"Passive" skill checks vs active

[Renen]

Alot of times I see situations where if the player does not declare something, it does not happen. I find this to be faulty in the following scenarios:

As a player, I should not have to declare "I walk into the room and make a spot and listen checks"
If there's something in the room that warrants those checks the DM should automatically inform me that I need to roll.
Same would apply to things like knowledge checks, sense motive checks, and so on.
Heck, even if i jump the DM should say "roll a jump check", and not saying I auto-fail because i didnt roll anything
Thoughts?

[OldTrees1]

The DM is permitted to roll for the players when disclosing the existence of a roll is troublesome (like Spot vs an Ambush). Thus there is no reason for the DM to ban reactive or triggered checks (rolled equivalent of the 10+modifier passive checks).

In plain English: The rules expect PCs to have spot checks as a result of the possibility to see something (except in cases where the task is automatically successful).

[Curmudgeon]

Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to hear something in a reactive manner (such as when someone makes a noise or you move into a new area), you can make a Listen check without using an action. Trying to hear something you failed to hear previously is a move action.
Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. The contentious part is that word "can". Some DMs will make the players roll those checks. (I think that's a bad idea. Because there's no action, the players can roll as often as they want, or ask the DM if there's a chance to hear or see anything after every sentence the DM utters.) Other DMs (myself included) will just use the characters' "take 10" numbers and make those passive checks automatically (no rolling, and no narrative interruptions, needed). Players only need to roll if they're using move actions for re-checks for whatever they might have failed to hear/see.

As for the DM actually rolling for the PCs? That's a very bad idea, as the mechanics of dice rolling alerts the players that something is (potentially) up. Also, given that perception skills are in use all the time, it's just a big time-waster.

[The Grue]

As for the DM actually rolling for the PCs? That's a very bad idea, as the mechanics of dice rolling alerts the players that something is (potentially) up.

It does, however, allow the DM to screw with the players by rolling dice for no reason. I find it's a great way to get a party back on-topic.

[Renen]

Yeh. The point about not rolling as often as we want is right. If I had a DM who screwed me over one time because I didnt make a spot check of which I was not informed (aka he didnt tell me to roll one) then id be rolling every single check after every IC action.

[Curmudgeon]

It does, however, allow the DM to screw with the players by rolling dice for no reason. I find it's a great way to get a party back on-topic.
You don't need to roll for PC perception skills to do this; in fact, having the DM roll for PCs on a regular basis makes this tactic less effective. If the DM picks up the dice and starts rolling when there are no PC checks at issue, it's far more disconcerting for the players. :smallbiggrin:

[sleepyphoenixx]

The DM requiring players to declare passive checks leads to silly stuff like everyone going "i enter the room and roll spot and listen". Every room.
It's incredibly bad for immersion and disrupts the flow of the game imo, so i either have the players pre-roll some d20 for passive checks or roll them myself when i DM.

[Duke of Urrel]

I agree that dungeon masters should assume that certain skills with passive checks, such as Spot skill and Listen skill, are always in use. I would add Sense Motive skill to this list.

I also think it's a good idea to have some skill checks of this kind take 10 by default. Players may at any time roll these checks if they feel suspicious and wish to increase their chances to see or hear something that's well hidden or disguised (at the risk of getting an unlucky low score), but if players do nothing and don't declare any suspicion, their passive checks simply take 10. The monsters and NPCs encountered by the players may also make skill checks that take 10, at the dungeon master's discretion. This actually enables the dungeon master to hide some secrets just outside of the players' perceptual reach, unless they're suspicious and choose to roll their checks.

But saying that players who don't declare their skill checks should not make these checks at all and should automatically fail to see or hear anything is unfair to the players and makes for tedious dialogue, as others have pointed out.

[NichG]

I'm very much in favor of passive checks for things. It's just so much faster in play. For similar reasons I very much like 'passive stuff always takes 10'.

That said, from the DM side of the table, it poses a problem. Now, if you know the Spot/Listen/Search/etc modifiers of the PCs, there's a lot less uncertainty in whether or not a given thing will be noticed by the party. I find it a bit troublesome to have it so explicit that 'If I use this thing with a DC of 24, I am deciding that it will be noticed. If I use this other thing with a DC of 30, I am deciding that it will not be noticed'. It feels to me like it takes something away from the PCs.

