There is a bit of lag due to the dice rolling, but the major disadvantage is the metagaming from the players after being asked to roll. Don't your players just tear a place apart using any pretext whatsoever if they roll a perception check and you don't give them an explanation ? :D
In any situation where metagaming like that seems likely to be an issue, I just roll as DM.
For me Passives are better explained with the intended narration rather than just trying to quote rules. A few people have done this already in the thread.
If a Rogue knows there are two Goblins in the next room and he wants to avoid being noticed, the DM may ask for a Stealth check. Even if the Goblins don't know there is an intruder, there is a chance they may notice the Rogue. You compare the Goblin's passive Perception to the Stealth check. If the Goblins do know there is an intruder, maybe the Rogue triggered an alarm, you can give the Goblins advantage and add +5 to the passive Perception. Say the Rogue fails, the narration might be something like "You try to sneak passed the Goblins but you stub your toe and loudly speak obscenities." Either way, the Goblins were not actively searching for an intruder. They were just guarding a room.
Now let's say the Rogue failed to be stealthy and stubbed their toe. The Goblins know where the Rogue is and combat has started. The Rogue moves behind a large barrel and takes the Hide action. The Rogue makes a Stealth check and compares it against the Goblins' passive Perception. If the Rogue succeeds they are hidden, meaning they are unseen and unheard. The Golbins now must make active Perception checks to find the Rogue.
In the case of secret doors or traps - passive Perception does not necessarily mean you automatically see a secret door. If the player has a passive Perception of 18 you may say you enter a room and notice the walls are not quite right. They have to then make an active Perception check to find the secret door. Just because you know something is off in a room doesn't mean you automatically find something. In the case of passive Investigation, maybe a player notices a collection of scrolls on a desk but to determine what they are they need to make an Investigation check.
The way I look at it, the difference between Active Checks and Passive Skills is the same as the difference between making Attack Rolls and forcing Saving Throws. One is an Active Roll to do a thing against a target, the other is a determining if the target succeeded at overcoming your overall level of skillfulness.
In a recent session, one player decided that his character was walking off to go find wood, but wasn’t trying to draw attention to himself. Another player asked if her character noticed. I asked the first player if his character was trying to be actively stealthy, he said he was not trying to be stealthy, he just wasn’t trying to be noticed either. I had her roll against his “Passive Stealth” as the DC.
The way I look at it, the difference between Active Checks and Passive Skills is the same as the difference between making Attack Rolls and forcing Saving Throws. One is an Active Roll to do a thing against a target, the other is a determining if the target succeeded at overcoming your overall level of skillfulness.
In a recent session, one player decided that his character was walking off to go find wood, but wasn’t trying to draw attention to himself. Another player asked if her character noticed. I asked the first player if his character was trying to be actively stealthy, he said he was not trying to be stealthy, he just wasn’t trying to be noticed either. I had her roll against his “Passive Stealth” as the DC.
This example can really illustrate one of the problems from my OP. Suppose the character going to get wood has a lot of modifiers to stealth, maybe a high ability score and expertise, for something like +11. Maybe the other player has no modifiers to her perception or investigation or whatever. If player 1 says "I am not trying to be stealthy", he automatically avoids detection (unless you consider a 20 a crit even on ability checks), because his passive stealth is 21 and player two can't do better than a 20.
But if player one says "I am trying to be stealthy" he may roll below a 10, and suddenly he has a non-trivial chance of failure.
Why is he better at stealth when he isn't trying?
Edit: This kind of issue is exacerbated by the Observant feat.
The way I look at it, the difference between Active Checks and Passive Skills is the same as the difference between making Attack Rolls and forcing Saving Throws. One is an Active Roll to do a thing against a target, the other is a determining if the target succeeded at overcoming your overall level of skillfulness.
In a recent session, one player decided that his character was walking off to go find wood, but wasn’t trying to draw attention to himself. Another player asked if her character noticed. I asked the first player if his character was trying to be actively stealthy, he said he was not trying to be stealthy, he just wasn’t trying to be noticed either. I had her roll against his “Passive Stealth” as the DC.
