Passive skills: What is and isn't passive?

[Nagog]

So a recent interaction has gotten me thinking about passive skills: We are all aware of Passive Perception due to it's spot on the character sheet. In the Inquisitive Rogue subclass, it also makes mention of Passive Investigation, which I assume is to automatically see through illusions (instead of requiring interaction/an action to Investigate), should your passive surpass the Spell Save DC. The point I'm looking for clarification on is this: What other skills also have passive scores?

If, for example, I had a player who wanted to keep a secret from the party, Having them make a deception roll when the topic comes up is appropriate. Asking the party for insight checks feels wrong, particularly if they don't have any reason to be suspicious of their party member. Does the deception go uncontested? Or are there passive Insight scores as a DC to these deception checks?

What other skills have passive scores? I think the Intelligence skills are good candidates (particularly Arcana for Wizards and Religion for Clerics and maybe Warlocks), but their actual application would be extremely niche. What do you think?

[Onos]

All skills have a passive element. I tend to use it like the old "take 10" rule, but without the additional time required: so a character with high Athletics won't need to roll to jump the ten-foot gap, the character with high Arcana gets the basics of the gated information without rolling, etc. I honestly can't say I have an "under-used" skill at my tables, so this tends to work well and keep everyone happy.

The only slight oddity is that I don't allow Jack of all Trades to add to passive skills.

[BurgerBeast]

There is a widespread misunderstanding about what passive skills are. The word “passive” has (almost) nothing to do with whether the character is actively or passively doing something.

“Passive” refers to whether the player rolls a die or not. That’s it.

The reason for the word almost, in parentheses, above, is that this fact presumably wasn’t communicated very clearly or wasn’t decided upon until later in the design process, because the rules specifically governing the Perception skill describe and treat he use of passive Perception according to whether it is passive in the narrative.

It’s unfortunate, because the first method actually works very well, despite being unintuitive.

I should give credit where credit is due: it was Tanarii who first alerted me to this, as I had also mistakenly assumed that “passive” referred to the narrative.

[JellyPooga]

“Passive” refers to whether the player rolls a die or not. That’s it.

Yup. This about sums it up.

To expand and clarify, the GM should use Passive scores in situations including (but not limited to);

a) A character is doing something repeatedly over a period of time such that the average result is more important than any individual roll OR rolling every five minutes would be irritating (e.g. crafting an item OR constantly rolling Perception in a dungeon)

b) The GM doesn't want to roll a whole heap of dice (e.g. rolling Perception for every bandit in the camp)

c) The GM doesn't want to alert the Players that a check has been made (e.g. comparing a PCs Perception against the DC for a hidden item)

With that in mind, any Ability Score or Skill can use its Passive value. The most common ones are Perception, Stealth and the "Knowledge" skills (Arcana, etc.) because they most commonly fulfil one or more of the above criteria, but that doesn't mean you can't use Passive scores for anything else.

[Man_Over_Game]

Another way to look at it is to use a passive when it would be a defensive roll.

A good rule that most people should learn is to never ask a player to make a roll they didn't ask for (unless it's a Saving Throw). So if you need to see if a player was able to notice a pickpocket in their peripherals, it could be a roll vs. their Perception or Stealth passive.

I personally like to have enemies roll against your Stealth Passive when they're looking for you if you're hidden, as the rules are a lot less clunky that way.

[Lunali]

Another way to look at it is to use a passive when it would be a defensive roll.

A good rule that most people should learn is to never ask a player to make a roll they didn't ask for (unless it's a Saving Throw). So if you need to see if a player was able to notice a pickpocket in their peripherals, it could be a roll vs. their Perception or Stealth passive.

I personally like to have enemies roll against your Stealth Passive when they're looking for you if you're hidden, as the rules are a lot less clunky that way.

While I agree in general, if you're hidden, you already have a specific number that was rolled that can easily be compared to enemies' passive perception.

[HappyDaze]

I agree with a lot of the above, but it's also important to note that passive checks should rarely require an Action/Bonus Action/Reaction--they just happen. Active checks typically require Actions, but may instead require Bonus Actions or Reactions.

Note that I don't generally like opposed rolls--it should usually be an active check (taking an Action) vs. a passive check (no action). This is how I do grapples, which is consistent with many of the monster grapple rules.

[JellyPooga]

I agree with a lot of the above, but it's also important to note that passive checks should rarely require an Action/Bonus Action/Reaction--they just happen. Active checks typically require Actions, but may instead require Bonus Actions or Reactions.

Note that I don't generally like opposed rolls--it should usually be an active check (taking an Action) vs. a passive check (no action). This is how I do grapples, which is consistent with many of the monster grapple rules.

It's worth bearing mind that both points you make are either speculative or houserule. Passive checks, like "active" ones, take whatever action is appropriate, which as you note is often "no-action", but not always, and while there's no specific rule against using a passive score for grapples, it's typically unusual to see the use of any passive score during combat, because repeated activity (often the most common use of passive scores) is explicitly outside the remit of combat and there is rarely any reason to conceal rolls once initiative has been rolled. The most common use of passive scores during combat should be for brevity; i.e. to save a whole heap of dice rolling for a large group, and even then at the GMs discretion, not as a matter of course. Opposed rolls can and should most often be resolved as rolls, rather than active vs. passive, particularly during combat where abilities like Lucky (Feat and Halfling Racial Trait), Bardic Inspiration and Portent (both Class Features) are most often going to come into play.

