While I understand the intention & do appreciate the usefulness of Passive scores, I find them too overpowered. My thought is this - since the character is not actively trying to search (WIS(Perception)) or investigate (INT(Investigation)), then shouldn't the skill by default be at a disadvantage? Meaning that the base score for a Passive skill should be Ability + Proficiency(if Proficient) -5, making the default Passive WIS(Perception) of a WIS 10 unskilled character 5, not 10. To me this makes sense, the servant walking down the corridor minding his own business (5) should not be nearly as perceptive as a guard who's job it is to be looking for trouble with an active average roll of 10.
I'd disagree on that, as the passive is not usually high enough to notice anything of importance by itself. This is, of course, assuming you've got a DM who laid out the campaign well. Yes, you will occasionally get some players in the 14-16 range, via proficiencies, expertise and so forth, so the DM simply needs to adjust HOW obscure or blended the thing is the players need to notice.
In the campaign I am running now, we have a Rogue at 16 and a Ranger at 14. As DM, I now ensure things are "hidden" when required, so the Rogue doesn't just walk up and immediately see it. I allow/place "triggers" to subtly prompt the players to seek a die check, but thus far they've ignored 2 and thus entirely overlooked something that could have helped their quest. Disadvantage is used when the party is moving quickly, which makes sense. At a leisurely stroll, I have no issue with the Rogue or Ranger both seeing a LOT of what goes on around them. Their lives have been filled with surprise attacks, traps and more, making them naturally more aware of the things around them.
This like most things, is only unbalanced or out of whack if the DM has allowed it to reach that point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Only if there is something hindering their passive. Like something that inhibits or distracts their senses. Not actively looking for something doesn't inhibit your ability to be aware of other things.
If you are using passives as a skill floor for checks, that can be adjusted, sure.
I'd disagree on that, as the passive is not usually high enough to notice anything of importance by itself. This is, of course, assuming you've got a DM who laid out the campaign well. Yes, you will occasionally get some players in the 14-16 range, via proficiencies, expertise and so forth, so the DM simply needs to adjust HOW obscure or blended the thing is the players need to notice.
In the campaign I am running now, we have a Rogue at 16 and a Ranger at 14. As DM, I now ensure things are "hidden" when required, so the Rogue doesn't just walk up and immediately see it. I allow/place "triggers" to subtly prompt the players to seek a die check, but thus far they've ignored 2 and thus entirely overlooked something that could have helped their quest. Disadvantage is used when the party is moving quickly, which makes sense. At a leisurely stroll, I have no issue with the Rogue or Ranger both seeing a LOT of what goes on around them. Their lives have been filled with surprise attacks, traps and more, making them naturally more aware of the things around them.
This like most things, is only unbalanced or out of whack if the DM has allowed it to reach that point.
Many good points, although I disagree that something should be made harder based on the viewer. The key hidden under the pot shouldn't be any harder to find just because it's an expert thief looking for it!
Perhaps you misinterpret what I was getting at with increasing the difficulty. See, with a party of blundering oafs, with a top passive of maybe 12, a key might be found under a fla=ower pot, that a DC10 shows is slightly tilted. With the group I have to work with, NOBODY is hiding stuff under a flower pot, it's instead behind a loose stone, that almost perfectly fits into the wall and has a DC 15 to even notice and even that doesn't occur until you're within about 10 feet. Ramping up the difficulty isn't just pushing the number up, it's about actually adjusting the way things have been done, to make the higher challenge make sense.
As I said, a good DM can quickly address any skills or stuff that seems to be OP or ruining the game. I only heard once, when we were discussing (session 0) how I would scale the challenges a complaint. The Paladin was concerned he wouldn't be able to "see" things, since I had cranked up the difficulty. I told him he was right, but I also wouldn't listen to the Rogue whining about not recognizing the religious symbol on the building they were entering either. Each member will have a time to shine, so be ready for your time. Also, ring a book maybe for when it's someone else's turn to glow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Perhaps you misinterpret what I was getting at with increasing the difficulty. See, with a party of blundering oafs, with a top passive of maybe 12, a key might be found under a fla=ower pot, that a DC10 shows is slightly tilted. With the group I have to work with, NOBODY is hiding stuff under a flower pot, it's instead behind a loose stone, that almost perfectly fits into the wall and has a DC 15 to even notice and even that doesn't occur until you're within about 10 feet. Ramping up the difficulty isn't just pushing the number up, it's about actually adjusting the way things have been done, to make the higher challenge make sense.
