Passive Scores (other than Perception)

[BurgerBeast]

It has recently come to light that Passive Perception functions (when it does function) as a floor for Active Perception.

Evidence: This Clip (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing) from about 22:00-24:00 (Credit for bringing this clip to my attention goes to Malifice). Around 23:36 JC says "so that [Passive Perception] really represent the floor of your Perception" (emphasis added - sort of, he does emphasize it as he speaks).

So my questions are:

1. Is this the case for other skills?

2. Secondarily: should this be the case for other skills?

My Thoughts:

This could actually be quite helpful, particularly in the context of overcoming the "big die small modifier" problem. It narrows ranges, and in many cases speeds up the game. DC 15 Athletics check to break down the door? - The level 5 fighter auto-succeeds. DC 17 to run along a slippery log across a raging river? A character with +7 to acrobatics auto-succeeds.

It actually appears to be quite elegant (unless I'm overlooking something), because for any character that does not auto-succeed, the chances of success/failure remain unchanged.

This is a separate point (so ignore it or comment as you see fit) but it may give some additional context to Knowledge checks: your Passive Score could represent what you already know, whereas active checks could require effort in the form of research, and define the limits of your ability in the context of having the necessary materials.

[Steampunkette]

The way I generally handle it is that a skill check when there's no significant penalty for failure or particular danger involved goes off passive. Anything else requires a roll.

Doing a tightrope walk in the circus? Passive.

Doing a tightrope walk while under fire from guards using crossbows? Active.

[BurgerBeast]

The way I generally handle it is that a skill check when there's no significant penalty for failure or particular danger involved goes off passive. Anything else requires a roll.

Doing a tightrope walk in the circus? Passive.

Doing a tightrope walk while under fire from guards using crossbows? Active.

Yes. So in the second case would (or should you) you floor it?

[Orion3T]

It doesn't work very well for activities where failure on the first attempt matters and you're only trying once. The tight-rope example for example, even the best might fall off occasionally (unless their modifyer is high enough to eliminate the possibility even on an active check).

If the fighter doesn't manage to get his full weight behind his first bash of the door, it won't open and the enemies inside will no longer be surprised when he bursts through next time.

These checks have impact on the game if they fail so to remove them and use Passive seems to detract from the game.

Passive checks are there for the reasons stated - tasks done repeatedly (to prevent tedious amounts of die-rolling) or secrecy. While I do occasionally get frustrated when I fail a check I feel ought to have been straightforward, that's more a case of whether there should be have been a check at all.

Essentially by going this route, you're simply being more liberal with the 'no chance that character will fail at that task' guideline suggested in the DMG and not bothering with a check at all, by using the passive scores as a guide. But you are 'depriving' your players the excitement of having things go unexpectedly badly wrong. :smallbiggrin:

Unless you're going to inflate DCs accordingly of course, which seems to defeat the purpose.

[Orion3T]

The way I generally handle it is that a skill check when there's no significant penalty for failure or particular danger involved goes off passive. Anything else requires a roll.

Doing a tightrope walk in the circus? Passive.

Doing a tightrope walk while under fire from guards using crossbows? Active.

Agree with the principle but I find the example a bit confusing. How is there not a consequence if a tightrope walker falls off during a circus act? The crowd will be surprised/shocked/unimpressed and the walker will have failed at the task. If the question is whether they manage to get across ever, then sure. The DM could just say "You manage it on the 3rd attempt' but it seems to me there are consequences in either scenario.

If it's more that you imagine no chance of failure when there are no dangerous distractions then I can see that (if their Acrobatics is good enough), but that's not the situation you seemed to be trying to illustrate.

[Orion3T]

Let's put this another way. I will assume it's for a specific task and there is some effect from failure (even if it's a time restraint).

You are considering a particular ability check and by default it's Active. Let's assume the PC will fail on a 1 or 2. I would imagine whether the situation resulting from them rolling a 1 or 2 is an interesting one. Will it be amusing? Exciting? Interesting? Force the players to come up with an alternative strategy? Then roll it.

Will it just be annoying? Slow the game down? Then let it succeed automatically.

You're using their ability score to determine how reasonable the action is, and then whether randomness will add somethiing positive to the situation or not to decide whether to bother with a roll.

You could apply the same logic to someone who needs to roll a 9, so their Passive would work but an Active may well fail. In this situation the same reasoning applies, but failure is less likely to be just an annoyance to the players because they probably weren't expecting it to work anyway.


Basically I'm advocating for whether or not you think it will be fun for the players. I might even consider whether they already had a run of terrible luck and are feeling a bit frustrated - do I really want to risk compounding that by making them roll a 3+ yet again?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Passive checks are there for the reasons stated - tasks done repeatedly

This is the core of it. If the task is something where you can keep trying for free until you either succeed or realise it's too hard for you, it's a passive check. If there's a cost to failure (in the tightrope case, there would be falling damage even if there's no time pressure, and if you're performing in front of an audience, the whole thing is ruined if you don't get it right first time), then passive ability is irrelevant. It doesn't provide any kind of 'floor'.

There may be some cases where you can roll actively and then fall back on the passive if you roll badly, but they would be rare. Perhaps an investigation check where the DC to find the plot coupon is 15 and, if you spend 10 minutes searching, you get a passive check and you're guaranteed to find it, but there's also hidden treasure on DC 22 that you might stumble upon with a lucky roll, but wouldn't find if you just used the passive score.

[Steampunkette]

Agree with the principle but I find the example a bit confusing. How is there not a consequence if a tightrope walker falls off during a circus act? The crowd will be surprised/shocked/unimpressed and the walker will have failed at the task. If the question is whether they manage to get across ever, then sure. The DM could just say "You manage it on the 3rd attempt' but it seems to me there are consequences in either scenario.

If it's more that you imagine no chance of failure when there are no dangerous distractions then I can see that (if their Acrobatics is good enough), but that's not the situation you seemed to be trying to illustrate.

Because in one case there is a net.

A person with a passive skill modifier for acrobatics of 12 is still going to fail a DC 15 tightrope walk if they're not actively trying to do it. But someone with a 17 should be skilled enough to handle it without a problem, unless there's a complication.

Better example: I won't make my players roll their gambling checks during an irrelevant game of cards in a bar. They win or lose however much cash based on their comparative skill. But if they've got to beat Death at Poker in order to avoid dying... well. Better roll high.

[mephnick]

The question is:

A rogue has a passive Acrobatics of 20. Does he now auto-succeed on ALL DEX (Acrobatics) checks in the game that are 19 and under, including hostile situations? Do ALL passives act as a floor on all active checks?

[BurgerBeast]

I think some of the replies have not addressed my question.

@Orion3T: Yes, but what I am asking is: Should a PC be capable of failing on the first attempt if his passive score is high enough? So, for a particular fighter, it might be the case that he can break down any DC 15 door on the first attempt, but a DC 20 door might be above his passive and then he would need to roll. If we wanted to be extreme, we could talk about a DC 5 door. Shouldn’t he always break it on the first try?

So, I’m not disagreeing with you, by which I mean to say I think a player should need to roll when there is consequence for failure. My question is, should we consider cases that are equal to or less than the passive score as being impossible to fail on the first try? Because this is what the devs are saying in the case of Perception.


This is the core of it. If the task is something where you can keep trying for free until you either succeed or realise it's too hard for you, it's a passive check. If there's a cost to failure (in the tightrope case, there would be falling damage even if there's no time pressure, and if you're performing in front of an audience, the whole thing is ruined if you don't get it right first time), then passive ability is irrelevant. It doesn't provide any kind of 'floor'.

But this is exactly what it does in the specific case of Perception. And this is why, what I am trying to ask is: only Perception? If so, why?


The question is:

A rogue has a passive Acrobatics of 20. Does he now auto-succeed on ALL DEX (Acrobatics) checks in the game that are 19 and under, including hostile situations? Do ALL passives act as a floor on all active checks?

Basically, this.

And if the answer is (generally)no, then why is Perception treated differently (i.e. an exception)?

[Thrudd]

The question is:

A rogue has a passive Acrobatics of 20. Does he now auto-succeed on ALL DEX (Acrobatics) checks in the game that are 19 and under, including hostile situations? Do ALL passives act as a floor on all active checks?

No, IMO the passive score for active abilities should only apply when there is no danger or consequence of failure or when multiple attempts can be made without any bad effect.
You roll whenever there is no chance at trying again, when it makes a difference whether success in this exact instant matters, or when other distracting/stressful things are threatening the character at the same time, like combat.

I do prefer to run the game as though characters who are good at things are usually able to accomplish the sort of thing they are supposed to be good at, and characters who have not invested as much in those things should not be able to do as much - passive scores works to represent that. d20 rolls with small modifiers gives some silly results in this context. If the objectively strongest guy in the party wasn't able to lift the boulder, nobody else in the party should be able to, either, at least not alone. If the wall was too hard for the best climber to scale, nobody else should have a chance at it.

Perception is treated differently because it isn't really an "ability" that characters can choose to use. It's the characters' senses which are always active, you don't have a choice whether or not to perceive something, unlike the choice to try to climb or lift or do a backflip or pick a lock or concentrate on a topic.

[jas61292]

It has recently come to light that Passive Perception functions (when it does function) as a floor for Active Perception.

This is incorrect, and no matter how often people act otherwise, it will never be correct. Passive scores are not floors. Not for perception, and not for anything else. Passive checks exist for one reason and one reason only: so that a DM can have a result they can use when they don't want the players to roll. It has noting to do with the character trying actively or not.

As one of the main uses for passive scores is to replace unnecessary repeated rolling, you should be able to say that, yes, if the passive score is high enough, someone should just be able to succeed. But only if trying and failing first doesn't matter. Passive checks in such a case are representing the average result of repeated tries, not the worst result possible. But averages only mean anything when there are multiple attempts, done of which are going to be worse.

[RSP]

It has recently come to light that Passive Perception functions (when it does function) as a floor for Active Perception.

So my questions are:

1. Is this the case for other skills?

2. Secondarily: should this be the case for other skills?

My Thoughts:

This could actually be quite helpful, particularly in the context of overcoming the "big die small modifier" problem. It narrows ranges, and in many cases speeds up the game. DC 15 Athletics check to break down the door? - The level 5 fighter auto-succeeds. DC 17 to run along a slippery log across a raging river? A character with +7 to acrobatics auto-succeeds.

It actually appears to be quite elegant (unless I'm overlooking something), because for any character that does not auto-succeed, the chances of success/failure remain unchanged.

This is a separate point (so ignore it or comment as you see fit) but it may give some additional context to Knowledge checks: your Passive Score could represent what you already know, whereas active checks could require effort in the form of research, and define the limits of your ability in the context of having the necessary materials.

I've been a fan of using passive scores for all skills for awhile now (this isn't RAW). As others have pointed out, only rolling when it's of particular interest helps, in my opinion, speed the game up, let's the DM maintain the flow and give characters who put resources in skills the ability to rely on their use.

It irks me that skills like Knowledges are based on 5% increments: the Wizard with maxed int and Arcana should be able to rely on his intellect rather than be out done by the illiterate barbarian who rolled a 20 on his obscure knowledge Check.

The Perception ruling as a "base score," how I see it anyway, isn't actually a "the lowest you can roll is your Passive" ruling but rather, since the DM would, per RAW, Check to see if a character notices something they're unaware of, the character has already used their Passive (and failed) when rolling an active Check.

So in play, actively checking doesn't negate what you've already noticed with your Passive Check; even though you may have rolled less, you still already noticed everything you noticed with your Passive Check. That is, it isn't re-hidden from you if you roll low.

[Slipperychicken]

The question is:

A rogue has a passive Acrobatics of 20. Does he now auto-succeed on ALL DEX (Acrobatics) checks in the game that are 19 and under, including hostile situations? Do ALL passives act as a floor on all active checks?

That sounds alright by me. I mean, he does have a +10 to it. That should mean he's next to impossible to catch.

[Steampunkette]

The question is:

A rogue has a passive Acrobatics of 20. Does he now auto-succeed on ALL DEX (Acrobatics) checks in the game that are 19 and under, including hostile situations? Do ALL passives act as a floor on all active checks?

No. I put that in my first post in this thread.

Passive, in my campaign, comes up when there's no real danger/stress/etc if you fail.

If there's something dramatic going on, or you can't succeed passively, roles are required.

It's just like taking 10 in 3rd edition: Do it when you can prepare yourself or when it speeds up gameplay that isn't particularly plot-relevant.

I think plenty of players prefer it that way, since they can't roll a 1 on a random "I'm gonna sing as we head down the road" performance check.

