D&D 5E Passive skills

Ilbranteloth said:

Except that this doesn't take into account that some people are naturally better at some things than other people. Total randomness strains the suspense of disbelief. My real issue is that a somebody with a high skill level shouldn't have to worry about failing what has become a trivial task for them, but one with a lower level of skill should.

I totally disagree with the idea that something must change in a person's favor before a retry. For example, picking a lock. There's no reason, unless you break it (unlikely) that you can't just keep trying. If it's within your capability (that is, you can eventually roll high enough to succeed), then you can just keep trying until you do. The variable here is time.

If there is no risk, then there's really no need to roll at all. But what if you're trying to pick a lock to sneak into a room before the guard returns? Then you have a fixed amount of time to succeed. Each check becomes important. But instead of re-rolling every turn you look at the task as a whole. That is, you make one skill check, and while the rogue is working on it, the sorcerer is telling him to hurry up while the fighter is watching the guard work his way back to where he's currently working on the door. So you're saying that the only options should be succeed or fail. If he fails then he can't pick the lock at all? I don't believe that's a "better solution" at all.

As for the passive checks, you could just use the ability score modifier to judge who is better at what, but basically it's also setting a floor. If you don't want to increase the floor, that's fine. But you still have a passive ability based on the modifier itself. They've set the floor at anything easy is doable without a check. I'm OK with that, but not with the idea that somebody with a high passive ability (Perception being the biggest one) will automatically find everything. But they are more alert than somebody with a lower one. So that's where the "hunch" or "feeling" or "you notice something" comes into play. They have a sense of what's out there, now it's a question of how they figure it out, either through role-playing, or by making an active check. If they roll low on the active check, it might take a while to figure it out (which they may not have) or they may have made a wrong assumption and have bad information to work with (oh, I thought they were behind that tree.)

2e for a long time didn't even have skill checks originally. So by that logic we don't need skill checks either.

Sure, you can run a game without passive checks, but they are extremely helpful once you get the hang of them.

Ilbranteloth

Click to expand...

If you prefer retries then indeed you need a passive mechanic to prevent auto success, as you say. We are at an impasse!

On a related topic, if PCs fail to use a skill when they should, or if their skill roll is not good enough to get the info you want them to have, I have found a technique I like. I give them the info later on, during some downtime or when they have a quiet moment to reflect. It is a bit of a trope that seeing something jogs a detectives memory about a previous event, it might be something innocuous that suddenly becomes important.

Cop 1 "Man I could go a bagel, my wife won't let me have them, says they are bad for me ...."
Cop 2 "What did you say?! ..."
<Cut scene to cops kicking in the door of a place because they saw bagels there, but the woman who lives alone is glutten intolerant, so the suspect must be hiding out there...>

You know that stretched trope that we see way too often. It really works and need not be that cheesy. Simply reflecting that person "A" has an uncanny resemblance to person "B" might give them the clue they need to work out they are related, and B is covering up for A.

The trick to this is to make the info reveal "too late" for them to use it. Or at least that's what they think. It allows for dramatic "in the nick of time" action, which is sorely missing in investigative games. They arrive in time to bust in on serial killer who does not quiet have time to finish their work, a heal spell or ambulance might still save the victim.

randrak said:

...but I wonder if other passives can be used

Click to expand...

I think every skill can be used, mechanically, with a "passive check". I do it all the time as DM. I approach skills in much the same way [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] does - it's not so much a passive check as it is using the ability to set the floor. That's all a passive check accomplishes mechanically - do one of the PCs have an ability that automatically beats the DC without having to actively declare they are going to do so (whether that DC is static like a trap or variable like a monster sneak up on them)?

I think this opens up a new way to consider the old passive check system and how you narrate skills. If a passive check translates to 'can the player do it without actively trying?', you can apply it to any skill challenge. Hearing a peel of thunder is a great example of a standard PHB passive check. The player isn't sitting around going "I check for thunder" every round, but if it happens there's a chance they hear it. That chance is their passive check. If it happens you narrate it; if not, you don't.

But that doesn't work at face value for every skill - there is a difference between 'passive' and 'active' skills - I don't see how you can passively climb a rope or passively pick a lock.

