I'll enumerate some statements/questions to jump into the discussion with minimal verbiage and then give some background after:
1. Passive perception acts as a floor for active perception. 2. Passive and active checks may have different DCs. Presumably active checks have lower DCs? 3. Do other passive checks work the same way? Giving a free "take 10" to every ability check? 4. What about the Rogue's level 11 ability Reliable Talent which basically provides a "take 10" to ability checks with which you have proficiency?
So the essence of my post is that it seems there is a tension in the passive ability check rules and as someone aspiring to become a DM it is bothering me.
I'm a pretty new DnD player but have a ton of video game experience and enjoy playing with systems. I'm currently in two DnD campaigns and loving them, planning to DM eventually and trying to wrap my head around the mechanics from that perspective.
The Tension: Passive checks should act as a floor for active checks. For one, this just makes sense, I should not be worse at something when actively attempting it than just doing it passively. For second, mechanics should be consistent and passive perception acts as a floor, so other checks should work the same way.
But passive checks cannot act as a floor. For one, this is absurd, DC 10 checks become auto-pass unless you have negative ability modifiers. For second, it completely invalidates the Rogue's level 11 ability. This can't be how the rules work.
My Attempts at a Resolution: i. Don't use passive checks. This is what the DM in my first campaign does and it of course completely avoids the tension above. I don't like this solution because it has led to us rolling (and sometimes failing) on checks which I thought should be trivial for the characters involved. I think this detracts from the cohesiveness of the world and makes it feel too gamey. I would like to use passive checks extensively, perhaps more than most.
ii. Use passive checks in a separate "game state" than active checks, so the two never coincide. If the party is travelling over long periods, passive checks for food consumption, progress, complications, etc. No active checks allowed. If the players are actively controlling their characters, passive checks are basically turned off. I think this also works but has the same issues as solution (i) above. I want to use passive checks to avoid rolling on things which should be trivial for a character.
iii. Adjust DCs for passive checks to account for the free "take 10" (or adjust the active checks, same thing really). I think this could work but I would like it to be procedural. Do I just add 10 to the passive checks? Then aren't I just implementing a hack which removes the passive mechanic? If I add less than 10 then I might as well have just lowered everyone's passive perception by that amount... Any procedural adjustment just seems to be a hack where I'm saying "the passive system isn't built right so I'm house ruling it." which leads me to the next solution.
iv. Houserule passive checks to be something other than +10. Maybe +5? Then I could use them as a floor without trivializing DC 10 checks, and without stepping as much on the Rogue's level 11 ability (still making it marginally less useful though). Maybe the bonus is different based on proficiency level? "Take 2" in general, "take 5" with proficiency, "take 8" with expertise, "take 10" with reliable talent and proficiency?
I'm not averse to making house rules but it bothers me that all of my non-houserule solutions amount to ignoring or hacking the mechanic.
Does anyone have an interpretation and implementation of passive checks which accomplishes the following: a) Allows them to be used in active play as a way of auto-passing checks which should be trivial for the character and circumventing the roll. b) Avoids dissonance of being better at passive than active checks, and hopefully avoids treating perception differently from other checks. c) Doesn't trivialize non-trivial checks (DC 10). d) Doesn't step all over reliable talent.
2) No, an ability (skill) check has the same DC, regardless of whether it is passive or active.
3) DM's call on whether a skill can be used passively in any particular situation.
4) That applies to all skills with which you have proficiency. DM decides when a passive check is appropriate.
As a DM, you should know your PCs stats, so you know what their passive skills are. Therefore if the rules/adventure say that something requires a DC 10 check then you will know if that is an automatic success if one or more PCs come across that check. Something requiring a DC 10 perception check isn't something that is particularly well hidden (since any average person will see it).
Note that perception might notice something wrong in an area without actively requiring a roll. But don't tell the party that there's a trap (or whatever) there, just tell them that something seems off (e.g. the carpet has been moved recently). This still allows them to switch to "active" mode and start investigating the scene and exploring.
I'm not going to get into RAW for passive checks, but mention the one way a DM has chosen to use it that I felt worked the best...
Passives (Insight, Investigation, Perception, etc...) are not freebie 'You walk into a room and see a secret door because your passive is really high'. It becomes a 6th sense. For example, the DM would see that the secret door has a DC of 15, and a character has a passive of 15+. So he narrates, "You walk into a room and you feel there's more to it than what you saw with a quick glance."
