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"
Exactly.
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.
It won't really be getting worse as PP is the "bottom" of Active Perception, but I agree that there is a 50% chance that he will get nothing more. Which in a sense is OK with me because, knowing this, there is a higher likelihood of the player deciding that it's not worth the bother unless he is absolutely sure and that will spare one roll.
Note that, on the other hand, as a DM, I might just decide to give advantage or even an automatic success because the action is extremely appropriate, so it might make it really worthwhile to be clever about what you are doing.
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
Again, the PP becomes the bottom floor. The character will not become oblivious to everything that he noticed before, he will just not see anything new.
For me, the problem is more with the Observant feat, which is an annoying one in what it provides and the way it is worded.
I get what you mean now! I didn't fully grasp what you meant by "bottom" at first but I think I get it now.
Scenario: Room has a hidden door (DC 15) and hidden loot (DC 20). Party's highest PP is 16
Party walks in a room, PP is Instantly applied to hidden DC's and the hidden door is revealed. But the rogue has a REALLY sinking suspicion that there's something under the floorboard under the desk so they say "I search under the desk" *Perception roll 22* They now find the extra loot.
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.
Yes, but what you're describing is, in fact, different DCs for different things to perceive, even if they're all related:
Feel a breeze: DC 10
Notice the breeze comes from the SW: DC 15
Notice the breeze carries an almost imperceptible charnel scent: DC 20
So a Paladin with a Passive Perception of 13 will automatically feel a breeze on walking into the room, a Cleric with proficiency in Perception and a Passive Perception of 17 will automatically notice the breeze comes from the SW, and an Elven Rogue with Observant and Expertise in Perception, and a Passive Perception of 23, will automatically notice the slight scent in the breeze.
The Paladin can roll, to see if they perceive the direction of the breeze, or the scent, needing rolls of 12 and 17, respectively, but doesn't need to roll to feel the breeze, having already succeeded at that, passively.
The Cleric can roll, to see if they perceive the scent, needing a roll of 13, but doesn't need to roll to feel the breeze or its direction, having already succeeded at that, passively.
The Rogue doesn't need to roll, at all, having already perceived everything, passively.
The Paladin and the Cleric aren't rolling to see if they perceive anything, they're rolling to see if they perceive anything additional.
Thanks for the insight, I like the idea of using passive as the normal unless the player says why they are doing something that deserves a roll. I also think it is a great way of dealing with insight ("do I think he is lying?" results in a roll for deception against passive insight). This also gets round the concern I have that of passive being a floor going against "Such a check can represent the averageresult for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again," If you roll but have a floor of your passive you will get average half the time and above average the rest of the time which does not make sense unless they is a reason they your chances of success are higher than they should be.
So, using this interpretation, the passive score is the floor, so the passive score is the minimum that anyone can get for many skill checks?
Doesn't this pretty much make the rogue's Reliable Talent redundant? That's an 11th level class feature, but you're giving it to everyone from day one... Doesn't seem quite right to me.
If it's a passive situation, why allow them to roll at all? The check has already been done based on the passive. If they've failed, they've failed (assuming you're counting it as the same task with the same DC). This is like a player checking for traps, rolling low and failing, and asking to roll again. If you've made a passive check, they've already performed the action and failed at it.
None of this feels right.
Now, if someone is moving through a dungeon "keeping a look out for traps", fails their passive, but then asks to search a specific room for traps, fine. However, it's certainly not the same task, and probably not the same difficulty, to find it while thoroughly searching the room as opposed to noticing it while just keeping a look out. The passive is definitely not a floor, here.
Just out of curiosity, if a player failed a "check for traps" roll and asked to repeat it (with "I'm sure there's a trap in here, I keep looking for it"), would you allow them to roll again with the same DC?
By the way, I'm not attempting to be argumentative here. I'm genuinely interested in this. I don't have a vast amount of experience as a DM, and seeing how others are using the system is helpful, but some of it just feels... "icky" to me.
If it's a passive situation, why allow them to roll at all?
I'm not, which situation are you referring to ?
This was in reply to Kotath, above. Apologies for not making this clear :)
The check has already been done based on the passive. If they've failed, they've failed (assuming you're counting it as the same task with the same DC). This is like a player checking for traps, rolling low and failing, and asking to roll again. If you've made a passive check, they've already performed the action and failed at it.
