Rules Q&A Are passives a minimum? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Tanarii

2016-10-11, 06:07 PM

For most passives, no. Because they aren't 'always on'. They are used when the DM doesn't want you to roll repeatedly, or when the DM doesn't want you to know a roll is needed at all.

Perception is a special rules case. In the specific cases of finding a hidden creature, checking for surprise, and detecting threats (presumably including traps, although that's unclear), the rules specifically call for passive perception to be used even when you aren't actively searching. And in the latter case, provided you aren't doing something else like mapping, navigating, foraging, and provided you are in a party rank (ie marching order) where you can see the threat being detected.

Technically Finding a hidden object is also a special rules perception case. You roll it, but you also need to be looking in the right place. See the Finding a Hidden Object side-bar. But in theory if you were looking in the right places over a period of time, or the check needed to be secret, it could be passive as usual.

Edit: added determining surprise to the three special rules call-outs for passive perception to always be used.

Edit2: Also, things that can be clearly detected should always be seen, per the DMG advice on not needing to roll. And if there is no consequence for failure other than time, and you can eventually succeed, you automatically succeed after 10x as long (per DMG p237). In other words, all the normal rules for ability checks apply to Perception. It just has three special call-outs for using passive perception.

Sabeta

2016-10-12, 02:00 AM

Always seen Passive as a Minimum. It just doesn't make sense that a character can naturally see something, but then cant because he decided to pay more attention to his surroundings.

Strill

2016-10-12, 03:18 AM

Seems reasonable to me.

It's not reasonable at all. Passive skills exist so that the DM can roll for stuff without alerting the players. It all works out the same, except for who is rolling the d20.

Passive ability scores do not exist to give the players some special advantage.

Always seen Passive as a Minimum. It just doesn't make sense that a character can naturally see something, but then cant because he decided to pay more attention to his surroundings.

That's not how it works. If you're using passive perception, then the thing that is hiding has to roll stealth. If you're going up against something that can't roll, then you don't use passive skills in the first place.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 03:49 AM

CaptainSarathai

2016-10-12, 04:22 AM

Passive Checks is what used to be called Take 10 and is thus a check result of 10 + all modifiers that normally apply to it. You don't normally use it as a minimum threshold in a rolled check but instead use one or the other way of resolving the check.

I don't know where people got this impression but if it was intended to be used as a minimum threshold Passive Checks or Passive Perception would say so.

This. I had a (rather newbish) DM ask me to roll Perception when searching a room after combat. I rolled low. He says,
DM: You want to take some time on it?
ME: Yeah, I'll take a 20
DM: What? No, you don't just get a 20.
ME: Well, how long do I have? How many rolls do I get? Because I'll just keep rolling until I get a 20. You can tell me what I find with a 25 Perception, or you can sit here until I roll a 25 Perception.

It aggravates the hell out of me when DMs don't know the rules, or allow it to inform their decisions at the table. You cannot "Crit" a skill check. A 20 doesn't mean that I find every hidden thing in the room. It means I find anything of DC25 or less, because I do a thorough sweep of the room.

I have similar problems with stuff like Fiendish Resilience, which grants False Life at will and without slots. Rolled outside of combat, I'm gonna cast that until I roll the max. So we either sit there and watch me roll and roll and roll, or we hand-wave that I get the max and carry on with our session.

Socratov

2016-10-12, 05:40 AM

This. I had a (rather newbish) DM ask me to roll Perception when searching a room after combat. I rolled low. He says,
DM: You want to take some time on it?
ME: Yeah, I'll take a 20
DM: What? No, you don't just get a 20.
ME: Well, how long do I have? How many rolls do I get? Because I'll just keep rolling until I get a 20. You can tell me what I find with a 25 Perception, or you can sit here until I roll a 25 Perception.

It aggravates the hell out of me when DMs don't know the rules, or allow it to inform their decisions at the table. You cannot "Crit" a skill check. A 20 doesn't mean that I find every hidden thing in the room. It means I find anything of DC25 or less, because I do a thorough sweep of the room.

I have similar problems with stuff like Fiendish Resilience, which grants False Life at will and without slots. Rolled outside of combat, I'm gonna cast that until I roll the max. So we either sit there and watch me roll and roll and roll, or we hand-wave that I get the max and carry on with our session.
this is an interesting point and one that spawns many rpg problems: PC knowledge and player knowledge.

The fact that you roll below 10 means you as a player know you probably should roll again or try again. The one tool the DM has to negate this kind of behaviour is time. the player in your example can absolutely keep searching until he is blue in the face (or rolls his 20 for his max search result) as is his right. However, how are the rest of the party spending this time. How are the enemies? The fact that the players are willing to stand still does not mean that the world will do so. maybe the quest giver has contracted another party since the player's party hasn't shown up for a long time. Suddenly it's a race to get back to the guestgiver to actually get the reward. The same goes for parties that blow through their resources quickly and want to rest a lot. Go ahead, but the world won't wait for you and that might change things. Maybe enemies will come back in greater force or set up shop somewhere else with the macguffin.

I think that in this case the DM saying no to the player will only reduce fun. That said, if the rest of the players see their prospects diminished because one of them like to take his sweet time (2 hours searching per room in game time for that 20), they will eventually correct the other player's behaviour. I'd say that in this case a great DM would limit the PC's resources by just giving it to the players and having the consequences follow suit soon. This will serve multiple purposes: it creates limits in a natural way for the game to follow and it will create adventures or side quests all of their own. It also allows the players to work with resource management beyond just their class abilities.

Then there is the whole economic aspect of adventuring. For instance, say the players go on a quest that is supposed to take about 3 days (1 day travel each way, 1 day of fighting and searching). the old man in the pub thinks the quest is worth (in danger money and resource expenditure) about 5 gold per day (1 gp per lvl), per person. So 15 gold per person for the quest, assuming a 4 person party of lvl 5's: 60 gp reward. Say the party takes an extra 2 days fighting and searching: suddenly the quest takes 5 days, but eh reward stays the same and the lvl 5 adventurer gets only 3 gp a day. that's like a 40% docking of pay. Now if they find treasure then can sell for a total of 40 gp that is ok, the goods will raise their daily take back up to 5 gp a day. if they take more they even come out ahead, if they take less they will lose money: they will have wasted time in which they could have gotten a new quest or performed other services to generate upkeep. If I were an intelligent wizard I'd see valuable time in which I could research a spell get quite grumpy. A fighter or barbarian could be guarding caravans in the meantime earning him money. A bard could gain 20gp from a day playing if he plays particularly well and performing (and subsequently returning it to the community by drinking and whoring). A cleric could have spread more faith or helped more citizens. Only a druid and ranger might have an intrinsic love for staying out in the woods though they will undoubtedly have a terrain to watch over.

For my own characters I have two different occupations: one was a protector of the forest and his clan village (a gnome moon druid), who eventually lost most of his clan (which got folded into a nearby village) and a lot of co druids and who has taken it up on himself to visit the neighbouring lands to watch over the land and to teach new druids (being a fairly strong druid in the land and having Plant Growth). Thus he was retired. Maybe he will come back after he has restored things to rightness. But for now he can't abandon his duties. My other character got shunted into the world form another and has taken the chance to repent of sorts. She used to con and grift a lot (even has 2 signet rings form different duchies), but has been noticed by Lady Luck (referred to as The Lady as an hommage to PTerry) and has been shunted into a different story and allied with the harpers. She is now a Harper agent used to leverage things in favour of the harpers. She got sent on a mission investigating werewolves and got stuk in Strahd's realm. This means that neither my characters exist in a vacuum and have things to do besides adventuring. This makes their time valuable since they could be doing things they are expected to do and any time not used to do so must have something else to grant them motive.

In my opinion this is makes makes a difference between a roleplaying character and a videogame character.

Please note that I am far from a perfect roleplayer myself and have a tendency to let my PC's actions be slightly influenced by my player knowledge, but that is just a question of more roleplaying.

CaptainSarathai

2016-10-12, 06:05 AM

The situation in my example fit my character's RP - I was in a cleared dungeon, searching for a Gnothic's spell book because my character is a Warlock seeking forbidden lore. The rest of the party was headed back to town, and I was willing to stay out late and run the risk.

The example does point out the oddity of Passive Perception and Insight though; if Passive Perception can be used to spot a trap 100% of the time when leisurely walking through the forest, then how is it possible to roll lower when walking through that same forest and actively searching?

It almost seems as though DMs should secretly raise DCs by +5 or else openly remove the Proficiency Bonus when a character is not actively searching. Even then, it doesn't really seem to fix it - you'd almost need two separate DCs for everything. I've fallen down half a flight of stairs because I didn't realize there wasn't an extra step at the landing. That's not even a particularly well hidden "trap" and it wiped me out. But if I had been paying even a little bit of attention, or especially if I had been warned to be suspicious, I would have noticed it plain as day.

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 06:46 AM

The example does point out the oddity of Passive Perception and Insight though; if Passive Perception can be used to spot a trap 100% of the time when leisurely walking through the forest, then how is it possible to roll lower when walking through that same forest and actively searching?

Here's the thing. Taking a "leisurely" walk through a forest you don't get to roll Perception at all. Nope, no Passive check either. If you ain't looking, you ain't finding and checking Passive Perception assumes you're looking in the first place...just that you're doing it over and over a long period of time. So instead of rolling a hundred Perception checks to see if you spot anything on the way from the Sleepy Village to the Caves o' Doom, you just use Passive-P. It's EITHER Active (because it's an immediate concern) OR Passive (because it's a protracted activity), never both.

Same goes for the "I take 20" scenario; if you want to spend an hour searching a 20'x20' room, I (the GM) am not going to sit here and let you roll the dice until you get a 20, I'm going to say you use your Passive-P and you never roll the die in the first place. If you want to roll for a quicker search, fine, roll those bones; luck will guide you one way or the other and your character will consider the search complete regardless of the outcome (i.e. either he found something or there's nothing to find). You only get to roll most checks once unless you can change the parameters of the check (e.g. trying to kick a door down would be a Str check; fail and you don't get to try again unless a friend turns up or you find a crowbar or something).

If you want that extended search, you "take the average" of all those rolls; you're the one that wanted to "play it safe" and average is the safe option; rolling the dice you can "get lucky" and roll a 20 or "miss a trick" and roll low, but your "normal" performance is a 10 on the dice. That's why Observant gives +5 to Passive checks and not active ones; you're good at playing the "safe" game. For reactive perception that has you on your toes and ready for danger, take Alert.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 07:11 AM

Here's the thing. Taking a "leisurely" walk through a forest you don't get to roll Perception at all. Nope, no Passive check either. If you ain't looking, you ain't finding and checking Passive Perception assumes you're looking in the first place...just that you're doing it over and over a long period of time.Not necessarily the case passive perception may let you notice something even if not searching as described under Hiding:

Passive Perception: When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 07:23 AM

For those of you talking about taking 20, please go read DMG p237. The rules already tell you how to handle it. It takes ten times as long as normal. It's just not called take 20.

Not necessarily the case passive perception may let you notice something even if not searching as described under Hiding:

Passive Perception: When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren’t searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score
That's a specific rule for hiding. You don't extend it to everything.