[Sabeta]

Passive Perception is your ability to; quite literally see what's around you. (hear, smell, etc.)

Walking on a tightrope, sneaking behind enemy lines, hefting a boulder, lying to a nobleman, recalling ancient lore. These all take some modicum of effort on the players behalf. If you're ever in a situation where a player could reasonably keep trying until they succeed with no negative repercussions, just take 10. I do not see any skill other than Perception being passive though. (and yes, I'm saying that Passive Perception is the floor, and that no other skill does this because you don't normally need to try to see or hear your environtment)

[Unoriginal]

Passive can be understood as the "Take 10" of 5e, in some ways.

[BurgerBeast]

This is incorrect, and no matter how often people act otherwise, it will never be correct. Passive scores are not floors. Not for perception, and not for anything else. Passive checks exist for one reason and one reason only: so that a DM can have a result they can use when they don't want the players to roll. It has noting to do with the character trying actively or not.

As one of the main uses for passive scores is to replace unnecessary repeated rolling, you should be able to say that, yes, if the passive score is high enough, someone should just be able to succeed. But only if trying and failing first doesn't matter. Passive checks in such a case are representing the average result of repeated tries, not the worst result possible. But averages only mean anything when there are multiple attempts, done of which are going to be worse.

I used to agree with you. But now I know that I was wrong.

See this clip (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing) (which I've added to the OP), from about 22:00-24:00.

Edit: And so, again, my question is: does this apply for all Passive skills, or just Passive Perception, and my inclination at this early stage of thinking about the problem is to think: "Why not?" It presents an elegant solution to the big die small modifier problem.

[GPS]

As per the PHB, perception and investigation are the only passive skills. Hope that helps

[Tanarii]

I used to agree with you. But now I know that I was wrong.

See this clip (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing) (which I've added to the OP), from about 22:00-24:00.

Edit: And so, again, my question is: does this apply for all Passive skills, or just Passive Perception, and my inclination at this early stage of thinking about the problem is to think: "Why not?" It presents an elegant solution to the big die small modifier problem.The problem is JC is kinda right, but he's also completely wrong. By PHB RAW, Passive Perception *may* be effectively a floor in combat, where an additional roll will occur due to the Search action. But out of combat additional rolls will almost never occur. Because players will either be using their passive perception as they go, or succeeding automatically (if possible) due to the DMG auto success rule if they take the extra effort to search something.

Calling it a 'floor' really creates a basic misunderstanding of the way Passive skills work. They almost always replace the rolled skill check. If something is immediately done again that requires a rolled check, then yes, they are effectively a floor. But that's a rare circumstance.

[Sabeta]

I used to agree with you. But now I know that I was wrong.

See this clip (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing) (which I've added to the OP), from about 22:00-24:00.

Edit: And so, again, my question is: does this apply for all Passive skills, or just Passive Perception, and my inclination at this early stage of thinking about the problem is to think: "Why not?" It presents an elegant solution to the big die small modifier problem.

Q: Do all skills have passives
A: I say no

Q: Why not?
A: Because other skills require you to do something. Passive Perception kicks on when you aren't engaged in anything else.

Q: Okay sure, but why not?
A: If you want to use it, sure. As you said, it's an elegent solution to a number of solutions, including secret skill checks. I'd say it depends more on the players, if your players love the thrill of rolling dice then don't rely on the passives. If you want to skip over dice rolls and just assume that most of the time they get through the obstacle because so-and-so is proficient in thieve's tools then just go ahead and do that.

Having always on Passive Skills don't really break the game in any meaningful way, in my opinion. I still wouldn't do it, but that's how I see it.

[BurgerBeast]

The problem is JC is kinda right, but he's also completely wrong. By PHB RAW, Passive Perception *may* be effectively a floor in combat, where an additional roll will occur due to the Search action. But out of combat additional rolls will almost never occur. Because players will either be using their passive perception as they go, or succeeding automatically (if possible) due to the DMG auto success rule if they take the extra effort to search something.

I don't think JC is wrong, here. I think he is saying that out of combat, players are free to look for things and try to notice things, and if they do, they can roll a Perception Check, and if they fail the roll, their minimum roll is their Passive Score.


Calling it a 'floor' really creates a basic misunderstanding of the way Passive skills work. They almost always replace the rolled skill check. If something is immediately done again that requires a rolled check, then yes, they are effectively a floor. But that's a rare circumstance.

I disagree. JC is talking specifically about Passive Perception, not Passive Skills in general.

What I am wondering is why should perception be considered to be "always on" but some other skills are not (cases can be made for knowledge skills, diplomacy, persuasion, even acrobatics and athletics in my opinion).

[Tanarii]

I don't think JC is wrong, here. I think he is saying that out of combat, players are free to look for things and try to notice things, and if they do, they can roll a Perception Check, and if they fail the roll, their minimum roll is their Passive Score.Theres almost no need for the DM to call for a roll when they're looking and trying to notice things. If they do it while moving around, that's just another passive perception check. If they do it in one spot until they're satisfied, that's a ph automatic success if possible scenario.

Only if they face an artificial time limitation and are searching on spot would the DM need to call for a roll.


What I am wondering is why should perception be considered to be "always on" but some other skills are not (cases can be made for knowledge skills, diplomacy, persuasion, even acrobatics and athletics in my opinion).Knowledge skills and Intuition and Investigation certainly can be considered to be always on to the same degree as Perception. If the DM needs a secret check or the players are doing it over time, or more commonly both, which they often will be in many cases, then Passive perception check applies. If there's an artificial time limit and a single check is needed immediately afterwards for the same task, so it's not an automatic success if possible, that would also create an effective floor.

[RSP]

As per the PHB, perception and investigation are the only passive skills. Hope that helps

Not true at all. The entire section on Passive Checks refers to Checks, not specific skills, though Perception is used as an example.

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Limiting Passive only to Perception and Investigation is not RAW.


Q: Do all skills have passives
A: I say no

Q: Why not?
A: Because other skills require you to do something. Passive Perception kicks on when you aren't engaged in anything else.


See above. First off the existence of Observant clearly indicates Passive Investigation is a thing.

Secondly, any skill done repeatedly or in secret would apply for a Passive Check. An NPC telling a story relevant to the campaign could use Passive Knowledge Checks to see if characters would pick up on certain info without letting the players know it was significant if the characters didn't pass.

Likewise, Passive Insight can be used whenever a character is trying to convince the PCs of anything (whether with Persuasion or Deception).

Again, the RAW is any skill has the potential for Passives.

[mephnick]

But what was said in the interview was that PP is always the floor for an active check ie IN combat, isn't it?

Fair enough I guess. But why Perception and not Athletics? Shouldn't my passive Athletics then be the floor I can roll for Shove attacks? It seems arbitrary and it should have just been left to be used for secret rolls and constant checks like the PHB says.

[Laurefindel]

If passive skills become a floor, isn't it like giving the rogue feature reliable talent to everyone? Even if its only about perception (and lets say investigation as well), doesn't it devalues the rogue feature?

[Tanarii]

Fair enough I guess. But why Perception and not Athletics? Shouldn't my passive Athletics then be the floor I can roll for Shove attacks? It seems arbitrary and it should have just been left to be used for secret rolls and constant checks like the PHB says.
Because for shoving someone, it's not something you've already been doing. It's something you're doing right now one time.

The other thing JC's commentary said (paraphrasing) is that when someone is trying to Hide, they're making a check against other creatures passive perception as a DC. Effectively, it's their defensive score against someone else's action. It could just as easily be a rolled opposed check but using passive saves table time and avoids giving away that's someone is hiding (if it couldn't be known). They could have added something to opposed checks saying the 'target' defends using a passive score and it would have been the same effect. A grapple being against Passive Athletics or Acrobatics, since the defender could be assumed to be always trying to avoid such things. Then that'd make them a floor for the countering attempt of spending your action to try and escape the grapple. So yeah, in that regard it is kind of arbitrary.

[Ghost Nappa]

Character walks into room where someone (could be invisible and) is hiding.

Make a Passive Perception check:

Passive beats Opposed DC for the hider? Tell them / give a hint.
Passive fails to beat? Don't tell them anything about the hider. Information should be only about room itself.


Case 1: Player then decides to make a perception check because he wants to search/explore the room.

Succeeded Both times: Give more specific information about the room and/or the hider including but not limited to how or why (if discernible).
Passive Succeeded but failed on Roll: Repeat information from before but give no new information. May choose to re-emphasize parts of description for sake of clarity.
Passive Failed but succeeded on Roll: Give information as if they had passed the passive check. If someone else passed the passive check and told them what they found before they rolled, act as if they succeeded both times.
Failed both times: Don't tell them anything about the hider.


Case 2: Player doesn't decide to make a perception check:

New Information is ONLY provided if the hider makes a stealth check that loses to player's Passive Perception, or something smart is done that reveals the hide (See Invisibility, True Sight, etc.)



Not sure if you're stating this as RAW or as your table play. If just stating your play style, ignore the below post. Otherwise, just wanted to point out, Passive Checks, RAW, aren't lesser Checks. If passing a DC to notice a hidden character, whether with a roll or a Passive Check, they're noticed, RAW.

Also, there's no second Stealth roll when Hidden: the character makes one roll and keeps it until they stop hiding or are discovered.

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

Not RAW, more of a table-play. There's a difference between knowing someone is there and knowing where someone is. Ideally, you'd give out the information of a success to each player individually to encourage them to work together.

The second roll would be in the case of doing something risky that draws attention to you, like opening a door or tripping. If you already know someone is in the room, you might have more to react before they try escaping.

[RSP]

Character walks into room where someone (could be invisible and) is hiding.

Make a Passive Perception check:

Passive beats Opposed DC for the hider? Tell them / give a hint.
Passive fails to beat? Don't tell them anything about the hider. Information should be only about room itself.


Case 1: Player then decides to make a perception check because he wants to search/explore the room.

Succeeded Both times: Give more specific information about the room and/or the hider including but not limited to how or why (if discernible).
Passive Succeeded but failed on Roll: Repeat information from before but give no new information. May choose to re-emphasize parts of description for sake of clarity.
Passive Failed but succeeded on Roll: Give information as if they had passed the passive check. If someone else passed the passive check and told them what they found before they rolled, act as if they succeeded both times.
Failed both times: Don't tell them anything about the hider.


Case 2: Player doesn't decide to make a perception check:

New Information is ONLY provided if the hider makes a stealth check that loses to player's Passive Perception, or something smart is done that reveals the hide (See Invisibility, True Sight, etc.)


Not sure if you're stating this as RAW or as your table play. If just stating your play style, ignore the rest of this post. Otherwise, just wanted to point out, Passive Checks, RAW, aren't lesser Checks. If passing a DC to notice a hidden character, whether with a roll or a Passive Check, they're noticed, RAW.

Also, there's no second Stealth roll when Hidden: the character makes one roll and keeps it until they stop hiding or are discovered.

"When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence."

[RSP]

1. Is this the case for other skills?

2. Secondarily: should this be the case for other skills?


If passive skills become a floor, isn't it like giving the rogue feature reliable talent to everyone? Even if its only about perception (and lets say investigation as well), doesn't it devalues the rogue feature?

I think JC is usually fairly careful about what he says being taken as "official," and likewise why we should be careful about taking a podcast as official (tweets JC can edit if he's wrong but a podcast he can't).

As Laurefindel points out, just using Passive scores is essentially giving everyone a pretty significant high level Rogue only ability.

Now, I do like using Passive scores for Perception, Investigation, Insight and Knowledges (which are always "on" abilities and qualify for the 'DM making a check in secret' rule, RAW), however, for other checks, like Athletics or Survival, Deception, etc, I'd not use Passives as it would step on the ability of Rogues.

[BurgerBeast]

If passive skills become a floor, isn't it like giving the rogue feature reliable talent to everyone? Even if its only about perception (and lets say investigation as well), doesn't it devalues the rogue feature?

Yeah. So this pretty much ends the thread. It can't be the case that the intention was for Reliable Talent to do absolutely nothing.

Yet it seems that based on what JC says, this is the case for Perception, only.

It's not at all clear why, but there it is.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah. So this pretty much ends the thread. It can't be the case that the intention was for Reliable Talent to do absolutely nothing.

Yet it seems that based on what JC says, this is the case for Perception, only.

It's not at all clear why, but there it is.

In 5e, the rules mentioning perceiving things in combat includes a number of automatic results. For exemple, unless special circumstances, a character will always notice someone trying to attack them in melee once the fight has started.

I think what Crawford is saying is that, in combat only, people are always considered to have at minimum their Passive Perception working for them.