That's why I said that I would not allow passive checks for traps, right ? "But I would not apply it to a rogue trying to pick a specific lock in a hurry. I would not apply it to stealth when it is more than casual step, i.e. how quiet one is around a camp site for example. I would not apply it to disarming a specific trap which is inherently stressful."
So you wouldn't use passives to see if a character noticed a trap as they were walking around a dungeon? Interesting take... I thought most DMs would.
By the way, I'm only really using "check for traps" and "notice a trap" as it's a fairly stereotypical situation. This could just as easily relate to noticing a dead body hidden in the bushes as the party travels through a forest, or noticing an important document on the counter in a shop etc. To me, the characters can be assumed to be being reasonably vigilant, keeping an eye out for things which could be relevant to what they are doing.
Although I know that some modules have done this thing of not having the same difficulty for passive and rolled, I consider this idiocy. For me, it's the mark of people who don't understand how passives and the system works in general. By the way, if you have examples of this, I would welcome them, to study the potential reasons.
I don't use modules, myself. However, I can give examples. I think we may have argued over "different DCs" before, discussing getting over a wall with a ladder, rope or without either, and I don't really want to get back into that again (if it's the discussion I remember, I doubt either of us will convince the other), but here we go with an example:
A character walks into the office of a magistrate to discuss disappearances. The DM knows that there is a letter on his desk, partially obscured by other papers, discussing the local Lord's involvement in the disappearances. I've set a DC of 25 for a player to passively notice it: While not doing anything else, they would be looking around the room, and they may notice it, but it is not very likely and the players would need to be very observant.
Let's assume that there is a character with a passive perception score of 26, so I figured that he would notice if he wasn't engaged in something else. Unfortunately for the party, either he decided to go investigate something else, or he is concentrating on speaking to the magistrate. None of the others' passive scores are high enough.
However, maybe another character says "I surreptitiously study the magistrate's desk looking for anything relevant". Well, now, this has gone from "casually looking for clues in the room" to "look specifically at the contents of the magistrate's desk". It's no longer the same task, and it is much easier to find something if your attention is focused on that, so I would assign a lower DC. Maybe 20.
Or else, maybe one character manages to lure the magistrate out of the room, and another says "I thoroughly search the papers on the magistrate's desk". Well, now it's an even easier task. They can move things around and read documents up close. Depending on how long the magistrate is away, how many people are around etc, it may be a DC15, or even 10.
Anyway, I do not allow rolls to be made just because one enters a different room. If you switch from passive to active, it's because you are taking an exceptional action, one that would take time, or make noise, etc. If the players start doing this in every room, fine, but it's going to take them hours and/or make noise, and I will take this into account as well.
I agree.
To me, if they are repeating the action they already did "passively", that's no different to asking to reroll a failed result. It would have to be a distinct, different action. In that case, though, IMHO it could very well have a different DC, and the passive score is not a floor.
Thanks to both of you, I think we are really converging here:
Passive does not mean changing the environment in general, it's one DC, etc.
Active usually means taking some drastic action, which means interacting strongly with the environment (with the chance of being noticed, now or later), which can allow a new roll depending on the action and which might change the DC because the task in question becomes substantially different.
I would also add (and these are our table rules, although they do not contradict the RAW at all), that for the stealth check above, or sometimes maybe even to disarm a trap, or for listening at a door, when the player takes a specific action that is clearly not routine and therefore gets a check, but I still don't want the player to know whether he rolled high or low, I will ask him to roll "behind my screen", or in a cup or, with a VTT, using a special macro (I wrote one for d20, I now need to write the same for Foundry), so that only I get the result.
That way, the player cannot metagame about his result as he gets only my description of the result and the nice thing about the VTT is that it still stores the result... :)
This is really quite tangential to the discussion, but thought I'd chime in, anyway.
I used to do this, too, until someone on the boards suggested a trick they used, to still keep players rolling and knowing what they rolled, but still keeping the DC secret (or, put another way, keeping them on their toes unsure of whether they really succeeded or not). You know how in the optional rules there's a variant that suggests treating "1's that fail" as "worse" than a simple failure? (Not "critical misses", since a 1 that would succeed doesn't turn into a failure.) Well, keep the same statistics, but change it to "DC-1 = special failure". In those cases, the player gets misleading misinformation. This "fixes" the problem with "leaking" the actual DC (metagame knowledge), while maintaining the players' agency and knowledge of how well their characters are performing.
