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.
Ah here's a thing you might want to consider - if they walk into a room or situation, check their passive scores. If the number is high enough, you don't need to ask for a check.
You can explain that you are asking for a check because there is something specific they might find or miss and casual observation is not enough to discover it.
Example: PC passive score is high enough to notice the goblin hiding in the corner but not enough to notice the loose floor board because they are not looking for traps or triggers. If they want to find the hidden door, they have to look for it.
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?"
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
As for this idea, I'm pretty sure you can HB a feat, copy Observant and change the modifier to initiative from 5 to -2. Change the name to something like HB rules and add the feat to all relevant characters by Feature & Traits -> scroll down -> Manage Feats then manually add it onto there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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
As for this idea, I'm pretty sure you can HB a feat, copy Observant and change the modifier to initiative from 5 to -2. Change the name to something like HB rules and add the feat to all relevant characters by Feature & Traits -> scroll down -> Manage Feats then manually add it onto there.
Oh so it's really simple LOL!! Seriously that doesn't sound that bad. I'll be thinking about this some more & discussing this with my group before I implement anything of course.
8+perception is good? you made it on average 2 less. so unless you drastically change your DCs this will be no different for most characters. In general per the DMG most DCs are in 5s; so 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. So a player well invested in wisdom is still going to see things if their passive goes from 17 to 15. Like you wanted a massive over haul in how it is calculated and didn't like that passive was .5 less than the average roll the player would make, but now it is just ~40% chance to spot instead of 50%. Not really a massive overhaul considering you wanted them to have a base -5 in your original thinking.
Personally, I'm with those saying that Passive checks are for situations where the character passively accomplishes something without actively doing something. For instance, a successful Passive Perception check may allow a character who is walking along, minding their own business, to see a body hidden in the bushes, a key sticking out from beneath a door mat, or the name of a person of interest on the edge of a piece of parchment protruding from a stack. If the character is actively doing something, it should be rolled for.
However, I would say (and I am sure some will disagree with me, given discussions I've had on here previously) that in many cases the DC will be higher for a Passive check than if the player called for a specific action.
Taking an extreme example: Let us say that there is a key to a door hidden under a flower pot on the doorstep. It is going to be virtually impossible for the character to notice that key without actively searching for it. However, if the character is actually looking for the key, or searching around that area for something, they will almost certainly look under the flower pot, so will be pretty certain to find the key. The DC is very high for the passive, but very low for active.
Having the same DC for both presents a situation where the passive score almost has to become the floor. If you say it is DC15 to notice something hidden in the bushes, a character with a +5 Wisdom(Perception) modifier will automatically notice it while walking by without paying any special attention. However, if they have said they wish to actively search as they go, they have only a 55% chance of noticing... which is kinda ridiculous.
So yeah, that's my solution: I don't use passive as a floor, and I don't make passive checks at disadvantage. Instead, I use different DCs, because succeeding at something you are not actively trying to do is more difficult than succeeding at something you are making an active attempt to accomplish. They are different tasks, with different difficulties.
Personally, I'm with those saying that Passive checks are for situations where the character passively accomplishes something without actively doing something. For instance, a successful Passive Perception check may allow a character who is walking along, minding their own business, to see a body hidden in the bushes, a key sticking out from beneath a door mat, or the name of a person of interest on the edge of a piece of parchment protruding from a stack. If the character is actively doing something, it should be rolled for.
However, I would say (and I am sure some will disagree with me, given discussions I've had on here previously) that in many cases the DC will be higher for a Passive check than if the player called for a specific action.
Taking an extreme example: Let us say that there is a key to a door hidden under a flower pot on the doorstep. It is going to be virtually impossible for the character to notice that key without actively searching for it. However, if the character is actually looking for the key, or searching around that area for something, they will almost certainly look under the flower pot, so will be pretty certain to find the key. The DC is very high for the passive, but very low for active.
Having the same DC for both presents a situation where the passive score almost has to become the floor. If you say it is DC15 to notice something hidden in the bushes, a character with a +5 Wisdom(Perception) modifier will automatically notice it while walking by without paying any special attention. However, if they have said they wish to actively search as they go, they have only a 55% chance of noticing... which is kinda ridiculous.