[BurgerBeast]

In 5e, the rules mentioning perceiving things in combat includes a number of automatic results. For exemple, unless special circumstances, a character will always notice someone trying to attack them in melee once the fight has started.

I think what Crawford is saying is that, in combat only, people are always considered to have at minimum their Passive Perception working for them.

But that's not what he's saying, in the clip.

[Unoriginal]

Actually, Crawford himself answers this thread's question about why passive perception is the minimum floor. Passive Perception is always on, and the act of search is trying to notice what your Passive Perception hasn't noticed yet.

So, if you have Passive Perception of 13, and because your Passive Perception is always on, you will always notice DC-12-to-discover traps. If you enter a room with DC 12 to find traps and DC 15 traps, with a Passive Perception of 13, then you notice the DC 12 traps, and you can try to search for even more traps.


So this question can be solved with asking yourself:

Is that Passive score representing something that is always on?

If yes, it means that it's the minimum you can get, because it's the result you've already got for the thing you're doing in permanance, and making the active check is going the extra mile to do what you haven't already done

[BurgerBeast]

Actually, Crawford himself answers this thread's question about why passive perception is the minimum floor. Passive Perception is always on, and the act of search is trying to notice what your Passive Perception hasn't noticed yet.

So, if you have Passive Perception of 13, and because your Passive Perception is always on, you will always notice DC-12-to-discover traps. If you enter a room with DC 12 to find traps and DC 15 traps, with a Passive Perception of 13, then you notice the DC 12 traps, and you can try to search for even more traps.


So this question can be solved with asking yourself:

Is that Passive score representing something that is always on?

If yes, it means that it's the minimum you can get, because it's the result you've already got for the thing you're doing in permanance, and making the active check is going the extra mile to do what you haven't already done

Agreed. Would you say that's fair to do with other skills? And, perhaps, since we're limiting it to only skills that are "always on," it steps a little less on the toes of the rogue ability?

[Unoriginal]

Agreed. Would you say that's fair to do with other skills?

It makes sense to do it with other skills that are always on, I'd say.


And, perhaps, since we're limiting it to only skills that are "always on," it steps a little less on the toes of the rogue ability?

What makes Reliable Talent so great is that the Rogue has perfected their skills so much that if they have to roll, they cannot have less than 10+ proficiency bonus + stat bonus to an ability check. It includes when they have to roll at disadvantage.

So, it is actually better than a passive score, since Passive Perception with a disadvantage has -5. A Rogue in a situation where their PassPer would have -5 due to disadvantage could search more with their active check and automatically get at minimum to ignore the disadvantage. Assuming they can use their proficiency bonus to Perception, of course.

Basically, it makes it so as if all ability checks had a passive score, with the possibility to do better, and makes passive scores ignore disadvantages if you go active with them.

[Laurefindel]

Yeah. So this pretty much ends the thread. It can't be the case that the intention was for Reliable Talent to do absolutely nothing.

Yet it seems that based on what JC says, this is the case for Perception, only.

It's not at all clear why, but there it is.

Your principle in the OP is not without merit. it is a nice gauge of "when to have player roll for something" Personally, with skills with which a PC is proficient, I don't see the purpose of asking for a roll unless the possibility of failure has a significant narrative quality.

[djreynolds]

Passive scores are out there, IMO, for the main reason... "I don't want you knowing"

If I tell you to roll, I've already cued the party member there is something there, either a trap or hidden enemy, etc.. and now you know, "It keeps me from showing the players my hand"

I'm sure we have all, well I have, hand waved a battle versus something weak just to save time. You have to be the judge of that, could that 4 goblins score crits on all of his attacks and the party roll all 1s, sure. Does this battle need to be played out? If it was that significant of a battle, then it needs to be challenging?

So as a DM you are left with a couple of choices

1 If there is a chance for failure, then it is important to allow that into the game and everything is rolled

2 Or you play by ear and judge what is significant to your story's progression

So let's go with the tightrope walk scenario

1 Who in this party is expected to cross this narrow, dangerous space. The rogue with expertise in acrobatics or the fat friar.

A 5th level rogue, AFB, with expertise in acrobatics has a +9 or+10 to his acrobatics check. With a roll of just 10, he could beat a DC19 or DC20 tightrope walk. That fat friar isn't getting across... maybe

2 Is there another way around this obstacle without a skill check, like the wizard who took the fly spell at 5th level

3 Was this challenge created for the rogue to beat, then he rolls because I designed this as his moment to shine

4 was it created for the party to somehow aid the rogue in crossing, like guidance or enhance ability

5 was this crossing designed to burn party resources, like the wizard who just took the fly spell

IMO passive rolls are done to keep the story going and expedite the game

or so I don't ask you to roll and give something away (my reason)

or the players telling me every five feet they are rolling a perception check and the cleric is continually spamming the guidance spell

[GPS]

I'm confused, are you guys arguing this for RAW or for DM rulings? RAW there are only two passive skills, passive perception (fully implemented) and passive investigation (played a greater roll originally but after the playtesting was kind of relegated to "a thing that exists", barely implemented). Passive perception is mentioned multiple occasions throughout the PHB, passive investigation is only mentioned in the Observant feat

[RSP]

I'm confused, are you guys arguing this for RAW or for DM rulings? RAW there are only two passive skills, passive perception (fully implemented) and passive investigation (played a greater roll originally but after the playtesting was kind of relegated to "a thing that exists", barely implemented). Passive perception is mentioned multiple occasions throughout the PHB, passive investigation is only mentioned in the Observant feat

Again, in no way true RAW. The Passive Checks section clearly defines rules for any Skill Check to use Passive Checks if they fit the circumstances of either being done repeatedly, or the DM wants a result but wants to keep the Check a secret.

And again:


Not true at all. The entire section on Passive Checks refers to Checks, not specific skills, though Perception is used as an example.

"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Limiting Passive only to Perception and Investigation is not RAW.

Secondly, any skill done repeatedly or in secret would apply for a Passive Check. An NPC telling a story relevant to the campaign could use Passive Knowledge Checks to see if characters would pick up on certain info without letting the players know it was significant if the characters didn't pass.

Likewise, Passive Insight can be used whenever a character is trying to convince the PCs of anything (whether with Persuasion or Deception).

Again, the RAW is any skill has the potential for Passives.

[Ebon Rogue]

I believe passive perception is something rationalized because its used so much. Its your perception of world and is(usually) always on.

There should be no reason why this doesn't apply to any other skill. Just 10+mod+prof. If your not in combat or a precarious spot, it should be used for acts that the PCs perform in a constant manner(or always on). Things like heavy lifting as a job in town could be a passive athletics. Ice skating would be passive acrobatics. Information collection at a library with passive History.

I think its up to the DM to use this for downtime activities. If they do an activity that doesn't put them in harms way, the option to overcome a DC passively should be used and rolling only if the task is beyond their passive skill.

I don't know if this would work real well in terms of balance, especially with Skill Monkeys, but I find the idea that a trained athlete shouldn't get crippled(or at least punished with a bad roll) doing something athletic; especially if there isn't a goblin poking him with a spear. Expertise gets a little silly. A level 6 rogue with four skills at a potential 21(10+5mod+3prof+3exp) might go a little weird when stealing, deceiving, sneaking; but that should be up to the DM to reign in. Then again a level 6 rouge is, as I see it, an extremely well trained individual beyond the abilities of the average person.

I haven't really thought about of passive score, but that is my take on it without putting my nose in the DMG.

[SiCK_Boy]

I must say I have a serious issue with using the passive score for any skill (perception or other) as a "floor" for that ability; it would be nice to get an explicit ruling from the powers that be at Wizards on that question (like a PHB/DMG errata, rather than just one passage of an audio interview, or some of those half-assed twitter answer we get on Sage Advice).

To me, the passive score does not represent any intrinsic level of skill or proficiency that is "automatically" attained by a character.

In fact, the only reasons I see of using the passive score, for any skill and under any circumstances, are the two that were pointed out earlier: when you want to keep the "check" secret, and when you want to cover a repeated use of a skill (such as looking for traps all along a 10 miles long dungeon corridor).

These two reasons are purely metagame / mechanical, and have nothing to do with any in game reasoning or concept.

I find the idea that any skill check could get an automatic result (such as what the passive score represents) ludicrous from an in game perspective. Although people like to refer to the passive perception as some sort of innate "conscience of your surroundings", I do not use that definition. If the same logic would be applied to a skill like Arcana or Religion, it would mean that all the characters in the world have the same level of knowledge once they reach a certain threshold of passive score; can you imagine all the people with a passive score of, say, 13 in Arcana, sharing the same body of knowledge on all matters Arcana? It makes no sense; realistically, once could assume that even amongst people with the same general body of knowledge (represented by your proficiency bonus and ability modifier), there should still be differences; any single individual has a chance to know, or not know, a specific fact about the topic at hand, in a given circumstance. The same goes for Perception; yes, your proficiency bonus and ability modifier are indicative of a general level of awareness, but again, each specific situation should be judged case by case; after all, even the most "perceptive" person could have a momentary lapse that makes him or her miss some crucial detail at a critical moment.

Thus, I see every single skill roll as a one-time event or challenge, to be resolved on its own, and I let the result of that check actually change/determine the reality of the world. Not all doors with the same DC to unlock have the same locking mechanism; the DC is just an abstraction of that specific challenge to open that door. As such, when a character tries to unlock it is when we really see whether he's able to or not. If he fails his check, then as a DM, I can just tell him that this lock is beyond his skill. And yes, a different character with a much lower skill modifier, but with a great d20 roll, could come along and succeed right after the "better" character; it simply means that for this specific door, the "worst" character either got lucky, or just so happen to have taken his training with that specific kind of locks (and is thus familiar with it and finds it easier to succeed), or any other explanation (ideally, not an explanation that belittle the "better" character who failed that roll).

This approach also works for challenges (when you compare your skill roll versus some other creature's opposed roll). Some town guard is bull****ing you and beats your Insight check with his Deception check; that doesn't mean you are any less insightful in the general sense, or that this guard is suddenly a champion liar; it could be the only check he will win that whole week, and maybe it's just because you were distracted by a butterfly landing on his shoulder while he was talking, and that made you miss the kind of visual cues you normally rely on (and catch) to identify liars. Ultimately, it's still a one-time event, determined by one single roll.

The only complication with my approach is how to handle repeated checks. Generally, the check you rolled sticks until something changes sufficiently in the game world to justify a new roll. In the example of trying to open the lock, you will be stuck with that missed roll for a long time; you cannot just "retry" and hope to get luckier the second time. The roll established the reality of that lock, along with your skills, and the fact that they don't match well (from your perspective). If the door is refitted with a new lock, or if enough time passed (say until you get a new level and/or have the opportunity to get new training), then you could get a new check (DM decides if/when).

Because they eschew this luck factor (the roll of a d20), any passive checks would not count in this "no repeat" factor. If you are somehow entitled to a passive check in a given circumstance (say, when entering a room in order to detect a hidden foe - where the DM wants to keep the check secret), and you then annouce you want to use a skill (like Perception to do an actual search of the room, assuming you did not notice the hidden foe with your passive check and he has not jumped you in the meantime), then that skill check result will stand (even if you fail again to find the opponent, no subsequent amount of "using the perception skill" will allow you to find him as long as he remains hidden).

[Tanarii]

Thus, I see every single skill roll as a one-time event or challenge, to be resolved on its own, and I let the result of that check actually change/determine the reality of the world.5e apparently doesn't define checks this way. It's not explicit, but the wording of all the language on Checks, both in the PHB and the DMG, is phrased to mean that they are used to resolve a question of success or failure of an action, not state of the world. For example, Lore checks do not determine if a character knows something. They determine instead if the character recalls something. Which implies they already knew it at some point, which would mean if said character never knew something, they should not even attempt the check, it should be an automatic failure.

You don't have to use them that way of course. Many people don't, especially for Lore checks. But reading between the lines, it appears to be the developer intent. But I'm not going to try and claim my interpretation is RAW, because it's never explicit.

[SiCK_Boy]

It's not explicit, but the wording of all the language on Checks, both in the PHB and the DMG, is phrased to mean that they are used to resolve a question of success or failure of an action, not state of the world. For example, Lore checks do not determine if a character knows something. They determine instead if the character recalls something. Which implies they already knew it at some point, which would mean if said character never knew something, they should not even attempt the check, it should be an automatic failure.

I'm not sure I see what the difference really is between the check resolving a success/failure versus defining the state of the world. By the nature of the game, it ends up being the same thing.

When I say the check determines the state of the world, I mean that the check (a purely mechanic trick outside the game) allows the players (DM and PC) to define aspects that were, up until that point, not specified or defined in game.