For example: character intends to disarm a trap, the DC is 17. Player rolls a 12, you inform them "you failed to disarm the trap". Player rolls an 18, you inform them "you disarmed the trap". Player rolls a 1, you inform them "you failed to disarm the trap". Player rolls a 16, you inform them "you disarmed the trap" (or, if you don't wanna outright lie to them, "you think you disarmed the trap". And if you don't want to always give it away, you can always use that language for successes.)
The theory behind this is that while it makes absolute sense that in some situations the character isn't sure whether they actually succeeded or not, they usually should have a decent idea regarding how well they did. If they're disarming a trap, and they're all thumbs and drop the thieves' tools and all, they know they did badly. If they were all slick, focused, in the zone, they know they did well. But the problem is "doing well" isn't the same as "doing well enough", so you cover that gap by fudging the line a bit, and having them assume "success" for "near successes". You could even go further and totally blur the DC line, and tell them they think they succeeded for anything at DC±2, covering 5 possible results with uncertainty, and only tell them they're sure they did for DC+3 and higher, but that's probably too much work for too little gain.
To be clear, I'm only putting this out there as a suggestion, something I learned on the boards that has worked for me. This is not meant to be any sort of criticism regarding how you, or anybody else, does it in their games.
So, using this interpretation, the passive score is the floor, so the passive score is the minimum that anyone can get for many skill checks?
Doesn't this pretty much make the rogue's Reliable Talent redundant? That's an 11th level class feature, but you're giving it to everyone from day one... Doesn't seem quite right to me.
Not quite ... at least the way I run it ... and it doesn't invalidate the rogues Reliable Talent feature.
In my opinion, using the passive as a floor ONLY applies for a "task done repeatedly" like looking around or when the DM does not want the character to roll dice. It does NOT apply to regular rolled skills checks. If you aren't doing something where averages or repeated attempts factor in then the character needs to determine how they performed on one specific attempt.
What is the difference? If there is time pressure, a consequence of failure, or some other condition that would prevent multiple attempts then passive scores can't be used. In this case active rolls are made. A rogue's reliable talent skill applies for any active checks.
Examples:
- searching in combat - rogue gets their minimum - others don't
- searching for something you need to find right away (oncoming trap or enemies) - DM call but usually active checks would be needed to see whether the characters find what they are looking for to escape the trap or escape before the enemies arrive - in this case reliable talent applies
- picking a lock which could jam or become damaged on a failed attempt - roll required and reliable talent applies
- Trying to judge the truth of one statement using an insight check - roll required and reliable talent applies
---
Other cases without rolls:
- picking a lock where you have as much time as you need and the lock won't break - use passive lockpicking or make a roll if your passive isn't high enough - also the DM needs to decide whether the character can eventually pick the lock (DC is less than the maximum possible roll) or whether they only get one attempt at an active roll. Usually, I will narrate a situation where picking the lock is within the possible skill range as "The lock looks very difficult to pick - you think you could succeed but it will take anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours to do so - do you want to make the attempt?"
- using insight on a long speech or an entire conversation - use passive insight since there are many statements being made and the information obtained is whether the content appears to be generally truthful or not perhaps with some indication of areas you might be suspicious about. However, individual statements would require an active check and reliable talent would apply for a rogue but there would be no floor for someone else.
- studying a glyph to figure out what it does - if there is no consequence to taking the time required then a passive arcana check is fine. On the other hand, if a character is trying to identify a spell being cast by another character using the method outlined in Xanathar's this isn't something done repeatedly so a active check is required. Reliable talent would apply to such a roll.
----
Anyway, in my opinion, passive scores act as a floor in tasks done repeatedly.
In passive perception, you are always looking around, always aware (unless doing something else) so passive perception applies as a floor for perception checks.
Knowledge skills - if a character is trying to recall things out of combat where they can take a quiet minute then I would use a passive check first and use that as a floor for the check - on the other hand, if trying to remember in the midst of combat, whether a creature has a poison bite or not, that would likely be a rolled nature check since the character needs to recall the information under pressure and doesn't have multiple attempts to do so..
