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, it's not even Sage Advice, it's a podcast to explain stealth in general, and it's probably the best if you want to understand the intent behind the rules. You might not like the intent of the rules in general (more subject to interpretation and therefore much more left to the responsibility of the DM, much less player control), but it's another topic. In any case, the DCs did not change because of this, they all follow the recommendations from the DMG.
As for bumping the DCs just because someone in the group has focussed his character on it is fair to neither that player nor the other players actually, and should really not be done. DCs are not fixed based on the PC capabilities, they are based on the overall difficulty in the world, and don't go up in level because the PC go up in level or take a specific feat.
THIS! I've ALWAYS had problems with the DM "Scaling" the world up to match the players. Just because the rogue has + 15 to lockpicking doesn't mean that all of a sudden, random fishing village all has DC 30 locks. It should just mean the rogue is REALLY good at picking locks!
Same goes for passive perception. I've DMed for a character with a 32PP (10 + 5 WIS + 12 PROF (expertise) +5 (observant feat)) and I didn't make the enemies all of a sudden have insane stealth skills, or have items and traps suddenly hidden better, the game simply shifted feel a bit. Stealth became useless for enemies, so more reoccurring ones stopped trying it and had to get more creative while new enemies simply were detected. Hidden doors, treasure, and traps became less of a focus in dungeons (i didn't eliminate them, I just made sure that the "secrets" weren't what I was relying on to challenge the party) and instead, noticing the ambiance (creepy vibes, cold breezes, dripping sounds) became a much more meaningful thing.
Long story short: If a character is good at something, LET them be good at it! If a task seems trivial to them, its because that's how it SHOULD be to a highly skilled character. Nothing feels worse than having a key feature of your character rendered useless because the DM doesn't like it
Frankly, if your dungeon is covered in secret doors, don't make the characters have to make checks if they have a high enough passive perception to spot them. If you want, add an Investigation check to work out how to open the hidden door (because the rogue might conceivably notice that there's a door but not work out how to open it).
Just my take, but investigation strikes me as a deliberate and intentional action, unlike perception. I know passive investigation is a thing, and I'm not saying others are wrong for using it, but I do not see myself using it in the games I run.
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, it's not even Sage Advice, it's a podcast to explain stealth in general, and it's probably the best if you want to understand the intent behind the rules. You might not like the intent of the rules in general (more subject to interpretation and therefore much more left to the responsibility of the DM, much less player control), but it's another topic. In any case, the DCs did not change because of this, they all follow the recommendations from the DMG.
As for bumping the DCs just because someone in the group has focussed his character on it is fair to neither that player nor the other players actually, and should really not be done. DCs are not fixed based on the PC capabilities, they are based on the overall difficulty in the world, and don't go up in level because the PC go up in level or take a specific feat.
THIS! I've ALWAYS had problems with the DM "Scaling" the world up to match the players. Just because the rogue has + 15 to lockpicking doesn't mean that all of a sudden, random fishing village all has DC 30 locks. It should just mean the rogue is REALLY good at picking locks!
Same goes for passive perception. I've DMed for a character with a 32PP (10 + 5 WIS + 12 PROF (expertise) +5 (observant feat)) and I didn't make the enemies all of a sudden have insane stealth skills, or have items and traps suddenly hidden better, the game simply shifted feel a bit. Stealth became useless for enemies, so more reoccurring ones stopped trying it and had to get more creative while new enemies simply were detected. Hidden doors, treasure, and traps became less of a focus in dungeons (i didn't eliminate them, I just made sure that the "secrets" weren't what I was relying on to challenge the party) and instead, noticing the ambiance (creepy vibes, cold breezes, dripping sounds) became a much more meaningful thing.
Long story short: If a character is good at something, LET them be good at it! If a task seems trivial to them, its because that's how it SHOULD be to a highly skilled character. Nothing feels worse than having a key feature of your character rendered useless because the DM doesn't like it
Well, if you "scale" by making the fishing village have all DC 30 locks, you're not doing it right. The point isn't to raise the DC of actions, it's to use actions with higher DC: yes, the fishing village still has all DC 10 locks, but since we've got a Rogue with +15 Thieves' Tools, the jewel is hidden in the King's personal DC 30 lockbox, and not in a random fisherman's living room, which you can access by picking their DC 10 front door. They still get to shine, but by overcoming a real challenge, not by trivializing content.
