Passive: Its not Just Perception

[jprepo1]

Hey all, posting a quick post about passive skills in 5e, and their perceived underuse. Would love to get feedback, hear about how you use them (or don't), and ideas to use them more effectively.

The first subject that came up for me is the concept of Passive skill checks. Pretty much everyone is quite familiar with passive perception (PP). In fact, its one of the most used concepts in all of the printed modules thus far from WotC. This makes sense if you think about it, as perception is basically your character's ability to notice things, which, as you might expect, tends to come up a ton while adventuring.

I couldn't help but notice, though, that other passive skill checks barely come up at all. I'm fairly certain I can count the total number of times they are mentioned in the official printed texts on one hand, and I have all of them (books that is, not hands. Well, I have all of my hands too, but I digress). To me, and very importantly, to my particular style of DM'ing, this does your average group quite a disservice.

Every skill check in D and D has a commensurate passive companion, which is calculated in the same way as PP is. When used correctly, this can greatly speed up the flow of your game. For example, let's reference Critical Role. *SPOILERS* At one point, a barbarian PC named Grog, who, as you might expect, has a Strength score up around 20, goes to smash something on the ground, and item that one would expect to have an extremely low DC. He rolls a natural 1, automatically failing the check per the DM's house rules (and mine).

Does it really make any logical sense that he wouldn't have succeeded there? In my opinion, no. This is an example of where Passive Athletics could have come into to play. The concept is simple, though by no means concrete. For me, I typically add between 5 to 10 (depending on how hard I deem the check to be) to the skill check DC, which will give me my passive check DC. That's a totally arbitrary set of numbers, which you are adding to an already arbitrarily set number, so, as always, your mileage may vary.

So, let's put this concept into context. A wizard, with an Intelligence score of 18, and a + 4 to his Int checks, is attempting an easy history check with a DC of 8, bringing its passive DC in my games to somewhere between 13 and 18, depending on context. On top of that, let's say he is also proficient in History, and we'll say he's level 5. This gives him a passive History score of 10+3+4, for a total of 17. Let's further say he has advantage on the check, due to the thing he is trying to remember being something his character studied in his backstory. This gives us another +5, leading to a total passive History score of 22.

That's pretty damn high, now, you could, of course, roll a natural 20 (or a 1) for effect, but would it really make sense for him to fail that check? His character was chosen to have certain skills, based on class and background, that would naturally make him suited to this check, Moreover, was it worth stopping the game, busting out the dice, and tallying results, rather than just rewarding him for being a character with skills in certain areas.

In my opinion, it is not. One of the large ironies in tabletop gaming is the passage of real time vs game time, where travelling hundreds of miles can take seconds, and fighting a handful of people could take hours, even if those times, in game time, were drastically reversed. Game flow can have a big, if intangible, impact on your game and player involvement, and, when possible, its usually preferable to have things move forward smoothly and consistently.

Now, there are some pretty big caveats with this, of course. The first, and most obvious, is that, while it's true the character is well suited for the check, would that guarantee that he would succeed in a similar, real life situation? Of course not. On top of that, critical failures, or even just failures of easy checks, can bring a lot of drama and/or humor to a game, which is typically a good thing. Additionally, one must be aware of their players' style and desires in play. One of the PC's in one of my groups absolutely loves to role dice. In situations like this, I typically forgo the passive checks and have him roll all the time. It is also a lot of extra data to keep track of.

In a more general sense, however, I have found that benefits outweigh the cons. I have a spreadsheet with everyone's passive skills, in which I then use green and gold to highlight proficiency and expertise, respectively (and sometimes just very high values based on Ability score bonuses), which helps me prevent data bloat. What I have found is, for the most part, by simply lettings someone succeed automatically at a check they had an extremely high chance of passing anyway, I can just let them role-play the result, and putting agency into the hands of players is always a good thing.

As mentioned before, and with all things DnD, your mileage may vary.

[Segev]

Your case is heavily weakened by the reliance on a house rule of natural 1s being auto-failures for things other than saves and attacks. Without that house rule, the examples all succeed with or without passive checks being invoked.

The purpose of passive checks is to allow the DM to have a roll for his NPCs that he doesn't have to call for a counter-roll from players to which to compare it. It would be a stronger article to focus on areas where you think that comes up other than Perception, since it would actually provide cases where passive checks are best used.