This is the problem with misconceptions on how passive checks work, and passive perception works. There are specific rules/sidebars for Passive Perception in regards to: Hiding, Finding Hidden Objects, determining surprise, noticing threats while traveling when adventuring (and how to use with marching order & other activities) which would include going down a dungeon hallway or going through a forest. You don't try to extend those rules to other situations, or to passive checks as a whole, to make a 'one rule to rule them all'. You end up with a mess if you try. Just use them at the appropriate times they apply.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 07:40 AM

That's a specific rule for hiding. You don't extend it to everything.True hence why i said it's not necessarily the case there's case where passive perception is used when not searching, which most of the times involve hiding. At least in printed form such as rulebooks, adventures etc...

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 07:41 AM

For those of you talking about taking 20, please go read DMG p237. The rules already tell you how to handle it. It takes ten times as long as normal. It's just not called take 20.That's very true too, and DM can decide the outcome of a task automatically without requiring a check, instead deciding if it succeed or fail automatically.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 07:50 AM

That's very true too, and DM can decide the outcome of a task automatically without requiring a check, instead deciding if it succeed or fail automatically.

Not the rule I'm referring to but it's absolutely true the DMG says that as well. :smallbiggrin:

The rule I'm referring to says if there are no consequences for failure other than time, and you can eventually succeed on a task, you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 07:55 AM

Not the rule I'm referring to but it's absolutely true the DMG says that as well. :smallbiggrin:

The rule I'm referring to says if there are no consequences for failure other than time, and you can eventually succeed on a task, you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.Sorry i'm AFB at the moment i thought it was about this :smallsmile:

Yeah the point you're making is good too

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 09:11 AM

The rule I'm referring to says if there are no consequences for failure other than time, and you can eventually succeed on a task, you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

One small caveat; the task has to be possible for your character in the first place AND it needs to be something that time will actually help with. Functionally, this can be interpreted as "take 20" and using that as a guideline is a good touchstone, but it shouldn't always be the case.

Using "take 20", to use an example recently discussed here on this forum, Average Joe the Commoner with his Str of 10, can break manacles if he just takes 10 times as long; i.e. 1 minute, given that the Str check to break presumably takes one round.

Joe should have a chance of it; i.e. rolling a natural 20 on the dice, and if he has a friend helping he has a better chance represented by having Advantage, but by no means should that be a feat that is always possible given enough time. The natural 20 in this case probably represents a flaw in the manacles or perhaps that Joe had a good breakfast that day and was feeling strong, but those "flukes" aren't the norm; the norm is that he can't escape something specifically designed to prevent such an occurrence and that it would take extraordinary ability to reliably do so (represented by a high Strength score, a Class feature or Feat like the Champions Remarkable Athlete and/or Athletics Proficiency/Expertise if the GM is feeling generous). This is why we roll a die to determine the outcome in this example; random chance may dictate a different outcome to the expected norm. If the dice say "No", then that fluke doesn't exists in that particular case (the flaw wasn't present, Joe isn't feeling strong today) and no amount of re-rolling will change that.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 09:19 AM

I probably should have just included the full text of the rule in the first place, but:
"MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS
Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off."

Using "take 20", to use an example recently discussed here on this forum, Average Joe the Commoner with his Str of 10, can break manacles if he just takes 10 times as long; i.e. 1 minute, given that the Str check to break presumably takes one round. Using the DMG rule, he should also have a chance to do it. It's not an impossible task for Joe to break the manacles. However, your 'flaw in the manacles' interpretation for what the check represents isn't invalid, as it's an abstract rule set that can be applied in any way that makes internal sense to the players and DM.

Basically, you're defining an alternative explanation for why failure only allows one check. Which is fine. But IMO if you're going to rule checks that way, that they represent defining/creating the in-game world, you should probably make sure everyone is on board. Or alternately, call it before the roll is made and let the players know, or define it ahead of time in your adventure notes. (Basically, IMO you're defining a house-rule. So you should tell the players in advance.)

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 09:31 AM

In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task.

There are remarkably few instances where time is the only factor; not even searching a room for a secret door is one of them, because the DC to find it may exceed even your "take 20" (though admittedly in that case, from the GMs perspective, why even put a secret door there if no-one in the party ever has a chance of finding it?). Breaking out of manacles is certainly not (think of the chafing!). It comes down to the particulars of the circumstance, so there's no one rule that will always apply; GM's gotta make a call on what will fly and what won't in almost every situation. It's certainly not in the Players remit to insist he can auto-succeed on any given task based on the de-facto "take 20" rule you quote.

Or alternately, call it before the roll is made and let the players know, or define it ahead of time in your adventure notes.

Oh yeah, absolutely. The GM has to make the call before any dice are rolled. IF a Player wants to go ahead and roll before the GM has a chance to call it, that's on the player and he'll have to live with the consequences, IMO! I agree that everyone needs to be on board, but the basic assumption of the game (AFAIK) is that the GM asks for rolls, not that Players tell the GM what they've rolled.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 09:45 AM

There are remarkably few instances where time is the only factor; not even searching a room for a secret door is one of them, because the DC to find it may exceed even your "take 20" (though admittedly in that case, from the GMs perspective, why even put a secret door there if no-one in the party ever has a chance of finding it?). Breaking out of manacles is certainly not (think of the chafing!). It comes down to the particulars of the circumstance, so there's no one rule that will always apply; GM's gotta make a call on what will fly and what won't in almost every situation. It's certainly not in the Players remit to insist he can auto-succeed on any given task based on the de-facto "take 20" rule you quote.At the end of the first paragraph they add the caveat it's not possible to do something impossible. Certainly that covered things you can't succeed on with a 20. But it's also more flexible and open to DM interpretation. (Which makes my view that it's a house-rule to do so wrong, to be honest.)

Oh yeah, absolutely. The GM has to make the call before any dice are rolled. IF a Player wants to go ahead and roll before the GM has a chance to call it, that's on the player and he'll have to live with the consequences, IMO! I agree that everyone needs to be on board, but the basic assumption of the game (AFAIK) is that the GM asks for rolls, not that Players tell the GM what they've rolled.Yeah, I think it's good practice for the DM to know what success or failure represents before the roll, and (generally speaking) to communicate it to the players, provided that's not giving away something the character couldn't know in advance.

Shaofoo

2016-10-12, 10:30 AM

I think part of the problem is that we equate the result of the roll with the effort made.

Roll low on a Knowledge check = We can't even read the book in front of us or we forget what a Human is.

Roll low on a Medicine check = Stabbing my patient in the face will help!

Roll low on a Survival check = Hey is that chocolate!

And so on.

Personally I find that rolling low on Perception isn't "You are struck blind" but rather that you follow the wrong lead and focus on the wrong conclusion. You spend time looking for the wrong things that would lead to nowhere.

I also think that this also shows a problem with Perception checks, in that we just say we look into a room and just supposed to glean all relevant information about the room. Saying "what is in the room" should not enforce a check and instead just give you the stuff that can be easily seen at sight. If the player said "I search the room for hidden doors" then you can use Perception to search. In the OP's case he should've seen the dead bodies when he came into the room, not struck blind just because he rolled a 5 (although a roll wasn't required anyway).

You never use your Passive perception to actively search. While Passives can be used as an average I see it more as the DC to beat when using skills like Stealth.

But regardless if the player is in no hurry then he should find everything that a 20 would've given.

beargryllz

2016-10-12, 11:00 AM

Passive is a 10 on a d20 check, full stop

IShouldntBehere

2016-10-12, 11:11 AM

Passives are not a minimum. Passives are an "An assumed average when regularly performing an action while not under pressure and with no particular intent". Passives are a way to say for example "Characters are generally alert and will usually be on the lookout. Since their ability to see things doesn't just vanish we'll use their perception score as a basis for this. Rather than ask them to roll for every couple seconds that pass in game we'll just assume they generally get a result around average".

While you're using your passive it's as though moment to moment you're rolling and getting a 19 here, a 1 there, a 8 or a 9 there. This doesn't mean you can never roll below your passive, simply that the passive is the most useful and fair value when we aren't playing everything out. Similarly if a character has a lot of time on hand and failure has no immediate consequence beyond simply wasted time it's fair to assume they can spend a lot of time on something and simply do it if it's possible. We don't need to roll to know they eventually get a 20 trying over and over.

When we zoom into a singular or important event either because a player declared intent and/or because they're now under pressure and time & failure really matter in a single a moment the game is happy to zoom in and say: "OK. This is important and is only going to take one roll, let's see how things really go instead of simply assuming they turn out about at the middle possibility spectrum".

rollingForInit

2016-10-12, 11:14 AM

Passive Checks is what used to be called Take 10 and is thus a check result of 10 + all modifiers that normally apply to it. You don't normally use it as a minimum threshold in a rolled check but instead use one or the other way of resolving the check.

I don't know where people got this impression but if it was intended to be used as a minimum threshold Passive Checks or Passive Perception would say so.

Kind of, but not really. It's important to note that players can't decide to "Take 10", or say "I'll use my passive to search this room". The DM determines what skills are used, and how. How will vary between DM's, of course.

Per the PHB, passive checks should be used as an average instead of doing repeated rolls. E.g. if the party is walking through the king's palace and say "I want to carefully observe every room we pass through", the DM might use the passive score instead of doing 10 different rolls. Or the DM could use the passive score to see if they notice an ambush, if asking for a perception check in that situation would tip the players off.

Of course, it'll vary a bit between DM's, but it's definitely the DM's call, not the players'.

Grey Watcher

2016-10-12, 11:28 AM

I saw this thread title and was thinking about this on my commute:

Obviously, it's a gamist rather than simulationist conceit: using Passive Perception (or Passive Insight or the fabulous and mythical Passive Investigation) is a choice on the part of the player to negate the risk of rolling [1,9] by giving up the opportunity to roll [11,20]. (Also being nice for averting "I think I just failed a Spot check.")

But, it occurred to me that you could think of Passive vs. Active Perception like this:

Imagine a person crossing street. Passive Perception would represent them just using their general level of awareness, relying mostly on peripheral vision. Active Perception would be turning their neck to specifically look each way down the street. A natural 1 on such an Active Perception check might represent that theirr head happened to be turned the other way when a speeding vehicle came around the corner.

It's a bit clumsy and contrived, but that's the best way I can find an in-fiction rationalization for going with RAW and not using Passive Perception as a minimum.

BillyBobShorton

2016-10-12, 11:30 AM

I think there's a case to be made for actively looking and not finding vs. accidentally noticing, but I think it's a matter of someone just happening to see a bee fly in your soda vs. the person who drank one once and now looks every time he takes a sip.

It's unrealistic and somewhat meta to ask if you find any traps while looking around, which you do not, and then say, "well I stand in the corner casually whistling... so do I notice it now?" Um, no.

Passive seems to be something the DM rolls secretly when nobody has thought to attempt to perceive anything out of the ordinary but may notice just by chance coupled with their character's natural awareness.

Sabeta

2016-10-12, 11:44 AM

Passive is the minimum. I quite frankly don't care how you try to twist the PHB to bend to your logic, if that's how you do it at your table that's fine, but it just doesn't make sense.

>"I walk into the room. What do I see?"
>DM Compares his Passive Perception to the 10 Ninjas that are hiding in the room. Player spots four of them; the rest are hidden better.
>"From where I'm standing, I'd like focus more intently on good hiding places to see if I can't find anymore enemies.
>Alright, roll Perception. (Rolls 18 or something), You notice three more Ninjas. (Some of them are too well hidden to be possibly spotted from the door); however the Ninjas know they have been spotted. Roll Initiative.