So yeah, that's my solution: I don't use passive as a floor, and I don't make passive checks at disadvantage. Instead, I use different DCs, because succeeding at something you are not actively trying to do is more difficult than succeeding at something you are making an active attempt to accomplish. They are different tasks, with different difficulties.
I do something a little similar. I decide whether an activity can be done passively (in the case of noticing the key for example). If I think that it is impossible to perform passively, I don't tell them unless they look for it (and make a successful active check). But if it is something that can be done passively (such as seeing a body in the bushes) then I will use the same DC as for an active check made to notice it.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't increase DCs for passive checks simply because if the characters are making a check, then they will already have looked around the room with a passive check and noticed everything they can on the passive score before making the check. The active check is just (for me anyway) a means of noticing things that you might not have noticed automatically, since players never stop using passive perception.
I can see that point of view, and wouldn't argue with a DM who ran the game that way.
For me, it would depend a lot on what the player said. With the "body in the bushes" example, if the party were walking along and a player said "I keep an eye out for things in the bushes", I agree that it would probably be the same DC, and the passive score would effectively be a floor. If, however, the player said "I rummage around in the bushes as I go, searching for anything out of the ordinary", the it would make little sense to keep the same DC as it is, in my opinion, a very different task. (It would also slow the party down a lot, of course)
Then that takes us to the automatic success or failure. You may not notice a pair of feet sticking out of a bush passively, but as a DM I would rule that if you rummage around in a bush, there is no way you'll miss the body in it - I would grant players automatic success on certain activities based on the circumstances.
To me, that would depend on him looking in that specific bush. He may just be checking random bushes as he goes, depending on what the player describes, in which case it would be easier to find a body than just watching as he walked by, but not an automatic success.
Also, to me, an automatic success is functionally identical to setting a DC so low that it is impossible to fail, and an automatic failure is the same as setting the DC so high that it is impossible to succeed (unless you are using critical successes & failures on skill checks). So, effectively, granting an automatic success/failure is not really any different to adjusting the DC.
I disagree simply because on any DC the chance of success is always at least 5% (nat 20) and the same goes for failure (nat 1). If you think success should be all but guaranteed, then a 5% chance of failing is way too high.
The difficulty I have with passive and non passive checks is that it implies if yuou are activly looking for something you only have a slightly more than 50% of finding it when you find it if you are not looking for it.
Say the party are in a cavern with a slight breeze coming from a hiiden exit (DC 15) the cleric has a 15 PP so is told "you feel a very faint breeze" on asking can a tell where it is comiong from so now he is actively trying to perceive it he rolls a natural 8 (not terrible) adds his +5 for a 13, not only can he not tell where it is coming from beut he now can not feel the breeze at all. If the cleric take the observent feat actively looking for things becomes a very bad idea, on entering a new room the cleric will not look for hidden enemies / traps / secret doors because he will be far more likely to find them if he doesn't look.
I disagree simply because on any DC the chance of success is always at least 5% (nat 20) and the same goes for failure (nat 1). If you think success should be all but guaranteed, then a 5% chance of failing is way too high.
Unless you house rule that is not true, auto success on a natural 20 (and fail on a natural 1) only applies to attacks and death saves. If the DC is 25 and the character has a perception of +2 there is a 0% chance of success.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Jegpeg. However, I still think that if you believe the character should have no trouble succeeding or that failure is certain, a die roll only slows things down.
I agree that you shouldn't ask for a check if the result is certain. If I had a check as a DC 10, and I knew the character had a +12 modifier for it, I wouldn't bother asking them to roll.
All I am saying is that, unless you are using the (very common) house rule of critical failures/successes on skill/ability/saving throws, an automatic failure is the equivalent of a DC which is too high to succeed on, and an automatic success is the equivalent of a DC which is too low to fail.
Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.
This clearly spells out that passives do not require active action. The OP would like disadvantage to always apply, which makes that 'If' clause at the end pointless.
In the 'Adventuring' section, we get this:
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats.