This example can really illustrate one of the problems from my OP. Suppose the character going to get wood has a lot of modifiers to stealth, maybe a high ability score and expertise, for something like +11. Maybe the other player has no modifiers to her perception or investigation or whatever. If player 1 says "I am not trying to be stealthy", he automatically avoids detection (unless you consider a 20 a crit even on ability checks), because his passive stealth is 21 and player two can't do better than a 20.
But if player one says "I am trying to be stealthy" he may roll below a 10, and suddenly he has a non-trivial chance of failure.
Why is he better at stealth when he isn't trying?
He isn’t.
If he was actively stealthing he would have rolled against her Passive Perception as the DC. Whatever total modifiers he has to Stealth either get applied to his roll (an average of 10.5 on a d20) or they get added to a flat 10 for his “passive stealth.” The exact same applies to the total modifiers she has to her Perception, so added to either a flat 10 for her passive skill, or to that d20 roll for an active check. Both PCs use the same bonuses and modifiers either way, but whichever is doing the more active attempt rolls the die.
In that specific example, he had a total “Passive Stealth” of 17, and after adding her +4 bonuses, her total Perception check was a 21. If he had been actively stealthing, he would have had a +7 to his check to beat a DC of 14. So, with her making the active roll, she needed to roll at least 13 to meet or beat his Passive, and if he had made the active roll, he would have needed a 7 or better to beat her passive. In fact, if he had rolled, he could have conceivably gotten a total of 27, which she could have never beaten. By using his passive score I was guaranteeing that the the ceiling for the DC was set low enough for her to potentially beat it.
I think the reason it doesn’t make sense for you is because you are only looking at one side of the equation, in this case his stealth. In your mind it’s a fixed minimum Stealth compared to a variable Stealth, but that’s not really the appropriate comparison to make. A skill like that is never used in a vacuum, it always has to be compared against the other party to get the full picture. You can’t compare (17 Passive) against (1d20+7 Active) because it’s apples to oranges. You have to compare (his 17 Passive vs. her 1d20+4 Active) against (his 1d20+7 Active vs. her 14 Passive). When you do that, you realize that the statistics are about the same either way.
This is interesting but I don't understand why her check is changed from active to passive based on his decision to be stealthy or not. Shouldn't it only depend on if she is actively looking or not?
She wasn’t actively looking. She asked “did I notice?” She wasn’t actively looking for him, she just wanted to know if her character happened to noticed him slip away or not. If he had actively been trying to stealth, he would have rolled against her Passive Perception since he would have been Actively stealthing against her likelihood of passively noticing him. Since they were both technically using “Passive Skills” in this instance, I had her roll since she was the one who initiated to check by asking the question. If she had been actively hawking him, and he had been actively trying to slip away, it would have been a Contested Skill Check and they both would have rolled as per the rules outlined in Chapter 7 of the PHB/Basic Rules:
The IRL player of the character that was stealthing-but-not could be sitting directly next to you on an old sofa that rocks like the ocean under the weight of someone’s gaze (let alone body), and in full view of a roomful of people; and he could get up and leave the room and nobody would notice until he came back and asked if anyone needed anything from the kitchen before he sat down. He needs no shadows in which to hide.
She wasn’t actively looking. She asked “did I notice?” She wasn’t actively looking for him, she just wanted to know if her character happened to noticed him slip away or not. If he had actively been trying to stealth, he would have rolled against her Passive Perception since he would have been Actively stealthing against her likelihood of passively noticing him. Since they were both technically using “Passive Skills” in this instance, I had her roll since she was the one who initiated to check by asking the question. If she had been actively hawking him, and he had been actively trying to slip away, it would have been a Contested Skill Check and they both would have rolled as per the rules outlined in Chapter 7 of the PHB/Basic Rules:
I see, perhaps this precise instance does not illustrate my point but then suppose she were actively hawking him, and so he could choose to passively or actively roll. Then you are in the situation I outlined earlier.
He is not better at stealth, his skill stays the same, it just happens that the circumstances are different, or that he is lucky or unlucky, this particular time, of that the gods are with or against him, whatever reason you think.
