PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Passive checks



Hzurr
2008-12-26, 05:46 PM
So the group I'm DMing started 4E at the beginning of the fall, running first through KotS, and are currently about half-way through Thunderspire (Allthough I think we're about to move away from the pre-published stuff, which is sad because I really like Pyramid of Shadows). Anyway, we're really enjoying it, despite a few issues here and there, but one thing that I really didn't like is passive checks.

Quite honestly, it seems that it took all the fun out of spot checks or insight checks. If the PCs are in a dungeon, it seems that part of the "exploration" aspect of it is really diminished, because there will be one or two characters who will notice everything, and the rest won't see their own feet. I mean, I just feel like there's more excitement having characters roll things (especially if the PCs are good enough to not metagame from failed checks).


In my group, we've been treating perception and insight rolls like their 3.5E counterparts, and I've only used passive checks for the monsters (mainly because I prefer to do less rolling).

What about y'all? Do you use passive checks? Do you find that they help the game, or take away? Etc., etc.

DMfromTheAbyss
2008-12-26, 06:04 PM
Well from the D&D game I was in that shifted from 3.5 to 4rth edition as the new edition came out, I can say at least now it's only a 7 point difference instead of a 20+ point difference for who in the party notices stuff.

Overall I thought the whole idea of a passive perception check was to, as you say simplify rolling, a GM would be fully within rights to make characters roll out perception checks in particular instances if they feel it's warranted, or even just more interesting.

In my experience they do simplify things a bit but make it a bit more cut and dry.

My suggestion is use em whenever it's inconvienient to roll em out, but don't use them for important rolls to add drama.

Shadow_Elf
2008-12-26, 06:04 PM
I personally really like Passive Insight and Perception. I think that more dice rolls does not necessarily equal more fun.

Kurald Galain
2008-12-26, 06:15 PM
Well, I had this DM in 3.5 who insisted on rolling a perception check for the frontmost player for every single five-foot-step we took. Granted, that was sucky DM'ing. But for that, passive stuff would have been much better.

Nefarion Xid
2008-12-26, 06:32 PM
If anything, the Passive checks are a time savor. No one's even allowed to make an active perception/insight check since it all happens automatically and secretly. The DM just has everyone's sense threshold on a list and compares results. The less die rolling, the better. You could roll a d20 and add your armor and dexterity instead of having a base of 10...but that's sort of redundant and slow without adding anything to the game.

The random factor is already there since someone else is rolling their Stealth against your party's Perception. And it really doesn't make much sense for the absent minded Wizard with a Perception of 13 to hear something that the Elf Ranger with a Perception of 27 didn't.

What would a roll of a natural 1 on an active Perception check indicate anyway? Daydreaming? I know the mind wanders...but not when your life is on the line. And a 20?

The wizard wiggles his glasses around and blinks into the distance, "EEP! It's a band of orcs headed this way! They're 3 miles off yet!"

Ranger, squinting, ".....huh?"

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-12-26, 06:42 PM
Passive Perception is a number that should be high enough so that the characters don't miss anything obvious. ("I failed a Spot check.") It should also be low enough so that monsters have a good chance of hiding from it. I think this does that job admirably. Any creature rather trained in Stealth has about a 75% chance of hiding from a 1st-level character. That seems reasonable to me.

And here's why you want a passive check. If the DM called for Perception checks whenever there were monsters around, you'd be on your guard, and know that something was up. The only way to get around that is to call for them at other times, or to keep calling for them, which is silly. This way, the DM can just keep track of the passive numbers, and clue characters into things as he sees fit.

The other thing is, you also have the potentiality for players just to continually roll Perception or whatever. And I think that spam-rolling something like that is silly. It seems reasonable to me that you'd constantly be "taking 10" on something like Perception, and that's the core idea behind it.

On a side note, you can do this for any check. If the characters don't know they're supposed to be hiding from someone, use passive Stealth to see if they make any noise. Does a rumor reach their ears? Check it against passive Streetwise. Does a pickpocket manage to get past one undetected? Passive Thievery to see if they notice the pickpocket. The nice thing, too, is that if they "fail" the check, they have no clue.

pirateshow
2008-12-26, 06:44 PM
I've using passive checks except when my players tell me they're stopping to look and listen, in which case they get to make an active check. It gives the players some agency, without making the whole thing a dicefest.

That said, it's easy to justify why one character notices something that his much more perceptive colleague misses. Perhaps, to use your example, the wizard happened to glance at the right arrowslit with accidentally perfect timing? What if he had a pet rat growing up, so the pitter-patter of Dire Rats stands out of the ambient sound for him? Narrative reasons that explain odd dice rolls add lots of texture to the story.