Regarding passive scores being too high... I think I agree, although I haven't given it a lot of thought. The fact that (I think) there is published material which has objects with different DC to notice passively and actively supports that. I also think applying Disadvantage is not the best solution, since it removes the ability to actually apply Disadvantage (e.g. it'd be equally difficult passively noticing things in bright light and dim light, which makes no sense). Maybe using 8 as the base, rather than 10? 8's already the base used for spellcasting DCs, so it wouldn't be entirely alien, should feel natural, especially considering how passive Perception is often used as the DC for Stealth, and passive Insight used as the DC for Deception, so it would also normalize how player-generated DCs are calculated.
Regarding passive scores being too high... I think I agree, although I haven't given it a lot of thought. The fact that (I think) there is published material which has objects with different DC to notice passively and actively supports that. I also think applying Disadvantage is not the best solution, since it removes the ability to actually apply Disadvantage (e.g. it'd be equally difficult passively noticing things in bright light and dim light, which makes no sense). Maybe using 8 as the base, rather than 10? 8's already the base used for spellcasting DCs, so it wouldn't be entirely alien, should feel natural, especially considering how passive Perception is often used as the DC for Stealth, and passive Insight used as the DC for Deception, so it would also normalize how player-generated DCs are calculated.
I like that. I see that calling it "Disadvantage" is an overly restrictive term, just lowering the base might be the "fix" or "solution" I was looking or. Thanks!
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.
Reading back my post, it came across as more critical than I intended, and even a bit *****y. I'm sorry about that.
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.
Reading back my post, it came across as more critical than I intended, and even a bit *****y. I'm sorry about that.
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.
You mentioned that you do understand the purpose of the passive check but your original statement indicated that you did not.
" since the character is not actively trying to search"
Passive skills are used when the PLAYER is being passive. They have nothing to do with the character. If the character has their eyes closed or is distracted they do NOT get a passive check since the character is not doing a task repeatedly. Similarly, if they search a desk, the passive score is applied if they are searching repeatedly. There is no passive check if the character is not taking the appropriate action to make a check possible in the first place.
All the passive skills are NOT the character being passive - it is the player being passive by not rolling dice. It seemed to me the way you phrased your initial comments about passive scores being overpowered when the character was doing nothing indicated a misunderstanding of what passive scores mean.
Passive scores are for a task done repeatedly or for a DM to use when a character is taking an appropriate action but the DM does not want to have the player roll dice. For example, a character with the observant feat isn't somehow better at noticing things by goofing off and not paying attention. However, if they are paying attention looking around or actively investigating, then for a task done repeatedly or when the DM would prefer the player not to roll dice - their passive perception and investigation are increased by 5.
Passive perception is used when traveling in dungeons or outside because unless a character is specifically doing something else (like mapping while traveling - in which case their passive perception doesn't apply to any checks) then they are assumed to be paying attention to their surroundings as their primary task and their passive perception can be used.
I dont know if its been mentioned by anyone else. But OP is also missing the fact that anyone who has Disadvantage with passive checks is already getting a -5 to that check. So if you have Disadvantage on Perception, then you have a -5 to your Passive Perception, and its the opposite with you having Advantage, you get a +5.
Fundamentally by putting a Disadvantage on passive abilities you are penalizing race/class abilities when doing so.
That passive figure is an average roll for that check. If you dont want to use the Passive, make them roll all the time for it. But the passive is there to cut down on the die rolling, and having the party die roll all the time sort of gives away if they should be alert for something, and it takes away from the gaming experience.
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.
You mentioned that you do understand the purpose of the passive check but your original statement indicated that you did not.
