Gonna call you on this every single time. It's established RAI and doesn't run afoul of RAW. It's not homebrew. It's playing the game the way the designers designed it, according to the designers. Now let's say you are the DM and I'm a player. My character walks into a room and wants to search for the possible presence of a secret door, a sneaky assassin, or a hidden whatever. How would you have me go about attempting to find it?
It's playing the game the way that one designerclaims it was designed, despite that claim being supported or alluded to by no ambiguous text, and indeed directly contradicting the text saying that a Passive score represents an average.
Look Texas, there's a broad spectrum of playstyles and preferences that this thread has turned into. You have some good points about skill floors encouraging certain types of narratives and streamlining play, there's nothing wrong with preferring a rule system that does what you say. It may even be better , who knows... but there's lots of things in 5E that could be better if they had been written a different way, or which might have landed closer to the designers' (or, some of the designers...) RAI if they'd been worded differently.
But rewriting those rules, or adding in new rules that aren't written, is literally the definition of something not being "rules as written" The rules as written are the rules. that. are. written.
Passive Checks being floors are not something that is written. They are not an unwritten assumption that is a necessary precondition of something else that is written. They are thus not rules as written. The entire rest of the conversation about what is good or desirable or how so and so runs their game belongs in DM Advice or Homebrew, because it is not what the rules and mechanics of 5E are as written.
You just told me (a little bit condescendingly*) that I'm talking about RAI and we are in the rules subforum. Furthermore, we are discussing game mechanics and we're staying on the topic of the thread's original post. Feel free to report me if you feel this discussion is inappropriate or happening in the wrong place. As for whether I am interpreting the game's rules incorrectly, we could always ask the game's lead rules designer for clarification.
That being said, passives as a minimum result for active rolls is only one of the things we have been discussing in this thread. I posed the question to EightPackKilla and I'll pose it to you as well since we're discussing differing DM styles for handling passive perception. If my character with 20 passive perception (high but not ridiculous) walked into a room and I asked you as the DM if I noticed any hidden secrets, how would you play that?
If my character with 20 passive perception (high but not ridiculous) walked into a room and I asked you as the DM if I noticed any hidden secrets, how would you play that?
I would ask you to roll. Passive perception is for when you don't ask, if I didn't tell you about it before you asked it's not detectable with passive perception.
Gonna call you on this every single time. It's established RAI and doesn't run afoul of RAW. It's not homebrew. It's playing the game the way the designers designed it, according to the designers. Now let's say you are the DM and I'm a player. My character walks into a room and wants to search for the possible presence of a secret door, a sneaky assassin, or a hidden whatever. How would you have me go about attempting to find it?
You can call me on that all you want. It’s not in the PhB. It’s not a RULE. It’s a “ruling”.
that is Homebrew.
as to your question:
”you think the eastern wall looks odd”
what do you do?
(hint: you need to INVESTIGATE)
the assassin: if his stealth was lower than your perception, you’d know he’s there. Hear him breathing.
as to the “whatever” define whatever. Perception is limited in what IT notices vs you needing to INVESTIGATE.
... That being said, passives as a minimum result for active rolls is only one of the things we have been discussing in this thread. I posed the question to EightPackKilla and I'll pose it to you as well since we're discussing differing DM styles for handling passive perception. If my character with 20 passive perception (high but not ridiculous) walked into a room and I asked you as the DM if I noticed any hidden secrets, how would you play that?
This is the sort of question that just bogs down threads like this, which you know since you said "no need to answer me, just PM."
I could answer you, but my answer, just like Champ's, would be specific to my table. It wouldn't be anything anyone else cared about. I can say that I personally hate that ninety-seven percent of all "Find" checks in most D&D is perception, with Investigation all but completely ignored, and that I have a very firm delineation between Investigation and Perception that your question runs afoul of...but neither you nor anyone else cares.
The core of the whole debate is that some people think it's unfair to ever let anyone miss something that falls below their passive score even when that passive score can be made to exceed ANY possible active roll.And some people feel that passive scores have a specific use and shouldn't be a free pass for everything at all times, in part because it's so easy for a player to artificially inflate their passive score to end-run the design of the game.
Someone mentioned a desire to play a Sherlock Holmes-esque character, someone with actually factually superhuman levels of perception and cognition. That's cool. I could get behind that. There will still be moments where that character should roll - not to see if they can notice something, but to see if their senses are overloaded with noise and they can make out what they're trying to find through the din. Especially in combat, or other tense/time-sensitive situations. If you want to build a character with a passive perception of 53 and a passive investigation of 72, those're going to come with their own drawbacks, which may involve saving throws rather than ability checks. Because it's not entirely fair for a character to fundamentally break the game that way and then say to the DM "you should ditch everything you were planning to do and accommodate me, because that's what a good DM does!"
Perhaps. But a good player also knows that the best games come from give and take, not simply demanding the DM conform to anything they feel like doing without question.
... That being said, passives as a minimum result for active rolls is only one of the things we have been discussing in this thread. I posed the question to EightPackKilla and I'll pose it to you as well since we're discussing differing DM styles for handling passive perception. If my character with 20 passive perception (high but not ridiculous) walked into a room and I asked you as the DM if I noticed any hidden secrets, how would you play that?
This is the sort of question that just bogs down threads like this, which you know since you said "no need to answer me, just PM."