[HappyDaze]

It's worth bearing mind that both points you make are either speculative or houserule. Passive checks, like "active" ones, take whatever action is appropriate, which as you note is often "no-action", but not always, and while there's no specific rule against using a passive score for grapples, it's typically unusual to see the use of any passive score during combat, because repeated activity (often the most common use of passive scores) is explicitly outside the remit of combat and there is rarely any reason to conceal rolls once initiative has been rolled. The most common use of passive scores during combat should be for brevity; i.e. to save a whole heap of dice rolling for a large group, and even then at the GMs discretion, not as a matter of course. Opposed rolls can and should most often be resolved as rolls, rather than active vs. passive, particularly during combat where abilities like Lucky (Feat and Halfling Racial Trait), Bardic Inspiration and Portent (both Class Features) are most often going to come into play.

AC is passive defense.

[JellyPooga]

AC is passive defense.

Yes, but it is explicitly never rolled. Likewise for Spell Save DCs, which are a passive attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

While I agree in general, if you're hidden, you already have a specific number that was rolled that can easily be compared to enemies' passive perception.

But the idea of enemies being allowed to use a Passive Perception in the first place always striked me as wrong.

Takes an Action to Hide, takes an Action to Search, but it takes nothing to Search for a hidden creature? Yeah, that seems fair.

The entire concept of "every creature gets to roll against your saved check for free" is also completely foreign to everything else in the game, and only allowing active rolls against your Stealth passive is closer to how the rest of the game works.

It also buffs stealth, which is greatly needed.



I also have been getting into a habit of having my players pick a "default skill", which is what will be checked for when you're not doing anything at all, and it is changed to be the last type of skill check you rolled. So if you set Survival as your default skill, it's assumed you're applying a Passive Survival ability to everything that could be done, such as searching for tracks, foraging, and the like. That way, Perception is actually nerfed from being a Passive-effective skill (as you can only use Passive Perception if it's your default). So you only get your Passive Perception if you're actually intent on looking for something.

[Aimeryan]

There is a widespread misunderstanding about what passive skills are. The word “passive” has (almost) nothing to do with whether the character is actively or passively doing something.

“Passive” refers to whether the player rolls a die or not. That’s it.

The reason for the word almost, in parentheses, above, is that this fact presumably wasn’t communicated very clearly or wasn’t decided upon until later in the design process, because the rules specifically governing the Perception skill describe and treat he use of passive Perception according to whether it is passive in the narrative.

It’s unfortunate, because the first method actually works very well, despite being unintuitive.

I should give credit where credit is due: it was Tanarii who first alerted me to this, as I had also mistakenly assumed that “passive” referred to the narrative.

I disagree; the book makes no such distinction and, as you mention, does in fact show examples of characters acting 'passively' (as in, repeatedly doing the same thing over and over - like looking roughly ahead while walking) as making passive checks.

When something is being done over and over one way to describe this is that such an activity is being done passively. This does not mean the character is not doing things, just that they are not trying to do something distinct (which would require a roll). Not doing the activity would result in no checks at all.

For example, as you explore a dungeon you want to keep an eye out for traps - passive Wisdom (Perception) check for any trap encountered. A character that is unable or has expressed that they will not look for traps would not make any checks - this would be the result of not doing that activity. Now, perhaps the character has information that there is a trap 'under the third arch after passing the eternal elephant'; the DM describes the environment and when they mention an elephant statue the player starts counting the archways; at the third archway the player says they want to carefully examine the area underneath the arch - now is the time to make a roll. The character is distinctly looking at that specific area because of the information they hold.

Perception checks tend to be the easiest to see this passive/rolling switches, however, there are others - consider hanging on to a wagon while being dragged behind it; this may require a passive Strength check because it is something they are doing over and over, however, when the wagon hits a small rock in the road it may require a non-passive Strength check to see if you pass that hurdle, because this is a distinct event.

Yes, players don't roll a dice for passive checks, however, that is the consequence, not the facilitator. It is there to avoid repetitive tediousness - this is even true in regards to not giving away that something is up, since the alternative would be to make faux rolls often to cover up the real rolls.

[Tanarii]

All skills can theoretically be passive. A passive score is used whenever:
- the check is being made repeatedly and you don't want the player to roll the dice over and over again
- the fact a check is being made is a secret, and asking the player to make a check would give things away

The word "passive" refers to the player not rolling any dice. It even says exactly what it means in the first sentence of the passive checks section. Despite that many folks continue to mistakenly think it means the character is being passive instead of active.

One caveat that's not made explicit is that it should be a series of checks for the same action done against a different thing. If it's the same check against the same thing over and over until you succeed, that's instead covered by the DMG automatic success rules. You take ten times as long and succeed.

The second caveat is that checks should still be meaningful.

Examples of something where the character might be actively doing something but the player doesn't roll a die, so the passive score could instead be used, assuming each is a series of checks, the checks are meaningful, and time matters so you only take the time equivalent of one check in each section/location/thing:
- moving along searching for traps and secret doors in a different place repeatedly: passive perception and/or passive investigation
- moving along keeping an eye out for enemies : passive perception
- walking along a hall where a failed acrobatics check means making no forward progress: passive acrobatics
- examining a series of arcane rules inscribed along a hallway, trying to identify the ones that have meaning: passive arcana
- examining a bunch of bodies trying to find the ones that were killed by X: passive investigation and/or medicine
- a series of checks to keep your mount riding slightly faster than normal for a period of time: passive animal handling
- climbing/swimming in a situation that's not automatic without a check, and a failed check means no forward progress: passive athletics

(Note that I'm not including a meaningful reason for time to matter in a lot of these. That'd be an additional required element.)


I should give credit where credit is due: it was Tanarii who first alerted me to this, as I had also mistakenly assumed that “passive” referred to the narrative.
Hey thanks. Honestly given the way it's referenced in the section on Hiding, and that the Search action explicitly exists in combat, it's understandable why some folks arrive at that conclusion.

[Specter]

If you have a contest without one of the parts being aware about it, that's the ideal passive situation. Think of a character needing to beat the guard's passive Perception to sneak past him, or the character's passive Insight when someone's lying to them.

