passive perception help

[mealar]

this came up in a game recently and haven't decided which is best,

one guy says passive perception is the minimum a character can have, so if they roll anything less then 10 on the check just use the passive. sounds alright to me, the idea of if you're looking for something then surely the search has to be at least as good as your casual glance is.

however someone else says that rolling for perception over-rides passive so a really bad roll still counts. not entirely sold on this but he reasoned if you focus on searching for something you might focus on the wrong things and miss what you need, though my issue is this assumes before and after the check your not using your passive.

so how do you guys use passive perception is it always on like a minimum score or just for special cases where tje adventure specifically tells you to use it??

thanks

[Ninja_Prawn]

this came up in a game recently and haven't decided which is best,

one guy says passive perception is the minimum a character can have, so if they roll anything less then 10 on the check just use the passive. sounds alright to me, the idea of if you're looking for something then surely the search has to be at least as good as your casual glance is.

however someone else says that rolling for perception over-rides passive so a really bad roll still counts. not entirely sold on this but he reasoned if you focus on searching for something you might focus on the wrong things and miss what you need, though my issue is this assumes before and after the check your not using your passive.

so how do you guys use passive perception is it always on like a minimum score or just for special cases where the adventure specifically tells you to use it??

thanks

If I call for a perception check, that means you can't 'take' the passive one as a minimum (unless you have that one rogue feature). For me, passive perception is generally 'on', unless you're focussing on something else (e.g. combat, driving the wagon, rowing the boat), but there have definietely been situations where I have needed to call for one-off checks where a bad roll means you don't see things.

[the secret fire]

this came up in a game recently and haven't decided which is best,

one guy says passive perception is the minimum a character can have, so if they roll anything less then 10 on the check just use the passive. sounds alright to me, the idea of if you're looking for something then surely the search has to be at least as good as your casual glance is.

This guy is wrong. He is essentially trying to make passive perception into the Rogue's Reliable Talent ability.


however someone else says that rolling for perception over-rides passive so a really bad roll still counts. not entirely sold on this but he reasoned if you focus on searching for something you might focus on the wrong things and miss what you need, though my issue is this assumes before and after the check your not using your passive.

This guy is more-or-less correct.

The important thing to remember about passive perception is that it is passive. You're not doing anything, and there is no roll, just a flat number unaffected by modifiers, advantage/disadvantage, etc. As soon as there is an active attempt to find something, then you roll Perception like a normal skill, and yes, that means taking results lower than 10 if that's what comes up on the dice.

[DiceDiceBaby]

To add, the logic of "passive" skills can apply to other skills as well (if the DM is into that; personally I would do it). At least one Feat makes mention of passive Investigation checks (that would be Observant), so if you want to make the players roll for specific times when they want to make an attempt to be scary (Intimidation) or would check if they are naturally scary enough to illicit fear in a village (passive Intimidation of a Half-Orc), you could do that. Or if a party member makes an active attempt to recall past information about a certain item or place (History) or would rather take a minimum value for the party member to make an exposition about everything they know about the village they are currently in (passive History of a Wizard). "Passive" skills basically mean that you can determine if the party can accomplish certain things naturally without needing to exert extra effort in rolling a die.

But what fun is there in that, eh? :smallbiggrin:

It's always nice when you make the party roll to see how much or how little they know about things. Forcing the roll can lead to the hilarious situation that your Wizard gets a 1 and doesn't know anything about the village that everyone in the party knows after a DC 10 check, though perhaps it makes more sense to compare their passive skills and discern if one PCs passive stat is high enough to allow them the information they need to know, without the roll.

Compare:

Half Orc Barbarian with -4 to INT has a passive Arcana check of 6.
Gnome Wizard with +5 to INT and proficiency in Arcana has a passive check of 17.

DC to know what Mithril is = 15.

Scenario 1 (passive):

Barbarian: "Oh. Shiny metal. Me not know."
Wizard: "Certainly, this chain mail is made of Mithril!"

Scenario 2 (roll for the check):

Wizard (rolls a number from 1 to 7): "Oh dear. I haven't seen or read about this metal before!"
Barbarian (rolls a number from 19 to 20): "Me fight Elf once. Elf use metal. Elf call metal Mithril!"

Of course, you can argue that the Wizard has a better chance to discover the properties of the metal, but then, why risk it?

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

When I am playing a character, I don't roll for knowledge based skilles if I don't have them. It makes no sense to me for a barbie to know more about magic than a wizard. I am sure I'm in the minority on this, but it pains me to see players, not characters, wait for the opportunity to roll dice and show off their higher number in situations where it makes no sense.

Seriously though, how do you justify a level 1 barbarian, literally raised by wolves, have more expertise in the arcane. Even though this does create some incontingencies, like that same barbarian not having nature or survival as skills for some reason and being incapable of living in the wild, but you know...

[Socratov]

passive skills are generally used for perception and investigation: if you are walking along you generally see things, let's compare it to radar. However more perceptive you are, the more stuff that shows up on your radar. It's as if you are continually rolling perception. And if you are continually rolling you will have an expected value of Mu(d20)+mods. that means 10.5+mods which gets rounded down to 10+mods. so far so good.

Now you try doing something consciously. single point of failure (you either pass and reap the benefits or fail and suffer consequences), now you can't average the rolls out to a 10+mods, now you need to roll d20+mods.

[DiceDiceBaby]

When I am playing a character, I don't roll for knowledge based skilles if I don't have them. It makes no sense to me for a barbie to know more about magic than a wizard. I am sure I'm in the minority on this, but it pains me to see players, not characters, wait for the opportunity to roll dice and show off their higher number in situations where it makes no sense.