I could answer you, but my answer, just like Champ's, would be specific to my table. It wouldn't be anything anyone else cared about. I can say that I personally hate that ninety-seven percent of all "Find" checks in most D&D is perception, with Investigation all but completely ignored, and that I have a very firm delineation between Investigation and Perception that your question runs afoul of...but neither you nor anyone else cares.
The core of the whole debate is that some people think it's unfair to ever let anyone miss something that falls below their passive score even when that passive score can be made to exceed ANY possible active roll.And some people feel that passive scores have a specific use and shouldn't be a free pass for everything at all times, in part because it's so easy for a player to artificially inflate their passive score to end-run the design of the game.
Someone mentioned a desire to play a Sherlock Holmes-esque character, someone with actually factually superhuman levels of perception and cognition. That's cool. I could get behind that. There will still be moments where that character should roll - not to see if they can notice something, but to see if their senses are overloaded with noise and they can make out what they're trying to find through the din. Especially in combat, or other tense/time-sensitive situations. If you want to build a character with a passive perception of 53 and a passive investigation of 72, those're going to come with their own drawbacks, which may involve saving throws rather than ability checks. Because it's not entirely fair for a character to fundamentally break the game that way and then say to the DM "you should ditch everything you were planning to do and accommodate me, because that's what a good DM does!"
Perhaps. But a good player also knows that the best games come from give and take, not simply demanding the DM conform to anything they feel like doing without question.
The Sherlock Holmes guy. Still has to say “what” he wants to investigate. Even for his passive to kick in. It doesn’t just automatically.
”hey. I walked into the room! I know to go to the desk. Look underneath it, slightly adjust the runners the drawer is on to have a false door on the side of the desk pop open and find the hidden wood tablet written in abyssal”
he walks in. And gets his description like everyone else, and if there’s things he SHOULD notice more so than others because of his passive perception, he gets the descriptions of that too.
player 1 14 perception: “you see a desk”
player 2: 16 perception “you see a desk that might be an antique”
passive perception player 3 37: “it’s an antique wooden desk made by Mesa Tableua, a famous artisan woodworker from XXXX.” —-“ roll history to see what you know about him” (and if you pass that history you know without an investigating the desk, that the man loved puzzles, and know to investigate the desk)
or you just walk over and investigate it.
edit: but then again. I am notoriously known for being intolerant of “Meta”‘ing by players.
As a DM you also have to realize that just as your player who’s character is a lvl Goliath Barbarian with 24 strength can’t go to a gym and bench 600lbs, your average player or even above average player will not have the intellect of their lvl 20 Wizard with a 22 Int score. A character with those high skills need to be given more information because they themselves would have thought and seen these things. It’s much easier to play fighter who’s dumber than the player than someone more wise or intelligent. Give hints and whispers when those particular characters should know or feel more than their player’s do.
As for passive not being in the book and being RAW, that’s just flat incorrect. All you need to do is pull up the Observant feat that specifically lists a passive bonus as well as look at the character sheet wizards published that has a space for your passive score. There’s also the page referencing passive scores. If that’s not enough then there is the link I previously posted where a game designer explains it in detail, not a message board troll like myself, but one of the guys that actually designed and wrote the book. If that’s not enough then I can’t help ya lol
As a DM you also have to realize that just as your player who’s character is a lvl Goliath Barbarian with 24 strength can’t go to a gym and bench 600lbs, your average player or even above average player will not have the intellect of their lvl 20 Wizard with a 22 Int score. A character with those high skills need to be given more information because they themselves would have thought and seen these things. It’s much easier to play fighter who’s dumber than the player than someone more wise or intelligent. Give hints and whispers when those particular characters should know or feel more than their player’s do.
As for passive not being in the book and being RAW, that’s just flat incorrect. All you need to do is pull up the Observant feat that specifically lists a passive bonus as well as look at the character sheet wizards published that has a space for your passive score. There’s also the page referencing passive scores. If that’s not enough then there is the link I previously posted where a game designer explains it in detail, not a message board troll like myself, but one of the guys that actually designed and wrote the book. If that’s not enough then I can’t help ya lol
I'll join in on your off topic here.
The barbarian lifting 600lbs wouldn't be a bench press. it would be a power clean. bench press just pushing up from your chest. lifting, is either the power clean, lifting it from ground straight over your head. or a dead lift. if you're only lifting it off the ground as your arms hang as low as possible while holding the weight. either way, neither is a bench press.
As to your 2nd paragraph, if you read the previous posts, of which there are many, the direct parts regarding perception. passive perception. passive scores. all the things mentioned in this thread, that are RAW, and OFFICIALLY CREATED IN THE BOOK. Have been directly quoted, from that said book.
as to 1 of the tens/hundred people who created the book's, individual twitter account, of how he PERSONALLY "intended" it. That's his ruling. not a rule. that's his home brew. And, if that's not enough for you, then here's food for thought, since multiple people wrote the book. if more people agreed with Crawford, than not, then that ruling, would be in the book as a rule, and not just a tweet.
so yes, it appears you cannot help me, in my reading the direct rule from the book, that is quoted in here 2 times at a minimum. No matter how much you "help" me. I did not see in the PhB, the link to Jeremy Crawford's twitter, for an explanation on passive perception.
Lol First off, I HIGHLY doubt I need lifting advice from you, but thanks anyway. Secondly, you missed my point completely about the mental acuity of a player in contrast to their character and as to how that could pertain to some of these passive scores.
So there is no feat named Observant and I’m the only one with passive perception and investigation listed on his character sheet. Good to know I have some rare literature. Are there any other official feats in the PHB I should consider homebrew as well?