" since the character is not actively trying to search"
Passive skills are used when the PLAYER is being passive. They have nothing to do with the character. If the character has their eyes closed or is distracted they do NOT get a passive check since the character is not doing a task repeatedly. Similarly, if they search a desk, the passive score is applied if they are searching repeatedly. There is no passive check if the character is not taking the appropriate action to make a check possible in the first place.
All the passive skills are NOT the character being passive - it is the player being passive by not rolling dice. It seemed to me the way you phrased your initial comments about passive scores being overpowered when the character was doing nothing indicated a misunderstanding of what passive scores mean.
Passive scores are for a task done repeatedly or for a DM to use when a character is taking an appropriate action but the DM does not want to have the player roll dice. For example, a character with the observant feat isn't somehow better at noticing things by goofing off and not paying attention. However, if they are paying attention looking around or actively investigating, then for a task done repeatedly or when the DM would prefer the player not to roll dice - their passive perception and investigation are increased by 5.
Passive perception is used when traveling in dungeons or outside because unless a character is specifically doing something else (like mapping while traveling - in which case their passive perception doesn't apply to any checks) then they are assumed to be paying attention to their surroundings as their primary task and their passive perception can be used.
That's an interesting interpretation. Where in the rules does it state that being passive was intended as the state of he player not the character? Believe me when I say I am NOT trying to argue, but that would change my view quite a bit if that were indeed the case. Thanks!
I dont know if its been mentioned by anyone else. But OP is also missing the fact that anyone who has Disadvantage with passive checks is already getting a -5 to that check. So if you have Disadvantage on Perception, then you have a -5 to your Passive Perception, and its the opposite with you having Advantage, you get a +5.
Fundamentally by putting a Disadvantage on passive abilities you are penalizing race/class abilities when doing so.
That passive figure is an average roll for that check. If you dont want to use the Passive, make them roll all the time for it. But the passive is there to cut down on the die rolling, and having the party die roll all the time sort of gives away if they should be alert for something, and it takes away from the gaming experience.
My mistake for suggesting to inflict Disadvantage instead of looking at adjusting the base value of the check, I had been convinced of that earlier in the thread. I do now agree that that would be to harsh.
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls.... DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster
Perception rolls are when a Player tells you they want to do something. There is a difference between actively searching for enemies (Roll) and passively noticing they are hidden (No Roll).
Another quote to back Wysperra up (taken from here and here)
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. 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.
.
An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.
.General rule is that a ability check is called for by the DM if a character/monster attempts something with a chance of failure.
Specific rule for passive checks is that it doesn't involve any dice rolls.
Nowhere in "Passive Skill Checks" does it override the general rule that a ability check is only used with someone attempts something. (The word "attempt" implies a active character, if you disagree, then you can have your party roll for inactive attempts since as I said Passive Skill Checks does not override anything about how "active" or "inactive" a ability check is).
Kotah - "When you are conscious, your senses and brain function, without any particular need to be asked to do so."
Again I completely agree. All that I'm explaining is my own personal opinion that a passive skill should not be as high as what would be an average result of an active use of the same skill. I am not questioning the validity or use of any of other rules or use of the Passive skills at all. I agree with them & use them in my own games all the time.
Kotah - "When you are conscious, your senses and brain function, without any particular need to be asked to do so."
Again I completely agree. All that I'm explaining is my own personal opinion that a passive skill should not be as high as what would be an average result of an active use of the same skill. I am not questioning the validity or use of any of other rules or use of the Passive skills at all. I agree with them & use them in my own games all the time.
Thank you all very much for your input.
I agree with this. I've had players several times bummed out when I called for a perception check because by rolling, they have a chance of failing where their Passive was so high they'd rather take that. I feel like the passive ability shouldn't be preferred and better than actually activelylooking.
I understand that the current method is used to represent an average roll (rounded down) but I really feel like your ability to passively notice things shouldn't be equal to the ~50% of the time you are Actively looking.
maybe it would be better for passive perception to follow the same rules as spell/ability DCs? (8+prof (if proficient) + WIS)?
I understand that the current method is used to represent an average roll (rounded down) but I really feel like your ability to passively notice things shouldn't be equal to the ~50% of the time you are Actively looking.