In other words, those not focused on other tasks are simply assumed to be paying attention to their environment, eyes and brains open.
That first quote I admit has got me- though it seems to contradict a lot of the other quotes.
The second quote supports my stance. "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger", if those who are doing other tasks are not focused on danger, then it implies that those who aren't doing other tasks are focused on watching for danger. Usually when your focused on something, that implies active character, not passive character. I guess that might be arguable though? Then it goes on to say anything who isn't watching for danger has no passive perception- which isn't so arguable.
But yeah- you do make a good point that the rules are not as clear as they should be.
Edit: I guess I could just write it the first quote off as a specific rule overriding the general rule of passives to cover the idea that your stealth doesn't automatically succeed against people not paying attention, since it's possible to roll low enough to alert everyone about your existence regardless of how much they are paying attention.
I feel like that's a little ehh of a argument though. Yeah the rules are not that clear here I admit.
I agree that you shouldn't ask for a check if the result is certain. If I had a check as a DC 10, and I knew the character had a +12 modifier for it, I wouldn't bother asking them to roll.
All I am saying is that, unless you are using the (very common) house rule of critical failures/successes on skill/ability/saving throws, an automatic failure is the equivalent of a DC which is too high to succeed on, and an automatic success is the equivalent of a DC which is too low to fail.
I have been using that house rule, because I guess I misread the rulebook (maybe it's not such a good idea for me to post on this rules discussion).
And yes, I agree it is the equivalent of an extreme DC.
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!
The same rules everyone else is citing:
What is a passive skill check?
"PASSIVE CHECKS 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."
A passive check is literally one in which the players do NOT roll dice. This is exactly what the rules say. It is an "ability check" made when the players do not roll dice. The rule on passive checks does NOT redefine what an ability check is, when an ability check is made or what is required to make an ability check.
"ABILITY CHECKS 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."
Ability checks are made in response to character actions. The character (not the player) needs to be doing something to make it possible for an ability check to be made in the circumstances that the DM has created.
Here is an example - you have to describe what you are doing when making an ability check whether passive or active. They are both ability checks which are triggered by character actions.
"FINDING A HIDDEN OBJECT When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook. In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. I f you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom ( Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."
Why is passive perception different then?
Unless a character is doing something else specifically, the player usually says that their character is paying attention to their surroundings, watching for traps and secret doors etc, characters are always actively looking unless they are specifically doing something else. This avoids the DM gotcha of "Haha - you didn't say you were looking so you step in the trap taking 6d6 damage". At least this way if your passive perception is high enough and your character wasn't doing something else, the character may have a reasonable chance of noticing the trap.
The travel rules outline cases when passive perception is not used - and they apply both outside and in dungeons.
"As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group's journey."
"NOTICING THREATS Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot."
However, if the character is not actively looking as they move through the dungeon then their passive perception does not apply to noticing threats. The character has to be actively looking for threats in order for passive perception to be used.
"OTHER ACTIVITIES Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."
A character that is doing something else (i.e. NOT specifically watching for danger) does not use their passive perception. Passive perception doesn't apply in this case because the character is not paying attention - they are doing something else. The examples in the text are:
Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.) Draw a Map. The character can draw a map that records the group's progress and helps the characters get back on course if they get lost. No ability check is required. Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for tracking.) Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for foraging.)
All of these tasks involve looking at your surroundings while traveling. You are looking for terrain features, you are looking for tracks, you are looking for sides of plants or animals to eat. However, the character is specifically not watching the surroundings for danger even though several of these tasks involve paying close attention to the surroundings. Unless the character is actively watching for hazards their passive perception does not apply. Passive perception requires the character to be actively watching in the travel rules as a specific example.
I will note that passive perception and passive skills are used inconsistently in the source material. The interpretation that passive means the character being passive is a very common misconception even among folks writing content for the game. However, here is a specific example from one of the first 5e modules - Lost MIne of Phandelver p7
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
In this example, if the character is actively looking then they spot the trap with a passive perception check and if they are NOT looking (or if they don't see the trap) then the character needs to succeed on a rolled perception check to notice the trap.
