PDA

View Full Version : Skills: Passive skill checks



Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 03:58 PM
So this is an idea I've been thinking of for a little while now, and wanted some input. It's always kind of annoyed me that in a game of D&D, you need to actually state that you are making a skill check such as spot or listen in order to hear something. If you're the DM, and you need a PC to hear something, you have to tell them to make the check, which generally makes it fairly obvious that something is up. So here's a variant rule I thought up.

While you can actively roll for a skill check, you also have a passive skill result for listen, spot, and anything else you would do automatically. The passive number is equal to 5+your skill bonus.

A PC is trying to sneak past a town guard. The guard has a +2 spot bonus, and isn't really looking for anything, so he has a passive roll of 7. That means that if the PC rolls below a 7 on his/her hide check, the guard automatically spots him/her. Otherwise, the PC can sneak past. This idea is meant to reflect the fact that while someone isn't necessarily looking for something, you can't walk in front of them without being spotted when they don't make a search check. I figure that 5+bonus is pretty low, so the chances of being seen or heard by a passive observer are pretty low, but they still exist. The same goes for PCs.

So, any thoughts?

Collin152
2007-03-11, 04:00 PM
Or, the DM could roll their listen checks for them, form behind the screen, not informing them of what tyhe roll was for, but giving them any information they may obtain.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 04:42 PM
Or, the DM could roll their listen checks for them, form behind the screen, not informing them of what tyhe roll was for, but giving them any information they may obtain.
Yes, but that assumes that the PC is actually looking for something. Doesn't make very good logic if the DM happens to roll a natural 20 and goes "hey, despite the fact that you weren't even looking around, you still manage to spot the near-invisible guy crouching in the corner.":smallconfused:

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-11, 04:47 PM
Sure it does. Appropriate penalty for inattentiveness and all that (I've seen someone citing a -5, though I don't know if that's RAW), but don't you ever notice things out of the corner of your eye that you weren't looking for?

Actually, that comes out to much the same average as your rule, but preserves d20-standard uncertainty.

EDIT: So yes, the PHB provides that a -5 penalty applies if the spotter is "not concentrating on being observant". That seems to cover everything this is supposed to.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 04:49 PM
Well, the DM could just note down everyone's Spot and Listen Ranks and then add 5 (or an appropriate number). That is the 'passive' Skill Check. Whenever something happens that this score exceeds, the DM tells the appropriate Player what they have noticed.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 05:21 PM
Well, the DM could just note down everyone's Spot and Listen Ranks and then add 5 (or an appropriate number). That is the 'passive' Skill Check. Whenever something happens that this score exceeds, the DM tells the appropriate Player what they have noticed.
Exactly what I'm saying.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 05:30 PM
Oh yeah, that's what I get for reading the original post an hour before the responses and then posting!

Thoughts:

It is more work and book keeping for the DM.

It's not really needed, since the DM can always call for Spot or Listen Checks whenever he thinks it appropriate or even make them in secret as suggested above. Indeed, he needn't roll any dice in that case, since he could assume they were 'taking 10'.

Otherwise, it's just a Spot Check with a -5 Circumstance Modifier.

Raum
2007-03-11, 05:34 PM
If avoiding tipping metagamers to something up is the goal, just have the players give you ten or so prerolled d20s at the beginning of the session. Check them off as situations come up where you need to use them.

Kantolin
2007-03-11, 05:39 PM
I thought when you're not really looking for anything, that's 'taking 10' by default. There's a penalty on doing that?

PinkysBrain
2007-03-11, 05:45 PM
I agree that there is a good case to be made for DMs rolling spot/listen for players ... I don't like how some go even further and want to roll move silently for players though. It's not like you can't listen to yourself move, you are right there and you know when you aren't doing it right.

What really irks me is that if 3e was supposed to simplify the game why did it use opposed rolls at all? There is no reason for the rolls to be opposed, why don't the passive skills simply set a DC which has to be beaten by the opponent/event? (Same could be said about grappling, why do I have to hit AC but oppose grapple?)

Matthew
2007-03-11, 05:45 PM
No, there's no penalty, but making a Spot or Listen Check is an Action (usually, but not always, Free). When you are not really paying attention, looking or listening for something then you don't make a check. Many checks are reactive, in which case you can 'take 10' as long as not threatened or under stress or whatever.

[Edit] Rolls don't have to be opposed, you just assume 10 for one (or even both) sides. The reason they went with opposed rolls probably has to do with the Skill mechanics. Do NPCs or PCs roll the die, both or neither? Depends on your point of view. The way it's currently set up you can do any one of those three.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-11, 05:46 PM
Taking 10 is harder than taking d20. If you can use a skill at all, you can take d20 on it. Taking 10 normally requires that you be unthreatened and undistracted so that you can do a systematic job of it. Since we're taking distraction as a given here...

