active vs passive spot/listen?

[Negative Zero]

i realise that this may very well run headlong into houserule territory, but indulge me for a moment or three. also, try to keep in mind, that whenever i mention spot in the following i'm assuming that the same should apply to listen.

should a penalty be applied to spot checks that are completely assive in nature, or perhaps a bonus to decisively active ones? yes i realise that there are no provisions for any of this in the rules, but it seems a bit odd to me that you would be no better at noticing things when you're actively looking for them than when you're starting at you shoelaces/bootstraps around the fire.

case in point:
party is hired to guard an item, and in addition to their traps, they set a watchdog. they'r all awake when the dog starts to growl and bark at something they can't see. everyone is now on alert. but somehow, no one seems to notice that the far wall has moved an aditional 5 feet (an illusion) to mask the oposing group trying to steal said item.

barring things like really bad rolls, and ... well, really bad rolls, shouldn't an adventurer/party, who is aware that there is some danger about and is conciously looking for it get a bouns? or perhaps the lax delver should get a penalty. what do you think?

~NegZ

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

a passive spot/listen check is what you roll normally. if a situation provides the opportunity to see/hear something, make the player roll (or roll the check yourself). if they've been told specific things to look/listen for, give them a +2 circumstance bonus.

for your example, i might give the +2 circumstance bonus, because they "know" something's out there. however, you could also argue that they shouldn't get any bonus at all, because they still have no clue what they're actually looking for.

 

[Gromm]

Hes got it about right. You might know something is up, but unless you know exactly what it is you still don't have a much better chance of seeing it.
Even when things are pointed out, you still might not see them. How many times have you or a friend heard or seen something the other person didn't? You can describe it, point to it, give the location, and they still can't see or hear it. Sure you'd (in D&D terms) get a bonus, but you wont nessessarily succeed. Its not unreasonable to give a Spot/Listen each round if theres a chance they might notice something, but it becomes a bit much alot of the time.

 

[RigaMortus]

I would use a -5 penalty for passive Spot/Listen checks. It says in the PHB that you get a -5 penalty to Spot if you are distracted. Well, if you aren't actively looking for someone, then you aren't really paying attention to detail. So I would say it falls under the same category as "being distracted".

 

[Dr. Zoom]

If all of them make really bad rolls for spotting and listening, which is highly unlikely, then they should be ambushed.

I would not apply any bonuses or penalties to these checks depending on passive or active use. Use the the ones listed. If you think circumstances warrant a penalty/bonus, use the +2 or -2 circumstance adjustment for the checks or the DCs. The real determining factor for these checks is the opposed move silently roll. If they roll well, then it will difficult for the party to hear them sneaking up on them.

Also, the party mage, if made aware, should not depend on spot/listen checks. He should cast a spell or two. Detect magic, detect thoughts, Detect evil, etc. all might reveal the subterfuge here. At least, that is what I do. This goes for the other spellcasters as well. Let them rely on the rogues, rangers, and barbarians for skill checks.

 

[the Jester]

I think it's important to remember that there's a big difference between walking through the woods with your buddies and being in a crowded bar, drinking ale with loud music and conversation all around you. It's all about the level of 'free attention' you have. I'd say no penalty to a spot check if you aren't distracted (walking along, good chance to notice things). If, on the other hand, you're in a conversation, watching music, and there's a crowd, I'd say at least a -5 and maybe more could be justified. (otoh, maybe the DC would just increase...)

 

[Painfully]

if there is a dog that is alerted to the intruders, then I would probably give the party a +2 circumstance bonus for being able to determine the general direction of the disturbance.

 

[Quickbeam]

Like some of the posts before mine, I'd say that spot/listen are normally treated as passive IMC. Modifiers are applied to the party's detriment if they are preoccupied or the likelihood of success is hampered somehow; positive modifiers would absolutely be involved if the party knows that something is afoot. That said, however, I wouldn't make it a foregone conclusion that the thieves in your illusory wall example would be spotted/heard just because of the watchdog. That's why we roll the dice...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The big issue to me is that you only get 1 passive chance to notice something, but you can actively try over and over, thus improving your chances over the long haul.

The repeated chances represent the greater likelihood of noticing. I don't see the need to add new rules to cover the situation.