[Lunali]

But the idea of enemies being allowed to use a Passive Perception in the first place always striked me as wrong.

Takes an Action to Hide, takes an Action to Search, but it takes nothing to Search for a hidden creature? Yeah, that seems fair.

The entire concept of "every creature gets to roll against your saved check for free" is also completely foreign to everything else in the game, and only allowing active rolls against your Stealth passive is closer to how the rest of the game works.

It also buffs stealth, which is greatly needed.

Passive perception in this case is when they aren't actually looking for someone, but are fairly alert in general. If they were actually looking for someone, they'd use active rolls as well.

As for stealth needing a buff, I've seen far more unreasonable cases of someone being successful at stealth than unsuccessful. The "problem" with stealth is that you either need a group that's all good at it, or you need to split up, which as far as I'm concerned, is as it should be.

[Tanarii]

Passive perception in this case is when they aren't actually looking for someone, but are fairly alert in general. If they were actually looking for someone, they'd use active rolls as well.

Passive perception is for when the character is actively paying attention for danger, and you (the player) would have to roll checks over and over again or you (the player) don't know something is there.

If the character is engrossed in another task they don't get passive perception. Examples from the PHB include foraging, navigating, tracking and mapping.

If the character knows something was there because it just successfully hid against your character's passive perception, they can spend an action to make a single roll right now to try and find it. Its not secret (because the character knows the something was just there), and it's not repetitive (because it's to find it this round at the cost of your action).

If they character is actually looking for something they don't know is there, it should use passive perception. Because it's still secret as to if there is or not. Technically, even if they blew an action for it.

[Aimeryan]

If they character is actually looking for something they don't know is there, it should use passive perception. Because it's still secret as to if there is or not. Technically, even if they blew an action for it.

The DM can hide the result of a roll if the character is not meant to have an idea of how well they performed, such as the case of whether there is actually something there to be seen or not.

In the case of looking at a specified area at the cost of an action then a roll should be made because this is a distinct event being performed by the character rather than the general awareness of surroundings always being performed under standard conditions.

I think the whole 'passive character' argument is a matter of terminology; the character can be passive in some regards, while focused in others - and passive does not need to mean they are not making checks, just that they are not making distinct checks for that activity. Of course, a character could be so thoroughly absorbed in their task that they neglect to make the passive checks they normally would; a character putting all of their focus into winning an arm wrestle is probably not making Perception checks on the crowd around them. In other cases, perhaps just Disadvantage would suffice; foraging for near ground level berries does not mean you are not making Perception checks for other things too, however, it is likely your attention is sufficiently shifted to warrant Disadvantage.

[Nagog]

Passive perception is for when the character is actively paying attention for danger, and you (the player) would have to roll checks over and over again or you (the player) don't know something is there.

If the character is engrossed in another task they don't get passive perception. Examples from the PHB include foraging, navigating, tracking and mapping.

If the character knows something was there because it just successfully hid against your character's passive perception, they can spend an action to make a single roll right now to try and find it. Its not secret (because the character knows the something was just there), and it's not repetitive (because it's to find it this round at the cost of your action).

If they character is actually looking for something they don't know is there, it should use passive perception. Because it's still secret as to if there is or not. Technically, even if they blew an action for it.

I don't think that's true, particularly the last bit. If they aren't looking, they're still aware of what's going on around them. Passive Perception takes some detractors for various situations (Dis/Advantage gives a -/+5, engrossed in other activities is probably about the same), but there isn't a time when such an activity entirely negates any situational awareness, except perhaps things like blindness or sleeping.

[Lunali]

Passive perception is for when the character is actively paying attention for danger, and you (the player) would have to roll checks over and over again or you (the player) don't know something is there.

If the character is engrossed in another task they don't get passive perception. Examples from the PHB include foraging, navigating, tracking and mapping.

If the character knows something was there because it just successfully hid against your character's passive perception, they can spend an action to make a single roll right now to try and find it. Its not secret (because the character knows the something was just there), and it's not repetitive (because it's to find it this round at the cost of your action).

If they character is actually looking for something they don't know is there, it should use passive perception. Because it's still secret as to if there is or not. Technically, even if they blew an action for it.

All true and not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about when you (the player) rolls stealth to avoid the NPCs.

[Tanarii]

I don't think that's true, particularly the last bit. If they aren't looking, they're still aware of what's going on around them. Passive Perception takes some detractors for various situations (Dis/Advantage gives a -/+5, engrossed in other activities is probably about the same), but there isn't a time when such an activity entirely negates any situational awareness, except perhaps things like blindness or sleeping.Citations, respectively for what I posted:

1st part) PHB 175
PASSIVE CHECKS
A passive check i s 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.

2nd part) PHB 183
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Characters who turn their attention to other tasks as the group travels are not focused on watching for danger. These characters don't contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group's chance of noticing hidden threats.
However, a character not watching for danger can do one of the following activities instead, or some other activity with the DM's permission.
(Example "other tasks" follow)

Note that the "group travels" & "while traveling" here includes exploring adventuring sites and dungeons. The rules are for movement, not abstract overland travel specifically.
MOVEMENT
Swimming across a rushing river, sneaking down a dungeon corridor, scaling a treacherous mountain slope* all sorts of movement play a key role in D&D adventures.

3rd part) PHB 193
SEARCH
When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature ofyour search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

4th part) No specific citation. This is me putting together Part 1 with Part 3. When a check is referenced, the DM can make it a passive check if the rules for when to use a passive checks apply.


All true and not at all what I was talking about. I was talking about when you (the player) rolls stealth to avoid the NPCs.
Hmmm. Yes, indeed, quite. There's no player there to roll, so passive rolls per the general rule for them shouldn't even come into play, since it's on the DMs side.