I am definitely not fond of this. You're completely disconnecting the mechanics from the expected reality and making up contrived reasons to reconcile them. Seems it would be better to make mechanics that did not degenerate and reflected what should actually happen.
If a +0 perception pursues a +11 stealth, he can avoid her every time by not trying, but will fail a fair number of times if he tries. That's a lot of strange luck and interference by gods to smooth over a mechanic that should probably just be reworked.
The player doesn’t get to choose when their character makes a check, the DM does. If the player indicates an intent to Stealth, the DM says “Make a Stealth Check.” That’s it. The player cannot choose whether to use their passive score or roll an active check, the DM decides.
If she had been actively hawking him, it would have gone the same way. She was going to roll no matter what, I only needed to determine if he was also gonna roll or not. If he had said “I want to stealthily slip away from the group” I would have said “make a stealth check” and he would have had to roll.
Scenario 1: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person is not actively looking. Result: compare passive stealth to passive perception. Rogue wins every time.
Scenario 2: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person IS actively looking: Result: compare passive stealth (21) to rolled perception (1d20+0). Rogue wins every time unless nat20 house rules apply.
Scenario 3: Rogue is trying to be stealthy, the person is not actively looking. Result: compare rolled Stealth (1d20+11) vs. passive perception (10). Rogue wins every time unless nat1 house rules apply.
Scenario 4: Rogue is trying to be stealthy and the person is actively looking. Result: compare rolled stealth (1d20+11) vs. rolled perception (1d20+0). Rogue can lose if rolls sufficiently low and the person rolls sufficiently high.
The problem is between Scenario 2 and Scenario 4. The only difference between them is the Rogue trying to be stealthy and this choice can cost him a success.
The player doesn’t get to choose when their character makes a check, the DM does. If the player indicates an intent to Stealth, the DM says “Make a Stealth Check.” That’s it. The player cannot choose whether to use their passive score or roll an active check, the DM decides.
If she had been actively hawking him, it would have gone the same way. She was going to roll no matter what, I only needed to determine if he was also gonna roll or not. If he had said “I want to stealthily slip away from the group” I would have said “make a stealth check” and he would have had to roll.
DM vs. player agency isn't relevant. My premise is that the mechanic is producing degenerate results. Yes the DM can avoid the system or obscure it but that does not fix the system.
So the situation I present to demonstrate the degenerate result is:
Player 1 has a modifier of Stealth +11 Player 2 has a modifier of Perception +0 Player 1 slinks away from camp to get wood Player 2 actively observes DM asks player 1 "do you try to sneak or are you just sort of not making a fuss"
If player 1 says "I'm not going out of my way to sneak", he goes undetected 100% of the time (95% if you play with ability crits) If player 1 says "I try not to be seen", his chance of being detected is significantly higher.
This is not working correctly. Yes the DM can obscure the mechanics or avoid using them or tweak the DCs but those are all ways of jury-rigging a non-working system. So far I don't think anyone has presented an interpretation of the rules that makes the passive mechanic work as a mechanic.
The passive mechanic is not made to be used as passive against passive in any case, and for me is not even made to be used for skills that are made in a one-off manner.
Again, it's not absolute ruling as a DM can do whatever he wants, but the RAW is: "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
In the case above, if someone is not sneaking out of the camp, he will be noticed by another character, who is by default aware of his surroundings (these are adventurers in a dangerous world after all). If he is sneaking out, he rolls his stealth, which is opposed by the passive perception of everyone. And if the watcher is actively looking for the stealther, he gets an active perception check, with the passive being the minimum that he can get, as per the suggestions of the game designers.
For me, that is completely consistent with the RAW, the intent as explained my experience of sneaking around monsters in caves and forests, and what I expect of the game.
Player 1: Perception modifier +11 Player 2: Stealth modifier + 0 Player 2 attempts to stealth out of camp
If player 1 is chilling not paying attention, he auto-detects the sneaker If player 1 is actively watching like a hawk, he has a significant chance of failure
Sorry, I submitted post before addressing other issues: So I agree, the only reasonable response to this is to make the passive check the floor for any active checks.