TL;DR
Ability checks by definition require the character to be taking an action to enable an ability check - passive or active.The difference between passive and active checks is the player being passive or active - the player either does not roll dice (passive) or the player rolls dice (active).
P.S. This also avoids the issue that you started the thread with. Characters are NOT better at noticing things when they do nothing - they don't even have a chance to notice things if the character isn't taking the appropriate action - ability checks by definition require the character to be doing something. Passive checks are when the player doesn't roll dice and the situation applies for tasks done repeatedly or the DM wanting to resolve whether something is noticed without alerting the players by rolling dice.
Ok, but a character will still be better at something if they are doing so more thoroughly and carefully.
If they are just generally being alert, watching out for traps as they go through the woods/countryside/dungeon, they may see a trap. However, they should be more likely to do so if they stop at a point and say "I'm going to check this specific area for traps". They will be looking more closely, being more thorough.
So, it's pretty well assumed that a character who is not concentrating on something else will be looking out for traps, dangers and other information as they travel through a dungeon. If their passive score is good enough, they may notice a trap. However if they were doing something else and their passive score was not checked, but they then stop to specifically investigate a room or doorway for traps, they should have a better "chance" of success than before.
Ok, but a character will still be better at something if they are doing so more thoroughly and carefully.
If they are just generally being alert, watching out for traps as they go through the woods/countryside/dungeon, they may see a trap. However, they should be more likely to do so if they stop at a point and say "I'm going to check this specific area for traps". They will be looking more closely, being more thorough.
So, it's pretty well assumed that a character who is not concentrating on something else will be looking out for traps, dangers and other information as they travel through a dungeon. If their passive score is good enough, they may notice a trap. However if they were doing something else and their passive score was not checked, but they then stop to specifically investigate a room or doorway for traps, they should have a better "chance" of success than before.
And this is where the passives being the "bottom-line" of the skill come into action, and why it's a good mechanism.
I don't need players to remind me every 5 minutes that their characters are alert, it's annoying and it does not bring anything to the game. So using the passive is good enough to guarantee that.
Now, if, in particular, and for a good reason, the player wants his character to describe a specific action that he is doing, I will listen and possibly grant a skill check which will allow the player a chance to roll higher than the passive.
But this works only if the player describes an action that is reasonable in the circumstances and that is not routine. If the action is just more of the same like checking all the walls one by one for a secret door, it will still be the passive. But if the player tells me "I have a hunch, I think the secret door will be in this specific area, and I will start banging against it all over it to check for the slightest difference in sound, and hold a torch next to all the places to see if there is a minute draft", I will let him make a roll for that specific area of the wall.
That way, you get the best of both worlds, no boring description and multiple rolls for routine, but still a greater chance when a specific action is described.
And it's the same with perception in combat, you have your basic floor, but stopping to really look around is an action and grants you a check.
But it's also why it's hard, at least in our games, to get an insight check, because how do you describe it ? Because for me, it's (again as explained in the introduction to the PH) for a player to describe the action (and not request a roll) and for the DM to tell him what happens and if he gets a roll...
This is a good idea! And its pretty much how I've always treated PP.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the basic summary of your post is this: "Use passive perception unless PC specifically describes a more detailed (specific) search, In that case allow a roll for a potential higher result"
The only problem with this is that potential higher result. With passive perception being ~about the average, the player who is describing a more specific search has ALMOST an equal chance of doing worsethan if they just stayed passive.
This is especially true when the Observant feat comes into play because it gives a flat +5 to passive. So the player actually has a lower chance of succeeding by "searching harder" than they would if they just walked in the room
The difficulty I have with passive and non passive checks is that it implies if yuou are activly looking for something you only have a slightly more than 50% of finding it when you find it if you are not looking for it.
Say the party are in a cavern with a slight breeze coming from a hiiden exit (DC 15) the cleric has a 15 PP so is told "you feel a very faint breeze" on asking can a tell where it is comiong from so now he is actively trying to perceive it he rolls a natural 8 (not terrible) adds his +5 for a 13, not only can he not tell where it is coming from beut he now can not feel the breeze at all. If the cleric take the observent feat actively looking for things becomes a very bad idea, on entering a new room the cleric will not look for hidden enemies / traps / secret doors because he will be far more likely to find them if he doesn't look.