Had you rolled lower you wouldn't have found the extra Ninjas. Had you rolled a perfect 20 you might have noticed the black trip-wire directly in front of you. Unless you commit your attention to something else (map-making, navigation, etcetera) then you can always use passive to scout for enemies. The rules for finding a Hidden Object are the same; however instead of contesting Passive/Active versus Stealth it's just a static DC which fluctuates based on where you're looking and where the object is. Searching the walls for a key hidden in the drawers will never find you anything. By that token, a Passive check of "The entire room" wouldn't find you the key either unless the draw was open and you were standing right there.

I can't find, nor have I seen any posts in ANY of these Perception threads that directly contradict this. The closest I've seen is people claiming things like "Passive is only used for when you would spam the ability" or "Passive is only used for stealth contests"; which is quite frankly ridiculous to me.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 11:58 AM

Passive is the minimum. I quite frankly don't care how you try to twist the PHB to bend to your logic, if that's how you do it at your table that's fine, but it just doesn't make sense.

>"I walk into the room. What do I see?"
>DM Compares his Passive Perception to the 10 Ninjas that are hiding in the room. Player spots four of them; the rest are hidden better.
>"From where I'm standing, I'd like focus more intently on good hiding places to see if I can't find anymore enemies.
>Alright, roll Perception. (Rolls 18 or something), You notice three more Ninjas. (Some of them are too well hidden to be possibly spotted from the door); however the Ninjas know they have been spotted. Roll Initiative.

I can't find, nor have I seen any posts in ANY of these Perception threads that directly contradict this. The closest I've seen is people claiming things like "Passive is only used for when you would spam the ability" or "Passive is only used for stealth contests"; which is quite frankly ridiculous to me.When you come accross something hidden, you compare the Stealth check to your passive perception score, you don't make a perception check, It's not twisting the PHB nor ridiculous it's what the rules say. It's what printed adventures says.

BillyBobShorton

2016-10-12, 12:03 PM

Passive: "oh, damn, Bill, you just stepped in bear poo."

ActiveBill: "keeping an eye out for bear poo."

MetaBill: "I don't see any poo. Can I use this other stat to NOTICE poo even better?"

DM "you looked for poo and did not see any. How can you NOT look for poo and find it better? Jill, what's your passive perception? (Jill says 14, DM rolls) Jill, you notice some poo under leaves that MetaBill missed. He is about to step in it."

Jill: "Watch out, MetaBill! You didn't see that?"

If you wanna bump your active perception have a party member use the help action. You roll at advantage. Passive implies NOTICING , active implies FINDING. You might look for poo and not see it. Someone else might notice it though. Two different stats/uses, not to be coupled as some rules glich for having the most convenient dice roll.

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 12:28 PM

Passive is the minimum. I quite frankly don't care how you try to twist the PHB to bend to your logic, if that's how you do it at your table that's fine, but it just doesn't make sense.

So sure, I see! Might want to be careful with that :smallamused:

>"I walk into the room. What do I see?"
>DM Compares his Passive Perception to the 10 Ninjas that are hiding in the room. Player spots four of them; the rest are hidden better.
>"From where I'm standing, I'd like focus more intently on good hiding places to see if I can't find anymore enemies.
>Alright, roll Perception. (Rolls 18 or something), You notice three more Ninjas. (Some of them are too well hidden to be possibly spotted from the door); however the Ninjas know they have been spotted. Roll Initiative.

In this particular case, you're absolutely right; the passive check is a minimum because the player has taken the extra time to make an active check. However, the GM had already decided before the point our Player walked in the room that this was going to be a Passive Check. That the Player decided he wanted to make an Active Check on top of that is a redundancy that, as it turned out, did that Player a disservice; instead of acting on the information his Passive Check revealed, he decided to spend some time looking for more ninja's (pro-tip; when you see some ninjas, don't just stand there looking for more...you'll find out soon enough). He rolled high and managed to spot more ninjas, great. Had he rolled low, he's not going to un-spot anything, but at this point he's made a conscious decision to make his first reaction to seeing ninjas be "I look for more ninjas". This is a separate check to the first, passive check. It would be like rolling a 9 to pick a lock with DC:10, then asking to roll again; you can't get worse than "you failed", but you might roll higher and succeed, but at the end of the day it's a separate check with all that entails, such as more time expended.

Take a different scenario; our Player has killed all the ninjas and decides to search the room for loot. The GM asks him how long he's going to spend doing it. The Player has three options;

1) "I do a quick search"
2) "I take a bit of time"
3) "I make absolutely sure I find everything"

In case (1), the GM asks for an active Perception roll.

In case (2), the GM just compares to his Passive Perception.

In case (3), the GM gives the player auto-success on anything lower than 20+(Players Perception mod).

If the Player goes for option (2) and doesn't find anything he's not then allowed to ask to do (1) as well. If he wants to "upgrade" to option (3), that's fine and it will take that much extra time, but just making "one more roll" is already included in option (2)...the character has done his best within the time allotted and taken the average.

Passive Perception isn't a minimum, it's an alternative method of resolution to rolling. You never use both on the outcome of a single circumstance.

PapaQuackers

2016-10-12, 12:30 PM

This is ultimately another thread that draws to the paradox of perception vs. investigation. Perception is ill defined and really makes little sense as an active skill. If you're actively looking, listening, or using any of your other senses you're investigating. I really don't think perception should have an active score at all.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 12:45 PM

Obviously, it's a gamist rather than simulationist conceit: using Passive Perception (or Passive Insight or the fabulous and mythical Passive Investigation) is a choice on the part of the player to negate the risk of rolling [1,9] by giving up the opportunity to roll [11,20]. (Also being nice for averting "I think I just failed a Spot check.")Players don't declare if they are using Passive vs a check. Either the rules specify it (in the three cases for Passive Perception), or the DM decides.

But, it occurred to me that you could think of Passive vs. Active Perception like this:

Imagine a person crossing street. Passive Perception would represent them just using their general level of awareness, relying mostly on peripheral vision. Active Perception would be turning your neck to specifically look each way down the street. A natural 1 on such an Active Perception check might represent that your head happened to be turned the other way when a speeding vehicle came around the corner.If you choose (edit: completing sentence lol:) If you choose to interpret it that way when locating hidden creatures, determining surprise, or noticing threats while adventuring, it makes good sense. Just don't try to extend it to all perception checks, ie determine it to mean Passive Perception is always a minimum in all circumstances, or that all passive checks are always a minimum, and you'll be fine.

Passive is the minimum. I quite frankly don't care how you try to twist the PHB to bend to your logic, if that's how you do it at your table that's fine, but it just doesn't make sense.Too bad the rules disagree with your assumption for passive checks as a whole, in all cases except Passive Perception. And in passive perception, the rules tell you specific when to use it (vs a creature hiding, determining surprise, and noticing threats), and qualifies one of those (noticing threats, passive perception doesn't apply if you can't see the threat from your position in marching order, nor while doing another task such as mapping or navigating).

I can't find, nor have I seen any posts in ANY of these Perception threads that directly contradict this. The closest I've seen is people claiming things like "Passive is only used for when you would spam the ability" or "Passive is only used for stealth contests"; which is quite frankly ridiculous to me.That's because you've chosen a specific use of Passive Perception as a 'minimum' that is clearly spelled out in the rules: locating a hidden creature.

Sabeta

2016-10-12, 01:34 PM

In this particular case, you're absolutely right; the passive check is a minimum because the player has taken the extra time to make an active check. However, the GM had already decided before the point our Player walked in the room that this was going to be a Passive Check. That the Player decided he wanted to make an Active Check on top of that is a redundancy that, as it turned out, did that Player a disservice; instead of acting on the information his Passive Check revealed, he decided to spend some time looking for more ninja's (pro-tip; when you see some ninjas, don't just stand there looking for more...you'll find out soon enough). He rolled high and managed to spot more ninjas, great. Had he rolled low, he's not going to un-spot anything, but at this point he's made a conscious decision to make his first reaction to seeing ninjas be "I look for more ninjas". This is a separate check to the first, passive check. It would be like rolling a 9 to pick a lock with DC:10, then asking to roll again; you can't get worse than "you failed", but you might roll higher and succeed, but at the end of the day it's a separate check with all that entails, such as more time expended.

Take a different scenario; our Player has killed all the ninjas and decides to search the room for loot. The GM asks him how long he's going to spend doing it. The Player has three options;

1) "I do a quick search"
2) "I take a bit of time"
3) "I make absolutely sure I find everything"

In case (1), the GM asks for an active Perception roll.

In case (2), the GM just compares to his Passive Perception.

In case (3), the GM gives the player auto-success on anything lower than 20+(Players Perception mod).

If the Player goes for option (2) and doesn't find anything he's not then allowed to ask to do (1) as well. If he wants to "upgrade" to option (3), that's fine and it will take that much extra time, but just making "one more roll" is already included in option (2)...the character has done his best within the time allotted and taken the average.

Passive Perception isn't a minimum, it's an alternative method of resolution to rolling. You never use both on the outcome of a single circumstance.

The players Passive beat the Ninja's Stealth Checks. That's how normal Stealth rules work. It's not a matter of the DM decided "The players will use their PP as soon as they enter the room" it's just a causality of hiding Ninjas necessitating a Perception check to be noticed. The player then decides upon an active check afterwards to make sure he has found all of the Ninjas. His other option would probably have involved backing out to regroup (giving the Ninjas time to relocate), or attack immediately (most likely without surprise, but subject to Ninja Sneak Attacks later in combat).

You second scenario I've already covered as well. The loot in the room are all objects. Your Passive Perception has a 0% chance of finding a Ring of Protection that's underneath one of the Ninjas unless you you mention you're going to search around their bodies. In this case the scenario is as follows.

1) I do a quick search, what do they have?
>Take an Active Roll, whatever DCs they beat they get; so long as they were looking the right area
>At this point though, they're probably rolling Investigation instead
2) I do a thorough search, what do they have
>Passive is the minimum now, but they still get to roll for higher.
>Still, looting bodies probably belongs under Investigation
3) I search the whole room, I take my time and find everything
>Doesn't matter what you roll, really. Unless one of these Ninjas was carrying a black pixel of infinite nonmagical power which is now mixed in with the dirt they probably find everything
>Which is still probably Investigation, more so than the last two.

@Tanarii: Your Passive Perception is always on unless you're doing something to distract you from it, such as Navigating or Orienteering. Saying that it can only be used to find hidden enemies and not hidden anything else is about as asinine as Rules Lawyering can get. Unless you're distracted, the Passive Result is compared against any Stealth Checks and DCs in the area; if you beat them then you get that information. If you decide to stop and look closer at the things you notice, then you can roll on top of that.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-12, 02:00 PM

The fact that you roll below 10 means you as a player know you probably should roll again or try again. The one tool the DM has to negate this kind of behaviour is time.

There's at least one more: "Stop metagaming."

You never use your Passive perception to actively search.

Incorrect, as seen on PHB p175: "A passive check [...] can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again." Passive just means not rolling for the check, for any of several possible reasons.

Obviously, it's a gamist rather than simulationist conceit: using Passive Perception (or Passive Insight or the fabulous and mythical Passive Investigation) is a choice on the part of the player

No, active vs passive is not a player choice. At most they can try to convince or manipulate the DM into using one or the other to game the system, which is not good practice.

Imagine a person crossing street. Passive Perception would represent them just using their general level of awareness, relying mostly on peripheral vision. Active Perception would be turning your neck to specifically look each way down the street.

There is a seemingly very common conception of active and passive checks corresponding to active and passive characters, but even if some parts of the rules may suggest this (is there anyone who claims to get Observant?), on the whole they just don't support it.