Passive checks are very useful for a variety of reasons.
Passive checks represent the average result of a task done repeatedly OR to resolve a situation in which the DM doesn't want to roll dice.
Can a passive check be considered a "floor". In my opinion :), Yes in certain circumstances. When? If your character fulfills the requirements for a passive check ... doing a task repeatedly, then the passive value is a floor for the skill check.
Consider that in combat, you can use your action to make a perception or investigation check. Similarly, you could make an insight check against something a creature was saying or you could try to pick a lock. These are ALL situations where you perform the action ONE time. Passive skills would not usually apply here (except by DM discretion) because none of these are a task done repeatedly.
However, if I walk into a room and spend a minute looking carefully around, this is 10 combat rounds in which I could have made 10 separate perception checks. In this case, it makes sense to apply a passive score since the odds are good that at least one of those 10 rolls in that one minute of time would have exceeded the average. In situations like these, the passive can be used as the floor for the skill check and if that is not sufficient for the DC the character can make a die roll to see if they obtain a higher score with an active check.
The same really goes for ANY skill check. If there is nothing preventing a character from attempting a task over and over then why would they EVER fail at that task? If I want to open a lock, I have the needed skills and tools, there is no way for me to break the tools or damage the lock then it may take a long time but as long as the DC is within reach the character SHOULD eventually open the lock. The only parameter that changes in this case is TIME, the time needed to complete the task. If time is unlimited and the DC is achievable with the character's skills and there are no consequences for failure then the DM might as well just narrate the eventual success. This is more an issue with poor encounter design rather than an issue with skills.
TL;DR
1) Passive skills can be applied to a task done repeatedly.
2) If making a skill check on a task that can be repeated then the passive score is effectively a floor that saves time rolling dice over and over in situations where failure has no consequences.
3) If time is limited, a task can't be repeated, or there are significant consequences to the failure of the skill check then passive scores aren't usually an appropriate choice and an active check (player rolls dice) is made.
4) Reliable talent means a rogue can't roll lower than a 10 on ANY proficient skill check at ANY time. It effectively allows the rogue to apply their passive skill check to any task at any time even if it is only performed once or can't be repeated. Passive skills do not replace or invalidate reliable talent. However, in games where a DM doesn't use passive scores for tasks done repeatedly as outlined in the rules then reliable talent becomes far more valuable.
Both of the DMs I play with dislike using passive perception checks. They've stated that they prefer that we roll and control our own destiny. That's just their stylistic thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
David42 hits on an important point in all this "passives should mean I don't miss anything EVER!" junk.
A roll should be made, and adjudication employed, only when there's a chance an action can succeed, a chance an action can fail, and reasons why that action cannot be repeated until successful.
If an action cannot succeed, a good DM tells their player this. "You, being a highly educated loremaster adventurer, know that dragons are not sexually interested in humans, nor do most of them consider humanity even remotely their equal. No matter how spoony the attempt, you cannot seduce that dragon." No roll - it simply doesn't happen, and if the player insists on trying anyways then the DM simply narrates the failure.
If an action cannot fail, again - the DM simply narrates success. "You get out of bed in the morning and collect your equipment, making your way downstairs to buy a hearty breakfast from the innkeep, due to your amazing skills of basic adulthood."
If an action can be repeated until it works, then just let the player have it. "After a few moments' fiddling with the lock to the accompaniment of dripping blood and corpse stench from the bandit guards who might once have tried to stop you, you pop the chest open and survey its contents."
Passive scores have nothing to do with basic action adjudication and shouldn't impact this basic question in the slightest. If time is important but not critical, then a DM can use a skill check to determine how long an action attempt takes, rather than determining success or failure. Passive checks have nothing to do with this process, and should be used for different matters entirely.
Passive checks are very useful for a variety of reasons.
Passive checks represent the average result of a task done repeatedly OR to resolve a situation in which the DM doesn't want to roll dice.
Can a passive check be considered a "floor". In my opinion :), Yes in certain circumstances. When? If your character fulfills the requirements for a passive check ... doing a task repeatedly, then the passive value is a floor for the skill check.
Consider that in combat, you can use your action to make a perception or investigation check. Similarly, you could make an insight check against something a creature was saying or you could try to pick a lock. These are ALL situations where you perform the action ONE time. Passive skills would not usually apply here (except by DM discretion) because none of these are a task done repeatedly.
However, if I walk into a room and spend a minute looking carefully around, this is 10 combat rounds in which I could have made 10 separate perception checks. In this case, it makes sense to apply a passive score since the odds are good that at least one of those 10 rolls in that one minute of time would have exceeded the average. In situations like these, the passive can be used as the floor for the skill check and if that is not sufficient for the DC the character can make a die roll to see if they obtain a higher score with an active check.
The same really goes for ANY skill check. If there is nothing preventing a character from attempting a task over and over then why would they EVER fail at that task? If I want to open a lock, I have the needed skills and tools, there is no way for me to break the tools or damage the lock then it may take a long time but as long as the DC is within reach the character SHOULD eventually open the lock. The only parameter that changes in this case is TIME, the time needed to complete the task. If time is unlimited and the DC is achievable with the character's skills and there are no consequences for failure then the DM might as well just narrate the eventual success. This is more an issue with poor encounter design rather than an issue with skills.
TL;DR
1) Passive skills can be applied to a task done repeatedly.
2) If making a skill check on a task that can be repeated then the passive score is effectively a floor that saves time rolling dice over and over in situations where failure has no consequences.