However, this doesn't work if you don't frequently use it, and don't use it for ALL passives. If you get into the pattern of only doing it for perception type encounters, then your players will know they need to roll Perception when you narrate that 'feeling'. On the other hand, if you use it all the time for all passives, then the players won't know if they need to roll perception, investigation or insight (or whatever else). They will have to take a harder look or ask questions to figure out which to use. As a player in a game ran that way, I felt the 'exploration' pillar was better than other games.
That being said, the system is still easy to game and the DM will have to put some extra effort to keep players from building their characters with the intent to beat the system.
1. No, it doesn’t. Using passive scores is an option available to the DM, but it’s not a requirement. A DM is absolutely empowered to call for an actual roll and to take the result as it is.
2. They can. The DM can set whatever DCs they want based on whatever criteria they want. If they want to make use of passive scores for a given check, they can absolutely set the bar higher for the passive score.
3. It’s always the DM’s choice whether to use passive scores. There’s no rule limiting them to certain skills, nor is there any rule mandating them. So in that sense, yeah, other skills work the same way.
So far as I can find, there are no rules about a floor for active checks outside of Reliable Talent. It's not even in the Sage Advice Compendium. The nearest thing I know of was an interview with Jeremy Crawford way back in 2017 in which he was talking about Stealth and Perception and said something to the effect that the Passive Perception Score was intended to be the floor for Active Perception checks because Passive Perception was assumed to be always on.
I don't know where you got the idea that the Difficulty Class of checks varied according to whether or not the check was active or passive. I can't find that either.
First, how a DM chooses to implement passives is up to them. However, there are a couple of guidelines in the rules.
- a DM can use a passive check when they don't want the player rolling dice. Passive does NOT refer to the character doing nothing, it refers to the player being passive and no dice are rolled.PASSIVE=no die is rolled, ACTIVE=die is rolled. Whether a passive or active check is appropriate in the circumstances is up to the DM depending on the character taking actions appropriate to enable the check.
The character is NOT better at a task when not doing it (e.g. observant that increases passive perception and investigation) ... this does not mean that the character is better at perception or investigation when not trying ... this means that they get a bonus when taking the appropriate action AND the DM decides a passive check is appropriate.
- Passive checks are typically used for situations without significant time pressure, or significant consequences of failure or sometimes for skills where the character is assumed to always be doing something that would enable a check (eg passive perception vs stealth in combat).
Some other examples could be ..
- opening a lock could use a passive thieves tools check (or dex check depending on the lock) if there is no chance they will break the lock and no consequence to taking longer opening the lock.
- passive insight checks could be used against a deception check by a target in a conversation if the player states the character is listening closely or otherwise paying attention to what is said and how it is said to possibly pick up on some form of deception.
- passive perception vs stealth is covered in the rules
- passive investigation could be used for investigating/searching a desk for example if there is no time limit, the character is willing to spend the time and there are no consequences that could result depending on a failed die roll.
Those tend to be the sorts of guidelines I use for passive skills. All the rules really have to say about them is a "task done repeatedly" and they are used at the DMs discretion when deciding whether dice should be rolled by the player.
In terms of your comments ..
1. Passive perception acts as a floor for active perception.
I usually play it this way if the character is taking appropriate actions (eg looking around). If they are reading a book or doing another activity and not paying attention then passive scores aren't relevant. The character has to always be doing something to make a roll appropriate. A sleeping character doesn't get a passive perception for example (though as DM, I might choose to use it as a proxy for how light a sleeper they might be).
2. Passive and active checks may have different DCs. Presumably active checks have lower DCs?
Up to the DM. I have seen both approaches used in published materials. (Same and different DCs used for the same situation using passive or active perception). I think this usually comes from (1) writer not understanding the meaning of passive vs active checks and (2) a mechanical desire to allow groups without a high passive perception character a more reasonable chance to find whatever is hidden.
3. Do other passive checks work the same way? Giving a free "take 10" to every ability check?
Yes and no. Passive skills can be applied to any check but it is not a free "take 10" ... it is up to the DM, not the player, whether a passive or active check is appropriate or required.
4. What about the Rogue's level 11 ability Reliable Talent which basically provides a "take 10" to ability checks with which you have proficiency?
Reliable talent is far more powerful. It applies in all cases, passive or active. Hiding in combat which always requires an active check for example (at least in my games) means that a rogue can't roll lower than an 11 ... which when combined with +4 proficiency becomes a minimum 15+stat + possible expertise - which for a 20 dex rogue with expertise at level 11 becomes a minimum 24 . Reliable talent is far more powerful than using passive skills to resolve some checks.