Edge of Dreams
2008-12-26, 06:50 PM
The only real problem with passive checks in my opinion is that when the DM is designing something with a static DC and he knows what the players passive checks are he has only three options:

1) Make the DC so high that no one will make it without an active check.
2) Make the DC such that some will make it passively and others have to roll
3) Make the DC so low that everyone will make it with a passive check.

2 and 3 amount to the same thing when it comes to things like secret doors. So do I make a secret door that no one will find? Or one that I know they'll find for sure? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If you choose option 1, then you have to hope that the players not only notice whatever hint you put that there might be a secret door around, but also then roll high enough to find it, but if you choose 2 or 3, it might as well not be secret.

Gralamin
2008-12-26, 07:19 PM
Passive Perception is a number that should be high enough so that the characters don't miss anything obvious. ("I failed a Spot check.") It should also be low enough so that monsters have a good chance of hiding from it. I think this does that job admirably. Any creature rather trained in Stealth has about a 75% chance of hiding from a 1st-level character. That seems reasonable to me.

And here's why you want a passive check. If the DM called for Perception checks whenever there were monsters around, you'd be on your guard, and know that something was up. The only way to get around that is to call for them at other times, or to keep calling for them, which is silly. This way, the DM can just keep track of the passive numbers, and clue characters into things as he sees fit.

The other thing is, you also have the potentiality for players just to continually roll Perception or whatever. And I think that spam-rolling something like that is silly. It seems reasonable to me that you'd constantly be "taking 10" on something like Perception, and that's the core idea behind it.

On a side note, you can do this for any check. If the characters don't know they're supposed to be hiding from someone, use passive Stealth to see if they make any noise. Does a rumor reach their ears? Check it against passive Streetwise. Does a pickpocket manage to get past one undetected? Passive Thievery to see if they notice the pickpocket. The nice thing, too, is that if they "fail" the check, they have no clue.

This is mostly true, just remember that usually, non-hiding PCs are moving at their speed, so they take a -5. If their running, they take a -10. So the chance not be noticed is rather low, but still there.

Hzurr
2008-12-26, 09:59 PM
The only real problem with passive checks in my opinion is that when the DM is designing something with a static DC and he knows what the players passive checks are he has only three options:

1) Make the DC so high that no one will make it without an active check.
2) Make the DC such that some will make it passively and others have to roll
3) Make the DC so low that everyone will make it with a passive check.

2 and 3 amount to the same thing when it comes to things like secret doors. So do I make a secret door that no one will find? Or one that I know they'll find for sure? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If you choose option 1, then you have to hope that the players not only notice whatever hint you put that there might be a secret door around, but also then roll high enough to find it, but if you choose 2 or 3, it might as well not be secret.

This. This is my biggest issue. What's the point in having enemies try and sneak up or a secret door if you know ahead of time that it has a 100% failure rate or 100% success rate of suprising them? Sometimes, I want the monsters to be sneaking up on the PCs, that the PCs have a legitimate chance at sensing, but without the "the ranger will always see it, the wizard never will" type scenario that passive checks introduce.

Raum
2008-12-26, 11:13 PM
What about y'all? Do you use passive checks? Do you find that they help the game, or take away? Etc., etc.With perception, I try not to ask for a roll at all unless both success and failure are interesting. And failing to see something is seldom interesting...unless it's an ambush. :smallamused: I try to extend that concept to most skills but perception is definitely the most important.

Traps are often easy to spot (a previous victim's bones may give them away if nothing else), unique attributes of an NPC are almost always easy to see, puddles are easy to jump, doors are open-able, etc.

Failing at something repeatable often leads to time wasting "I'll try again" scenarios. More importantly something unseen, bypassed, or relegated to a simple task roll (zap traps come to mind) is seldom interesting.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-12-26, 11:15 PM
This. This is my biggest issue. What's the point in having enemies try and sneak up or a secret door if you know ahead of time that it has a 100% failure rate or 100% success rate of suprising them? Sometimes, I want the monsters to be sneaking up on the PCs, that the PCs have a legitimate chance at sensing, but without the "the ranger will always see it, the wizard never will" type scenario that passive checks introduce.
The stealth shouldn't be a static DC. You should be opposing a Stealth check for the monsters against the P.P.

As far as a secret door, it ought to be a 100% failure rate for characters. You don't accidentally notice a secret door. That's something that you only find whilst searching actively. Not passively.

skywalker
2008-12-27, 02:15 AM
The random factor is already there since someone else is rolling their Stealth against your party's Perception. And it really doesn't make much sense for the absent minded Wizard with a Perception of 13 to hear something that the Elf Ranger with a Perception of 27 didn't.