When discussing Passive Perception and Stealth, it's absolutely the case that the specific rule from the Hiding sidebar on PHB 177 sidebar is why NPCs use passive perceptions at all, and that it applies "even if they aren't searching". This is also the sidebar that makes people think that this is why all passive checks are supposed to work this way. (And why many folks think a PC can't lose the ability to passive perception, it only references distraction here.)

[Man_Over_Game]

As for stealth needing a buff, I've seen far more unreasonable cases of someone being successful at stealth than unsuccessful. The "problem" with stealth is that you either need a group that's all good at it, or you need to split up, which as far as I'm concerned, is as it should be.

I think there is already a lot of reasons for Stealth to fail outside of the rules due to realism.

There's a choice you gotta take between whether the priority is the world or the game. If I want my players to use Stealth to solve their problems, I have to make Stealth a better solution than the alternatives...even if that does mean letting Bilbo sneak around a sleeping dragon that has Blindsight.

If Attacking is the best thing a player could do with their Action, I can't really expect them to do anything different.

[Zhorn]

The main challenge I find with treating ALL skills has having a passive is when it is alongside the Rogue's Reliable Talent, as treating any passive as a floor essentially negates that whole feature.

Over a length of time (such as the old take 10 rulings) it works out fine as a representation of averages, but for immediate short term checks I steer away from automatic successes using those scores as to not tread on Reliable Talent.

examples:
Passive Perception: you get a feeling when something is following/watching you, but you don't know all the full details, just a few giveaways (ie: you think you hear the pulling of a bowstring, rustling of clothing, the snapping of twigs, birds suddenly going quiet, etc).

Passive Investigation: you can get a feeling about some object/area/marking in the space you are investigating as being important, but you can't quite place why they are drawing your attention.

[JellyPooga]

It's very much a mistake to think of passive scores as a "floor". Either you roll OR use passive, never both. This goes as much for Perception as anything else.

[Aimeryan]

It's very much a mistake to think of passive scores as a "floor". Either you roll OR use passive, never both. This goes as much for Perception as anything else.

I both agree and disagree with this; while making the roll you do not use the passive, however, before and after you would. This means for continuous passive skills like Perception it pretty much acts as a floor.

[JellyPooga]

I both agree and disagree with this; while making the roll you do not use the passive, however, before and after you would. This means for continuous passive skills like Perception it pretty much acts as a floor.

I disagree that Passive Perception is "always on". That's also a mistake. Passive Perception is not your "general senses" or your ability to "just notice" things any more than rolling is. Passive Perception is used in exactly the same way as rolled Perception for scenarios where you're testing for general senses or noticing things. You do not automatically detect all secret doors or traps hidden with a DC equal to or lower than your Passive Perception; you have to be actively looking for secret doors or traps to use your Passive Perception to find them. There is no "before roll" or "after roll" Passive Perception. It's either, you're continuously searching or GM doesn't want to telegraph it, in which case Passive Perception is all that you use (no roll) OR you roll once to detect a specific thing (no Passive).

[Man on Fire]

I think I need to start implementing passive Investigation and Insight, the very moment I ask my players to roll either they get paranoid

[Aimeryan]

I disagree that Passive Perception is "always on". That's also a mistake. Passive Perception is not your "general senses" or your ability to "just notice" things any more than rolling is. Passive Perception is used in exactly the same way as rolled Perception for scenarios where you're testing for general senses or noticing things. You do not automatically detect all secret doors or traps hidden with a DC equal to or lower than your Passive Perception; you have to be actively looking for secret doors or traps to use your Passive Perception to find them. There is no "before roll" or "after roll" Passive Perception. It's either, you're continuously searching or GM doesn't want to telegraph it, in which case Passive Perception is all that you use (no roll) OR you roll once to detect a specific thing (no Passive).

I disagree with all of this and if I recall passive Perception for searching of hidden doors is exactly a scenario described in the PHB.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree with all of this and if I recall passive Perception for searching of hidden doors is exactly a scenario described in the PHB.


When your character searches for a hidden object or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.

In most cases, you need to describe where you are looking in order for the DM to determine your chance of success. For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawer or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.

Is that the example you were thinking of? If it was, it didn't say what you thought it said. It says that you have to be actively looking for something hidden for your Wisdom (Perception), with no mention of whether it's passive or rolled, to apply at all.

Almost contradicting this, in the DMG...


Use the characters' passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to determine whether anyone in the party notices a secret door without actively searching for it.

...which is probably what you were thinking of. It's important to note, however, that not all characters are able to use their Passive Perception at all times; navigating, mapping, tracking and foraging are specifically called out as excluding the use of PP, but that's not an exclusive list and it's also important to note that travelling at a fast pace imposes a -5 and that dim light conditions (such as when using Darkvision without additional light) also impose disadvantage for a further -5 to PP. These rules apply in the dungeon as much as they do anywhere else.

The implication here is that while in hostile territory it is assumed that unless you're doing something else, you're actively being alert for threats or hidden. If you are explicitly not alert for whatever reason (e.g. you don't consider the territory hostile), then the Passive Perception to detect a secret door would not apply; you wouldn't automatically notice a hidden passage in a nobles mansion that you'd been invited to under friendly circumstances, unless you specified you were looking or alert.

[Lunali]

...which is probably what you were thinking of. It's important to note, however, that not all characters are able to use their Passive Perception at all times; navigating, mapping, tracking and foraging are specifically called out as excluding the use of PP, but that's not an exclusive list and it's also important to note that travelling at a fast pace imposes a -5 and that dim light conditions (such as when using Darkvision without additional light) also impose disadvantage for a further -5 to PP. These rules apply in the dungeon as much as they do anywhere else.

