Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Crawford on Stealth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7094622" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Not that I have ever been a fan of Passive Perception, but I think Crawford's advice it's one valid option (but definitely not the only one).</p><p></p><p>The way I've run perception so far is <em>technically </em>without using passive perception, but <em>practically</em> many times I just let the character succeed, if I think something is just impossible to miss, especially as a group.</p><p></p><p>I don't think there is only one "right" way to handle perception. These are just equally valid options:</p><p></p><p>a) Always roll, unless you notice that even a natural 20 would not beat the DC or a natural 1 would always do. Ignore Passive Perception.</p><p></p><p>b) Roll sometimes, grant autosuccess or autofailure some other times, based on narrative. Ignore Passive Perception.</p><p></p><p>c) Roll sometimes, use Passive Perception some other times, based on narrative.</p><p></p><p>d) Always use Passive Perception when it's enough, roll only when it's not enough (Crawford's method).</p><p></p><p>Crawford's method is quite simple and regular, so it will work well for gaming groups which <em>don't</em> like the DM to make subjective rulings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think your DM did it wrong. It's true that invisible doesn't automatically mean you don't know where it is, but IMHO this is too much situational to be blanket-ruled like Crawford suggests. "Invisible creatures give themselves away by making noise and interacting with the environment" is simply false in the general case, since a creature <em>doesn't have</em> to make noise and interact with the environment all the time! You can of course decide that the creature needs a Stealth check to avoid making noise and interacting with the environment if you want, but for most creatures it's hard to believe that simply standing still would not be enough to avoid the (typically large) probability of failure of a Stealth check.</p><p></p><p>Even in combat, where it's more reasonable to say the creature can't avoid noise and environment interactions, it's totally fine to rule that an invisible creature is not automatically pinpointed. It just depends... probably easy to know where it is if you're on sand or mud, but if you're on a solid stone floor? What if the creature is flying or hovering? I don't think I'd even allow opportunity attacks against such an invisible opponent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If <em>really</em> "your perception checks can <strong>never </strong>be worse than your passive perception" is meant literally, then you are right and Reliable Talent is useless for Perception.</p><p></p><p>If the above rule is intended for <em>every</em> ability check and not just Perception (considering that the PHB passive checks rules aren't limited to specific skills), then Reliable Talent is <em>always </em>useless.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, the PHB says about passive checks: "Such a check <em>can </em>represent the average result <strong>for a task done repeatedly</strong>, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or <em>can be used</em> when the DM wants to <strong>secretly</strong> determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." The focus here is on something repetitive/routine (like being alert for hidden monsters all the time), so at least it doesn't suggest to use passive checks always. At least not for a lot of skills! Disarming a trap, socially interacting with NPC, performing an athletic or acrobatic stunt and various other skills are practically never repetitive/routine, they are instead always ad-hoc with a specific current target.</p><p></p><p>Skills that are naturally repetitive (or "passive" as in "active all the time") are pretty much only Perception and Insight. You might arguably also advocate that knowledge-type skills are also active all the time, although knowledge skills have their own special implications when allowed to use passively (basically granting a potentially massive amount of knowledge to everyone, which is why I normally always require rolls for knowledge and often just declare an autofailure if non-proficient). All other skills are rarely if ever repetitive, so Reliable Talent should stay safely useful even when using Crawford's approach, just not for Perception and Insight.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7094622, member: 1465"] Not that I have ever been a fan of Passive Perception, but I think Crawford's advice it's one valid option (but definitely not the only one). The way I've run perception so far is [I]technically [/I]without using passive perception, but [I]practically[/I] many times I just let the character succeed, if I think something is just impossible to miss, especially as a group. I don't think there is only one "right" way to handle perception. These are just equally valid options: a) Always roll, unless you notice that even a natural 20 would not beat the DC or a natural 1 would always do. Ignore Passive Perception. b) Roll sometimes, grant autosuccess or autofailure some other times, based on narrative. Ignore Passive Perception. c) Roll sometimes, use Passive Perception some other times, based on narrative. d) Always use Passive Perception when it's enough, roll only when it's not enough (Crawford's method). Crawford's method is quite simple and regular, so it will work well for gaming groups which [I]don't[/I] like the DM to make subjective rulings. I don't think your DM did it wrong. It's true that invisible doesn't automatically mean you don't know where it is, but IMHO this is too much situational to be blanket-ruled like Crawford suggests. "Invisible creatures give themselves away by making noise and interacting with the environment" is simply false in the general case, since a creature [I]doesn't have[/I] to make noise and interact with the environment all the time! You can of course decide that the creature needs a Stealth check to avoid making noise and interacting with the environment if you want, but for most creatures it's hard to believe that simply standing still would not be enough to avoid the (typically large) probability of failure of a Stealth check. Even in combat, where it's more reasonable to say the creature can't avoid noise and environment interactions, it's totally fine to rule that an invisible creature is not automatically pinpointed. It just depends... probably easy to know where it is if you're on sand or mud, but if you're on a solid stone floor? What if the creature is flying or hovering? I don't think I'd even allow opportunity attacks against such an invisible opponent. If [I]really[/I] "your perception checks can [B]never [/B]be worse than your passive perception" is meant literally, then you are right and Reliable Talent is useless for Perception. If the above rule is intended for [I]every[/I] ability check and not just Perception (considering that the PHB passive checks rules aren't limited to specific skills), then Reliable Talent is [I]always [/I]useless. On the other hand, the PHB says about passive checks: "Such a check [I]can [/I]represent the average result [B]for a task done repeatedly[/B], such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or [I]can be used[/I] when the DM wants to [B]secretly[/B] determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster." The focus here is on something repetitive/routine (like being alert for hidden monsters all the time), so at least it doesn't suggest to use passive checks always. At least not for a lot of skills! Disarming a trap, socially interacting with NPC, performing an athletic or acrobatic stunt and various other skills are practically never repetitive/routine, they are instead always ad-hoc with a specific current target. Skills that are naturally repetitive (or "passive" as in "active all the time") are pretty much only Perception and Insight. You might arguably also advocate that knowledge-type skills are also active all the time, although knowledge skills have their own special implications when allowed to use passively (basically granting a potentially massive amount of knowledge to everyone, which is why I normally always require rolls for knowledge and often just declare an autofailure if non-proficient). All other skills are rarely if ever repetitive, so Reliable Talent should stay safely useful even when using Crawford's approach, just not for Perception and Insight. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Crawford on Stealth
Top