This actually has basis in reality. If you are looking for something in particular, your perspective shifts. You have an image in your head of what it is you're looking to find, and if the thing doesn't match that you truly do have a lower chance of seeing it. Creatures and artisans who are skilled at being/making things undetected can exploit this phenomenon, whether consciously or not.
I think if this is a problem for you, you need to step back and think about how this issue actually impacts your game. I'm doubtful that shifting everything by 2 is really going to do anything meaningful. If I didn't like passive checks, I'd just drop them entirely. Maybe leave visual cues on dungeon maps or in my descriptions of areas and factor in the player picking up on the fact that there is something suspicious here and a check is warranted. Or just go back to the old days and burn an hour a session just checking every wall and tapping every tile with a 10 foot pole. That's the kind of tedium that passive checks were designed to address.
Personally, I don't mind if someone with a +8 or higher Perception is going to notice most hidden things. It's part of who the character is supposed to be. Let them be good at the stuff they're trying to be good at. Plus, if I make a bunch of hidden rooms and doors that no one ever finds, that's just time I wasted creating content that will never be used. What's the payoff there? That you can feel smart tricking the players out of some extra treasure or shortcut? I just don't see the appeal.
maybe it would be better for passive perception to follow the same rules as spell/ability DCs? (8+prof (if proficient) + WIS)?
Someone else had suggested that & I do like it. Not too much of a penalty but enough to make a difference, and familiar from other parts of the rules. Now how to figure out how to get DNDB to show that? No clue :)
What it feels like you are missing is that some things are simply automatically attempted. If your eyes are open, you see things (passive perception). If you see something of relevance to you, you can simply deduce that (passive investigation). If you see someone, you can get a sense of their emotional state (passive insight).
When you are conscious, your senses and brain function, without any particular need to be asked to do so.
The main issue is just that RAW those aren't really covered by the game, and it's just assumed when your not paying attention you just figure out anything that doesn't require a check and not a whole lot else (you only do a ability check if there's a reasonable chance of failure).
Which, in it's own way you could interpret as a passive since you don't really require a check for a DC 5 task when your bonus is higher than +4 (since there's no reasonable chance of failure if you succeed on a roll of 1).
If you are using passives like a floor, then yeah you probably do want a HB rule that limits them.
Edit: So- I guess what I'm saying is that if the character is passive they succeed on things that there is no reasonable chance of failure, which could mean a 1 + Perception. Then if the character is active they get the same auto succeed on things where there's no reasonable chance of failure, and then they also get the full perception roll or if the DM doesn't want the player to roll it's 10 + Perception.
Again, if you're doing otherwise and using passive ability scores in the way your describe, then I agree that the HB rule you are using is perfectly fine and I would probably be using a similar one if I used ability scores like that.
THIS!
I've ALWAYS had problems with the DM "Scaling" the world up to match the players. Just because the rogue has + 15 to lockpicking doesn't mean that all of a sudden, random fishing village all has DC 30 locks. It should just mean the rogue is REALLY good at picking locks!
Same goes for passive perception. I've DMed for a character with a 32PP (10 + 5 WIS + 12 PROF (expertise) +5 (observant feat)) and I didn't make the enemies all of a sudden have insane stealth skills, or have items and traps suddenly hidden better, the game simply shifted feel a bit. Stealth became useless for enemies, so more reoccurring ones stopped trying it and had to get more creative while new enemies simply were detected. Hidden doors, treasure, and traps became less of a focus in dungeons (i didn't eliminate them, I just made sure that the "secrets" weren't what I was relying on to challenge the party) and instead, noticing the ambiance (creepy vibes, cold breezes, dripping sounds) became a much more meaningful thing.
Long story short: If a character is good at something, LET them be good at it! If a task seems trivial to them, its because that's how it SHOULD be to a highly skilled character. Nothing feels worse than having a key feature of your character rendered useless because the DM doesn't like it
Frankly, if your dungeon is covered in secret doors, don't make the characters have to make checks if they have a high enough passive perception to spot them. If you want, add an Investigation check to work out how to open the hidden door (because the rogue might conceivably notice that there's a door but not work out how to open it).