That's why the concept of "ability floor" is great - it doesn't need the players to actively declare every little action; you can passively adjudicate it.

Let's use the lock picking example: The players declare "Our rogue Sneaky Pete is going to try and open this door". It's locked with the DC set at 10. Sneaky Pete has a +10 Sleight of Hand (+3 proficiency - doubled due to Expertise - and +4 Dex). There is no chance of failure (since no auto-failure on a 1). You could say "You try to open it, but the door is locked" and go through an active check you know they'll succeed... but why? Why not just narrate Pete laughing at the crappy lock as he swiftly picks it then opens the door? You are 'passively' determining the outcome.

What if I set the DC at 15? Petey'll make it happen eventually, given NO limitations, so auto-success, you might narrate the lock being stuck or old and rusty to account for the time it takes, but the dice remain unrolled. Now, let's assume the room is filling with sand and the lock must be picked in a round or two? Well, that has a chance for failure and subsequent consequences. Call for a roll.

In this example, there is no passive check, just a skill floor (can't roll below 11) vs a DC; with the roll only necessary if the outcome of the skill check is in doubt (due to DC, time, no retries, etc.).

randrak said:

What's best when faced with a situation where you want things to be subtle? The DM doing hidden rolls for the player, the DM telling the player to roll but not telling them why or the DM using passive skills?

Click to expand...

I'm quoting this because the DM "doing hidden rolls for the player" is, to me, against the entire concept of player agency. Any roll modified by what is on a player's character sheet should be rolled by the player.

feartheminotaur said:

I think every skill can be used, mechanically, with a "passive check". I do it all the time as DM. I approach skills in much the same way [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] does - it's not so much a passive check as it is using the ability to set the floor. That's all a passive check accomplishes mechanically - do one of the PCs have an ability that automatically beats the DC without having to actively declare they are going to do so (whether that DC is static like a trap or variable like a monster sneak up on them)?

I think this opens up a new way to consider the old passive check system and how you narrate skills. If a passive check translates to 'can the player do it without actively trying?', you can apply it to any skill challenge. Hearing a peel of thunder is a great example of a standard PHB passive check. The player isn't sitting around going "I check for thunder" every round, but if it happens there's a chance they hear it. That chance is their passive check. If it happens you narrate it; if not, you don't.

But that doesn't work at face value for every skill - there is a difference between 'passive' and 'active' skills - I don't see how you can passively climb a rope or passively pick a lock.

That's why the concept of "ability floor" is great - it doesn't need the players to actively declare every little action; you can passively adjudicate it.

Let's use the lock picking example: The players declare "Our rogue Sneaky Pete is going to try and open this door". It's locked with the DC set at 10. Sneaky Pete has a +10 Sleight of Hand (+3 proficiency - doubled due to Expertise - and +4 Dex). There is no chance of failure (since no auto-failure on a 1). You could say "You try to open it, but the door is locked" and go through an active check you know they'll succeed... but why? Why not just narrate Pete laughing at the crappy lock as he swiftly picks it then opens the door? You are 'passively' determining the outcome.

What if I set the DC at 15? Petey'll make it happen eventually, given NO limitations, so auto-success, you might narrate the lock being stuck or old and rusty to account for the time it takes, but the dice remain unrolled. Now, let's assume the room is filling with sand and the lock must be picked in a round or two? Well, that has a chance for failure and subsequent consequences. Call for a roll.

In this example, there is no passive check, just a skill floor (can't roll below 11) vs a DC; with the roll only necessary if the outcome of the skill check is in doubt (due to DC, time, no retries, etc.).



I'm quoting this because the DM "doing hidden rolls for the player" is, to me, against the entire concept of player agency. Any roll modified by what is on a player's character sheet should be rolled by the player.

Click to expand...

This is not really using "passive" scores though. You're really just DMing in the usual way, and not calling for checks when the outcome is not significantly in doubt - ie there is no substantial uncertainty to resolve via dice, so you don't roll, you just declare what happens. It's like opening a normal door. Or a highly skilled wilderness ranger not getting lost in the wilderness. Or a Str 18 warrior automatically breaking down a flimsy door. Or an iron door that cannot be broken down, no matter how strong the warrior is.