2. Passive and active checks may have different DCs. Presumably active checks have lower DCs?
Up to the DM. I have seen both approaches used in published materials. (Same and different DCs used for the same situation using passive or active perception). I think this usually comes from (1) writer not understanding the meaning of passive vs active checks and (2) a mechanical desire to allow groups without a high passive perception character a more reasonable chance to find whatever is hidden.
I must confess that I've never seen that in published material, but then I have almost not read any 3rd party.
There are many examples in WotC material (I have no idea about 3rd party myself ... I've never really read any).
Ghosts of Saltmarsh p107 - passive is 16, active is 14 (used several times in this module so it isn't a typo)
"A wire stretches across the noor at ankle height. A character who has a passive Perception score of 16 or higher notices the trip wire and the stone block in the ceiling above it that is poised to fall when it is triggered. A character who searches carefully and who makes a successful DC 14 Wisdom (Perception) check also finds the trap."
Tales from the Yawning Portal p35 (and lots of other places) ... passive DC given ... active DC is automatic success.
"If the characters enter this area, someone who has a passive Perception score of 15 or higher discovers the ore tunnel. The characters locate the tunnel automatically if anyone searches"
Tales from the Yawning Portal p113 ... passive DC is 20 and active DC is 15
"A character within 5 feet of the lid might notice it with a successful DC 20 passive Perception check. A character who searches the area notices the lid with a successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Curse of Strahd p185 ... 17 passive DC, 12 active DC.
"Characters who have a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 17 or higher notice him. A character who actively searches the room for hidden occupants spots Vilnius with a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Lost mines of Phandelver p20 ... general rule on finding secret doors in part of the module ... 15 passive, 10 active.
"Secret doors are made of stone and blend in with the surrounding walls. Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Basically, published modules from WotC are riddled with examples where they have different values though there are likely more cases where the DCs for passive and active are the same. In addition, some of the examples use wording like "without actively searching" which pretty much indicates that they are treating active and passive as the character taking actions when they wrote the module, which isn't what the rules say, but it is a common misconception.
Ultimately, it is up to the DM what they want to use in their game.
Ultimately, it is up to the DM what they want to use in their game.
I appreciate all the discussion and references, as I certainly don't know the rules or modules well enough to reference them so precisely. But I guess the crux of my issue is: I am trying to decide what I want to use in my game when I am the DM.
This mechanic seems half baked and I don't see any way to reconcile passive and active checks in a way that makes sense. Either passive checks go unused, or used in a hodge-podge ad hoc manner. Or active checks can easily fail where a passive check would have succeeded. Or the floor placed on active checks is clearly degenerate (DC 10 checks should not be trivial for all PCs) and invalidates a medium level class ability...
Is there a way to implement passive checks according to the rules which is consistent, avoids rolling for a check which should be trivial for a given character, and doesn't create some weird dissonance with active checks?
You don't have to use passives for every skill, and then not even for every application of a skill. You could allow it for history of Waterdeep, but not for history in any other case, for example.
Perception, Investigation, and Insight are suggested as passives, and I like using them that way. They become the 'floor' for any applicable skill check, but I also apply modifiers when appropriate (+/- 5 for advantage/disadvantage, for example).
I don't usually use passives for any other skills, as I believe that interferes with the rogue's reliable talent.
However, I sometimes offer it as a boon for a character, or at the start of a campaign, asking 'what is it that your character is known for doing particularly well?'
1: Anything detectable with your passive perception should already have been detected before you attempt the roll, and therefore rolling your passive score or less should have no additional effect regardless of how you answer this question. If the DM is not allowing your passive score to apply to a test, it does not apply when you make an active check either.
2: passive checks, when available, have the same DCs as active checks. The DM is not required to make passive checks available.
3: All passive checks, when available, function the same way. Passive checks may not be available on any given roll.
4: the rogue talent applies in situations where passive checks are not available.
To address the big misconception about passive rolls:
Passive rolls have nothing to do with what a character is doing.
Passive rolls are only about what the people at the game table are doing. A passive roll simply means that for a particular ability check, no-one at the table actually rolls a d20.
Why would you do this?
To avoid repeated rolls. "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check for each of the statues please. How many statues are there? There are seventy-five."
To increase tension. Asking a player to roll a die will immediately alert the player that something is about to happen. Using a passive value of some kind means that the GM can surprise players, which is sometimes nice.