3) If time is limited, a task can't be repeated, or there are significant consequences to the failure of the skill check then passive scores aren't usually an appropriate choice and an active check (player rolls dice) is made.
4) Reliable talent means a rogue can't roll lower than a 10 on ANY proficient skill check at ANY time. It effectively allows the rogue to apply their passive skill check to any task at any time even if it is only performed once or can't be repeated. Passive skills do not replace or invalidate reliable talent. However, in games where a DM doesn't use passive scores for tasks done repeatedly as outlined in the rules then reliable talent becomes far more valuable.
I agree with most of what you said there. The only thing that I would disagree with is the passive skills not invalidating reliable talent, but only if the passive score is allowed to be the floor for active rolls. I realize that you didn't say that at any point, but you also didn't directly contradict it either. Unless I've missed the crux of the discussion, that seems to be the focal point of the disagreement throughout the thread. Based on the rest of your post, my guess is that you don't think that the passive score is the floor for active rolls, but is the floor for the moments when there is no consequence for failure, thus no time sensitivity. Instead of forcing the party to make the ten rolls that your example allowed, if the passive score beats the DC, just narrate the success. Since the passive score is the average, I'd even say that you could be 1 shy of the DC and rule that you were successful, since rolling the same number 10 times in a row is highly improbable. It's just as likely that the number could be higher, but I'd want some 2-3 rolls to get an idea about what that data set would look like.
I think that the biggest concern for people that want to delve into that character that maximizes passive scores is that there won't be a lot of opportunities for that character to shine in an "active roll for everything" type of campaign. I think this is the reason that they want the passive score to be the floor. This would give them some guaranteed payoff for their investment.
I think that if they want to argue a floor, they'd be better off arguing their passive score minus 9. My reasoning is that an average roll of a d20 is 10.5. We get a 10 passive perception with a +0 wisdom modifier and no proficiency because we round down. The 1 is the lowest possible score on a d20. Start adding wisdom modifiers and proficiency bonuses, and you can get that all the way up to a 12 without expertise or a 18 with. That passive perception would be at 21 or 27. Observant could get those scores as high as 26 or 32. The +5 could easily be read as advantage on perception rolls, since the part immediately after the passive check formula in the ability check section says, "If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score." That would mean that the floor for a maxed wisdom level 20 character without expertise would be 17 and would be 23 with expertise, either with observant. Since a nat 1 on an ability check isn't a critical failure (unless the DM is running a campaign with that variant), anything below those scores would be a given on any roll. It's not as sexy as the 26 or 32, but you can prove it. I'm not sure what other feats or abilities give bonuses to passive skills, but a DM were to rule that the +5 was the feat or ability granting advantage to the roll, other feats allowing a +5 would not apply their bonus once another does.
This would be a compromise that I could get behind as a DM, but it's certainly something that should be discussed at a session zero. My guess is that many DMs are more amenable to working with a character concept when they are aware of it from the get go than when the idea is sprung on them after a dozen or so sessions and likely over a hundred hours of work planning out the plot, making course corrections to match the party's actions and decisions and then have a player make 2 choices that now trivializes everything that they've been building (the final choice that brings the super high passive online, either expertise or Obsevant most likely, and then the choice to insist in the middle of a session that the passive should be the lowest score that can be taken).
Edit: if you want your passive score to be your floor, go rogue until you get reliable talent. I'm certainly more amenable to rewarding a character who has invested that much into the concept that he got the class that made sense for it to happen. Inquisitive even has abilities to make sure it happens. I still wouldn't expect the DM to just give you every secret in every room, since your character wouldn't know about some details unless they were being thorough. Working a little for a guaranteed success through a little roleplay won't harm anyone, particularly if there are narrative details that the actual search brings up.
Passive scores are basically the equivalent of taking 10 in 3rd edition, just much less clearly explained.
Honestly, my attitude towards passive perception is "its use should be minimized and if possible eliminated", because it creates two sorts of bad game play:
If I take proficiency with Perception on a Wisdom 12 character, and someone else takes it with a Wisdom 16 character, in any passive perception situation, I have wasted that proficiency
It creates a sudden cutoff effect. Either things are always spotted, or things are never spotted. It should be possible to walk down a passage with three traps and spot two.
As such, the only thing I actually use it for is as a target for hide checks, because rolling for all observers is going to be highly time consuming and likely to make sneak vs large groups hopeless (because there are so many rolls being made). As far as the Observant feat, I would just treat it as advantage on perception rolls when the DM wants to check if the PCs spot something and they are not actively searching.
My point in asking people how other people would handle a given situation wasn't meant to bog down a thread. It is clear that EPK and Chicken Champ look at passive perception differently than I do. What I was wondering was, considering how they treat passive perception, at what point is a higher passive perception more beneficial than an average or low PP at their table? If there is a hidden thing that you have decided has a DC of 15, do you: (all three of these situations have been discussed in this thread)
Automatically tell me about the hidden thing if my PP is high enough?
Ask me to roll a perception check (either before or after giving me any context for the roll request)
Base your decision on whether I, the player, has announced my character is keeping an eye out for things?
In the context of the original post of this thread, the text of the adventures seem to me to be written with #1 in mind, whereas many DMs from OP's perspective tend toward #2 and some responders in this thread (David42 for instance) seem to lean more toward #3. It is also my opinion that players who build high perception characters are typically looking for #1 as well. After all, you don't know about the things you don't know about. If a DM plays style #3 in that context, then I would think the high PP character will simply announce upon entering every room that they are keeping an eye out for things.