Chilling kinda vibe.
Just my take, but investigation strikes me as a deliberate and intentional action, unlike perception. I know passive investigation is a thing, and I'm not saying others are wrong for using it, but I do not see myself using it in the games I run.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't tend to use it in game either. My players percieve something and then investigate it.
Chilling kinda vibe.
Well, if you "scale" by making the fishing village have all DC 30 locks, you're not doing it right. The point isn't to raise the DC of actions, it's to use actions with higher DC: yes, the fishing village still has all DC 10 locks, but since we've got a Rogue with +15 Thieves' Tools, the jewel is hidden in the King's personal DC 30 lockbox, and not in a random fisherman's living room, which you can access by picking their DC 10 front door. They still get to shine, but by overcoming a real challenge, not by trivializing content.
Regarding passive scores being too high... I think I agree, although I haven't given it a lot of thought. The fact that (I think) there is published material which has objects with different DC to notice passively and actively supports that. I also think applying Disadvantage is not the best solution, since it removes the ability to actually apply Disadvantage (e.g. it'd be equally difficult passively noticing things in bright light and dim light, which makes no sense). Maybe using 8 as the base, rather than 10? 8's already the base used for spellcasting DCs, so it wouldn't be entirely alien, should feel natural, especially considering how passive Perception is often used as the DC for Stealth, and passive Insight used as the DC for Deception, so it would also normalize how player-generated DCs are calculated.
I like that. I see that calling it "Disadvantage" is an overly restrictive term, just lowering the base might be the "fix" or "solution" I was looking or. Thanks!
For me the bottom line is that I think that a passive score should be lower than the average that a character could achieve when actively trying.
Reading back my post, it came across as more critical than I intended, and even a bit *****y. I'm sorry about that.
No worries, but I do appreciate that. Thanks!
You mentioned that you do understand the purpose of the passive check but your original statement indicated that you did not.
" since the character is not actively trying to search"
Passive skills are used when the PLAYER is being passive. They have nothing to do with the character. If the character has their eyes closed or is distracted they do NOT get a passive check since the character is not doing a task repeatedly. Similarly, if they search a desk, the passive score is applied if they are searching repeatedly. There is no passive check if the character is not taking the appropriate action to make a check possible in the first place.
All the passive skills are NOT the character being passive - it is the player being passive by not rolling dice. It seemed to me the way you phrased your initial comments about passive scores being overpowered when the character was doing nothing indicated a misunderstanding of what passive scores mean.
Passive scores are for a task done repeatedly or for a DM to use when a character is taking an appropriate action but the DM does not want to have the player roll dice. For example, a character with the observant feat isn't somehow better at noticing things by goofing off and not paying attention. However, if they are paying attention looking around or actively investigating, then for a task done repeatedly or when the DM would prefer the player not to roll dice - their passive perception and investigation are increased by 5.
Passive perception is used when traveling in dungeons or outside because unless a character is specifically doing something else (like mapping while traveling - in which case their passive perception doesn't apply to any checks) then they are assumed to be paying attention to their surroundings as their primary task and their passive perception can be used.
I dont know if its been mentioned by anyone else. But OP is also missing the fact that anyone who has Disadvantage with passive checks is already getting a -5 to that check. So if you have Disadvantage on Perception, then you have a -5 to your Passive Perception, and its the opposite with you having Advantage, you get a +5.
Fundamentally by putting a Disadvantage on passive abilities you are penalizing race/class abilities when doing so.
That passive figure is an average roll for that check. If you dont want to use the Passive, make them roll all the time for it. But the passive is there to cut down on the die rolling, and having the party die roll all the time sort of gives away if they should be alert for something, and it takes away from the gaming experience.
That's an interesting interpretation. Where in the rules does it state that being passive was intended as the state of he player not the character? Believe me when I say I am NOT trying to argue, but that would change my view quite a bit if that were indeed the case. Thanks!