Matthew
2007-03-11, 05:49 PM
Nah, 'taking 10' doesn't even have to take a second. The key is just whether you are distracted or threatened. Taking 20 is systematic.

kpenguin
2007-03-11, 05:50 PM
Taking 20 is more difficult because it requires more time. No one is going to wait for 2 minutes for the monk to tumble past a minotaur.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 06:03 PM
The point of this idea is not if the PC is just looking around, it's if he's just sitting in a chair twiddling his thumbs. The idea being that if he automatically takes 10 on everything, there is going to often be very little reason to roll d20, since you hear 50% of the stuff it's possible to hear anyways. It would mean that if you decide to make a d20 roll, you'd have a 45% chance of getting a lower result than if you weren't even paying attention at all. So it makes d20 rolls just stupid. The 5+bonus=Passive idea is supposed to be the PC taking 10, and then applying the normal -5 penalty for being distracted.

As for the comment that it makes things harder on the DM, how? It's either you follow most peoples method and ask the PC's their skill modifiers, then secretly roll a d20 and add the two together, or my method, which involves just looking at a piece of paper with a prerecorded number on it.

And as for taking 10, that is only allowed if the PC is actively trying to accomplish something, not if they aren't even trying.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 06:15 PM
No, a Character can take 10 on reactive Listen and Spot checks. If you only allow them to 'take 5', which is effectively what you are proposing under these conditions, you are making it harder for them to spot things and giving them more incentive to actively spot and listen whenever they can, which may slow the game down.

It's more work for the DM is just a general observation. Currently, the DM doesn't need to keep track of everybody's Spot and Listen Checks. Not a problem for me, but a valid objection for some.

Clementx
2007-03-11, 06:24 PM
Seriously, get their modifiers (along with Will saves, as those are subtle and you don't want to warn them every time they hear a Glastig singing), and roll. Apply the -5 if the character is doing something distracting, but don't always give them a penalty. That is incredibly cheap. You are basically saying, "I will never give you your full ability unless you spend a move action to roll again". You don't have to state, "I perch in a state of cat-like readiness" to avoid the distraction penalty.

And as for metagamers, you can just randomly roll dice at any time. It could be a rogue shadowing them, or you could be rolling to see if it starts raining. Or if they step in manure. Or if they walk downwind of a bear. Players will always be more cautious than their characters, because they wouldn't be RPing that moment if something interesting/dangerous wasn't going to happen.

goat
2007-03-11, 06:53 PM
I'm sort of inclined to give them 10+ab modifier if they're not actively using it, -5 distraction if they're doing something counter-productive. 10 is supposed to be "average" difficulty after all, the kind of thing anyone should be able to see/hear/do. As for ignoring the skill modifier, it is a skill after all, not a trait. Someone with ranks in architecture isn't constantly analysing every building they see for weak points, and somebody with skill in forgery doesn't try and memorise the writing style of every person they meet. They've been taught or learnt to do these things, it's not a natural response.

In the case of spot and listen, it means the rogue doesn't automatically see everything in a 100 foot radius because he's got spot and listen maxed (unless he's on watch), but it gives characters who are normally "in tune" with their surroundings (clerics, druids, rangers, monks) a bit of an advantage and anyone who's dumped wisdom a bit less of one. In the case of the guard above, I would give the spot bonus. He's guarding, unless he's a bad guard, that will involve actively looking about for changes.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 07:07 PM
@Clementx: Again, this isn't for someone "perched in a state of cat-like readiness", this is for Joe Guard who is bored out of his mind from guarding a gate that no one ever tries to get through.

@Goat: I can kind of understand the idea of not applying skill ranks, but you gotta' remember, there is no way a rogue of anything below high level is "going to see everything in a 100 foot radius", and at high levels they're observant enough too anyways. That's part of being high-level. Also, I wouldn't use this skill for forgery or architecture, because as I said, it's only meant for skills that a regular person would be passively doing, such as using their eyes and ears, even if they're not really paying attention.

@Shalist: Once again, this isn't for the party rogue, who's keeping his eyes peeled even though he didn't tell the DM, since it's assumed he's going to. This is for the party fighter, who's just tromping down the corridor, and goes and notices something without the DM having to roll in secret, because his character has a high enough wisdom that he just looks around and goes "ooh, shiny". If the DM is going to do all your rolls for you, what's the point of making rolls yourself? It's the PC's job, not the DM's, to decide when and what his/her PC is looking for.

In my games, d20 rolls are when PC's say "I'm going to look around". When they say that, they make a search check. If Joe Guard just happens to see something dissapear into the underbrush, it doesn't mean he was paying attention, it means that the rogue rolled badly enough that even the guy who was bored out of his skull could spot him. If everyone just automatically took ten, then when your character was actually paying attention they'd have a 45% of doing worse. How does that make sense?

Matthew
2007-03-11, 07:20 PM
Well, the impression I have of the Core Rulebooks is that Players should be encouraged to 'take 10' whenever possible for this sort of thing. Circumstance Modifiers handle everything else.

Remember, the die roll doesn't represent probability, it represents 'things not taken into account'. It's a kind of variable circumstance modifier.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 07:48 PM
Either a character has high wisdom, which would indicate that that character does not take things for granted, make hasty decisions, enter a room without checking it first, etc...