To stay with the knowledge example, obviously, if we previously established that a character knows the names of the last 50 kings of the kingdom, as a DM, I would simple declare automatic success on identifying one (instead of asking for a History check). At most, depending on circumstances, I could ask for a check to see if he remembers the information, but in that case, I think it would be a simple Intelligence check rather than an actual skill check (because we're more into mnemonic/brain working, rather than an actual skill/training). In the reverse, if it is established that a certain god is entirely forgotten and nobody spoke his name or wrote it anywhere for the last 1 000 years, then no amount of religion checks will grant the information and, as DM, I would just decide that the information is unknown.

The skill checks does allow you, however, to create something organically, within the game, based on the actual dice roll result. It still "resolves the challenge"; I'm just giving leeway to make that success not just objectively a result of the character skill, but also allow for an actual in world reality to impact that result (such as my door unlocking example, where the skill results allows me to define precisions on the actual nature of the lock itself). If you let the skill check only determine the result in relation to the character's abilities, you make it harder to distinguish between success/failure between two characters (other than blaming it on luck), and you also make it harder to refuse subsequent checks (the player could argue he wants to try again just to be sure or because he feels his previous effort was not his best). By using the reality of the world, as defined by the initial skill check result, you get a reason to refuse that subsequent check (obviously, this assumes this is how you want the game to play out).

[Ebon Rogue]

To stay with the knowledge example, obviously, if we previously established that a character knows the names of the last 50 kings of the kingdom, as a DM, I would simple declare automatic success on identifying one (instead of asking for a History check). At most, depending on circumstances, I could ask for a check to see if he remembers the information, but in that case, I think it would be a simple Intelligence check rather than an actual skill check (because we're more into mnemonic/brain working, rather than an actual skill/training). In the reverse, if it is established that a certain god is entirely forgotten and nobody spoke his name or wrote it anywhere for the last 1 000 years, then no amount of religion checks will grant the information and, as DM, I would just decide that the information is unknown.

Its not up to the player to declare everything they know to auto-pass a history check. That's the purpose of a passive score. It wouldn't be a difficult check for a Historian to recall factual information about the lore of the kings. Its their job and that is expressed in their proficiency in history and the associated ability. And if those bonuses amount to something in a passive score that would surpass a check to drop some knowledge, then they should be able to do it.

Now if they were in a situation where they were being interrogated or something, then sure roll for that, that check might change the outcome of importance. I just see passive scores as a way to streamline a non-issue interaction where a check would be involved. It doesn't make sense that a skilled individual would spectacularly fail at a mundane task that they spent months or more learning.

If there was a roll for every skill check the world would be a mess. It'd be like seeing 1 out of 20 cars on the highway just veer into oncoming traffic and crash.

[SiCK_Boy]

Its not up to the player to declare everything they know to auto-pass a history check. That's the purpose of a passive score. It wouldn't be a difficult check for a Historian to recall factual information about the lore of the kings. Its their job and that is expressed in their proficiency in history and the associated ability. And if those bonuses amount to something in a passive score that would surpass a check to drop some knowledge, then they should be able to do it.

Now if they were in a situation where they were being interrogated or something, then sure roll for that, that check might change the outcome of importance. I just see passive scores as a way to streamline a non-issue interaction where a check would be involved. It doesn't make sense that a skilled individual would spectacularly fail at a mundane task that they spent months or more learning.

If there was a roll for every skill check the world would be a mess. It'd be like seeing 1 out of 20 cars on the highway just veer into oncoming traffic and crash.

I have to disagree on that. Not that your interpretation is "wrong" per se, but that's not how I would want things to work in my game.

Although it is not up to the player to declare "on the spot" what his character knows, it can certainly be something that
is already established in game; maybe the player stated in his background that his character is a bit of a Jeopardy weirdo who learned all the names of kings from the last century, and I as the DM agreed to this. I would then be hard pressed to ask him for some kind of check later on to remember a king's name. After all, we already know that he knows the answer, thus autosuccess.

However, the assumption that a passive score represents some basic knowledge that any character who reach that score (say, passive history of 15) has makes really no sense to me. Why would ALL the historians in the world have that exact knowledge? By defining the passive score as your mechanism to determine whether a character has the knowledge, you effectively create a world where all the knowledge on a given topic can be categorized by DC and is then known by all the characters having that level. I'm sure it would make debates a bit dull in the universities, since there would be just one universal truth, known of all those who have the proper level (score).

There are cars actually crashing on the highways all the time. I would not say 1 in 20 (there is no critical failure on skill checks), since sticking to the highway may be as low as DC 2 (so only non-proficient drivers with a negative ability modifier would even have a chance of failure), but the dice roll is there to represent the possibility. Yes, even experts can fail spectacularly; it happens all the time around us in various fields of activity (sports example are possibly the easiest to think of: pro football players fumbling the ball, baseball player missing a catch, some runner in the olympics missing a jump in the obstacle course, etc.). That d20 is there to represent those possibilities.

As for the idea of using a passive score to streamline a non-issue interaction, I would prefer to just get a DM adjudication without even referring to the passive score. If it's a non-issue, why even bother with a check (active or passive)? Just make the call. If something is worth the trouble of setting a DC, then it's worth the trouble of actually rolling the dice to see what happens!

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure I see what the difference really is between the check resolving a success/failure versus defining the state of the world. By the nature of the game, it ends up being the same thing.

When I say the check determines the state of the world, I mean that the check (a purely mechanic trick outside the game) allows the players (DM and PC) to define aspects that were, up until that point, not specified or defined in game.The difference is between the DM determining the aspect before the check is made, and letting your success or failure determine the aspect.

For example, if a character knew something and is recalling it vs fails to recall it can be determined by the DM based on player background and the knowledge in question, then rolled if they once did. Vs determining if they ever knew it.

Similarly it can be a check to see if the character can pick the lock or disarm a trap, and if they fail they can keep trying. Vs failure determining its too good a lock/trap. If they failed to climb the slippery cliff but can keep trying, vs it's an unclimbable cliff. Etc.

The fact that the DMG has an automatic success rule if time is the only factor strongly implies that in general failure alone does not mean something is impossible, unless of course something changed as part of failing to make it so. A character should be able to continue trying to remember something they can know, pick a lock or disarm a trap they can pick, or climb something they can climb. (As a side note I interpret it's possible to succeed meaning they can on a 20.) Unless failure means they cannot try again for that particular circumstance (this particular trap sprung, this particular cliff failure means you fall, this particular lock breaks if you don't succeed on the first try).

'State of the World' checks are very common way to run certain checks. But it doesn't seem intended as a default. Very IMO though.

[Ebon Rogue]

However, the assumption that a passive score represents some basic knowledge that any character who reach that score (say, passive history of 15) has makes really no sense to me. Why would ALL the historians in the world have that exact knowledge? By defining the passive score as your mechanism to determine whether a character has the knowledge, you effectively create a world where all the knowledge on a given topic can be categorized by DC and is then known by all the characters having that level. I'm sure it would make debates a bit dull in the universities, since there would be just one universal truth, known of all those who have the proper level (score).

Your right in that one. I guess I'm just terrible in explaining my ideas and points, so I apologize for the confusion in my last statement.

I meant that a historian would be able to find the information on the Kings over time. A check, on the spot, should be rolled.

What I intend the use of a passive skill for is to perform that skill over time. If a historian has the time to toil over tomes and scrolls to find information, the check for that should be done with a passive score and if it fails, roll for it.

In that case, with your view of the universal truth, while all Historian 15s might have access to the same information categorized in the DC and below, the time for a Historian to understand all DC~15 information would be beyond the scope of mortality. They would research information pertinent of their environment, situation, or career. In this case, you would be right in letting your player skip the roll if the King's History was noted as part of their background, but he should be allowed to use a passive score to come up with information within his passive skill over a length of time, probably as a downtime activity.

I also wouldn't call sports a over-time check. For athletics I am leaning more to labor over time. Not sudden feats of weight lifting, long jumping, or even a dexterous ball catch.

Edit: Hell, I'm down for universal truth idea. The idea that a Passive History 50 guy can learn everything ever is a neat idea. It would just take so long, the amount of new information would come in faster than he could take in. It'd be some god-level shenanigans to work out. I like when DnD turns into Philosophy, can look at the worlds in the game at a weird angle like this.

[BurgerBeast]

Not to derail my own thread, but...

Why did the designers decide to use a Passive Score?

Why not just have the DM roll behind the screen?

---

Also, if a character has all the time in the world to undertake one particular task, such as searching for the name of a King from a particular year in a library, he should be able to "take 20," not merely "take 10."

[Tanarii]

Not to derail my own thread, but...

Why did the designers decide to use a Passive Score?

Why not just have the DM roll behind the screen?Because either:
A) that would require rolling over and over again, every increment of time. For example every 10ft a perception check going down a passage while trying to watch for traps and other threats.
B) that would require giving away that there is something to be checked for. For example a character who is searching for traps or threats, merely rolling the dice once might give away something is there.

It's a time saver and way not to give away meta information. The rules don't require it's use, in general, although it's specified repeatedly for Passive Perception. But it can be used as a tool for any check if it applies and if it's useful. Especially since it's not limited to 'passive' tasks on the part of the PC, and can be used for something active.


Also, if a character has all the time in the world to undertake one particular task, such as searching for the name of a King from a particular year in a library, he should be able to "take 20," not merely "take 10."They can take 20. It's just not called that. It's the automatic success rule, first section of Multiple Ability checks, DMG page 237. Takes ten times as long to automatically succeed. They didn't call it take 20 because that allows the DM to judge if something is at all possible however they like. Personally I use it 'can they do it if they roll a 20', that's just not required. And they put it in the DMs hands, instead of the players, to declare when it should be used.

For example, the DM might determine that "a year" is the amount of time required for a single check. Or they migh declare it to take a month ... and if the player says they keep looking as long as it takes, tell the player they succeeded or it's impossible after ten have passed.

[Ebon Rogue]

Also, if a character has all the time in the world to undertake one particular task, such as searching for the name of a King from a particular year in a library, he should be able to "take 20," not merely "take 10."

I completely forgot that that was a thing. So what is the point then? That literally means a golem(those unthinking dumb things, remember?!) can succeed on a DC16 history check. There is no reason for a passive ability at that point. When would a DM sneak in a history check. Or worse an athletics check? Didn't notice that boulder you were dragging around?

DM: "You can't move faster than 10ft."
P1: "Why not?"
DM: "Make a perception check."
P1: "17?"
DM: "Your pulling a boulder."

This is dumb. By RAW, SiCK_Boy is right. All Historians know everything at their passive skill level.

[Tanarii]

This is dumb. By RAW, SiCK_Boy is right. All Historians know everything at their passive skill level.
You're making the same assumption he is: that a Lore check determines what you know, as opposed to (as each Skill says in the PhB) what you recall. You can't recall something with a Lore check, passive or otherwise, that you never knew.

Edit: this goes back to the developers wording things in a way that strongly indicate they did not intend 'state of the world' checks. Even for Int checks, it determines if you recall something. That makes 5e Lore checks very different from (for example) previous editions 'knowledge' checks.

[RSP]

Not to derail my own thread, but...

Why did the designers decide to use a Passive Score?

Why not just have the DM roll behind the screen?

---

Also, if a character has all the time in the world to undertake one particular task, such as searching for the name of a King from a particular year in a library, he should be able to "take 20," not merely "take 10."

The auto success rule is still DM discretion: if the DM doesn't think the PCs find the trap without a successful DC 20 Search check, then they don't find it.

The Players don't get to say "hey we autosuccess Search this place..."

The rule is to allow the game to continue narratively (DM quick checks the Passive Scores rather than stopping to roll all five PC's Perception scores) rather than stop every minute to roll dice.

Also, no take 10 or take 20 rule in this edition (unless I missed something). Again, the DM can choose this (by using a Passive score or auto success), but not the Players (as was the case in 3.5).

[CaptainSarathai]

You're making the same assumption he is: that a Lore check determines what you know, as opposed to (as each Skill says in the PhB) what you recall. You can't recall something with a Lore check, passive or otherwise, that you never knew.

Edit: this goes back to the developers wording things in a way that strongly indicate they did not intend 'state of the world' checks. Even for Int checks, it determines if you recall something. That makes 5e Lore checks very different from (for example) previous editions 'knowledge' checks.
If you never knew it, then the DM should not call for a check.
DM: The true name of Yog'Sothoth has not been spoken aloud for 20,000 years, and no written language in the history of time could adequately render such a dread and terrible sound
Player: Cool, so is that like, an Arcana check or Religion?
DM: Are you more than 20,000 years old? Because if not: no.
----

I see a few problems here, in the way that people are considering skill checks.