EDIT: As for investigation vs perception, it's easy at my table. If you're aware of the thing, it's an investigation check. If you are not yet aware of the thing, it's a perception check.
Passive checks are always at the DM’s option, and I never use passive scores when PCs actively do something. The idea that a passive score is an absolute floor for active rolls is stupid beyond belief (the represent entirely different activities).
I agree - I treat it as a floor if the character is taking some time. In other words, if you're making a 6 second glance around a room, it's a straight role with no "floor." If you're taking 5 or 10 minutes to search the place, then you get the passive "floor."
In the context of the original post of this thread, the text of the adventures seem to me to be written with #1 in mind, whereas many DMs from OP's perspective tend toward #2 and some responders in this thread (David42 for instance) seem to lean more toward #3. It is also my opinion that players who build high perception characters are typically looking for #1 as well. After all, you don't know about the things you don't know about. If a DM plays style #3 in that context, then I would think the high PP character will simply announce upon entering every room that they are keeping an eye out for things.
EDIT: As for investigation vs perception, it's easy at my table. If you're aware of the thing, it's an investigation check. If you are not yet aware of the thing, it's a perception check.
That sums it up pretty well!
And I really like your method of perception v investigation. Easy peasy.
I should note I was encouraged by dm's at Winter Fantasy in Fort Wayne, Ind., this past weekend. Many took into account passive perception on multiple occasions in the tier 2 tables I played at.
If there is a hidden thing that you have decided has a DC of 15, do you: (all three of these situations have been discussed in this thread)
Automatically tell me about the hidden thing if my PP is high enough?
Ask me to roll a perception check (either before or after giving me any context for the roll request)
Base your decision on whether I, the player, has announced my character is keeping an eye out for things?
In the context of the original post of this thread, the text of the adventures seem to me to be written with #1 in mind, whereas many DMs from OP's perspective tend toward #2 and some responders in this thread (David42 for instance) seem to lean more toward #3. It is also my opinion that players who build high perception characters are typically looking for #1 as well. After all, you don't know about the things you don't know about. If a DM plays style #3 in that context, then I would think the high PP character will simply announce upon entering every room that they are keeping an eye out for things.
The bolded part is where the issue really lies, methinks.
Some people absolutely hate players who build for obnoxiously high passive perception, on the assumption that their DM is then forced to tell them absolutely everything there could ever possibly be to know about everywhere they're at. I fall into that camp - games are better when players can be surprised sometimes, and the chance of not finding a secret makes those secrets you do manage to find all the more rewarding. Someone who builds a character with a passive perception score of 117 and says to the DM "don't even pretend like I 'miss' things; whenever I enter a room I want an itemized list of every-goddamned-thing in it and I will not accept "roll Perception" as an answer, jackhole" are extremely aggravating to me as a DM.
On the other hand, the frustration of missing things - especially when you see a roll of 3 on your Perception and you know (as much as a player ever does, anyways) that there's something in that goddamned room and you're missing it - is very real. I can understand the desire to avoid that as much as possible, especially when coming from a video gaming, 100%-er perspective. Passive perception seems like the best tool for ensuring that the jackoff sitting behind the screen who's trying to avoid having to tell you stuff doesn't get the chance to do that.
So you get some pretty fierce debates between people who welcome botched perception rolls and people who cannot stand botching a perception roll. Having recently played several games with a new character sitting at WIS 6 with a commensurately godawful perception, frankly I've found it delightful coming up with increasingly inventive ways for said character to be distracted and unfocused every time she blows a Perception roll, and those rare few times when she nails it are all the more awesome because of it. I would recommend trying such an approach to anyone who typically tries to make sure their passive perception bottoms out at 35 by level 2 in every game they play - it can be a lot of fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Gonna call you on this every single time. It's established RAI and doesn't run afoul of RAW. It's not homebrew. It's playing the game the way the designers designed it, according to the designers. Now let's say you are the DM and I'm a player. My character walks into a room and wants to search for the possible presence of a secret door, a sneaky assassin, or a hidden whatever. How would you have me go about attempting to find it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's playing the game the way that one designer claims it was designed, despite that claim being supported or alluded to by no ambiguous text, and indeed directly contradicting the text saying that a Passive score represents an average.
Look Texas, there's a broad spectrum of playstyles and preferences that this thread has turned into. You have some good points about skill floors encouraging certain types of narratives and streamlining play, there's nothing wrong with preferring a rule system that does what you say. It may even be better , who knows... but there's lots of things in 5E that could be better if they had been written a different way, or which might have landed closer to the designers' (or, some of the designers...) RAI if they'd been worded differently.
But rewriting those rules, or adding in new rules that aren't written, is literally the definition of something not being "rules as written" The rules as written are the rules. that. are. written.
Passive Checks being floors are not something that is written. They are not an unwritten assumption that is a necessary precondition of something else that is written. They are thus not rules as written. The entire rest of the conversation about what is good or desirable or how so and so runs their game belongs in DM Advice or Homebrew, because it is not what the rules and mechanics of 5E are as written.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You just told me (a little bit condescendingly*) that I'm talking about RAI and we are in the rules subforum. Furthermore, we are discussing game mechanics and we're staying on the topic of the thread's original post. Feel free to report me if you feel this discussion is inappropriate or happening in the wrong place. As for whether I am interpreting the game's rules incorrectly, we could always ask the game's lead rules designer for clarification.