They just do it, there is no need to roll, there is no real uncertainty about the outcome.

Passive scores are a little different I think, representing doing something over and over, with an average roll of 10 on the 1d20 (to avoid "retries" and effectively auto "20" results).

Passive scores are useful for:
1. Reducing the randomness in opposed checks. Make the NPCs use a passive score, have the players roll. Bam, no more 38 point swing in a game where having +5 over your foe is supposed to be a good bonus.

2. Avoid having to roll for the PCs. This is kind of the reversed variant of the above: the PC has a static score, and you roll against it to see if he spots <thing>.

In my opinion having feats which only boost a passive score is silly, because they effectively say "gain a bonus to your score whenever the DM feels like it".

Luckily the rules basically say "use passive scores whenever you, the DM, decide to". Unfortunately that makes it technically possible for a DM to use them poorly, like comparing a passive score vs another passive score.

Psikerlord# said:

Passive scores are a little different I think, representing doing something over and over, with an average roll of 10 on the 1d20 (to avoid "retries" and effectively auto "20" results).

Click to expand...

That appears to be the difference in our interpretation: I consider the average roll to mean 'the PCs will, on average, eventually get this' and refer to it as "taking 10 or 20", whereas a passive roll is 'do the PCs have to actively roll for this to happen or not?'.

My notion of passive vs active sprang from the OPs questions about actively calling for a roll (or actively making it themselves) versus passively adjudicating a skill check without a roll.

Just a case of where the game definition verses my working definition of "passive" are probably at odds.

To clarify a bit how I use them:

A passive check is used when a check is called for, but the character isn't actively attempting something. The Stealth vs Perception is a perfect example. If the PC/NPC doesn't have any specific reason to search for a hidden creature, and they aren't actively doing so, a passive check is used.

I take that a bit farther by saying a passive check is usually not as good as an active one. That is, a success indicates you sense something is there, it could be you heard something, saw a shadow, or otherwise just noticed something isn't quite right. An active check can pinpoint it more effectively.

The funny thing is, sometimes our instinct is better than when we get in the way. That is, our unconscious is better than our conscious self. So when you make the active check, there's a chance you might roll low.

I don't use passive checks for everything, though. They work for things that you could do passively. Perception, Investigation, Stealth, Insight, those sort of things.

The other aspect to the passive check is more like the old Take 10 rule. In this case it's a floor that helps me determine how the character does, and whether a further check is necessary. These are more along the lines of the Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion, Survival, along with things like Arcana, History, Religion and the like.

So in a situation where they want to try to convince a guard to let them into a keep, I'll use a combination of the PC/NPC passive scores and role-playing if it's obvious they outclass the NPC. If it's close, or the stakes are high, or from a role-playing perspective the players don't give me much to work with, then I'll have them roll to make a check.

Failure isn't always failure, though. I use a degree of failure thing, and in something like an interaction, it's a thing where the guard will go through different attitudes (indifferent, hostile, etc.).

Basically they are useful to reduce the number of skill checks needed at a particular time so we can focus on the role-playing and story, but still takes the PC/NPC skills into account. I'm not a fan of the "I want to convince the guard to let me into the keep, can I make a Persuasion check?" approach to the game. We go through the encounter, and if the situation warrants, we'll make a die roll, probably with modifiers based on what has occurred during the role-playing so far.

For something like climbing a wall or cliff, if their passive skill is sufficient, then I see little reason to make any checks unless something warrants it, like a more difficult part of the climb, or they find themselves under attack. This falls more under the baseline/take 10 plus the basic premise that unless there is an immediate risk and they can take time to complete the task, there isn't much need to make a bunch of skill checks.

Ilbranteloth

One of the worst part of d&d is skills is the pass/fail, there isn't really a degree of success, which is the exact opposite to combat (where degree of success is hit points damage)

If you change that perception a little (and it's kind of embedded in optional rules) think about it from a level of success, if you like somewhere between no roll and passive.

Basically a passive check gets you enough - need to climb a wall with a ladder beside it - that's a DC10... Average person suceeds, taking their time and climbing the ladder one step at a time ... You have a +5 dex and proficiency, sure up you go in half the time, only takes a bonus action ... Want yo take a risk and go for it being a free action v dc20 ... Roll away

Same with clues or knowledge.... Passive you know trolls regenerate ... Int +5 with proficiency, but in this part of the world it's acid and not fire that stops it... But what was that thing they take double damage from... Want to roll?