But that is problematic if you try to use passive checks in other scenarios. Because DC 10 is not meant to be a trivial check for every adventurer, they should be potentially failed. Similarly, a +10 skill modifier should not make DC 20 checks trivial. That character is good, but should they be that good?
The passive mechanic is not made to be used as passive against passive in any case, and for me is not even made to be used for skills that are made in a one-off manner.
Again, it's not absolute ruling as a DM can do whatever he wants, but the RAW is: "Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."
In the case above, if someone is not sneaking out of the camp, he will be noticed by another character, who is by default aware of his surroundings (these are adventurers in a dangerous world after all). If he is sneaking out, he rolls his stealth, which is opposed by the passive perception of everyone. And if the watcher is actively looking for the stealther, he gets an active perception check, with the passive being the minimum that he can get, as per the suggestions of the game designers.
For me, that is completely consistent with the RAW, the intent as explained my experience of sneaking around monsters in caves and forests, and what I expect of the game.
Player 1: Perception modifier +11 Player 2: Stealth modifier + 0 Player 2 attempts to stealth out of camp
If player 1 is chilling not paying attention, he auto-detects the sneaker If player 1 is actively watching like a hawk, he has a significant chance of failure
Yeah unless you use Passive Perception as a floor here it unravels horribly.
No, he has not, you have not been listening to what I have written which I have highlighted above. You should also be listening to the podcast on stealth by JC, which explains it clearly. The passive perception is the minimum that you get on an active perception, because it represents your general awareness and yo benefit from it before you even start being active, so if you would have detected it using the passive, you have, even before making the active check, which can only improve on your passive.
Sorry I submitted the post before addressing the hotfix of using passive as floor. But I address all of this in my OP. You can set passive skills as floors for active skills but that leads to even more problems with the DC system.
Scenario 1: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person is not actively looking. Result: compare passive stealth to passive perception. Rogue wins every time.
Players never determine when a Check gets made. Players describe PC actions, DMs call for Checks. That’s just how it works.
There is no scenario in D&D where two Player Characters would ever compare their passive skills against one another. Someone has to make a roll, and if there is no clear indication as to who, then they both do following the rules for contests.
In any situation which would pit a PC against an NPC/Monster/Environment, the DM should only ever call for a check if there is both a possibility for success and for failure. If the DM determines that either outcome is guaranteed, they should not call for a check.
Scenario 1: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person is not actively looking. Result: compare passive stealth to passive perception. Rogue wins every time.
Players never determine when a Check gets made. Players describe PC actions, DMs call for Checks. That’s just how it works.
There is no scenario in D&D where two Player Characters would ever compare their passive skills against one another. Someone has to make a roll, and if there is no clear indication as to who, then they both do following the rules for contests.
In any situation which would pit a PC against an NPC/Monster/Environment, the DM should only ever call for a check if there is both a possibility for success and for failure. If the DM determines that either outcome is guaranteed, they should not call for a check.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was the players who make the decision. The "result" part from my post was from the DM perspective.
Agreed with the passive vs. passive thing but Scenario 1 was never actually the problem here so whatever ;-)
The problem is that if you don't follow the "rules" (idea?) of passive being the floor, then passive in itself is huge advantage mostly because of how bounded accuracy affects the rolls and taking a 10 is a huge deal here when the modifiers are sufficiently apart from each other.
So yeah, it's not immediately visible when one has +7 and the other has +4. It starts to unravel when the modifier difference makes one person unable to succeed under any circumstances if the DM rules that passive skill is going to be used.
Unless you treat it like a floor but, like the OP stated in the first post, it introduces few additional problems (Rogue's ability in particular).
No, he has not, you have not been listening to what I have written which I have highlighted above. You should also be listening to the podcast on stealth by JC, which explains it clearly. The passive perception is the minimum that you get on an active perception, because it represents your general awareness and yo benefit from it before you even start being active, so if you would have detected it using the passive, you have, even before making the active check, which can only improve on your passive.