My mistake for suggesting to inflict Disadvantage instead of looking at adjusting the base value of the check, I had been convinced of that earlier in the thread. I do now agree that that would be to harsh.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Passive Checks
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls.... DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster
Perception rolls are when a Player tells you they want to do something. There is a difference between actively searching for enemies (Roll) and passively noticing they are hidden (No Roll).
"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
Another quote to back Wysperra up (taken from here and here)
.
.General rule is that a ability check is called for by the DM if a character/monster attempts something with a chance of failure.
Specific rule for passive checks is that it doesn't involve any dice rolls.
Nowhere in "Passive Skill Checks" does it override the general rule that a ability check is only used with someone attempts something. (The word "attempt" implies a active character, if you disagree, then you can have your party roll for inactive attempts since as I said Passive Skill Checks does not override anything about how "active" or "inactive" a ability check is).
Edit: formatting
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Kotah - "When you are conscious, your senses and brain function, without any particular need to be asked to do so."
Again I completely agree. All that I'm explaining is my own personal opinion that a passive skill should not be as high as what would be an average result of an active use of the same skill. I am not questioning the validity or use of any of other rules or use of the Passive skills at all. I agree with them & use them in my own games all the time.
Thank you all very much for your input.
I agree with this. I've had players several times bummed out when I called for a perception check because by rolling, they have a chance of failing where their Passive was so high they'd rather take that. I feel like the passive ability shouldn't be preferred and better than actually actively looking.
I understand that the current method is used to represent an average roll (rounded down) but I really feel like your ability to passively notice things shouldn't be equal to the ~50% of the time you are Actively looking.
maybe it would be better for passive perception to follow the same rules as spell/ability DCs? (8+prof (if proficient) + WIS)?
This actually has basis in reality. If you are looking for something in particular, your perspective shifts. You have an image in your head of what it is you're looking to find, and if the thing doesn't match that you truly do have a lower chance of seeing it. Creatures and artisans who are skilled at being/making things undetected can exploit this phenomenon, whether consciously or not.
I think if this is a problem for you, you need to step back and think about how this issue actually impacts your game. I'm doubtful that shifting everything by 2 is really going to do anything meaningful. If I didn't like passive checks, I'd just drop them entirely. Maybe leave visual cues on dungeon maps or in my descriptions of areas and factor in the player picking up on the fact that there is something suspicious here and a check is warranted. Or just go back to the old days and burn an hour a session just checking every wall and tapping every tile with a 10 foot pole. That's the kind of tedium that passive checks were designed to address.
Personally, I don't mind if someone with a +8 or higher Perception is going to notice most hidden things. It's part of who the character is supposed to be. Let them be good at the stuff they're trying to be good at. Plus, if I make a bunch of hidden rooms and doors that no one ever finds, that's just time I wasted creating content that will never be used. What's the payoff there? That you can feel smart tricking the players out of some extra treasure or shortcut? I just don't see the appeal.
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
Someone else had suggested that & I do like it. Not too much of a penalty but enough to make a difference, and familiar from other parts of the rules. Now how to figure out how to get DNDB to show that? No clue :)
Thanks
The main issue is just that RAW those aren't really covered by the game, and it's just assumed when your not paying attention you just figure out anything that doesn't require a check and not a whole lot else (you only do a ability check if there's a reasonable chance of failure).
Which, in it's own way you could interpret as a passive since you don't really require a check for a DC 5 task when your bonus is higher than +4 (since there's no reasonable chance of failure if you succeed on a roll of 1).
If you are using passives like a floor, then yeah you probably do want a HB rule that limits them.
Edit: So- I guess what I'm saying is that if the character is passive they succeed on things that there is no reasonable chance of failure, which could mean a 1 + Perception. Then if the character is active they get the same auto succeed on things where there's no reasonable chance of failure, and then they also get the full perception roll or if the DM doesn't want the player to roll it's 10 + Perception.
Again, if you're doing otherwise and using passive ability scores in the way your describe, then I agree that the HB rule you are using is perfectly fine and I would probably be using a similar one if I used ability scores like that.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.