[MaxWilson]

OP needs a good editor. Has some interesting ideas but needs to be ruthlessly cut down to size. E.g. first four paragraphs are unnecessary given the thread title. Anyone who shows up on this thread is already interested in passive checks and doesn't need to be motivated to consider them--they just want to hear your implementation.

[jprepo1]

I agree with what your premise of the purpose of passive checks. While the examples present are extreme cases, I don't think its hard to imagine a case where something with a DC of 10 can be be automatically passed by a character with a high passive skill score. Moreover, while I dont subscribe to critical fumbles in the penalty sense, I think enough DM's do, or at least do something similar to what I do, to have this come into effect fairly frequently.

[jprepo1]

OP needs a good editor. Has some interesting ideas but needs to be ruthlessly cut down to size. E.g. first four paragraphs are unnecessary given the thread title. Anyone who shows up on this thread is already interested in passive checks and doesn't need to be motivated to consider them--they just want to hear your implementation. I see what you mean, and, to be honest, this was a straight copy and paste job from the orignal page, so good catch there, I hadn't considered that.

That being said, internet amateurism aside, I'm looking more for DM's experiences with this, in particular the use of skills other than PP.

[RickAllison]

To me, passive levels are where someone doesn't concentrate on them at all (hence, passive) or where time taken isn't an issue (basically this edition's form of taking 10). So a L14 rogue and fighter might spend quite some time trying to make sense of this magic through Arcana checks, but the wizard could walk by and can subconsciously know the answer because his passive Arcana is so high. To me, passive checks are the go-to scores to note, as someone with high Religion could instantly know religious facts about something when someone else would have to roll to hope. I feel it rewards people who actually take skills rather than knowing they can beat someone untrained with a dump stat who just rolled really well.

Incidentally, passive checks do pop up in one other place: the Monster Manual. Several creatures with abilities that auto-grapple or restrain have their DC calculated as their passive Athletics (10+Athletics).

[Tanarii]

Passives are take 10 ... plus some. DMs should be using them for any ability check that is an average result for a task done repeatedly, or any time the DM needs to kept the fact a check is being made secret. Per the PHB. That's explicitly what it says.

So yes, as a DM you absolutely should be using it any time the player is constantly doing something or they shouldn't even know a check was being made. That certainly includes 'knowledge' checks, but could also easily include Investigation, Deception, Animal Handling, Survival, and Insight. I'm sure others can think of reasons it could cover other skills.

The reason Passive Perception is such a thing is it's called out three times: In the passive skills section in the skills chapter, in the Hiding sidebar in the skills chapter, and under Activities While Traveling Noticing Threats in the Adventuring chapter. In fact, the passive skills section refers to both the latter. So yeah, Passive Perception is the most important. But it's not the only way to use it by any means.

[Theodoxus]

I don't understand your need to increase the DC just because someone is using a passive check against it.

If I'm looking at passive perception, and use passive stealth on a pair of goblins, I'm not jacking up the difficulty to spot them... The same should be true for anything else. Smash a jar? Break DC vs passive athletics. Recall historical lore? Lore DC vs passive History...

I agree that passive checks aren't generally used often enough (certainly true at my table) - but it seems that you're making it more complicated than it needs to be - which will detract from their use, not increase it.

[jprepo1]

I don't understand your need to increase the DC just because someone is using a passive check against it.

If I'm looking at passive perception, and use passive stealth on a pair of goblins, I'm not jacking up the difficulty to spot them... The same should be true for anything else. Smash a jar? Break DC vs passive athletics. Recall historical lore? Lore DC vs passive History...

I agree that passive checks aren't generally used often enough (certainly true at my table) - but it seems that you're making it more complicated than it needs to be - which will detract from their use, not increase it.

Typically, the instances of passive check in the published modules are generally presented as an increased DC check due to the non-active nature of the PC in succeeding on that check. I should have clarified, if a monster makes a skill check or roll, and a PC's passive skill check for that skill will succeed, I will not up the DC in that case.

[Tanarii]

Typically, the instances of passive check in the published modules are generally presented as an increased DC check due to the non-active nature of the PC in succeeding on that check. I should have clarified, if a monster makes a skill check or roll, and a PC's passive skill check for that skill will succeed, I will not up the DC in that case.

