I feel like I've read and seen a bunch of 5e designers convey the difference between rolling a perception check and passive perception... yet every DM I see running modules (Tyranny of Dragons, Tomb of Annihilation, even AL Moonshae stuff) keeps asking for perception checks when we enter rooms that obviously have something there to notice.
Maybe it's just how they're translating the description of the room that includes something like "a perception check of DC 15 reveals that four books are missing from the shelf on the north wall" and, having played d&d for ages, they are just in the habit of calling for perception checks. Ie: they aren't waiting for a character to anounce she's perusing the shelves.
This occurred to me, as it does every now and then, last night when our druid picked up the observant feat. Based on how the system is set up, he should be noticing quite a bit, no roll fickle d20 required. DM still asked for a roll. He's a newer player so doesn't know what he's missing to argue the point. I feel his pain, since my cleric also took the feat s year or two ago.
Anyway, we're a friendly group, this will all work out; I'm not concerned.
But I'm curious if others have noticed the modules being written in a way that doesn't adhere to how passive checks work. Ie: room descriptions spelling out guidelines on what can be noticed with passive perception, what can be noticed only while actively searching, etc.
I feel like I've read and seen a bunch of 5e designers convey the difference between rolling a perception check and passive perception... yet every DM I see running modules (Tyranny of Dragons, Tomb of Annihilation, even AL Moonshae stuff) keeps asking for perception checks when we enter rooms that obviously have something there to notice.
Maybe it's just how they're translating the description of the room that includes something like "a perception check of DC 15 reveals that four books are missing from the shelf on the north wall" and, having played d&d for ages, they are just in the habit of calling for perception checks. Ie: they aren't waiting for a character to anounce she's perusing the shelves.
This occurred to me, as it does every now and then, last night when our druid picked up the observant feat. Based on how the system is set up, he should be noticing quite a bit, no roll fickle d20 required. DM still asked for a roll. He's a newer player so doesn't know what he's missing to argue the point. I feel his pain, since my cleric also took the feat s year or two ago.
Anyway, we're a friendly group, this will all work out; I'm not concerned.
But I'm curious if others have noticed the modules being written in a way that doesn't adhere to how passive checks work. Ie: room descriptions spelling out guidelines on what can be noticed with passive perception, what can be noticed only while actively searching, etc.
That’s not a module written thing. That’s a DM DM’ing thing.
There's still some uncertainty involving passive checks... the books do not lay out their intended usage super clearly. The generally accepted idea is that passive perception/investigation/insight are meant to serve as the minimum result on an active check when not in combat. It's basically "taking 10" from older editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It is mostly a DM thing. Some modules are written with explicit instructions to notice things with passive perception but some aren't so DMs fall into the habit of calling for a roll rather than using the passive value as a floor.
Does using passive as a floor mean that some characters notice things, sometimes everything? Yes. Does this spoil the game? No. It is party of the character, the player invested resources like an ASI to get the observant feat and the result is that they SHOULD notice things without needing a roll as long as the character is taking an action appropriate to be able to apply the skill. Passive skills are not the character being passive, it is the player being passive by not rolling dice. If a character is drawing maps or writing in a journal then they aren't paying attention to their surroundings and it isn't appropriate to use the passive skill check because the character is NOT doing something that would justify application of the skill. On the other hand, if the character is traversing a dungeon, looking around them, paying attention then the passive skill SHOULD apply.
I have a high level rogue with expertise in perception and investigation, the observant feat and 14 int and 12 wis. This gives the character, at level 17, a passive perception of 28 and a passive investigation of 29. He doesn't miss much. With reliable talent, the minimum active checks are 23 and 24. All that happens is that the DM narrates what the character sees when they enter a room even if most everyone else would have missed it. It doesn't make the game less fun but it does mean that the challenges for the party tend to be a bit different.
The character played ToA for the first 11 or 12 levels. The passive perception was about 21 while in the tomb which meant that he noticed any secret doors automatically and it made finding traps much easier. (expertise in thieves tools made disabling some of the traps also more reliable).
Passive checks are always at the DM’s option, and I never use passive scores when PCs actively do something. The idea that a passive score is an absolute floor for active rolls is stupid beyond belief (the represent entirely different activities).
That said, I also don’t call for perception checks unless my players say they want to look around. Calling for a check unprompted as soon as the party enter a room also feels very annoying to me.