As I said, a good DM can quickly address any skills or stuff that seems to be OP or ruining the game. I only heard once, when we were discussing (session 0) how I would scale the challenges a complaint. The Paladin was concerned he wouldn't be able to "see" things, since I had cranked up the difficulty. I told him he was right, but I also wouldn't listen to the Rogue whining about not recognizing the religious symbol on the building they were entering either. Each member will have a time to shine, so be ready for your time. Also, ring a book maybe for when it's someone else's turn to glow.
No misunderstanding, just clarifying the challenge to the party is in order. Sure breaking into the local potter's shop should be easy (unless he's secretly a wizard! :)) but it should be expected to be a LOT easier than cracking the king's treasure room. But if a skilled party wanted to steal that poor potter's stash of copper they shouldn't expect it to be any harder than it was when they were just starting their nefarious careers as burglars :D
I usually figure that if someone has a passive that high, they've probably earned it -- they put points into their wis score, probably a skill proficiency, maybe a feat. They've invested a lot of resources into being able to do something really well. At that point, why should I nerf what they've worked for? Let them be the guy who notices everything. Give them their time to be useful, for all those things to pay off. I mean, I wouldn't start bumping up enemy ACs if the fighter was hitting a lot.
I usually figure that if someone has a passive that high, they've probably earned it -- they point points into their wis score, probably a skill proficiency, maybe a feat. They've invested a lot of resources into being able to do something really well. At that point, why should I nerf what they've worked for? Let them be the guy who notices everything. Give them their time to be useful, for all those things to pay off. I mean, I wouldn't start bumping up enemy ACs if the fighter was hitting a lot.
I totally agree, the player spent a lot of resources to get there, and they would still be better than everyone else without those skills. My intention is not to nerf particular builds but rather to question & possibly adjust the system in general.
I think you're taking this the wrong way. D&D is not a realistic game, it's about heroes who get incredible intuitions that something is not right, something moved over there, etc.
This is what passive represent, that kind of instinct, the thing that makes it impossible to surprise Conan for example.
As for the passive being the bottom floor, it's really for convenience, because it allows you to roll fewer dices, and to check in secret whether the character notices something. It also makes the game a bit less swingy, which is not a bad thing.
Of course, if you absolutely want only the character actions to count, you can lower the base, but don't do it by inflicting disadvantage because it then prevents you from using adv/dis for what they are meant to, i.e. taking into account the circumstances.
But honestly, un our groups we run game with very few checks and use passives all the time, except when a player describes something a bit exceptional, he gets a check and everyone is happy.
I tend to use passive skills a lot as well, but I didn't say anything about wanting to reflect reality, unless there's a dragon flying by my house right now I think that idea is off the table. As for PC's being exceptional that depends on the type of game you want to run, but since the base rules are used for both PC's & NPC's they're both treated as exceptional as the other, so again my idea is for an adjustment across the board, not only applied to one or the other.
Personally, I find checks (rolls) can slow things down and kind of take the pace away from the game at times. Last night was a perfect example, where I used a "Something happened" table for their watches. Oh my, they had a screech rip through the night on first watch....player requested 4 different checks to try and figure it out. Second watch, unexplained magic occurred and I (this was likely stupid of me, but....) decided a large boulder vanished, then reappeared in a different spot. This player did every check he could (Arcana, Perception, Investigation UGH!) then in the morning, had the Wizard check for Arcana, the Ranger check the area for natural events and the Kobold Rogue check the area the boulder HAD been in and now WAS in, for dirt disturbances and stuff. Ate up almost an hour of time.
With this in mind, I may scrap the "something happened" table, or find some others to randomize from where the event is at least pretty much one and one with a quick look. My group is fairly experienced now, though and try their best to be quite thorough any time something strange occurs. It's a no win situation for me as DM, because I WANT them to be checking things and using their minds and skills. The no win is because I want SOMETHING to break up the monotony of night watch, to make sure they stay on their toes and don't get complacent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
While I understand the intention & do appreciate the usefulness of Passive scores, I find them too overpowered. My thought is this - since the character is not actively trying to search (WIS(Perception)) or investigate (INT(Investigation)), then shouldn't the skill by default be at a disadvantage?