That's means they're not designed with a proper understand of what passive skill checks mean then. They're not non-active. They're the average result of many checks done over and over again, or a secret check.

If I tell the DM I'm scouting down the hallway quietly, keeping my eyes open for things, I should be using my passive Stealth, Perception and Investigation. If I'm at a party pretending to be lord Farquad while trying to get a feel for who the white assassin is disguised as, I'm using Passive Deception and Passive Insight. They're things I'm actively paying attention to doing, but I'm using a passive skill check because I'm doing them over and over again.

[RickAllison]

Oooo, almost forgot, they also mention passive Investigation rolls in the Observant feat! Which actually give a a good sense of scale, where +5 DC is a good thing for a passive check. It would mean that the Observant feat lets someone make a covered passive check as if it was an average, active check.

[jprepo1]

That's means they're not designed with a proper understand of what passive skill checks mean then. They're not non-active. They're the average result of many checks done over and over again, or a secret check.

If I tell the DM I'm scouting down the hallway quietly, keeping my eyes open for things, I should be using my passive Stealth, Perception and Insight. If I'm at a party pretending to be lord Farquad while trying to get a feel for who the white assassin is disguised as, I'm using Passive Deception and Passive Insight. They're things I'm actively paying attention to doing, but I'm using a passive skill check because I'm doing them over and over again.

To be fair, it is WoTC own modules presenting them in that way.

[jprepo1]

Oooo, almost forgot, they also mention passive Investigation rolls in the Observant feat! Which actually give a a good sense of scale, where +5 DC is a good thing for a passive check. It would mean that the Observant feat lets someone make a covered passive check as if it was an average, active check.

Nice, I had forgotten about that.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, it is WoTC own modules presenting them in that way.WotC has all sorts of things done wrong in their modules. /shrug

Edit: In fact, by their own description of what passive checks are, the PHB itself tells you to use Stealth wrong. You shouldn't roll a stealth check vs passive perception, at least not always. You should compare passive perception to passive stealth in many situations. But the section on hiding still tells you to roll stealth.

[JellyPooga]

I agree with the principle, on the whole.

It's worth emphasising the importance of differentiating between what can and can't be adjudicated using Passive scores.

An Arm-Wrestling match between two Arm-Wrestling Champions of roughly equal strength (Str:16 vs. Str:18) should be diced for. One of them might not have had a good breakfast that day, for instance. Chance is relevant.

An Arm-Wrestling match between Grod the 5th level Half-Orc Barbarian (Str:20 and Athletics proficiency) and Fizzik the 1st level Halfling Wizard (Str:8), is a foregone conclusion. Fizzik will never win this contest; he's too small, too weak. Passive Athletics 18 (23 if he's Raging!) vs 9. If this was diced and Grod rolls a 1, all Fizzik needs to roll is 10 and he wins. Yeah, that's not happening in my game!

Dangerous things should always be dangerous; crossing a tightrope or climbing to a significant height, for instance, should never be adjudicated with Passive scores.

Plot related knowledge should also never rely on Passive scores, either.

If there's a significant consequence of failure and there's any element of chance, then roll a dice. If not, use Passive. Picking a lock? Go for Passive; the consequence of failure is that you get to try again. Disarming a trap? Roll them bones; if you botch it, you've got a trap going off in your face. Checking to see if you know that flying lizard is a dragon or a wyvern? Passive will do. Want to know about the common tactics and resistances of that particular type of Dragon? You're rolling dice.

[RickAllison]

I think the increase to DC is heavily dependent on the circumstances. In the case of using it to take 10, it wouldn't have an increase because the person is focusing on the check. To compare the two, I'll illustrate both ways. An average would be someone attempting to sneak through somewhere and so effectively taking 10. The passive Sneak check would be when someone suddenly opens up the door next to the rogue (or whatever). He could rely on his passive (his instincts as a thief) to find a spot at the higher DC, or he could think and attempt to hide at a normal DC. For a DC 15 Religion check, the different players can try and roll to get the information, and a high Int character could take a while thinking about it to come up with the answer, but someone with passive 20 could instantly know it without even needing to think about it. At that point, it's about being so good that you can do it right without thinking, so you auto-succeed.

[jprepo1]

I agree with the principle, on the whole.

It's worth emphasising the importance of differentiating between what can and can't be adjudicated using Passive scores.