Let me ask you this then, I currently play in a game as an 8th level druid with Expertise in Perception and the Observant feat. As such my character currently has a +11 modifier to Perception checks and a 26 Passive Perception. Theoretically I could fail a DC 13 or higher check by rolling when I would have no chance to otherwise fail if I didn't specify I wanted to look around for anything. Even accounting for disadvantage on a check I'd still have a 21 passive score, would my feat choice be effectively moot in a game you run?
I say this as someone who has come to regret choosing the feat since if my DM gives me all the info all the time without a roll. I as a player feel like I'm shortcutting the entire point of my character's build, however if I state I want to look around I've missed things due to poor rolls that I probably shouldn't have by RAW.
I feel like I've read and seen a bunch of 5e designers convey the difference between rolling a perception check and passive perception... yet every DM I see running modules (Tyranny of Dragons, Tomb of Annihilation, even AL Moonshae stuff) keeps asking for perception checks when we enter rooms that obviously have something there to notice.
Maybe it's just how they're translating the description of the room that includes something like "a perception check of DC 15 reveals that four books are missing from the shelf on the north wall" and, having played d&d for ages, they are just in the habit of calling for perception checks. Ie: they aren't waiting for a character to anounce she's perusing the shelves.
This occurred to me, as it does every now and then, last night when our druid picked up the observant feat. Based on how the system is set up, he should be noticing quite a bit, no roll fickle d20 required. DM still asked for a roll. He's a newer player so doesn't know what he's missing to argue the point. I feel his pain, since my cleric also took the feat s year or two ago.
Anyway, we're a friendly group, this will all work out; I'm not concerned.
But I'm curious if others have noticed the modules being written in a way that doesn't adhere to how passive checks work. Ie: room descriptions spelling out guidelines on what can be noticed with passive perception, what can be noticed only while actively searching, etc.
The way that I treat that DC 15 is that a glance shows that there's something off about the area in question if their passive perception is higher than the DC. I don't have a problem with the wording because that's the way that I look at it, but I can see your point. Some feats, like observant, will always be dependent on the DM since the way that the DM approaches that feat will change how effective that feat will be in the campaign. I'd always discuss it with the DM prior to taking those feats and I'd take a look at several options and discuss them all at the same time between sessions so that my concern won't affect the group's play experience.
Your passive skill is your floor. Your DM should have you automatically notice anything at or under your passive score and only have you roll if you could perceive more with a higher roll or if your passive does not meet the number needed.
Your passive skill is your floor. Your DM should have you automatically notice anything at or under your passive score and only have you roll if you could perceive more with a higher roll or if your passive does not meet the number needed.
from PhB:
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.
so, I’ll highlight and emphasize where it says “such a check can represent the AVERAGE result for a task done repeatedly”
I’ll reiterate, it’s not so much a mechanic thing, as a DM thing.
a lot of DMs, that I have encountered, or read how they run it, don’t really use the passive or like it because it “ruins things” when characters notice everything.
well. Tell the characters what they all see. Then tel the one who notices more, separately and privately, what they see. Let them be the ones to share with their teammates. Maybe they notice the secret door, but don’t want to tell the rest of their party because they want to come back later and loot it all for themselves. 🤷🏼♂️.
but to just completely disregard mechanics like that, is typically an indicator of a bad DM.
Here's what the rules actually say (all they say) about Passive checks:
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.
Here's how to determine a character's total for a passive check:
10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a Wisdom of 15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) score of 14. The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules.
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. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.
Nowhere, in any of these rules does anything say or suggest that they function as a floor, neither in Chapter 7 nor in Obsrvant nor in Hiding. They instead say, very explicitly, "average result for a task done repeatedly" and/or "secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice" and/or "notice you even if they aren't searching." That's it.
Observant is useful when you tell the DM "okay, we're traveling carefully, and I'm constantly watching for danger/traps." That's "a task done repeatedly," and it would make sense for the DM to use your passive perception amount instead of asking for a single roll to cover multiple minutes or hours. Or, if you say you want to check for a hiding goblin in a room and the DM doesn't want to tip off of whether you don't find it because your roll was low versus the goblin really isn't there, he can check your passive perception to "secretly determine" without rolling dice. Or, if you walk into the room without declaring that you're searching, he can check your passive perception to see if you automatically notice it "even though you aren't searching."
