? Or passive Concentration checks? When a DM lets their player say "I am never going to accept any roll I make that's below my passive score, no matter what", that DM has allowed their game to be irretrievable broken.
Please do not contact or message me.
My point is that whatever the trigger is for passive perception to produce that numerical result is what a player will do in order to get that result. To use your own example:
If the players know this is what their DM requires, then they will announce this every single time. And that's fine if you want to play things that way. It does not run afoul of RAW. But if you're going to set special conditions that require a prompt the player will surely deliver, then why not just skip the whole charade and let it be a means to an end? My table time is valuable and I'd rather just let the players get the result of the time-consuming process without making them jump through technicalities to achieve it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
And like Yurei mentioned previously, if the PC is discussing something with another party member during the travel time, well that seems like a great time to use disadvantage on the PC's passive perception for a -5.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
Have you ever been looking for something that was right in front of you despite being fairly observant normally?
I feel like you are vastly overestimating the amount of time that "I keep a constant lookout for traps, enemies, or secret passageways as we move forward" takes to say out loud. If you're creating a houserule just to avoid that sentence ever needing to be said... I dunno.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not creating a house rule though. JC has made it clear that passive scores as a minimum for active rolls is RAI. And nothing about playing it that way contradicts RAW. So how is it a house rule?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Answering this requires that I more fully explain exactly how I do use passive scores. The short answer is that it doesn't matter: if the player is searching, they never get to use their passive score, and they only get one attempt. It doesn't matter how many attempts it takes to represent the average; they only get the one. You don't get to use your passive score if you're actually actively doing something.
As a point of game-running philosophy, I require that any interaction (or check) have at least one actor. If both parties are passive, there can be no interaction. So if there's something just hidden under a couch waiting to be found and the PCs walk into a room and don't actually look for it, they are never going to find it (barring some narrative event that, for example, overturns the couch, or something like that).
The way I use passive scores is as DCs when someone else is the actor in the interaction and when the character can't actually actively do something because they don't have the necessary information. If you have no reason to search for a hidden assassin, it's unreasonable to allow you to make a perception check. But your passive score is there as the target number that assassin needs to beat to remain unnoticed. I really only ever use passive scores per se as DCs for other characters to beat.
For sure, I do use passive perception, for example, to mentally categorize PCs as, like, low/medium/high perception and divulge more or less information accordingly. You're never going to find a hidden thing with passive perception, but you might get more information cluing you in to its presence, and at a certain point players don't even have to roll. To continue the original example, if I've classified you as "high perception" in my head, I might tell you there are marks on the floor near the couch's legs, as though someone has moved it. If you tell me you look under the couch, you're gonna find the thing. It's idiotic to call for a roll at that point.