If a character crosses a street on a regular basis, and the player tells the DM, "I'll be turning my neck to look each way down the street whenever I cross the street", and the DM gives the thumbs up and says, "Got it", passive seems like an excellent choice.

Passive is the minimum. I quite frankly don't care how you try to twist the PHB to bend to your logic, if that's how you do it at your table that's fine, but it just doesn't make sense.

I think this is a manufactured conflict because both action resolution systems exist on the game's abstract level. There is only a meaningful discrepancy if you insist on projecting both methods on the same in-game situation at the same time and expect them to always give the same result, which is obviously not the point of having them.

Passive implies NOTICING , active implies FINDING.

I think this also reflects the active/passive character misconception. Perception implies noticing and finding. Passive and active are just two ways to mechanically resolve skill challenges, including those for Perception. Hence, passive Perception implies noticing and finding, and active Perception implies noticing and finding.

This is ultimately another thread that draws to the paradox of perception vs. investigation.

I think the overlap between these skills is overstated and in any case is not resolved by mixing it up with a redefinition of active vs passive skill checks.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:07 PM

@Tanarii: Your Passive Perception is always on unless you're doing something to distract you from it, such as Navigating or Orienteering. Saying that it can only be used to find hidden enemies and not hidden anything else is about as asinine as Rules Lawyering can get. Unless you're distracted, the Passive Result is compared against any Stealth Checks and DCs in the area; if you beat them then you get that information. If you decide to stop and look closer at the things you notice, then you can roll on top of that.No rule anywhere says that Passive Perception is always on unless you're doing something to distract you from it. No rule anywhere says that it's automatically used to find a hidden object. The rules for hidden objects specifically reference a Perception Check.

Sabeta

2016-10-12, 02:14 PM

No rule anywhere says that Passive Perception is always on unless you're doing something to distract you from it. No rule anywhere says that it's automatically used to find a hidden object. The rules for hidden objects specifically reference a Perception Check.

Saying that it can only be used to find hidden enemies and not hidden anything else is about as asinine as Rules Lawyering can get.

I stand by what I said.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:16 PM

I stand by what I said.
Okay. I'll take that as admission that you just don't understand the rules than.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-12, 02:17 PM

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 02:30 PM

1) I do a quick search, what do they have?
>Take an Active Roll, whatever DCs they beat they get; so long as they were looking the right area
>At this point though, they're probably rolling Investigation instead
2) I do a thorough search, what do they have
>Passive is the minimum now, but they still get to roll for higher.
>Still, looting bodies probably belongs under Investigation
3) I search the whole room, I take my time and find everything
>Doesn't matter what you roll, really. Unless one of these Ninjas was carrying a black pixel of infinite nonmagical power which is now mixed in with the dirt they probably find everything
>Which is still probably Investigation, more so than the last two.

This is wrong. In both case (2) and (3), the Player doesn't roll at all. Your Passive score isn't what you automatically see/hear/know/whatever, it's what you can expect to get from an average check, such as over a period of time. In this example, you would only use a Passive score to represent a number of checks made over a longer period than a single Active check would take. The use of the skill is active, but the resolution is passive to save a bunch of dice rolling.

Under this circumstance, the use of a Passive score precludes and includes any roll you care to make, because it has already taken the average of many such rolls; whatever you roll, it would be subsumed by the potentially infinite (theoretically) number of rolls already accounted for and still average out to whatever your Passive score is. Passive scores don't just account for any roll up to 10, it includes all possible rolls from 1 to 20 and calls it 10, that being the mean average (rounded down).

If you want to house rule Passive-P as a minimum, that's your call, but the default is that you use one or the other (passive or active), not both, just as when you "take 20" (auto-pass), you don't roll either (what would be the point?).

P.S. The use of Investigation is an irrelevant aside; it would be a GM call as to what skill is used and would still be beholden to the same criteria; i.e. how long the Player is taking over it. Quick check = active roll, long check = Passive Investigation, thorough check = "take 20". You still wouldn't use Passive Investigation as a minimum, you use it instead of rolling.

Sabeta

2016-10-12, 02:32 PM

I agree that Perception is "always on" in the sense that it's always available for the DM as a means to gauge and apply a character's legendary thing-finding capabilities. And I believe it's a thing that should be used, and not frivolously disregarded. It is not "always on" in the sense that it overrides the DM's privilege of calling for checks (active or passive) or applying modifiers to those checks as they see fit. Because they do retain that privilege.

Well of course not. Like I've said several times, if there's something the players have no chance of being able to spot than they don't spot it. There is such a thing as an impossible DC. In my previous example several of the Ninjas still couldn't be found with a very high roll because the player wasn't in a position where they could be seen (assuming the Ninjas were also being silent; which they probably would be if they're Ninjas)

Passive and Active don't preclude the DMs ability to retain information.

Okay. I'll take that as admission that you just don't understand the rules than.

Alright. I'll take that as admission that you just don't understand the rules then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr09q7tS4Sg

For fun, this is you right now.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:36 PM

Under this circumstance, the use of a Passive score precludes and includes any roll you care to make, because it has already taken the average of many such rolls; whatever you roll, it would be subsumed by the potentially infinite (theoretically) number of rolls already accounted for and still average out to whatever your Passive score is. Passive scores don't just account for any roll up to 10, it includes all possible rolls from 1 to 20 and calls it 10, that being the mean average (rounded down).

If you want to house rule Passive-P as a minimum, that's your call, but the default is that you use one or the other (passive or active), not both, just as when you "take 20" (auto-pass), you don't roll either (what would be the point?).There is one sitation in which the rules combine to allow Passive Perception (specifically) to be a minimum: spending an action to search in combat. Because by the hiding rules, a creature has already had to defeat your passive perception, the action spent to find it means you're trying to beat that former minimum.

JellyPooga

2016-10-12, 02:42 PM

There is one sitation in which the rules combine to allow Passive Perception (specifically) to be a minimum: spending an action to search in combat. Because by the hiding rules, a creature has already had to defeat your passive perception, the action spent to find it means you're trying to beat that former minimum.

True, to an extent, but I would contend that this is a case where;

A) This is two separate checks (so whether the first check was Passive or Active is irrelevant; a failed Active check of 15 could be considered a "minimum" for any subsequent rolls).

and B) A case where Passive Perception was not being used as an average of many rolls, such as when searching a room (which is the circumstance I was referring to in the passage you quoted), but as a reactive opposition to the Stealth check of the hiding party.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 02:45 PM

That's a fair enough interpretation. First Stealth (check) vs Passive Peception (static score). Then Perception (check) vs previously established Stealth (static score). The 'active' party certainly could be considered to change too.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 03:13 PM

There is one sitation in which the rules combine to allow Passive Perception (specifically) to be a minimum: spending an action to search in combat. Because by the hiding rules, a creature has already had to defeat your passive perception, the action spent to find it means you're trying to beat that former minimum.But rolling below that number doesn't mean that number would becomes a 10, which is what a minimum threshhold would make.

It would mean that not rolling anything higher than 10 will not give better results that you previously had. So if an ally was to give you a bonus or additional dice to roll like Guidance for exemple, the result would add to the number rolled, not 10.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 03:19 PM

But rolling below that number doesn't mean that number would becomes a 10, which is what a minimum threshhold would make.

It would mean that not rolling anything higher than 10 will not give better results that you previously had. So if an ally was to give you a bonus or additional dice to roll like Guidance for exemple, the result would add to the number rolled, not 10.Which is because, as JellyPooga pointed out, it's actually two separate checks. Which is in and of itself shows they aren't technically a minimum.

OTOH, while I don't really want to put words in people's mouths, I'm fairly sure when people say 'minimum' they mean 'not beating the passive score will not give better results than you previous had'. Edit: as well as the obvious 'passive perception always applies', which is a position the rules don't actually ever say.

Plaguescarred

2016-10-12, 03:31 PM

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 03:35 PM

Well i think that when DM ask for a an active perception check, it's certainly not because passive perception still apply but rather that he ditched that resolution mechanic to use another one. At least i do.

Otherwise it'd mean that for the same task two checks could simultaneously be made, which i don't think most DM let do.Interesting. Because that's not only what I do, I think it's what the rules say to do too. Guess we're on the same page ... except (maybe) as to when to apply which resolution mechanic on certain edge cases.

DwarvenGM

2016-10-12, 04:11 PM

The way I read the rules is pretty simple. Passive is for when you are alert and keeping an eye out for anything out of the ordinary. While active is when you are specifically searching for something. I'd never allow passive to be the minimum because when you are actively searching you are giving a good chunk of your attention to the area you are searching, meaning anything happening elsewhere could slip by you unnoticed.

Like walking through the woods and coming across a tent. Your passive perception may notice a trap, but if you are looking for an ambush and see some branches move from a critter moving around you might stumble into the trap.

On multiple occasions I've tripped over things at work because I was looking for something up high, yet another example of passive perception being negated by active perception.

At least that's my humble opinion. if making passive your minimum works for you awesome.

Shaofoo

2016-10-12, 05:14 PM

Incorrect, as seen on PHB p175: "A passive check [...] can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again." Passive just means not rolling for the check, for any of several possible reasons.

So explain to me how am I wrong. You can't force a passive roll on your own. You can't actively use your passive check, that is for the DM to decide.

Tanarii

2016-10-12, 05:27 PM

So explain to me how am I wrong. You can't force a passive roll on your own. You can't actively use your passive check, that is for the DM to decide.So did your original contention, you never use Passive Perception to actively search, mean the PC or the player?

Because the the DM can decide the PC uses Passive Perception to (for example) actively search a room or a hallway for a Hidden object. As in the PC does it once around the whole room or hallway. That fits the description of when to make a passive check: doing the same thing over and over again. Specifically, not in the same spot.

Furthermore, PCs specifically use Passive Perception to notice threats when adventuring traveling, no matter if they're actively looking for them or not*. Which makes sense, since again that's basically what a passive check is all about.

It isn't the players choice to use passive or make a check, but it's certain a way in which a PC can use passive any skill despite the character actively doing something.

Edit:
* with the usual caveats about position in marching order and not doing something else.

Shaofoo

2016-10-12, 05:49 PM

So did your original contention, you never use Passive Perception to actively search, mean the PC or the player?

Because the the DM can decide the PC uses Passive Perception to (for example) actively search a room or a hallway for a Hidden object. As in the PC does it once around the whole room or hallway. That fits the description of when to make a passive check: doing the same thing over and over again. Specifically, not in the same spot.

Furthermore, PCs specifically use Passive Perception to notice threats when adventuring traveling, no matter if they're actively looking for them or not*. Which makes sense, since again that's basically what a passive check is all about.

It isn't the players choice to use passive or make a check, but it's certain a way in which a PC can use passive any skill despite the character actively doing something.

Edit:
* with the usual caveats about position in marching order and not doing something else.

If the PC is able to use a passive result then it is because the DM allowed it, not because the PC has any sort of agency. If the player rolled the dice then the PC is beholden to the results, it isn't because it chose those results personally. It is the same thing as fudging dice, the DM chose a certain result and now you play it.

dropbear8mybaby

2016-10-12, 06:34 PM

I really don't think perception should have an active score at all.
Don't have to convince me on that one :)

Edit: as well as the obvious 'passive perception always applies', which is a position the rules don't actually ever say.
This is, I think, the crux of the matter. If Passive Perception is "always on", then rolling acts as a bonus because there's no disadvantage to it. The disagreements here seem to be coming from whether or not PP is always on or not.