That's it. There is precisely zero textual supuport for the premise that a Passive Perception value is essentially a version of Rogue's Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent uses some very specific language about how "Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10;" we don't see any language in any of the Passive Perception sections that suggest "whenever you make a Perception ability check, you can treat a result lower than your Passive Perception value as that value instead."
I'm sorry, it just isn't how Passive Perception was published. Maybe it should have been, maybe it was intended to be, maybe that would be more fun... but that's not the rule that was printed.
I mostly prefer to only use passive perception as a target number -- either the ambushing NPCs (or whatever) should make a stealth check vs passive perception, or the PCs should make a perception check against a DC. That's mostly because having a sudden cutoff between "always see" and "never see" isn't really good game play, there should always be a die roll involved.
That said, it does make something of a problem for the Observant feat. You can fix it by giving it something else, like advantage on perception checks.
I will add, not only is "sets a floor for that skill" not an enumerated use of Passive checks, it also would directly contradict one of the uses that is provided: "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly."
If I have a Perception modifier of +5, then my d20 rolls can be anywhere between 6 and 25. The average of that isn't really 15 (15.5, close enough), but it's clear what the rule is getting at when it tells you that your Passive Perception of 15 is meant to "represent" that average.
If Passive Perception is also a floor though, then my rolls can really only be between 15 and 25. The average of that is 20. Now suddenly my Passive Perception is a wholly inadequate "represent"ation of my average!!!!
Passive Perception is not a floor, and it is clear that it is not a floor, unless you are willing to houserule and strike other things that it explicitly is.
Let's look at the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again," part.
To me this says if a character wants to search a room high and dry for a secret door and I told them to roll a Perception check over and over until they succeeded, their average would be their Passive Perception. So if the module says a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) reveals the secret door and a character has a Passive Perception of 16, they will see the secret door without any die rolls required. If their Passive Perception were lower than 15 and they said "I look for a secret door" they would roll a Perception check. This makes Passive Perception sound like a floor but doesn't actually function as a floor.
I will add, not only is "sets a floor for that skill" not an enumerated use of Passive checks, it also would directly contradict one of the uses that is provided: "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly."
If I have a Perception modifier of +5, then my d20 rolls can be anywhere between 6 and 25. The average of that isn't really 15 (15.5, close enough), but it's clear what the rule is getting at when it tells you that your Passive Perception of 15 is meant to "represent" that average.
If Passive Perception is also a floor though, then my rolls can really only be between 15 and 25. The average of that is 20. Now suddenly my Passive Perception is a wholly inadequate "represent"ation of my average!!!!
Passive Perception is not a floor, and it is clear that it is not a floor, unless you are willing to houserule and strike other things that it explicitly is.
The average is actually 17.75, not 20, because 15 will occur ten times as often as any other single result, but the principle is correct.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that the intent of passive checks is that they be a floor, but this is batshit. Obviously there’s no textual support for it, but even if there were, the actual rules don’t limit passive scores to any particular skill, so Crawford’s suggesting that ever character always have Reliable Talent for all their skills.
I will add, not only is "sets a floor for that skill" not an enumerated use of Passive checks, it also would directly contradict one of the uses that is provided: "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly."
If I have a Perception modifier of +5, then my d20 rolls can be anywhere between 6 and 25. The average of that isn't really 15 (15.5, close enough), but it's clear what the rule is getting at when it tells you that your Passive Perception of 15 is meant to "represent" that average.
If Passive Perception is also a floor though, then my rolls can really only be between 15 and 25. The average of that is 20. Now suddenly my Passive Perception is a wholly inadequate "represent"ation of my average!!!!
Passive Perception is not a floor, and it is clear that it is not a floor, unless you are willing to houserule and strike other things that it explicitly is.
The average is actually 17.75, not 20, because 15 will occur ten times as often as any other single result, but the principle is correct.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that the intent of passive checks is that they be a floor, but this is batshit. Obviously there’s no textual support for it, but even if there were, the actual rules don’t limit passive scores to any particular skill, so Crawford’s suggesting that ever character always have Reliable Talent for all their skills.
Which is fine in the long run as long as reliable talent is for each single check. The average over the long term implies that given enough time, you'll get at least the average half the time. That's part of the reason that I don't think passive scores have to be a floor unless there is a time factor involved. Then you could potentially say that the averages would dictate that you would hit that score with a 90-95% certainty given a certain amount of time. For the automatic discovery of something to take place, I'll want to consider what the probable challenge is to determine how likely the discovery of something would be. Just because a dc15 check is required to find a secret passage that is hidden the far recesses of a darkened room filled with clutter is lower than the 26 passive perception of an observant feated rogue or bard with expertise in perception will know its there right when they walk into the room. It's not like observant gives you a magic chime in your head to warn you that "The Macguffin is here!"