I'm not sure you do actually understand the intention.
Passive rolls have nothing to do with what the character is doing. They simple mean that the player didn't roll any dice.
They are for two main situations.
First, an activity performed over and over. Imagine a GM saying, "You need to roll WIS\Perception for each 10 feet of passage you search. The passage is half a mile long."
Second, to maintain tension among players. A GM might use passive values for initiative, to avoid the jarring "ok everyone, roll initiative" moment. A GM might use passive values to avoid alerting players by asking for WIS\Perception checks (in other words, avoiding metagaming).
While I understand the intention & do appreciate the usefulness of Passive scores, I find them too overpowered. My thought is this - since the character is not actively trying to search (WIS(Perception)) or investigate (INT(Investigation)), then shouldn't the skill by default be at a disadvantage?
I'm not sure you do actually understand the intention.
Passive rolls have nothing to do with what the character is doing. They simple mean that the player didn't roll any dice.
They are for two main situations.
First, an activity performed over and over. Imagine a GM saying, "You need to roll WIS\Perception for each 10 feet of passage you search. The passage is half a mile long."
Second, to maintain tension among players. A GM might use passive values for initiative, to avoid the jarring "ok everyone, roll initiative" moment. A GM might use passive values to avoid alerting players by asking for WIS\Perception checks (in other words, avoiding metagaming).
That is an excellent explanation of the intention using a Passive check, and I do indeed understand the intention since I agree with you. But the purpose of my topic was to discuss the way that the value of the Passive skill was determined not the way it's used, which again we completely agree upon, but thanks for your comments.
Adventurers are not walking through a dungeon looking at their cellphones. In any situation worth narrating, they are alert and bringing their considerable abilities to bear. A 10 seems in line with that to me.
But these numbers are largely arbitrary. If you want things to be harder to find, adjusting the DCs of those particular things has the same effect and is much less likely to have unintended consequences down the line.
I only ever use passive perception anyway. Furthermore, I only ever use passive perception when opposed by an active role because someone should always be rolling. In one of my games, a player picked the observant feat and I just give him every secret door or whatnot because hey he spent points on a feat, so I might as well.
I only ever use passive perception anyway. Furthermore, I only ever use passive perception when opposed by an active role because someone should always be rolling. In one of my games, a player picked the observant feat and I just give him every secret door or whatnot because hey he spent points on a feat, so I might as well.
Passive insight is a good DC for NPC deception rolls (if players didn't ask to roll for every other sentence spoken).
Passive investigation is harder to think of a good use for. Investigation is used to check a specific thing, unlike perception which checks the general area. People don't usually passively investigate.
If you have the players rolling anything it makes the players perk up. If they roll poorly, they still know something is up. If you use the passive scores, you don't need to roll and just tell the party whether they notice something or not. If the score is not high enough and they are not actively looking, they miss it and the players are none the wiser.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Passive insight is a good DC for NPC deception rolls (if players didn't ask to roll for every other sentence spoken).
Passive investigation is harder to think of a good use for. Investigation is used to check a specific thing, unlike perception which checks the general area. People don't usually passively investigate.
I run Perception and Investigation slightly differently than that. For me, Perception is all sensory details but no interpretive meaning at all and Investigation does nothing for sensing things, but everything for interpreting and for discerning meaning from details. Passive Investigation is just how good you are at getting the meaning behind things without trying, so someone with a high Passive Investigation will always be getting the gist of conversation in other languages or the intent behind a particular piece of writing or art or the general function of an unknown piece of machinery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Passive scores are lower than average and unless you have a high perception bonus you will probably not notice anyway. And if you do, then the chances are that you would notice on a check.
Passive scores are also just a good way for DMs to work out what characters can see without making them wonder what might be in the room. Furthermore, if dice need to be rolled every time characters walk into a room simply because they don't know what they're looking for and spend ages searching, then the game pace suffers and fun drops off.
I really dislike the move to all passive checks. I allow passive perception and investigation. Correct me if I wrong, it wasn't until about 2018 where Sage Advice said passive perception was always on? If so, your work around is things written before 2018 is bump the dc for passive up by 5. I have seen level 5 pc with passive 18 percept but they are either rogues or using feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi everyone.