That being said, passives as a minimum result for active rolls is only one of the things we have been discussing in this thread. I posed the question to EightPackKilla and I'll pose it to you as well since we're discussing differing DM styles for handling passive perception. If my character with 20 passive perception (high but not ridiculous) walked into a room and I asked you as the DM if I noticed any hidden secrets, how would you play that?
* no need to go into it publicly. I'll PM you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would ask you to roll. Passive perception is for when you don't ask, if I didn't tell you about it before you asked it's not detectable with passive perception.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending, just emphatic. I apologize.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You can call me on that all you want. It’s not in the PhB. It’s not a RULE. It’s a “ruling”.
that is Homebrew.
as to your question:
”you think the eastern wall looks odd”
what do you do?
(hint: you need to INVESTIGATE)
the assassin: if his stealth was lower than your perception, you’d know he’s there. Hear him breathing.
as to the “whatever” define whatever. Perception is limited in what IT notices vs you needing to INVESTIGATE.
Blank
This is the sort of question that just bogs down threads like this, which you know since you said "no need to answer me, just PM."
I could answer you, but my answer, just like Champ's, would be specific to my table. It wouldn't be anything anyone else cared about. I can say that I personally hate that ninety-seven percent of all "Find" checks in most D&D is perception, with Investigation all but completely ignored, and that I have a very firm delineation between Investigation and Perception that your question runs afoul of...but neither you nor anyone else cares.
The core of the whole debate is that some people think it's unfair to ever let anyone miss something that falls below their passive score even when that passive score can be made to exceed ANY possible active roll. And some people feel that passive scores have a specific use and shouldn't be a free pass for everything at all times, in part because it's so easy for a player to artificially inflate their passive score to end-run the design of the game.
Someone mentioned a desire to play a Sherlock Holmes-esque character, someone with actually factually superhuman levels of perception and cognition. That's cool. I could get behind that. There will still be moments where that character should roll - not to see if they can notice something, but to see if their senses are overloaded with noise and they can make out what they're trying to find through the din. Especially in combat, or other tense/time-sensitive situations. If you want to build a character with a passive perception of 53 and a passive investigation of 72, those're going to come with their own drawbacks, which may involve saving throws rather than ability checks. Because it's not entirely fair for a character to fundamentally break the game that way and then say to the DM "you should ditch everything you were planning to do and accommodate me, because that's what a good DM does!"
Perhaps. But a good player also knows that the best games come from give and take, not simply demanding the DM conform to anything they feel like doing without question.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Sherlock Holmes guy. Still has to say “what” he wants to investigate. Even for his passive to kick in. It doesn’t just automatically.
”hey. I walked into the room! I know to go to the desk. Look underneath it, slightly adjust the runners the drawer is on to have a false door on the side of the desk pop open and find the hidden wood tablet written in abyssal”
he walks in. And gets his description like everyone else, and if there’s things he SHOULD notice more so than others because of his passive perception, he gets the descriptions of that too.
player 1 14 perception: “you see a desk”
player 2: 16 perception “you see a desk that might be an antique”
passive perception player 3 37: “it’s an antique wooden desk made by Mesa Tableua, a famous artisan woodworker from XXXX.” —-“ roll history to see what you know about him” (and if you pass that history you know without an investigating the desk, that the man loved puzzles, and know to investigate the desk)
or you just walk over and investigate it.
edit: but then again. I am notoriously known for being intolerant of “Meta”‘ing by players.
Blank
As a DM you also have to realize that just as your player who’s character is a lvl Goliath Barbarian with 24 strength can’t go to a gym and bench 600lbs, your average player or even above average player will not have the intellect of their lvl 20 Wizard with a 22 Int score. A character with those high skills need to be given more information because they themselves would have thought and seen these things. It’s much easier to play fighter who’s dumber than the player than someone more wise or intelligent. Give hints and whispers when those particular characters should know or feel more than their player’s do.
As for passive not being in the book and being RAW, that’s just flat incorrect. All you need to do is pull up the Observant feat that specifically lists a passive bonus as well as look at the character sheet wizards published that has a space for your passive score. There’s also the page referencing passive scores. If that’s not enough then there is the link I previously posted where a game designer explains it in detail, not a message board troll like myself, but one of the guys that actually designed and wrote the book. If that’s not enough then I can’t help ya lol
I'll join in on your off topic here.
The barbarian lifting 600lbs wouldn't be a bench press. it would be a power clean. bench press just pushing up from your chest. lifting, is either the power clean, lifting it from ground straight over your head. or a dead lift. if you're only lifting it off the ground as your arms hang as low as possible while holding the weight. either way, neither is a bench press.
As to your 2nd paragraph, if you read the previous posts, of which there are many, the direct parts regarding perception. passive perception. passive scores. all the things mentioned in this thread, that are RAW, and OFFICIALLY CREATED IN THE BOOK. Have been directly quoted, from that said book.
as to 1 of the tens/hundred people who created the book's, individual twitter account, of how he PERSONALLY "intended" it. That's his ruling. not a rule. that's his home brew. And, if that's not enough for you, then here's food for thought, since multiple people wrote the book. if more people agreed with Crawford, than not, then that ruling, would be in the book as a rule, and not just a tweet.
so yes, it appears you cannot help me, in my reading the direct rule from the book, that is quoted in here 2 times at a minimum. No matter how much you "help" me. I did not see in the PhB, the link to Jeremy Crawford's twitter, for an explanation on passive perception.