An Arm-Wrestling match between two Arm-Wrestling Champions of roughly equal strength (Str:16 vs. Str:18) should be diced for. One of them might not have had a good breakfast that day, for instance. Chance is relevant.

An Arm-Wrestling match between Grod the 5th level Half-Orc Barbarian (Str:20 and Athletics proficiency) and Fizzik the 1st level Halfling Wizard (Str:8), is a foregone conclusion. Fizzik will never win this contest; he's too small, too weak. Passive Athletics 18 (23 if he's Raging!) vs 9. If this was diced and Grod rolls a 1, all Fizzik needs to roll is 10 and he wins. Yeah, that's not happening in my game!

Dangerous things should always be dangerous; crossing a tightrope or climbing to a significant height, for instance, should never be adjudicated with Passive scores.

Plot related knowledge should also never rely on Passive scores, either.

If there's a significant consequence of failure and there's any element of chance, then roll a dice. If not, use Passive. Picking a lock? Go for Passive; the consequence of failure is that you get to try again. Disarming a trap? Roll them bones; if you botch it, you've got a trap going off in your face. Checking to see if you know that flying lizard is a dragon or a wyvern? Passive will do. Want to know about the common tactics and resistances of that particular type of Dragon? You're rolling dice.

Great points, I agree.

[jprepo1]

WotC has all sorts of things done wrong in their modules. /shrug

Edit: In fact, by their own description of what passive checks are, the PHB itself tells you to use Stealth wrong. You shouldn't roll a stealth check vs passive perception, at least not always. You should compare passive perception to passive stealth in many situations. But the section on hiding still tells you to roll stealth.

So, when you use passive checks, is it against the straight DC of the situation?

[jprepo1]

As a quick aside, the constructive criticisms and active dialogue have instantly justified my decision to register and post. TY.

[mephnick]

I use Passive Perception a lot but, and maybe I'm lazy, I find constantly using passives to be a lot of work as a DM. Now for every situation that comes up I have to look at 5 character sheets before I can say anything. Someone told a lie? Let's see...did Bozo hear it? No. Fezzik? No. Gimli? No. and so on. It puts major pauses into all conversations and actions. Oh, they see a Roper. Does Bozo know what it is? No. Fezzik? No. Gimli? No. yawn, yawn, yawn. Yeah, I probably should use passive insight and passive knowledge, but now instead of describing the scene I'm referencing tables and character sheets and breaking up my delivery. I'd rather just wait for a player to ask for a check with stuff like that, even if it is bad DMing.

[Tanarii]

So, when you use passive checks, is it against the straight DC of the situation?Yes. I also only use 'passive' when players are actively doing something. I wouldn't ever use it to passively determine (as in the example given by RickAllison above) if someone remembers a relevant knowledge check from an incidental reminder.

When I would make a passive Arcana/Religion/Nature/History check would be if someone was using a library, or having an extended discussion with a sage, over a few days. Or if a player told me he on entering a dungeon that he was going to be looking for signs of magical whatever lore. Which BTW would constitute his "activity" while exploring, thereby denying him passive perception per the traveling rules in chapter 8 ... he'd be making Passive Arcane checks instead of Passive Perception checks.

Passive isn't supposed to be for when you aren't doing something. It's for when you're (actively) doing something repeatedly, or if the fact the player is making a (singular) check can't be known to the player. It's there as a tool for the DM to use under those two circumstances: Player tells DM he's doing something that will occur over an extended period of time; Player can't know he's making a check.

Edit: Note in some cases the "secret" check might occur because the DM is calling for a literally passive-on-the-players-part skill check. Rick's example could fall under that. I wouldn't use it that way, but I can understand how someone else might want to.

[jprepo1]

I use Passive Perception a lot but, and maybe I'm lazy, I find constantly using passives to be a lot of work as a DM. Now for every situation that comes up I have to look at 5 character sheets before I can say anything. Someone told a lie? Let's see...did Bozo hear it? No. Fezzik? No. Gimli? No. and so on. It puts major pauses into all conversations and actions. Oh, they see a Roper. Does Bozo know what it is? No. Fezzik? No. Gimli? No. yawn, yawn, yawn. Yeah, I probably should use passive insight and passive knowledge, but now instead of describing the scene I'm referencing tables and character sheets and breaking up my delivery. I'd rather just wait for a player to ask for a check with stuff like that, even if it is bad DMing.