Firstly, people are forgetting that there's no NEED for a passive "floor" on a lot of checks, because a 1 does not auto-fail a check. You are always guaranteed to get Ability+1+Prof (if you're proficient).

Secondly, and related to the first point - the DC table is given on pg238, and ranges from
Very Easy: 5
Nearly Impossible: 30
By the end of the game, proficient players are getting a 12 if they have Ability5 and Proficiency. That's enough to complete an "easy" task 100% of the time.
If you have Expertise, you can ace Moderate tasks, very nearly Hard tasks.
Oddly, people keep using "lifting a boulder" as an example of an Athletics check. But it's not. The weight that Hrogg the Barbarian can lift is static and quantifiable, right there in the rulebooks (phb176) Hrogg can lift 30x his Strength score. If the man has Str20, he can lift 600lbs. If the boulder is bigger than that, then it's no good. So there is a functional "floor" for that check: Hrogg can always lift 600lb boulders.

Thirdly, the checks vary wildly in application. For instance, catching a football (Athletics, Dex Athletics?) is literally a split second activity. You don't have time to think about it, it's reflexive.
But even in a timed trivia contest, recalling who caught the longest touchdown pass in history can be done over a few seconds or even a full minute. I've had conversations where I stop for a moment and say, "ah, ah, c'mon I know it - right on the tip of my tongue" and usually my conversation partner will wait patiently for a bit longer than I would normally have gotten during the flow of conversation.
So it's reasonable that while yes, an astrophysicist could roll a 1 and temporarily forget how many moons circle Jupiter, chances are good that he might get another 5 rolls in (30 seconds worth of actions) before his colleague writes him off as an idiot. The football players only gets one chance to catch the ball.

Fourth, proficiency is special, and 5e really does a bad job with that. I have never met anyone who - when pressed, would say that they are an expert in History. Ever. I've had college professors who would not say that. Even someone who teaches World History, is not as proficient at teaching the evolution and significance of jazz music, as a Music History professor, and vise versa, that Music History professor might know about Chinese water drums, but not the history of the Song Dynasty.
Realistically, there should be a blank line next to History, so that it is simply,
"History: Cormyr
rather than just
"History: Dude, all of it"
Likewise, even Athletics has this problem. An NFL Wide Receiver is going to be ace at catching a football. But I would not bet on him in a strong man contest, and I would not pick a strong man over an NBA star in a vertical leap test. But we generalize,
"Oh, what kind of Athletics are you good at?"
"All of 'em, baby" *kisses own muscle*

Lastly, there's the issue of "big dice, little mod."
If you are a 20th level Wizard, with maximum Intelligence and Knowledge: Arcana, you are essentially the next best thing to a god. And yet, you only have about a 50/50 chance of acing a DC:Hard check. Not "very hard," not "nearly impossible." Just hard. That's pathetic. But it's the result of the large die used for checks.
What's wierd is that they assign +10 as the passive. That's massive. It creates a situation where characters would prefer to not roll. If I'm a level1 Cleric, with Wis+3 and Prof in Perception, I would rather not roll against any DC of "moderately difficult" (15), because my Passive automatically succeeds, but my roll has a 50/50 chance of failing. Even against something more complicated than DC:Easy, I have a chance to fail where my Passive would auto-pass.
That's fine if we assume that it's only used when I could "take 10" on an ability, but it's not. It's the likelihood of me spotting a tripwire trap in the dungeon hall. Why the heck would I ever roll, when I can just wait for the DM to tell me what I see with my Passive?



DM: "You can't move faster than 10ft."
P1: "Why not?"
DM: "Make a perception check."
P1: "17?"
DM: "Your pulling a boulder."
I spat my drink. That was hilarious.

[Tanarii]

Fourth, proficiency is special, and 5e really does a bad job with that. I have never met anyone who - when pressed, would say that they are an expert in History. Ever. I've had college professors who would not say that. Even someone who teaches World History, is not as proficient at teaching the evolution and significance of jazz music, as a Music History professor, and vise versa, that Music History professor might know about Chinese water drums, but not the history of the Song Dynasty.
Realistically, there should be a blank line next to History, so that it is simply,
"History: Cormyr
rather than just
"History: Dude, all of it"
Likewise, even Athletics has this problem. An NFL Wide Receiver is going to be ace at catching a football. But I would not bet on him in a strong man contest, and I would not pick a strong man over an NBA star in a vertical leap test. But we generalize,
"Oh, what kind of Athletics are you good at?"
"All of 'em, baby" *kisses own muscle*College World History & Music History professors, NFL Wide Recievers, Strong men, NBA Stars ... these people are all specialists in one particular field.

D&D adventurers are also specialists in one particular field: Adventuring. Technically they're all sub-specialists of that ... Cleric Adventurers, Wizard Adventurers, Rogue Adventurers, etc. Skill checks and Proficiency in them represents their ability to successfully do adventuring things, as determined by the DM. Pass a History check about something Adventurer would know. Perform Athletics within the bounds of an Adventurer's capabilities. All as modified by their adventuring specialty: Class Features (including magical spells).

I'm a fan of 'the DC should be the same for everyone in the party' and 'everyone in the party should get to make a check, proficient or not'. Because the system seems to assume adventuring PCs are generally on an even footing and no one shouldn't be able to make a check when it comes to basic adventuring tasks they'll be facing. But that's not the same as saying every commoner off the street should face the same DC, nor that a specialist Sage in a particular area of historical expertise should face the same DC. Nor that said Sage wouldn't be able to auto succeed in certain things that the adventuring PCs will automatically fail to know.

If you *really* want your game to assume that PCs are not adventurers doing adventuring things, but rather some kind of non-adventuring specialist thrown into adventuring, or even not adventurers at all, then you can apply that same mind-set to the PCs. But IMO it's kinda unfair to them without fair warning in advance, since the system assumes otherwise. Better would be to use the DMG Background Proficiency Variant (DMG p264), in which the player asks for a proficiency bonus based on background, if necessary explaining why their background would apply. (Personally I'd find that too slow and cumbersome but I run a fast-paced game for 8+ players per session.)


If you are a 20th level Wizard, with maximum Intelligence and Knowledge: Arcana, you are essentially the next best thing to a god.As far as I can tell, the game isn't balanced around level 20 characters. It's unsurprising that various assumptions start to break down after level 20. That said, the assumption is that level 20 characters are powerful, but not the next best thing to God. Except level 20 casters. And that's purely the result of the game providing high level spells that were originally introduced when level 9 spells were for casters were 'the next best thing to a god', and even level 7 & 8 spells were close to game-breaking. When characters were supposed to retire at level 12-14. It's hardly surprising that retaining them in the game causes a mismatch between the assumed game math for chance of success on resolution (ie d20+mod) and the highest level spells.

(Edit: Despite that, you seem to have missed that a level 20 Wizard, with a total +11 Arcana skills, will automatically succeed in an Intelligence (Arcana) Nearly Impossible DC 30 check given enough time, assuming it's possible at all. It's only on a one check right now check to recall something on the spot that they only have ~50/50 chance of success on a Hard check.)

tl;dr: Looking at Tier 4 characters to see if the math holds together doesn't make sense. Look at level 5-9 characters, and maybe level 13. (I chose those levels because that's where the prof bonus bumps up.)

[CaptainSarathai]

The problems go hand in hand though. The proficiency system is very bad, because it's massively abstracted.
You're saying that if Wizard fails a roll, it's because there don't know something, or can't recall something. But the only difference between what a Wizard knows, and a Barbarian knows, is at most 30% of the possible outcomes.
Someone with Int10 can score anywhere between 1-20 on a Knowledge Arcana check.
The Wizard, with proficiency and max skill gets between 12 and 31.
11/31 = 35%
It's even less at lower levels. Your memory about your profession is largely up to chance. It's absurd.

Add to that, classes which get Expertise. How is it that the Rogue can be better at picking locks (+16) than the Wizard is at identifying spells? Heck, the Rogue could even be better at that.
---

If I were going to fix it, there are two options I can see:
Give everyone Expertise in one skill from their Class List, at first level.
That's easy and at least makes you better in your field.

The other option is more extreme. Reduce all DCs by 5, and use a d10 instead of d20.
This has roughly the same effect as using Passive skills, as it increases the "floor" at which a skilled player cannot possibly fail, and also locks unskilled classes out of a greater range of checks.
---

I guess it just comes down to how you want to see the classes. If you want your Wizard to be the expert on all things Arcane, then that's what you do. But "vanilla" D&D does seem to assume that your Wizard barely knows more about magic than any other Adventurer, and that everyone is "Adventurer first" and class secondary.

[Tanarii]

The problems go hand in hand though. The proficiency system is very bad, because it's massively abstracted.I'm not seeing it as a problem, or bad, that it's massively abstracted. That's a feature, not a bug. Not only is it mostly working as intended straight out of the book, it's pretty easy to tweak or house-rule it if 'straight out of the book' doesn't work for a given group, since it's so abstracted and simple. As your suggestions, and many others on these boards, demonstrate.

[RSP]

The problems go hand in hand though. The proficiency system is very bad, because it's massively abstracted.
You're saying that if Wizard fails a roll, it's because there don't know something, or can't recall something. But the only difference between what a Wizard knows, and a Barbarian knows, is at most 30% of the possible outcomes.
Someone with Int10 can score anywhere between 1-20 on a Knowledge Arcana check.
The Wizard, with proficiency and max skill gets between 12 and 31.
11/31 = 35%
It's even less at lower levels. Your memory about your profession is largely up to chance. It's absurd.

Add to that, classes which get Expertise. How is it that the Rogue can be better at picking locks (+16) than the Wizard is at identifying spells? Heck, the Rogue could even be better at that.
---

If I were going to fix it, there are two options I can see:
Give everyone Expertise in one skill from their Class List, at first level.
That's easy and at least makes you better in your field.

The other option is more extreme. Reduce all DCs by 5, and use a d10 instead of d20.
This has roughly the same effect as using Passive skills, as it increases the "floor" at which a skilled player cannot possibly fail, and also locks unskilled classes out of a greater range of checks.
---

I guess it just comes down to how you want to see the classes. If you want your Wizard to be the expert on all things Arcane, then that's what you do. But "vanilla" D&D does seem to assume that your Wizard barely knows more about magic than any other Adventurer, and that everyone is "Adventurer first" and class secondary.

Second what Tanarii wrote: the skills are very much meant to fall under DM purview, hence the auto success / failure rules, Passives, etc.

5e skills are not really meant to encapsulate simulated lives, and related retained experiences, anymore than the devs intended to simulate a working economy using the Equipment, Lifestyle and Services rules.

Also: the Rogue will always be better at picking locks than a Wizard is at identifying spells as, RAW, there is no mechanism for identifying spells being cast. The spell Identify will reveal any spells cast on a creature however.

[Tanarii]

Also: the Rogue will always be better at picking locks than a Wizard is at identifying spells as, RAW, there is no mechanism for identifying spells being cast. The spell Identify will reveal any spells cast on a creature however.A DM can, in theory, pick an ability score, define what proficiency (if any) applies, and set a DC.That's the beauty of the system.

As well as, to others, the horror! Imagine all that DM leeway and flexibility! Clearly enabling the DM via a flexible system hurts the players ability to play the game effectively.

However, assuming that DMs in general will allow Intelligence (Arcana) when that's not got anything to do with what the Arcana skill says it has to do with is probably a bad idea.

Of course, there's also this weird assumption that an adventuring rogue, the skillmonkey class, that has placed expertise in the appropriate skill (assuming one applies), should not be as good as the adventuring Wizard at Arcana. Of course they should. That's what they do.

[Vogonjeltz]

Again, in no way true RAW. The Passive Checks section clearly defines rules for any Skill Check to use Passive Checks if they fit the circumstances of either being done repeatedly, or the DM wants a result but wants to keep the Check a secret.

check the two specific examples given for each of those.

Repeated checks: Secret Doors.
Hidden checks: Noticing Hidden creatures.

In both cases we're covered by the idea that situational awareness is in play.

As you walk down a corridor, do you notice a hidden door? (repeated)
As you walk down a corridor, do you notice the trap in the floor? (Single event, but hidden, and definitely not choosing to search the corridor for traps).

Investigation has similar passive use cases. Your character enters the room, sees a large pool of blood on the floor with stains leading up to a wall with a picture frame on it. If their passive investigation is high enough they deduce that there must be a secret door simply by looking, without having to consider the evidence.