Always remember the basic game loop.
1. The GM describes a scene. 2. The players state what their characters are trying to achieve (GOAL) and how they are doing it (APPROACH). 3. The GM determines if the approach automatically succeeds or automatically fails to achieve the goal. 3a. If success or failure is not automatic, then the people at the table randomly determine success, probably by rolling dice. 4. The GM narrates the results and the consequences (which includes marking off resources spent in the attempt).
Passives (Insight, Investigation, Perception, etc...) are not freebie 'You walk into a room and see a secret door because your passive is really high'. It becomes a 6th sense. For example, the DM would see that the secret door has a DC of 15, and a character has a passive of 15+. So he narrates, "You walk into a room and you feel there's more to it than what you saw with a quick glance."
This is how I deal with it. A successful passive check does not give the same information as a successful active check. Thus, you might be able to tell that something seems off about the hallway ahead (passive success DC 12) but when you actively look for a trap there and roll a 2, you can't find it.
Works similarly with passive Insight. You might be able to tell that someone is holding something back or has a particular bias, but you can't find out how or why without a successful active check. I try to give useful, actionable information that highlights a player's skills without invalidating the need for active checks when there are consequences for doing well vs doing poorly.
Passives (Insight, Investigation, Perception, etc...) are not freebie 'You walk into a room and see a secret door because your passive is really high'.
As written in a lot of modules, that's exactly what it does. This is a terrible game mechanic so a lot of DMs ignore it.
Passives (Insight, Investigation, Perception, etc...) are not freebie 'You walk into a room and see a secret door because your passive is really high'.
As written in a lot of modules, that's exactly what it does. This is a terrible game mechanic so a lot of DMs ignore it.
Our groups actually think that this is a great mechanic, which avoids players always asking for perception checks. It assumes that the adventurers are competent ones and would notice things on their own, just because they are heroes and have Conan-like senses. It saves time and repetition, and therefore leaves more time for real investigations when adventurers think that something is really well hidden or have clues, rather than adventurers spending hours looking at walls section per section.
And the same with passive insight, some characters are just better at feeling when something is not right in what an NPC is telling them. If you players asking you every single time an NPC talks to them a question along the line of "I want to roll insight to see if he is lying", it's not for you, but we happen to like it very much.
There are two basic issues with passive perception:
It converts something that should take time into something instant. If players want to search every panel of a dungeon, that doesn't mean they have to roll for every panel -- I'll just tell them how long the search takes and make one roll. If they don't want to spend the time searching, they get surprised.
It's binary. If you have a DC 15 secret door, a person with passive perception 14 walks past it every time, a person with passive perception 15 notices it every time. The difference between +4 and +5 isn't supposed to be that large.
I do use passive scores when someone else is rolling -- your passive perception becomes the target for their stealth, your passive insight becomes the target for their deception -- but neither party rolling is just bad game play.
Stealth always rolls, you know, so neither party rolling does not happen. And in our case, stealth always rolls hidden, so that the players does not know how well he succeeded anyway, so not a problem.
Traps and secret doors don't roll stealth (though I've considered having traps make an 'attack roll' against passive perception).
They have pre-rolled stealth based on the result of the crafting of the trap, it just happens that the numbers used are chosen by the DM to challenge the players, based on their capabilities.
Binary passive checks don't challenge the players. They're just "The DM decides whether the PCs will succeed, and if so, which PCs will do so".
They have pre-rolled stealth based on the result of the crafting of the trap, it just happens that the numbers used are chosen by the DM to challenge the players, based on their capabilities.
Binary passive checks don't challenge the players. They're just "The DM decides whether the PCs will succeed, and if so, which PCs will do so".
Please don't say that rolling dices challenges the players, it's just rolling dices.
Rolling dice means every point in a skill matters. Plenty of modules I've seen have had all the secret doors with the exact same DCs, so either you get all of them, or you miss all of them, and in either case only the point that puts you over the edge matters.
They have pre-rolled stealth based on the result of the crafting of the trap, it just happens that the numbers used are chosen by the DM to challenge the players, based on their capabilities.
Binary passive checks don't challenge the players. They're just "The DM decides whether the PCs will succeed, and if so, which PCs will do so".
Please don't say that rolling dices challenges the players, it's just rolling dices.
Rolling dice means every point in a skill matters. Plenty of modules I've seen have had all the secret doors with the exact same DCs, so either you get all of them, or you miss all of them, and in either case only the point that puts you over the edge matters.