Honestly, though, I can't say that this problem didn't exist before passive take-10 checks. If I choose a DC which only has a 10% chance of being hit, or which has a 90% chance of being hit, I'm making almost as strong of a choice. It's just that passive checks highlight the issue much more clearly by making it completely predictable.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Honestly, though, I can't say that this problem didn't exist before passive take-10 checks. If I choose a DC which only has a 10% chance of being hit, or which has a 90% chance of being hit, I'm making almost as strong of a choice. It's just that passive checks highlight the issue much more clearly by making it completely predictable.

You don't need to combine passive checks with taking 10. I prefer a little uncertainty in these cases, and it's not like people sometimes overlook things or spot something purely by chance. I generally pre-roll a whole bunch of d20 for that and then simply remove the next in line when a check comes up. (Or an attack roll, save, etc. for an NPC, because i pre-roll pretty much everything - it has made a noticable difference in combat length for me).

[NichG]

You don't need to combine passive checks with taking 10. I prefer a little uncertainty in these cases, and it's not like people sometimes overlook things or spot something purely by chance. I generally pre-roll a whole bunch of d20 for that and then simply remove the next in line when a check comes up. (Or an attack roll, save, etc. for an NPC, because i pre-roll pretty much everything - it has made a noticable difference in combat length for me).

Well, as I said, the issue exists regardless, it's just that damping out the uncertainty makes the problem much more clear. I like removing irrelevant/incidental rolls from the game as much as possible anyhow (take 10, average damage, etc), so I've been keeping my eye out for possible solutions to the underlying issue.

I'm pretty sure I can solve it in half a dozen ways, but most of my potential solutions involve fairly extreme reworkings of what Spot, Listen, etc do. They all share the idea of attaching some significance to the degree of success or failure surrounding a passive check, so the gradations of success rate instead become gradations in the outcome.

[Red Fel]

I like the idea of the DM periodically making certain passive skill checks for the PCs. This assumes, of course, that a level of trust exists, and is deserved, between DM and players.

That's not to say that the players can't make their own checks. Sure, you walk into a room and want to roll Search? Go right ahead. But periodically - such as in the case of ambushes or traps - I think it's fair to roll in secret, provided that you can be honest about outcomes.

I also support the idea of rolling at random, just to make the players paranoid. Particularly in horror campaigns. In fact, in horror campaigns, I'd go the extra step and ask random players, at random intervals, to roll their perception skills. Just to mess with their heads. And because, frankly, if you're scared, your eyes and ears are darting at the slightest thing anyway.

[atemu1234]

I make a normal skill check -4 for inattentiveness, or -8 if they're sleeping. That's my homebrew, though.

[Renen]

Im pretty sure sleeping spot/listen/etc. checks have some gorm of penalty by RAW. Not sure of the number, but at best you home brewed just the number.
And how do you determine being inattentive? Because if its just randomly whenever I dont specifically roll things, then again: ill be rolling things so often that you would just tell me to stop, and only roll on your say so (in which case I should be always attentive)

[OldTrees1]

Just to sum up these posts:
Even Curmudgeon who pointed out the word "can" agrees that he would not have a player need to declare a passive check for the passive check to occur.


I make a normal skill check -4 for inattentiveness, or -8 if they're sleeping. That's my homebrew, though.

Good ruling.

@Renen

A sleeping character may make Listen checks at a -10 penalty. A successful check awakens the sleeper.

[Coidzor]

A lot of this is trust. If I trust the DM, I don't particularly care whether they call for spot or listen checks or if they have a pre-rolled bank of spot and listen checks per encounter using our characters modifiers or if they use the "passive" check when we're not actively and explicitly looking around or purposefully trying to eavesdrop or what have you.

Of course, if the DM is just explicitly stating that since you didn't say you rolled a spot or listen check, you don't get any at all, not even a passive 10+modifier or pre-rolled check from a bank of them prepared by the DM... That's just them being an ass.

And if you can't compromise by saying that you do such as part of your SOP whenever you enter a room, then you're left with either peer-pressuring them to change their mind entirely, somehow; leaving the game, or annoying them by constantly rolling spot and listen checks regardless of whether they're appropriate or called for.