Part of the reason for this is corrolary to the Wisdom (Perception) score, the DM needs to have a method to know if the character can do automatically without the Player having themselve that the character is attempting to do something.

Intellectual abilities are going to tend towards passive use, whereas Physical abilities (Constitution being a possible exception) will not.
(i.e. Passive Wisdom (Medicine) for recognizing an illness just by looking at an afflicted character; Passive Wisdom (Insight) to automatically recognize a lie without the player actually asking if the NPC is lying; Intelligence (History/Religion/Arcana/Nature) scores could be used by the DM to determine if a character simply knowing the answer to a question, or recognizes a thing without the player asking what that thing is/if the character recognizes it (which would lead to a check if their score didn't qualify).)

[Tanarii]

Intellectual abilities are going to tend towards passive use, whereas Physical abilities (Constitution being a possible exception) will not.Passive checks do NOT require that they be 'passive' on the part of the PC. This is explicit RAW.

Edit:
Here it is, since you apparently can't find it yourself:
"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Lets read shall we?
What is a passive check? a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls.
What can it be used for? the average result for a task done repeatedly or to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice
What does passive in passive check mean? no die rolls.
what can it be used for? tasks & secret checks
Does this mean passive = passive on the part of the character? No.
Does this mean it can be used for any kind of tasks, including active ones done repeatedly or active things that need a secret check? Yes.

[Vogonjeltz]

Passive checks do NOT require that they be 'passive' on the part of the PC. This is explicit RAW.

Edit:
Here it is, since you apparently can't find it yourself:
"A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."

Lets read shall we?
What is a passive check? a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls.
What can it be used for? the average result for a task done repeatedly or to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice
What does passive in passive check mean? no die rolls.
what can it be used for? tasks & secret checks
Does this mean passive = passive on the part of the character? No.
Does this mean it can be used for any kind of tasks, including active ones done repeatedly or active things that need a secret check? Yes.

The examples given:
1) Searching for Secret Doors over and over again.
2) Noticing a hidden monster.

Let's do the extra credit reading on what these actually constitute.

DMG 103: Secret Doors.
"Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it. Characters can also find a secret door by actively searching the location where the door is hidden and succeeding on a Wisdom (Perception) check."

(emphasis added to aid novitiate readers in locating the key, and most instructive, phrases which apply to the exact scenario).

PHB 177: Hiding.
"that check's total is contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature that actively searches for signs of your presence." (emphasis added).

"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" (no emphasis added, WotC did that themselves).


TLDR version: WotC explicitly calls out both of the examples as being passive NOT active.

I completely understand how one might have read the text about Passive checks and thought it didn't really mean passive. But once the context of the entire rules set is taken into account, that can not possibly be the meaning. A fact which has been reiterated by the lead designer.

[Tanarii]

The examples given:
1) Searching for Secret Doors over and over again.
2) Noticing a hidden monster.As I said in the other thread, what's that got to do with the price of milk?

That's not context, it's irrelevant justification for your preconcieved notion of how you want it to work. As opposed to just reading exactly what the RAW says. It clearly defines exactly what a passive check is. It's a check that does not involve a roll. It clearly defines when they are used. For secret checks or for tasks done repeatedly.

[Vogonjeltz]

As I said in the other thread, what's that got to do with the price of milk?

That's not context, it's irrelevant justification for your preconcieved notion of how you want it to work. As opposed to just reading exactly what the RAW says. It clearly defines exactly what a passive check is. It's a check that does not involve a roll. It clearly defines when they are used. For secret checks or for tasks done repeatedly.

It gives the specific examples involved, examples which are clearly defined as not active.

[RSP]

It gives the specific examples involved, examples which are clearly defined as not active.

Examples do not make the rule, they are only, in fact, some of the possibilities that can be drawn from the rules. Saying the examples are the rules themselves isn't correctly identifying the rules.

[Vogonjeltz]

Examples do not make the rule, they are only, in fact, some of the possibilities that can be drawn from the rules. Saying the examples are the rules themselves isn't correctly identifying the rules.

It's rather telling that the only two examples given are both passive.

[RSP]

It's rather telling that the only two examples given are both passive.

I'd say it's more telling that rules state exactly the situations to use a Passive Checks.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'd say it's more telling that rules state exactly the situations to use a Passive Checks.

Yes, and then gives the only existing examples that are passive. Clearly stated.

[RSP]

Yes, and then gives the only existing examples that are passive. Clearly stated.

If you feel it's appropriate to play only using examples of the rules in the books, by all means do so, but you'll be ignoring a whole lot of the game

[Tanarii]

It gives the specific examples involved, examples which are clearly defined as not active.
What's that got to do with the price of milk?

You still can't answer this question, because the answer is: it has nothing to do with the rule written. You're inventing an additional unstated requirement and filtering your interpretation of the rule through it. RAW does not say that it needs to something "clearly defined as not active" elsewhere in the book. It says:
Passive checks are checks that don't involve any die rolls.
That they're for a task done repeatedly or secret checks.

Point to where in the non-example part of the rule, it says they cannot be active? If you can't do that, you're mis-representing the Rule as Written.

[Karcharos]

One could easily houserule that if the player will succeed on a roll of, say, 5 or higher, they don't need to roll at all. Or if their bonus is higher than the DC, they just succeed.

[Tanarii]

One could easily houserule that if the player will succeed on a roll of, say, 5 or higher, they don't need to roll at all. Or if their bonus is higher than the DC, they just succeed.
The DMG suggests generally the DM shouldn't call for checks if they think it's DC 5, under most circumstances, so the latter kinda exists already.

[BurgerBeast]

The DMG suggests generally the DM shouldn't call for checks if they think it's DC 5, under most circumstances, so the latter kinda exists already.

I'm not sure if you meant to say the former, here. In any case. Both do exist. You can't fail a roll if your modifier is higher than the DC. Here I mean modifier considering all temporary factors.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure if you meant to say the former, here. In any case. Both do exist. You can't fail a roll if your modifier is higher than the DC. Here I mean modifier considering all temporary factors.
I meant if there are no DC 5 checks, there's no point in auto succeed at your Mod or less DC. But you're right, since penalties to checks are mostly nonexistent you won't fail your mod or less DC regardless.

[Vogonjeltz]

What's that got to do with the price of milk?

You still can't answer this question, because the answer is: it has nothing to do with the rule written. You're inventing an additional unstated requirement and filtering your interpretation of the rule through it. RAW does not say that it needs to something "clearly defined as not active" elsewhere in the book. It says:
Passive checks are checks that don't involve any die rolls.
That they're for a task done repeatedly or secret checks.

Point to where in the non-example part of the rule, it says they cannot be active? If you can't do that, you're mis-representing the Rule as Written.

No, it illuminates how the rule as written functions. It's literally called a passive check, and the examples are when a creature isn't actively trying to do the thing (with examples also given or scenarios where creatures are actively making an attempt to do something specified as a Check rather than using a Score).

The rule stands in total contrast to the standard ability check.

[RSP]

No, it illuminates how the rule as written functions. It's literally called a passive check, and the examples are when a creature isn't actively trying to do the thing (with examples also given or scenarios where creatures are actively making an attempt to do something specified as a Check rather than using a Score).

The rule stands in total contrast to the standard ability check.

Here's a random part of the PHB I just turned to:

"SKILLS
Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. (A character’s starting skill proficiencies are determined at character creation, and a monster’s skill proficiencies appear in the monster’s stat block.)
For example, a Dexterity check might reflect a character’s attempt to pull off an acrobatic stunt, to palm an object, or to stay hidden."

According to your interpretation of the PHB, the ONLY type of skill checks in the game are Dexterity checks used to pull off an acrobatic stunt, to palm an object, or to stay hidden, and there are no other skill checks in 5e because the examples given only illustrates these three checks, so, regardless of what the rules actually say, these are the only types of checks that exist in 5e.

I'm not sure why you think this, but it is absolutely wrong. Examples are not rules, nor should they be used as such.

[Tanarii]

It's literally called a passive check
And the very first sentence literally tells you why it's called that.
Because it doesn't involve any die rolls.

That sentence alone proves your hypothesis that they're called passive checks because it's passive on the part of the PC is literally wrong. You are claiming its one thing, the printing in the book tells us in plain sepia and brown that it's something else. Your hypothesis is staked before it even made it out of the coffin.

The rest of the rule where it describes what you can use them for, again literally contradicting your hypothesis, is just cutting its head off and burning the body to make sure.

Edit: It's getting hard not to make snarky comments at this point, because I'm getting frustrated by your ability to completely ignore the actual words in the actual book say the exact opposite of what you are claiming, and furthermore they say it in no uncertain terms. There's no wiggle room at all, and yet you continue to try to ignore them anyway.

[Psikerlord]

I think passive perception is broken and bad for the game (you get the same guy noticing everything (yawn), the static PP vs trap static DC problem, and stealth expert PCs become nearly infalliable).

However, I do very much like the idea of Str 16 guy auto breaks down door, but Str 11 guy has to roll (equal or under his str, or against DC 10, or whatever). Similarly for monster knowledge, the Int 16 guy IDs the rust monster by looking at it, but the Int 10 guy would need to make a check. But never in any kind of opposed check way like passive percetpion. In any opposed case - both roll - and whoever succeeds by the most wins.

[Psikerlord]

Not to derail my own thread, but...

Why did the designers decide to use a Passive Score?

Why not just have the DM roll behind the screen?

---

Also, if a character has all the time in the world to undertake one particular task, such as searching for the name of a King from a particular year in a library, he should be able to "take 20," not merely "take 10."

It seems to me the designers were trying to avoid 2 common issues in D&D:

(1) Not allowing retries. What they shoudl have done instead was said, unless something signficant changes, you cant try again. Instead they went with, if you try over and over, you get the average 10 (as if taking 10, ala 3e) plus your mod. Which of course doenst make any sense, why cant the PC take 20?

(2) Trying to prevent the "tip off" to your players by asking for a perception check, when you want to keep something secret. This however is better solved by just letting your players roll regardless (esp for an ambush or trap that is about to spring anyways - who cares if the players roll just before you reveal it?), or just simply roll secretly for them (eg: pocket being picked, if succeed, player wont know till much later when they cant do anything about it - but in that case, should you really have that encounter at all? But regardless, the GM is often making secret rolls behind the screen anyway - NPC insight checks, random encounter checks, treasure checks, etc).

In practice howeer at the table, PP caused more problems than it purported to solve.

[mephnick]

I've always just used a list of prerolls for secret checks and continue to do so.

[Tanarii]

(1) Not allowing retries. What they shoudl have done instead was said, unless something signficant changes, you cant try again. Instead they went with, if you try over and over, you get the average 10 (as if taking 10, ala 3e) plus your mod. Which of course doenst make any sense, why cant the PC take 20?

Gonna quote myself, because it's apparently a commonly missed thing in the DMG:

They can take 20. It's just not called that. It's the automatic success rule, first section of Multiple Ability checks, DMG page 237. Takes ten times as long to automatically succeed. They didn't call it take 20 because that allows the DM to judge if something is at all possible however they like. Personally I use it 'can they do it if they roll a 20', that's just not required. And they put it in the DMs hands, instead of the players, to declare when it should be used.
I can see where the confusion might arise though. AFAICT even though passive skill checks can be for any (active or passive on the part of the PC) task done repeatedly, it's intended primarily to be used with doing the same task repeatedly for a different 'thing' each time. In other words, if you search/investigate as you go, or search several libraries for information (Lore checks), or balance across a ice field (Acrobatics checks) those are all the same task in different locations, so a different 'thing'. If you search a desk until you find the hidden compartment, search a single library for the information you're sure is there, or keep trying to make fwd progress across a single slippery spot where failure means stopping but not falling, then the DMG auto-success rule should kick in. (Edit: I realize that's a line the DM can draw in different places, but that's in keeping with 5e's philosophy of providing the DM with tool to assist with resolution, not hard-coding rules that he must follow.)

Also, IMO Passive Checks for tasks done repeatedly and secret checks are a fantastic rule. They fix two things that have been a constant thorn in the side of D&D since 3e's Search and Spot and Lore-type skills were introduced, and it's done so in a way that's a nice global rule that the DM can apply to any skill check it's applicable to.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here's a random part of the PHB I just turned to:

Turning to a random page is incredibly unlikely to result in anything helpful to any given topic of discussion (unless that discussion is: "What's in the PHB?")

Also, the takeaway from what I wrote would be that the examples for active checks would lead to checks that use further active examples. What you wrote further didn't make any sense (why do you think an example of what might be Dexterity checks would make Strength checks not exist?).