I ran into this myself, and what I did was make a spreadsheet highlighting what characters were proficient/expert/had very high passive skills in what. That way, I could, at a glance, see whether a passive check might come into play, and can plan ahead a bit for it sometimes.

[Hairfish]

What you're proposing isn't really "passive" use of the abilities. You're effectively awarding the Rogue's "the worst you can roll is a 10" class feature to everyone.

Personally, I extend passive detection checks to Intuition. If someone is telling a lie, they have to beat listeners' passive Intuition scores. If they beat a given listener's score, things go off without a hitch. If they don't, the listener realizes "something's not right here" and may investigate further by making an appropriate active roll.

[JellyPooga]

What you're proposing isn't really "passive" use of the abilities. You're effectively awarding the Rogue's "the worst you can roll is a 10" class feature to everyone.

Not as such. The Rogues ability always applies. There are things a Rogue of that level literally cannot botch. He can unfailingly pick a lock of Hard difficulty in less than 6 seconds, for example (assuming Expertise in Thieves Tools and a decent Dex score). A Thief Rogue can do it as a Bonus Action, even. Letting a character use a Passive check in combat would be inappropriate; the consequence of failure (i.e. you have to try again) is significant, because time is a valuable resource in combat. The Rogue, however, never rolls less than 10. Ever.

Use of Passive checks in this way is very GM and scenario dependent. The Rogue ability is not.

[RickAllison]

What you're proposing isn't really "passive" use of the abilities. You're effectively awarding the Rogue's "the worst you can roll is a 10" class feature to everyone.

Personally, I extend passive detection checks to Intuition. If someone is telling a lie, they have to beat listeners' passive Intuition scores. If they beat a given listener's score, things go off without a hitch. If they don't, the listener realizes "something's not right here" and may investigate further by making an appropriate active roll.

The difference between the two is that the rogues always get it. In combat, under duress, they cannot roll worse. Passive never would work in combat or in time sensitive areas, it is only applicable when the timing doesn't matter. Basically, Reliable Talent is still potent because they can do it without fail, when someone without the feature would risk not being sufficient.

[Malifice]

Hey all, posting a quick post about passive skills in 5e, and their perceived underuse. Would love to get feedback, hear about how you use them (or don't), and ideas to use them more effectively.

The first subject that came up for me is the concept of Passive skill checks. Pretty much everyone is quite familiar with passive perception (PP). In fact, its one of the most used concepts in all of the printed modules thus far from WotC. This makes sense if you think about it, as perception is basically your character's ability to notice things, which, as you might expect, tends to come up a ton while adventuring.

I couldn't help but notice, though, that other passive skill checks barely come up at all. I'm fairly certain I can count the total number of times they are mentioned in the official printed texts on one hand, and I have all of them (books that is, not hands. Well, I have all of my hands too, but I digress). To me, and very importantly, to my particular style of DM'ing, this does your average group quite a disservice.

Every skill check in D and D has a commensurate passive companion, which is calculated in the same way as PP is. When used correctly, this can greatly speed up the flow of your game. For example, let's reference Critical Role. *SPOILERS* At one point, a barbarian PC named Grog, who, as you might expect, has a Strength score up around 20, goes to smash something on the ground, and item that one would expect to have an extremely low DC. He rolls a natural 1, automatically failing the check per the DM's house rules (and mine).

Does it really make any logical sense that he wouldn't have succeeded there? In my opinion, no. This is an example of where Passive Athletics could have come into to play. The concept is simple, though by no means concrete. For me, I typically add between 5 to 10 (depending on how hard I deem the check to be) to the skill check DC, which will give me my passive check DC. That's a totally arbitrary set of numbers, which you are adding to an already arbitrarily set number, so, as always, your mileage may vary.

So, let's put this concept into context. A wizard, with an Intelligence score of 18, and a + 4 to his Int checks, is attempting an easy history check with a DC of 8, bringing its passive DC in my games to somewhere between 13 and 18, depending on context. On top of that, let's say he is also proficient in History, and we'll say he's level 5. This gives him a passive History score of 10+3+4, for a total of 17. Let's further say he has advantage on the check, due to the thing he is trying to remember being something his character studied in his backstory. This gives us another +5, leading to a total passive History score of 22.