Personally I think this situation is misusing the concept of passive perception. The cleric succeeds on a passive check, but then you make them do an active check to "perceive it more."
That's not how it should work. If they make the DC with their passive perception, they perceive it just as if they had succeeded in an active check. There is a binary result. If you just want to give a clue like your faint breeze that doesn't tell the whole story, then you'd either need two DCs for two levels of information, or call for an Investigation check to deduce what the significance of the breeze could be. Either way, the point is that once the DC is met there is no further action required by that skill - regardless of whether it's an active or passive check.
People angry that active checks can be worse than passive checks are probably using them wrong because you should never need to succeed with both on the same thing. If a passive check succeeds, there's no need for an active check. That's the whole point of passive checks.
If your passive fails then you still have a chance to detect with an active check, but only if you roll well because clearly it's not easy to find.
The difficulty I have with passive and non passive checks is that it implies if yuou are activly looking for something you only have a slightly more than 50% of finding it when you find it if you are not looking for it.
Say the party are in a cavern with a slight breeze coming from a hiiden exit (DC 15) the cleric has a 15 PP so is told "you feel a very faint breeze" on asking can a tell where it is comiong from so now he is actively trying to perceive it he rolls a natural 8 (not terrible) adds his +5 for a 13, not only can he not tell where it is coming from beut he now can not feel the breeze at all. If the cleric take the observent feat actively looking for things becomes a very bad idea, on entering a new room the cleric will not look for hidden enemies / traps / secret doors because he will be far more likely to find them if he doesn't look.
Personally I think this situation is misusing the concept of passive perception. The cleric succeeds on a passive check, but then you make them do an active check to "perceive it more."
That's not how it should work. If they make the passive DC, they perceive it just as if they had succeeded in an active check. There is a binary result. If you just want to give a clue like your faint breeze, I'd call for an Investigation check to determine what that breeze could signify (well actually I'd just give it to them, but that's me).
People angry that active checks can be worse than passive checks are probably using them wrong because you should never need to succeed with both on the same thing. If a passive check succeeds, there's no need for an active check. That's the whole point of passive checks.
If your passive fails then you still have a chance to detect with an active check, but only if you roll well because clearly it's not easy to find.
Since the floor of a skill roll is equal to the passive score the character will never do worse, but I use a graduated scale of success or failure, so if the check succeeds by 4 or less you feel a breeze, by 5-9 you feel a light breeze coming from the SW, 10+ the breeze carries an almost imperceptible carnel scent, for example. Doing it that way it might make a difference if the character chooses to attempt to find out more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah here's a thing you might want to consider - if they walk into a room or situation, check their passive scores. If the number is high enough, you don't need to ask for a check.
You can explain that you are asking for a check because there is something specific they might find or miss and casual observation is not enough to discover it.
Example: PC passive score is high enough to notice the goblin hiding in the corner but not enough to notice the loose floor board because they are not looking for traps or triggers. If they want to find the hidden door, they have to look for it.
"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
As for this idea, I'm pretty sure you can HB a feat, copy Observant and change the modifier to initiative from 5 to -2. Change the name to something like HB rules and add the feat to all relevant characters by Feature & Traits -> scroll down -> Manage Feats then manually add it onto there.
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.
Oh so it's really simple LOL!! Seriously that doesn't sound that bad. I'll be thinking about this some more & discussing this with my group before I implement anything of course.
Thanks again & again everyone
wait.... how is 10 + perception bonus bad but,
8+perception is good? you made it on average 2 less. so unless you drastically change your DCs this will be no different for most characters. In general per the DMG most DCs are in 5s; so 5, 10, 15, 20, etc. So a player well invested in wisdom is still going to see things if their passive goes from 17 to 15. Like you wanted a massive over haul in how it is calculated and didn't like that passive was .5 less than the average roll the player would make, but now it is just ~40% chance to spot instead of 50%. Not really a massive overhaul considering you wanted them to have a base -5 in your original thinking.