Absolutely not. A Passive Skill is absolutely not the guaranteed minimum for an Active Check under RAW. Using passive as a guaranteed minimum makes so there is no possibility for failure the vast majority of the time. Which is not only pointless, and boring, but not consistent with RAW whatsoever.
Ok well I'm certainly open to more discussion but I don't think anyone has come close to furnishing a working version of this mechanic and it seems most people don't agree on how its implemented.
It seems most tables either:
1. Don't use it. 2. DM applies it here and there and mostly obscured from players so rarely stumble on the degenerate outcomes. 3. That's it? Does anyone use passive checks in a regular, consistent manner?
But then why even have a mechanic? Just say "DM can do whatever they want" which is already the case, and then suggest "if you don't want them to know there is a check, just add 10 or whatever you want". But if a rule is in a book, I expect I should be able to apply it regularly, consistently, and for it to work sensibly with the other mechanics. It seems to me passive checks don't satisfy this.
No. I don't let players try over and over. 2 tries, or 1 with advantage from the Help action. If you fail, you fail. Move on.
In any situation where metagaming like that seems likely to be an issue, I just roll as DM.
For me Passives are better explained with the intended narration rather than just trying to quote rules. A few people have done this already in the thread.
If a Rogue knows there are two Goblins in the next room and he wants to avoid being noticed, the DM may ask for a Stealth check. Even if the Goblins don't know there is an intruder, there is a chance they may notice the Rogue. You compare the Goblin's passive Perception to the Stealth check. If the Goblins do know there is an intruder, maybe the Rogue triggered an alarm, you can give the Goblins advantage and add +5 to the passive Perception. Say the Rogue fails, the narration might be something like "You try to sneak passed the Goblins but you stub your toe and loudly speak obscenities." Either way, the Goblins were not actively searching for an intruder. They were just guarding a room.
Now let's say the Rogue failed to be stealthy and stubbed their toe. The Goblins know where the Rogue is and combat has started. The Rogue moves behind a large barrel and takes the Hide action. The Rogue makes a Stealth check and compares it against the Goblins' passive Perception. If the Rogue succeeds they are hidden, meaning they are unseen and unheard. The Golbins now must make active Perception checks to find the Rogue.
In the case of secret doors or traps - passive Perception does not necessarily mean you automatically see a secret door. If the player has a passive Perception of 18 you may say you enter a room and notice the walls are not quite right. They have to then make an active Perception check to find the secret door. Just because you know something is off in a room doesn't mean you automatically find something. In the case of passive Investigation, maybe a player notices a collection of scrolls on a desk but to determine what they are they need to make an Investigation check.
The way I look at it, the difference between Active Checks and Passive Skills is the same as the difference between making Attack Rolls and forcing Saving Throws. One is an Active Roll to do a thing against a target, the other is a determining if the target succeeded at overcoming your overall level of skillfulness.
In a recent session, one player decided that his character was walking off to go find wood, but wasn’t trying to draw attention to himself. Another player asked if her character noticed. I asked the first player if his character was trying to be actively stealthy, he said he was not trying to be stealthy, he just wasn’t trying to be noticed either. I had her roll against his “Passive Stealth” as the DC.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This example can really illustrate one of the problems from my OP. Suppose the character going to get wood has a lot of modifiers to stealth, maybe a high ability score and expertise, for something like +11. Maybe the other player has no modifiers to her perception or investigation or whatever. If player 1 says "I am not trying to be stealthy", he automatically avoids detection (unless you consider a 20 a crit even on ability checks), because his passive stealth is 21 and player two can't do better than a 20.
But if player one says "I am trying to be stealthy" he may roll below a 10, and suddenly he has a non-trivial chance of failure.
Why is he better at stealth when he isn't trying?
Edit: This kind of issue is exacerbated by the Observant feat.
He isn’t.
If he was actively stealthing he would have rolled against her Passive Perception as the DC. Whatever total modifiers he has to Stealth either get applied to his roll (an average of 10.5 on a d20) or they get added to a flat 10 for his “passive stealth.” The exact same applies to the total modifiers she has to her Perception, so added to either a flat 10 for her passive skill, or to that d20 roll for an active check. Both PCs use the same bonuses and modifiers either way, but whichever is doing the more active attempt rolls the die.