That is how I run it ...
TL;DR
-passive skills are a floor for tasks that can reasonably done repeatedly or for which the DM doesn't want the characters to roll dice.
-ability checks with immediate consequences of failure or tight time limits aren't usually resolved with passive checks since the task isn't repeated (but it is a DM call since they can still decide that they don't want the players to roll dice in this situation).
- Reliable talent applies to all Ability Check rolls meaning that whenever the rogue rolls the dice the minimum value is 10. This is still relevant and very useful since passive values are only the floor for tasks done repeatedly while the rogue has a minimum of 10 in ANY proficient ability check.
In my opinion, using the passive as a floor ONLY applies for a "task done repeatedly" like looking around or when the DM does not want the character to roll dice. It does NOT apply to regular rolled skills checks. If you aren't doing something where averages or repeated attempts factor in then the character needs to determine how they performed on one specific attempt.
Yeah we have already discussed several part of this, and I've agreed that my previous statement made some faulty assumption.
However, I disagree with the quote above. If it is a "task done repeatedly", the passive score is the result, not the floor.
The task is being done repeatedly, and you have done the check as a passive check. The task has either succeeded or failed based on passive alone. To allow an "active check"/roll on the exact same thing you've already failed a passive check on is the equivalent of letting someone reroll a failure IMHO.
So for me, the check is either active or passive, and the result stands from either. If it's passive, the passive score is the result. If it's active, the dice roll + mods is the result. In neither case would I characterise the passive score as a floor.
One possible house rule regarding Reliable Talent is to use it the same way you use Advantage and Disadvantage. Reliable Talent raises the average on your d20 from 10.5 to 12.75, so make that the base for your passive scores. Round down to 12, to keep it in line with the normal rounding down from 10.5 to 10, so that passive scores for a Rogue with Reliable Talent are 12+skill bonus, rather than 10+skill bonus. Strictly a house rule, nowhere near RAW.
The entire thing is (basically) a House Rule, so doing stuff like that to Reliable Talent is fitting.
As for Inquisitive (since someone might want to know), it raises the average from 10.5 to 11.9. Seeing how your using 12 + skill bonus for reliable talent, I'd probably just make Inquisitive 11 + skill bonus.
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.
In my opinion, using the passive as a floor ONLY applies for a "task done repeatedly" like looking around or when the DM does not want the character to roll dice. It does NOT apply to regular rolled skills checks. If you aren't doing something where averages or repeated attempts factor in then the character needs to determine how they performed on one specific attempt.
Yeah we have already discussed several part of this, and I've agreed that my previous statement made some faulty assumption.
However, I disagree with the quote above. If it is a "task done repeatedly", the passive score is the result, not the floor.
The task is being done repeatedly, and you have done the check as a passive check. The task has either succeeded or failed based on passive alone. To allow an "active check"/roll on the exact same thing you've already failed a passive check on is the equivalent of letting someone reroll a failure IMHO.
So for me, the check is either active or passive, and the result stands from either. If it's passive, the passive score is the result. If it's active, the dice roll + mods is the result. In neither case would I characterise the passive score as a floor.
I disagree. :)
Why is a passive NOT the result and is actually the floor? Because the character CAN do better. When doing a task repeatedly, they obtain an average result. Works ok for passive perception. However, let's say a character is in a room, their passive perception doesn't reveal a hidden door (because it is harder to spot that average). Is it impossible for this character to ever notice this door? Not unless the DC is above their maximum possible perception check.
So, since this is a role playing game, the character is suspicious of a wall, a room, or a particular location. The character spends extra or additional time and effort taking a look at this area. The result is that YES they get to make another check this time with an active roll. Why do they do this? It is because their best is better than their average and it is NOT impossible for them to find the door. They just haven't yet.
Here is the quote from the DMG p237
"MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."
So, no, ability checks are NOT one and done, especially if the character specifically describes taking more time or doing something differently which increases their odds of success.
Most situations can be resolved with a combination of active and passive checks and if they passive is not successful it is STILL possible for the character to succeed at the task since the character is BETTER at the task than their average and will eventually be able to complete the task given time and lack of consequences.
Ok, I can see that. However, personally I don't believe that a character is often doing the same thing when doing an active check as when it's an active check.