While I understand the intention & do appreciate the usefulness of Passive scores, I find them too overpowered. My thought is this - since the character is not actively trying to search (WIS(Perception)) or investigate (INT(Investigation)), then shouldn't the skill by default be at a disadvantage? Meaning that the base score for a Passive skill should be Ability + Proficiency(if Proficient) -5, making the default Passive WIS(Perception) of a WIS 10 unskilled character 5, not 10. To me this makes sense, the servant walking down the corridor minding his own business (5) should not be nearly as perceptive as a guard who's job it is to be looking for trouble with an active average roll of 10.
Thoughts? Thanks for reading mine.
I'd disagree on that, as the passive is not usually high enough to notice anything of importance by itself. This is, of course, assuming you've got a DM who laid out the campaign well. Yes, you will occasionally get some players in the 14-16 range, via proficiencies, expertise and so forth, so the DM simply needs to adjust HOW obscure or blended the thing is the players need to notice.
In the campaign I am running now, we have a Rogue at 16 and a Ranger at 14. As DM, I now ensure things are "hidden" when required, so the Rogue doesn't just walk up and immediately see it. I allow/place "triggers" to subtly prompt the players to seek a die check, but thus far they've ignored 2 and thus entirely overlooked something that could have helped their quest. Disadvantage is used when the party is moving quickly, which makes sense. At a leisurely stroll, I have no issue with the Rogue or Ranger both seeing a LOT of what goes on around them. Their lives have been filled with surprise attacks, traps and more, making them naturally more aware of the things around them.
This like most things, is only unbalanced or out of whack if the DM has allowed it to reach that point.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Only if there is something hindering their passive. Like something that inhibits or distracts their senses. Not actively looking for something doesn't inhibit your ability to be aware of other things.
If you are using passives as a skill floor for checks, that can be adjusted, sure.
Many good points, although I disagree that something should be made harder based on the viewer. The key hidden under the pot shouldn't be any harder to find just because it's an expert thief looking for it!
Thanks for the feedback
I hadn't considered that, good idea. Thanks
Perhaps you misinterpret what I was getting at with increasing the difficulty. See, with a party of blundering oafs, with a top passive of maybe 12, a key might be found under a fla=ower pot, that a DC10 shows is slightly tilted. With the group I have to work with, NOBODY is hiding stuff under a flower pot, it's instead behind a loose stone, that almost perfectly fits into the wall and has a DC 15 to even notice and even that doesn't occur until you're within about 10 feet. Ramping up the difficulty isn't just pushing the number up, it's about actually adjusting the way things have been done, to make the higher challenge make sense.
As I said, a good DM can quickly address any skills or stuff that seems to be OP or ruining the game. I only heard once, when we were discussing (session 0) how I would scale the challenges a complaint. The Paladin was concerned he wouldn't be able to "see" things, since I had cranked up the difficulty. I told him he was right, but I also wouldn't listen to the Rogue whining about not recognizing the religious symbol on the building they were entering either. Each member will have a time to shine, so be ready for your time. Also, ring a book maybe for when it's someone else's turn to glow.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
No misunderstanding, just clarifying the challenge to the party is in order. Sure breaking into the local potter's shop should be easy (unless he's secretly a wizard! :)) but it should be expected to be a LOT easier than cracking the king's treasure room. But if a skilled party wanted to steal that poor potter's stash of copper they shouldn't expect it to be any harder than it was when they were just starting their nefarious careers as burglars :D
I usually figure that if someone has a passive that high, they've probably earned it -- they put points into their wis score, probably a skill proficiency, maybe a feat. They've invested a lot of resources into being able to do something really well. At that point, why should I nerf what they've worked for? Let them be the guy who notices everything. Give them their time to be useful, for all those things to pay off. I mean, I wouldn't start bumping up enemy ACs if the fighter was hitting a lot.
I totally agree, the player spent a lot of resources to get there, and they would still be better than everyone else without those skills. My intention is not to nerf particular builds but rather to question & possibly adjust the system in general.