What would a roll of a natural 1 on an active Perception check indicate anyway? Daydreaming? I know the mind wanders...but not when your life is on the line. And a 20?

The wizard wiggles his glasses around and blinks into the distance, "EEP! It's a band of orcs headed this way! They're 3 miles off yet!"

Ranger, squinting, ".....huh?"

This was my argument for passive checks.


The only real problem with passive checks in my opinion is that when the DM is designing something with a static DC and he knows what the players passive checks are he has only three options:

1) Make the DC so high that no one will make it without an active check.
2) Make the DC such that some will make it passively and others have to roll
3) Make the DC so low that everyone will make it with a passive check.

2 and 3 amount to the same thing when it comes to things like secret doors. So do I make a secret door that no one will find? Or one that I know they'll find for sure? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? If you choose option 1, then you have to hope that the players not only notice whatever hint you put that there might be a secret door around, but also then roll high enough to find it, but if you choose 2 or 3, it might as well not be secret.

And this was my argument against.

As a DM, I've actually toyed with having the characters make checks, but having them use the passive check if it's higher. Because, really, I don't think there's anyway you can be less than passive on a perception check. I know that's a boon to the players. But I think it's probably the most realistic way of looking at it.


As far as a secret door, it ought to be a 100% failure rate for characters. You don't accidentally notice a secret door. That's something that you only find whilst searching actively. Not passively.

Even elves?

TheOOB
2008-12-27, 02:17 AM
The main reason for passive insight and perception is so you can roll somethings stealth/bluff and see if it beats the PC without asking them to make a perception/insight check and thus giving them metagame knowledge.

My rule is I never tell my players to roll insight or perception, they say when they are rolling it. When the players walk into the room with a trap, I roll the traps stealth, and anyone who's passive perception it doesn't beat simply doesn't see it. How ever, if the team mentions that they look for traps, I allow them to roll perception, hoping that they get over a 10.

Starsinger
2008-12-27, 02:18 AM
As a DM, I've actually toyed with having the characters make checks, but having them use the passive check if it's higher. Because, really, I don't think there's anyway you can be less than passive on a perception check. I know that's a boon to the players. But I think it's probably the most realistic way of looking at it.

You've never experienced looking for something and not being able to find it, but then when you give up, finding it when you weren't looking for it? I thought that was something that happened to more or less everyone once in a while.

Edge of Dreams
2008-12-27, 03:19 AM
The main reason for passive insight and perception is so you can roll somethings stealth/bluff and see if it beats the PC without asking them to make a perception/insight check and thus giving them metagame knowledge.

My rule is I never tell my players to roll insight or perception, they say when they are rolling it. When the players walk into the room with a trap, I roll the traps stealth, and anyone who's passive perception it doesn't beat simply doesn't see it. How ever, if the team mentions that they look for traps, I allow them to roll perception, hoping that they get over a 10.

I like this. I like it a lot. It amounts to the same thing as rolling the player's perception without telling them, but still allows a measure of player control (paranoid players can actively roll more often if they want to) and helps prevent DM-meta-gaming (ooh, I'd better not set this trap's perception DC higher than 17 or the elf won't see it).

Kurald Galain
2008-12-27, 05:09 AM
The wizard wiggles his glasses around and blinks into the distance, "EEP! It's a band of orcs headed this way! They're 3 miles off yet!"

Ranger, squinting, ".....huh?"

Well, yeah. There's also the fact that "taking 10" is a better resolution mechanic than "rolling 1d20" is...

Edge of Dreams
2008-12-27, 06:20 AM
Well, yeah. There's also the fact that "taking 10" is a better resolution mechanic than "rolling 1d20" is...

I hope by this you only mean for skill checks. For attack rolls and such it would be patently absurd. (e.g. I have an attack bonus of +7 against an opponent with 18 AC, oh well, guess I should just go home).

Hmm...taking 10 on all skill checks seems like a good idea at first glance, but I think it misses part of the point of D&D, namely that you don't know if you'll succeed or fail at any given check. I do think that in some cases, however, 1d20 allows for too great a variance in skill level (Huh, yesterday I jumped that 20 foot wide ravine, but today I couldn't get over a 5 foot wide pit trap), which is why, of course, that Unearthed Arcana (3.5ed) suggested the 3d6 variant, and you can certainly make up your own particular number and type of dice to roll. The point, however, is to roll