Taking the stereotypical "checking for traps", few players will describe that they are thoroughly examining every inch of every room, because that would take a long time. I don't think I would allow that as a passive check anyway, but the description that they've only covered a tenth of the dungeon in a day, while having multiple fights, and found no traps in that time would discourage this ultra cautious approach.
Instead, most plays would describe moving at a reasonable speed, keeping a look out for traps and other dangers (if they even bothered to do so, as discussed I think it's reasonable to assume they are doing that without them asking unless they specifically say they are in a hurry or doing something else). They may investigate certain, suspicious rooms more thoroughly, but that's not the same task.
So I guess, yes, they could describe that they have a quick scan around the room again, and I might let them repeat that (depending on the circumstances). But I have never come across that. The kind of thing which I normally see happening "passively" are not normally the kind of thing I see happening actively. Keeping a look out for traps is not the same as searching a room for traps. Looking out for danger as you travel through the woods is not the same as searching through a clearing thoroughly for signs of enemy or animal activity.
So far as traps and hidden doors ad such go, I will sometimes set 2 DC's. One, maybe at 12, to discern that the floor ahead has a slightly different shade to it. A 16 on an active check would reveal that it's a trap, ie: an illusionary floor, a cleverly colored rug over a pit, etc. If I want the players to have a higher chance of noticing something, I usually try to give hints that something doesn't seem QUITE like the rest of the stuff around, and is picked up on a passive. To see what it is, or why it's different, they can roll to inspect it more closely. I will have this anomaly occur a few times, with nothing behind it other than newer stonework, or a cleaned area, before the trap itself is discovered.
I think there is some agreement that super high passive scores can create some interesting dynamics for a DM. We often need to consider creative ideas to not just "You see a trap ahead" for those with abnormally high passives. Myself, I only allow then to notice, as a passive, that something looks different, or a sound is heard or a scent seems to waft through. I don't give freebies on challenges the group is meant to overcome through effort (dice rolls or RP their actions)
Long and short, scores can only mess up the game if it's allowed to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I get what you mean now! I didn't fully grasp what you meant by "bottom" at first but I think I get it now.
Scenario: Room has a hidden door (DC 15) and hidden loot (DC 20). Party's highest PP is 16
Party walks in a room, PP is Instantly applied to hidden DC's and the hidden door is revealed. But the rogue has a REALLY sinking suspicion that there's something under the floorboard under the desk so they say "I search under the desk" *Perception roll 22* They now find the extra loot.
That seem about right?
Yes, but what you're describing is, in fact, different DCs for different things to perceive, even if they're all related:
So a Paladin with a Passive Perception of 13 will automatically feel a breeze on walking into the room, a Cleric with proficiency in Perception and a Passive Perception of 17 will automatically notice the breeze comes from the SW, and an Elven Rogue with Observant and Expertise in Perception, and a Passive Perception of 23, will automatically notice the slight scent in the breeze.
The Paladin can roll, to see if they perceive the direction of the breeze, or the scent, needing rolls of 12 and 17, respectively, but doesn't need to roll to feel the breeze, having already succeeded at that, passively.
The Cleric can roll, to see if they perceive the scent, needing a roll of 13, but doesn't need to roll to feel the breeze or its direction, having already succeeded at that, passively.
The Rogue doesn't need to roll, at all, having already perceived everything, passively.
The Paladin and the Cleric aren't rolling to see if they perceive anything, they're rolling to see if they perceive anything additional.
Thanks for the insight, I like the idea of using passive as the normal unless the player says why they are doing something that deserves a roll. I also think it is a great way of dealing with insight ("do I think he is lying?" results in a roll for deception against passive insight). This also gets round the concern I have that of passive being a floor going against
"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again,"
If you roll but have a floor of your passive you will get average half the time and above average the rest of the time which does not make sense unless they is a reason they your chances of success are higher than they should be.
So, using this interpretation, the passive score is the floor, so the passive score is the minimum that anyone can get for many skill checks?
Doesn't this pretty much make the rogue's Reliable Talent redundant? That's an 11th level class feature, but you're giving it to everyone from day one... Doesn't seem quite right to me.
If it's a passive situation, why allow them to roll at all? The check has already been done based on the passive. If they've failed, they've failed (assuming you're counting it as the same task with the same DC). This is like a player checking for traps, rolling low and failing, and asking to roll again. If you've made a passive check, they've already performed the action and failed at it.