That's pretty damn high, now, you could, of course, roll a natural 20 (or a 1) for effect, but would it really make sense for him to fail that check? His character was chosen to have certain skills, based on class and background, that would naturally make him suited to this check, Moreover, was it worth stopping the game, busting out the dice, and tallying results, rather than just rewarding him for being a character with skills in certain areas.

In my opinion, it is not. One of the large ironies in tabletop gaming is the passage of real time vs game time, where travelling hundreds of miles can take seconds, and fighting a handful of people could take hours, even if those times, in game time, were drastically reversed. Game flow can have a big, if intangible, impact on your game and player involvement, and, when possible, its usually preferable to have things move forward smoothly and consistently.

Now, there are some pretty big caveats with this, of course. The first, and most obvious, is that, while it's true the character is well suited for the check, would that guarantee that he would succeed in a similar, real life situation? Of course not. On top of that, critical failures, or even just failures of easy checks, can bring a lot of drama and/or humor to a game, which is typically a good thing. Additionally, one must be aware of their players' style and desires in play. One of the PC's in one of my groups absolutely loves to role dice. In situations like this, I typically forgo the passive checks and have him roll all the time. It is also a lot of extra data to keep track of.

In a more general sense, however, I have found that benefits outweigh the cons. I have a spreadsheet with everyone's passive skills, in which I then use green and gold to highlight proficiency and expertise, respectively (and sometimes just very high values based on Ability score bonuses), which helps me prevent data bloat. What I have found is, for the most part, by simply lettings someone succeed automatically at a check they had an extremely high chance of passing anyway, I can just let them role-play the result, and putting agency into the hands of players is always a good thing.

As mentioned before, and with all things DnD, your mileage may vary.

Why is a Str 20 Barbarian rolling to smash something that is apparently 'easy' to smash in the first place?

You only roll for stuff when the result is in doubt.

[jprepo1]

Why is a Str 20 Barbarian rolling to smash something that is apparently 'easy' to smash in the first place?

You only roll for stuff when the result is in doubt.

This is an important point too. Sometimes you need to think about whether roll is appropriate at all.

[JackPhoenix]

Why is a Str 20 Barbarian rolling to smash something that is apparently 'easy' to smash in the first place?

You only roll for stuff when the result is in doubt.

Yep, wanted to write this myself when I read through the thread. More then that, not only when the result is in doubt, but when there's some sort of penalty for failure. If there's no time pressure, like horde of goblins chasing you and no penalty for failure, like guards investigating the noise, it doesn't matter if breaking the door will take you one push from a barbarian, or a 5 minutes of effort from the wizard...they will get on the other side eventually (that's what you, as a DM, want anyway, isn't it?). Making them roll 30 times until they finally get that 20 they need is boring and redundant.

That's why there's no Take 20 in 5e. The DM knows (or should know) the capabilities of his/her players when building the adventure, and either knows they can do something (in which case they can succeed automaticaly if it's not important), or they can't, and no amount of rolling will do anything about that.

[greenstone]

First, you only need to roll when the outcome is uncertain and there is a consequence for failure. In other words, only roll if failure is going to cost something (e.g. time, resources).

If there is no chance of success, or no chance of failure, then just say "Your character does it" or "You character can't do it". If the outcome is doubt, but the character can just repeat the action over and over with no cost, then just say "Your character does it".

In the "Fighter picking up the stone" example above, if there is no time constraint then the fighter can just try and try again until she picks up the rock. No need to roll. If the rock is crushing a party member who only has a few seconds before they die of suffocation, then that's when you roll.

Second, passive rolls are not specifically for a character "passively" doing something, they are a mechanism to avoid rolling heaps of dice.

For example, detecting traps. You could say "Roll WIS (Perception) to find traps" for each 10 ft square area you are searching. That gets a little tedious when the dungeon covers half a square mile. Instead of saying "Please make 140 thousand perception rolls", you just take the passive value.

For example, detecting motives. You could say "Roll WIS (Insight) to determine the motives of someone". However, if the PC talks to 150 people over the course of a festival, you are (hopefully) not going to ask for 150 Insight rolls.

[Alerad]

In the example where a skill check fails on a 1, since this is a house rule, it is also probably the intended result. By introducing passive checks you invalidate this house rule, so you don't actually need it in the first place.