Blank
Lol First off, I HIGHLY doubt I need lifting advice from you, but thanks anyway. Secondly, you missed my point completely about the mental acuity of a player in contrast to their character and as to how that could pertain to some of these passive scores.
So there is no feat named Observant and I’m the only one with passive perception and investigation listed on his character sheet. Good to know I have some rare literature. Are there any other official feats in the PHB I should consider homebrew as well?
Passive checks are very useful for a variety of reasons.
Passive checks represent the average result of a task done repeatedly OR to resolve a situation in which the DM doesn't want to roll dice.
Can a passive check be considered a "floor". In my opinion :), Yes in certain circumstances. When? If your character fulfills the requirements for a passive check ... doing a task repeatedly, then the passive value is a floor for the skill check.
Consider that in combat, you can use your action to make a perception or investigation check. Similarly, you could make an insight check against something a creature was saying or you could try to pick a lock. These are ALL situations where you perform the action ONE time. Passive skills would not usually apply here (except by DM discretion) because none of these are a task done repeatedly.
However, if I walk into a room and spend a minute looking carefully around, this is 10 combat rounds in which I could have made 10 separate perception checks. In this case, it makes sense to apply a passive score since the odds are good that at least one of those 10 rolls in that one minute of time would have exceeded the average. In situations like these, the passive can be used as the floor for the skill check and if that is not sufficient for the DC the character can make a die roll to see if they obtain a higher score with an active check.
The same really goes for ANY skill check. If there is nothing preventing a character from attempting a task over and over then why would they EVER fail at that task? If I want to open a lock, I have the needed skills and tools, there is no way for me to break the tools or damage the lock then it may take a long time but as long as the DC is within reach the character SHOULD eventually open the lock. The only parameter that changes in this case is TIME, the time needed to complete the task. If time is unlimited and the DC is achievable with the character's skills and there are no consequences for failure then the DM might as well just narrate the eventual success. This is more an issue with poor encounter design rather than an issue with skills.
TL;DR
1) Passive skills can be applied to a task done repeatedly.
2) If making a skill check on a task that can be repeated then the passive score is effectively a floor that saves time rolling dice over and over in situations where failure has no consequences.
3) If time is limited, a task can't be repeated, or there are significant consequences to the failure of the skill check then passive scores aren't usually an appropriate choice and an active check (player rolls dice) is made.
4) Reliable talent means a rogue can't roll lower than a 10 on ANY proficient skill check at ANY time. It effectively allows the rogue to apply their passive skill check to any task at any time even if it is only performed once or can't be repeated. Passive skills do not replace or invalidate reliable talent. However, in games where a DM doesn't use passive scores for tasks done repeatedly as outlined in the rules then reliable talent becomes far more valuable.
Both of the DMs I play with dislike using passive perception checks. They've stated that they prefer that we roll and control our own destiny. That's just their stylistic thing.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
David42 hits on an important point in all this "passives should mean I don't miss anything EVER!" junk.
A roll should be made, and adjudication employed, only when there's a chance an action can succeed, a chance an action can fail, and reasons why that action cannot be repeated until successful.
If an action cannot succeed, a good DM tells their player this. "You, being a highly educated loremaster adventurer, know that dragons are not sexually interested in humans, nor do most of them consider humanity even remotely their equal. No matter how spoony the attempt, you cannot seduce that dragon." No roll - it simply doesn't happen, and if the player insists on trying anyways then the DM simply narrates the failure.
If an action cannot fail, again - the DM simply narrates success. "You get out of bed in the morning and collect your equipment, making your way downstairs to buy a hearty breakfast from the innkeep, due to your amazing skills of basic adulthood."
If an action can be repeated until it works, then just let the player have it. "After a few moments' fiddling with the lock to the accompaniment of dripping blood and corpse stench from the bandit guards who might once have tried to stop you, you pop the chest open and survey its contents."
Passive scores have nothing to do with basic action adjudication and shouldn't impact this basic question in the slightest. If time is important but not critical, then a DM can use a skill check to determine how long an action attempt takes, rather than determining success or failure. Passive checks have nothing to do with this process, and should be used for different matters entirely.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree with most of what you said there. The only thing that I would disagree with is the passive skills not invalidating reliable talent, but only if the passive score is allowed to be the floor for active rolls. I realize that you didn't say that at any point, but you also didn't directly contradict it either. Unless I've missed the crux of the discussion, that seems to be the focal point of the disagreement throughout the thread. Based on the rest of your post, my guess is that you don't think that the passive score is the floor for active rolls, but is the floor for the moments when there is no consequence for failure, thus no time sensitivity. Instead of forcing the party to make the ten rolls that your example allowed, if the passive score beats the DC, just narrate the success. Since the passive score is the average, I'd even say that you could be 1 shy of the DC and rule that you were successful, since rolling the same number 10 times in a row is highly improbable. It's just as likely that the number could be higher, but I'd want some 2-3 rolls to get an idea about what that data set would look like.
I think that the biggest concern for people that want to delve into that character that maximizes passive scores is that there won't be a lot of opportunities for that character to shine in an "active roll for everything" type of campaign. I think this is the reason that they want the passive score to be the floor. This would give them some guaranteed payoff for their investment.