I tend to use passive skills a lot as well, but I didn't say anything about wanting to reflect reality, unless there's a dragon flying by my house right now I think that idea is off the table. As for PC's being exceptional that depends on the type of game you want to run, but since the base rules are used for both PC's & NPC's they're both treated as exceptional as the other, so again my idea is for an adjustment across the board, not only applied to one or the other.
Personally, I find checks (rolls) can slow things down and kind of take the pace away from the game at times. Last night was a perfect example, where I used a "Something happened" table for their watches. Oh my, they had a screech rip through the night on first watch....player requested 4 different checks to try and figure it out. Second watch, unexplained magic occurred and I (this was likely stupid of me, but....) decided a large boulder vanished, then reappeared in a different spot. This player did every check he could (Arcana, Perception, Investigation UGH!) then in the morning, had the Wizard check for Arcana, the Ranger check the area for natural events and the Kobold Rogue check the area the boulder HAD been in and now WAS in, for dirt disturbances and stuff. Ate up almost an hour of time.
With this in mind, I may scrap the "something happened" table, or find some others to randomize from where the event is at least pretty much one and one with a quick look. My group is fairly experienced now, though and try their best to be quite thorough any time something strange occurs. It's a no win situation for me as DM, because I WANT them to be checking things and using their minds and skills. The no win is because I want SOMETHING to break up the monotony of night watch, to make sure they stay on their toes and don't get complacent.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I'm not sure you do actually understand the intention.
Passive rolls have nothing to do with what the character is doing. They simple mean that the player didn't roll any dice.
They are for two main situations.
First, an activity performed over and over. Imagine a GM saying, "You need to roll WIS\Perception for each 10 feet of passage you search. The passage is half a mile long."
Second, to maintain tension among players. A GM might use passive values for initiative, to avoid the jarring "ok everyone, roll initiative" moment. A GM might use passive values to avoid alerting players by asking for WIS\Perception checks (in other words, avoiding metagaming).
That is an excellent explanation of the intention using a Passive check, and I do indeed understand the intention since I agree with you. But the purpose of my topic was to discuss the way that the value of the Passive skill was determined not the way it's used, which again we completely agree upon, but thanks for your comments.
Adventurers are not walking through a dungeon looking at their cellphones. In any situation worth narrating, they are alert and bringing their considerable abilities to bear. A 10 seems in line with that to me.
But these numbers are largely arbitrary. If you want things to be harder to find, adjusting the DCs of those particular things has the same effect and is much less likely to have unintended consequences down the line.
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
I only ever use passive perception anyway. Furthermore, I only ever use passive perception when opposed by an active role because someone should always be rolling. In one of my games, a player picked the observant feat and I just give him every secret door or whatnot because hey he spent points on a feat, so I might as well.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Passive insight is a good DC for NPC deception rolls (if players didn't ask to roll for every other sentence spoken).
Passive investigation is harder to think of a good use for. Investigation is used to check a specific thing, unlike perception which checks the general area. People don't usually passively investigate.
If you have the players rolling anything it makes the players perk up. If they roll poorly, they still know something is up. If you use the passive scores, you don't need to roll and just tell the party whether they notice something or not. If the score is not high enough and they are not actively looking, they miss it and the players are none the wiser.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I run Perception and Investigation slightly differently than that. For me, Perception is all sensory details but no interpretive meaning at all and Investigation does nothing for sensing things, but everything for interpreting and for discerning meaning from details. Passive Investigation is just how good you are at getting the meaning behind things without trying, so someone with a high Passive Investigation will always be getting the gist of conversation in other languages or the intent behind a particular piece of writing or art or the general function of an unknown piece of machinery.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Passive scores are lower than average and unless you have a high perception bonus you will probably not notice anyway. And if you do, then the chances are that you would notice on a check.
Passive scores are also just a good way for DMs to work out what characters can see without making them wonder what might be in the room. Furthermore, if dice need to be rolled every time characters walk into a room simply because they don't know what they're looking for and spend ages searching, then the game pace suffers and fun drops off.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I really dislike the move to all passive checks. I allow passive perception and investigation. Correct me if I wrong, it wasn't until about 2018 where Sage Advice said passive perception was always on? If so, your work around is things written before 2018 is bump the dc for passive up by 5. I have seen level 5 pc with passive 18 percept but they are either rogues or using feats.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.