Just to sum up these posts:
Even Curmudgeon who pointed out the word "can" agrees that he would not have a player need to declare a passive check for the passive check to occur.

Having to declare a passive check would entirely defeat the point of having a "passive" check.

You'd just say that you were Taking 10 on a Listen or Spot or Search check instead if you wanted to actively do something and have a consistent result.

[Curmudgeon]

That said, from the DM side of the table, it poses a problem. Now, if you know the Spot/Listen/Search/etc modifiers of the PCs, there's a lot less uncertainty in whether or not a given thing will be noticed by the party. I find it a bit troublesome to have it so explicit that 'If I use this thing with a DC of 24, I am deciding that it will be noticed. If I use this other thing with a DC of 30, I am deciding that it will not be noticed'. It feels to me like it takes something away from the PCs.
Your figuring doesn't include the distance penalties, where 'If I use this thing with a DC of 24, I am deciding that it will be noticed if the PCs get within 50 feet". Some things are too sneaky/small/subtle to be noticed, but for other things it's a matter of how closely the PCs investigate. Those numbers are also a function of how much effort the PCs have put into their skill training. So really, whether things get noticed is much more up to the players than it is to the DM.

[NichG]

Your figuring doesn't include the distance penalties, where 'If I use this thing with a DC of 24, I am deciding that it will be noticed if the PCs get within 50 feet". Some things are too sneaky/small/subtle to be noticed, but for other things it's a matter of how closely the PCs investigate. Those numbers are also a function of how much effort the PCs have put into their skill training. So really, whether things get noticed is much more up to the players than it is to the DM.

I don't figure them in because they rarely actually matter in cases where this particular problem crops up. The reason is that distance is most relevant when determining the initial position for an encounter/ambush, but in that case the enemies will have to roll Hide/MS since those are actively used skills, and so there'll already be a source of randomness there.

On the other hand, saying 'you notice the clue to the murder from 50ft away' versus 'you notice the clue to the murder from 5ft away' doesn't really change much, and the point of passive checks is to avoid the players having to list off SOP actions every 5ft square so saying 'you didn't pass near the secret door' is kind of defeating the purpose. Similarly, with traps, it generally only matters if you see it before you reach the trigger, not how far on either side of the trigger you would have noticed it.

I think it'd truly only be up to the players if you established a very stringent set of restrictions on DCs for things. For example, if you say 'all secret buttons in my campaign setting are DC 25', 'the presence of any secret door can be detected at DC 20', etc then the players can know exactly what they're buying with their ranks/optimizations/etc. Otherwise it's too easy to say 'oh, this button was hidden behind a tapestry' or 'oh, this button is inset into a crack in the wall and is particularly hard to spot' or 'oh, this button is extra-small' or whatever. RAW alone gives you too many ways to push the DCs around, so the actual DCs tend to be driven more by metagame considerations.

[Honest Tiefling]

Perhaps I am just a big ol' meany-head, but I don't like passive checks. I want the PCs to try to figure out who might not be on the level. I want some poking around the environment before handing out a perception check. Searching also takes time so I am not going to immediately assume they are doing a thorough search because there is a trade off with that time investment.

However, if they take the time for a search and hit the DC, I tell them where the secret stash is. If they are highly trained in these skills, I'll pepper in hints such as the innkeeper is hiding to hide her nervousness or something.

[Coidzor]

Perhaps I am just a big ol' meany-head, but I don't like passive checks. I want the PCs to try to figure out who might not be on the level. I want some poking around the environment before handing out a perception check. Searching also takes time so I am not going to immediately assume they are doing a thorough search because there is a trade off with that time investment.

However, if they take the time for a search and hit the DC, I tell them where the secret stash is. If they are highly trained in these skills, I'll pepper in hints such as the innkeeper is hiding to hide her nervousness or something.

You don't like passive sense motive checks and yet you'll give them the results of a passive sense motive check. Why? How do you mentally differentiate the two? :smallconfused:

Its not just because you automatically give them this kind of information regardless of whether they have a Sense Motive modifier worth mentioning, making investing skill ranks in Sense Motive pointless because they get the benefit regardless, beucase you're requiring them to invest skill ranks into Sense Motive before they'll get anything.

