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="daviddalbec" data-source="post: 7094633" data-attributes="member: 6842418"><p>Idk, he wasn't clear enough. If passive perception is a floor for your perception skill, and if passive checks can be used for any skill, then I guess in many situations, everyone has that 10th lvl rogue feature. The problem is that what he just said doesn't seem to be specifically written anywhere distinguishing this to be specifically about perception checks. "Hiding" on PHB 177 doesnt seem to suggest what he said either. "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."</p><p>Later</p><p>"When you hide, there’s a chance </p><p>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"</p><p>It says use passive when dealing with a creature that isn't actively searching, nothing about as a floor which you can default to when using the active check.</p><p></p><p>This is what it does say,</p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>Then about when to call for active perception checks, "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door 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 drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success."</p><p></p><p>Trying to justify Craeford - I guess, if you know there is an invisible creature in the room and try to find it every turn it'd be "a task done repeatedly", and you'd searching for it "over and over again" in accordance with the bit about Passive Checks in general. Even still, so is this applicable if I talk to someone and repeatedly try to persuade/decieve them that PC has a longdong, then I can just use 10+mods for the calculation and not roll? Or even better, roll and take the better of my roll or my passive persuade, I suppose for each occurence of my trying to convince someone of my longdong? It's really stepping on that rogue feature, or worse the 8th lvl Glibness spell.</p><p></p><p>"An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an *action* (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." </p><p></p><p>So here's what I'm seeing (and I don't know why by RAW and Crawford's input, this wouldn't apply to all checks/passives, not just perception). There are maybe 4 different cases?</p><p>1. A character's passive perception might find a creature, in which case you don't use your *action* to search for it, because you know it is there. </p><p>2. You do not find it with passive, and also never know it is there, which would mean you as a player would not know to use your action to search. </p><p>3. You know a creature is there, perhaps you saw it hide behind a stone, in a cabinet or cast invisibility, or you have insider info that it is around, but you (with passive) can't detect it. You'd likely use your *action* to search for it. In this case you can get up to 10 points higher (or 5 higher if you have Observant Feat) on perception than your passive, and maybe reveal the hidden thing. I guess that rogue feature of rounding up to 10 probably doesnt matter here?</p><p>4. Some situation, such as an specific item being hid in a desk as in the PHB example, you need to be specific about your actions and *actively* interact such that a passive skill doesn't apply. So something not "the average result of a task done repeatedly" and of course not something secret. It'd have to be something accute and novel. I think only in these case, by the rules, do you *have* to use an active check at all, and furthermore a passive cannot be used. Something like "Your passive doesnt find the gnome in this room - I roll active trying to look closer (nat 20) - you still don't find him (he isnt *detectable * from there) - I check inside the chest under the desk (roll 10) - you press your ear up to it and hear breathing" in this case the rogue feature and such do something and the passive does nothing.</p><p></p><p>Applies to insight?</p><p>1. You detect someone is lying/nervous/upset/etc. using passive.</p><p>2. You don't detect this using passive and don't use active because you're character has no reason to suspect so.</p><p>3. You don't detect this passively, but know that, maybe the person is claiming something contrary to what you think is reality (maybe lying), or you have heard that this person is known to lie. Even still, things like that rogue feature of taking 10 don't seem to matter, since it'd just be the same as your passive (unless there are other mods Im not thinking of).</p><p>4. You fail in all attempts to uncover whether he is lying, despite believing he is saying inconsistencies and attempt a Bugs Bunny "yes it is - no it's not - yes it is - no it's not - no it's not - yes it is" trick, then make out his reaction to his communicitive stumble. </p><p></p><p>According to Crawford, I believe my 1-3 examples are correct rulings. IMO my #4's are weak examples and pretty fringe. But, it's the best I could come up with to describe types of situations where one could NOT rely on passive checks at all...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="daviddalbec, post: 7094633, member: 6842418"] Idk, he wasn't clear enough. If passive perception is a floor for your perception skill, and if passive checks can be used for any skill, then I guess in many situations, everyone has that 10th lvl rogue feature. The problem is that what he just said doesn't seem to be specifically written anywhere distinguishing this to be specifically about perception checks. "Hiding" on PHB 177 doesnt seem to suggest what he said either. "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." Later "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" It says use passive when dealing with a creature that isn't actively searching, nothing about as a floor which you can default to when using the active check. This is what it does say, "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." Then about when to call for active perception checks, "When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door 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 drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success." Trying to justify Craeford - I guess, if you know there is an invisible creature in the room and try to find it every turn it'd be "a task done repeatedly", and you'd searching for it "over and over again" in accordance with the bit about Passive Checks in general. Even still, so is this applicable if I talk to someone and repeatedly try to persuade/decieve them that PC has a longdong, then I can just use 10+mods for the calculation and not roll? Or even better, roll and take the better of my roll or my passive persuade, I suppose for each occurence of my trying to convince someone of my longdong? It's really stepping on that rogue feature, or worse the 8th lvl Glibness spell. "An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an *action* (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." So here's what I'm seeing (and I don't know why by RAW and Crawford's input, this wouldn't apply to all checks/passives, not just perception). There are maybe 4 different cases? 1. A character's passive perception might find a creature, in which case you don't use your *action* to search for it, because you know it is there. 2. You do not find it with passive, and also never know it is there, which would mean you as a player would not know to use your action to search. 3. You know a creature is there, perhaps you saw it hide behind a stone, in a cabinet or cast invisibility, or you have insider info that it is around, but you (with passive) can't detect it. You'd likely use your *action* to search for it. In this case you can get up to 10 points higher (or 5 higher if you have Observant Feat) on perception than your passive, and maybe reveal the hidden thing. I guess that rogue feature of rounding up to 10 probably doesnt matter here? 4. Some situation, such as an specific item being hid in a desk as in the PHB example, you need to be specific about your actions and *actively* interact such that a passive skill doesn't apply. So something not "the average result of a task done repeatedly" and of course not something secret. It'd have to be something accute and novel. I think only in these case, by the rules, do you *have* to use an active check at all, and furthermore a passive cannot be used. Something like "Your passive doesnt find the gnome in this room - I roll active trying to look closer (nat 20) - you still don't find him (he isnt *detectable * from there) - I check inside the chest under the desk (roll 10) - you press your ear up to it and hear breathing" in this case the rogue feature and such do something and the passive does nothing. Applies to insight? 1. You detect someone is lying/nervous/upset/etc. using passive. 2. You don't detect this using passive and don't use active because you're character has no reason to suspect so. 3. You don't detect this passively, but know that, maybe the person is claiming something contrary to what you think is reality (maybe lying), or you have heard that this person is known to lie. Even still, things like that rogue feature of taking 10 don't seem to matter, since it'd just be the same as your passive (unless there are other mods Im not thinking of). 4. You fail in all attempts to uncover whether he is lying, despite believing he is saying inconsistencies and attempt a Bugs Bunny "yes it is - no it's not - yes it is - no it's not - no it's not - yes it is" trick, then make out his reaction to his communicitive stumble. According to Crawford, I believe my 1-3 examples are correct rulings. IMO my #4's are weak examples and pretty fringe. But, it's the best I could come up with to describe types of situations where one could NOT rely on passive checks at all... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Crawford on Stealth
Top