I always took the penalty from travel speed to be disadvantage on the roll, which would mean only one of the penalties would apply. However, it doesn't actually say that its from disadvantage so I can see choosing to apply both penalties, though that is a very harsh penalty since -5 is already pretty steep for disadvantage.

[JellyPooga]

I always took the penalty from travel speed to be disadvantage on the roll, which would mean only one of the penalties would apply. However, it doesn't actually say that its from disadvantage so I can see choosing to apply both penalties, though that is a very harsh penalty since -5 is already pretty steep for disadvantage.

Personally, I wouldn't expect someone that isn't specifically looking for it, moving fast, in the dark to ever find a secret door. -10 seems about right to me. Bear in mind that a lvl.1 V.Human Rogue with 16 Wis, Expertise in Perception and Observant (i.e. a dedicated scout) has a Passive Perception of 22; he would still find secret doors with a DC of 12, even under those circumstances! It might not be as harsh a penalty as it seems. Jus' sayin'.

[Lunali]

Personally, I wouldn't expect someone that isn't specifically looking for it, moving fast, in the dark to ever find a secret door. -10 seems about right to me. Bear in mind that a lvl.1 V.Human Rogue with 16 Wis, Expertise in Perception and Observant (i.e. a dedicated scout) has a Passive Perception of 22; he would still find secret doors with a DC of 12, even under those circumstances! It might not be as harsh a penalty as it seems. Jus' sayin'.

Someone that is specifically looking for it, moving fast in the dark would have the same stat. A door with a DC of 12 is barely a secret door, it's a section of wall with visible seams and decoration that you can grab to pull it open. I would like to think that someone who dedicated their entire being to noticing things, would be able to do better than that even hurrying in the dark.

[heavyfuel]

Everything outside of combat is Passive.

This is because a 20 points variance is just way too much for a system like 5e where bonuses are so low.

Since I find it absolutely ridiculous that a trained athlete who's stronger than a horse will often fail to climb a wall which his non athletic friend who's weaker than a basketweaving old lady manages to climb because of dice rolls, I just use passive checks all the time.

[Tanarii]

Someone that is specifically looking for it, moving fast in the dark would have the same stat. A door with a DC of 12 is barely a secret door, it's a section of wall with visible seams and decoration that you can grab to pull it open. I would like to think that someone who dedicated their entire being to noticing things, would be able to do better than that even hurrying in the dark.
If they are not actively looking, then they're engaged in another task. Traveling in a hostile environment it's assumed they're doing one of those two things.

If you prefer: if they are not engaged in another task, they are actively looking. Either way around works.

Edit: now, if a Rogue says they're going first and scouting for traps ... they're actively using Passive Investigation as well for that task. Meanwhile the rest of their party is actively using Passive Perception for general threats. That's Important, because the Rogue is now likely to deduce the locations of traps, not just possibly spot something awry that may or may not give it away that there is a trap present.

If your DM has Perception = you see & discover the trap, that's not an important distinction. But IMO not how it's best used for traps. Poorly designed modules aside.

[Keravath]

Someone that is specifically looking for it, moving fast in the dark would have the same stat. A door with a DC of 12 is barely a secret door, it's a section of wall with visible seams and decoration that you can grab to pull it open. I would like to think that someone who dedicated their entire being to noticing things, would be able to do better than that even hurrying in the dark.

A character with 10 wisdom and proficiency in perception has a passive of 12. If they are looking for it, they will notice the signs of the secret door. If they aren't looking (distracted etc) they might get a roll to see if they notice something. However, generally, characters are assumed to be paying close attention to their surroundings unless they are doing something else which is why passive perception sees so much use. Characters are always looking. (If a character is hurrying and can't see well ... even a well trained character could miss something even if they are looking for it ... so a passive of 12 with a die roll to see if they notice something could make sense in this situation ... on the other hand, since there is a time constraint since they are hurrying it might be appropriate to just make a die roll).

Passive refers to the player rolling dice .. a check made without a dice roll using the average value of the skill applied repeatedly. If there are no consequences for failure, if there is no time limit, if the DM wants to make a check without the players knowing a check was made ... and many other circumstances ... passive skills can be used in any case and for any skill that the DM thinks appropriate.

I have used passive perception, passive investigation, passive insight, passive thieves tools, passive strength check (athletics) ... if the door needs a DC 16 strength (athletics) check to open and the barbarian has a passive strength (athletics) that is higher, I will just narrate him forcing the door open rather than having the barbarian roll a 2 and the wizard roll a 19 and end up narrating the strength 8 wizard with no skill in athletics somehow managing to force open a door using brute strength - using passives tends to reflect the strengths of the individual characters better and in the rare cases with a very challenging DC where luck plays a role then I can just narrate the result that way rather than having to deal with frequent unrealistic results for even simple tests.

(For example - the 8 strength wizard with no athletics skill should never beat the 20 strength barbarian with proficiency or even expertise in strength (barb/rogue) - it shouldn't happen unless the wizard cheats or comes up with a strategy that would give them an edge - otherwise they should never win. If I leave it to the dice with an opposed skill check in tier 2 - the modifiers are -1 vs +8, the wizard wins much more often than they should).

[Lunali]

Everything outside of combat is Passive.

This is because a 20 points variance is just way too much for a system like 5e where bonuses are so low.

Since I find it absolutely ridiculous that a trained athlete who's stronger than a horse will often fail to climb a wall which his non athletic friend who's weaker than a basketweaving old lady manages to climb because of dice rolls, I just use passive checks all the time.