In that specific example, he had a total “Passive Stealth” of 17, and after adding her +4 bonuses, her total Perception check was a 21. If he had been actively stealthing, he would have had a +7 to his check to beat a DC of 14. So, with her making the active roll, she needed to roll at least 13 to meet or beat his Passive, and if he had made the active roll, he would have needed a 7 or better to beat her passive. In fact, if he had rolled, he could have conceivably gotten a total of 27, which she could have never beaten. By using his passive score I was guaranteeing that the the ceiling for the DC was set low enough for her to potentially beat it.
I think the reason it doesn’t make sense for you is because you are only looking at one side of the equation, in this case his stealth. In your mind it’s a fixed minimum Stealth compared to a variable Stealth, but that’s not really the appropriate comparison to make. A skill like that is never used in a vacuum, it always has to be compared against the other party to get the full picture. You can’t compare (17 Passive) against (1d20+7 Active) because it’s apples to oranges. You have to compare (his 17 Passive vs. her 1d20+4 Active) against (his 1d20+7 Active vs. her 14 Passive). When you do that, you realize that the statistics are about the same either way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is interesting but I don't understand why her check is changed from active to passive based on his decision to be stealthy or not. Shouldn't it only depend on if she is actively looking or not?
She wasn’t actively looking. She asked “did I notice?” She wasn’t actively looking for him, she just wanted to know if her character happened to noticed him slip away or not. If he had actively been trying to stealth, he would have rolled against her Passive Perception since he would have been Actively stealthing against her likelihood of passively noticing him. Since they were both technically using “Passive Skills” in this instance, I had her roll since she was the one who initiated to check by asking the question. If she had been actively hawking him, and he had been actively trying to slip away, it would have been a Contested Skill Check and they both would have rolled as per the rules outlined in Chapter 7 of the PHB/Basic Rules:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#AbilityScoresandModifiers
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The IRL player of the character that was stealthing-but-not could be sitting directly next to you on an old sofa that rocks like the ocean under the weight of someone’s gaze (let alone body), and in full view of a roomful of people; and he could get up and leave the room and nobody would notice until he came back and asked if anyone needed anything from the kitchen before he sat down. He needs no shadows in which to hide.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I see, perhaps this precise instance does not illustrate my point but then suppose she were actively hawking him, and so he could choose to passively or actively roll. Then you are in the situation I outlined earlier.
I am definitely not fond of this. You're completely disconnecting the mechanics from the expected reality and making up contrived reasons to reconcile them. Seems it would be better to make mechanics that did not degenerate and reflected what should actually happen.
If a +0 perception pursues a +11 stealth, he can avoid her every time by not trying, but will fail a fair number of times if he tries. That's a lot of strange luck and interference by gods to smooth over a mechanic that should probably just be reworked.
The player doesn’t get to choose when their character makes a check, the DM does. If the player indicates an intent to Stealth, the DM says “Make a Stealth Check.” That’s it. The player cannot choose whether to use their passive score or roll an active check, the DM decides.
If she had been actively hawking him, it would have gone the same way. She was going to roll no matter what, I only needed to determine if he was also gonna roll or not. If he had said “I want to stealthily slip away from the group” I would have said “make a stealth check” and he would have had to roll.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let's see:
Rogue stealth modifier: +11
Rogue passive stealth: 21
another player perception modifier: +0
another person's passive perception: 10
Scenario 1: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person is not actively looking. Result: compare passive stealth to passive perception. Rogue wins every time.
Scenario 2: Rogue is not being stealthy and the person IS actively looking: Result: compare passive stealth (21) to rolled perception (1d20+0). Rogue wins every time unless nat20 house rules apply.
Scenario 3: Rogue is trying to be stealthy, the person is not actively looking. Result: compare rolled Stealth (1d20+11) vs. passive perception (10). Rogue wins every time unless nat1 house rules apply.
Scenario 4: Rogue is trying to be stealthy and the person is actively looking. Result: compare rolled stealth (1d20+11) vs. rolled perception (1d20+0). Rogue can lose if rolls sufficiently low and the person rolls sufficiently high.