This sort of debate is honestly why the Observant feat is super problematic.
Adding a humongous flat +5 bonus to passive scores twists player expectations - they hate when they don't get to apply that bonus to active skill checks, since it means their active checks are almost always lower than their passive numbers. To be fair, that's a reasonable thing to hate. The character sheet shows you this gigantic number, right there on the main tab, that half the people in this thread have basically said that you never get to use. I get that the feat is basically saying "advantage on passive checks", but because advantage by definition cannot apply properly to passive checks, you instead get the weird situation where your passive score is better in almost all cases than actually rolling a die.
It puts the player's desires and the game's design in direct conflict, and even if it does no such thing, the feat still makes the player feel like they're actively sabotaging their own success every time they have to roll instead of taking their heavily inflated passive score. A DM has little real way to resolve this, especially if the player is actively building towards shit like 30+ passive senses. That is a player that has said to the DM "I refuse to miss spot checks. I refuse. If you make me roll and I miss a spot check, I'm going to be pissed at you."
Needless to say, the player should not have the option of saying this to the DM. Nor is it really cool for the DM to let the player have an ability that said DM is going to subsequently ignore.
Honestly, the best solution I can think of is just to disallow Observant at your table if you know your players are going to be ***** about it, or even if they aren't. There's no good way to rebuild Observant to make it work the way people want it to without getting into these "but my passive score is 11 higher than my roll! Why do I even have this dumb feat if I always have to roll?!" arguments. Whether or not you believe in passive scores as a DM, or however you use them, the passive score should always be exactly middle of the road. Weighting it any other way just smacks of unfairness no matter what the DM does with the stupid thing.
So yeah. Just...get rid of Observant altogether. Makes life ever so much easier.
I mean, if you're rebuilding the feat and don't mind bumping its power a little bit, rewrite it as "you have advantage on Perception checks, and Investigation checks based on vision" or something. Then it provides the exact same +5 to Passive Scores (which is very useful, assuming your DM understands when to use them) because that's what advantage does to a passive score, but also provides a benefit to a player whose DM never remembers to ask for/use those numbers.
But I think the feat is fine as written, I've never encountered a DM that didn't use them often enough, this whole thing really feels more like something that players complain about because they want to be guaranteed that their feat will get the most play possible.
The best way to look at it is with stealth. You roll stealth and have to beat someone's passive perception. If the roll is lower, they see you, if it's higher, they do not. At no point does the DM or player roll the perception check. If someone says they want to look for something or someone then there would be an active roll. If their passive was higher, they would have seen whatever is hidden and therefore would not need a roll.
The way around this as a DM is to add factors that would impose disadvantage or increase difficulty. Observant is a massively good feat that would be completely worthless if passive scores were not used as it doesn't add anything to an active roll. If you have a player that went that route, it's because they want to stand out in those instances. Let that player shine and see things others normally wouldn't see. If there is something you really want to be hard to see, add variables that will increase the DC instead of nerfing an ability that someone took a feat to get.
As far as what skills to allow passive checks? Well that's subjective other than the base Investigation and Perception as they are specifically mentioned as having a passive score. The others you could make a case for having to roll as it would cheapen reliable talent if you wouldn't.
No, passive skills do not get to be a floor. That is what cheapens Reliable Talent - RT is an enormously valuable ability that people build entire characters to try and get to specifically because it says "your proficient skills now have a floor of 10."
When and how to use passive scores is a bugbear that I'm not getting into in this thread, but any interpretation that says "this is your skill floor" is flat-out wrong.
If you're a player and want to weaponize your passive perception from Observant for active checks, just dust off your real-world Deception proficiency and tell your DM "I'd like to make a perception check to spot traps, but it would be more immersive for me if you would please secretly determine whether I succeed without me rolling dice and knowing how well or poorly I did."
Boom, now they'll either use your crazy-high Passive score... or houserule by rolling on your behalf behind the DM screen, so ymmv.
I feel like I've read and seen a bunch of 5e designers convey the difference between rolling a perception check and passive perception... yet every DM I see running modules (Tyranny of Dragons, Tomb of Annihilation, even AL Moonshae stuff) keeps asking for perception checks when we enter rooms that obviously have something there to notice.