None of this feels right.
Now, if someone is moving through a dungeon "keeping a look out for traps", fails their passive, but then asks to search a specific room for traps, fine. However, it's certainly not the same task, and probably not the same difficulty, to find it while thoroughly searching the room as opposed to noticing it while just keeping a look out. The passive is definitely not a floor, here.
Just out of curiosity, if a player failed a "check for traps" roll and asked to repeat it (with "I'm sure there's a trap in here, I keep looking for it"), would you allow them to roll again with the same DC?
By the way, I'm not attempting to be argumentative here. I'm genuinely interested in this. I don't have a vast amount of experience as a DM, and seeing how others are using the system is helpful, but some of it just feels... "icky" to me.
This was in reply to Kotath, above. Apologies for not making this clear :)
So you wouldn't use passives to see if a character noticed a trap as they were walking around a dungeon? Interesting take... I thought most DMs would.
By the way, I'm only really using "check for traps" and "notice a trap" as it's a fairly stereotypical situation. This could just as easily relate to noticing a dead body hidden in the bushes as the party travels through a forest, or noticing an important document on the counter in a shop etc. To me, the characters can be assumed to be being reasonably vigilant, keeping an eye out for things which could be relevant to what they are doing.
I don't use modules, myself. However, I can give examples. I think we may have argued over "different DCs" before, discussing getting over a wall with a ladder, rope or without either, and I don't really want to get back into that again (if it's the discussion I remember, I doubt either of us will convince the other), but here we go with an example:
A character walks into the office of a magistrate to discuss disappearances. The DM knows that there is a letter on his desk, partially obscured by other papers, discussing the local Lord's involvement in the disappearances. I've set a DC of 25 for a player to passively notice it: While not doing anything else, they would be looking around the room, and they may notice it, but it is not very likely and the players would need to be very observant.
Let's assume that there is a character with a passive perception score of 26, so I figured that he would notice if he wasn't engaged in something else. Unfortunately for the party, either he decided to go investigate something else, or he is concentrating on speaking to the magistrate. None of the others' passive scores are high enough.
However, maybe another character says "I surreptitiously study the magistrate's desk looking for anything relevant". Well, now, this has gone from "casually looking for clues in the room" to "look specifically at the contents of the magistrate's desk". It's no longer the same task, and it is much easier to find something if your attention is focused on that, so I would assign a lower DC. Maybe 20.
Or else, maybe one character manages to lure the magistrate out of the room, and another says "I thoroughly search the papers on the magistrate's desk". Well, now it's an even easier task. They can move things around and read documents up close. Depending on how long the magistrate is away, how many people are around etc, it may be a DC15, or even 10.
I agree.
To me, if they are repeating the action they already did "passively", that's no different to asking to reroll a failed result. It would have to be a distinct, different action. In that case, though, IMHO it could very well have a different DC, and the passive score is not a floor.
Yeah, I think that's fair enough.
We've agreed on something? On the Internet?!?! Are you sure?
😂😂😂
Shocking. Is this a Dream?
Chilling kinda vibe.
Ahhh yes. That sounds more like reality.
Chilling kinda vibe.
This is really quite tangential to the discussion, but thought I'd chime in, anyway.
I used to do this, too, until someone on the boards suggested a trick they used, to still keep players rolling and knowing what they rolled, but still keeping the DC secret (or, put another way, keeping them on their toes unsure of whether they really succeeded or not). You know how in the optional rules there's a variant that suggests treating "1's that fail" as "worse" than a simple failure? (Not "critical misses", since a 1 that would succeed doesn't turn into a failure.) Well, keep the same statistics, but change it to "DC-1 = special failure". In those cases, the player gets misleading misinformation. This "fixes" the problem with "leaking" the actual DC (metagame knowledge), while maintaining the players' agency and knowledge of how well their characters are performing.
For example: character intends to disarm a trap, the DC is 17. Player rolls a 12, you inform them "you failed to disarm the trap". Player rolls an 18, you inform them "you disarmed the trap". Player rolls a 1, you inform them "you failed to disarm the trap". Player rolls a 16, you inform them "you disarmed the trap" (or, if you don't wanna outright lie to them, "you think you disarmed the trap". And if you don't want to always give it away, you can always use that language for successes.)