Personally, I'm with those saying that Passive checks are for situations where the character passively accomplishes something without actively doing something. For instance, a successful Passive Perception check may allow a character who is walking along, minding their own business, to see a body hidden in the bushes, a key sticking out from beneath a door mat, or the name of a person of interest on the edge of a piece of parchment protruding from a stack. If the character is actively doing something, it should be rolled for.
However, I would say (and I am sure some will disagree with me, given discussions I've had on here previously) that in many cases the DC will be higher for a Passive check than if the player called for a specific action.
Taking an extreme example: Let us say that there is a key to a door hidden under a flower pot on the doorstep. It is going to be virtually impossible for the character to notice that key without actively searching for it. However, if the character is actually looking for the key, or searching around that area for something, they will almost certainly look under the flower pot, so will be pretty certain to find the key. The DC is very high for the passive, but very low for active.
Having the same DC for both presents a situation where the passive score almost has to become the floor. If you say it is DC15 to notice something hidden in the bushes, a character with a +5 Wisdom(Perception) modifier will automatically notice it while walking by without paying any special attention. However, if they have said they wish to actively search as they go, they have only a 55% chance of noticing... which is kinda ridiculous.
So yeah, that's my solution: I don't use passive as a floor, and I don't make passive checks at disadvantage. Instead, I use different DCs, because succeeding at something you are not actively trying to do is more difficult than succeeding at something you are making an active attempt to accomplish. They are different tasks, with different difficulties.
I do something a little similar. I decide whether an activity can be done passively (in the case of noticing the key for example). If I think that it is impossible to perform passively, I don't tell them unless they look for it (and make a successful active check). But if it is something that can be done passively (such as seeing a body in the bushes) then I will use the same DC as for an active check made to notice it.
I get where you're coming from, but I don't increase DCs for passive checks simply because if the characters are making a check, then they will already have looked around the room with a passive check and noticed everything they can on the passive score before making the check. The active check is just (for me anyway) a means of noticing things that you might not have noticed automatically, since players never stop using passive perception.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I can see that point of view, and wouldn't argue with a DM who ran the game that way.
For me, it would depend a lot on what the player said. With the "body in the bushes" example, if the party were walking along and a player said "I keep an eye out for things in the bushes", I agree that it would probably be the same DC, and the passive score would effectively be a floor. If, however, the player said "I rummage around in the bushes as I go, searching for anything out of the ordinary", the it would make little sense to keep the same DC as it is, in my opinion, a very different task. (It would also slow the party down a lot, of course)
Then that takes us to the automatic success or failure. You may not notice a pair of feet sticking out of a bush passively, but as a DM I would rule that if you rummage around in a bush, there is no way you'll miss the body in it - I would grant players automatic success on certain activities based on the circumstances.
Chilling kinda vibe.
To me, that would depend on him looking in that specific bush. He may just be checking random bushes as he goes, depending on what the player describes, in which case it would be easier to find a body than just watching as he walked by, but not an automatic success.
Also, to me, an automatic success is functionally identical to setting a DC so low that it is impossible to fail, and an automatic failure is the same as setting the DC so high that it is impossible to succeed (unless you are using critical successes & failures on skill checks). So, effectively, granting an automatic success/failure is not really any different to adjusting the DC.
I disagree simply because on any DC the chance of success is always at least 5% (nat 20) and the same goes for failure (nat 1). If you think success should be all but guaranteed, then a 5% chance of failing is way too high.
Chilling kinda vibe.
The difficulty I have with passive and non passive checks is that it implies if yuou are activly looking for something you only have a slightly more than 50% of finding it when you find it if you are not looking for it.
Say the party are in a cavern with a slight breeze coming from a hiiden exit (DC 15) the cleric has a 15 PP so is told "you feel a very faint breeze" on asking can a tell where it is comiong from so now he is actively trying to perceive it he rolls a natural 8 (not terrible) adds his +5 for a 13, not only can he not tell where it is coming from beut he now can not feel the breeze at all. If the cleric take the observent feat actively looking for things becomes a very bad idea, on entering a new room the cleric will not look for hidden enemies / traps / secret doors because he will be far more likely to find them if he doesn't look.