That also relies on the relevant PCs being present in that particular location.
I've DMed a few adventures where beforehand I've seen that the party will breeze through a situation, but for some reason a different PC goes in to the place first, or the party split up, and suddenly the "passive" scores don't match up with what is required, and the encounter suddenly becomes interesting again.
The problem I have is if I'm running a module and it says the DC is so-and-so, and a player built his character, intentionally or not, in a way that it will always find everything passively, I'm OK with that. The module existed before the character.
However, if I'm designing an encounter for a party that already exists, and its time for me to set the DC for something that will tested by a passive skill, then I am basically deciding if a character's investment in skill points, feats or abilities, is valid or not. I can't for the life of me add traps, secret doors and lying NPC's to an encounter KNOWING that all of it will be avoided/discovered by the characters. I wouldn't even bother spendingthe wasting my time. At best, I would just narrate "as you navigate through these hallways, you realize many of these doors were probably meant to be hidden and secret, but nothing gets past you!"... and that's all the player would get for his choices.
Where if I treat passives as a 6th sense, then use it to trigger an actual roll, there's the chance the players may think as they leave the dungeon/encounter, "Damn, we didn't roll great. How much did we miss?" I think that's a good thing.
All the power to you. But I like the idea that there is a statistical chance of failure, even if it's small. Even if it slows down the narrative a bit by rolling dice.
Besides, most players I've played with don't hate rolling dice.
I'll enumerate some statements/questions to jump into the discussion with minimal verbiage and then give some background after:
1. Passive perception acts as a floor for active perception.
2. Passive and active checks may have different DCs. Presumably active checks have lower DCs?
3. Do other passive checks work the same way? Giving a free "take 10" to every ability check?
4. What about the Rogue's level 11 ability Reliable Talent which basically provides a "take 10" to ability checks with which you have proficiency?
So the essence of my post is that it seems there is a tension in the passive ability check rules and as someone aspiring to become a DM it is bothering me.
I'm a pretty new DnD player but have a ton of video game experience and enjoy playing with systems. I'm currently in two DnD campaigns and loving them, planning to DM eventually and trying to wrap my head around the mechanics from that perspective.
The Tension:
Passive checks should act as a floor for active checks. For one, this just makes sense, I should not be worse at something when actively attempting it than just doing it passively. For second, mechanics should be consistent and passive perception acts as a floor, so other checks should work the same way.
But passive checks cannot act as a floor. For one, this is absurd, DC 10 checks become auto-pass unless you have negative ability modifiers. For second, it completely invalidates the Rogue's level 11 ability. This can't be how the rules work.
My Attempts at a Resolution:
i. Don't use passive checks. This is what the DM in my first campaign does and it of course completely avoids the tension above. I don't like this solution because it has led to us rolling (and sometimes failing) on checks which I thought should be trivial for the characters involved. I think this detracts from the cohesiveness of the world and makes it feel too gamey. I would like to use passive checks extensively, perhaps more than most.
ii. Use passive checks in a separate "game state" than active checks, so the two never coincide. If the party is travelling over long periods, passive checks for food consumption, progress, complications, etc. No active checks allowed. If the players are actively controlling their characters, passive checks are basically turned off. I think this also works but has the same issues as solution (i) above. I want to use passive checks to avoid rolling on things which should be trivial for a character.
iii. Adjust DCs for passive checks to account for the free "take 10" (or adjust the active checks, same thing really). I think this could work but I would like it to be procedural. Do I just add 10 to the passive checks? Then aren't I just implementing a hack which removes the passive mechanic? If I add less than 10 then I might as well have just lowered everyone's passive perception by that amount... Any procedural adjustment just seems to be a hack where I'm saying "the passive system isn't built right so I'm house ruling it." which leads me to the next solution.
iv. Houserule passive checks to be something other than +10. Maybe +5? Then I could use them as a floor without trivializing DC 10 checks, and without stepping as much on the Rogue's level 11 ability (still making it marginally less useful though). Maybe the bonus is different based on proficiency level? "Take 2" in general, "take 5" with proficiency, "take 8" with expertise, "take 10" with reliable talent and proficiency?
I'm not averse to making house rules but it bothers me that all of my non-houserule solutions amount to ignoring or hacking the mechanic.