I wouldn't say everything is passive, but rather most things shouldn't be rolled. Only call for a roll when the outcome is in doubt and there's a penalty for failure. No sense rolling to see if you can climb a wall in such a situation. If you're competing to see who gets up faster instead, it's entirely possible (though fairly unlikely) that the weak character will happen to find a path that is effectively a ladder compared to the athlete who climbs up on his fingertips, both arriving at roughly the same time, but with the weak character slightly ahead.

[Tanarii]

The main challenge I find with treating ALL skills has having a passive is when it is alongside the Rogue's Reliable Talent, as treating any passive as a floor essentially negates that whole feature.

Missed this. There's a major difference between Passive and Reliable. Reliable works when you only get one shot. Either because something goes wrong if you fail (change of state) or because time matters to that degree.

It's also worth noting that passive isn't older editions "Take 10". The player doesn't decide when to use it, the DM does. And the purpose is to save on rolling multiple times, not to ensure reliability.

I agree there's some probability issues with passive scores. They serve their purpose (especially saving on dice rolls) but they're particular bad for statin TN vs static TN. For example, passive perception vs fixed trap DC/secret door DC. In particular, that would work better if traps & secret doors had an "stealth check" to roll against PC's passive score. The DM might have to roll it in advance of course, unless they've got the players used to them randomly rolling dice for no particular reason. :smallamused:

[heavyfuel]

I wouldn't say everything is passive, but rather most things shouldn't be rolled. Only call for a roll when the outcome is in doubt and there's a penalty for failure. No sense rolling to see if you can climb a wall in such a situation. If you're competing to see who gets up faster instead, it's entirely possible (though fairly unlikely) that the weak character will happen to find a path that is effectively a ladder compared to the athlete who climbs up on his fingertips, both arriving at roughly the same time, but with the weak character slightly ahead.

Yes, I only call for rolls when the outcome is in doubt, which is when there's a guy with a sword trying to kill you (and also for Stealth, most of the time)

Now, if time isn't an issue and there's no consequence for failure, I assume everyone "takes 20". Want to spend an hour searching the room? Ok, that's Investigation bonus + 20. No roll.

If time *is* a factor or if there is a consequence for failure (such as falling), then you're just doing things as you usually do them, aka, a passive check.

Btw: Finding a path that's effectively a ladder isn't an Athletics check, it's a Perception check (assuming such path even exists, which is unlikely for man-made walls)

[Zhorn]

It's very much a mistake to think of passive scores as a "floor". Either you roll OR use passive, never both. This goes as much for Perception as anything else.

Missed this. There's a major difference between Passive and Reliable. Reliable works when you only get one shot. Either because something goes wrong if you fail (change of state) or because time matters to that degree.

It's also worth noting that passive isn't older editions "Take 10". The player doesn't decide when to use it, the DM does. And the purpose is to save on rolling multiple times, not to ensure reliability.

As far as DM styles go, I'm in agreement on this about not using passives as a floor, I bring it up because that's the general concept that people come to when discussing passives and how and when they are applied.
There are even interviews with the designers where they'll refer to passives as 'always on unless unconscious or something specifically negates it' and 'passives are a floor'

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing
go to 23:10

[Pex]

It's also worth noting that passive isn't older editions "Take 10". The player doesn't decide when to use it, the DM does. And the purpose is to save on rolling multiple times, not to ensure reliability.



That's the problem. The DM has to make it up which is why everyone is disagreeing on when it's appropriate. The DM is designing the encounter and determining if the players can solve it before the players come to the table. There's an inherent reluctance to use passive because if it's autosuccess or autofail why bother making the encounter just say what happens and move on. You might think that's a feature, but the inherent reluctance is the feel of need of a challenge. They don't want the autosuccess or fail because then there's no game. The fun is in the unknowing of what will happen. Let the results be determined in the game, so passive is never used even when it makes sense for some people it should be.

The solution is to bring back Take 10/20. Let the player decide how he wants his character to behave in a situation. The DM won't know the player wants to roll or Take 10 until the encounter happens. If the player chooses Take 10 that could be autosuccess/fail, but that's still the player's choice. The DM applies the results, but he didn't decide the determination. It goes back to the player where it should be.

[BurgerBeast]

That's the problem. The DM has to make it up which is why everyone is disagreeing on when it's appropriate.

The DM has to make up pretty much everything in the game. That’s pretty much the defining feature of the genre. I’m not sure what the problem is.

There’s no need to adopt the least charitable view of the DM, either. Just because a DM sets passive DCs does not mean he’s going to look at everyone’s skills first and pick numbers to determine results. Many DMs are aware of , and try to counteract, their own biases. And many DMs are capable of setting DCs without considering PC success/failure. To assume otherwise is a bit much.

Also, with the current situation and the rise in popularity of VTTs, the ability of the DM to ask for secret rolls or to roll off the players sheet for them is a good countermeasure to the problems you’ve mentioned... but even then, only if you trust the DM, which appears to be what you’re really saying - that you don’t trust the DM... which is a separate problem.

[heavyfuel]

The DM is designing the encounter and determining if the players can solve it before the players come to the table.

That's a bold statement. And a wrong one.

You assume a few things that aren't true at all:

1- that the DM will know every stat of every character;
2 - that the DM will be able to accurately predict the actions of people notorious for being unpredictable, aka, players;
3 - that even if both of the above are true, the DM will make DCs based off these two things instead of making a DC that is consistent with their world.

[Pex]

The DM has to make up pretty much everything in the game. That’s pretty much the defining feature of the genre. I’m not sure what the problem is.



The problem is the DM has to make up everything in the game, when it comes to skill use. That's the defining feature.

[JellyPooga]

Someone that is specifically looking for it, moving fast in the dark would have the same stat.Granted :smallbiggrin:


A door with a DC of 12 is barely a secret door, it's a section of wall with visible seams and decoration that you can grab to pull it open. I would like to think that someone who dedicated their entire being to noticing things, would be able to do better than that even hurrying in the dark.