Here, I'll do the helpful thing and point you at the direct quote from the DMG: "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." (DMG 237)

That section elaborates further by describing Multiple Ability Checks, indicating that with enough attempts and time a character should eventually succeed (at a task they're capable of succeeding at), but that it is assumed to take ten times the normal amount of time needed. Obvious exceptions (failure costs, for example) are taken into account.

The fact is that the PHB passive checks text is poorly written and leads a reader into misunderstanding how the rule functions. I agree to that, but it's factually only used for passive things in the game.

Complain to WotC that the text really does need to be rewritten through errata if you like.

[RSP]

Turning to a random page is incredibly unlikely to result in anything helpful to any given topic of discussion (unless that discussion is: "What's in the PHB?")

Also, the takeaway from what I wrote would be that the examples for active checks would lead to checks that use further active examples. What you wrote further didn't make any sense (why do you think an example of what might be Dexterity checks would make Strength checks not exist?).

Here, I'll do the helpful thing and point you at the direct quote from the DMG: "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt." (DMG 237)

That section elaborates further by describing Multiple Ability Checks, indicating that with enough attempts and time a character should eventually succeed (at a task they're capable of succeeding at), but that it is assumed to take ten times the normal amount of time needed. Obvious exceptions (failure costs, for example) are taken into account.

The fact is that the PHB passive checks text is poorly written and leads a reader into misunderstanding how the rule functions. I agree to that, but it's factually only used for passive things in the game.

Complain to WotC that the text really does need to be rewritten through errata if you like.

No it's not "factually only used for passive things in the game." It specifically says what it's for.

You can dismiss my example, but it's exactly what you're doing: citing an example as a rule. My use of it was to show how ridiculous that is for playing the game, which you seem to acknowledge.

[Krestus]

Intimidation gets a passive score in my games. It deserves a passive score tacked onto a whole bunch of different actions the players can take and still plays a role even when the PC doesn't necessarily think to say "I want to roll to attempt to intimidate the guy"

[Vogonjeltz]

No it's not "factually only used for passive things in the game." It specifically says what it's for.

You can dismiss my example, but it's exactly what you're doing: citing an example as a rule. My use of it was to show how ridiculous that is for playing the game, which you seem to acknowledge.

Yeah, no. If you disagree that it's factually only used for passive things in the game, then you should show an example of it being used for an active thing in the game.
Any citation will do. (Examples of that don't exist, but if they did, it would suffice). Otherwise, merely engaging in shade throwing isn't sufficient for a convincing argument of any kind.

[RSP]

Yeah, no. If you disagree that it's factually only used for passive things in the game, then you should show an example of it being used for an active thing in the game.
Any citation will do. (Examples of that don't exist, but if they did, it would suffice). Otherwise, merely engaging in shade throwing isn't sufficient for a convincing argument of any kind.

It's been shown. I can show it to you again, and you can ignore it by saying something that doesn't make sense, like only specifically stated examples are what's allowed in the rules. Here's a quote:

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

So searching multiple times is one. A Player stating they use Insight when talking with each person at a party is another. These are actively done by the player, but, since it's a repeated action, you use the passive check rules.

[lperkins2]

So, I don't think anyone has laid out why passive perception acts as a floor for active perception checks in most cases. It comes down to game balance, both in terms of what characters can do, and how much time is spent tracking everything.

An argument could be made that stealth should be rolled every turn a character is hiding, contested by an active perception check, after all, there is a risk and consequence of failure every time they do anything. The problem is twofold. First, it would drag the game to a halt. Second, it would essentially eliminate hiding, since it usually won't be many rounds before the hider rolls more than 5 lower than the searcher (1 time in 4). Instead, the designers settled on a system that is fast to run and avoids the auto-fail-in-1d20-rounds issue, but still sucks 'cause there is no good way to run stealth.

Anyway, the logic goes something like this.

Dexterity (Stealth) is the ability that determines how well you can hide, and how well you can remain quiet; since trying to remain undetected has a consequence for failure, and failure is interesting, it should not auto-succeed. It is a continual action, so a passive score could be used, but passive stealth vs passive perception would often not let the hider succeed, and again make for bad game balance, so we'll use a single roll and treat it sorta like a passive score until we stop hiding.

Since a character still might find us even if they are not actively looking, we need some way to determine if that happens. We could use an opposed roll, at disadvantage or something like 1d20+mods-10, but then we'd be back to lots of rolls. We could just observe that the lowest check anyone can get is 1 + mods, but then we basically never fail stealth rolls. Since keeping an eye out for lurkers is something done repeatedly over a period of time, it fits perfectly for a passive roll. This means that the hider needs to beat our passive perception to stay hidden, which means they should succeed against an even opponent about half the time. This is a generous assumption, since hiding in most circumstances is bloody hard.

This also covers things like two groups approaching each other on a road. They will see each other eventually, the only question is who sees whom first, and at what distance. Usually they'll spot each other a good ways off, and nobody cares if the distance for starting the encounter is 500' or 505', so we just use the passive score to get a rough feel for it.

What if they are actively looking? This what an active perception check is for, specifically. The question then is if a character who is actively looking for someone should ever do worse than his twin who is twiddling his thumbs? If so, a character who is actively searching should stop passively observing, but this doesn't really make sense and isn't RAW.

So what's the sequence to determine who sees whom?
The hider obtains light obscurement or better and makes a Dexterity (Stealth) check. This check is used until he is no longer attempting to hide or is discovered.
If his Dexterity (Stealth) check is lower than or equal to the passive Wisdom (Perception) check of any awake creature with senses necessary to perceive him, he fails to hide from that creature. Unless they're a team-mate, it is generally assumed they call out his position to their allies and his attempt to hide fails.
If the hider moves into a new area, his same check from before is compared to the passive scores of any creatures in the new area. The same applies to creatures approaching the hider. Once again, if the passive Wisdom (Perception) of any of the new creatures is higher than his check, he is discovered.
Any creature which suspects the hider might be nearby can make an active Wisdom (Perception) check. This might be in response to noticing footprints in the dust, or an open door. Note that this does not in any way replace the already-done passive Wisdom (Perception) calculation from before. If the hider's check was less than the passive score, the searcher has already spotted the hider and no active check is required. If the searcher rolls above a 10, the new perception value is compared to the hider's check, possibly discovering the hider. Otherwise, there is no point to compare the scores, since if an active check with a d20 less than 11 would find the hider, the hider would already be spotted. This does not mean the total for the active check is increased to the passive score, just that there are always two calculations used to determine who sees whom.

As a shortcut in the math, you could just have the active searcher roll and report the higher of the active or passive check, since the outcome is the same, hence effectively a floor.

Off the top of my head, I can think of one circumstance where I would not allow the passive score: when a character first awakens, or possibly following a teleport. The idea here is you are unaware of your surroundings immediately prior to the check, and it takes some time to adjust.


Edit: To answer the original question, passive scores never act as a floor for the value of active ones, they just sometimes effectively do. So when would it come up? When someone is trying to do something better than the rules would otherwise allow, and the rules would otherwise use the passive score. Since passive scores are rarely used, I can't think of an exact example off the top of my head, the closes I get is jumping. Say there is a ledge outside the normal jumping range of a player, but he wants to try anyway. Normally you can move your strength score in feet as a running jump, or say 16 feet for a level 1 fighter. Suppose he needs to cross a gap 17 feet wide. If you decide to let the player try, instead of automatically failing, have him roll a strength (Athletics) or strength (Acrobatics) check, with a DC appropriate for the circumstances (weight of gear, water, wind, et cetera, probably DC 15). If he fails the check, he still jumps the 16 feet that he always can, he just misses the ledge by a foot. Not exactly a minimum on a skill check, but you can see the parallel logic.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's been shown. I can show it to you again, and you can ignore it by saying something that doesn't make sense, like only specifically stated examples are what's allowed in the rules. Here's a quote:

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

So searching multiple times is one. A Player stating they use Insight when talking with each person at a party is another. These are actively done by the player, but, since it's a repeated action, you use the passive check rules.

A) The case you quoted is literally stated as being passive, NOT active: "Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it." (DMG 103) (Bolded so you don't miss it this time)

Was the font size too small earlier?

In case this isn't clear to you, when I ask for an example, I mean an actual book cited example. Not rhetoric, not anecdotal not-rules personal experience, and certainly not pointing to the same passage which is actually an example of it being passive instead of active.

[RSP]

It's been shown. I can show it to you again, and you can ignore it by saying something that doesn't make sense, like only specifically stated examples are what's allowed in the rules. Here's a quote:

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again."

So searching multiple times is one. A Player stating they use Insight when talking with each person at a party is another. These are actively done by the player, but, since it's a repeated action, you use the passive check rules.


A) The case you quoted is literally stated as being passive, NOT active: "Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it." (DMG 103) (Bolded so you don't miss it this time)

Was the font size too small earlier?

In case this isn't clear to you, when I ask for an example, I mean an actual book cited example. Not rhetoric, not anecdotal not-rules personal experience, and certainly not pointing to the same passage which is actually an example of it being passive instead of active.

As anyone can see who's reading this, I quoted something different than you, despite your attempt to insult and highlight your quote. Not sure why you think its appropriate to misquote people to try and prove you're right, but I'm assuming you're just trolling at this point.

The rules clearly state how to use Passive Checks. Clearly, you are either just trying to mess with people while hiding behind a keyboard, or you really can't grasp the concept, in which case I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do to help you.

[Vogonjeltz]

As anyone can see who's reading this, I quoted something different than you, despite your attempt to insult and highlight your quote. Not sure why you think its appropriate to misquote people to try and prove you're right, but I'm assuming you're just trolling at this point.

The rules clearly state how to use Passive Checks. Clearly, you are either just trying to mess with people while hiding behind a keyboard, or you really can't grasp the concept, in which case I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do to help you.

That is not a case example, and fails to answer the request for a single example supporting your position.

Passive scores are exactly what they say they are, passive.

[BurgerBeast]

That is not a case example, and fails to answer the request for a single example supporting your position.

Passive scores are exactly what they say they are, passive.

Except that not what they say they are, so...

[Vogonjeltz]

Except that not what they say they are, so...

A) The case you quoted is literally stated as being passive, NOT active: "Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it." (DMG 103) (Bolded so you don't miss it this time)

Missed it again? Literally says it's without actively searching. Try again.

[RSP]

Don't worry about it Burger; Vogon's just trolling. He necro'd this thread just to repeat his ignoring of the rules...

[BurgerBeast]

Don't worry about it Burger; Vogon's just trolling. He necro'd this thread just to repeat his ignoring of the rules...

I don't think he is. He makes these sorts of errors all the time. I think it's genuine.

@Vogon:

You're generalizing the specific. No specific example can be used to over-ride [edit: over-ride was a terrible word choice. I think "adjust" or "contextualize" is better] the general rule.*

* This may seem strange, because usually this is precisely the case: we encounter a specific example, learn from it, and then override[edit: adjust] the general rule.

However, in D&D, it is an intentional design goal that specific overrides general.** So when you read a specific rule, you can't use it to adjust your conception of the general rule, because it may be a intentional override (never intended to conform to the general rule).

However, in the case of an unspecified rule, the general rule still applies.

** which is not the usual case in most of our real experience. Specific cases (at least scientific ones), in the real world, cannot violate generalized universal laws. [edit: so we would be forced to change the general rule]

[Vogonjeltz]

He necro'd this thread

Thread necromancy applies to threads whose last post is older than 45 days. Just like with passive checks, your statement was innaccurate.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1
Thread Necromancy
Bringing a thread back from "the dead." If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, don't reply to it. Start a new topic, if you want to discuss the subject (you are welcome to link to the old thread). If you think it would be better to resurrect an old thread, PM a moderator for that subforum and wait for approval. The original poster of a creation in Homebrew (and only that poster) may revive a creation beyond the 45 day threshold without prior Moderator approval.


You're generalizing the specific. No specific example can be used to over-ride [edit: over-ride was a terrible word choice. I think "adjust" or "contextualize" is better] the general rule.*

* This may seem strange, because usually this is precisely the case: we encounter a specific example, learn from it, and then override the general rule.

However, in D&D, it is an intentional design goal that specific overrides general.** So when you read a specific rule, you can't use it to adjust your conception of the general rule, because it may be a intentional override (never intended to conform to the general rule).

However, in the case of an unspecified rule, the general rule still applies.

** which is not the usual case in most of our real experience. Specific cases (at least scientific ones), in the real world, cannot violate generalized universal laws. [edit: so we would be forced to change the general rule]

I'm not extrapolating the specific to the general nor am I excluding information.

The actual defined examples are specified as being non-active: searching for secret doors over and over + noticing a hidden monster. The one thing I asked for has not been supplied or pointed to.