Does anyone have an interpretation and implementation of passive checks which accomplishes the following:
a) Allows them to be used in active play as a way of auto-passing checks which should be trivial for the character and circumventing the roll.
b) Avoids dissonance of being better at passive than active checks, and hopefully avoids treating perception differently from other checks.
c) Doesn't trivialize non-trivial checks (DC 10).
d) Doesn't step all over reliable talent.
Or any other comments, insights or thoughts?
In your original numbered 4 points...
1) Yes
2) No, an ability (skill) check has the same DC, regardless of whether it is passive or active.
3) DM's call on whether a skill can be used passively in any particular situation.
4) That applies to all skills with which you have proficiency. DM decides when a passive check is appropriate.
As a DM, you should know your PCs stats, so you know what their passive skills are. Therefore if the rules/adventure say that something requires a DC 10 check then you will know if that is an automatic success if one or more PCs come across that check. Something requiring a DC 10 perception check isn't something that is particularly well hidden (since any average person will see it).
Note that perception might notice something wrong in an area without actively requiring a roll. But don't tell the party that there's a trap (or whatever) there, just tell them that something seems off (e.g. the carpet has been moved recently). This still allows them to switch to "active" mode and start investigating the scene and exploring.
I'm not going to get into RAW for passive checks, but mention the one way a DM has chosen to use it that I felt worked the best...
Passives (Insight, Investigation, Perception, etc...) are not freebie 'You walk into a room and see a secret door because your passive is really high'. It becomes a 6th sense. For example, the DM would see that the secret door has a DC of 15, and a character has a passive of 15+. So he narrates, "You walk into a room and you feel there's more to it than what you saw with a quick glance."
However, this doesn't work if you don't frequently use it, and don't use it for ALL passives. If you get into the pattern of only doing it for perception type encounters, then your players will know they need to roll Perception when you narrate that 'feeling'. On the other hand, if you use it all the time for all passives, then the players won't know if they need to roll perception, investigation or insight (or whatever else). They will have to take a harder look or ask questions to figure out which to use. As a player in a game ran that way, I felt the 'exploration' pillar was better than other games.
That being said, the system is still easy to game and the DM will have to put some extra effort to keep players from building their characters with the intent to beat the system.
1. No, it doesn’t. Using passive scores is an option available to the DM, but it’s not a requirement. A DM is absolutely empowered to call for an actual roll and to take the result as it is.
2. They can. The DM can set whatever DCs they want based on whatever criteria they want. If they want to make use of passive scores for a given check, they can absolutely set the bar higher for the passive score.
3. It’s always the DM’s choice whether to use passive scores. There’s no rule limiting them to certain skills, nor is there any rule mandating them. So in that sense, yeah, other skills work the same way.
4. What about it?
So far as I can find, there are no rules about a floor for active checks outside of Reliable Talent. It's not even in the Sage Advice Compendium. The nearest thing I know of was an interview with Jeremy Crawford way back in 2017 in which he was talking about Stealth and Perception and said something to the effect that the Passive Perception Score was intended to be the floor for Active Perception checks because Passive Perception was assumed to be always on.
I don't know where you got the idea that the Difficulty Class of checks varied according to whether or not the check was active or passive. I can't find that either.
<Insert clever signature here>
First, how a DM chooses to implement passives is up to them. However, there are a couple of guidelines in the rules.
- a DM can use a passive check when they don't want the player rolling dice. Passive does NOT refer to the character doing nothing, it refers to the player being passive and no dice are rolled.PASSIVE=no die is rolled, ACTIVE=die is rolled. Whether a passive or active check is appropriate in the circumstances is up to the DM depending on the character taking actions appropriate to enable the check.
The character is NOT better at a task when not doing it (e.g. observant that increases passive perception and investigation) ... this does not mean that the character is better at perception or investigation when not trying ... this means that they get a bonus when taking the appropriate action AND the DM decides a passive check is appropriate.
- Passive checks are typically used for situations without significant time pressure, or significant consequences of failure or sometimes for skills where the character is assumed to always be doing something that would enable a check (eg passive perception vs stealth in combat).
Some other examples could be ..
- opening a lock could use a passive thieves tools check (or dex check depending on the lock) if there is no chance they will break the lock and no consequence to taking longer opening the lock.
- passive insight checks could be used against a deception check by a target in a conversation if the player states the character is listening closely or otherwise paying attention to what is said and how it is said to possibly pick up on some form of deception.
- passive perception vs stealth is covered in the rules
- passive investigation could be used for investigating/searching a desk for example if there is no time limit, the character is willing to spend the time and there are no consequences that could result depending on a failed die roll.