Or the character has spent a significant developing the habits(or had the habits beat in to him by his environment), which in OOC terms would mean ranks in spot.

---

Since spot is cross-class for fighters, he's far less likely to have relied on such habits. And since fighters are not typically known for their sage-like wisdom, he's more likely to be hasty and take things for granted. Simply put, the fighter already has a cruddy spot modifier due to the very reasons you're using to justify the distraction penalty, and doesn't need a further penalty beyond what the game has already given him for his class/stat/skill choices.

edit: The DM has to make the rolls, since the PC's don't know what they're looking/listening for. If they did, they often wouldn't need to make the rolls in the first place. Unless you simply mean for the players to say some variation of "I am being alert for X (but not Y, Z, etc?)" every once in a while? Then you would tell them when to roll, unless something came up they didn't specifically mention keeping an eye out for? That wouldn't be terribly functional or balanced, I imagine...
No I have them say "I'm going to look around." They don't need to be specific, I just need to know that the character is actively searching, rather than just walking down the hall and maybe spotting something out of the corner of his eye.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 07:56 PM
Well, you see, that's not how reactive checks work (i.e. it is spotting something out of the corner of your eye or hearing something unexpected), but if your method works better for you, then all is well and good.

Orzel
2007-03-11, 08:03 PM
So take 10 with a -5 bored penalty?

It's not bad for a house rule. If limited to opposed skill rolls when the "defending" person is unaware or not paying attention to the "attacker's" actions. But I'd limit it to defender's who are not paying attention, distracted, or making a million checks a minute (stuff a forged item in a pile of similiar items).

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 08:16 PM
*snip*But I'd limit it to defender's who are not paying attention */snip*
Which is, as I've stated, what it's meant for.

Cobra
2007-03-11, 08:41 PM
bored != distracted.

If there's a guard standing at a gate, bored out of his mind, he is still taking 10. If, on the other hand, the guard is playing a game of dice with some of his buddies, then he can suffer the -5 penalty for being distracted.

If a player specifically mentions that he's being especially attentive, that means he's taking an action to roll another spot or listen check.

Mr._Blinky
2007-03-11, 08:49 PM
bored != distracted.

If there's a guard standing at a gate, bored out of his mind, he is still taking 10. If, on the other hand, the guard is playing a game of dice with some of his buddies, then he can suffer the -5 penalty for being distracted.

If a player specifically mentions that he's being especially attentive, that means he's taking an action to roll another spot or listen check.
Meaning the system I'm suggesting is pretty much the same as the one actually suggested. Meh, I still don't understand why everyone is arguing against it. Even if it's not an original idea like I thought it was, it's still pretty balanced IMO.

Seffbasilisk
2007-03-11, 08:52 PM
Actually I think being distracted is a -4, but pretty much, yeah.

Matthew
2007-03-11, 09:27 PM
Meaning the system I'm suggesting is pretty much the same as the one actually suggested. Meh, I still don't understand why everyone is arguing against it. Even if it's not an original idea like I thought it was, it's still pretty balanced IMO.

Nobody is arguing against it exactly. The point is that it already exists, but the mechanism works differently. There is no need for yet another rule to govern this particular aspect of play. Characters usually 'take 10' and the DM applies variable circumstance modifiers. A blanket -5 is fine, but there is no need to make it a rule.

Orzel
2007-03-11, 09:58 PM
I might add this to the next time I play "Half Dice Madness" 'cause the next town is a druid village.

Half Dice madness is when all dice rolls are automatically half their max roll rounded down and up alternately.

Clementx
2007-03-11, 10:22 PM
bored != distracted.

If there's a guard standing at a gate, bored out of his mind, he is still taking 10. If, on the other hand, the guard is playing a game of dice with some of his buddies, then he can suffer the -5 penalty for being distracted.

If a player specifically mentions that he's being especially attentive, that means he's taking an action to roll another spot or listen check.

Quoted for being the way things already work, completely negating your motivation for the house rule. If you want to penalize players when they do not explicitly state what the RAW grants them, you also need to give them bonuses when they are explicit about what they are doing. So the rogue is getting +10 on his Move Silently for saying that he is gradually shifting his weight and only stepping directly on floor beams. Not to mention you get to kill players for forgetting to say that they spend the round breathing :smallbiggrin:

its_all_ogre
2007-03-12, 08:47 AM
the way i work it is not to let pcs make the skill check.
they are resting while one is on watch. so any npc trying to sneak up on them makes a move silently/hide check vs 10 plus modifier of character.
if he rolls lower then pc notices them, if higher then pc does not.
player does not know what roll is for.
the -5 comes in if the watcher is a wizard studying his spell book/cleric praying for spells etc.
i only ask for spot checks from players if npc is already in ambush position(for example) when pcs appear on scene. so bandits always raid from a certain point, they are alredy in place and about to attack spot checks vs appropriate DC those that pass get a surprise action those that fail do not. after that roll Initiative as normal etc.
works well