Unless you house rule that is not true, auto success on a natural 20 (and fail on a natural 1) only applies to attacks and death saves. If the DC is 25 and the character has a perception of +2 there is a 0% chance of success.
Thanks for clarifying that for me Jegpeg. However, I still think that if you believe the character should have no trouble succeeding or that failure is certain, a die roll only slows things down.
Chilling kinda vibe.
I agree that you shouldn't ask for a check if the result is certain. If I had a check as a DC 10, and I knew the character had a +12 modifier for it, I wouldn't bother asking them to roll.
All I am saying is that, unless you are using the (very common) house rule of critical failures/successes on skill/ability/saving throws, an automatic failure is the equivalent of a DC which is too high to succeed on, and an automatic success is the equivalent of a DC which is too low to fail.
That first quote I admit has got me- though it seems to contradict a lot of the other quotes.
The second quote supports my stance. "Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger", if those who are doing other tasks are not focused on danger, then it implies that those who aren't doing other tasks are focused on watching for danger. Usually when your focused on something, that implies active character, not passive character. I guess that might be arguable though? Then it goes on to say anything who isn't watching for danger has no passive perception- which isn't so arguable.
But yeah- you do make a good point that the rules are not as clear as they should be.
Edit: I guess I could just write it the first quote off as a specific rule overriding the general rule of passives to cover the idea that your stealth doesn't automatically succeed against people not paying attention, since it's possible to roll low enough to alert everyone about your existence regardless of how much they are paying attention.
I feel like that's a little ehh of a argument though. Yeah the rules are not that clear here I admit.
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.
I have been using that house rule, because I guess I misread the rulebook (maybe it's not such a good idea for me to post on this rules discussion).
And yes, I agree it is the equivalent of an extreme DC.
Chilling kinda vibe.
The same rules everyone else is citing:
What is a passive skill check?
"PASSIVE CHECKS
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."
A passive check is literally one in which the players do NOT roll dice. This is exactly what the rules say. It is an "ability check" made when the players do not roll dice. The rule on passive checks does NOT redefine what an ability check is, when an ability check is made or what is required to make an ability check.
"ABILITY CHECKS
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."
Ability checks are made in response to character actions. The character (not the player) needs to be doing something to make it possible for an ability check to be made in the circumstances that the DM has created.
Here is an example - you have to describe what you are doing when making an ability check whether passive or active. They are both ability checks which are triggered by character actions.
"FINDING A HIDDEN OBJECT
When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook. In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. I f you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom ( Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."
Why is passive perception different then?
Unless a character is doing something else specifically, the player usually says that their character is paying attention to their surroundings, watching for traps and secret doors etc, characters are always actively looking unless they are specifically doing something else. This avoids the DM gotcha of "Haha - you didn't say you were looking so you step in the trap taking 6d6 damage". At least this way if your passive perception is high enough and your character wasn't doing something else, the character may have a reasonable chance of noticing the trap.
The travel rules outline cases when passive perception is not used - and they apply both outside and in dungeons.
"As adventurers travel through a dungeon or the wilderness, they need to remain alert for danger, and some characters might perform other tasks to help the group's journey."
"NOTICING THREATS
Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat. The DM might decide that a threat can be noticed only by characters in a particular rank. For example, as the characters are exploring a maze of tunnels, the DM might decide that only those characters in the back rank have a chance to hear or spot a stealthy creature following the group, while characters in the front and middle ranks cannot."
However, if the character is not actively looking as they move through the dungeon then their passive perception does not apply to noticing threats. The character has to be actively looking for threats in order for passive perception to be used.
"OTHER ACTIVITIES
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats."
A character that is doing something else (i.e. NOT specifically watching for danger) does not use their passive perception. Passive perception doesn't apply in this case because the character is not paying attention - they are doing something else. The examples in the text are:
Navigate. The character can try to prevent the group from becoming lost, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules to determine whether the group gets lost.)
Draw a Map. The character can draw a map that records the group's progress and helps the characters get back on course if they get lost. No ability check is required.
Track. A character can follow the tracks of another creature, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for tracking.)
