D&D 5E Understanding Passive Checks

[CapnZapp]

Of course circumstance can give advantage on a passive score.

But the thinking that just because you're motivated you get advantage is flawed, from a system design perspective.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't understand why the player shouldn't bother rolling if they have a 50% chance of success. That is hardly impossible.

 

[neobolts]

This is also my interpretation, although I must admit I'm forcing rolls when I should just be allowing the passive score to mean success (e.g. climbing ropes, that kind of thing). I'll look out for that in future.

Passive score is a good way to handle auto-success. But I'm finding more and more that if passive success is the benchmark, I prefer to just hand wave the comparison rather than consult scores. Whatever I was checking wasn't compelling enough of an event to need a comparison, passive or active.

 

[Queer Venger]

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.

That's an opinion. I find that passive checks enhance the play experience, it means a bit more work for the DM who should provide a creatively narrative description of the passive check. I find it utterly boring to ask players to repeatedly roll dice simply to achieve a result for most mundane tasks. I use it frequently, particularly for perception and it works great. This mechanic is another example of the brilliance of 5e.

 

[iserith]

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).

It's a passive check, not a passive action. An action is not a check. A passive check resolves uncertainty in an action that is performed repeatedly. Consider that "passive" refers to there being no dice rolled.

I've seen the "phenomenon" you speak of (LMoP, was it?) and all that tells me is that whoever wrote that adventure screwed up on that bit. By the actual rules, how they set that up makes no sense.

 

[iserith]

Never give the +5 for advantage to run of the mill guards and such.

Unless you actively want to screw the players over.

It's simple. Either you allow the party rogue a roll or you don't.

If those guards really can't be bypassed, then why roll? Instead simply tell the rogue player he can't hide or sneak here, and move on to resolve combat.

But don't make the roll and give the player a 50% chance or less.

That's entrapment, pure and simple. At least be upfront. Say you think it can't be done to let the player know his hero will probably be unheroic if he does try.

Much better to simply drop that particular strategy and let the party plan something else.

Because you do intend the party to succeed, don't you?

If all you want to accomplish is set the party up for failure, you're not playing the game the way I do, and I can't help you or your players..

Giving the guard advantage without telegraphing the circumstances that are providing the guard with the ability to notice hidden threats more easily than normal could easily be seen as a "gotcha." To that end, I agree with you.

However, if the DM telegraphs how observant the guard's consistent patrol route or the bright light of the many lanterns makes him, for example, this gives the rogue an opportunity to make a meaningful decision in the face of that information. Maybe the rogue takes the risk. Maybe he tries to lure a guard off the patrol route. Maybe he does something to dim the lanterns. Or the like.

 

[CapnZapp]

Giving the guard advantage without telegraphing the circumstances that are providing the guard with the ability to notice hidden threats more easily than normal could easily be seen as a "gotcha." To that end, I agree with you.

However, if the DM telegraphs how observant the guard's consistent patrol route or the bright light of the many lanterns makes him, for example, this gives the rogue an opportunity to make a meaningful decision in the face of that information. Maybe the rogue takes the risk. Maybe he tries to lure a guard off the patrol route. Maybe he does something to dim the lanterns. Or the like.

In most cases, the correct response is to abandon stealth and simply kill the sucker.

Remember, we're dealing with a common guard here, whose DC 11 or so gets artificially (ie. by a system mechanic) inflated to DC 16. His hp will still remain very low.

In other words, if you're trying to both eat and have the cake (having trivial foes ruin the rogue's time in the spotlight), you're probably games mastering the wrong game.

A worthy adversary, on the other hand, might well have DC 16 by itself. So there's nothing wrong with the number.

Only with getting there by the DM arbitrarily saying "unlike every other militiaman, this one is so good, even a mid level rogue stands a good chance of ignoble failure".

You might have a good reason for this, and that's okay.

Just as long as you realize the check won't happen, since stealth is obviously the wrong approach here.

 

[iserith]

In most cases, the correct response is to abandon stealth and simply kill the sucker.