Etc....

Low passive - basic; high passive advantage over a basic score; take a roll, risk reward payoff

Ilbranteloth said:

For example, picking a lock. There's no reason, unless you break it (unlikely) that you can't just keep trying. If it's within your capability (that is, you can eventually roll high enough to succeed), then you can just keep trying until you do.

Click to expand...

Correct. The GM should only be asking for dice rolls when there is a chance of failure *and* a meaningful cost of failure.

If there is no time pressure and no material cost preventing the thief from opening the lock then the GM should say, "You open the lock after a few minutes. What do you do next?".

Warbringer said:

One of the worst part of d&d is skills is the pass/fail, there isn't really a degree of success, which is the exact opposite to combat (where degree of success is hit points damage)

If you change that perception a little (and it's kind of embedded in optional rules) think about it from a level of success, if you like somewhere between no roll and passive.

Basically a passive check gets you enough - need to climb a wall with a ladder beside it - that's a DC10... Average person suceeds, taking their time and climbing the ladder one step at a time ... You have a +5 dex and proficiency, sure up you go in half the time, only takes a bonus action ... Want yo take a risk and go for it being a free action v dc20 ... Roll away

Same with clues or knowledge.... Passive you know trolls regenerate ... Int +5 with proficiency, but in this part of the world it's acid and not fire that stops it... But what was that thing they take double damage from... Want to roll?

Etc....

Low passive - basic; high passive advantage over a basic score; take a roll, risk reward payoff

Click to expand...

Agreed, which is why I incorporate more options than just pass/fail. There are a lot of ways to do it, having potential consequences if you fail by more than 5, or more than 10 are common choices. But I like the concept of Take 10/Take 20 in that it takes into account that a person capable of succeeding at something eventually will, given that they have enough time to keep trying.

Consider shooting a basketball. The old approach of if you fail once, you can't try again until you go up a level makes no sense. That assumes that until you improve your skill you can't possibly succeed (even if none of the effects of going up a level directly impact the skill in question). That just doesn't make sense to me. You just keep trying until you finally succeed.

The reality, if there is no danger at hand - you found a chest with a lock, and you can work on it as long as needed until you pick it - there really isn't any point in making a skill check. And if there is a danger, like picking the lock to get through the door before the guard returns, you could just keep rolling skill checks. But constantly re-rolling a pass/fail check is also kind of boring, although a valid option.

By tying failure in that case to time, you failed by 4, therefore it's going to take 4 rounds to succeed (the player just knows it will take longer), then the act of picking the lock continues while the rest of the characters find a way to give them enough time to succeed. They know it will take a few moments, and they have to provide the time needed.

This works well for most situations. Trying to remember that specific fact? "I know who that is, it's on the tip of my tongue...it'll come to me..." are situations that play very well.

It's all part of my general philosophy that the rules should provide us methods to adjudicate something specific, based on the skill of those involved, but allow for that bit of randomness without getting in the way of what's happening to the characters. Every time you roll a die, you are pulled out of what's going on in the game world, essentially "pausing" the action to determine what happens. Limiting the skill check to a single roll (until the situation changes significantly) meets those goals. The skill of the PC is taken into account, randomness is added, and the results can easily be determined.

Passive checks work within that same framework, there is less randomness with only one side making a roll, but that already has precedent with the attack roll vs a fixed AC. More importantly, I think it's a good representation of a character who isn't actively attempting something. For example, a merchant is attempting to deceive the PC. Unless the PC has reason to suspect the merchant from being dishonest, there's little reason for a skill check. A passive check is reasonable, because it's what represents the character's natural observation, what might tip them off that something's not quite right. You don't want the players to suspect every merchant, that's not realistic or fun after a while. Passive checks fill that gap when you as the DM knows something the players don't.

It's also a good tool for groups that don't like the DM to roll secretly. In those cases, they can adjudicate a lot of actions fairly without requiring the players to make a die roll that would tip them off that something might be up, and how well they have done.

Ilbranteloth