Honestly, I think this is all the more reason why Perception shouldn't be an active skill, ever.

IShouldntBehere

2016-10-12, 11:07 PM

Don't have to convince me on that one :)

This is, I think, the crux of the matter. If Passive Perception is "always on", then rolling acts as a bonus because there's no disadvantage to it. The disagreements here seem to be coming from whether or not PP is always on or not.

Honestly, I think this is all the more reason why Perception shouldn't be an active skill, ever.

The PC Jacob, hears tell of savage Orc Marauders about to march on the town from the east.
The PC Dillion, also hears tell of the same Orcs.

Dillon & Jacob have the same Perception score. They both head to the top of a hill overlooking the relatively thin woods to the east.

Dillon does not whip out his book and like get super distracted or anything, but he also does not making particularly concerted effort at scouting. He more less stays in the same state they'd be going on an random adventure walking down the road. He's ready for action but not actively going out of his way too stay at hair-trigger response state.

Jacob especially vigilant. Almost unblinking he spends every moment scanning the tree line, he mentally notes even the tiniest big of movement he can see tracking it but never falling into tunnel vision. Every bit of concentration and energy he has is being spent scanning that distant hill for signs of attack.

What if any mechanical difference is ideal to exist between these two sets of behavior.

Sabeta

2016-10-13, 12:52 AM

First and foremost, Tanarii I wanted to apologize for my unbecoming behavior earlier in this thread. Not sure what came over me, but it might have something to do with this being the 42nd thread on Perception that I've seen on this forum in the past week. On subject, and at the risk of invoking Air Bud Clause, Passive Perception doesn't need to say that it's always on in order for it to be that way.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching.
To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive
Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties.
If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5.

The first bolded point I find especially important because a lot of people in this thread seem to be missing it. This tells us that Passive Perception is something that is used when the creature isn't using anything else. The player need not decide anything, the DM doesn't get to choose that Passive Perception suddenly doesn't work on these enemies. (Unless he admits to straying away from the RAW, but that's not what this thread is about) I go back to my room full of Ninjas from before. As soon as the player walks in he has a choice to make. The PC is very unlikely to declare that he is actively looking for Ninjas the moment he enters a room. In fact, if he's brazenly striding into a room he probably has reason to believe that there's nothing here (ie: He used an Active Perception Check on the closed door and didn't hear any noise coming from the other side, and concluded there wouldn't be enemies here). As soon as he walks in his Passive Perception is calculated against the Ninjas Stealth. Let's say they beat his Passive Score. At this point the player can happily assume there's nothing there and proceed to get Surprised, or he can say "I check for Traps, Ninjas, and/or Dangerous things" which brings us back to Active Perception.

The second bolded point only further corroborates this. Notice that it doesn't say anything like "Passive Perception is only used against Hiding" or "The creature gains Passive Perception if he forgets to actively look for enemies", it simply says that it exists. Your claim that it's ONLY used against Hiding is no more or less RAW than my assertion that it's always on. That is the crux of this argument. Both interpretations are only that. RAI. There's no concrete RAW for Passive Perception, the book just tells us how to calculate and one of its uses. At this point it's up to the DM to decide when and where it applies. If you believe it's always on like I do, then that is correct. If you believe it only exists when it would be convenient for the DM, that is also correct (however, I would strongly disagree with that line of thinking. It's lazy and takes away player agency)

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48256/dd-5e-passive-perception-confusion
http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48281/does-passive-perception-supersede-active-perception

At the risk of appearing snobbish, here's what turns up with a google search of "Passive Perception Rules". The first link is the first result, and the second was a related link that I felt more accurately addressed this thread. Both seem to agree with my line of thinking, but both also admit that there doesn't seem to be any 100% RAW as to this mechanic. It's just the logical conclusion most players are making.

As a secondary point, because someone mentioned that Active Perception shouldn't exist.

If you have trouble deciding whether to call for an Intelligence or a Wisdom check
to determine whether a character notices something. Think of it in terms of what a very high or low score in those two abilities might mean.

A character with a high Wisdom but low Intelligence is aware of the surroundings but is bad at interpreting what things mean.
The character might spot that one section of a wall is clean and dusty compared to the others, but he or or she wouldn't
necessarily make the deduction that a secret door is there.

In contrast, a character with high Intelligence and low Wisdom is probably oblivious but clever. The character might not spot
the clean section of wall but, if asked about it, could immediately deduce why it's clean.

I already showed twice earlier why Active Perception is important, but it bears repeating for Good Measure. Listening at a door for sounds on the other side is an active Perception check. Looking around the room for things that probably don't belong there, such as Traps, Ninjas, and an Air Current coming from the west wall can either be a Passive or Active Check (the air current would probably be a high enough DC that only a specialized character or an active roll would sufficiently spot it, but that's besides the point). In Investigation Check is used when you want to know if these are Ninjas from the Believe It Clan or Mr. Miyagi Clan. It might tell you what equipment they have, how well trained they look, or whose nose is running. Just as a Perception check might spot a tripwire, but doesn't know how to deduce whether this tripwire is an Alarm or a Log Trap. (ie: Cutting the Wire from a distance and then trying to avoid a log that isn't there could still be disastrous if instead you end up alerting the Necromancer that he has visitors.

Another brief tangent, and this one I'll admit to being 100% Opinion. I personally view the "Mental" stats; Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, as something that should be as Passive as possible until the players decide otherwise. An Intelligent person usually doesn't have to actively think about being Intelligent unless he's presented with a situation he might not be familiar with. For example, the Wizard can probably quite easily tell that a Human is a human without needing a Nature or Survival Check. He can probably deduce that footsteps on the other side of a door means that there's people there, etcetera. Until the Bard decides to start lying to people or trying to change their beliefs his Passive Charisma is probably enough to make most people somewhat friendly towards him. (Assuming they were of a disposition to be friendly towards people in general)

I'm winding down on this thread. Unless someone presents new evidence or new information on why this is wrong then I'm ignoring you. Circular arguments are admission of defeat, and I have no intention of stooping to that level. I've got games to play.

Pex

2016-10-13, 01:04 AM

Sabeta

2016-10-13, 01:06 AM

Hrugner

2016-10-13, 01:23 AM

My reading is that you can't use passive for anything that specifically calls for a roll. Searching for a hidden monster in combat for instance requires an action, so no passive, but hiding from a creature in combat would be versus their passive. Walking into a room and looking for a secret door would use your passive if the door was a well disguised wall, but would require a roll if you needed to look behind a tapestry or inside a cabinet. Just try to remember that the point of passive skill checks is to speed up the game in places where a roll won't add to the drama of the moment, or when a roll can make you substantially worse than an untrained person doing the same task.

So, as an example. A rogue is in combat with an ogre. The rogue attacks then uses his bonus action to hide, rolling a 10, successfully beating the ogre's passive perception and becoming hidden. On the Ogre's turn, he takes the search action to find the rogue and rolls a 12 beating the hide check and revealing the rogue and advancing on the rogue's position, though now he's out of actions and it's the rogues turn again. After whooping the poor ogre in cat and mouse, the rogue finds himself in the ogre's den his passive perception immediately exposing the set bear trap in the middle of the floor. He knows that the ogre has kidnapped villagers and looks around the room for secret doors calling out the bookcase and the tapestry as potential hiding places. He rolls his perception check and fails to find the hidden door behind the tapestry and doesn't get a chance to roll to find the secret door underneath the bed. The prisoners starve to death after their not quite observant hero leaves them behind.

This leads me to wonder why there isn't a feat or class ability that lets you take the search action as a bonus action or make an attack as a bonus action on a successful search check. It would be a nice small bump to abilities on par with other small feats.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-13, 01:36 AM

This leads me to wonder why there isn't a feat or class ability that lets you take the search action as a bonus action or make an attack as a bonus action on a successful search check. It would be a nice small bump to abilities on par with other small feats.

Reconnoiter

You can learn a lot of information from just a quick scan of an area or object. You gain the following benefits:

Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
On your turn, you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check.
You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks made to find loose change in the street.

Socratov

2016-10-13, 02:10 AM

There's at least one more: "Stop metagaming."

snip

Well, it is an option, until the players feel they've lost autonomy for their character since the DM decides what is considered to be player knowledge and what is considered to be character knowledge. Just saying a outright "Stop metagaming" has the potential of breaking up groups and DM's. If I were to follow this line of thought I'd rather ask the following way: "That seems knowledge that you as a player have, how would you see your character know this?" this way you might get some character development. However, if you keep doing this it might erode the trust between player and DM and that will not do the game well.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 06:14 AM

Take 10 and Take 20 were a good thing 3E brought to the game. I'm annoyed 5E took it away. It does not break Bounded Accuracy to have kept them. It would have made it more clear to DMs when and how to interpret/use the concept of not needing to roll for a skill. The Rogue's Reliable Talent would still work because it works when the character needs to roll anyway, just like in 3E where the Rogue could Take 10 for some skills even when the situation would normally not have allowed it.
They still exist mathematically. They just don't have the same name, and in terms of game philosophy they are different.

Passive checks are the same (mathematically) as take 10. It just happens any time you do something over a period of time or need a secret check, as determined by the DM. It also doesn't take any extra time.

Take 20 is covered by the DMG rule on 'Multiple checks' on DMG p237, and takes ten times as long. Technically it looks like it is not restricted to 'you can do it by rolling a 20', but rather the DM determining that the action is not impossible. (Although I've always used 'you can do it on a 20' as a guideline for that.)

This is all in line with 5e's philosophy of flexibility. But more importantly DM adjudication of mechanics necessary, based on player declared actions. As opposed to player declared mechanics. Thats, as usual, a great improvement. :smalltongue:

Beelzebub1111

2016-10-13, 06:44 AM

JellyPooga

2016-10-13, 07:45 AM

So, as an example. A rogue is in combat with an ogre. The rogue attacks then uses his bonus action to hide, rolling a 10, successfully beating the ogre's passive perception and becoming hidden. On the Ogre's turn, he takes the search action to find the rogue and rolls a 12 beating the hide check and revealing the rogue and advancing on the rogue's position, though now he's out of actions and it's the rogues turn again. After whooping the poor ogre in cat and mouse, the rogue finds himself in the ogre's den his passive perception of 15 immediately exposing the set bear trap (DC:12) in the middle of the floor. He knows that the ogre has kidnapped villagers and looks around the room for secret doors calling out the bookcase and the tapestry as potential hiding places. He rolls his perception check and gets a 9 which fails to find the hidden door behind the tapestry (DC:14) and doesn't get a chance to roll to find the secret door underneath the bed (DC:20). The prisoners starve to death after their not quite observant hero leaves them behind.

As far as I'm concerned, this is still accurate with my added DC's and Perception scores/rolls (in bold). Had our Rogue taken more time than a quick check (Active Roll) behind the tapestry, or if he started asking to roll again, the GM could call for a Passive check (Multiple Rolls, Averaged) instead and he'd have discovered the door behind the tapestry. If he'd gone for the "take 20" option (Auto-success) and spent 10x as long and had declared that he was searching the entire room, he'd also have found the door under the bed (because it would be a real douche move to make a plot-critical secret door impossible to find!).