Those tend to be the sorts of guidelines I use for passive skills. All the rules really have to say about them is a "task done repeatedly" and they are used at the DMs discretion when deciding whether dice should be rolled by the player.
In terms of your comments ..
1. Passive perception acts as a floor for active perception.
I usually play it this way if the character is taking appropriate actions (eg looking around). If they are reading a book or doing another activity and not paying attention then passive scores aren't relevant. The character has to always be doing something to make a roll appropriate. A sleeping character doesn't get a passive perception for example (though as DM, I might choose to use it as a proxy for how light a sleeper they might be).
2. Passive and active checks may have different DCs. Presumably active checks have lower DCs?
Up to the DM. I have seen both approaches used in published materials. (Same and different DCs used for the same situation using passive or active perception). I think this usually comes from (1) writer not understanding the meaning of passive vs active checks and (2) a mechanical desire to allow groups without a high passive perception character a more reasonable chance to find whatever is hidden.
3. Do other passive checks work the same way? Giving a free "take 10" to every ability check?
Yes and no. Passive skills can be applied to any check but it is not a free "take 10" ... it is up to the DM, not the player, whether a passive or active check is appropriate or required.
4. What about the Rogue's level 11 ability Reliable Talent which basically provides a "take 10" to ability checks with which you have proficiency?
Reliable talent is far more powerful. It applies in all cases, passive or active. Hiding in combat which always requires an active check for example (at least in my games) means that a rogue can't roll lower than an 11 ... which when combined with +4 proficiency becomes a minimum 15+stat + possible expertise - which for a 20 dex rogue with expertise at level 11 becomes a minimum 24 . Reliable talent is far more powerful than using passive skills to resolve some checks.
There are many examples in WotC material (I have no idea about 3rd party myself ... I've never really read any).
Ghosts of Saltmarsh p107 - passive is 16, active is 14 (used several times in this module so it isn't a typo)
"A wire stretches across the noor at ankle height. A character who has a passive Perception score of 16 or higher notices the trip wire and the stone block in the ceiling above it that is poised to fall when it is triggered. A character who searches carefully and who makes a successful DC 14 Wisdom (Perception) check also finds the trap."
Tales from the Yawning Portal p35 (and lots of other places) ... passive DC given ... active DC is automatic success.
"If the characters enter this area, someone who has a passive Perception score of 15 or higher discovers the ore tunnel. The characters locate the tunnel automatically if anyone searches"
Tales from the Yawning Portal p113 ... passive DC is 20 and active DC is 15
"A character within 5 feet of the lid might notice it with a successful DC 20 passive Perception check. A character who searches the area notices the lid with a successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Curse of Strahd p185 ... 17 passive DC, 12 active DC.
"Characters who have a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 17 or higher notice him. A character who actively searches the room for hidden occupants spots Vilnius with a successful DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Lost mines of Phandelver p20 ... general rule on finding secret doors in part of the module ... 15 passive, 10 active.
"Secret doors are made of stone and blend in with the surrounding walls. Spotting a secret door from a distance of no more than 10 feet without actively searching for it requires a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 15 or higher, whereas a character who takes the time to search the wall can find the secret door with a successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check."
Basically, published modules from WotC are riddled with examples where they have different values though there are likely more cases where the DCs for passive and active are the same. In addition, some of the examples use wording like "without actively searching" which pretty much indicates that they are treating active and passive as the character taking actions when they wrote the module, which isn't what the rules say, but it is a common misconception.
Ultimately, it is up to the DM what they want to use in their game.
I appreciate all the discussion and references, as I certainly don't know the rules or modules well enough to reference them so precisely. But I guess the crux of my issue is: I am trying to decide what I want to use in my game when I am the DM.
This mechanic seems half baked and I don't see any way to reconcile passive and active checks in a way that makes sense. Either passive checks go unused, or used in a hodge-podge ad hoc manner. Or active checks can easily fail where a passive check would have succeeded. Or the floor placed on active checks is clearly degenerate (DC 10 checks should not be trivial for all PCs) and invalidates a medium level class ability...
Is there a way to implement passive checks according to the rules which is consistent, avoids rolling for a check which should be trivial for a given character, and doesn't create some weird dissonance with active checks?
You don't have to use passives for every skill, and then not even for every application of a skill. You could allow it for history of Waterdeep, but not for history in any other case, for example.