I disagree. A secret door with DC:12 is still pretty well hidden. Sure, if you were looking for it, many people might notice it pretty easily, but it's worth bearing in mind that neither Wisdom of 14+ or Perception proficiency are neccesarily average or common and the condition "looking for it" is only assumed for PCs that aren't doing something else. To name a few common low-level mooks, your average Gnoll, Goblin, Hobgoblin, Kobold, Ogre, Orc, Troll, Bandit, Cultist and Thug will blissfully walk on by without seeing it, even searching in good conditions. Yeah, if they stopped and searched they could roll a 12 pretty easily, or if they had a friend helping, but to a more casual inspection it's still a "secret". Even a secret door with DC:10 or even 5 requires that you be looking for it to actually realise it's there; it might be blindingly obvious once you do look and it'd be the kind of door you'd kick yourself for not noticing, but you'd still have to look or have it pointed out for you not to notice it immediately. Otherwise it would just be a door. Missing even obvious "secrets" when you're in a hurry and it's dark is not unusual, even for a professional.

As for someone dedicated to scouting, that Rogue was only level 1. He can very much do better. If he slows down to a normal pace, that DC goes up to 17. If he brings a torch too, he finds all secret doors DC:22 or lower. Without ever improving, that covers finding just about every door ever made by man or dwarf and really only excludes mastercrafted secret doors, the likes of Durins Door on the Lonely Mountain. Not to mention their capability when rolling rather than using Passive. That's pretty dedicated, so I'm not sure what more you expect from a level 1 "dedicated scout".

[ezekielraiden]

The only reason we have explicit Passive Perception (and Passive Insight, back in 4e) is that those specific non-roll uses come up dramatically more often than anything else. There's no real reason to have a Passive Arcana because it's not relevant often enough to get special notice.

Also, I somewhat dispute the statement that "not rolled" is totally divorced from "not active in the narrative." For Perception (and Insight) specifically, aka the thing(s) that invoke this mechanic the most, it typically is a matter of passivity--just what you happen to notice without concerted effort. It is not a misnomer, generally speaking, for exactly the same reason that we've all experienced that problem of "I swear I looked right at that spot and did not see the thing I can clearly see there now." Yes, technically speaking you had to "act" in order to do any looking whatsoever, but it is so close to passive--bundled up into literally everything else you do--that "passive observation" is a perfectly valid way of describing your natural, unforced faculties of information-gathering.

For the thing(s) where a "Passive score" matters most, a strong measure of "passivity" really is present. For other applications of the Take 10 rule, I agree it's much less "passive," but I also argue it shouldn't be (and there's a reason it isn't, officially) called a Passive Score. It's you taking 10 because you're removing the element of randomness.

[Tes]

RAW I'd use passive scores every time when a Proficient character should succeed at something automatically. Especially in place of a group check.

A house rule I'm rather fond of is to use 3D6 instead of a D20 for most things outside of combat.
Sacrilege I know.
But give it a sec.
- The average is the same (10.5)
- the majority of results are clustered around 7-13, with min/max 3/18. Rather than the flat distribution of a D20
- The extremes are closer together and far less likely
- Having good or bad luck is still possible but rare. It makes rolling really well or really bad special again.
- Changing a DC by one or two 2 is immediately noticeable
- Skills and Proficiency work better if the 8 INT guy doesn't have a 25% chance to pass a DC15 Investigation check and the Proficient 20 INT guy has a 35% to fail.
- You can actually let the whole group roll at group stuff like searching a room without worrying to much that someone will make/fail the check just because 4 D20 tend to have one average success/fail in between them.
- DC20+ checks on very unlikely stuff are actually very unlikely rather than the usual 5% to roll a Nat 20 anyway. Easy fix for Horny Bard Syndrome.

The downsides are pretty much only that you'll sometimes have to adjust DCs (low DC 10-15 usually need to go up a bit unless you never want to see a fail, DC 20+ needs to be toned down unless you don't want to see a success). I do have a chart that matches average success rates, but 90% you can easily eyeball it with a +/-1.
And ofc it's possibly a bit more work to implement on online platforms.

[ezekielraiden]

RAW I'd use passive scores every time when a Proficient character should succeed at something automatically. Especially in place of a group check.
I'm...not really sure I understand what this means. If they automatically succeed when Proficient, why would the passive score matter at all? They're automatically succeeding...


The downsides are pretty much only that you'll sometimes have to adjust DCs (low DC 10-15 usually need to go up a bit unless you never want to see a fail, DC 20+ needs to be toned down unless you don't want to see a success). I do have a chart that matches average success rates, but 90% you can easily eyeball it with a +/-1.
And ofc it's possibly a bit more work to implement on online platforms.
I think you're leaving out that linearity is a significant benefit for off-the-cuff difficulty estimates. Perhaps you find such nonlinear probability easy to eyeball, but I find most people (even with the overweening popularity of Advantage/Disadvantage making distributions nonuniform) really don't grok how +1 difficulty in some sense is "more impactful" near the center, and in other senses is "less impactful" near the center. That is, if the overall result works out to "is your roll 11 or greater?" vs "...12 or greater?" that's a difference between 50% success and 37.5% success--you go from a 50/50 chance of success to only slightly better than failing twice as often as succeeding. But out at the edges (say, 3d6>=16 vs 17), you go from "you only succeed 1 time in ~20" to "you only succeed 1 time in ~54."

D&D already has serious issues with DMs flatly not understanding the difficulties of the rolls they ask of their players, e.g. "of course you have to roll Stealth for every single action you take. That's realistic, and you have a 90% chance to succeed!" Sure do bud, but if you ask me to make 7 rolls, I have ~52% odds of failing, and failure on stealth rolls pretty much always means the jig is up. Given how much of an apparent revelation "group checks" were to the D&D community generally, I'm not sure that just plopping this change in front of people will be very effective. It needs to include not just tables to speed usage, but really good guidance on how probability--especially iterative and conditional probability--works in play, and that sort of thing is extremely hard to teach even in person, let alone through a book.