The problem is between Scenario 2 and Scenario 4. The only difference between them is the Rogue trying to be stealthy and this choice can cost him a success.
DM vs. player agency isn't relevant. My premise is that the mechanic is producing degenerate results. Yes the DM can avoid the system or obscure it but that does not fix the system.
So the situation I present to demonstrate the degenerate result is:
Player 1 has a modifier of Stealth +11
Player 2 has a modifier of Perception +0
Player 1 slinks away from camp to get wood
Player 2 actively observes
DM asks player 1 "do you try to sneak or are you just sort of not making a fuss"
If player 1 says "I'm not going out of my way to sneak", he goes undetected 100% of the time (95% if you play with ability crits)
If player 1 says "I try not to be seen", his chance of being detected is significantly higher.
This is not working correctly. Yes the DM can obscure the mechanics or avoid using them or tweak the DCs but those are all ways of jury-rigging a non-working system. So far I don't think anyone has presented an interpretation of the rules that makes the passive mechanic work as a mechanic.
Player 1: Perception modifier +11
Player 2: Stealth modifier + 0
Player 2 attempts to stealth out of camp
If player 1 is chilling not paying attention, he auto-detects the sneaker
If player 1 is actively watching like a hawk, he has a significant chance of failure
Sorry, I submitted post before addressing other issues:
So I agree, the only reasonable response to this is to make the passive check the floor for any active checks.
But that is problematic if you try to use passive checks in other scenarios. Because DC 10 is not meant to be a trivial check for every adventurer, they should be potentially failed. Similarly, a +10 skill modifier should not make DC 20 checks trivial. That character is good, but should they be that good?
Yeah unless you use Passive Perception as a floor here it unravels horribly.
Sorry I submitted the post before addressing the hotfix of using passive as floor. But I address all of this in my OP. You can set passive skills as floors for active skills but that leads to even more problems with the DC system.
Players never determine when a Check gets made. Players describe PC actions, DMs call for Checks. That’s just how it works.
There is no scenario in D&D where two Player Characters would ever compare their passive skills against one another. Someone has to make a roll, and if there is no clear indication as to who, then they both do following the rules for contests.
In any situation which would pit a PC against an NPC/Monster/Environment, the DM should only ever call for a check if there is both a possibility for success and for failure. If the DM determines that either outcome is guaranteed, they should not call for a check.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting it was the players who make the decision. The "result" part from my post was from the DM perspective.
Agreed with the passive vs. passive thing but Scenario 1 was never actually the problem here so whatever ;-)
The problem is that if you don't follow the "rules" (idea?) of passive being the floor, then passive in itself is huge advantage mostly because of how bounded accuracy affects the rolls and taking a 10 is a huge deal here when the modifiers are sufficiently apart from each other.
So yeah, it's not immediately visible when one has +7 and the other has +4. It starts to unravel when the modifier difference makes one person unable to succeed under any circumstances if the DM rules that passive skill is going to be used.
Unless you treat it like a floor but, like the OP stated in the first post, it introduces few additional problems (Rogue's ability in particular).
Absolutely not. A Passive Skill is absolutely not the guaranteed minimum for an Active Check under RAW. Using passive as a guaranteed minimum makes so there is no possibility for failure the vast majority of the time. Which is not only pointless, and boring, but not consistent with RAW whatsoever.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ok well I'm certainly open to more discussion but I don't think anyone has come close to furnishing a working version of this mechanic and it seems most people don't agree on how its implemented.
It seems most tables either:
1. Don't use it.
2. DM applies it here and there and mostly obscured from players so rarely stumble on the degenerate outcomes.
3. That's it? Does anyone use passive checks in a regular, consistent manner?
But then why even have a mechanic? Just say "DM can do whatever they want" which is already the case, and then suggest "if you don't want them to know there is a check, just add 10 or whatever you want". But if a rule is in a book, I expect I should be able to apply it regularly, consistently, and for it to work sensibly with the other mechanics. It seems to me passive checks don't satisfy this.
My conclusion is that it is broken.