Forage. The character can keep an eye out for ready sources of food and water, making a Wisdom (Survival) check when the DM calls for it. (The Dungeon Master's Guide has rules for foraging.)
All of these tasks involve looking at your surroundings while traveling. You are looking for terrain features, you are looking for tracks, you are looking for sides of plants or animals to eat. However, the character is specifically not watching the surroundings for danger even though several of these tasks involve paying close attention to the surroundings. Unless the character is actively watching for hazards their passive perception does not apply. Passive perception requires the character to be actively watching in the travel rules as a specific example.
I will note that passive perception and passive skills are used inconsistently in the source material. The interpretation that passive means the character being passive is a very common misconception even among folks writing content for the game. However, here is a specific example from one of the first 5e modules - Lost MIne of Phandelver p7
"Snare. About 10 minutes after heading down the trail, a party on the path encounters a hidden snare. If the characters are searching for traps, the character in the lead spots the trap automatically if his or her passive Wisdom (Perception) score is 12 or higher. Otherwise, the character must succeed on a DC 12 Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the trap."
In this example, if the character is actively looking then they spot the trap with a passive perception check and if they are NOT looking (or if they don't see the trap) then the character needs to succeed on a rolled perception check to notice the trap.
TL;DR
Ability checks by definition require the character to be taking an action to enable an ability check - passive or active.The difference between passive and active checks is the player being passive or active - the player either does not roll dice (passive) or the player rolls dice (active).
P.S. This also avoids the issue that you started the thread with. Characters are NOT better at noticing things when they do nothing - they don't even have a chance to notice things if the character isn't taking the appropriate action - ability checks by definition require the character to be doing something. Passive checks are when the player doesn't roll dice and the situation applies for tasks done repeatedly or the DM wanting to resolve whether something is noticed without alerting the players by rolling dice.
Ok, but a character will still be better at something if they are doing so more thoroughly and carefully.
If they are just generally being alert, watching out for traps as they go through the woods/countryside/dungeon, they may see a trap. However, they should be more likely to do so if they stop at a point and say "I'm going to check this specific area for traps". They will be looking more closely, being more thorough.
So, it's pretty well assumed that a character who is not concentrating on something else will be looking out for traps, dangers and other information as they travel through a dungeon. If their passive score is good enough, they may notice a trap. However if they were doing something else and their passive score was not checked, but they then stop to specifically investigate a room or doorway for traps, they should have a better "chance" of success than before.
This is a good idea! And its pretty much how I've always treated PP.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the basic summary of your post is this: "Use passive perception unless PC specifically describes a more detailed (specific) search, In that case allow a roll for a potential higher result"
The only problem with this is that potential higher result. With passive perception being ~about the average, the player who is describing a more specific search has ALMOST an equal chance of doing worse than if they just stayed passive.
This is especially true when the Observant feat comes into play because it gives a flat +5 to passive. So the player actually has a lower chance of succeeding by "searching harder" than they would if they just walked in the room
Personally I think this situation is misusing the concept of passive perception. The cleric succeeds on a passive check, but then you make them do an active check to "perceive it more."
That's not how it should work. If they make the DC with their passive perception, they perceive it just as if they had succeeded in an active check. There is a binary result. If you just want to give a clue like your faint breeze that doesn't tell the whole story, then you'd either need two DCs for two levels of information, or call for an Investigation check to deduce what the significance of the breeze could be. Either way, the point is that once the DC is met there is no further action required by that skill - regardless of whether it's an active or passive check.
People angry that active checks can be worse than passive checks are probably using them wrong because you should never need to succeed with both on the same thing. If a passive check succeeds, there's no need for an active check. That's the whole point of passive checks.
If your passive fails then you still have a chance to detect with an active check, but only if you roll well because clearly it's not easy to find.
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
Since the floor of a skill roll is equal to the passive score the character will never do worse, but I use a graduated scale of success or failure, so if the check succeeds by 4 or less you feel a breeze, by 5-9 you feel a light breeze coming from the SW, 10+ the breeze carries an almost imperceptible carnel scent, for example. Doing it that way it might make a difference if the character chooses to attempt to find out more.