If there is a chance of failure, you can call for a roll. If the character is very strong, the chance is small. If there is no rule that says you fail on 1, a very strong character would succeed where other fail (even if the chance for failure is small).

Passive checks are good for extended or repetitive tasks. You score high sometimes, sometimes low, on average it's 10.

[Theodoxus]

Use of Passive checks in this way is very GM and scenario dependent. The Rogue ability is not.

I tried something this weekend that I think worked out ok. Had the PCs at the bottom of a long causeway running up towards a mansion, where a group of thugs and low level mages were standing on the porch. It was night - the PCs started 200 feet away, and the NPCs had various light effects, but the PCs were in darkness.

The paladin in the group trekked up the side of the causeway, through light forest. I used his passive stealth score (7) as the DC for the NPCs to see him - a disad perception check. Essentially, I ruled it as light glinting off his armor. He wasn't actively stealthing, but it made sense he wouldn't make it particularly easy to be spotted.

Passive checks in combat make sense at times...

[Segev]

I tried something this weekend that I think worked out ok. Had the PCs at the bottom of a long causeway running up towards a mansion, where a group of thugs and low level mages were standing on the porch. It was night - the PCs started 200 feet away, and the NPCs had various light effects, but the PCs were in darkness.

The paladin in the group trekked up the side of the causeway, through light forest. I used his passive stealth score (7) as the DC for the NPCs to see him - a disad perception check. Essentially, I ruled it as light glinting off his armor. He wasn't actively stealthing, but it made sense he wouldn't make it particularly easy to be spotted.

Passive checks in combat make sense at times...

I'd honestly have reversed this: make the paladin roll once, and compare it to the NPCs' passive perception checks. When all it takes is one person passing a check for the whole group to gain a benefit, it grossly inflates the group's power (and deflates the individual's) to have them all roll. That poor paladin basically had the law of averages against him: he gets one roll, but the bad guys got a large number of tries at an unusually high roll to defeat him.

[eastmabl]

In the example where a skill check fails on a 1, since this is a house rule, it is also probably the intended result. By introducing passive checks you invalidate this house rule, so you don't actually need it in the first place.

If a natural 1 doesn't result in a failure, a DM shouldn't be asking the player to roll the d20. You only roll checks when there is a chance of failure.

***

Back on topic, I do a lot of passive checks for players without calling them a check. For example, two players are talking to an NPC.

DM (me): "Gargsmash, the talky-man sounds like he is being very honest with you, especially when you're brandishing your axe menacingly in his direction."

Gargsmash: "Splendid."

DM (me): "Philoceptus, you're pretty sure that the cultist is saying exactly what you expect to hear - but it sounds off. The way that Gargsmash is gesturing at him, he would probably tell you what Orcus' true name is - if only to get him away from you."

Passive checks are what the DM generally would assume that the players deduce from the circumstances.

[Vogonjeltz]

WotC has all sorts of things done wrong in their modules. /shrug

Edit: In fact, by their own description of what passive checks are, the PHB itself tells you to use Stealth wrong. You shouldn't roll a stealth check vs passive perception, at least not always. You should compare passive perception to passive stealth in many situations. But the section on hiding still tells you to roll stealth.

You have the process backwards. The stealth check must happen first, else they simply are visible. If not trying to stealth, character is automatically noticed.

If they are trying to stealth, then they roll the Dexterity (Stealth) check which is compared to passive perception for anyone who isn't actively looking. Anyone who is actively searching to see if someone is there would roll the opposed check. (An active searcher has already benefited from the opportunity for the passive score to compare, so presumably it wasn't good enough).

The rules don't include passive stealth (even though they separately address scores and stealth), and, given the rules for noticing opponents, there's not actually room for a Dexterity (Stealth) score to even exist.

[Tanarii]

You have the process backwards. The stealth check must happen first, else they simply are visible. If not trying to stealth, character is automatically noticed.I didn't mean to imply otherwise.


If they are trying to stealth, then they roll the Dexterity (Stealth) check which is compared to passive perception for anyone who isn't actively looking.Nope. See chapter 8, activity while traveling, noticing threats. You use your passive perception, unless you are taking other activities. In other words, passive perception is used by those who are actively paying attention to threats. Those that are not, do not get to use anything to notice threats.