Seriously though, how do you justify a level 1 barbarian, literally raised by wolves, have more expertise in the arcane. Even though this does create some incontingencies, like that same barbarian not having nature or survival as skills for some reason and being incapable of living in the wild, but you know...

Neither do I, but one of my DMs insists that, at certain points in the campaign, "Okay, everyone roll for Arcana (or Perception, Survival, Investigation, etc.)", and we have to come up with creative solutions as to why this happens when it happens. In the example I posted, the Barbarian just happens to know that one obscure bit of knowledge that the Wizard might have not read about. It's happened often enough that the Barabarian in our playgroup (my wife) identified the Chimera or other magical beast. Why not? She may have fought one in the past, defending her lupine wolf-family, while the rest of us were fighting wars versus other humanoids and not magic creatures.

Unlikely, but it does happen in reality. In the same way that, occasionally, a layman in the countryside may know some technical bit of knowledge about dandelions that even a talented, educated botanist may not have studied. It rarely happens, but even Sherlock Holmes, the world's greatest detective, can miss a detail that Dr. Watson picks up (hence, the difference between passive versus active perception checks). This is the rationale behind critical hits and misses, natural 20s and natural 1s. Even the newbie gets beginner's luck; even the expert makes mistakes. The ability score and ability score modifiers only lessen the likelihood that those skilled in these things will make those mistakes.

[the secret fire]

The weird randomness of skills in 5e is arguably the biggest weakness of the system. My fix is this:

1) Everyone has Reliable Talent (Rogue 11th level ability) for all skills in which they are proficient. This sets a baseline of competence in the areas where the characters are trained.


1a) When the Rogue reaches 11th level, his special version of the ability gives automatic advantage on all skills in which the Rogue has Expertise (four in total, by that point).

2) If a skill is on your class skill list, but you are not proficient in it, roll the check as normal (so just a straight stat check).

3) If a skill is not on your class skill list, and you are not proficient in it, roll the check at disadvantage.

----------------

That's it. An easy fix that makes characters trained in skills feel meaningfully better than the untrained without breaking bounded accuracy (any more than it is already broken for skills).

[Socratov]

The weird randomness of skills in 5e is arguably the biggest weakness of the system. My fix is this:

1) Everyone has Reliable Talent (Rogue 11th level ability) for all skills in which they are proficient. This sets a baseline of competence in the areas where the characters are trained.


1a) When the Rogue reaches 11th level, his special version of the ability gives automatic advantage on all skills in which the Rogue has Expertise (four in total, by that point).

2) If a skill is on your class skill list, but you are not proficient in it, roll the check as normal (so just a straight stat check).

3) If a skill is not on your class skill list, and you are not proficient in it, roll the check at disadvantage.

----------------

That's it. An easy fix that makes characters trained in skills feel meaningfully better than the untrained without breaking bounded accuracy (any more than it is already broken for skills).


To add, the logic of "passive" skills can apply to other skills as well (if the DM is into that; personally I would do it). At least one Feat makes mention of passive Investigation checks (that would be Observant), so if you want to make the players roll for specific times when they want to make an attempt to be scary (Intimidation) or would check if they are naturally scary enough to illicit fear in a village (passive Intimidation of a Half-Orc), you could do that. Or if a party member makes an active attempt to recall past information about a certain item or place (History) or would rather take a minimum value for the party member to make an exposition about everything they know about the village they are currently in (passive History of a Wizard). "Passive" skills basically mean that you can determine if the party can accomplish certain things naturally without needing to exert extra effort in rolling a die.

But what fun is there in that, eh? :smallbiggrin:

It's always nice when you make the party roll to see how much or how little they know about things. Forcing the roll can lead to the hilarious situation that your Wizard gets a 1 and doesn't know anything about the village that everyone in the party knows after a DC 10 check, though perhaps it makes more sense to compare their passive skills and discern if one PCs passive stat is high enough to allow them the information they need to know, without the roll.

Compare:

Half Orc Barbarian with -4 to INT has a passive Arcana check of 6.
Gnome Wizard with +5 to INT and proficiency in Arcana has a passive check of 17.

DC to know what Mithril is = 15.

Scenario 1 (passive):

Barbarian: "Oh. Shiny metal. Me not know."
Wizard: "Certainly, this chain mail is made of Mithril!"

Scenario 2 (roll for the check):

Wizard (rolls a number from 1 to 7): "Oh dear. I haven't seen or read about this metal before!"
Barbarian (rolls a number from 19 to 20): "Me fight Elf once. Elf use metal. Elf call metal Mithril!"

Of course, you can argue that the Wizard has a better chance to discover the properties of the metal, but then, why risk it?

Well, the barbarian may have enoucntered it and suddenly learned about it. Also most people will have seen a caster at work. I'd say that DC5 arcana is to recognise something as magic y/n. any higher you get to figure out what it actually is (like DC 10 to discover the nature of the magic, cantrip or leveled spell, DC 10+spell level to identify the spell, +2 to identify what kind of caster(wiz/sorc/cleric/druid/etc.))

[Grod_The_Giant]

The weird randomness of skills in 5e is arguably the biggest weakness of the system.
Shh, you'll wake the "5e is perfect, you're just playing it wrong" people (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?480171-The-ol-5e-problem-how-to-deal-with-Small-bonuses)!

[Reynaert]

As I understand it, the idea of passive checks is that they occur when you would be doing the check over and over. For example, when walking down a corridor, you're supposed to be constantly looking around for weird thing, traps and whatnot so then passive perception comes into play. But when you step into a room and there's some ninjas hiding in corners wanting to ambush you, that's a perception roll. (And if the ninjas decide not to attack and you spend some time in the room, then it gets back to passive.)

So I guess it's like the old 'take 10' mechanic except you don't even have to announce you're taking 10.