Maybe it's just how they're translating the description of the room that includes something like "a perception check of DC 15 reveals that four books are missing from the shelf on the north wall" and, having played d&d for ages, they are just in the habit of calling for perception checks. Ie: they aren't waiting for a character to anounce she's perusing the shelves.
This occurred to me, as it does every now and then, last night when our druid picked up the observant feat. Based on how the system is set up, he should be noticing quite a bit, no roll fickle d20 required. DM still asked for a roll. He's a newer player so doesn't know what he's missing to argue the point. I feel his pain, since my cleric also took the feat s year or two ago.
Anyway, we're a friendly group, this will all work out; I'm not concerned.
But I'm curious if others have noticed the modules being written in a way that doesn't adhere to how passive checks work. Ie: room descriptions spelling out guidelines on what can be noticed with passive perception, what can be noticed only while actively searching, etc.
That’s not a module written thing. That’s a DM DM’ing thing.
Blank
There's still some uncertainty involving passive checks... the books do not lay out their intended usage super clearly. The generally accepted idea is that passive perception/investigation/insight are meant to serve as the minimum result on an active check when not in combat. It's basically "taking 10" from older editions.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It is mostly a DM thing. Some modules are written with explicit instructions to notice things with passive perception but some aren't so DMs fall into the habit of calling for a roll rather than using the passive value as a floor.
Does using passive as a floor mean that some characters notice things, sometimes everything? Yes. Does this spoil the game? No. It is party of the character, the player invested resources like an ASI to get the observant feat and the result is that they SHOULD notice things without needing a roll as long as the character is taking an action appropriate to be able to apply the skill. Passive skills are not the character being passive, it is the player being passive by not rolling dice. If a character is drawing maps or writing in a journal then they aren't paying attention to their surroundings and it isn't appropriate to use the passive skill check because the character is NOT doing something that would justify application of the skill. On the other hand, if the character is traversing a dungeon, looking around them, paying attention then the passive skill SHOULD apply.
I have a high level rogue with expertise in perception and investigation, the observant feat and 14 int and 12 wis. This gives the character, at level 17, a passive perception of 28 and a passive investigation of 29. He doesn't miss much. With reliable talent, the minimum active checks are 23 and 24. All that happens is that the DM narrates what the character sees when they enter a room even if most everyone else would have missed it. It doesn't make the game less fun but it does mean that the challenges for the party tend to be a bit different.
The character played ToA for the first 11 or 12 levels. The passive perception was about 21 while in the tomb which meant that he noticed any secret doors automatically and it made finding traps much easier. (expertise in thieves tools made disabling some of the traps also more reliable).
Passive checks are always at the DM’s option, and I never use passive scores when PCs actively do something. The idea that a passive score is an absolute floor for active rolls is stupid beyond belief (the represent entirely different activities).
That said, I also don’t call for perception checks unless my players say they want to look around. Calling for a check unprompted as soon as the party enter a room also feels very annoying to me.
Let me ask you this then, I currently play in a game as an 8th level druid with Expertise in Perception and the Observant feat. As such my character currently has a +11 modifier to Perception checks and a 26 Passive Perception. Theoretically I could fail a DC 13 or higher check by rolling when I would have no chance to otherwise fail if I didn't specify I wanted to look around for anything. Even accounting for disadvantage on a check I'd still have a 21 passive score, would my feat choice be effectively moot in a game you run?
I say this as someone who has come to regret choosing the feat since if my DM gives me all the info all the time without a roll. I as a player feel like I'm shortcutting the entire point of my character's build, however if I state I want to look around I've missed things due to poor rolls that I probably shouldn't have by RAW.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
The way that I treat that DC 15 is that a glance shows that there's something off about the area in question if their passive perception is higher than the DC. I don't have a problem with the wording because that's the way that I look at it, but I can see your point. Some feats, like observant, will always be dependent on the DM since the way that the DM approaches that feat will change how effective that feat will be in the campaign. I'd always discuss it with the DM prior to taking those feats and I'd take a look at several options and discuss them all at the same time between sessions so that my concern won't affect the group's play experience.