In none of these circumstances is his Passive Perception used as a minimum, nor is it "always on". A character is always able to check against his Perception, either reactively (such as when someone is trying to hide from you, even without your knowledge) or actively (such as when you're searching for loot) and both Passive and Active scores/rolls can be used in both circumstances. So in that sense, a character always has his Perception "on", except situationally with regard to particular senses (e.g. visual Perception is turned "off" in pitch darkness), but Passive Perception is just a metagame construct to represent a number of things that are more easily resolved without rolling a die. In many cases PP will be a functional "minimum" (e.g. using Perception in combat), but in most cases where you're using PP, you aren't rolling and vice versa.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 08:01 AM

The rulebook states that passive scores are used for two things. Secret checks by the DM (Detecting ambushes, hidden monsters when walking into a room, etc.) and things you are doing repeatedly (Seaching for secret doors in every room, checking for traps at every door). To cut down on rolls made, and to avoid "I think I failed a spot check" moments.

The GM should have a list of every players passive perception and the highest investigate in front of them behind their screen. beyond those two situations Roll.
The rulebook goes into additional details on when to use passive perception, but you can certainly consider them to be extra clarification on "those two situations". They don't say that's what they are, but it fits.

1) Use passive perception vs stealth of a creature actively attempting to hide, even if you're not actively looking for them.
2) Use passive perception vs stealth of creatures attempting to to determine surprise.
3) Use passive perception to see if anyone "notices a hidden threat" when adventuring / traveling, unless <insert rulebook exceptions here>

(Note: the "traveling while adventuring" rule for detecting threats is also supposed to include things like exploring dungeon passageways. It explicitly says so.)

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-13, 08:21 AM

So, it seems there's an argument to be had here and I'm all about the arguing.

In my corner of the world, the power that be declared that passives are a minimum, and lo and behold, all rejoiced and sang his praise and that's how it's been ever since.

In other words, you walk into a room and say, "I search for stuff!" The DM says, "Roll Perception!" You roll a 5 on the d20 plus your +10 bonus and the DM says, "Oh, you don't see anything," and the player replies, "But my passive is 20!" And the DM replies, "Oh, in that case, you see dead people!"

Because you would've noticed them without rolling. Or something.

So which is it?

Perception and Hiding is a special case because the norm is to compare perception score to stealth check, but there's also the possibility of a character choosing to take a search action which would allow them to roll a check.

It's not so much that there's a minimum per se, it's that the default has the score vs check comparison occur before a player could conceivably choose to search, which effectively means the player already had the DM compare a value of their perception score. If they choose to search any roll less than that value wouldn't be any worse off, but they could roll a higher total making them better off (i.e. finding the thing they were searching for).

For example, there would be no passive score minimum on:

1) Athletics or Acrobatics for combat contests;
2) Thieves Tools to disarm traps or pick locks;
3) Medicine to stabilize a character;

etcetera.

That's not how it works. If you're using passive perception, then the thing that is hiding has to roll stealth. If you're going up against something that can't roll, then you don't use passive skills in the first place.

Hidden Doors, Traps, and so forth all use DCs (which don't roll) and are compared to the passive Wisdom (Perception) score.

The characters can also choose to search for them, which allows a roll against the DC. The two methods can be layered, it just requires choice by the players to initiate the second (i.e. active searching) method.

That's a specific rule for hiding. You don't extend it to everything.

Per the DMG it applies to traps and hidden objects.

Categorically if it applies to creatures and objects, what other type of 'thing' exists that it would not apply to?

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 09:20 AM

Hidden Doors, Traps, and so forth all use DCs (which don't roll) and are compared to the passive Wisdom (Perception) score.

The characters can also choose to search for them, which allows a roll against the DC. The two methods can be layered, it just requires choice by the players to initiate the second (i.e. active searching) method.

Per the DMG it applies to traps and hidden objects.

Categorically if it applies to creatures and objects, what other type of 'thing' exists that it would not apply to?Traps yes. It's consistent with the detecting threats while adventuring. But there's nothing that says a DM has to allow you to use passive to "detect a trap in passing" during combat. Unlike Hiding, it's not specific to always use passive. (That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to rule it that way either.)

Finding a hidden object, no. In fact, the PHB specifically says to make a check for those. Although I interpret that to mean the DM still should use the standard rules for passive checks ... so it it's secret or they're searching a large area over and over again, you could still use passive. And the DMG doesn't make a general rule for hidden objects to contradict that. The closest it comes is for Secret/Concealed Doors.

But regardless, that still doesn't make it a minimum. It's just a choice of which resolution mechanic to apply. Even if the majority of the time the answer is "use passive" for Perception, it's still not a minimum for any given check, as others have pointed out. It's just an effective minimum if you spend an action to try again and actually roll a check this time.

JellyPooga

2016-10-13, 10:14 AM

I think I can sum up my position in one sentence;

"Passive scores are a different method of task resolution to rolling, not an additional one."

To explain, when making a check you generate a single Score to determine your success or failure. That Score can be generated by rolling a die and adding the relevant modifiers OR it can be generated using your Passive score of 10+mods OR it can be generated by declaring "auto-success" by using the "take 20" rule (not that it's called that, but functionally that's what it is). Which you use in any given encounter is in the GMs court and depends on the circumstances.

In most circumstances, using a Passive score represents a series of repeated attempts, each of which would otherwise have been a roll, taking the average of those hypothetical rolls to give you an "average" score of 10+mods. Perception is an unusual case in which the rules specifically call out several instances where your Passive score does not represent a series of repeated rolls, but your "general awareness" or whatever (the same might also be applied to other Passive scores, such as Arcana or Religion, for example). In no case, however, do you roll in addition to using your Passive score to adjudicate a single check. You use Passive instead of rolling. Yes, you can roll a check after using Passive when it's appropriate (such as using Perception in combat) and in that instance your Passive score is functionally a minimum, if your first attempt (the passive one) was insufficient, but that roll is still a separate check, with all that entails (usually extra time taken). In many (dare I say "most"?) cases, however, further rolling should not be permitted because the Passive score used is already accounting for multiple rolls made.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 10:32 AM

I think I can sum up my position in one sentence;

"Passive scores are a different method of task resolution to rolling, not an additional one."I think this holds true even in the case of Passive Perception.

The problem arises when the player wants to make a rolled check after a passive one, or the DM assumes this is possible. This isn't a problem during combat, when making an additional check requires taking using an action. But the ability to do that implies it should be possible out of combat as well. But out of combat, you're not spending any special resource to do it.

IMO if you're out of combat and a player wants to check again for a roll, that's when you skip straight to DMG p237 multiple rolls, and declare it as a success as long as it's not impossible for them to succeed. Unless they don't have a minute to search that one particular area, or failure on the first check carried immediate consequence ... in which case they weren't getting a chance to check again anyway.

Edit: Personally, I think jumping straight to the "multiple checks" rule in the first place is the best way to handle it if the DM knows there are no consequences for failure and the players have time. No need to start with passive.

JellyPooga

2016-10-13, 10:58 AM

Edit: Personally, I think jumping straight to the "multiple checks" rule in the first place is the best way to handle it if the DM knows there are no consequences for failure and the players have time. No need to start with passive.

I don't think that's a bad position to take and most of the time I'd rule it that way myself, but using Passive as a happy-medium between making a roll and auto-pass can sometimes be a valid course of action, such as when time is a pressing, but not an immediate concern (e.g. monsters are due to come around the corner within the next minute or so).

Shaofoo

2016-10-13, 11:01 AM

I think this holds true even in the case of Passive Perception.

The problem arises when the player wants to make a rolled check after a passive one, or the DM assumes this is possible. This isn't a problem during combat, when making an additional check requires taking using an action. But the ability to do that implies it should be possible out of combat as well. But out of combat, you're not spending any special resource to do it.

IMO if you're out of combat and a player wants to check again for a roll, that's when you skip straight to DMG p237 multiple rolls, and declare it as a success as long as it's not impossible for them to succeed. Unless they don't have a minute to search that one particular area, or failure on the first check carried immediate consequence ... in which case they weren't getting a chance to check again anyway.

Edit: Personally, I think jumping straight to the "multiple checks" rule in the first place is the best way to handle it if the DM knows there are no consequences for failure and the players have time. No need to start with passive.

This sounds like I said before that "roll a check = few seconds of time has passed". There is no rule (that I am aware of) that says that a skill check needs to be a specific amount of time. A DM can easily rule that a Perception check is after hours of arduous searching. It is basically up to the DM to say if an action requires any length of time just like it is the DM's choice to allow Passive Perception to be used instead of saying "Roll Perception" to the group.

Tanarii

2016-10-13, 02:22 PM

This sounds like I said before that "roll a check = few seconds of time has passed". There is no rule (that I am aware of) that says that a skill check needs to be a specific amount of time. A DM can easily rule that a Perception check is after hours of arduous searching. It is basically up to the DM to say if an action requires any length of time just like it is the DM's choice to allow Passive Perception to be used instead of saying "Roll Perception" to the group.
I agree that there isn't a length of time to search a given area. Just that it takes 10x as long as that to auto succeed.

I generally assume one action (about 6 seconds) for a quick search of a small area, 5ft x 5ft, for traps or secret doors. That's probably too fast too be honest, but it syncs up with using an action in combat to search nicely.

GlenSmash!

2016-10-13, 05:49 PM

The best DMs I've seen know when there is no chance of success or failure you just don't roll. You succeed or you fail.

When you are crunched for time, or trying to make that perception check in the midst of a battle there is every chance you could fail even if your passive score is higher.

So I don't use passive scores as a minimum, but if there is nothing pressing a character to fail, like a time constraint, I just have them succeed.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-14, 04:07 PM

Traps yes. It's consistent with the detecting threats while adventuring. But there's nothing that says a DM has to allow you to use passive to "detect a trap in passing" during combat. Unlike Hiding, it's not specific to always use passive. (That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to rule it that way either.)

Finding a hidden object, no. In fact, the PHB specifically says to make a check for those. Although I interpret that to mean the DM still should use the standard rules for passive checks ... so it it's secret or they're searching a large area over and over again, you could still use passive. And the DMG doesn't make a general rule for hidden objects to contradict that. The closest it comes is for Secret/Concealed Doors.

But regardless, that still doesn't make it a minimum. It's just a choice of which resolution mechanic to apply. Even if the majority of the time the answer is "use passive" for Perception, it's still not a minimum for any given check, as others have pointed out. It's just an effective minimum if you spend an action to try again and actually roll a check this time.

Combat is adventuring, and there's nothing to suggest the rules for trap detection that are found in the DMG suddenly stop applying at any point. If there were different rules for perception in combat (there are not) then that would be a different matter entirely.

Concealed Doors (a door hidden from view, as opposed to a Secret Door which is not hidden from view but instead is made to look like the wall) are hidden objects. DMG 104, they use passive wisdom (perception) scores to notice traces that indicate the presence of such.

And contrary to what you say, the PHB sidebar on Finding a Hidden Object only refers to "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check." (emphasis added)

That specifies it is about when the player does a search, it has nothing to do with noticing these things in passing. And both of those examples are covered in the DMG. It outright states that Hidden Doors and Traps are objects.

It isn't a choice. The passive comparison is done by the DM without player interaction occurring. Only the player can choose to initiate a search, which nets them a chance to roll for a better outcome than their passive perception score is already getting them.

So yes, in practice a passive effectively is a minimum becuase it necessarily occurs in advance of any active attempt to look for the thing. At the very least, a passive comparison should have occurred (if there is a passive to have occurred).

Beleriphon

2016-10-15, 12:24 PM

But, it occurred to me that you could think of Passive vs. Active Perception like this:

Imagine a person crossing street. Passive Perception would represent them just using their general level of awareness, relying mostly on peripheral vision. Active Perception would be turning their neck to specifically look each way down the street. A natural 1 on such an Active Perception check might represent that theirr head happened to be turned the other way when a speeding vehicle came around the corner.