I am not saying that this proposed rule cannot work, nor that any of the desirable attributes you ascribe to it are not there. Just that the leap from a uniform to a bell-curve distribution can induce even worse problems with misunderstanding probability than we already have, and that is a very serious weakness.

[Tanarii]

That's the problem. The DM has to make it up which is why everyone is disagreeing on when it's appropriate. The DM is designing the encounter and determining if the players can solve it before the players come to the table. There's an inherent reluctance to use passive because if it's autosuccess or autofail why bother making the encounter just say what happens and move on. You might think that's a feature, but the inherent reluctance is the feel of need of a challenge. They don't want the autosuccess or fail because then there's no game. The fun is in the unknowing of what will happen. Let the results be determined in the game, so passive is never used even when it makes sense for some people it should be.
That is an artifact of PC passive vs DC. Which I acknowledged has issues. PC Passive opposed by roll is fine in terms of randomness.

There's no need to give all players Reliable-lite any time they want it.

[BurgerBeast]

The problem is the DM has to make up everything in the game, when it comes to skill use. That's the defining feature.

But this obviously false. The skills are determined. The DM doesn’t have to make those up. The bonuses are defined. The DM doesn’t have to make those up. The rules governing passive checks are given, when to roll, etc.

It’s true that the DM has some work to do on determining DCs, but it really isn’t very hard to come up with baselines. There are the guidelines given, but there’s also an understanding of proficiency modifiers and ability modifiers, and there are save DCs for spells... all of which make it relatively easy to work with.

If you have a half-decent understanding of arithmetic, you can come up with workable DCs.

[Pex]

That is an artifact of PC passive vs DC. Which I acknowledged has issues. PC Passive opposed by roll is fine in terms of randomness.

There's no need to give all players Reliable-lite any time they want it.

Yes there is to show the PC is just that good. It's the same thing as a DM not bothering with a roll because it's trivial, but now more things become trivial as the character improves. The DM no longer needs to grant permission or determine what's trivial. The players decide for themselves what their characters are good at doing.


But this obviously false. The skills are determined. The DM doesn’t have to make those up. The bonuses are defined. The DM doesn’t have to make those up. The rules governing passive checks are given, when to roll, etc.

It’s true that the DM has some work to do on determining DCs, but it really isn’t very hard to come up with baselines. There are the guidelines given, but there’s also an understanding of proficiency modifiers and ability modifiers, and there are save DCs for spells... all of which make it relatively easy to work with.

If you have a half-decent understanding of arithmetic, you can come up with workable DCs.

The DM has to decide if a skill use is trivial so it's an autosuccess. If it's not an autosuccess the DM needs to decide the DC but has no reference point to determine whether it's easy, medium, or hard so has to make that up too.

What of the DM who doesn't have a half-decent understanding of arithmetic? What if he thinks everything should be hard for the challenge? What if he wants to use proficiency as a permission slip? It's all made up.

[Tanarii]

Yes there is to show the PC is just that good. It's the same thing as a DM not bothering with a roll because it's trivial, but now more things become trivial as the character improves. The DM no longer needs to grant permission or determine what's trivial. The players decide for themselves what their characters are good at doing.

Okay. What are they losing for getting this buff?

[Pex]

Okay. What are they losing for getting this buff?

Why do they have to lose anything? Why can't players know what their characters are capable of doing?

[BurgerBeast]

The DM has to decide if a skill use is trivial so it's an autosuccess. If it's not an autosuccess the DM needs to decide the DC but has no reference point to determine whether it's easy, medium, or hard so has to make that up too.

Yes, I’ve seen you make this argument before. I think you’re overstating the problem.

I doubt anyone thinks 8 is difficult or 30 is easy... so there’s really not a wide open realm of possibilities.

As I said, some simple arithmetic can tell you what a 50/50 would be for a typical level 1 PC skilled (about 14 or 15) or unskilled (about 11) Not a bad benchmark.

[Tanarii]

Why do they have to lose anything? Why can't players know what their characters are capable of doing?
Reliable is a level 11 class feature. Eschewing the roll to take ten is probably, what, a level 5 class feature? Maybe a level 3 subclass feature?

[Pex]

Reliable is a level 11 class feature. Eschewing the roll to take ten is probably, what, a level 5 class feature? Maybe a level 3 subclass feature?

Make it the rule of the game for everyone and give Rogues something else. Take a page from 3E that Take 10 isn't possible in times of stress like combat you have to roll but when Rogues get Reliable they can Take 10 in times of stress like combat.

[Nagog]

That's the problem. The DM has to make it up which is why everyone is disagreeing on when it's appropriate.


Well the solution here to me seems to be that we're theory-crafting these scenarios (in the thread, not as DMs) with the mindset that it's only one character we're DMing for. If, say, the Cleric has a high passive insight, they may know automatically that the enemy's attempt at Intimidation is all bluster, meanwhile the Wizard with a high passive Investigation may notice an illusion is an illusion due to the eyes of the illusory creature not reflecting light as they should (though I have started another thread on whether that actually works that way or not), but each would likely not notice what the other does. They could share that information, but in the moment it may not be important to do so.

The solution is to bring back Take 10/20. Let the player decide how he wants his character to behave in a situation. The DM won't know the player wants to roll or Take 10 until the encounter happens. If the player chooses Take 10 that could be autosuccess/fail, but that's still the player's choice. The DM applies the results, but he didn't decide the determination. It goes back to the player where it should be.[/QUOTE]