Passive scores serve as an excellent way to tell if something is in doubt or not, without the players feeling like the DM might have screwed them out of what should have been a sure stealth mission. It is just a different way to decide what the floor is for "isn't in doubt".
D&D 5E Crawford on Stealth
Passive scores serve as an excellent way to tell if something is in doubt or not, without the players feeling like the DM might have screwed them out of what should have been a sure stealth mission. It is just a different way to decide what the floor is for "isn't in doubt".
Arial Black
Adventurer
Why can't you ever kill a high level character with a single stab from a dagger? In real life a veteran Navy SEAL can trip and break his neck in the shower, but it won't happen in 5e.
Why? Because this is a fantasy game. Fantasy characters aren't realistic. If you want to simulate a greater level of realism, change how it work or make an ad hoc ruling based on your sense of the situation.
Also, I personally don't find it realistic that a theoretically highly competent ranger would have a "brain fart" in a high alert situation, such as a dungeon or dangerous wilderness area. I agree that having the Passive Perception as the minimum roll isn't realistic, but neither is a ranger with a +10 Perception skill failing a DC 15 check 20% of the time.
Which level of unreality do you prefer? Competent people failing simple tasks frequently, or competent people never failing simple (or even difficult) tasks unless the DM imposes situational penalties? Calibrate your game to your tastes.
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Not really. First you're referring to a general rule (passive checks) rather than specific rules (passive perception). Like most rules, the passive perception rule appears in multiple places in the rules, and I quoted you some of them. And Crawford does in the interview as well - rules he wrote I might add. The specific for passive perception wins out over the general for passive checks, per the rules.
So while there are multiple uses for Passive Perception and Passive Checks, the ones I named are some of those uses and are not contradicted by the section you mention. For example, "Passive Perception. When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching." is a rule not contradicted by the section you mentioned. It's very clearly a specific rule. It very clearly is saying your passive perception is always on to spot a hidden creature, even if you're not actively searching for hidden creatures.
It is in the manner I described, which is following the logical ramifications of the rules I mentioned. I understand you feel they are not supported by the other more general rule you mentioned, but that other rule doesn't claim to be exhaustive, doesn't beat specific rules, and doesn't contradict other uses for passive perception, so the places in the rules that mention passive perception being "always on" and noticing hidden things continue to apply. Which means it's supported by the rules.
Now if you are saying you prefer to not play with them that way, I am fine with that. I have not been playing with those rules either, until now. Some others have apparently. But, there is absolutely support in the rules for that use of passive perception. I quoted them. They're not out of context or contradicted elsewhere. I plan to give them a try and see how they work, but if I don't like them I will just go back to the way I was using them before which I'm comfortable calling a house rule.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Okay. I just read the Skulker feat and it's worded like the Wood Elf ability. The Wood Elf ability has already been ruled able to be used while being observed, so I'll support the specific beats general here and say that the Skulker can keep hiding while in dim light.
That said, in my games I would not allow it from someone right next to the person observing. Even in dim light, just a few feet wouldn't be enough in my opinion to allow even light obscurement. That's my house rule, though.
I don't like the fact that you can't knock someone unconscious with a single blow (in RAW). If you can get yourself into the right spot (via stealth) you should be able to do it. It's a classic adventure move after all. My house rule: a strength vs passive constitution check. If strength wins (I.e. Force of the blow) then the creature is knocked unconscious. I'll give a PC disadvantage of the size of the monster is huge (or bigger)
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
If the players can't trust the DM's judgment, they don't belong in that game. If you don't trust the DM, the game is doomed anyway. My players know that I'm not going to "screw" them out of anything.
That said, if you like to use it as a metric for what is in doubt, have at it. As long as everyone is having fun, you're playing the game right. It's just far too unrealistic for me to use in that way.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
You confuse realism with utterly realistic. Realism is a spectrum and some things cross the line for me is all. I'm not asking for a game that mirrors reality.
Which is perfectly fine. We all have our own lines on the realism spectrum. You've just drawn yours in a different location.
For me, highly competent and +10 mean something different than it means to you. For me, someone who is highly competent isn't going to miss a medium difficulty check 20% of the time, so +10 isn't highly competent.
For me, highly competent and +10 mean something different than it means to you. For me, someone who is highly competent isn't going to miss a medium difficulty check 20% of the time, so +10 isn't highly competent.
Ah, so a level 20 character with an 18 Wisdom (+4) and proficiency in Perception (+6) isn't considered highly competent in your game? Rough crowd.
But that's kind of my point - Of Course a highly competent person shouldn't miss it. And +10 on a skill check is supposed to be highly competent - you have proficiency (and level adjustments), a high stat, or feats/magic boosting your ability to get to that point.
But that's why we have Passive Perception.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Let's go more general and just look at +10 vs. DC 15. Failing 20% of the time at anything doesn't equal highly competent to me. Making it perception doesn't change that.
Where does it say that it's supposed to be highly competent? If the game says that, the game is wrong for the reasons I state above.
If you're going to allow a +10 to automatically succeed at passive perception DCs of 20 or lower, you should be doing that with everything. No swinging at an AC of 20 if you have a +10. You just hit. No rolling to climb a cliff with a DC 20, you just get to the top.But that's why we have Passive Perception.
Similar Threads
- Locked