It's a bit clumsy and contrived, but that's the best way I can find an in-fiction rationalization for going with RAW and not using Passive Perception as a minimum.

That's not a bad way to do it, you can still might something in either case, but the possibility of missing something obvious by rolling is valid since one could literally be looking the other way when they go by whatever they could have otherwise seen (ie. the Mack truck that just killed them).

Occasional Sage

2016-10-15, 01:46 PM

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-15, 04:31 PM

Dear Sage Advice,

I have a problem with passive Strength (Athletics), every time I walk past some hole or crevice or even a ditch, I just go flying over it. The rest of my party are giving me a hard time over this, especially the Wizard who has to keep Feather Fall prepared at all times. What should I do?

Yours,

Bob

---

Dear Bob,

Well you can start by not being such a big weenie about it? There's probably a lot of gold and jewels on the other side of those holes, right? Also by the sound of it the party wizard has this well in hand? Geez.

Yours,

The Sage

Socratov

2016-10-15, 04:43 PM

I'd like to step aside from Perception for a moment; please indulge me.
Let's assume Passive Charisma(Intimidation) to be a thing (which according to the PHB it is). Does this mean that:

I always risk scaring people I meet, regardless of behavior;

or

I can choose to act in a manner generally showing barely-contained violence to scare people I meet?

Either way, this seems distinct from an Active Charisma(Intimidation) check, wherein I select an individual and loom over them etc. to scare them specifically.
Always-on folks, I disagree but I'm willing to be convinced. Can you please explain why I should scare everybody I meet?
I see passive intimidation as not scaring everyone you meet, but different. Have you seen people who come across as people you'd rather not have against you in a dark alley? Or people who have this sense of danger around them and who seem off a bit, even if they are playing tea with a little girl? Someone like Havelock Vetinari: whose presence is enough to unnerve a room full of (powerful) people? That what a high passive intimidation is. The same with persuasion: those salesmen who seem perfectly nice and you have the uncanny feeling that whatever they are selling, you want it yesterday? Or those people who, whatever they say seem so damn reasonable and right. Well, that's a high persuasion and deception right there.

Occasional Sage

2016-10-15, 04:51 PM

I see passive intimidation as not scaring everyone you meet, but different. Have you seen people who come across as people you'd rather not have against you in a dark alley? Or people who have this sense of danger around them and who seem off a bit, even if they are playing tea with a little girl? Someone like Havelock Vetinari: whose presence is enough to unnerve a room full of (powerful) people? That what a high passive intimidation is. The same with persuasion: those salesmen who seem perfectly nice and you have the uncanny feeling that whatever they are selling, you want it yesterday? Or those people who, whatever they say seem so damn reasonable and right. Well, that's a high persuasion and deception right there.

Are you arguing, then, that a player needs to actively turn off passive skills?

What happens with a skill that can be used untrained (like Intimidate): if I have a crazyhigh Charisma, do I automatically Intimidate unless try not to?

Socratov

2016-10-15, 05:14 PM

Are you arguing, then, that a player needs to actively turn off passive skills?

What happens with a skill that can be used untrained (like Intimidate): if I have a crazyhigh Charisma, do I automatically Intimidate unless try not to?

I don't think it's a turn on/off thing, it that when things don't really matter (you walk into town as mid to high level characters) the general populace could be afraid of you.

It's like Terry Pratchett's poem about his version of elves:

“Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.”(bolding mine)

The bolded parts is what a high cha character should deal with on a certain level. The fact that they have crazy charisma means that everyone will notice their presence in one way or another. Those archfey are often described as maddeningly beautiful and as having stellar personal pressure they just exude: that's what 20 charisma is like. Peasants should be in awe: 1 part afraid, 1 part hanging on your every lip and one part easily persuaded. Oh, and when you perform, you really get going. If you are not proficient you are something like a punk rocker or something, if you are proficient, you are like the pied piper.

Now if you meet someone you are supposed to actually interact with on a common ground they should be subject to a check, this includes the richer merchants and quest givers. Common rubble should regard you with awe.

Passive checks are either for stuff behind the screen to oppose to not alert the party and reduce metagaming, or for less then consequential effects; for the stuff yo udon't bother rolling for or for stuff that is done on auto pilot. Entering a town is definitely that, unless you want to enter the town in a specific manner, that's fine too...

Sabeta

2016-10-15, 07:28 PM

I can tell you're trying to bait out a response. I forget which Fallacy this is, but it's kind of annoying that you think we're that stupid. Here's how I imagine the conversation might have gone:
"No, Passive Intimidation is dumb."
"Then Passive =/= Allways on, therefore Passive Perception isn't either and is therefore not a minimum score."

And here's why it doesn't work like that.
Just like how Passive Strength doesn't mean you simply smash every door you come across, Passive Intimidation is similar. Players much consciously choose to be Intimidating or Lying. I'm reminded of Planescape: The torment, where dialogue options would usually look like:
"I pray to Bahamut (Truth)"
"I pray to Bahamut (Lie)"
"I don't believe in the Gods (Truth)"
"I don't believe in the Gods (Lie)"
The players willfully decide their demeanor, and if they so choose they can mean-mug every person in town with their Passive Intimidation. Just like a "Believer" of Bahamut has the option to say the say the same thing with different meanings.

Perception however is your ability to see the world around you. The reason Passive Perception is on your character sheet and not Passive Intimidation is because you're ALWAYS perceiving the world around you. Even if you're blindfolded you're listening to your surroundings. As I've said several times before, the only time Passive Perception gets turned off (and this is RAW) is when you're distracted. Distractions include: Active Perception (I look under the bush, what do I find), Map-Making, Navigating, etcetera.

JellyPooga

2016-10-16, 06:18 AM

As I've said several times before, the only time Passive Perception gets turned off (and this is RAW) is when you're distracted. Distractions include: Active Perception (I look under the bush, what do I find)

Are...are you saying that Passive Perception is turned off when making an Active Perception check? If it's "turned off", then how is it functioning as a minimum?

Occasional Sage

2016-10-16, 12:52 PM

Sabeta

2016-10-16, 10:03 PM

Are...are you saying that Passive Perception is turned off when making an Active Perception check? If it's "turned off", then how is it functioning as a minimum?

Because it's on until you take the active roll. Is that really hard to understand? It's on until you turn your focus to one task or search, including the moment you walk to the area being searched, and returns the moment the search is completed. For example if you're standing right in front of a bear trap, your always on passive can notice it, but even if your active roll is lower you don't suddenly stop noticing the bear trap, and once your investigation is done your passive returns to you and it beats the bear trap again.

Why do people struggle so much with Perception rules? I've gone by this standard since day 1, and according to TC so does everyone he's ever played with.

...everywhere I've played Adventurer's League, the Passive Perception is considered a minimum roll, and I've been told that this is RAW.

Everything I've read online (examples: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48281/does-passive-perception-supersede-active-perception & http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48256/dd-5e-passive-perception-confusion ) supports this. Why is it that the Playground is the one place on earth that just doesn't get it?

Naanomi

2016-10-16, 10:56 PM

Occasional Sage

2016-10-16, 11:48 PM

Everything I've read online (examples: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48281/does-passive-perception-supersede-active-perception & http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48256/dd-5e-passive-perception-confusion ) supports this. Why is it that the Playground is the one place on earth that just doesn't get it?

I have trouble with your approach because it doesn't match the way other passive skills would be used, and you haven't cited rules that support your understanding. I'm all ears eyes though!

Also, most of the support for your position in the relevant link comes from Wax Eagle, not from a plethora of folks. Somebody even calls Eagle's explanation of the rules surprising. Given that, I don't think it's fair to say that GitP is "the one place on earth that just doesn't get it". There seem to be two ways to read the same rules (very normal and expected in 5e) and people unsurprisingly disagree about which is correct.

Let's not cast stones just because our language lacks clarity and precision.

edit to add:
Also, a quick Google finds that Reddit has this same confusion (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/3pidu6/5e_how_to_handle_passive_skills/), as does EnWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?443975-Understanding-Passive-Checks). The most universal response I find is "do what makes sense to you".

Sabeta

2016-10-17, 12:13 AM

I allow passive athletics to 'shove past' large groups of people (a busy crowded street, a sea of goblins, etc)

Also, if passive abilities are a 'minimum' what is the purpose of the rogue reliable talent?

And how much does using passive scores as a minimum break Observant feat and/or persistent sources of advantage?

1) Not all skills are Passive. There's a reason Passive Perception is on the character sheet and not Athletics.
2) Rogue's Reliable Talent applies to Active Rolls. Sleight of Hand, Arcana, and Stealth are all things that aren't Passive checks.
3) I don't see Observant changing anything. Again, check the rules on hidden objects and hiding. If you can't see or hear something, you can't find it. That's not a DC30, that's a DC Infinity. You can't Passive Perception your way into finding a key between a mattress and the floorboards. If you think Observant is gamebreaking, then you probably don't understand Perception to begin with.

I have trouble with your approach because it doesn't match the way other passive skills would be used, and you haven't cited rules that support your understanding. I'm all ears eyes though!

Also, most of the support for your position in the relevant link comes from Wax Eagle, not from a plethora of folks. Somebody even calls Eagle's explanation of the rules surprising. Given that, I don't think it's fair to say that GitP is "the one place on earth that just doesn't get it". There seem to be two ways to read the same rules (very normal and expected in 5e) and people unsurprisingly disagree about which is correct.

Let's not cast stones just because our language lacks clarity and precision.

Those were the top of a google search. The high upvotes should show that many people agree with them. I'm not going to spend a significant amount of time digging up every post on the internet where people agree that this is how Perception works. It's fairly obvious to me, Adventurer's Leagues, and pretty much everyone I know. I've made my case several times in this thread, and so far nobody has disputed it. They simply come up with new situations that they think is a special exception to the rules (like first quote), and fail to provide any RAW or even decent RAI that contradicts me. Which is probably because it doesn't exist.

Naanomi

2016-10-17, 08:02 AM

Some published adventures have different DCs for active and passive rolls in some cases, how do you handle that if there is no distinction?

(And I admit my use of passive athletics edges towards houserule, I was just throwing my gameplay example in to the discussion above)

DwarvenGM

2016-10-17, 08:45 AM

If setting the passive as your minimum works for your group, great! I'm just confused about how people are considering it raw
-Unless I'm blind there is no mention of passive skills being always on or being minimums
-The idea of always on passive skills makes rolling really one sided, you literally can't roll badly on these skills and the whole point of rolling is to add randomness to the situation where it could go either way.
-It basically negates a rogue ability, while not a great one my players love it.

Tanarii

2016-10-17, 09:27 AM

The confusion arises because the majority of the time you're going to be using passive perception, per various rules that tell you to do so. And that you can take an action to make an additional check to search for something under the combat rules.

Occasional Sage

2016-10-18, 06:16 PM

Those were the top of a google search. The high upvotes should show that many people agree with them. I'm not going to spend a significant amount of time digging up every post on the internet where people agree that this is how Perception works. It's fairly obvious to me, Adventurer's Leagues, and pretty much everyone I know. I've made my case several times in this thread, and so far nobody has disputed it. They simply come up with new situations that they think is a special exception to the rules (like first quote), and fail to provide any RAW or even decent RAI that contradicts me. Which is probably because it doesn't exist.