I merely requested a single example, anywhere in the game, in any published book, that shows a passive score being used for an active attempt. All the examples of passive scores provided in the rules clearly state they are used when a character is not actively trying to do something.

You've asserted that I have it wrong. That's fine, but I want actual proof, not mere claims that the general rule is X when the examples clearly denote Y.

[BurgerBeast]

I merely requested a single example, anywhere in the game, in any published book, that shows a passive score being used for an active attempt. All the examples of passive scores provided in the rules clearly state they are used when a character is not actively trying to do something.

You've asserted that I have it wrong. That's fine, but I want actual proof, not mere claims that the general rule is X when the examples clearly denote Y.

And you're asking for more than you ought to -- in other words you're proposing an unjustified burden of proof. The book explicitly says what Passive checks are for. This is sufficient. No examples are required.

Further, the presence of examples that [edit: appear to] contradict the explicit description, which would usually present strong [edit: some] evidence for your side of the argument, do not serve as evidence at all, precisely because D&D is an exception-based ruleset. It only makes sense that examples of exceptions are exceptional. [edit: see Tanarii's post, below, which presents an argument that trumps this, anyway]

This is the context we are pointing at, and from our side you appear to be missing it.

[Tanarii]

It's worth noting it doesn't contradict. Specific sub-rules and examples that include using perception passively (on the part of the character), doesn't contradict the fact that Passive checks (the labeled mechanical feature) has a general rule that also allows the mechanic feature to be used for something being done actively.

Tasks being done repeatedly could be either actively done or passively done on the part of the character. Secret checks could be for something either actively done or passively done on the part of the PC. But it's a fact that the general rule includes no restriction anywhere limiting it to passive on the part of the PC.

Passive Check means you don't roll the dice. The rule even explicitly says that's exactly what it means. Right in the first sentence. Anyone trying to argue otherwise in the face of the rule explicitly telling us exactly what it means is either making bad assumption and mistaken because they haven't read the rule, trolling, or in denial.

And it's scary how much this mistake is out there in the gaming world. Angry has made it repeatedly in his blogs. Even JC made it in his podcast on stealth.

[BurgerBeast]

It's worth noting it doesn't contradict. Specific sub-rules and examples that include using perception passively (on the part of the character), doesn't contradict the fact that Passive checks (the labeled mechanical feature) has a general rule that also allows the mechanic feature to be used for something being done actively.

Tasks being done repeatedly could be either actively done or passively done on the part of the character. Secret checks could be for something either actively done or passively done on the part of the PC. But it's a fact that the general rule includes no restriction anywhere limiting it to passive on the part of the PC.

Passive Check means you don't roll the dice. The rule even explicitly says that's exactly what it means. Right in the first sentence.

Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. It's a much better point. I edited my comments above. I was trying to explain it from Vogon's point of view, insofar as I can.


And it's scary how much this mistake is out there in the gaming world. Angry has made it repeatedly in his blogs. Even JC made it in his podcast on stealth.

Well, in their defense:

JC's comments could mean that RAW don't match RAI. I think it is more likely, however, that he just misunderstands the RAW in this particular case.

Angry, as far as I can tell, just prefers to use a different rule for Passive checks, and rejects (or would reject) the 5e RAW (I could be wrong on this).

[Tanarii]

JC's comments could mean that RAW don't match RAI. I think it is more likely, however, that he just misunderstands the RAW in this particular case.I think most likely he was trying to get across that in the case of Passive Perception, it's absolutely intended to work when the PC is not 'actively' searching, ie rooting around or tearing a place apart, per the specific sub-rules for it. Speculation on my part of course, but it fits the context of what he was talking about when he said 'Passive is right in the name' (paraphrased).

I don't think it's a given JC misunderstands the RAW. I think it's more likely he was trying to drive home an accurate point for a RAW sub-rule, and said something that doesn't match the RAW general rule in the process.

However, I still dispute that terminology ('passively' searching) to a degree. Despite it saying that in the sub-rules. :smallwink: Because if you're doing something other than looking at the world around you, concentrating on something else like Navigating or mapping or foraging, you don't get to use passive perception. So even when the PC not actively searching by tearing a place apart or rooting around, they're still actively observing the world around them. They're hardly passive.

Also distraction penalties apply (disadvantage or -5 to passive score), reading a book or watching a play or talking to someone or moving too fast. So clearly you can't be not fully actively observing the world around you eitheR.

Just further proof that trying to base it on 'active' or 'passive' on the part of the PC is a fools errand. (Edit: or more likely, just me trying to reframe the terminology, because I don't like the way it confuses the general rule. I have to be honest, because on some level I'm pretty sure that's why I look at 'passively searching = actively observing the world' this way.)


Angry, as far as I can tell, just prefers to use a different rule for Passive checks, and rejects (or would reject) the 5e RAW (I could be wrong on this).Oh, he definitely ends up with different rules, because he's Angry and that's what he does. But his entire reasoning for the alternative way of thinking about them starts off with 'passive checks are things done passively by the PC'.

[Vogonjeltz]

And you're asking for more than you ought to -- in other words you're proposing an unjustified burden of proof. The book explicitly says what Passive checks are for. This is sufficient. No examples are required.

Further, the presence of examples that [edit: appear to] contradict the explicit description, which would usually present strong [edit: some] evidence for your side of the argument, do not serve as evidence at all, precisely because D&D is an exception-based ruleset. It only makes sense that examples of exceptions are exceptional. [edit: see Tanarii's post, below, which presents an argument that trumps this, anyway]

This is the context we are pointing at, and from our side you appear to be missing it.

I don't agree that asking you for an iota of evidence in favor of your claim is more than I ought to ask for.


It's worth noting it doesn't contradict. Specific sub-rules and examples that include using perception passively (on the part of the character), doesn't contradict the fact that Passive checks (the labeled mechanical feature) has a general rule that also allows the mechanic feature to be used for something being done actively.

Tasks being done repeatedly could be either actively done or passively done on the part of the character. Secret checks could be for something either actively done or passively done on the part of the PC. But it's a fact that the general rule includes no restriction anywhere limiting it to passive on the part of the PC.

Passive Check means you don't roll the dice. The rule even explicitly says that's exactly what it means. Right in the first sentence. Anyone trying to argue otherwise in the face of the rule explicitly telling us exactly what it means is either making bad assumption and mistaken because they haven't read the rule, trolling, or in denial.

And it's scary how much this mistake is out there in the gaming world. Angry has made it repeatedly in his blogs. Even JC made it in his podcast on stealth.

Sorry, what?! You listened to the podcast and you're still arguing this?

JC made it clear that the passive checks are non-active many times; that the active use is the Search action which nets the character a roll.


Because if you're doing something other than looking at the world around you, concentrating on something else like Navigating or mapping or foraging, you don't get to use passive perception. So even when the PC not actively searching by tearing a place apart or rooting around, they're still actively observing the world around them. They're hardly passive.

As justified in the rules. it's a question of focused attention. If you're focused on looking for a particular task (navigation, tracking, foraging), you get too distracted to notice your surroundings as you would if you're just walking around not looking for anything specific.

For the delineation of the passive/active we already have the rubric:
An active check is a focused attempt to do or stop something (for contests).
A passive check is what occurs when you aren't trying.

It's the difference between examining a wall for a hidden door, and noticing as you walk by that there's the outline of a door in the wall.

[BurgerBeast]

I don't agree that asking you for an iota of evidence in favor of your claim is more than I ought to ask for.

That can only becaus you either don't understand the claim or don't understand how burden of proof works.

If the monopoly rules say: "on your turn, roll the dice and move your piece the indicated number of squares," then this is sufficient to communicate the rule. An example is not required. If you say an example is required, you are wrong.


Sorry, what?! You listened to the podcast and you're still arguing this?

Yes, and he (Tanarii) is still correct. You still do not understand the point.


JC made it clear that the passive checks are non-active many times; that the active use is the Search action which nets the character a roll.

Which contradicts the RAW. Which is the point. It's really quite obvious.

Here's the problem: I (and I think Tanarii) can explain your position in a way that would satisfy you. I do not believe that you can explain my (or his) position in a way that would satisfy me (or him).

If you could, you wouldn't answer in the way you do.

[Vogonjeltz]

That can only becaus you either don't understand the claim or don't understand how burden of proof works.

So, you're unable to provide a single example anywhere in the published WotC materials to back your claims. Is that what I am to understand from this non-answer?

[BurgerBeast]

So, you're unable to provide a single example anywhere in the published WotC materials to back your claims. Is that what I am to understand from this non-answer?

This is not true. There is text in the PHB that explicitly supports my claim. This is sufficient to prove my point.

You are demanding additional evidence in the form of an example. Demand all you like. The burden of sufficiency is met.

It's a non-answer to a non-question. That is what you are failing to understand. It's like demanding evidence that god does not exist.

My inability to provide evidence that god does not exist is not sufficient to prove that he does exist. To represent as such is a failure to understand the nature of the claim, or a failure to understand how burden of proof works.

Perhaps a better analogy would be if I showed you a law, in print, but then you said that this law is not a real law since there is no example of anyone ever being convicted of violating it. Sorry, laws that are never violated are still laws. I do not need to point to an example of its enforcement in order to legitimize it, when I can jut point to the law itself.

Another example: Druidcraft is not a real spell. Show me an example in the PHB of a character casting druidcraft. Why should I? There is a spell description that explains how it works. No example is needed.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is not true. There is text in the PHB that explicitly supports my claim. This is sufficient to prove my point.

You are demanding additional evidence in the form of an example. Demand all you like. The burden of sufficiency is met.

It's a non-answer to a non-question. That is what you are failing to understand. It's like demanding evidence that god does not exist.

My inability to provide evidence that god does not exist is not sufficient to prove that he does exist. To represent as such is a failure to understand the nature of the claim, or a failure to understand how burden of proof works.

Perhaps a better analogy would be if I showed you a law, in print, but then you said that this law is not a real law since there is no example of anyone ever being convicted of violating it. Sorry, laws that are never violated are still laws. I do not need to point to an example of its enforcement in order to legitimize it, when I can jut point to the law itself.

Another example: Druidcraft is not a real spell. Show me an example in the PHB of a character casting druidcraft. Why should I? There is a spell description that explains how it works. No example is needed.

You are wrong about the text. Each type is explicitly called out as being a passive thing in the rules text that explains how those things function.

Show a location in the rules where it says one of those types (or anything referred to as passive) is in fact an active attempt.

It's not a difficult ask if what you're saying is really true.

To use your analogy of law, I'm saying that the statute refers to two types, and both those types are explained in other sections of the code as being explicitly passive-case. You need to provide a section of the code that explicitly refers to an active-use of that type where it's called "passive".

The consequence if you can't find an example that supports your theory is that your theory is baseless.

The second example, regarding Druidcraft, just doesn't make any sense and isn't analogous.

[BurgerBeast]

You are wrong about the text. Each type is explicitly called out as being a passive thing in the rules text that explains how those things function.

Show a location in the rules where it says one of those types (or anything referred to as passive) is in fact an active attempt.

It's not a difficult ask if what you're saying is really true.

Here:


A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.

This not only explicitly states what a passive check is (an ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls), but the very first example meets your demand: "searching for secret doors."

Searching is active from the character's point of view. Noticing is passive.

I'd love to hear how you interpret this.


To use your analogy of law, I'm saying that the statute refers to two types, and both those types are explained in other sections of the code as being explicitly passive-case. You need to provide a section of the code that explicitly refers to an active-use of that type where it's called "passive".

No, the section of the PHB we are talking about is talking exclusively about Passive Checks (hence the title of the section). Not both. It explain this one type right here on page 175, under the heading that is named for the one type of check that the section is about.


The consequence if you can't find an example that supports your theory is that your theory is baseless.

This quote has been pointed out before, but there it is. I'm sure you will disagree. Unfortunately, you're wrong.


The second example, regarding Druidcraft, just doesn't make any sense and isn't analogous.

It is perfectly analogous*: there is a heading in the PHB which says Druidcraft. Under that heading, the rules for Druidcraft are described. End of Story. But you object: you say that without a single example of using Druidcraft, we can't know how it works, or we need to look elsewhere to figure it out. But we can. It's right there.

Analogy: there is a heading in the PHB which says Passive Checks. Under that heading, the rules for Passive Checks are described. End of Story. But you object: you say that without a single example of using Passive Checks, we can't know how they work, or we need to look elsewhere to figure it out. But we can. It's right there.

* It's actually not perfectly analogous. It's an unfair example in your favour, because Druidcraft gives no examples. Passive Checks gives an example to prove the point.