The theory behind this is that while it makes absolute sense that in some situations the character isn't sure whether they actually succeeded or not, they usually should have a decent idea regarding how well they did. If they're disarming a trap, and they're all thumbs and drop the thieves' tools and all, they know they did badly. If they were all slick, focused, in the zone, they know they did well. But the problem is "doing well" isn't the same as "doing well enough", so you cover that gap by fudging the line a bit, and having them assume "success" for "near successes". You could even go further and totally blur the DC line, and tell them they think they succeeded for anything at DC±2, covering 5 possible results with uncertainty, and only tell them they're sure they did for DC+3 and higher, but that's probably too much work for too little gain.
To be clear, I'm only putting this out there as a suggestion, something I learned on the boards that has worked for me. This is not meant to be any sort of criticism regarding how you, or anybody else, does it in their games.
Not quite ... at least the way I run it ... and it doesn't invalidate the rogues Reliable Talent feature.
In my opinion, using the passive as a floor ONLY applies for a "task done repeatedly" like looking around or when the DM does not want the character to roll dice. It does NOT apply to regular rolled skills checks. If you aren't doing something where averages or repeated attempts factor in then the character needs to determine how they performed on one specific attempt.
What is the difference? If there is time pressure, a consequence of failure, or some other condition that would prevent multiple attempts then passive scores can't be used. In this case active rolls are made. A rogue's reliable talent skill applies for any active checks.
Examples:
- searching in combat - rogue gets their minimum - others don't
- searching for something you need to find right away (oncoming trap or enemies) - DM call but usually active checks would be needed to see whether the characters find what they are looking for to escape the trap or escape before the enemies arrive - in this case reliable talent applies
- picking a lock which could jam or become damaged on a failed attempt - roll required and reliable talent applies
- Trying to judge the truth of one statement using an insight check - roll required and reliable talent applies
---
Other cases without rolls:
- picking a lock where you have as much time as you need and the lock won't break - use passive lockpicking or make a roll if your passive isn't high enough - also the DM needs to decide whether the character can eventually pick the lock (DC is less than the maximum possible roll) or whether they only get one attempt at an active roll. Usually, I will narrate a situation where picking the lock is within the possible skill range as "The lock looks very difficult to pick - you think you could succeed but it will take anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours to do so - do you want to make the attempt?"
- using insight on a long speech or an entire conversation - use passive insight since there are many statements being made and the information obtained is whether the content appears to be generally truthful or not perhaps with some indication of areas you might be suspicious about. However, individual statements would require an active check and reliable talent would apply for a rogue but there would be no floor for someone else.
- studying a glyph to figure out what it does - if there is no consequence to taking the time required then a passive arcana check is fine. On the other hand, if a character is trying to identify a spell being cast by another character using the method outlined in Xanathar's this isn't something done repeatedly so a active check is required. Reliable talent would apply to such a roll.
----
Anyway, in my opinion, passive scores act as a floor in tasks done repeatedly.
In passive perception, you are always looking around, always aware (unless doing something else) so passive perception applies as a floor for perception checks.
Knowledge skills - if a character is trying to recall things out of combat where they can take a quiet minute then I would use a passive check first and use that as a floor for the check - on the other hand, if trying to remember in the midst of combat, whether a creature has a poison bite or not, that would likely be a rolled nature check since the character needs to recall the information under pressure and doesn't have multiple attempts to do so..
That is how I run it ...
TL;DR
-passive skills are a floor for tasks that can reasonably done repeatedly or for which the DM doesn't want the characters to roll dice.
-ability checks with immediate consequences of failure or tight time limits aren't usually resolved with passive checks since the task isn't repeated (but it is a DM call since they can still decide that they don't want the players to roll dice in this situation).
- Reliable talent applies to all Ability Check rolls meaning that whenever the rogue rolls the dice the minimum value is 10. This is still relevant and very useful since passive values are only the floor for tasks done repeatedly while the rogue has a minimum of 10 in ANY proficient ability check.
Yeah we have already discussed several part of this, and I've agreed that my previous statement made some faulty assumption.
However, I disagree with the quote above. If it is a "task done repeatedly", the passive score is the result, not the floor.