As I said, it was a quick google search. However, "all my friends say so" isn't an argument. Nobody has quoted RAW, or RAI, on this topic, you included, because IT JUST DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Not in any of the books.

Again, I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong by RAW. My view is purely personal, and how I run my table is about me and not you; do your own thing the way you like it!

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-20, 07:10 PM

I'd like to step aside from Perception for a moment; please indulge me.
Let's assume Passive Charisma(Intimidation) to be a thing (which according to the PHB it is).

Where does it say this?

If you can't see or hear something, you can't find it.

You could smell (various creatures even have Keen smell for advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on smell), taste, or touch it. Also, although something might itself be inaudible, that doesn't protect it from Echolocation of a Bat (PHB 304) as that involves the bat making a noise and that noise bouncing off the thing in question.

If setting the passive as your minimum works for your group, great! I'm just confused about how people are considering it raw
-Unless I'm blind there is no mention of passive skills being always on or being minimums
-The idea of always on passive skills makes rolling really one sided, you literally can't roll badly on these skills and the whole point of rolling is to add randomness to the situation where it could go either way.
-It basically negates a rogue ability, while not a great one my players love it.

1) It's a consequence of various action choices having an automatic passive comparison: i.e. Noticing Hidden creatures and the Search Action. A character can always choose to search, which is a check, but before they actually make that choice, their passive Wisdom (Perception) score would have already been compared to the Stealth check or DC in question. Ergo, it provides a minimum outcome since the player either already noticed the thing (negating a need to search) or didn't in which case the search roll would have to be better than the passive to matter.

2) Not every skill has a passive.

3) No it doesn't, the rogue feature applies to checks which cover far more ground than scores do. For example, contests are usually check vs check.

Tanarii

2016-10-20, 07:19 PM

Where does it say this?
PHB skills chapter.

1) It's a consequence of various action choices having an automatic passive comparison: i.e. Noticing Hidden creatures and the Search Action. A character can always choose to search, which is a check, but before they actually make that choice, their passive Wisdom (Perception) score would have already been compared to the Stealth check or DC in question. Ergo, it provides a minimum outcome since the player either already noticed the thing (negating a need to search) or didn't in which case the search roll would have to be better than the passive to matter.Choosing usually takes an action. More importantly, it's separate. As someone else pointed out upthread, that doesn't mean it's a minimum on the same check. However, I agree that is effectively a minimum in those circumstances. It'll just take some additional time or effort (as represented by the cost of an action in combat).

Also, it's possible the character may have been doing something that denied them their passive check, or wasn't in position to use it. In that case, if when they take the extra effort it'll be the first check they're making, not a second one.

2) Not every skill has a passive.Yes they do. But not every skill is likely to have the DM decide it will be a passive check instead of a rolled check. Edit: to be clear, the DM can call for a passive check on any skill being used repeatedly, or he needs a secret check made for without the player being aware. Some skills that's more commonly necessary than others.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-20, 07:24 PM

2) Not every skill has a passive.

Depends on what you mean by "having a passive". There's a set of skills. There are two ways to derive scores for checks, active and passive. If by "having a passive" you mean a passive score can be computed for a skill, then every skill "has a passive".

othaero

2016-10-20, 08:51 PM

I've thought about trying using passive perception as a threshold before calling for a roll.

Example:
Joe the ranger has a passive perception of 15. Gary the orc is trying to ambush him and rolls a 12 on stealth. Since joe's passive is above 12 he notices something odd about the treeline. So he decides to actively look (DM calling for a roll). If he rolls above 12 good he sees it if he rolls below he must have imagined it.

Maybe also give them advantage to the roll also. One of the main problems I see with this is metagaming.

Occasional Sage

2016-10-20, 10:37 PM

Hey Tanarii, is that quoteblock starting with "1) It's a consequence" copied from your PH? If so, that's the RAW that I have been insisting doesn't exist.

I've thought about trying using passive perception as a threshold before calling for a roll.

Example:
Joe the ranger has a passive perception of 15. Gary the orc is trying to ambush him and rolls a 12 on stealth. Since joe's passive is above 12 he notices something odd about the treeline. So he decides to actively look (DM calling for a roll). If he rolls above 12 good he sees it if he rolls below he must have imagined it.

Maybe also give them advantage to the roll also. One of the main problems I see with this is metagaming.

Also, giving the Perceiving being both a roll and an automatic moderate result, which is an unfair advantage.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-21, 07:24 PM

PHB skills chapter.

Can you be more specific with like...a page number and/or a direct quote I can refer to? I looked but didn't see anything specifically noting a passive Charisma (Intimidation) score is a thing. i.e. No case examples.

Choosing usually takes an action. More importantly, it's separate. As someone else pointed out upthread, that doesn't mean it's a minimum on the same check. However, I agree that is effectively a minimum in those circumstances. It'll just take some additional time or effort (as represented by the cost of an action in combat).

Also, it's possible the character may have been doing something that denied them their passive check, or wasn't in position to use it. In that case, if when they take the extra effort it'll be the first check they're making, not a second one.

Well, yeah, it's two different comparisons, but it's a distinction without a difference. Insofar as I'm aware the DC is never different and, as noted, success on the passive comparison negates the need to even make the active attempt. I'd also argue it takes no additional time per se as no time was invested in the passive comparison.

I'll stipulate that in niche cases while traveling a character can engage in an activity which fully consumes their attention if you are willing to stipulate that absent such extraordinary and unique circumstances, the character would simply notice assuming their perception score trumped the stealth check.

Yes they do. But not every skill is likely to have the DM decide it will be a passive check instead of a rolled check. Edit: to be clear, the DM can call for a passive check on any skill being used repeatedly, or he needs a secret check made for without the player being aware. Some skills that's more commonly necessary than others.

That's not how that works, the DM doesn't decide to make something active or passive arbitrarily. Some things are always going to be checks. For example, Athletics, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Survival, Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Performance are always a check, never a score; each is definitionally an active thing.

Depends on what you mean by "having a passive". There's a set of skills. There are two ways to derive scores for checks, active and passive. If by "having a passive" you mean a passive score can be computed for a skill, then every skill "has a passive".

I mean not every skill has an identifiable scenario where a score is a thing.

i.e. Passive Perception is noticing hidden things without trying to find them whereas Active Perception is when the character tries to find hidden things by using the search action.

Acrobatics simply doesn't have a use-case where it would be passive, every use would be an activity (this is borne out throughout the rules).
Deception doesn't have a passive use either, it's something that's done affirmatively.

My argument would be that every skill can be applied to a check, we know that because the using ability scores chapter primarily addresses the different things one can do, all the examples given there are specifically about things a character can attempt. If we can demonstrate a scenario where a score is used or referenced, that would be evidence that it's a thing.

Passive Use examples:
Perception - Numerous references in PHB and DMG
Investigation - Observant feat
Initiative Variant: Initiative Score (DMG)

Hey Tanarii, is that quoteblock starting with "1) It's a consequence" copied from your PH? If so, that's the RAW that I have been insisting doesn't exist.

That was quoting my post, which was describing the point that passive scores represent a functional minimum if not one in name. It is known that search provides a roll, and it is also known that any situation where a search is applicable the default is to compare score to a DC or check, ergo if a search is called for, then a comparison was already made using the rules given in the PHB/DMG.

Tanarii

2016-10-21, 07:51 PM

Can you be more specific with like...a page number and/or a direct quote I can refer to? I looked but didn't see anything specifically noting a passive Charisma (Intimidation) score is a thing. i.e. No case examples.PHB skills chapter, p175, passive skills. There isn't a case example. Just the general rule on passive skills, which applies to Charisma (Intimidation) as much as any other skill. In theory, if not in practice of DM application.

I'll stipulate that in niche cases while traveling a character can engage in an activity which fully consumes their attention if you are willing to stipulate that absent such extraordinary and unique circumstances, the character would simply notice assuming their perception score trumped the stealth check.The traveling rules aren't niche. They apply any time "as Adventurers travel through a dungeon or wilderness". (PHB p182, activity while traveling.) That's any time you're not in combat for the typical adventure.

(Edit2: that's probably too strong to say any time you're not in combat. They probably wouldn't apply while you're checking out a room. Because likely the party doesn't do that in what are effectively marching order ranks or do things like foraging, navigating, or mapping rather than checking out the room.)

That's not how that works, the DM doesn't decide to make something active or passive arbitrarily. Some things are always going to be checks. For example, Athletics, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Survival, Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Performance are always a check, never a score; each is definitionally an active thing.Youre kidding right. At least I hope you're kidding. Or maybe you're imagining it being arbitrary and whimsically done on the part of the DM in a non-consistent manner?

Because that's exactly how it works. The DM decides if something is "the average result for a task done repeatedly" or when she "wants to secretly determine whether the characters secretly succeed at something without risking the dice". (PHB skills chapter, p175, Passive checks.) If the DM decides either of those apply, she can adjudicate the check as a passive check instead of a rolled check.

Reading the rest of your post, you seem to be going with your usual confused 'passive skills are passive on the part of the character, checks are active on the part of the character' mistake. Which totally isn't RAW. As in there is no Rule Written that says this is the case for all passive skills. You have only arrived at it because you've extrapolated from passive perception specific rules.

If a character is using Acrobatics to walk across a sheet of ice over a large period of time, the DM can call for a passive Acrobatics. Because the PHB says so.

If the DM decides the player pretending to be someone else can't know they are making a deception check against an NPCs Intuition at a specific moment, she can rule it's passive Deception. And not even tell the player there was a check being made. Because the PHB says so.

Edit: I mean, that's only exactly what passive skills are for and all. The PHB literally tells you so. So I really hope your kidding. Or I'm misinterpreting what you meant. :smallbiggrin:

JellyPooga

2016-10-21, 08:20 PM

If a character is using Acrobatics to walk across a sheet of ice over a large period of time, the DM can call for a passive Acrobatics. Because the PHB says so.

If the DM decides the player pretending to be someone else can't know they are making a deception check against an NPCs Intuition at a specific moment, she can rule it's passive Deception. And not even tell the player there was a check being made. Because the PHB says so.

Here's an idea; let's clear up this nonsense about not all skills being able to be used passively and give an example of repeated and/or GM-info-only use for each skill.

Repeated Use
Acrobatics; Ice-walking works for me
Animal Handling; training a domesticated animal
Arcana; extended research into e.g. a new spell.
Athletics; marathon
Deception; undercover agent
History; research (again)
Insight; a trial
Intimidation; interrogating a series of prisoners
Investigation; duh
Medicine; extended care of e.g. a disease or extreme injury
Nature; research rears its head again, but much more niche IMO
Perception; duh
Performance; week long gig/festival
Persuasion; a trial (again)
Religion; r-r-r-research
Stealth; general sneakiness
Survival; spending more than a day in the wild

That only leaves Sleight of Hand that I can't really think of a repeated or extended use for. Not off the top of my head, anyway. Actually, come to think of it, most of these could also fall under the "check without player knowledge" category too, so I won't bother listing those too (except for Sleight of Hand; for which I'll give an example where a pickpocket could use his Passive SoH vs. a players Passive Perception to determine if he were successful or not...the GM only letting on the result if and when the Player notices the theft).

Suffice to say; there's a lot of uses for Passive scores for all Skills, which as Tanarii points out is completely RAW. The given example is Perception but that's, you know, just an example. Hell, on re-reading the appropriate passage, it extends to any ability check a given PC or NPC could possibly make, e.g. a Strength or Charisma check can also be Passive in either respect; after all, Skill checks are only a sub-category of ability checks anyway.