Also, no one said to eliminate active searching for clues and hints and treasure, so I have no idea what you were reading to get the idea that such was suggested in the first place.

The actual question, which you ducked answering, was whether you have the party get ambushed without either doing a passive check for them or calling for spot and/or listen checks. Especially if you then chastize the party for not having read your mind and called for Spot and Listen checks before you sprang the ambush but after they proc'd it so they could actually make Spot and Listen checks to detect it.

[Cruiser1]

I make a normal skill check -4 for inattentiveness. That's my homebrew, though.
That makes a lot of sense. There should be a bonus if a PC is actively looking for something (or a penalty if they're not expecting anything).


Scenario 1: Bandits are hiding in the rocks of a pass. My PC is riding by, thinking about what spells to prepare next day. DM tells me to roll Spot, at DC 20.
Scenario 2: Bandits have attacked my PC twice already at the two previous passes. My PC approaches the third pass. I tell DM I look at the rocks to try to see if there are any more bandits. DM replies to roll Spot, at DC 20.

It seems like the DC for Scenario 1 (not paying attention, not knowing what to look for) should be much higher than Scenario 2 (paying attention, knowing what to look for).

[sleepyphoenixx]

Perhaps I am just a big ol' meany-head, but I don't like passive checks. I want the PCs to try to figure out who might not be on the level. I want some poking around the environment before handing out a perception check. Searching also takes time so I am not going to immediately assume they are doing a thorough search because there is a trade off with that time investment.

However, if they take the time for a search and hit the DC, I tell them where the secret stash is. If they are highly trained in these skills, I'll pepper in hints such as the innkeeper is hiding to hide her nervousness or something.

On the other hand a druid or other high-wis high-spot character has a pretty decent chance to notice an invisible creature when he enters a room with it. Or hear someone fidgeting who's trying to hide behind the corner without stopping to listen for it.
The entire concept of hide/move silently requires passive checks, otherwise you might as well say "i'm hiding" and unless your players are incredibly paranoid IC and OOC (and constantly interrupting the flow of the game to declare checks) it would mean you're undetectable.
At high levels, with buffs, it's not unreasonable to identify illusions with a passive spot/listen check.

Sense Motive on the other hand is rolled automatically in reaction to an attempted bluff. You don't declare that you're trying to figure out if somebody is lying, you try to read people you're interacting with automatically. People do that.

That's what passive checks are for. A kind of "because of your sharp senses/your training you notice x" moment. It's a necessary element because you can't actually see what your character sees and are dependent on DM descriptions. People aren't deaf and blind just because they're not actively looking for something after all.

That makes a lot of sense. There should be a bonus if a PC is actively looking for something (or a penalty if they're not expecting anything).


Scenario 1: Bandits are hiding in the rocks of a pass. My PC is riding by, thinking about what spells to prepare next day. DM tells me to roll Spot, at DC 20.
Scenario 2: Bandits have attacked my PC twice already at the two previous passes. My PC approaches the third pass. I tell DM I look at the rocks to try to see if there are any more bandits. DM replies to roll Spot, at DC 20.

It seems like the DC for Scenario 1 (not paying attention, not knowing what to look for) should be much higher than Scenario 2 (paying attention, knowing what to look for).
I'd assume that someone who is travelling in a region where bandit attacks happen is paying at least some attention to his surroundings. Especially if they're in a business that's often life threatening.
For everything else there's the "spotter/listener distracted" modifier (-5), so there's really no need to houserule it.

[Coidzor]

That makes a lot of sense. There should be a bonus if a PC is actively looking for something (or a penalty if they're not expecting anything).


Scenario 1: Bandits are hiding in the rocks of a pass. My PC is riding by, thinking about what spells to prepare next day. DM tells me to roll Spot, at DC 20.
Scenario 2: Bandits have attacked my PC twice already at the two previous passes. My PC approaches the third pass. I tell DM I look at the rocks to try to see if there are any more bandits. DM replies to roll Spot, at DC 20.

It seems like the DC for Scenario 1 (not paying attention, not knowing what to look for) should be much higher than Scenario 2 (paying attention, knowing what to look for).