Remember, we're dealing with a common guard here, whose DC 11 or so gets artificially (ie. by a system mechanic) inflated to DC 16. His hp will still remain very low.

In other words, if you're trying to both eat and have the cake (having trivial foes ruin the rogue's time in the spotlight), you're probably games mastering the wrong game.

A worthy adversary, on the other hand, might well have DC 16 by itself. So there's nothing wrong with the number.

Only with getting there by the DM arbitrarily saying "unlike every other militiaman, this one is so good, even a mid level rogue stands a good chance of ignoble failure".

You might have a good reason for this, and that's okay.

Just as long as you realize the check won't happen, since stealth is obviously the wrong approach here.

I think you're making some pretty big assumptions here given the lack of further context. Yes, you could decide to have your rogue take the guard out instead of try to knock his advantage down to a normal check or even disadvantage. Can you kill him fast enough so that he doesn't make a sound? Are you willing to live with the consequences of a guard not checking in for his normal rotation in 15 minutes (or whatever)? You've now created a countdown timer that acts against your goals. That sounds pretty fun and exciting to me, but is it worth it to you? That's a meaningful decision.

By establishing that the guards have advantage on their passive Perception checks to notice hidden threats, the DM is providing a challenge for the rogue's player to overcome. That is the basic role of the DM. Now it is on the player to come up with a way to negate that advantage, take a risk and make the check, or whatever. Me? I'd probably throw a rock or otherwise make a sound to lure that guard off his patrol with the goal of negating his advantage. Or get the party wizard to use some magic to dim the lanterns somehow. Or maybe I'll knock that guard out and take his clothes, passing myself off as one of them. These are all meaningful decisions I could make in the face of the DM's challenge.

I don't see why anyone should feel compelled to throw up their hands up in anger that a mook gets advantage due to the circumstances he's in. It's just another challenge to overcome.

 

[Agamon]

In most cases, the correct response is to abandon stealth and simply kill the sucker.

Remember, we're dealing with a common guard here, whose DC 11 or so gets artificially (ie. by a system mechanic) inflated to DC 16. His hp will still remain very low.

In other words, if you're trying to both eat and have the cake (having trivial foes ruin the rogue's time in the spotlight), you're probably games mastering the wrong game.

A worthy adversary, on the other hand, might well have DC 16 by itself. So there's nothing wrong with the number.

Only with getting there by the DM arbitrarily saying "unlike every other militiaman, this one is so good, even a mid level rogue stands a good chance of ignoble failure".

You might have a good reason for this, and that's okay.

Just as long as you realize the check won't happen, since stealth is obviously the wrong approach here.

This is why I'm a little less gamist in my approach. I'll tell the player all the circumstances, but I'm not throwing out the exact DC. As soon as I do that, the player looks down at his sheet and it turns into a number crunching exercise. If I just describe the scene, it's more likely he'll try to puzzle the scene out and try to come up with something creative.

I know this is a game style isn't for everyone, but it cuts down on the "he's just a lousy guard, why is the DC 16?" sort of talk, while allowing for circumstances that help or detract from for that lousy guard's ability.

 

[iserith]

This is why I'm a little less gamist in my approach. I'll tell the player all the circumstances, but I'm not throwing out the exact DC. As soon as I do that, the player looks down at his sheet and it turns into a number crunching exercise. If I just describe the scene, it's more likely he'll try to puzzle the scene out and try to come up with something creative.

I know this is a game style isn't for everyone, but it cuts down on the "he's just a lousy guard, why is the DC 16?" sort of talk, while allowing for circumstances that help or detract from for that lousy guard's ability.

I generally only share the DC after a player has committed to an action, but sometimes I give it out beforehand. In addition to providing the fictional context, I would probably do that in this particular example of the rogue sneaking past guards as a shorthand to underscore what chances a skilled rogue would know he has. The player with the +5 Stealth would know that he has a 40% chance of success on his roll and that would translate into the rogue knowing he's got less than a coin toss' chance to get past that guard unnoticed. I wouldn't want a player to make decisions in the absence of clear information unless the player has specifically chosen to do so (such as by not taking up an opportunity to acquire said information).