D&D 5E Understanding Passive Checks

There seems to be a lot of people misunderstanding passive checks, they seem to think there is an "active" vs "passive" dynamic, where you only use your passive score when not trying to do something this is wrong.

PASSIVE CHECKS
A passive check is 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.

Here’s how to determine a character’s total for a passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check

If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive check total as a score.

Click to expand...

"Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly."

This doesn't mean that the person looking for secret doors isn't actively searching or the guard on watch isn't actively keeping an eye out, it means you are using the passive score to represent repeated active use of the skill.

"or the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling the dice."

This is why every ability check has a passive score, the DM can speed up play and just say your passive Athletics is high enough to climb the wall without a check, or your passive Arcana is high enough to know about this type of magic portal, or passive Perception is high enough to notice the gnoll trying to ambush you.

If you want to represent a person who is not trying to look for things that isn't just passive perception, that would be passive perception with disadvantage. Passive checks are for repeated use over a long time, and for the DM to just use as a guide to let characters auto succeed.

Thanks. I was one of the ones that needed this clarification.

Paraxis said:

If you want to represent a person who is not trying to look for things that isn't just passive perception, that would be passive perception with disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Based on my reading of the Basic Rules, if a character is doing something other than keeping watch for hidden threats and that something is at least as distracting as navigating, map-making, foraging, or tracking, he or she does not have a chance to detect said threats and thus the DM doesn't apply the passive Perception check to resolving the situation. I find this makes being alert for danger something of a trade-off with other tasks (a meaningful choice) and tones down the power of passive Perception with which many posters seem to struggle when they treat it like always-on radar.

(That being said, I do assume that adventurers are competent enough to keep watch for hidden threats if the player has not otherwise undertaken some other kind of action as above. I don't make them spell it out every time.)

iserith said:

That being said, I do assume that adventurers are competent enough to keep watch for hidden threats if the player has not otherwise undertaken some other kind of action as above. I don't make them spell it out every time.

Click to expand...

Sure.

It just seems to me many people seem to think Passive Perception or other passive scores are like you said always on radar, when in fact both uses of the passive checks are tools for use by the DM.

The DM decides if a passive score applies while moving through a dungeon looking for danger for example, and if advantage/disadvantage applies to it. The DM decides is they secretly succeed at something automaticly without needing to make a check or even describe actions.

Passive scores are covered in the PHB, but are solely tools for the DM to speed up play.

As always the DM describes the scene, the players describe the actions of their characters, the DM determines if a roll is needed, if so what type of roll, and what the results of success or failure are.

Passive checks are just another part of that process, but people because of the name "Passive" seem to think the characters need to ask for or make "Active" rolls, when just like always they only need to describe what actions they are taking and the DM uses his judgment and all the tools available including passive scores to adjudicate the situation.

A good rule as a DM is that if a PC has specialized in a certain skill by devoting feats / class abilities to it or supporting it with magic items while having a high attribute and proficiency with it, don't be afraid to just let PCs succeed without rolling dice. They should feel like they're amazing at it. Nothing says amazing like, "You don't even need to roll."

As a DM, the goal is to make the PCs feel like they're heroes - above the realm of mortals... while still preserving that feeling that they're cheating death in their heroics. This is a place that you can make them feel amazing without jeopardizing that feeling of jeopardy.

A couple weeks ago someone in my group asked about passive checks. This was my answer. What do you think, did I get anything wrong? Would you do things differently?



"Do you forgo your passive perception value when you do a generalized active spot/search?"

Passive Checks - Used to represent the average result of a repetitive check, such as searching for secret doors over and over again or for determining the result of a check in secret so as not to alert the players.

So, here is the long answer. 5e is what you want it to be. It's a blend of 1e-4e. It is reasonable for the DM to say that your passive investigation is what you get for saying "I search the room" and it takes saying "I look under the carpet to get the auto-success. That is more 1e style with some ease of use. He could also go more 3.x and say that it just takes time.

Personally I would be most inclined to have the group describe what they are doing and how they are doing it. Then make one roll. If the roll sucks they can spend extra time to use their passive score but they can't get above it. This represents missing details because you have already gone over them and missed the secret whatever the first time so you don't think to check it again.

"If so, then wouldn't it make sense to let your passive do all the work, because you only have a 45% chance of beating the always-on passive with an active roll?"

Rolls should only come into play when there is a consequence for failure. That is built into the system and makes sense. I would allow a passive climb until something surprising happened like the wall crumbled and gave way. Then make a check, see what you are able to do.

"Does the active search value change (auto-success, etc) when you specially call out locations - ie, "I look under the rug and in the cupboards."

5e is rulings not rules. So up to the DM which way they want to take it. There are good and bad parts of this. One of the pillars of the game is exploration. Reducing it to a die roll misses a lot of fun. It can get tedious to say that you search absolutely everything. There is a middle ground.

"Can you get around this rule by having everyone under the highest passive take an active search, hoping to beat it with a roll?"

I prefer either having the whole group make 1 roll or having all members of the group make rolls with the aim of half of them beating the DC.

"Or if active roll doesn't cancel out passive value, then effectively the floor of your search chance is your passive value."

I think this is reasonable if you have time and are not pressured in some way.

Generally here's how I break it down:

When a player says "I start looking for X." that's a roll.

When a player says "I keep an eye out for X." that's passive.

Both of these things are active uses of their abilities but what matters is how the activity is framed. Bob has keen senses, they don't become less keen when he's looking for traps, it just means he is focused on one specific task instead of generally.

[MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION]: Yeah, looks fine. For what it's worth, this is a Session Zero topic for me, taken from one of my games:

"As we play, I will describe the situation to you and ask what you want to do. When you tell me what you want to do, avoid asking questions and make your goal and approach clear. I will tell you if it works, works with a cost or requirement, doesn't work, or has an uncertain outcome.

In the case of the latter, I will ask you to roll a die to resolve the uncertainty - unless you're doing a particular thing repeatedly in which case I will use the appropriate passive check instead.

Before you roll, I will tell you the DC you need to hit to succeed and I will tell you what success and failure on the check will look like in the game. After you've rolled, I will narrate the result of your actions and start this process over again.

So it goes for the entire game."

I reject the notion that "passive" actually means "active," and point to the words "passive" and "...can be used..." to support my argument, as well as the phenomenon of some checks having a passive DC that is 5 points higher than the active DC (essentially, some obstacles have advantage against passive attempts).

The passive mechanic is a throw back to taking 10 and is awful and imo one of the rare mistakes of 5e. I recommend not using it all, and like most other RPG games on the market, and indeed DnD in earlier versions - simply rolling any time you need a check! Yes, sometimes perhaps a roll in secret, which ime is not a problem for most tables in person, and zero problem when playing online.

Passive causes unnecessary problems (eg: removing all randomness from spotting a set trap DC, and makes hiding too easy with a skilled hider vs unskilled passive observer) and has no redeeming features whatsoever.