I think that if they want to argue a floor, they'd be better off arguing their passive score minus 9. My reasoning is that an average roll of a d20 is 10.5. We get a 10 passive perception with a +0 wisdom modifier and no proficiency because we round down. The 1 is the lowest possible score on a d20. Start adding wisdom modifiers and proficiency bonuses, and you can get that all the way up to a 12 without expertise or a 18 with. That passive perception would be at 21 or 27. Observant could get those scores as high as 26 or 32. The +5 could easily be read as advantage on perception rolls, since the part immediately after the passive check formula in the ability check section says, "If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score." That would mean that the floor for a maxed wisdom level 20 character without expertise would be 17 and would be 23 with expertise, either with observant. Since a nat 1 on an ability check isn't a critical failure (unless the DM is running a campaign with that variant), anything below those scores would be a given on any roll. It's not as sexy as the 26 or 32, but you can prove it. I'm not sure what other feats or abilities give bonuses to passive skills, but a DM were to rule that the +5 was the feat or ability granting advantage to the roll, other feats allowing a +5 would not apply their bonus once another does.
This would be a compromise that I could get behind as a DM, but it's certainly something that should be discussed at a session zero. My guess is that many DMs are more amenable to working with a character concept when they are aware of it from the get go than when the idea is sprung on them after a dozen or so sessions and likely over a hundred hours of work planning out the plot, making course corrections to match the party's actions and decisions and then have a player make 2 choices that now trivializes everything that they've been building (the final choice that brings the super high passive online, either expertise or Obsevant most likely, and then the choice to insist in the middle of a session that the passive should be the lowest score that can be taken).
Edit: if you want your passive score to be your floor, go rogue until you get reliable talent. I'm certainly more amenable to rewarding a character who has invested that much into the concept that he got the class that made sense for it to happen. Inquisitive even has abilities to make sure it happens. I still wouldn't expect the DM to just give you every secret in every room, since your character wouldn't know about some details unless they were being thorough. Working a little for a guaranteed success through a little roleplay won't harm anyone, particularly if there are narrative details that the actual search brings up.
Passive scores are basically the equivalent of taking 10 in 3rd edition, just much less clearly explained.
Honestly, my attitude towards passive perception is "its use should be minimized and if possible eliminated", because it creates two sorts of bad game play:
As such, the only thing I actually use it for is as a target for hide checks, because rolling for all observers is going to be highly time consuming and likely to make sneak vs large groups hopeless (because there are so many rolls being made). As far as the Observant feat, I would just treat it as advantage on perception rolls when the DM wants to check if the PCs spot something and they are not actively searching.
I heard you missed me. I'm back!
My point in asking people how other people would handle a given situation wasn't meant to bog down a thread. It is clear that EPK and Chicken Champ look at passive perception differently than I do. What I was wondering was, considering how they treat passive perception, at what point is a higher passive perception more beneficial than an average or low PP at their table? If there is a hidden thing that you have decided has a DC of 15, do you: (all three of these situations have been discussed in this thread)
In the context of the original post of this thread, the text of the adventures seem to me to be written with #1 in mind, whereas many DMs from OP's perspective tend toward #2 and some responders in this thread (David42 for instance) seem to lean more toward #3. It is also my opinion that players who build high perception characters are typically looking for #1 as well. After all, you don't know about the things you don't know about. If a DM plays style #3 in that context, then I would think the high PP character will simply announce upon entering every room that they are keeping an eye out for things.
EDIT: As for investigation vs perception, it's easy at my table. If you're aware of the thing, it's an investigation check. If you are not yet aware of the thing, it's a perception check.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I agree - I treat it as a floor if the character is taking some time. In other words, if you're making a 6 second glance around a room, it's a straight role with no "floor." If you're taking 5 or 10 minutes to search the place, then you get the passive "floor."
That sums it up pretty well!
And I really like your method of perception v investigation. Easy peasy.
I should note I was encouraged by dm's at Winter Fantasy in Fort Wayne, Ind., this past weekend. Many took into account passive perception on multiple occasions in the tier 2 tables I played at.
The bolded part is where the issue really lies, methinks.
Some people absolutely hate players who build for obnoxiously high passive perception, on the assumption that their DM is then forced to tell them absolutely everything there could ever possibly be to know about everywhere they're at. I fall into that camp - games are better when players can be surprised sometimes, and the chance of not finding a secret makes those secrets you do manage to find all the more rewarding. Someone who builds a character with a passive perception score of 117 and says to the DM "don't even pretend like I 'miss' things; whenever I enter a room I want an itemized list of every-goddamned-thing in it and I will not accept "roll Perception" as an answer, jackhole" are extremely aggravating to me as a DM.
On the other hand, the frustration of missing things - especially when you see a roll of 3 on your Perception and you know (as much as a player ever does, anyways) that there's something in that goddamned room and you're missing it - is very real. I can understand the desire to avoid that as much as possible, especially when coming from a video gaming, 100%-er perspective. Passive perception seems like the best tool for ensuring that the jackoff sitting behind the screen who's trying to avoid having to tell you stuff doesn't get the chance to do that.
So you get some pretty fierce debates between people who welcome botched perception rolls and people who cannot stand botching a perception roll. Having recently played several games with a new character sitting at WIS 6 with a commensurately godawful perception, frankly I've found it delightful coming up with increasingly inventive ways for said character to be distracted and unfocused every time she blows a Perception roll, and those rare few times when she nails it are all the more awesome because of it. I would recommend trying such an approach to anyone who typically tries to make sure their passive perception bottoms out at 35 by level 2 in every game they play - it can be a lot of fun.
Please do not contact or message me.