That's more of a fluke or DM laziness, really. I mean, sure, you could have circumstance penalties to cover the first scenario, but that's not going to change the DC, that's going to affect the roll itself.

If they're concealing themselves to an identical extent, the DC itself should be identical, though.

[Honest Tiefling]

You don't like passive sense motive checks and yet you'll give them the results of a passive sense motive check. Why? How do you mentally differentiate the two? :smallconfused:

As in, a person with a high skill gets rewarded with hints, but less then the actual check were the character to follow through and ask for the Sense Motive check and interact with the character in question.

Search has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, and...The more I read it, I think the more I like the idea of rolling it in with other awareness skills to notice a glint of a tripwire, the change of the color of dirt, or a suspicious rope or the like. That seems more sensible for a passive check.

As for ambush...Yes. If there is a chance they'll notice it, even if it is something as silly as someone stealing an extra canape at a party. Unless there has been something mentioned to block line of sight (Say, the party being clearly established to be in several rooms that don't have easy LOS with each other), I assume they have all dang angles. I do however impose penalties behind the screen for assumed distractions (Shopping, talking, etc.). Heck, I've had healers roll skills to figure out where the injured NPCs are in a battle.

I actually got extremely pissed off at a DM who had monsters sneak up on a group with two rogues (One of which was a pathfinder elf)...Because no one said they checked the ceiling. I told him that no one said they weren't. It quickly turned what was supposed to be a creepy encounter into an infuriating one.

[Chronos]

The way I see it, the main difference between Spot and Search is that Spot is almost always passive, while Search is almost always active. You can try to specifically notice something (like if you have reason to suspect an invisible creature is present), but usually, noticing something or not is just something that happens.

[Vertharrad]

The way I see it passive checks are like what sometimes happens in RL...you aren't conscously noticing anything but your subconscous picks up on certain subtle clues and your brain sounds the alarm to you to pay more attention over there. People do it more than they realize, it isn't always accurate and you can get false alarms but such is the way of life. I personally have no issue with the take 10 passive check method(it's a quick way of resolving the issue without actively alerting the player should their check not make it). I haven't DMed in awhile and didn't use it(I might have had them roll spot and listen), but I'd use it now. It makes no sense to chastize players for not being psychic or mind readers, I'm a player and even I miss things.

[Curmudgeon]

The way I see it, the main difference between Spot and Search is that Spot is almost always passive, while Search is almost always active. You can try to specifically notice something (like if you have reason to suspect an invisible creature is present), but usually, noticing something or not is just something that happens.
The active requirement for Search breaks down with racial abilities.
An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.
A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can.
Like an elf, a tallfellow who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check as though actively looking for it.

[Lord of Shadows]

The way I see it passive checks are like what sometimes happens in RL...you aren't conscously noticing anything but your subconscous picks up on certain subtle clues and your brain sounds the alarm to you to pay more attention over there. People do it more than they realize, it isn't always accurate and you can get false alarms but such is the way of life. I personally have no issue with the take 10 passive check method (it's a quick way of resolving the issue without actively alerting the player should their check not make it). I haven't DMed in awhile and didn't use it (I might have had them roll spot and listen), but I'd use it now. It makes no sense to chastize players for not being psychic or mind readers, I'm a player and even I miss things.

This is a pretty accurate description of what happens here. When the party enters an area, I give them a description based on A) what's there, and B) what their Take-10's tell them about what's there. The amount of information scales upward the higher their Take-10's, which sometimes breaks the DC of something special in the area. Of course, if there is nothing special, the description is pretty basic. Keep in mind that this is only the "this is what you see/hear/smell" for free part. If the DC is broken by the free check, it can lead to follow-up Action-based checks. Breaking a DC with a passive check might lead to something like, "You could swear you saw movement in the shadows behind that statue," or, "A faint trace of fresh air hits your nose, but only for an instant." Most of the time it will trigger a regular check, and the adventure moves on.
.

[Crake]

I make a normal skill check -4 for inattentiveness, or -8 if they're sleeping. That's my homebrew, though.

aren't there already rules for this in the phb? -5 for "distracted" and -10 for sleeping? I'd imagine that most cases of "inattentiveness" would overlap with "distracted"