Your passive skill is your floor. Your DM should have you automatically notice anything at or under your passive score and only have you roll if you could perceive more with a higher roll or if your passive does not meet the number needed.
from PhB:
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.
so, I’ll highlight and emphasize where it says “such a check can represent the AVERAGE result for a task done repeatedly”
I’ll reiterate, it’s not so much a mechanic thing, as a DM thing.
a lot of DMs, that I have encountered, or read how they run it, don’t really use the passive or like it because it “ruins things” when characters notice everything.
well. Tell the characters what they all see. Then tel the one who notices more, separately and privately, what they see. Let them be the ones to share with their teammates. Maybe they notice the secret door, but don’t want to tell the rest of their party because they want to come back later and loot it all for themselves. 🤷🏼♂️.
but to just completely disregard mechanics like that, is typically an indicator of a bad DM.
Blank
Here's what the rules actually say (all they say) about Passive checks:
The only other rule text we have on them remotely relevant is the Observant feat, the Perception skill, and the Hiding sidebar under Stealth.
Nowhere, in any of these rules does anything say or suggest that they function as a floor, neither in Chapter 7 nor in Obsrvant nor in Hiding. They instead say, very explicitly, "average result for a task done repeatedly" and/or "secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice" and/or "notice you even if they aren't searching." That's it.
Observant is useful when you tell the DM "okay, we're traveling carefully, and I'm constantly watching for danger/traps." That's "a task done repeatedly," and it would make sense for the DM to use your passive perception amount instead of asking for a single roll to cover multiple minutes or hours. Or, if you say you want to check for a hiding goblin in a room and the DM doesn't want to tip off of whether you don't find it because your roll was low versus the goblin really isn't there, he can check your passive perception to "secretly determine" without rolling dice. Or, if you walk into the room without declaring that you're searching, he can check your passive perception to see if you automatically notice it "even though you aren't searching."
That's it. There is precisely zero textual supuport for the premise that a Passive Perception value is essentially a version of Rogue's Reliable Talent. Reliable Talent uses some very specific language about how "Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10;" we don't see any language in any of the Passive Perception sections that suggest "whenever you make a Perception ability check, you can treat a result lower than your Passive Perception value as that value instead."
I'm sorry, it just isn't how Passive Perception was published. Maybe it should have been, maybe it was intended to be, maybe that would be more fun... but that's not the rule that was printed.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I mostly prefer to only use passive perception as a target number -- either the ambushing NPCs (or whatever) should make a stealth check vs passive perception, or the PCs should make a perception check against a DC. That's mostly because having a sudden cutoff between "always see" and "never see" isn't really good game play, there should always be a die roll involved.
That said, it does make something of a problem for the Observant feat. You can fix it by giving it something else, like advantage on perception checks.
I will add, not only is "sets a floor for that skill" not an enumerated use of Passive checks, it also would directly contradict one of the uses that is provided: "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly."
If I have a Perception modifier of +5, then my d20 rolls can be anywhere between 6 and 25. The average of that isn't really 15 (15.5, close enough), but it's clear what the rule is getting at when it tells you that your Passive Perception of 15 is meant to "represent" that average.
If Passive Perception is also a floor though, then my rolls can really only be between 15 and 25. The average of that is 20. Now suddenly my Passive Perception is a wholly inadequate "represent"ation of my average!!!!
Passive Perception is not a floor, and it is clear that it is not a floor, unless you are willing to houserule and strike other things that it explicitly is.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Let's look at the "average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again," part.
To me this says if a character wants to search a room high and dry for a secret door and I told them to roll a Perception check over and over until they succeeded, their average would be their Passive Perception. So if the module says a DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) reveals the secret door and a character has a Passive Perception of 16, they will see the secret door without any die rolls required. If their Passive Perception were lower than 15 and they said "I look for a secret door" they would roll a Perception check. This makes Passive Perception sound like a floor but doesn't actually function as a floor.
The average is actually 17.75, not 20, because 15 will occur ten times as often as any other single result, but the principle is correct.
Jeremy Crawford has stated that the intent of passive checks is that they be a floor, but this is batshit. Obviously there’s no textual support for it, but even if there were, the actual rules don’t limit passive scores to any particular skill, so Crawford’s suggesting that ever character always have Reliable Talent for all their skills.