It Anyone who is actively searching to see if someone is there would roll the opposed check. (An active searcher has already benefited from the opportunity for the passive score to compare, so presumably it wasn't good enough).Again, see chapter 8. Those that are looking for threats use passive perception.


The rules don't include passive stealth (even though they separately address scores and stealth), and, given the rules for noticing opponents, there's not actually room for a Dexterity (Stealth) score to even exist.No, they definitely do NOT include passive stealth. I was saying passive stealth should be an extension of the passive skills rule. But the rules for stealth are to roll for it.

[Vogonjeltz]

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Nope. See chapter 8, activity while traveling, noticing threats. You use your passive perception, unless you are taking other activities. In other words, passive perception is used by those who are actively paying attention to threats. Those that are not, do not get to use anything to notice threats.

Again, see chapter 8. Those that are looking for threats use passive perception.

No, they definitely do NOT include passive stealth. I was saying passive stealth should be an extension of the passive skills rule. But the rules for stealth are to roll for it.

Chapter 7, page 177, the stealth check is opposed by the perception check of an active searcher. Travelers aren't actively searching for threats, and a distracted searcher is denied even their passive check because they are completely engrossed by whatever activity they are engaged in. Rangers are able to do both.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Does it bother anyone else that the Cloak of all the Elvenhoods advantages stealth and disadvantages perception?

[Tanarii]

Chapter 7 is talking about actively searching specifically for signs of you, the hidden character. Which btw takes an action in combat. If they're just generally focused on danger, they get to use passive, per chapter 8 noticing a threat. That includes in combat per chapter 7 hiding sidebar, if they're not actively searching for signs of you specifically. If they are not focused on danger (the exact wording of chapter 8) they don't get to use passive at all.

that pretty clearly sets up the three levels of perception:
1) looking for something specific: make a check to find it. Takes an action in combat.
2) generally focused on danger: passive perception
3) not focused on danger: use nothing

I certainly consider being focused on possible danger 'active'. And it matches the description of what passive skill use is: repeatedly doing the same thing over and over. In this case, watching for danger.

[pwykersotz]

Does it bother anyone else that the Cloak of all the Elvenhoods advantages stealth and disadvantages perception?

Yes. It's a borked item in my opinion. I would make that an "or".

[Vogonjeltz]

Chapter 7 is talking about actively searching specifically for signs of you, the hidden character. Which btw takes an action in combat. If they're just generally focused on danger, they get to use passive, per chapter 8 noticing a threat. That includes in combat per chapter 7 hiding sidebar, if they're not actively searching for signs of you specifically. If they are not focused on danger (the exact wording of chapter 8) they don't get to use passive at all.

that pretty clearly sets up the three levels of perception:
1) looking for something specific: make a check to find it. Takes an action in combat.
2) generally focused on danger: passive perception
3) not focused on danger: use nothing

I certainly consider being focused on possible danger 'active'. And it matches the description of what passive skill use is: repeatedly doing the same thing over and over. In this case, watching for danger.

Eh I think we're on the same page in terms of function, just debating semantics. I'd say being cognizant and focused on possible danger vs deliberately searching for it is the dividing line.

In most situations that aren't travel, I'd use passive where the characters weren't specifically saying they want to look for a threat and aren't actively choosing to engage in a task that requires their focus.

[Tanarii]

In most situations that aren't travel, I'd use passive where the characters weren't specifically saying they want to look for a threat and aren't actively choosing to engage in a task that requires their focus.
I agree generally speaking. Except that I generally interpret a player telling me are doing something as focusing on the something as opposed to paying attention for threats. Which can be describing any activity, or include explicit use of a different passive skill, if they describe something that is an ongoing task.

I try to establish it all in advance of course, either as player or DM. I had one group that we bundle investigation and perception together as passively used (and default activity), and all passive lores bundled is another common activity. Another group they pick one skill and that's their passive use skill unless they say otherwise.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I use Passive Perception a lot but, and maybe I'm lazy, I find constantly using passives to be a lot of work as a DM. Now for every situation that comes up I have to look at 5 character sheets before I can say anything.

This is why I use a character management sheet and a straight edge.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzHVsiBMMb98VDZfd3hnR2Q3M2s/view?usp=sharing

I like up the edge and look across 5 mods in an instant. Referring to 5 sheets slows you down! You are not a bad DM, just one trying to play by the rules.