Perception, Investigation, and Insight are suggested as passives, and I like using them that way. They become the 'floor' for any applicable skill check, but I also apply modifiers when appropriate (+/- 5 for advantage/disadvantage, for example).
I don't usually use passives for any other skills, as I believe that interferes with the rogue's reliable talent.
However, I sometimes offer it as a boon for a character, or at the start of a campaign, asking 'what is it that your character is known for doing particularly well?'
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
1: Anything detectable with your passive perception should already have been detected before you attempt the roll, and therefore rolling your passive score or less should have no additional effect regardless of how you answer this question. If the DM is not allowing your passive score to apply to a test, it does not apply when you make an active check either.
2: passive checks, when available, have the same DCs as active checks. The DM is not required to make passive checks available.
3: All passive checks, when available, function the same way. Passive checks may not be available on any given roll.
4: the rogue talent applies in situations where passive checks are not available.
To address the big misconception about passive rolls:
Passive rolls have nothing to do with what a character is doing.
Passive rolls are only about what the people at the game table are doing. A passive roll simply means that for a particular ability check, no-one at the table actually rolls a d20.
Why would you do this?
To avoid repeated rolls. "Make a Wisdom (Perception) check for each of the statues please. How many statues are there? There are seventy-five."
To increase tension. Asking a player to roll a die will immediately alert the player that something is about to happen. Using a passive value of some kind means that the GM can surprise players, which is sometimes nice.
Always remember the basic game loop.
1. The GM describes a scene.
2. The players state what their characters are trying to achieve (GOAL) and how they are doing it (APPROACH).
3. The GM determines if the approach automatically succeeds or automatically fails to achieve the goal.
3a. If success or failure is not automatic, then the people at the table randomly determine success, probably by rolling dice.
4. The GM narrates the results and the consequences (which includes marking off resources spent in the attempt).
Repeat.
This is how I deal with it. A successful passive check does not give the same information as a successful active check. Thus, you might be able to tell that something seems off about the hallway ahead (passive success DC 12) but when you actively look for a trap there and roll a 2, you can't find it.
Works similarly with passive Insight. You might be able to tell that someone is holding something back or has a particular bias, but you can't find out how or why without a successful active check. I try to give useful, actionable information that highlights a player's skills without invalidating the need for active checks when there are consequences for doing well vs doing poorly.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
As written in a lot of modules, that's exactly what it does. This is a terrible game mechanic so a lot of DMs ignore it.
There are two basic issues with passive perception:
I do use passive scores when someone else is rolling -- your passive perception becomes the target for their stealth, your passive insight becomes the target for their deception -- but neither party rolling is just bad game play.
Traps and secret doors don't roll stealth (though I've considered having traps make an 'attack roll' against passive perception).
Binary passive checks don't challenge the players. They're just "The DM decides whether the PCs will succeed, and if so, which PCs will do so".
Rolling dice means every point in a skill matters. Plenty of modules I've seen have had all the secret doors with the exact same DCs, so either you get all of them, or you miss all of them, and in either case only the point that puts you over the edge matters.
That also relies on the relevant PCs being present in that particular location.
I've DMed a few adventures where beforehand I've seen that the party will breeze through a situation, but for some reason a different PC goes in to the place first, or the party split up, and suddenly the "passive" scores don't match up with what is required, and the encounter suddenly becomes interesting again.
The problem I have is if I'm running a module and it says the DC is so-and-so, and a player built his character, intentionally or not, in a way that it will always find everything passively, I'm OK with that. The module existed before the character.
However, if I'm designing an encounter for a party that already exists, and its time for me to set the DC for something that will tested by a passive skill, then I am basically deciding if a character's investment in skill points, feats or abilities, is valid or not. I can't for the life of me add traps, secret doors and lying NPC's to an encounter KNOWING that all of it will be avoided/discovered by the characters. I wouldn't even bother
spendingthewasting my time. At best, I would just narrate "as you navigate through these hallways, you realize many of these doors were probably meant to be hidden and secret, but nothing gets past you!"... and that's all the player would get for his choices.Where if I treat passives as a 6th sense, then use it to trigger an actual roll, there's the chance the players may think as they leave the dungeon/encounter, "Damn, we didn't roll great. How much did we miss?" I think that's a good thing.
All the power to you. But I like the idea that there is a statistical chance of failure, even if it's small. Even if it slows down the narrative a bit by rolling dice.
Besides, most players I've played with don't hate rolling dice.