The task is being done repeatedly, and you have done the check as a passive check. The task has either succeeded or failed based on passive alone. To allow an "active check"/roll on the exact same thing you've already failed a passive check on is the equivalent of letting someone reroll a failure IMHO.
So for me, the check is either active or passive, and the result stands from either. If it's passive, the passive score is the result. If it's active, the dice roll + mods is the result. In neither case would I characterise the passive score as a floor.
One possible house rule regarding Reliable Talent is to use it the same way you use Advantage and Disadvantage. Reliable Talent raises the average on your d20 from 10.5 to 12.75, so make that the base for your passive scores. Round down to 12, to keep it in line with the normal rounding down from 10.5 to 10, so that passive scores for a Rogue with Reliable Talent are 12+skill bonus, rather than 10+skill bonus. Strictly a house rule, nowhere near RAW.
The entire thing is (basically) a House Rule, so doing stuff like that to Reliable Talent is fitting.
As for Inquisitive (since someone might want to know), it raises the average from 10.5 to 11.9. Seeing how your using 12 + skill bonus for reliable talent, I'd probably just make Inquisitive 11 + skill bonus.
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 disagree. :)
Why is a passive NOT the result and is actually the floor? Because the character CAN do better. When doing a task repeatedly, they obtain an average result. Works ok for passive perception. However, let's say a character is in a room, their passive perception doesn't reveal a hidden door (because it is harder to spot that average). Is it impossible for this character to ever notice this door? Not unless the DC is above their maximum possible perception check.
So, since this is a role playing game, the character is suspicious of a wall, a room, or a particular location. The character spends extra or additional time and effort taking a look at this area. The result is that YES they get to make another check this time with an active roll. Why do they do this? It is because their best is better than their average and it is NOT impossible for them to find the door. They just haven't yet.
Here is the quote from the DMG p237
"MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."
So, no, ability checks are NOT one and done, especially if the character specifically describes taking more time or doing something differently which increases their odds of success.
Most situations can be resolved with a combination of active and passive checks and if they passive is not successful it is STILL possible for the character to succeed at the task since the character is BETTER at the task than their average and will eventually be able to complete the task given time and lack of consequences.
Ok, I can see that. However, personally I don't believe that a character is often doing the same thing when doing an active check as when it's an active check.
Taking the stereotypical "checking for traps", few players will describe that they are thoroughly examining every inch of every room, because that would take a long time. I don't think I would allow that as a passive check anyway, but the description that they've only covered a tenth of the dungeon in a day, while having multiple fights, and found no traps in that time would discourage this ultra cautious approach.
Instead, most plays would describe moving at a reasonable speed, keeping a look out for traps and other dangers (if they even bothered to do so, as discussed I think it's reasonable to assume they are doing that without them asking unless they specifically say they are in a hurry or doing something else). They may investigate certain, suspicious rooms more thoroughly, but that's not the same task.
So I guess, yes, they could describe that they have a quick scan around the room again, and I might let them repeat that (depending on the circumstances). But I have never come across that. The kind of thing which I normally see happening "passively" are not normally the kind of thing I see happening actively. Keeping a look out for traps is not the same as searching a room for traps. Looking out for danger as you travel through the woods is not the same as searching through a clearing thoroughly for signs of enemy or animal activity.
So far as traps and hidden doors ad such go, I will sometimes set 2 DC's. One, maybe at 12, to discern that the floor ahead has a slightly different shade to it. A 16 on an active check would reveal that it's a trap, ie: an illusionary floor, a cleverly colored rug over a pit, etc. If I want the players to have a higher chance of noticing something, I usually try to give hints that something doesn't seem QUITE like the rest of the stuff around, and is picked up on a passive. To see what it is, or why it's different, they can roll to inspect it more closely. I will have this anomaly occur a few times, with nothing behind it other than newer stonework, or a cleaned area, before the trap itself is discovered.
I think there is some agreement that super high passive scores can create some interesting dynamics for a DM. We often need to consider creative ideas to not just "You see a trap ahead" for those with abnormally high passives. Myself, I only allow then to notice, as a passive, that something looks different, or a sound is heard or a scent seems to waft through. I don't give freebies on challenges the group is meant to overcome through effort (dice rolls or RP their actions)
Long and short, scores can only mess up the game if it's allowed to.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.