Which is fine in the long run as long as reliable talent is for each single check. The average over the long term implies that given enough time, you'll get at least the average half the time. That's part of the reason that I don't think passive scores have to be a floor unless there is a time factor involved. Then you could potentially say that the averages would dictate that you would hit that score with a 90-95% certainty given a certain amount of time. For the automatic discovery of something to take place, I'll want to consider what the probable challenge is to determine how likely the discovery of something would be. Just because a dc15 check is required to find a secret passage that is hidden the far recesses of a darkened room filled with clutter is lower than the 26 passive perception of an observant feated rogue or bard with expertise in perception will know its there right when they walk into the room. It's not like observant gives you a magic chime in your head to warn you that "The Macguffin is here!"
This sort of debate is honestly why the Observant feat is super problematic.
Adding a humongous flat +5 bonus to passive scores twists player expectations - they hate when they don't get to apply that bonus to active skill checks, since it means their active checks are almost always lower than their passive numbers. To be fair, that's a reasonable thing to hate. The character sheet shows you this gigantic number, right there on the main tab, that half the people in this thread have basically said that you never get to use. I get that the feat is basically saying "advantage on passive checks", but because advantage by definition cannot apply properly to passive checks, you instead get the weird situation where your passive score is better in almost all cases than actually rolling a die.
It puts the player's desires and the game's design in direct conflict, and even if it does no such thing, the feat still makes the player feel like they're actively sabotaging their own success every time they have to roll instead of taking their heavily inflated passive score. A DM has little real way to resolve this, especially if the player is actively building towards shit like 30+ passive senses. That is a player that has said to the DM "I refuse to miss spot checks. I refuse. If you make me roll and I miss a spot check, I'm going to be pissed at you."
Needless to say, the player should not have the option of saying this to the DM. Nor is it really cool for the DM to let the player have an ability that said DM is going to subsequently ignore.
Honestly, the best solution I can think of is just to disallow Observant at your table if you know your players are going to be ***** about it, or even if they aren't. There's no good way to rebuild Observant to make it work the way people want it to without getting into these "but my passive score is 11 higher than my roll! Why do I even have this dumb feat if I always have to roll?!" arguments. Whether or not you believe in passive scores as a DM, or however you use them, the passive score should always be exactly middle of the road. Weighting it any other way just smacks of unfairness no matter what the DM does with the stupid thing.
So yeah. Just...get rid of Observant altogether. Makes life ever so much easier.
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, if you're rebuilding the feat and don't mind bumping its power a little bit, rewrite it as "you have advantage on Perception checks, and Investigation checks based on vision" or something. Then it provides the exact same +5 to Passive Scores (which is very useful, assuming your DM understands when to use them) because that's what advantage does to a passive score, but also provides a benefit to a player whose DM never remembers to ask for/use those numbers.
But I think the feat is fine as written, I've never encountered a DM that didn't use them often enough, this whole thing really feels more like something that players complain about because they want to be guaranteed that their feat will get the most play possible.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Passive is the floor, took me a bit to find the audio, lots of good stuff in there too especially with stealth...
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
The best way to look at it is with stealth. You roll stealth and have to beat someone's passive perception. If the roll is lower, they see you, if it's higher, they do not. At no point does the DM or player roll the perception check. If someone says they want to look for something or someone then there would be an active roll. If their passive was higher, they would have seen whatever is hidden and therefore would not need a roll.
The way around this as a DM is to add factors that would impose disadvantage or increase difficulty. Observant is a massively good feat that would be completely worthless if passive scores were not used as it doesn't add anything to an active roll. If you have a player that went that route, it's because they want to stand out in those instances. Let that player shine and see things others normally wouldn't see. If there is something you really want to be hard to see, add variables that will increase the DC instead of nerfing an ability that someone took a feat to get.
As far as what skills to allow passive checks? Well that's subjective other than the base Investigation and Perception as they are specifically mentioned as having a passive score. The others you could make a case for having to roll as it would cheapen reliable talent if you wouldn't.
No, passive skills do not get to be a floor. That is what cheapens Reliable Talent - RT is an enormously valuable ability that people build entire characters to try and get to specifically because it says "your proficient skills now have a floor of 10."
When and how to use passive scores is a bugbear that I'm not getting into in this thread, but any interpretation that says "this is your skill floor" is flat-out wrong.
Flat. Out. Wrong.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you're a player and want to weaponize your passive perception from Observant for active checks, just dust off your real-world Deception proficiency and tell your DM "I'd like to make a perception check to spot traps, but it would be more immersive for me if you would please secretly determine whether I succeed without me rolling dice and knowing how well or poorly I did."
Boom, now they'll either use your crazy-high Passive score... or houserule by rolling on your behalf behind the DM screen, so ymmv.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.